Letters to the Editor
-
If Brooks says it, it must be wrong
Brooks all but declares Hillary Clinton the nominee of the Democratic Party
Excellent! Final proof that the Great Republican Warmongering, Corporate-Ass-Kissing, Bush-Fellating Bitch won't make it past New Hampshire.
-
shorter Garry Owen:
"You kids get off my lawn!"
Wait, sorry, that was far more coherent than Garry Owen ever was.
I think I'll make this "anonymous" so we can see another rant about Elvira Madigan or Myra Breckiridge or whatever in the world he starts going on about when people do that.
-
I'm sorry but that is just silly...
Today, one must simply sit in a Starbucks on a wireless laptop and moan about the terrible injustice.
Don't Tase Me, Bro!
-- Garry Owen
That you think Glenn as an individual in a street mob would do more good than the spot-on writing he does is just silly, especially considering the obvious influence Glenn now has as an author and blogger. Bloggers are the new street protesters. Anyway, you lead the street protests and let us know when and where.
-
Attention Glenn
Do you know about the Kyl Lieberman Amendmant? It's a sense of the Senate, but look at the language:
(3) that it should be the policy of the United States to combat, contain, and roll back the violent activities and destabilizing influence inside Iraq of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, its foreign facilitators such as Lebanese Hezbollah, and its indigenous Iraqi proxies;
(4) to support the prudent and calibrated use of all instruments of United States national power in Iraq, including diplomatic, economic, intelligence, and military instruments, in support of the policy described in paragraph (3) with respect to the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its proxies;
Much more @ PDF of amendment:
http://iranlegislation.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Amendment+3017.doc
Sounds like a declaration of war to me. It could come up for a vote TODAY.
-
Neocon "Facts"
I've noticed that neocon pols have their own set of facts. One of those "facts" is that most people accept as fact the same things that they accept as "facts." In other words, the United States is dominated by neocons. And, they never need to investigate to determine what the facts are: the facts are self-evident.
I hadn't thought of it before until GG talks about it in this column. It's not just the neocon pols who have their own "facts" that are self-evidently true. The neocons in the media suffer from the same malady.
The really unfortunate aspect of the malady is that neocons are impervious to argument. You can't argue that their "facts" are wrong. To them, their facts are always right.
-
Lucy-crats and what to do about the centrist "Davids Brrrrr"
Glenn, I have followed your writing since well before you joined Salon. You hit a lot of issues spot on.....this is one.
In the comments, CarolynC invokes the classic Charlie Brown and Lucy interaction. Used to be that this happened with the Republican Party and the serious Democratic centrists. Luckily, the left now gets to experience this with the Democratic centrists that the Davids Broder and Brooks love to point to. In posting on FDL, I've taken to calling them/us the Lucy-Crats.
For instance:
++Pelosi felt the most important element of a Democratic Congress would be subpoena power. But does it really qualify as power if people can ignore it with impunity?
++Reid promised that he'd be bringing up the war again and again to make Republicans show that they really don't support the troops. So what has the Senate passed of any note recently? mega-FISA and official Condemnation of MoveOn. Which flavor would you like? Cornyn or Boxer? Feingold is the only one to say "neither, thank you"??
The tactic is simple: make the right noises and fill in the appropriate talking point, but when it comes time to kick the ball through the uprights, they pull the ball away. It's a variant on the boiled frog or the big lie.
I think the Davids Brrrr deceit is similar (and very much along the lines of the "compasionate conservative" idea). Use the standard format and trimmings of a well placed column, use calm bi-partisan language, extol comity...then fill in your lie du jour. It's a perverse Ad-Lib we've seen repeated ad nauseum.
-
@Whispers
"Dick Cheney" is usually ironical when he posts. And he doesn't always use that name, but his choice of names is always ironic.
-
Americans and un-Americans
The sad thing is that, for better or worse, the rest of the world really was depending on the U.S. to play the role of global policeman. Potential troublemakers were kept in line by the threat of the U.S. taking action against them, but it only really worked as long as U.S. military strength was held in reserve.
Once Bush proved that the U.S. is perfectly willing to mobilize against a single target and lock up its entire military for years, it became obvious that anyone else can do as they please in the meantime. I'd be surprised if Iran and North Korea were the only countries who decided to use the Iraq war to beef up a nuke program.
True, the White House is rattling sabres with Iran, and could bomb the bejeezus out of them if they had to, but that only works as a threat if you assume Iran's leadership wants the best for its people. If you assume that what they want is to foment anti-Americanism, then having the U.S. bomb the place and leave without helping or monitoring the rebuilding is probably fine with them. The threat of "regime change" would hold a lot more water if the U.S. had the resources to keep enough troops on the ground to make sure the country is rebuilt properly, which it doesn't. The funny thing is that the White House's position on Ahmedinejad would actually only make sense if he were the opposite of what they say he is.
With regard to the Beltway, it's extremely important to understand how they use the word "American". Essentially, you have Americans and un-Americans, un-Americans being anyone who disagrees with them. This is important to understand the phenomenon of anti-Americanism. It is true that in many parts of the world people don't understand the difference between an American and an un-American, but here in Canada there is an observable difference between people who are anti-American and those who are anti-un-American. Most anti-Americans here tend to be extremely pro-un-American and vice versa. Brooks et al. would prefer it if Americans (I should say un-Americans) in general were not aware of that.