Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

The foxes are watching the foxes who are in the henhouse. More government contractors, more fascism. Does the military do anything, for itself, except send our ill-equipped soldiers to die in desolate foreign sandboxes?

More private contractors mean more lobbyists; just what this country needs in Washington, more corruption. Just as was said during the Nixon administration: it's the best government money can buy.

I thought prostitution was illegal in most of America. Of course, it appears to be legal in the District of Columbia. The lobbyists are nothing but pimps and the Congress is nothing but whores who serve at the pleasure of big business. The best part is it's all above-board; nobody tries to hide it. It's legitimate, like the state of Nevada.

Charles Lingenfelser

Brandon, MS

Dec 11 2009 - 8:41pm

Web Letter

I do not want to see aid to Afghanistan or Iraq pass through the hands of private contractors. Aid programs would be beggared by the "costs" of administration, and the money would go into the pockets of multinational corporations.

The privatization of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has driven the cost of these wars through the roof. It has also contributed to the deaths of both military personnel and civilians in these countries.

Apparently because of an article in the New York Times on Blackwater, CNNI had a piece on them on International Desk with Jim Clancy this morning. Blackwater is denying working for the CIA. They need to get their story straight!

Pervis James Casey

Riverside, CA

Dec 11 2009 - 3:49pm

Web Letter

A crazed spending spree works as a diversion for members of Congress who can't provide the public with evidence in favor of anyone's spending even a first penny on a war against Iraq.

In the same way that Claire McCaskill, as co-chair of Obama's presidential campaign, took it upon herself to secure legislation that would ascertain for any doubting voter the fact of John McCain's citizenship (and so his qualifications as a candidate for the presidency), so McCaskill could've arranged for copies of invoices for any and all war-related expenditures to pass her desk--especially when she was in Congress because she entertained grave doubts about that war.

In 2008, McCaskill was the twelfth wealthiest person in the Senate. As evidence of her experience, she has listed such jobs as prosecutor and state auditor. If McCaskill's co-workers can prosecute a war (as others would prosecute an individual) while possessing no evidence in favor of any such thing, what--except wasted time--does the fact that one has been a prosecutor mean?

As for McCaskill's experience as an auditor, I can only ask this: What method or school of auditing rewards the spending of one's own soldiers on the election of one's preferred presidential candidate--especially when the other candidate's sole interest lies in putting to the best use the already-contracted-for lives of those same soldiers?

I have one question for anyone, and not excluding Jeremy Scahill, who would weigh in on what they see as the bad business practices being employed to prosecute this war. How could all of Iraq have known of the plans for 9/11 and everyone in the US have been totally in dark?

J.E. Bernecky

Westover, PA

Dec 11 2009 - 8:38am

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.