Letters to the Editor
-
@pageiger
All the Bushies ever do is try whatever comes to mind and cross their fingers.
It's that old "fact-based reality" problem. In a world made safe (by Ronald Reagan more than anybody) for outright delusion, it is perfectly okay to suppose that a "pure heart" is all that matters. They don't understand that it isn't the white hat that makes the hero. It's what the guy does that makes him a hero -- or doesn't. I want to believe that this delusional process has reached its end, but things are about to swing back in the direction of reality, but I'm seeing discouraging signs.
-
@shooter242
The Iraqis were better off under Saddam?
I imagine the ones that were blown up by our liberation were doing somewhat better. Unless you think Iraqi lives aren't worth living.
Which is all you fucking war-whores sound like to me anymore. "Those people are lucky to be dead."
That's just BDS to the extreme.
Anyone who ever uses the phrase "BDS" non-ironically is terminally, congenitally, thoroughly bread-dead. Anytime I see it, all I can think is, "geez, what a stupid, stupid, asshole."
Of course you will take this comment as evidence of my BDS. Nice hypothesis for which negative evidence can never be found.
On the other hand, if that's the reality those Iraqis wanted, then fine. Let's withdraw tomorrow and let the bloodshed begin. Maybe they'll get lucky and another ruthless dictator will emerge.
By this, you mean, "another ruthless dictator will be installed by the USA." Because that's how Saddam got in. And if we didn't cut deals with terrorists ALL THE DAMN TIME, bin Laden would never have gotten powerful, and neither would Saddam. Why don't you have a grudge against Rumsfeld for THAT shit?!
The real lesson here is that no matter how bad it gets, no matter how many innocent people die, it's better to let it continue than interfere.
Even if "interfering" kills far, far, far more people than not?
That's exactly what you're saying.
-
Greenwald = Lame
As usual Glenn, your criticism is exceedingly weak. You say these things are never heard on TV ... except when they are. The average news consumer is never exposed to them ... except for the hundreds of thousands of people who agree with you, who watch MSNBC, who read Salon ...
I think what you mean to say is that some people out there disagree with you, and how terrible a shame it is that anyone would ever do so.
Yawn.
-
Greenwald = Lame
As usual Glenn, your criticism is exceedingly weak. You say these things are never heard on TV ... except when they are. The average news consumer is never exposed to them ... except for the hundreds of thousands of people who agree with you, who watch MSNBC, who read Salon ...
I think what you mean to say is that some people out there disagree with you, and how terrible a shame it is that anyone would ever do so.
Yawn.
-
Shooter prefers dictators to his liking, who think like him...
Most people probably do. And "blank" is a good name for a poor man's Dean Broder in the final stages of senile dementia.
-
Pundit Kitchen
Amuse yourselves and be creative.
http://punditkitchen.com/page/6/
If you can't afford photoshop, this is for you.
-
In Gulf War I
M1 tanks fitted with bulldozer blades filled in miles and miles of Iraqi trench lines while Iraqi troops were still in them.
Buried alive.
A bunch of poor draftees who would rather have been anywhere but there..
I remember passing entire sports bars full of my fellow Americans watching the carnage on live TV and cheering like it was a football game.
It's interesting that every interview I ever read of soldiers who served with Tim McVeigh said he was the best soldier they had ever met.
-
A sad commentary on American media
In the first several weeks after the war started, I would get up early every day to watch the BBC News on PBS at 5 a.m. I didn't trust the reporting of our own nation's media because it was so obviously slanted.
-
Pudgenet has had his 15 seconds
http://www.youtube.com/user/pudgenet
Don't quit your day job as a Walmart greeter. You might not see better days for awhile.
-
Charlie Rose is where people of all political stripes go
in order to receive the final stamp of official "Village" approval to indicate that they have fully arrived. There is no more universally acknowledged representative of the establishment media than Rose. The fact that he's still seen as being a "liberal" makes him all the more valuable to the establishment (media and otherwise) because it makes him seem more credible (which, as an aside, would seem to indicate the right's persistent insecurity about its own positions, seeing as it feels the need for "liberal" approval).
