Letters to the Editor
-
Not so fast, Locutus
If you're going to write for Reuters, you need to report that any American brigade is going into action against "terrorists" (scare quotes utilized to note that one man's "terrorist" is another man's freedom fighter) in the "so-called war on terror."
-
No War But the Class War
Elephantman, the working class is indeed fighting this war, like all wars.
"Fighting for one's country" is a myth. Workers fight for their governments, and they shouldn't. This war can't be made right by winning.
I'm glad to see somebody else on Salon talking about revolution. That ought to disturb the bourgeois liberals and the more obvious reactionaries.
No war between the nations, no peace between the classes.
-
Even if Condi Had Kids, They Wouldn't Be in Iraq
Glad to see a few posters are calling bullshit on the whole "volunteer" military talking point. Sure, its voluntary in being an alternative to a low-wage job without health benefits. I was raised in a military family. My father had no great love of the military but he knew it would enable him to support a family. Now I have a niece in the Army. She has a husband just deployed to Iraq. I'm sure if they had been offered tuition for Yale they might have made a different decision.
Children of the rich are not volunteering now just as they didn't during Vietnam. I do recall a bunch of well-to-do assholes who were in the Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). They cheered on the war, wore "Nuke the Viet Cong" buttons and not one joined up. One of these chickenhawks is now on right-wing talk radio as a Rush wannabe. So, all you Iraq enthusiasts, pull yourself away from that Ayn Rand novel and volunteer. Maybe Condi might adopt a couple of you.
-
hey yellow elephant boy
Why haven't you enlisted yet?
-
Penalty Traister, some Broadsheet staffers, et al
I admit that Iraq might not be the best place to be fighting a war on terrorism. However, I believe that Senator Barbara Boxter is incorrect in her assessment, as I also believe Michael Moore is incorrect in his views, that our sons and daughters are being shouldered with the duty to fight a war designed by men, and women, that do not have what I would call 'a dog in the hunt'.
Contrary to her assertion that ONLY parents of those being harmed in the fight CAN know the pain of loss when a loved one is killed or injured; all men and women of conscience feel that pain when they see it. The statements of Senator Boxter, et al, that the Bush Administration and other Republicans don't feel that pain is demeaning and intended solely to be harmful, hurtful and hideous to all those that do care.
Whether Senator Boxter cares herself is up for discussion, as she seems solely intent on harming the Bush Administration and not on whether we should be fighting a war on terror.
-
DOESN'T ANYONE READ BEFORE RESPONDING?
The responses to Penalty Boxer illustrate why we are in this horrendous situation in Iraq to begin with: too many Americans left and right can't think their way through a paper bag. Traister is very clear about Boxer's point. She told Rice it doesn't matter who feels bad, but WHO PAYS for her decisions and by extension the decisions of the Bush administration. Does anyone have anything to say about THAT? And how lefties and righties went swimming after Limbaugh's non-sequitur like lemmings?
-
Go Fuck Yourselves, Libtards
If someone had made such a comment about a demoCRAP woman, you would be screaming.
Go Fuck Yourselves, Libtards. Hypocrites. Liars. Child-molesters.
Go Fuck Yourselves.
-
Uh, I believe it was ME Rebecca
Give credit where credit is due. -- Locutus
"Update #2: Broadsheet letter writers have pointed out an obvious connection that I failed to make above. All of the huffing and puffing from right-wing media about Boxer's observations that Rice doesn't have any immediate family in the military is pretty hilarious, considering that in December, First Lady Laura Bush told People magazine that Rice probably wouldn't run for president, in part because she is single and has no immediate family. "Dr. Rice, who I think would be a really good candidate [for president], is not interested. Probably because she is single, her parents are no longer living, she's an only child. You need a very supportive family and supportive friends to have this job." So if Tony Snow was so ruffled by Boxer's comments yesterday that he called them "a great leap backward for feminism," how devastated must his feminist heart have been by the First Lady's earlier assertions?"
-
Andrew Sullivan - what an idiot
My favorite part of all this is Andrew Sullivan - the personification of the gay peanut gallery - chiming in to pronounce Boxer's comments "homophobic".
I'm not sure why anyone would care what Sullivan thinks anymore, as he's been forced to backpedal on his bizarre, pseudo-erotic enthusiasm for George W. by that pesky thing called reality.
Memo to you Andrew: most of us workaday gays and lesbians (who are not professional homosexuals like yourself) saw through George W. from the very beginning, when he unfortunately defeated the late, great Ann Richards for the governorship of Texas.
Nor would most of us characterize Boxer's comment as in any way "homophobic". Only an ignoramus like you, always eager to carry water for people who hold you in contempt, would make such a blatantly stupid remark.
I'm not a parent, but I would do anything in my power to prevent my nephew or several young cousins in my family (one of whom is in high school - close to draft age) from being sacrificed as cannon fodder in the Bush/Cheney war of choice and profit. The Bushes and Cheneys are the ones who will make money off this - if and when Iraqi oil ever becomes commercially viable. Let them send their kids to fight for it.
-
UP YOUR CHILDREN'S BUTTS LIBTARDS
ENJOY THE SQUEAL!!!!!
-
The problem with Boxer's comments
...is that she didn't actually say anything. Yeah, military families pay the price, but who didn't know that? And how is mentioning that going to change anything?
If Condi Rice had 12 kids and they were all serving in Iraq, she would still be wrong on the war. So what does her personal background have to do with anything?
Personal backgrounds very rarely have anything to do with anything. So when Boxer made a rambling and basically pointless reference to the Secretary's childlessness, she left herself wide open to invidious interpretations by the likes of Limbaugh.
Kerry made the same mistake when he brought up Mary Cheney in the debates. To a lot of people, it wasn't clear why he brought her up, so they assumed he was simply trying to trash the Cheneys. They thought he was being hypocritical because if he supports gays, then why was he picking on Mary Cheney? Isn't she allowed to be gay?
One could also mention here Kerry's badly stated joke that was also open to misinterpretation.
The basic problem is that you have so many people like Boxer and Kerry who assume that whatever they say inside their circle will make perfect sense outside of it. But often that just isn't the case. If liberals want to speak to the general public, they need to get outside of their circle more often.