Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Is Mayor Giuliani splitting away from the Republican Party?

Here is his personal breakthrough moment that allegedly happened during the second Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina:

Giuliani seized an opportunity and won applause when Texas Rep. Ron Paul said US policy in the Middle East was a reason for the 9/11 attacks. "That's an extraordinary statement...that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq (and the Middle East)," Giuliani said. "I don't think I've ever heard that before, and I've heard some pretty absurd explanations for September 11th."

It finally happened for Mr. Giuliani.

He spent a lifetime within the Republican Party and he never heard that the locals might retaliate if we keep depriving them from their own state, from their own homes and property, if we keep supporting the local dictators who deprived the Arabs from freedom and democracy or if we keep imposing sanctions that harmed and malnourished the civil population and cetera.

Mr. Giuliani was already disgusted with the official White House explanations that the 9/11 happened for the terrorists hated our freedom and democracy. Mr. Giuliani knows that every war in history of humankind was about control of land and money, so there is no reason that this war be an exception.

Mr. Giuliani was embarrassed with the reactions of his party colleagues who failed to cope with a trick question of Fox New Channel moderator.

Brit Hume asked if the terrorists previously attacked three shopping malls in the USA but were caught of the Florida coast and transferred to Guantánamo, whether the candidates as an acting President would order torture to be used in order to prevent the second terrorist attack we already got confirmed information about?

This question was really, really loaded.

If the three terrorist attacks already happened, the next one would be the fourth, not the second attack.

The question implies that the Republican President would fail to prevent three different terrorist attacks.

The question implies that the Republican Presidential priority would be to torture people instead of figuring out why the system failed to prevent those previous attacks.

The question is completely irrelevant, for the person who informed us with 100 percent certainty that another terrorist attack was coming should be able to tell us where and how it was going to happen.

The real question would be why the person with such top knowledge of secretive terrorist operations failed to warn us about previous attacks.

The question was loaded with a bias that torture can protect our country and that President not willing to torture is not patriotic enough regardless of international embarrassment this approach could cause.

Every torturous regime in the world can come up with the perfectly logical explanation why it tortured.

For example, the Inquisition tortured to protect God from people but failed to understand that Inquisition itself was blasphemous for God doesn't need us to protect Him. God is Almighty, not any church. By extension, any so-called religious war is against God, not in God's name. The basic premise of any religious war is that God is helpless to stop those infidels so we have to stop them.

All the hatred associated with a torture is a proof that such a heart is filled with hatred, not with God's Commandments.

The fundamental deficiency of torture is that implies a torturer is God. A torturer a priory knows what a prisoner knows and makes him suffer until he confess what he supposedly knows. But, reality is that only God knows what a different person thinks.

A torture might extract important information from a prisoner but our human limitations make it sure that we will torture many innocent people too who just can't deliver information they never knew.

The right question would be whether any presidential candidate would personally torture a prisoner to extract some potential information.

Mr. Giuliani realized that the Fox News Channel is just a Trojan horse of liberal conspiracy designed to push away the middle-class form the Republican Party by its radical political platform.

Really, what kind of people would trust the Fox News Channel and closely associated Republican Party if Mayor Giuliani never heard on that station that the White House meddling into the domestic affairs of different Arab countries might turn the local population against us?

Is there any nation in the world that would welcome such infringement upon own sovereignty?

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

May 17 2007 - 11:17am

Web Letter

Unfortunately, the lack of information in debates probably is reflective of the ignorance of the average voter.

A debate heavy on substance would leave most listeners in the dust; they would be lost. Obviously the media don't want to present a losing show, so they put it in a palatable format: pablum for the masses. The debaters are lucky they aren't forced to fight and strip their clothes off like Jerry Springer's contestants.

Democracy is a failure.

Todd Peterson

Silver Spring, MD

May 8 2007 - 11:35am

Web Letter

Sadly I must agree that the level of political discourse in our country is sub-basement fare. But then we get the level of debate we deserve, don't we?

Barely 51 percent of the public take the time to vote; our news media are little more than shills for specious policies, and nowhere can the truth be found in journalism or politics.

I find it terribly ironic that Mr. von Hoffman points to Ronald Reagan as "a politician who can express him or herself with originality, power, grace, knowledge and reason." Whenever Reagan tried extemporaneous speech he could offer little more than snide quips; hardly reasoned, never graceful and, unfortunately for American politics, never, ever knowledgeable.

Any power, elegance or originality came directly from Mr. Reagan's speechwriters; his only contribution was his ablility as an actor to present the words others wrote in a compelling fashion. In fact, Reagan more than any other contemporary politician, embodied the triumph of illusion over substance.

William Miller

Boston, MA

May 7 2007 - 8:55am

Web Letter

Yes, I must say, as a European, you get quite amazed by how completely void of any information, argument, substance and even opinion Amercian political debates are.

I feel sorry for Americans.

David Rang

Stockholm, Sweden

May 4 2007 - 5:42pm