Letters to the Editor
-
I'm curious....
How much effect the advent of television and movies has had on our (as a culture) willingness to engage in warfare. While people often credit TV (Hudley-Brinkley-Cronkite) for helping to end the VietNam war by delivering the reality of the carnage to our living rooms, at the same time, we are subject to an endless series of fictional scenarios in which, with the sacrifice of sencondary and tertiary players in the game, the heroes ALWAYS win in the end.
That would certainly help explain the chickenhawk mentality. The problem isn't that they haven't experienced actual combat and warfare. The problem is that they've experienced an idealized and unrealistic version instead. That's why they keep on insisting that we clap louder. They actually believe that that's the key to victory. It also helps explain all this claptrap about "giving comfort to the enemy". They actually beleive that cheerleading helps us win.
Scary......
-
Go Odom
Odom for President! I want a clear thinking, well spoken president in the office again. It's been way too long since we have had one.
-
More Odom, Please!
It's about time Gen. Odom is starting to get some attention in the blogosphere. TPM recently extracted portions of his WaPo editiorial and linked to the entire column.
It certainly made for pleaurable, sane, and logical reading.
I saw Gen. Odom about 8 months ago at a conference on C-Span. He was terrific. He had the audience eating out of his hand. His most memorable quotes:
'The invasion of Iraq was the worst strategic disaster in American History.'
'This administration has destroyed in 3 short years what it took a variety of Presidents, statesmen, and generals 60 years to construct. The unique position held by the United States in the last half of the 20th Century is gone. It will take decades to reconstruct, and it may not even be possible given that length of time.'
'What has happened is unconscionsble and unforgivable.'
This is what the American people need to hear, and I wonder why we see the General so sparingly in the media--is there a conspiracy to keep him away from any sort of forum? There certainly seems to be.
-
Could Hewitt be wrong?
I found the very last part of that interview very interesting.
HH: Last question, General, do you believe you could be wrong about all this?
WO: Of course.
HH: I thought…I knew as a professional you’d say that.
Question: Does anyone think that Hugh Hewitt would ever admit that he could be wrong about Bush’s policies?
My opinion is that Hewitt would never, ever admit to even having doubts about “victory” as the only path to take because he (and his like-minded cohorts) have complete “faith” in Bush’s “surge” policy.
Once again, The Victory Caucus should just probably steal the slogan from V for Vendetta:
“Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith”
http://www.flickr.com/photos/coolmel/115202388/
-
The link to maniacs like Hewitt
is, of course, religion. There was an irrelevancy to most major religions beginning in the 1970's but was brought back to life by Regan's cabal and exploited by the Bush/Cheney fascists -
-
Gen. Odom's Good 'stuff.'
It gets worse.
"White Flag" republicans who...'oppose the bush "surge."' 'A surrender Resolution.'
And woo, "Warrior Hewett." A good 'health clinic' is here, too. "the Vanity Congress" and 'Vanity Caucus' would make better use with their civil-service time if they became full-time paw-bearer's at governmrnt funerals when stateside & send neocons on full-time morgue and burial-duty gigs. Learning assignments.
The 'journalist' and teevee sock puppets-pundits could turn'round, do an about face, lock-heels, and order the war stopped! War Parade, at ease, and rest. War's end. It takes only a few more, generals speaking, like 'ole buzzard gizzards are supposed to be about! Right, protect the privates? ! . Be Wise. This daily good 'stuff' at the Salon is fine grub. Thanks General Odom.
-
Mistake in your analogy
The logo of the 'Victory Caucus' is similar to the 'V for Vendetta' logo, but in the movie that logo is not used by the government, but by the anti-authoritarian hero / "terrorist."
-
Brian:
The logo of the 'Victory Caucus' is similar to the 'V for Vendetta' logo, but in the movie that logo is not used by the government, but by the anti-authoritarian hero / "terrorist."
That's true, and it's a good point. That fact didn't occur to me. Still, all of the political symbols in that film -- including the "V" -- are Orwellian and creepy, and I think are intended as such.
-
He's...
posing the same arguments that everyone who wants out of Iraq poses. Iraq is worse off because of us, the elections didn't matter, any involvement by us will make things worse, people who mak threats against us and our allies don't really mean it so we should ignore them.
Just because you were in the military doesn't mean you are automatically correct in assessing Iraq. It just means that you have an opinion like all Americans. And some would say, especially considering Iraq, that military people's opinions are of less value.
Plus, we ignored Bin Laden for years and didn't really think he would do much and look what happened. If they could have gotten a nuclear weapon they would have used it on 9/11.
The sad thing is even if they had, the same tired arguments would be used by the defeatists.
Plus, V said more about the type of government that existed in Traq during Saddams reign. The people that voted and the soldiers that are dying are on V's side. Not yours.
-
Now that's how you talk to these idiots
That's exactly how I speak to aquaintances and coworkers about Iraq. It leaves them blubbering. They cannot win an argument because they are wrong. Odom speaks frankly and with strength. You can easily dominate one of the followers of the Republican authoritarian cult if you use Odom's tone when discussing the issue.
-
JOE:
Just because you were in the military doesn't mean you are automatically correct in assessing Iraq. It just means that you have an opinion like all Americans. And some would say, especially considering Iraq, that military people's opinions are of less value.
The hallmark of rhetorical cowardice: "some would say," when what one really means is "I believe" but lacks the courage to express the arugment. It thus gets attributed to the unnamed "some." It's the David Brooks/David Broder Method of Argument.
In any event, it seems from this comment that you blame the military for the failure in Iraq, not the political leaders who ordered the invasion and the advocates who told us about all the great things that would happen if we invaded. Is that true?