Letters to the Editor
-
CHRIS DODD AND SIR WALTER SCOTT, I SALUTE YOU BOTH, SIRS....
As the late great Sir Walter Scott wrote in his epic poem MARMION (1808), Canto VI(6) Stanza XVII(17):
"OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE
WHEN FIRST WE PRACTICE TO DECEIVE!"
How TRUE those words ring, even today, almost TWO HUNDRED YEARS after Sir Walter uttered them in print! In other words, "CONSPIRACIES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A RECURRING MATTER," and the CHIMPyas, FRANKENCheneys and their AIDERS and ABETTERS amongst the Democrats like Jay Rockefeller(another WOLF in sheeps's clothing like Joe LIE-berman and Dianne FINK-Feinstein) have been trying to DECEIVE the American Public with their Hocus-Pocus and Jiggery-Pokery, weaving their webs of Skullduggery and Dastardly Machinations to try and obscure the lawless acts of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government in covering up the law-breaking of Communication Giants like AT&T as well as the government's own illegal spying and surveillance of innocent American citizens. Also LYING CREEPS like Joe Klein, David Ignatius and the rest of those TRAITOROUS QUISLINGS and Bush-friendly-propaganda-mongers in the MSM are equally CULPABLE! TRULY these are hIGH CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH, EXECUTION BY HANGING OR THE GUILLOTINE. Thank You, Sir Walter Scott, Chris Dodd and Glenn Greenwald for SHEDDING LIGHT on this INCONVENIENT TRUTH for these malefactors, that is! HAH!
-
"THIS IS AN ISSUE THEY UNDERSTAND, THEY DON'T LIKE IT"....
...("SHIT!!!,.....uppity citizens getting involved in our sleezy scamming, kick-backing, and subversion"........
"Next thing you know, they'll be wanting us to represent THEIR interests and look out for THEIR welfare",........it's just a very upsetting state of affairs"......*sniff*....)
-
Strategy to defeat warrantless surveillance and help end the U.S. occupation of Iraq
Civil liberties advocates and antiwar activists should consider a joint strategy to demand that Reid reshape the Senate Intelligence Committee. It's clear the Democrats on this committee, starting with Rockefeller, are merely Bush enablers. In addition to giving Bush what he wants in terms of eviscerating FISA, the Senate Intelligence Committee has also failed to follow through on its promise to investigate whether the Bush administration manipulated the prewar intelligence on Iraq in order to better "market" their war plans. The failure to pursue this issue could very well come back to haunt the Democrats in November 2008. At the very least, we should demand that Reid remove Rockefeller from the chairmanship of the committee, with a pointed reminded that the Democratic-controlled Congress is now almost as unpopular as Bush himself.
-
A victory, yes--but will it last?
Yes, this is a victory. A shitty bill, pushed by the Liar-in-Chief and his shitty minions in Congress, was defeated. Score one for Joe Sixpack.
Trouble is, this kind of victory is rare--damned rare. Whenever Joe Sixpack clashes with K Street, the latter usually prevails. Why? Because K Street represents the boys with the PACs, the wide-open cash pipelines.
Bought-and-paid-for hacks like Jay Rockefeller, Diane Feinstein, Hillary Clinton et al. like it just fine.
In any case, keep the pressure on.
-
To Kovie and Che Pasa re: A Progressive Version of PNAC
Kovie,
Yes, a 30-year timeframe is a little long to wait.
I think the core agenda is happiness. Everybody, including the neocons want happiness. If we start with that common agenda, we can come up with inclusive approaches. Of course, instead of the PNAC model of force, we would have a progressive model of intelligent cooperation.
The key is that the neocons emphasise the method rather than the goal – their method is the old caveman one of force. We should emphasise the goal rather than the method. The common goal is happiness, and the “multitude of counter-ideas” would be the various methods for achieving widespread happiness.
Che Pasa,
Being Australian, I am quite ignorant about American history. But I think most of the world sees America as an example of progress. America is seen as dynamic in business, technology, and the arts. But it is also seen as stuck, especially in the South, in areas such as the warfare mentality, religion, and racism.
When I think of “progressive”, I see it as the opposite of “conservative”. In other words I see it as evolutionary. Presumably, conservatives what to conserve the best of the past and avoid the danger of degradation coming from ill-conceived “progress”, and progressives want to improve the worst of the past and to innovate.
However, the core goal of both conservatives and progressives is happiness, and this common ground is where a dialogue can take place. Progressives need to appreciate the best of conservatives, and conservatives need to appreciate the best of progressives.
But it is true that “progressive”, has no meaning or an unclear meaning at the moment. That is partly because they are busy fighting neocons! In other words, neocons are setting the debate parameters like “Should we a) Invade Iraq or b) Do Nothing?”
What debate parameters would those who call themselves “progressive” set? I think progressives and democrats should firstly affirm capitalism but with a stronger safety net. It could propose constructive alternatives to war such as an international police force – that should please the arms manufacturers just as much.
To every political proposal, we should ask the question, “Is this proposal the best way to spread happiness?”
If we don’t set the agenda, then we look like do-nothing complainers and “whiney lefties”. Of course, the benefit that neocons have is that they are simple-thinking folk. Simple thinking makes decisions and marketing easy. Progressives are usually smarter and think more complexly, which makes their suggestions harder to sell. Kerry vs Bush was a classic demonstration of that. Kerry was called a flip-flopper, and Kerry even said something like, “I can’t believe this imbecile is beating me!” Hilarious! And it also showed the lack of a practical progressive strategy.
This gives us even more reason for a progressive think-tank. We can come up with complex understandings, and then use our superior intelligence to articulate them in accessible ways, and to establish simple goals and methods.
Is this on the right track? The alternative to cooperation and setting the agenda is conflict with the neocons; and conflict is the caveman method, so it keeps things unchanged in principle.
Is it a case of divide and rule vs include and rule?
-
Thanks Glenn
...and all the others who led this effort.
On another note, I don't see a lot of trolls here today...