Letters to the Editor
-
There it is, and it came on fast
David Sugerman stepped in and equated being opposed to the intransigent Israeli government or being opposed to Israeli policies to being antisemitic. Pa-leeeze. One CAN be opposed to Israel's policy of "crush not only the bodies of the Palestinians, but their souls too" and NOT be antisemitic. Pro-Israel is NOT synonymous with being 'pro-Jew' anymore than being anti-Israel is synonymous with 'anti-Jew'. It is even possible for one to be a Jew and be opposed to Israel's policies and actions!
Here's some facts: Israel's policies have been a constant 'pulling off the scab' with regards to its actual security. You CANNOT confiscate or occupy other people's land and give it to your favored classes of people and obtain peace and security. Impossible. Israel is NOT entitled to any land that was not in the originating UN partition plan that created Israel out of thin air. Israel is NOT the 51st state of the United States. Its 'security' is NOT synonymous with US security. Its 'interests' are NOT automatically synonymous with US interests. It is merely a country like any other and must be treated as such. These are stone-cold facts and have nothing to do with the personal animus that is antisemitism.
-
The banality of hyperbole
When I see a word like "ruinous" describing the Iraq war, I question the authors motivation and command of English.
There are many adjectives that might be used to describe the Iraq War, but to be true to the facts and English, "ruinnous" is not one of them.
-
Sesanders still doesn't understand
I do not agree with his/her assessment that the Democrats are doing nothing. They are trying to facilitate a withdrawal from Iraq but they are hamstrung by forces which are completely frustrating the process. Calling them cowards, etc. is not going to get us out of Iraq.
The Dems are NOT cowards. The problem is not that the Dems are afraid and pathetic and spineless and mushy and without any ideas and beholden to nothing. The problem with the Dems, and THE reason they are not doing anything substantive (and will do NOTHING substantive) to end the Iraq war or prevent an attack on Iran is because the Dems are fully complicit!
The Dems do NOTHING of note to reverse ANY of the abuses and outrages of the Bush Administration because they are complicit and they, at heart as a party, agree with everything the Bush Admin has done. They just don't like SOME of the targets of the abuses and lawlessness. They figure that if they get control (Congress AND the White House) then they will be able to pick the targets of their own equal lawlessness and abuses. The "unitary executive" nonsense isn't going to go anywhere because the Dems AGREE with it. Part of that nonsense is making illegal war with any and all little countries that wont tow the line with regards to American corporate interests. It really is that simple.
-
In 2000 you blamed Nader
In 2004 you blamed the swiftboat dirty tricks
In 2007 you blame the Jews
It's always something, isn't it?
-
History Will Be Kind To George W. Bush As Liberator Of The Iraqi People
The effete demonization of President Bush takes no account of the presidents political drive and electoral skills which prpoelled him from Governor of Texas into the White House formerly occupied by his father. Bush 41 was to the right of Colin Powell with his Iraq strategy, but relented and let Saddam live to intimidate the Clinton Administration into no action. After kicking out the UN inspectors in response to a limp effort of Clinton to bomb aspirin factories alleged to be in league with terrorists, Saddam safely couched himself with the endearing American Left and Dan Rather. God Bless Condoleeza Rice for being an American patriot of sterling vision in international affairs. War is hell. There is no political public policy which can justify the killing in the 21st century. As we brace ourselves for the Dr. King monument in Washington DC we are reminded that politicians will utilize an anti-war sentiment to curry favor with citizens who do not feel a patriotic responsibility to support any war as a national objective: citizens like Dr. King and Ghandi.
Bush is the adult who recognizes that the world is a dangerous place. Too dangerous for Manchurian games of international intrigue and one-world delusions from people too comfortable to Castro and Chavez.
Bush was clear. Saddam must go. The majority will rule. But what about the fight they do not talk about. The fight about Sunni's who controlled the oil well under Saddam and were and are in league with Al Qaida in Iraq. The fight about majority Shi-ites finallt getting a piece of the oil action through poltical sharing. Bush hatred is identified in teh oriental mind as Bani Bush (the son of the Bush family). Bani Bush to irate Shi-ites is the scion of a family who lied to Shi-ites who were willing to oppose Saddam, who were later slaughtered by the Butcher of Baghad. Bush said Democracy is the answer. He is right. Democrats have alway been afraid to get too far to the left of Bush on this issue of justice in Iraq. Because Bush is historically correct, and their bankrupt cut and run strategies will do nothing to make the world safer by appeasing dictators. We build a statue to Martin Luther King Jr. to be done by the maker of the statue for communist dictator Chairman Mao in China, but ending this war by humanitarian means can only be achieved by institution of a government in Iraq which guarantees liberty and power to Iraqi citizens. To do less in Un-American.
Ralph W. Conner
-
ARE DEMOCRATS MISSING THE BOAT
You have written a very informative article. However I must dissagree with you on how the democrtats have hasndled the situation in Iraq and other problems which you addressed in your very good report.
The democrats can do nothing without the republicans help, and as long as they walk in lock-step with George Bush nothing will change.
The majority of the people in this country do not even keep up with this war, they are too busy trying to support their families by putting food on the table and paying for their health care. If they do not have a family member in Iraq or Aftganistan then they do not listen to the news reports about the dead and wounded in this war.
Something must be done to get the people attention, and a draft would get their attention in a hurry. Most people in the White House or Congress who support this war have never fought in a war and the ones who are not fighting in this war do not want to fight in a war. Everyone in this country should share in the responsibility of this war by either demanded that Congress end it or get involved until it is ended.