Letters to the Editor
-
I Am A Lonely Visitor
I came too late to cause a stir,
Though I campaigned all my life towards that goal.
I hardly slept the night you wept,
Our secret's safe and still well kept,
Where even George Bush has got soul.
Even George Bush has got.
Soul.
Soul.
-
Blinders
Blinders are things put on working horses. For plowing, or pulling loads. Always paired, they narrow the field of vision both right and left, and focus the beast's sight to where drivers want the animal directed.
http://photoswest.org/cgi-bin/imager?00172113+P-2113
-
Was I shreiking with irony? (Thanks, Anonymust)
That's a lot more relevant to me about where Brookings is ideologically than what Richard Nixon thought about them 35 years ago.
-- GlennGreenwald
Or dripping with sarcasm? I can't tell anymore, but being compared to Lily Tomlin is high praise indeed.
Anonymust... L.W.M. does use more than one screen name, but they are hardly sock puppets, since they shriek with irony, and the whole intention of having a sock puppet is to fool everyone. L.W.M. doesn't even try to do that. He's like Lily Tomlin, only male; he has lots of voices.
You are absolutely correct, however and to me at least, it does illustrate how far to the right this country has slouched. Brookings is no longer considered a centrist think tank by Sourcewatch.
Initially centrist, the Institution took its first step rightwards during the depression, in response to the New Deal. In the 1960s, it was linked to the conservative wing of the Democratic party, backing Keynsian economics. From the mid-70s it cemented a close relationship with the Republican party. Since the 1990s it has taken steps further towards the right in parallel with the increasing influence of right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brookings_Institution
The image of the [Overton] Window throws people off, perhaps. It's not like the window is sliding left or right, The whole damn house is moving, and everything inside it. It is your perspective, what you are able to see from the house while looking out that window as the house slides hither and yon.
-
It's not surprising.
As always, unadorned war opposition is mutually exclusive with Foreign Policy Seriousness, and those who are unequivocal in their opposition to the underlying premises of the war (rather than its tactical execution) are almost never heard from in media discussions -- still.
Some considerations for the anti-war crowd......
* There is no room for conversation in your position. "War is bad because people get killed." End of discussion. What else are you going to say to fill up airtime?
* Why would it have been better to gamble, that Saddam has no weapons, no bad intent, and is just posturing?
* If said gamble is wrong ten,hundreds, thousands, millions of American lives are in jeopardy. Why isn't that a concern?
* Lastly, I'd love to hear the anti-war crowd explain to the nation, why they were willing to lie down for Saddam.The willingness to leave the country "defenseless" after a life-altering terrorist act is not a position that can be taken seriously. Ergo, no interviews.
-
Richard Perle? What next, Ken Adelman?
It's not only the exclusion of war opponents, it's the choice of war proponents. What, if anything, does an architect of this catastrophe have to do or say to become discredited to the point where they stop asking his opinion? We reached a point long ago when the idea that Richard Perle be allowed anywhere near a microphone should have become ridiculous. I mean, besides being an Iraq invasion pusher for years, wanting to install his best bud Chalabi as head of an Iraqi government that would immediately recognize Israel, and an enthusiast for pre-emptive wars against Iran, Syria, and North Korea, here are a few choice Perle quotes that should have nailed his mouth shut for years:
- Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him. Well, not the whole UN. The "good works" part will survive, the low-risk peacekeeping bureaucracies will remain, the chatterbox on the Hudson will continue to bleat. What will die is the fantasy of the UN as the foundation of a new world order.
- If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war, our children will sing great songs about us years from now.
- A year from now, I'll be very surprised if there is not some grand square in Baghdad that is named after President Bush.
-
Human nature is to double your bet
The analogy to the hedge funds is clear, other people's money/other people's lives and a willingness to hold on to an ever contracting failure and put more and more into it rather than abandoning denial and admitting a mistake, taking the hit and regaining freedom of action.
-
Atcharsacha?
Mr. Ctheney. It's a good thing this is not a spelling bee contest. yup.
W.T. A winner? That was as good as the day Mr. 'A' wore a porkpie hat.
Remember he drove you to DC to pick-up the DC Tone in a rickshaw cycle?
William Timberman? You need porky pine tough skin? Those burly bullies are mean.
Never get married? The first time we're in DC, stick obscene stinky slogans on bumpers
-
Fixed your typo
Shooter...Some considerations for the anti-Iraq war crowd......
Some here may be pacifists and opposed to military force under any circumstances. But you already know that most of us are not, so why do you do this? Weather keeping you off the links?
-
Give credit to Mr. Packer where due
Not that I want to give Mr. Packer much credit, but he is correct when he says: "John McCain's victory will not happen. But neither will the neat, clean 16-month withdrawal plan of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. ...none of the candidates is capable right now of leveling with the public about just how hard it`s going to be to end this war, and how bad the consequences are going to be one way or the other".
The fact of the matter is that it would take enormous courage to withdraw the troops and face the turmoil that will occur. I don't see any of the major party candidates having that courage ultimately.
I can think of no historical precedent where the United States has let the chips fall where they may in the face of "chaos" in a region deemed "critical."
Personally, I want to see us get out and stay out, but, really, how likely is the next president and Congress going to be to support that alternative?