Letters to the Editor
-
Wait...a little longer
How long will it take for them to get the microphones working? Seems like a very desperate delaying tactic!
Heh.
-
Republican math
Petraeus = human
600,000 Iraqis: not human
-
re: The fury is building
When fury is all you have to offer, it's not surprising.
What strikes me about Glenn's post today is the fury in his words. It mimics my feelings exactly. I have a political blog which I find harder and harder to post to because I have almost nothing rational left to write.
Much like Glenn. Most posts are the same whine...why don't people do what we tell them?????? Wah!!!!!! It's like listening to a kid go "Are we there yet?" over and over and over and over. How about something different for a change? Like "maybe I'm wrong?". LOL, like that could ever happen.
-
Right On Brother Glenn!
Take THAT, warmongers!
-
love it when shooter starts talking to himself
How about something different for a change? Like "maybe I'm wrong?". LOL, like that could ever happen.
Heh.
-
From the guy who couldn't even admit he was wrong about Armstrong Williams hosting a show on Air America...
How about something different for a change? Like "maybe I'm wrong?". LOL, like that could ever happen.
-- shooter242
How about taking a swim in a vat of quick-hardening cement?
-
So, what should the government do?
I am against the Iraq war and I think Bush is the worst President we've ever had. Butt that doesn't mean I'm automatically anti-Republican and agree with everything every anti-war blogger writes. I read Glenn's post and while it makes many good points he is just as guilty of 'cherry picking' data to support HIS position as his opponents are guilty of cherry picking data to support THEIR position. It is necessarily true that the moment the surge shows any success is the exact moment Iraqis would be polled and report feeling more secure? I don't know the answer to that, but I think it's a reasonable question. But let's just say the surge is an abysmal failure. Let's say Iraqis are feeling really negative about their situation and their future prospects. What's the right thing to do? I'd like to see someone anti-war for once lay out what they think the right thing to do is, so that when it is finally done, they can assess whether or not their thinking was sound, or unnecessarily optimistic, or whatever. It's easy to criticize every single thing that your opposition does, safely cradled in the indignant agreement of your supporters. But why stop at complaining - lay out a strategy that would be better, and defend it.
-
The Hippies Were Right In The 60's Too
"Bill O'Reillys of the world love to bash "the angry left." i just don't think we're angry enough as a progressive community. We obviously haven't reached that critical mass where our anger spreads contagiously through the population at large else there ought to be demonstrations."
There's nothing wrong with anger in the appropriate situation like this one. In fact, it woudl be wrong NOT to be angry.
Re the fact that anger hasn't reached critical mass etc: What I am about to say is heretical in 21st Century America, but maybe -- just maybe -- those dirty hippies back in the 60's were onto something. Maybe they had good reasons to form a counterculture. Maybe they thought they had to take drastic and dramatic actions for a reason.
-
A Lying Propagandist? Naw, He's Just Incompetent
This seems to be a recurring defense against assertions that this official or that one is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the Administration or the idealogical movement behind it: 'No, they are not partisan cronies, they're just 'human'. They just make 'mistakes like the rest of us'. Which is true, they are- presumably- humans, and humans do make mistakes. That is not the issue. The issue is that these humans have been selected for the most important, consequential jobs in the world- and the rest of us humans expect them to keep the 'mistakes' to a minimum, and to learn from those mistakes and adjust accordingly . Or at least that they own up to the fact that their mistakes are due at least in part to their allegiance to their overseers and the influence that those overseers exert on them.
No, instead we are told that they are innocent humans who make mistakes, and that these mistakes should not reflect either on their credibility or their professional abilities. Furthermore, it is forbidden- dismissed out of hand- to criticize the performance of these officials either because of the lofty status of their position/office, or because they are 'good men', or finally because they are 'humans like us who make mistakes'. This final appeal to human empathy is touching, really, though the cushy emotionalism that is implied doesn't quite fit the meme of 'strong, no-nonsense leadership'. That is especially true in this case, where the additional rhetoric of 'supporting the troops' is applied by status quo apologists to shout down legitimate criticisms of the way this war is being conducted. General Petraeus is not one of 'the troops', he is a theater commander and one of the lead architects of the way this war is being conducted. As such he must be open to criticisms- and able to rebut them credibly- or he must be removed from his leadership position. This is what democracy means- what survival of the fittest and meritocracy means- that while those who must act as ordered should not be criticised, those giving the orders must, by necessity, be open to criticisms . To do otherwise is to invite disaster.
-
my word...
the idiot trolls are out in force today. What's up guys? Your dead-end cubicle exceptionally boring today? Or is Mom's basement lacking in entertainment value?
I thought proximity warning's post was especially amusing. He clearly drank the Kool-aid straight from the bag, without water.
I wonder if these guys realize how much they sound exactly like the freaks and geeks who started the Nazi party in the '20s. Probably not.
This is why we have to, somehow, crush the totalitarian wing of our body-politic. People probably thought Himmler was a joke, too. Look how that turned out.
-
The Rot In the Democrats
I find the inability of Democratic Senators and Congressmen to confront the nonsense of the Republicans on Iraq inexplicable and inexcusable. They remind me of General Weygand in the Battle of France in 1940. When Churchill asked where his reserves were as the Germans broke through the Allied lines, he replied "Aucun", - There are none!
Weygand represented the complete failure of will, planning and competence among the governing elites of Third Republic France, the rot that caused its complete collapse before the Nazi onslaught.
Comical Ali, the Saddam Hussein press secretary in Baghdad, assuring the world of heroic Iraqi efforts in the mother of all battles against the Americans during the 2003 invasion, was another example of this incompetence and disconnect from reality.
So, too, is the dog and pony show unfolding in Congress with General Petraeus.
The Republicans are past all hope. They require a substantial period of exile from power to regroup, reevaluate, and rejuvenate the GOP.What is worse is that the Democrats appear incapable at this point of providing competent government based on reality and the long term best interests of the Republic.