Letters to the Editor
-
Being tough means telling people things they don't want to hear
Not so as to insult them, but in the process of taking a stand.
That is what people admire. That is what people want to elect.
The Democrats are not offering that and the election will show how much people want to elect weak-willed me-too-ers.
-
We know what dems think
the reason that americans think that the democrats are weak on national security is because they are. what the democrats are doing is equivalent to a hypothetical situation during WWII and one party keeps on putting the country down, telling us we need to understand the nazis and tolerate them, and critisizing everything that FDR or Eisenhower or Montgomery did. The real "problem" dems have is that they don't like the US. They don't value the country. don't imagine people don't know this. Just today when that man killed the amish girls, ed rendell a democrat in PA was interviewed and he said that there was nothing that could be done about violence because America was a violent country. He said it with a grim but very real satisfaction. He did not say it sadly. He said it like, what do you expect from these dumb Americans. He thinks he is teaching us dumb folk a lesson. Don't imagine we dumb people don't know what you liberals think. This is not a way to get votes or to get liberal causes endorsed. if it was not for the constant liberal propaganda in the news, you would not get any votes
The US was not always this violent. It is violent because of liberalism which teaches that everyone should do what they want and never repress or restrain everything, that every feeling is legitimate, especially anger and resentment. People were much poorer and much less violent. They had restraint. Liberals have taught us that restraint is bourgeois and bad. Now liberals bemoan the result of their own teachings
-
Fear Itself
Americans really aren't that cowardly.
Then prove it. I know that's the thrust of Kamiya's article, but the rest of us have pretty much given up on believing in American fortitude, and consequently I'm speaking to every American who just read the original article and is now poring over this letters section.
Listen, 9/11 horrified us all, and most of us genuinely grieved the horror of that day and the terrible attendant losses. We mourned compatriots there too; I personally have friends in Brooklyn who were directly affected by the attacks. I'm Canadian, but was born and raised in England and recall the effects of terror there too -- throughout the '70s and 80s. It's destabilising. It's demoralising. It's, well, utterly terrifying. But you never capitulate to it. You don't misguidedly throw away what is good about your culture in its presence. You don't allow home-grown mirror-image evils to take place in reaction to it. I've never witnessed a nation act with such abject cowardice in the wake of a terrorist attack as I have observing everything that's occurred in the United States since that awful fall day in 2001. On re-reading, that last sentence -- the simple fact that I need to say it out loud -- devastates me. We, the rest of the world, witness your political posturing and overcompensatory Hollywood fantasies and no longer even wince or groan, especially not laugh any more. No. Instead, we have become so weary of the craven self-regard exhibited by your politicians, by huge sections of your media and by at the very least a third of your populace, that we pity you.
So, yeah, try to regrow a spine and perhaps we'll regain our faith in the once-great experiment and potential beacon that is your republic. But please, for the love of all that's still good about this world, do it soon, okay? November would be a start.
-
fenella dumbfella
Self-governance is a liberal concept. Any parallels between today's world and the world of the late 1930's would find America in the German role. there is no such thing as islamofascism; that's a Rovian coinage. Rove is playing the role of Josef Goebbels; same fat smug self-satisfaction. Bring back the draft and find out just how patriotic Americans are. The war in eye-rack would be over in six months, tops. correction: our involvement would be over. They'd still be killing each other until one faction takes over. that's how civil wars work. We had one; remember? Yeah, that's the one that today's republikans think was won by the wrong side (see: Allen, George; Lott, Trent; Helms, Jesse, or a host of other crackers).
-
Bravo
Great article. This essay states just about everything that I have thought about the so-called "war on terror" ever since that horrible rhetorical mantra reared its ugly head. It also put words to a few things that I have thought but haven't yet articulated. There's nothing more pathetic than a 90 pound weakling throwing his measly weight around in a desperate attempt to impress the real tough guys, and that's exactly what the Democrats (with a few exceptions, Russell Feingold being the most notable) have been for the past 5 years.
I have been arguing against this war paradigm since the beginning. In the weeks after September 11th, everyone thought I was crazy for saying that the attack was a crime, and not an act of war (no army? no nation state? no sovreignty claims? no territorial ambitions?). They also thought that I was crazy for saying that Bush should have gotten an indictment against Bin Laden, preferably from the world court, before demanding his extradition and invading Afghanistan.
Taking war seriously entails recognizing that it is a heavy word, and not employing it lightly. I say lets end all metaphorical wars, from the War on Drugs, to the War on Obesity, to the horrendous, so called "War on Terror."
-
Kamiya vs. LeVine - The American Republic
Editor,
Mark LeVine just wrote an essay for Truthout describing the death of the first American Republic, the fatal blow being the passage of the Military Commissions Act. Your article, Wimpy Rambos is a perfect compliment to LeVine's essay in that it offers solutions that the Democrates could and should take to keep the Republic from actually dying. I agree fully with the arguments Gary Kamiya makes and will send this article to my list of Kindred Spirits, as I have done with the LeVine essay. In fact, I have been seriously considering letting my Salon subscription lapse when it comes up for renewal, because I believe your new format and content has fallen well below Salon's standards that caused me to subscribe in the first place. If Kamiya is gong to be a regular contributor, I may reconsider.
Richard C. Placone
Palo Alto, California
PS: I don't believe in anonymous statements, so would prefer you sign this letter, should you decide to publish it, just as I have signed it at the end of the letter above. Many thanks.