Never mind that he counts or counted among his friends folks like Kristol, Kissinger, Buckley and Brooks, which makes him about as authentically liberal as Dick Cheney. The important thing is that he gives the appearance of being a liberal to people who don't know what liberal really means, because he's a well-educated culturally and socially liberal New Yorker who's well-read, culturally sophisticated, reports for 60 Minutes, etc., which to most people is the textbook definition of liberal.
My point is less to trash Rose as a phony, fairweather liberal--which I think is self-evident given how he kisses up to the FAR right--than to indicate what stands for center-left in today's establishment political and media climate: Rose does, which is why virtually every important member of the right-wing coaltion that was behind, and continues to support the war, has appeared on his show, including those who are crtitical of some of its aspects but supportive of its overall necessity and mission. By appearing on Rose, you give yourself the stamp of legitimacy, as in "Oh, he can't be too extreme, he was on Charlie Rose".
Rose himself helps this along immeasurably by making it clear, in a variety of ways, where his sympathies lies, which these days is clearly center-right. While throwing in the occasional question or challenge to right-wing guests, and having on left-leaning guests now and then, to reestablish his liberal credentials, he's generally far more solicitous towards his right-wing guests, treating them as the Very Serious Thinkers that he clearly wants to be seen as seeing them as. He's even had some of them host his show when he's been sick. And he tends to get impatient and angry when positions that are too left of center are expressed on his show.
In the end, I don't think that Rose really believes in or stands for anything, other than his continuing to be seen as an insider's insider in the Village. These days, the Village still leans heavily right, or center-right, so Rose makes sure to be in the good graces of that faction. If by some freak of nature the Village starts leaning center-left, he will start leaning that way himself, favoring guests who are reflective of that end of the spectrum. There is a hollowness to Rose that belies his intelligence and erudition that anyone who's a long-time viewer can see, that is really disappointing, because he's smart enough to know better. I guess that it's a matter of character, not intelligence. Something that, sadly, is not that uncommon these days on the "liberal" side of the aisle. Call it crossing the "Bullshit Liberal" "threshold", if you will. (Although, I'm guessing that Rose himself favors Obama, not because of his policies or values, but because he's currently seen as "cooler", for lack of a better term.)
This is all off-topic, since the topic here is the war and the media's treatment of it and its opponents. But I just wanted to point out how morally and intellectually bankrupt the media is these days--even the SCLM--in treating topics such as the war. They are too timid and amoral to cover it honestly, and still way too quick and eager to kiss up to its supporters as Very Serious and Thoughtful People Who Genuinely Care, and denigrate its detractors as non-serious hippies who just want to cut and run from our alleged responsibilities. And Rose, to me, is a perfect example of how the SCLM absolutely fails in its duties as the media--let alone fails to be truly liberal--to cover the news as objectively as it can, basing its coverage on the facts and the full spectrum of analysis, and not conventional wisdom or the opinions of just one segment of opinion that spans the ideological range from very soft left to hard right, with the occasional Chomsky or Van Heuvel thrown in to placate the true left and remind people of how liberal he is.
Rose plays a similar role among better-educated people who span the political center and like to think of themselves as moderate and thoughtful, who live on the coasts and in larger cities, as Rush Limbaugh plays among the less educated right-wing angry white guy crowd who live in suburbs and middle America. I.e. they validate their political leanings. And the establishment uses both very effectively. And on neither show is true liberalism allowed to flourish, even though polls show that on most issues, most Americans are actually a lot more liberal than they claim to be, and these days, on virtually ALL issues, most Americans are essentially liberal, even if they wouldn't be likely to apply the term to themselves. Reality is shifting leftward, while the establishment still tries to pretend otherwise, and to keep people from realizing this.
I'm not convinced that it's working. But they try. Still, they try.