Letters to the Editor

Letters posted here are associated with the following article:
Charlie Rose convenes a five-year anniversary panel of American foreign policy experts to present "both sides" on the Iraq war. As usual, none were actual opponents of the invasion.
The letters thread is now closed.
  • Easter leftovers

    I highly recommend Easter egg salad sandwiches -- a quick chop for the eggs, mix in some mayonnaise, a little diced celery (good celery, but not GoodCelery!) and green onion, some fresh dill and tabasco, on toasted bread with a bit of romaine.

    As for greens to accompany these beauties, try red chard in a reduced balsamic vinegar sauce, or collards with fatback.

    This works even without barbecued whiptails.

  • Death, Lies, and Nation-Building

    democracy-exporter advocates like Gelb, Packer and O'Hanlon

    In our ongoing amazement at the catastrophe brought on by Bush's adventures in exporting democracy, let us not forget that he explicitly disclaimed any such ambitions during the 2000 campaign, deliberately tarring Gore in the debates as a naive "nation builder" (transcript linked at my sig):

    MODERATOR: New question. How would you go about as president deciding when it was in the national interest to use U.S. force, generally?


    BUSH: Well, if it's in our vital national interest, and that means whether our territory is threatened or people could be harmed, whether or not the alliances are -- our defense alliances are threatened, whether or not our friends in the Middle East are threatened. That would be a time to seriously consider the use of force. Secondly, whether or not the mission was clear. Whether or not it was a clear understanding as to what the mission would be. Thirdly, whether or not we were prepared and trained to win. Whether or not our forces were of high morale and high standing and well-equipped. And finally, whether or not there was an exit strategy. I would take the use of force very seriously. I would be guarded in my approach. I don't think we can be all things to all people in the world. I think we've got to be very careful when we commit our troops. The vice president and I have a disagreement about the use of troops. He believes in nation building. I would be very careful about using our troops as nation builders. I believe the role of the military is to fight and win war and therefore prevent war from happening in the first place. So I would take my responsibility seriously.

    The fact that nobody calls the warmongers on the flagrant betrayal of the electorate reflected in any attempt at "exporting democracy" is yet another indication that the body politic is shuffling along in a kind of hypnotized stupor induced by a power elite that clings desperately to its delusions of rectitude so it can avoid confronting the enormity of its crimes and -- perhaps even worse in that crowd -- its stupidity.

  • The same with 'Frontline'

    One and a half hours of 'Bush's War', with only a handful of people questioning the war. Plenty of face time for the war criminals. One and a half hours and OIL was NEVER mentioned! PBS is allowing the war criminals to frame the discourse. Creepy.

  • nuf said Etc.,

    Glenn is gonna bang his head?

    nuf said? I can ask her in private, okay?

    The heroines of romantic fiction like Metheglins.

    Methieglins are sparkling beverages that sweeten anything.

    You know, "Kisses sweeter than wine." Or, "Lips that taste like honey."

    Full bodied, delicious, and enjoy Melomels, and Meads, and about the W.H.?

    OY! They serve the W.H. guest The Morgan Horse barn stable hot dung yuck soup?

  • One of the most striking aspects of this invasion and semi-conquest

    to me is the utter indifference, indeed often contempt, military and civilian Americans have for where they are. I don't think there has ever been an American conquest since the nation's colonial origins in which the land and the people -- and the history thereof -- has been of so little interest to the conquerors, and so little understood.

    I remember fairly early on, an American soldier was quoted as saying that the Iraqis had "no culture, no language, no religion" before the Americans came. It was the most incredible thing I'd ever heard or read. But then, the natives were just "sand niggers," for whom extermination was too good a fate, too. The slaughter of the natives, pretty much at random, is still a feature of the occupation.

    But the absence of any cultural or historical or even any basic civilizational awareness of where they are was part and parcel of the invasion itself. Now that it's devolved into this terminal occupation going on for who knows how much longer, there is still no interest or awareness.

    The Americans blithely build military bases on top of the ruins of Babylon and Nineveh. How can this be even imaginable?

    No doubt they take the crumbling bricks for landing pad ballast. Of course. There's such a ready supply.

    Much as the British hated being there when they originally took Mesopotamia from the Turks (and oh my, did they hate it), they at least showed some interest in its history and the descendants of the Sumerians, Akkadians, Babylonians, Assyrians and so many others who were still there, along with the Turks and the Kurds and the Arabs and who knows who all, they took interest in the storied cities, mounds of ruins now, and the astonishing artefacts pulled from the ground. Entire shelves of books, whole libraries in fact, were written about Mesopotamia past and present.

    But none of that now.

    Nope.

    Not a bit of it.

    Why is that?

  • @larry, dfh

    We see what we want to see, maybe? I came away from the one and a half hours feeling even more antipathy towards Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz than I had before. Didn't think it possible, but there you are.

  • Yes, it's true

    Saddam decided to sell Iraqi oil for euros rather than dollars

    Is that true? does anyone know? fascinating fact if true.
    — Jkalos

    Yes, it's true. I thought everyone knew that.

    http://www.feasta.org/documents/papers/oil1.htm

    http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.un.euro.reut/

    The dollar only survives because oil prices are denominated in dollars. The dollar will collapse if one of two things happens"

    • OPEC decides to price oil in euros
    • China decides to dump a major part of its dollar holdings.

    If either of these things happens, your next candy bar will cost $50 (but $50 will be a small aluminum coin).

    The necessity to pay dollars for oil creates an artificial demand for dollars. Without that demand, the dollar would find its natural level very quickly.