Letters to the Editor
-
(Un)Realists
The most frustrating thing about it (and kudos to Mr. Greenwald for drawing attention to this in his tireless way) is how the "realist/pragmatist" position, as portrayed in the media, is anything BUT realistic or pragmatic: 1) Support permanent war at expense of needed domestic spending; 2) Endlessly increase military budget; 3) Back untenable, undemocratic, autocratic Third World regimes; 4) Undermine international institutions in favor of unilateralism; 5) Engage in wars of opportunity around the globe, as required/desired; 6) Continue our dependence on fossil fuels; 7) Pursue foreign policies that further erode American credibility.
And this is after it's already been demonstrated that the standard neocon/reactionary Cold Warrior Big Army(tm) approach doesn't work as a deterrent to or as a defense from terrorism (see 9/11 for example).
But the media considers that the realist position, and anything outside of that is not even considered -- even among mainstream liberal pundits, who are too busy trying to establish "realist" bona fides. There is a wafer-thin continuum of acceptable public opinion -- and this serves defense contractors just fine, but doesn't help our country much at all in the long run.
Just as Bush's War in Iraq created the very menace in Iraq he was claiming to be protecting us from, so I see the "realist" stance doing much the same with the country at large.
-
Gary assumes there are two separate parallel Americas
And he is in one of them, pure and blameless, unsullied by the merest hint or stench. While his dopple other is evil stupidity incarnate.
Talk about Manichean? Talk about unreflective? Talk about dull?
-
Not your best, Gary
Bush sucks, yadda yadda yadda. You're not telling us anything we don't already know; just more preachin' to the choir (to stick with the God metaphors).
I don't know what lessons 'we' learned from Iraq; 'we' didn't choose to go to war. Most of 'us' are either categorically sickened and depressed by it or simply too stubbornly naive to want to face the possibility that it was a horrible, horrible mistake. My poor Republican mother still thinks Saddam managed to stash the weapons of mass destruction or, even more laughably, hand them over to Al Qaida on the eve of the invasion! And most of my liberal friends (and, it seems, most of your readers) are just stuck on their hatred of Bush and can't see the complexity of the rise to war in the Middle East (which has been seriously debated by every President and his advisors since Ford) or the need to stop obsessing about what we can't change and start thinking about the future.
It's not enough to say 'Bush and his stupid religion have screwed us all for good.' Yes, Bush blew it, big time, but the conflict we are now irreversibly immersed in was destined from the moment someone figured out there was a lot of oil in the ground over there. We might have been able to put it off for another ten or twenty years, but the rise of radical Islamic terrorism had long since begun, and the specter of war between the west and a sovereign Middle Eastern state has been ever-present since the aftermath of World War II.
Bush's mistakes have now left the rest of the world with real problems that have to be dealt with. History will take care of George W. Bush--I say it's time to stop repeating the obvious and whining about what can't be changed, and start seriously questioning what's next: what can we seriously expect from the various candidates who might inherit the current debacle? How realistic is a withdrawal from the region? What will be the aftermath of the civil war, and will we be able to negotiate with the keepers of the spoils? What, if anything, can be realistically done to reduce the presence of western business interests in the Middle East? Can we really prevent an Islamic Fundamentalist state like Iran from acquiring nuclear capability, and how long will it be before they're ready and willing to strike at Israel or another of our allies? Is there an outcome that doesn't involve the West conquering the Middle East, either through the sort of economic enslavement we've used against Mexico and Central America, or through an outright return to colonialism?
And why have the vaunted Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate been so utterly impotent to do anything to slow the downward spiral of a lame duck president with the lowest approval ratings of any president since Nixon?
Any of those questions are much more relevant than a rehash of Bush's woes.
-
In Response to Sigh by Vampirolog
A fabulous post. It's true that lazy reasoning emanates from all sides of the political spectrum, and the American people bear moral responsibility for the Iraq travesty. And now one sector of the people are riveted by a country boy act by a lazy actor/lobbyist, or maybe a tough guy act by a loony former mayor of NY. As Vampirolog suggests, these "leaders" are symptoms, not causes.
I am a moderate but a very alarmed moderate.
-
Lessons learned?
Absolutely no lessons learned here. The majority of American people are sheep, easily led and very prone to mindless Nationalism. Even after this war they would follow another into Iran if they media drum beat was loud enough. Until people pull their collective heads out of their asses we are doomed. I was wise to Bush before he was appointed (never fell for the super dumb idea that he and Gore were the same). I knew the WMD thing was a lie and that the war would be a disaster. I was not alone. Those of us who were paying attention knew. The rest were too busy watching Sports, American idol and picking fluff out of their navel. Those who out of ignorance supported this colosal CLstrFck are just as guilty as those who did it out of malice.
-
Somnambulism
"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny" - attributed to T. Jefferson
Never were these words more true as the majority of this nation's citizens 'sleep walked', as Gary observed, into this disaster.