Letters to the Editor
-
Where would we be, had the French taken the same attitude during the American Revolution?
This is the most fatuous talking point among conservatives with hidden, terrorist-loving tendencies.
The American Revolution was not unique, we were not the first country to rebel against an imperial power, nor will we be the last (Iraq). Even then, are Canada and Australia worse off today because they achieved their independence later than us? No. Since I'm black, I actually would've supported the British after independence, considering they outlawed slavery a half-century before the United States.
-
Humpty Dumpty
Like Humpty Dumpty, Iraq cannot be put together again, no matter how long we stay there, no matter how many billions, and now trillions, of dollars we spend, no matter how rich we make Dick Cheney (whose Halliburton salary during his terms in office are merely being "deferred).
The real question facing us isn't whether the war in Iraq will be lost--it already has been. The question is whether our own democracy and freedom haven't been pushed off the wall like Humpty Dumpty, too.
I'd love to see the US restored to that lovely if not perfect time when the world respected us and we respected one another enough to have honest debates. Instead, we now have self-proclaimed contrarians spouting off the top of their heads about serious matters when their qualifications are not in science or political science but in popular culture.
-
Moral Arbiters?
Camille wrote:
"I don't share your admiration of President Bush's post-9/11 speech about terrorism. His warning to the world -- "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists" -- may please the ear with its syntactical symmetries, but it reveals a shockingly simplistic reading of geopolitics and indeed of life itself.
Since when did any nation -- even America, which I love -- become the dictatorial arbiter of morality? On what authority did President Bush, imperfectly advised by incompetent or mendacious underlings, divide the human race into those with us or against us? Who are we to demand or enforce such exclusivity and privilege? Why should our own self-interest take priority over that of all others? This is hubris, the excessive pride that both the Hebrew Bible and Greek tragedy warned against."
Please! Give me a break!! How complex do you have to be to realize that murder of innocents by terrorists is wrong? How much more simple could it be? Whoever supports murder - by supporting the terrorists and NOT us - is against us. Who made us moral arbiter? Al Queda on 9/11 - and before that with the USS Cole, the 1993 World Trade Bombing - all the way down to the beheadings of Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl.
Our own self interest over others? Pardon me, but you still have the right to defend your country and your citizens from murder - no matter what the UN says. And we are carrying the burden of battling these islamofascist beasts FOR the world because Europe and the West - except for Australia and (partially) Britain - don't have the national will or belief in themselves to assert that murder is wrong, that our Western civilization is better that the reductionist, 13th century vision of the Taliban. Their confidence, courage and ability to act in the defense of their society has been castrated by their political correctness.
Either you support defeating the terrorists or you don't...as we are leading that fight, you either support us in that fight or you don't. Complexities above that are only mental gymnastics, or liberal guilt, put forth in an attemp to rationalize or apologize for supporting Arafat and his ilk in the Arab world over the years. Years in which the core of the terrorists were formed and paid for by the Soviet Union (there is your tie in by the way) in their proxy war with us.
Did you miss the fact that the reason France, Germany, Russia et al did NOT support us was the fact they were all in on the Oil for Food scandal? They were being paid by Sadaam to break the sanctions regime in the UN and to prevent the US from attacking. Again - pretty simple. Those corrupt governments failed to support us because of their economic interests - no matter what happened to us or the rest of the world.
My God, Camille, you are a literate and informed person. Don't let your "enlightenment" get in the way of your intellect.
-
Tough to get through...
I didn't read every word but I hung in through the first few pages, then I started skimming. Really Salon, are all of your editors on vacation. Eight pages of Camille Paglia? I am not saying that she never has anything worthwile to say, and that her column should be yanked, but I rarely see anything run that long in Salon.
She is obviously a Democrat in much the same way as Joe Lieberman is a Democrat -- in name only. Her choice in voting for Nader is a great example, as no one is more responsible for placing Bush in the White House than Nader.
Also, I feel that she has a personal axe to grind with Al Gore. Not that I am much of an Al Gore fan (see previous paragraph for mention of his running mate--enough said) but I do respect a lot of the work that he's done to make people aware of global warming, and no, I don't think we're being taken for a ride by slick self serving politicians and fuzzy headed liberal scientists. I found the link to that Al Gore Budda inappropriate in a column supposedly tackling serious issues (maybe a little amusing, but inappropriate).
And finally, I would like to know more about that 2000 Florida election controversy that was "preplanned and fomented by a cadre of Democratic partisans". Maybe she could write another column to tell us how it was all orchestrated by that "braying ass, Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida".
-
I support the terrorist point of view
Conservatives have no problems with theocratic governments as long as they have no problem with Saudi Arabia. Until then, I don't want hear a word about terrorism - especially considering 15/19 hijackers were Saudi.