Letters to the Editor
-
@ Susan Mc
Ah, yes. An intolerance for ambiguity. Thanks for recalling that for me, Susan. It's an argument I'd used in the past to try an explain the Christianists, or Professional Christians, (as I've oft heard the happy hard core referred) to those who successfully practice their respective faiths in the secular milieu (Stanley Fish and his arguments aside). An inability to tolerate ambiguity also characterizes children. Piaget promoted a notion of developmental stages that were initially viewed as ironclad. Educational Psychologists have since decided there is no specific age at which an individual should be expected to grasp, for example, the concept of the conservation of matter. Some, simply never do.
-
Correction
The "Democratics" in my post above, would, of course, be more accurately referred to as "Democrats." It may be time for me to stop typing for the day...
-
Snark is not a policy
(something I stole from someone else in the blogosphere).
Hate to say it, but Kevin is actually right about Petraeus "outplaying" the so-called Lefty Blogosphere, and about his winning the PR skirmish in the only place it really matters: the Congress and the Establishment Media. Kevin's point is that the so-called Lefty Blogosphere wasn't able to counteract the Petraeus Pageant at all in DC, and my point is that all the snark in the world isn't going to make a bit of difference if all the Serious Players continue to maintain a stranglehold on Power.
The apparent DC consensus is that the occupation will continue, at ever greater expense, regardless of loss of life, physical destruction, and distraction from the real problems at home and abroad, and the President will continue to receive a veritable blank check to pursue this and any other "anti-Them" struggle he wishes, including (perhaps) an attack on Iran, regardless of what the People think, feel, or believe.
The DC consensus sees the same polls Glenn produces. They know full well that the People are overwhelmingly opposed to this course of action, and they are going to do it anyway. With contempt and malice aforethought.
They couldn't care less what you or I or anyone else wants. They have the Power, you do not. Object if you choose, it doesn't matter. Basically, that's what Cheney said after the 2006 election. What the People want is irrelevant.
Why is that so? Well, obviously, Those In Power believe that there will be no consequenses for following a policy contrary to the Will of the People. The People, as such, will do nothing of consequence, will do nothing to stop them, will re-elect most of them. They may possibly rant and rave from time to time, but so what? They still pay their taxes, they still go to work every day, pay their mortgages and credit card bills and they still watch the cable teevee. They send money (in huge amounts) to their perferred political parties and campaigns. In other words, the important aspects of life -- and more importantly Power -- are secure, and as long as that is the case, there is no reason at all for our Congress and our Media to do anything but what the White House wants.
This is why Chris Floyd a few days ago wrote his lament for the Lost Republic. These Beltway elements, supposedly representing us and advocating for the public interest, are utterly divorced from The People, and they are proud of it. The government they are part of is completely apart from (and antagonistic toward) the People of the United States. The Republic and the Constitution they swore to protect and defend is no more, because they have decided their Power and their Wisdom is far superior to that of The People they ostensibly represent.
There's your starting point for change.
-
Greenwald should stop whining about Iraq
Greenwald should stop whining so much about "ending the war in Iraq". He is now the equivalent of a Democratic "noise machine". The main events are Iran and US long-term interests in the region. He should be devoting his energy on those topics rather than worrying about what Gen. Petreaus' report this week will say. Everybody with a brain knows how this is going down and both Dems and Repugs will fall in line behind Bush/Patreaus. Why? Because the real unspoken purpose of the Iraq war was to build permanent US or firiendly bases in the Middle East to protect our oil interests and act as a counterweight to Iran and al-Qaeda. And on that account, we will likely be successful. It seems to me, that the base in Anbar where Bush visited will become a permanent US forward base for many, many years to come. On this point, Greenwald continously misses one of the long-term objective of this war which was to extend US MILITARY influence into the heart of the Middle East.
1. Greenwald should not be implying that the withdrawal of US from Iraq will "end the war" which is just as intellectually dishonest as thinking that we could actually "win the war".
2. Diplomacy is useless in Iraq because the Shia, Iran in particular, think they will eventually prevail at least in Shia territories so why negotiate. They would negotiate for only a tactical advantage, ie, let the US withdrawal "with honor" and then all hell breaks loose.
3. I am sure there is "an understanding" with the Saudis that the US will not leave the Sunnis totally exposed to the Shia unless the US wants to pay 10x for oil. The Saudis would be very happy with the US parked in western Iraq as opposed to Saudi territory.
4. Eventually the US will find a location or two in Iraq where we can coexist with the local population and not be perceived as occupiers or Crusaders or whatever. We do this all over the world in places such as South Korea, Japan, Germany, Philippines (no more), etc. etc.
5. In the event there is a negotiated settlement, I guarantee that it will not include a complete US withdrawal from Iraq because that does not meet our minimalist requirements for "withdrawal".
6. Iraq will be broken up but so what: lots of countries have been broken up in past 20 years.
6. Of course, the lefties like Greenwald, will go berserk because this smacks of classic "imperialism", but I believe the pragmatists like Hillary, Biden, and 80% of the American people will see this as the best deal we can cut and it will prevail.