Letters to the Editor
-
Earth to Mr. Cole
Obviously, just another cheap-shot at Bush. When are 'journalists' going to start working for a living again?
We don't control the Middle East - Surprise, Mr Cole! Look at the facts; Iraq is getting better. Afganistan is holding it's own. Pakistan is a country of 160+ million people, still on our side, and is still going after terrorists. Iran is still questionable, but at least they haven't imprisoned any of our diplomats lately. In the real world, not the pretend world of so-called journalists, that is a pretty good achievement. And oh yes - We haven't lost any WTC's lately or 3k people killed.
Another 'oh yes', Mr Cole: North Korea is peacefully dismantling it's nuclear development capacity, and talking to the South. Germany & France have elected governments that are friendly to our (Bush) government, replacing leaders that were hostile to the US. Mr. cole, get you head out of the liberal sand and look around.
Perfect Foreign Policy? NO - but 'less-than-perfect policy' is a far cry from a 'collapse', and if Mr. Cole can't tell the difference he shouldn't be writing about it.
-
PABill: Put down that straw and step away from the man
PABill, I accept that you have a difference of opinion from Prof Cole. However, I recommend you find an intellectually honest argument with which to express it. As it stands:
Let's see now, Bush is responsible for the tension between the Kurd separatists groups (not the Kurds currently in a relatively self-governing mode) and the Turks that has existed for decades sinces the artificial border creation by the League of Nations after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire
No one suggested Bush holds sole responsibility for that. Maybe you should address the argument that was stated. What was shown in the article was that Bush's policies have greatly exacerbated tensions in that long-standing conflict. This occurred when Bush helped create a defacto Kurdistan on Turkey's borders. A bit more threatening to the Turkish government that the genocide resolution, don't you think? Are you contesting any of this?
responsible for the fractured government in Pakistan which has been under the iron fist of Musharraf and in constant conflict with India since the partition of the countries
Again, no one said Bush was solely responsible. What he is responsible for is the rapid decline in Musharraf's legitimacy, opening the possibility that he will be overthrown by an Islamist leader who will suddenly have access to nukes. Imagine Iran in 1979, but with nukes.
is responsible for the current tension between the US and Turkey because of the Nancy Polosi Armenian gaffe, etc. ad nauseam.
I like how you phrase the Armenian genocide resolution as Pelosi's gaffe, even though it enjoys broad bipartisan support (or it did until recently). Tell me, why are you so uncomfortable to acknowledge that Republicans have also spoken out against genocide?
Let's face it, the foreign policy of the US has been in tatters for decades because of the influence of an incompetent State Department and a politically driven Congress, both of which have caused more problems abroad than any president past or present.
You're overstating this, obviously, in order to temporarily shield Bush from blame. I mean, what acts of State and Congress have yielded such unmitigated disasters as the Iraq War, and our enormous national debt and deficit? But let's accept your claim as valid, for the sake of argument. Based on this article, and thoroughly underscored by your impotent strawman refutation of same, the Bush Admin has radically accelerated this process. If you didn't like it then, you're sure to not like it now. However, I understand that for the next 14 months, you need to pretend that the president has had little or no effect on this lamentable trend. Starting 1/20/09, however, you can shift your position back to blaming the president.
Man, I can see that Republicans are desperate for Bush's presidency to end, just like the rest of the human race is! For different reasons, of course.
-
Historybuff1: Time to start reading the news
Your claims are absurd.
Iraq is getting better
I propose a new tax on people who claim that "Iraq is getting better," which can go to pay down the national debt. I mean, sure, in the past month, the deaths have gone down. One. Month. A trend? Not really. Along with you, I hope the violence truly subsides (acknowledging we have very different reasons for hoping this). But I don't hope against hope so strongly that I'm willing to discard reason, as you do.
Afganistan is holding it's own.
Sure, if you mean that the Taliban has returned, opium production is at record highs, and the government has no hope to defend itself in the foreseeable future. I mean, in the same way, haven't they always been "holding their own?"
Pakistan is a country of 160+ million people, still on our side, and is still going after terrorists.
This comment ignores a major piece of reality: Out of those 160+ million people, just how many do you think are "on our side?" A hundred? Two hundred? I'm being generous here. Fact is (as I'm constantly told by my quite conservative British/Pakistani in-laws), the war on terror has converted millions of young Pakistanis from America-worshipping levi-wearers to bearded madrassa students.
Iran is still questionable, but at least they haven't imprisoned any of our diplomats lately.
Ah yes, the silver lining!
I mean, keeping our diplomats hostage was certainly less preferable than having them armed with nukes, isn't it? Man, I'm so glad to know that!
And oh yes - We haven't lost any WTC's lately or 3k people killed.
Is this truly the comment from an adult mind?
The 9/11 attacks can probably never be replicated, being a perfect storm of advanced planning, government bungling (being generous again), and luck. Celebrating the fact that it hasn't been repeated is like celebrating the fact that you haven't been struck by lightning.
However, if it makes you feel any better, we've overseen enough death in Iraq such that a 9/11 attack is visited on their country every few days.
-
HistoryBuff1: know your audience
In case you weren't aware, Professor Cole is not a journalist. As was noted at the end of the article, he is a professor of modern Middle Eastern and South Asian history at the University of Michigan. If you are indeed a "history buff" and have some capacity and respect for academic and intellectual honesty, you should do a little research on his credentials before you go bashing him.