Letters to the Editor
-
the war on terror...or, how to get a bomb without hardly tryin'
Linda M. wrote:
But as bad as Iraq is, it's not the worst problem we have. The ubiquitous War on Terror was mishandled from the start.
**********
And this, folks, may be the true nut of the matter.
I realize this is off-topic, but...
If you haven't read William Langewiesche's superb, and chilling, article in the December Atlantic, do so as soon as you can.
"How to Get a Bomb" appears to have more understanding of just how dangerous Bush and Cheney have made our world than they will ever have. And it has a number of good suggestions in it for how to make us a lot safer, none of which have been followed, apparently, by the current incompetents now running things.
I sometimes can't help wondering if the ruling elite in this country actually *wants* a terrorist to set off a home-made 10-20 kiloton highly-enriched-uranium bomb in a major US city. They they could just suspend the Constitution, and congress, and the courts, and rule by decree, and by a domestic military and police force.
Because the way we're acting, right now? It looks to me like we WANT a terrorist to make a bomb. And use it.
Read the article. At the end, Langewiesche, with admirable restraint, points out "in the end, if you wanted a bomb and calculated the odds, you would have to admit that they were stacked against you, simply because of how the world works--and that this may be why others like you, if there have been any, have so far not succeeded. You would understand though, that the odds are not impossible. You would of course have many concerns as you moved ahead. But perhaps the thing that should worry you the least in the American government's war on terror."
That's it. Not only have Bush and Cheney and their stooges in Congress squandered half a TRILLION taxpayer dollars on a war fought solely for the Current Occupant's political benefit..and, worst of all, a war that has created thousands more potential terrorists who would love to detonate a nuclear device on our soil, they have, in their idiocy, left us, if not wide open, certainly deeply vulnerable, to a terrorist nuke.
And if that ain't a fucking impeachable offense, I don't know what is.
-
No graceful entrance
Enough said? No American should hold his or her head high, no American. Let that weigh on the conscience of the American Elite. With any luck, the day of corporate national policy and corporate policy is coming to an end. Now, if only half of the US economy wasn't owned by China, we could have some leverage over the other humanitarian crisis in Darfur!!! Wishful thinking from the "Greatest Nation on Earth".
-
That was no blunder.
For the life of me, I can't figure out why people credit our Iraq policy with anything at all benign or noble. Our Iraq policy is only about oil. Babies have to die for this? But of course! It's a given! That's George W. Bush's last concern. His first concern is, how to make himself and his friend in the oil business as rich as possible. He has the resouces of this country at his command. He can kill off as many of our young men and women as it takes, to secure control of one of the world's richest sources of oil. He has never had to do a lick of work in his life. He has never cared for the convenience or safety or wellbeing any anyone but himself. This monster has enjoyed support from all the right people, including a large number of leading Democrats. So he can do as he wishes. That is still true now that control of Congress has passed over to the Democrats. George W. Bush has stolen his last election. But by having done so, twice, in recent years, he has been enabled to do catastrophic damage to this country. George W. Bush should stand at the Hague and answer for his crimes. Instead, he will retire to Crawford with a pension he doesn't need. At last, though, maybe his arrogance, indolence and stupidity will not be a hazard to the rest of the world.
-
smart and maladroit?
In his Article titled "No graceful exit", Walter Shapiro
writes (in the 10th paragraph):
It is telling that this week Newt Gingrich -- the
smartest strategist and the most maladroit practitioner
in the Republican Party ...
Is it Mr. Shapiro or one of his editors who thinks that
"maladroit" has the opposite of its correct meaning?