Letters to the Editor
-
On Hillary: Live by the sword; Die by the sword
Ms. Paglia,
In your piece, "Hillary without Tears," you wrote a profound essay on why Hillary and her entourage should leave the world stage. Yet, at the end you will vote for her if she is your party's nominee. Where is that hardboiled integrity I so fondly remember from you?
I think the country could survive another four to eight years of a Republican selected cabinet or Supreme Court justice. History contradicts your presumption that the party in power is monolithic to its Liberal or Conservative coordinates in appointing positions of high power.
I shudder to imagine living through another Clinton's Presidency. You made the case and I agree that Mrs Clinton holds a disdain for masculinity. You are right on point to suggest her Machiavellian nature and Nixonian reflexes "steeped in toxic gender bias".
I really don't care what you do in the privacy of the voting booth. However, you leave the reader with a bitter aftertaste when you offer to fall in line with the devil herself.
You could have just ended your critique by falling on your sword and leaving your integrity intact.
-
huh?
Why use words like 'barracuda' & 'brittle' to describe Hillary Clinton, and label her goal of becoming president 'messianic'? Would these same terms be used describe any other (read:male) candidate? Why attempt to judge her character based upon how she relates to the men around her, and how those men themselves behave?
Why? Because Camille Paglia remains a hateful hypocrite & a fool.
-
So
marrying a man means you like men?
when a man- like lesbian
calls a married woman a man hater, I just have to laugh a little. And you think Madonna is a genious too, LOL!
My theory is that only women who HATE men marry them because it is the best way to punish and use the men in your life.
Lesbians often seem to understand men better than do straight women.
-
The Political Expediency of Tears
I hope everyone understands that Hillary's teary-eyedness was for her frustration at the American people for not understanding that it is her turn in the Oval Office. It doesn't matter that over half of the American people hate her. She is asking us to ignore the fact that the man she is using to get elected is a president who was impeached while in office and seeded the divisiveness that makes it near impossible for Congress to get anything done. She forgets that for the first time in American history, a sitting US president was questioned under oath about his sexual proclivities in the OVAL office - not with his wife but with a young intern on the payroll of the federal government. She is asking us to ignore the fact that our US tax dollars had to pay for this investigation. She is asking us to believe that she is a champion of women's issues even though she has stood by a man who has harassed and abused women most of his political life.
What Hillary also doesn't mention is at one-time she was part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, including campaigning for Barry Goldwater, who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights bill and caused a mass exodus of African Americans from the Republican party to the Democratic Party.
The Presidency is about character and leadership and as Bill Bradley so eloquently stated "how he or she handles power". I know how Hillary handles powere. It's called the Politics of Personal Destruction and conquer and divide. I'm casting my vote in the Nevada caucus for Obama.
-
Predictable Responses
Folks, it bears repeating that these feedback mechanisms are the equivalent of Nielsen ratings: the more people respond because they hate what this writer says, the more incentive there is to keep her.
But since people are too inclined to respond, Salon's editors don't have a compelling reason to let this woman's contract run out.
You all can read about it when I burst upon the scene with my brilliant book, "The Inevitability of Stupidity".....
-
DanW329
>>So there you have it. Educated 20-somethings like me are engaged with the Democratic Party at a level not seen for decades- but I can almost guarantee that if Clinton is the nominee that will fade away like the morning dew- perhaps never to return. Its a golden opportunity...try not to throw it away.<<
Frankly, for all of me, you can pick up your marbles and go home now, kid. The last children's crusade didn't end too well for the Democratic Party. We need committed adults who understand the political process, not little princes who plan to sulk in their tents if their candidate is not nominated. I'm for Edwards, but if he doesn't make it on the ballot then I'm for Hillary, and if not her, I'll vote for Obama. What do you plan to do in November?
BTW, I'm an educated 50-something. Big deal.
-
The real reason we invaded
To understand the real reason we invaded Iraq, I refer you to Dr. George Friedman’s three hour, sit down, CSPAN interview, and his book, America’s Secret War. Dr. Friedman is the owner of the world’s largest private intelligence agency, Stratfor.
Dr. Freidman’s analysis, a bit of history and some reasoning leads me to support the President.
