Letters to the Editor
-
@ anonymous
Seems to me we need to train the Iraqis to take over ....
Ahhh, yes. Seems lots of people agree that this is just the ticket to an independent and freestanding (but standing with whom? <*wink-wink*>) Iraq. Someone ought to do that. Oh. Right. Someone was tasked with this job. Who was it now? Ummmm .... oh, yeah, some guy David Petraeus or something ... back in 2004!!!
Your move.
Cheers,
-
@krblak
I wrote this back in 2003 and sent it to 'letters to the editor' of my local newspaper. They published it.
There's an irony in society these days. Well, to be honest, the irony has been going on all along. It’s just that it is more pronounced; more dagger like. Political correctness has long been thought to be the invention of ‘liberals’. ‘Conservatives’ have used 'political correctness' against liberals by scoffing at and berating liberals and calling them a variety of derisive names because of what is perceived to be the liberals’ nauseating political correctness. The favorite derisive name conservatives call them is, of course, ‘Liberals’. Other names are, Tree Huggers, Whiners, Commies, Femi Nazis, Saddamn lovers, Peace Niks, etc. The reason why being a liberal is grounds for facing a firing squad is that they’ve become the politically incorrect. Our main-stream press and those guffawing conservative commentators and columnists, and other floggers of those who express a bent towards the liberal persuasion, have been driving a radical concept into the ‘group think’ of our society. Saying the ‘wrong’ thing at the ‘wrong’ time or place qualifies you as a traitor. Or, dare I say, politically incorrect? Or, in the case of the Dixie Chicks, they’re politically incorrect, and, their music suddenly stinks, too?
-
A point here, but not the one you wanted
The freedoms in this country have and will continue to exist ONLY because brave and decent men and women are willing to die to defend them. You make it sound like this state came into being simply because it was desirable...nothing could be further from the truth. It came into being when men who desired a better way of life decided to FIGHT to get it.
Yes, our freedom came directly from the residents here deciding that they should be in charge of their own government and to throw off the rule of the foreign power.
How does that translate to us invading a foreign country in order to "liberate" it and then staying on as an occupying power? Virtually all of our effort in Iraq now is directed at those who see the US presence in Iraq as the moral equivalent of the British presence in America in the 1700's. In fact, if you think about it, Iraq is a modern American colony. Why else would Bush build the world's largest "embassy" and try to move the discussion to an "enduring relationship"? Those whom Bush and Petraeus refer to alternately as "insurgents" and "terrorists" increasingly in Iraq are seen as freedom fighters or patriots.
If you are so enamored of freedom, I urge you to take a look at the loss of freedoms here in the US. Bush has removed a huge number of our freedoms despite our being the world's only superpower. How on earth is that necessary? Where is the threat that justifies it? By the way, nineteen losers with boxcutters and a former puppet of the CIA living in a cave in Pakistan hardly qualify as existential threats to a country that has survived real attacks and overcome every true enemy.
I urge you to join the freedom lovers here in America and work to overcome the loss of our freedoms.
-
Errata
I misspoke in my prior message, "Regarding Petraeus's State of Mind." After quoting Petraeus's reference in his prepared testimony to Gen. Casey, I said that Petraeus's reference was designed to suggest that the "the surge" was "Petraeus's idea." I should have said that the reference was designed to suggest that the surge was Gen. Casey's idea.
To be clear, the surge was opposed by Casey. Petraeus referenced Casey in a way that would lead people to believe that Casey supported the surge, and even requested the surge. Further, Petraeus did so in a way that appeared intended to counter the perception that Casey had been canned, and Petraeus promoted, because Petraeus was willing to bend to Bush on the surge and Casey was not.
-
@ anonymous
[Jebbie]: "The problem isn't the size of our military. The problem is that our military was given a task it wasn't designed for, wasn't prepared for, and shouldn't have been ordered to perform."
Sorry but you are incorrect. The military IS designed for war...that IS our primary mission. What we are NOT designed for is meals on wheels, maintaining a police state or anything else. War is our job.
Perhaps, but not entirely accurate. But if so -- mostly if not completely -- who were the f*cktards that sent/left them there to do exactly that? If war was all they were supposed to to, then they should have come home in May, 2003. Who was supposed to to the Meals On Wheels? Some recent college graduates whose prime qualification was the size of their parents' contributions to the RNC?!?!? Oh. Right....
I'd note that Jebbie agrees with you (at least from what I can determine of your rant above), despite the fact you're accusing him of "incorrect[ness]". Not that you'd notice; you don't seem to understand simple English. I'm not sure that I agree that a military is incapable of the Phase IV tasks; but most seem to agree that the ones we sent weren't prepared, and weren't trained, for such jobs, and consequently made a bollix of it (along with the stupendously incompetent CPA). See Thomas Ricks's book "Fiasco" for a lot more on this....
Cheers,
-
Let's not let the right ALWAYS determine the boundaries of the frikkin' discourse, hmmmm?
They are having a similar conversation about MoveOn's ad in the This Modern World letters section, where many are saying that the ad was offensive and went against the public mood, and someone even referred to MoveOn's politics as "unserious" (!). I mean, come on.
As I posted, these people are falling straight into the trap that was set for them:
MoveOn did NOT fuck it up. On the contrary, their ads are getting noticed, and as I have been reading from various critics and pundits, the very fact that their Petraeus ad has been at the receiving end of such furious ire from the right shows that they are hitting a nerve right where they should be. That the response is a measure of their success is an observation that I absolutely agree with.
Please remember that we replicate and confirm the arguments of the right when we say that such messages as those of MoveOn are unseemly.
The right has been very successful at controlling and framing the discourse for many years, and we have to make ourselves aware when we unthinkingly enter into their traps.
And remember that a large majority of Americans polled have said that they believe that Petraeus would just give us the administration line when he presented his report. Only a minority believe he is telling the truth.
....I just looked at Glenn's updates and it seems to me that these pundits' comments just reek of desperation. They know that their onslaught against MoveOn and anyone anti-war has not moved public opinion one bit. So what do they do? They scream louder. What was that I heard about the definition of insanity?...