Letters to the Editor
-
To follow up R. Franklin's letter...
If you boil down the right’s arguments and evaporate off all the spin and propaganda, really all you are left with is their essential goal: Perpetual war to kill off everyone who they think is a potential “threat” to their way of life, which pretty much means anyone who is not Western and Christian (and preferably white). It seems outlandish, but there is no escaping this conclusion. They can’t tell you what “victory” is in their War on Terrorism, just that we have to keep “fighting them there” so they won’t get us here. There will always be a new “threat” to replace the previous one. Sounds like a cleansing program for those scared of people not like them – the hallmark of ignorance, fear, and xenophobia (i.e. the Bush Doctrine).
-
Odious Odom
Kitt - Nice try. Odom doesn't care what happens if we pull out of Iraq. He's of the we broke it we bought it school. He thinks everything had to have been better under Saddam even though he admits he doesn't know. Odom also says it's safe to ignore everything foreign tyrants say because it can't be believed. Don't worry about Iran or North Korea getting nukes it's too late, and BTW, Iran's Israel and U.S. bashing is just for show and can't be taken seriously. I think that attitude shows why people like Odom can't be taken seriously. He doesn't offer alternatives for stabilizing the Middle East or any arguments why any alternatives can't be pursued or negotiated while our troops are in Iraq. He has such tunnel vision on cutting and running that he fails to see how his arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. Does he play cards with Jack Murtha? That was a pretty fair slam on Murtha by the WaPo yesterday.
-
The nature of neoconservatism
The fact that neoconserative thinkers tailor their facts to fit their vision of reality is apparent whenever they come out to debate those who live in the reality based world. Reading Odom's debate with Hewitt and listening to Greenwald's debate with Gaffney has convinced me of this even more. Let's try to keep from scaring them back into the ivory towers of the Heritage Foundation. This level of debate can only help us.
-
Textbook projection
He has such tunnel vision on cutting and running that he fails to see how his arguments don't hold up to scrutiny.
lessee...
who to trust, who to trust...?
Daleyrocks or Gen. Odom?
hmmm.....
-
Rondolce
Glenn's form of debate with Gaffney was essentially to keep insisting that "Bush lied, people died" without offering any specifics. If you think that is intelligent debate, I'm very happy for you. It sounded childish to me given the settled facts that Glenn kept trying to resurrect and rewrite to suit his needs.
-
Jim
Those comments are exactly why you just can't argue with some people. They will hear only things that fit their pre-conceived ideas about the world. Little things like facts or reason have no place for them as they create their own "reality". If they hear something that has the potential to change their world view, It MUST be discredited. They have so much invested in being right that it is inconceivable that they could be wrong.Therefore anything that threatens their world view must be attacked and discredited, or failing that, ignored or ridiculed.
Luckily it is a minority of the population(30% was used this morning,but i think it may even be a little smaller.) So the value of arguing is not to change the mind of the die hards, but to help the remaining people who can see reason see them for what they are.
-
I would love to see "choosing victory" addressed directly
The neo-con argument now is that you can simply choose victory, and that the American public, Iraqis and Democrats are not choosing to win.
Not that you can *earn* victory through hard work, sacrifice and careful planning. Just wishing on a star is enough. Just like you can fly to the moon if you flap your arms hard enough.
'Choosing Victory' was the title of the surge plan IIRC.
The idea that you can win if you just want to bad enough is absurd. Wanting is not enough, but wanting is all the neo-cons can propose. That is why they don't want to debate the surge plan. The plan cannot be defended based on its own merits, because the plan at its core is more of the same and nothing else. Pure wishful thinking.
I'm sick of being told that we have to choose to win, that *wanting* to win is enough. I want to win!
Tell me *how* we can win! Prove that we *can* win! Come up with a plan that makes sense. Show that we can execute.
Our Iraq war has been equal parts horrible planning and wretched execution. We can't win with that approach no matter how hard we try. Winning a war isn't the equivalent of checking a checkbox or deciding what pair of pants to wear that day. It isn't a simple choice.
---
To Joe: Nobody is saying we should listen to Odom because he is automatically correct. We are saying he made some good points. He said that more people die in Iraq now than under Saddam - that is a factual statement that is either true or false, not an opinion.
You may disagree with the conclusion, but his argument is based on a factual claim. If you want to dispute that claim with some counter-fact feel free.
When Glenn said you were using a cowardly rhetorical device he meant your "some would say...". Who is "some" and why should we listen to them? Are *you* saying that? Are you agreeing with those "some"?
Why should we care what those un-named "some" would say without any argument or even an explicit admission that you agree with those "some"? Let those "some" speak for themselves. Or if you agree with their argument, make the argument for them.
If you think military opinions are less valuable in Iraq, say so and explain why.
But really that is entirely beside the point anyway.