To understand the invasion we must go back 30 years, tracing U.S. reaction to terrorist attacks. From the Arab/Persian view, each incident (Carter’s response to Iran’s seizing of our embassy, Reagan’s response to the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebonon, Clinton’s response to the first World Trade Center bombing, the USS Cole attack and Mogadishu and even the first president Bush’s successful ousting of Saddam from Kuwait) were seen as examples of American impotence. None of our reactions changed a thing in the Arab/Persian world.
According to Dr. Friedman, in March of 2001, the head of the CIA, George Tenet, told the president that the CIA had evidence that Al Queda may have acquired possibly 3 atomic devices. Asked for more intelligence, Tenet replied that the intelligence services that know the most about Al Queda (Iran, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia) are not cooperating with the CIA. At that moment, 30 years of perceived American impotence as well as the current inability to capture Bin Laden came crushing down on the President. History taught these governments that there is no compelling reason for them to cooperate with the United States.
A game of geopolitical chess was playing out.
The question was how to get these Arab governments to share intelligence. A geopolitically decisive move was needed. Forget sanctions or international pressure. There was only one workable move, the dramatic overthrow of a Mid East state.
It was clear that Osama had made some good moves but he underestimated President Bush’s resolve to react differently than his predecessors. By assigning mostly Saudi’s to attack on 9/11, he tempted the U.S. to react against Saudi Arabia. By using Afghanistan as his base, he invited the U.S. into a battle. Both options were relished by Bin Laden. Either would be bad moves for the U.S. On the other hand should the United States do nothing, as in previous attacks, Bin Laden would gain more stature and hit us again.
Destabilizing Saudi Arabia is exactly what Bin Laden wanted. He hates the royal family. They took away his passport and banished him. The nation has a strong contingent of Wahabi clerics ready to seize control at the slightest sign of weakness. A move into Saudi Arabia would create chaos in the western economies and place the people Osama wants (radical Wahabi’s) into power. Saudi Arabia was out.
One could consider Afghanistan. It is Bin Laden’s battle field of choice. He helped defeat the Russians there and would like nothing better than to do the same to United States. I would refer you to two great books on this topic, Charlie Wilson’s War by George Crile and Jawbreaker by Gary Berntsen, Ralph Pezzullo. The CIA, according to Jawbreaker, requested that the President send large numbers of regular troops into Afghanistan to capture Bin Laden. For anyone who read Charlie Wilson’s War, (about the Soviet experience in Afghanistan) sending large numbers of troops into Afghanistan would have been a disaster. I’m told that the words for “stranger” and “enemy” are the same in Afghan. These people are frightening. They bugger captured soldiers and then skin them alive. Soviet soldiers were terrified of the Afghans. The President wisely vetoed invading Afghanistan. Besides, Bin Laden was already marginalized. At that time he was hiding in a cave somewhere.
This left Syria, Iran, Egypt, Pakistan and Iraq as choices.
Syria and Iran, although recognized as terrorist states, had done nothing recently to prompt a U.S. invasion. These two countries were out of the equation. Pakistan presented its own complexities but invasion would be counter productive, we needed Musharraf. Egypt is a friend... so to speak. Only Iraq remained. The premises given were sound and valid but weren’t complete. They were:
1. Saddam violated 17 U.N. resolutions since the end of the Gulf War.
2. Saddam had, for 10 years, violated a U.N. treaty by shooting at American/British planes in the no-fly-zone.
3. Saddam tried to assassinate the President of the United States
4. Saddam had or was close to having WMD’s.
Plus the battlefield was in our favor. We knew it well from the previous Gulf War.
Thus the war was sold on true but incomplete premises. The real reason we invaded Iraq can never be discussed by the administration. You can’t invade one country to make other countries cooperate. That is international suicide. The hard truth is that sometimes presidents have to lie and make unpalatable decisions. (See Robert Kapplan’s excellent, Warrior Politics, Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos).
According to Dr. Friedman, the moment American boots crossed into Iraq, the flood gates were opened. Intelligence services of all these countries began passing information to the CIA. These governments are afraid of President Bush and what he might do next. This is as it should be at this time.
There’s no way to prove invading Iraq made the United States safer but the fact is we haven’t been hit again since 9/11. For this and for no other reason, I support President Bush in this one decision. Invading Iraq was a necessary tactical move. Whether or not it is strategically sound is another question. Time will tell us.
And the chess game continues.
Sincerely,
Robert Seabridge