Letters to the Editor
-
At least . . .
she's finally using the term "cival war" in discussions about the war in Iraq.
George Bush cares about black people. Someone tell Kanye.
-
Condoleezza Rice: America's black Marie Antoinette
This sell-out refused to cut short her shoe-shopping while New Orleans was drowning.
Condoleezza has refused to this day to have anything significant to do with help for the miserable, wretched poor blacks of New Orleans. So it comes as a bit of a surprise that she would be so damned concerned about slavery.
Rice is America's black Marie Antoinette, stuffing her little piggies into thousand dollar shoes and dabbing flecks of white souffle from her big red lips.
-
Condi is an incompetent fool
I didn't think it was possible for anyone in the Administration to say anything more idiotic than Rummmy's appeasement speech, but I should have known Condi would come through for us. Even after all these years, I am continuallly astonished at both the depths of her ignorance, which is peerless, notwithstanding the company she keeps, and her willingness to say absolutely anything to defend Bush. That this woman is out in the world representing the United States at the highest level is an embarrassment to me and should be to every citizen of this country.
-
Well, actually, there was someone who felt that way...
His name was Abraham Lincoln. People are so caught up in the myth and story of Lincoln they often forget that Lincoln's first priority was to reunite the Union. He didn't agree with slavery, but didn't find the moral imperative to free them. That is, until he saw the strategic value of destroying the South's economic base, causing civil strife for them, and having a whole new demographic for military recruits, he did nothing. And, had he not been killed, he probably would have done as little for slaves as Johnson did in the Postbellum period, as long as it would ensure unity with the South.
Ol' Georgie boy likes to think of himself as a Lincoln-ish figure. Maybe he should reconsider that idea.
-
How about slavery supporters?
Odd comments coming from a representative of an administration that still supports slavery.
Just ask any soldier who thought their tour of duty was up, only to be told they had to stay in Iraq.
-
I like where her head's at
While her analogy is inane to say the least, I like her train of thought.
I wish we would've allowed the south to secede from the Union. They'd still be picking cotton by hand and using single shot muskets.
-
so now we're talking civil war?
So, apparently a comparison to the American Civil War is appropriate when trying to defend their point of view but it's not actually a, you know, civil war over there. Riiigghhtt...
If we're throwing around inflammatory rhetoric, let's make apt comparisons:
The Bush Administration engages in terrorism. On 9|11|01 a terrorist attack was committed by fundamentalist Muslims on American soil. Not too long after, America brough "shock and awe" to Iraq, an uninvolved entity in 9|11. "Shock and Awe" was meant to TERRORIZE the enemy into surrender.
So, as long as we're throwing verbal fire bombs, let's be sure to call the kettle black: George W. Bush is our own Osama bin Laden. He's American Terrorist #1. I mean, there is such a thing as state sponsored terrorism, right? Or if it's committed by a Nation do we have to call it war? I guess the dead people don't really see the distinction.
Now, not all Muslims are terrorists and not all Americans are terrorists but Osama is and Bush is. This is not an ephemeral comparison. Bush's military (of which he is the Commander and Chief) has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who had absolutely nothing to do with 9|11.
Tangibly, how is that not terrorism? We lied to the world when Powell went before the UN to justify invasion, we invaded a country that didn't attack us, we've killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, and we still haven't caught the real perpetrators of 9|11. Finally, the Bush Administration has used fear as a weapon to control Americans at home. Even this latest tactic of branding anti-war supporters as pro-slavery people seeks to instill fear in the less politically astute.
The reality is that we are not fighting the good and moral fight. We are not the Allied powers in WWII and we are not the North in the Civil War. As a black woman, Rice should be ashamed to use that language. In the same way that white people can't use "nigger" (or nigga if you need it spelled more culturally correct) even though it's part of hip-hop culture - comparing anti-war supporters to pro-slavery people is similar to saying "anti-war supporters hate black people". No, that's Bush, remember? Kanye hipped you to that fact just about a year ago - right after Katrina.
Justifying an unjustifiable war based on deception and lies, conducted on the backs of Iraqi civilians more than 100,000 of which are dead as a result of just how shocked and awed they were by our military might, by equating the war opposition to slavery supporter by a black woman is beyond the pale. It shouldn't be shocking that people who are willing to kill mercilessly - who will terrorize an entire region for their PNAC dreams - would stoop so low as to call their detractors Nazi sympathizers and slavery supporters but here we are.
So much for compassionate conservatism, huh?
-
The Verbal Tic...
...of "some people say" has gotton out of hand. At this point, anytime one of these fascist wannabes claim "some people say" or "some people thought," the media should automatically respond with "Who are these people? Where can they be found?", followed by "aren't you just setting up a strawman in order to avoid dealing with honest criticism of your policies?"
But the media just sit there, as Bob somerby would stay, staring into air, and dutifully transcribing this calumny against critics of what has become a complete train wreck of a presidency.
-
Interesting staw man - but totally inaccurate
The problem with Mr. Rice's idea is twofold:
1. I don't recall the US going to fight slavery in other countries (aka - Sudan, South Africa, etc).
2. Iraq is not a part of the United States.
The issue with Iraq is twofold:
1. It was a war that should not have been fault because it distracted us from the true war on terror (aka - hunting down Osama bin Laden and his partners - which were not in Iraq) and because Iraq not only did not have weapons of mass destruction, the work of the inspectors was actually working (since he was certainly unable to make more or distribute what he didn't have).
2. Even if the war is started, there is a time to get out, or at least change how the US operates. I like Senator Murtha's plan of pulling troops back into a ring around Iraq. Monitor who goes in and out and focus on preventing outsiders from getting in (which should help reduce the influx of foreign elemenets) and let the Iraqis deal with their internal issues. With the troops on the outside there would still be the capacity for short assistance (via air or otherwise), but US troops would not be meddling day to day in Iraqi affairs.
Sadly, I think the money for current contractors and the hope for making Iraq something of a quasi-colony (we keep troops there forever "keeping the peace" while keeping oil companies fat on the outflow as a way to reduce the power of OPEC) means that this administration is not interested in leaving Iraq - whether that's right for the "war on terror", the Iraqi people, or anyone but their business interests.
Of course, this is just my opinion - I could be wrong.