Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Mr. Hayden states that "it took three long years before Nixon's 'Vietnamization' policies ended in debacle and in a cutoff of Congressional funding." His word order suggest that the "debacle"--including Vietnamese refugees and Cambodian genocide -- preceded the Congressional cutoff. I remember it as the other way around, the cutoff triggering the debacle.

Does Tom Hayden change the order of events to avoid moral responsibility for his part in this tragedy?

Ed Schubert

Yuma, AZ

Dec 8 2007 - 7:19pm

Web Letter

I think this is the problem when the media chooses which candidates are the "top-tier." All the media cares about is the "big story." In this election you have Mrs. Clinton, a young black man, the former VP nominee, "America's Mayor," the rich business man and Mormon, the actor etc. These people are not in the top tier because they have the best stances or stances closely related to the people. But this is what the media and pundits want us to believe, and will refuse to give fair coverage to the other candidates, probably because of rating concerns. They would rather talk about the top-tier candidates' spouses or anything else hardly important.

If you really want a change in foreign policy, then Kucinich and Ron Paul are the only two candidates who will bring that. Otherwise, I think Richardson and Gravel are decent as well. If you think these Democrat Party candidates do not have a chance to win, then I would suggest voting for Ron Paul in the GOP primaries, where the race is very much undecided. Then you will at least have the chance of making the general election of Ron Paul vs. the Democratic Party nominee, which will at least give the best hope of a more peaceful foreign policy in the future.

Clifton Bachmeier

Long Beach, CA

Dec 2 2007 - 5:39pm

Web Letter

How about, if you want to end a war, you unbury the buried "how" and "why" of its origin? It seems to me that to let the cause slide by is to let it slide back in at some later time. This is not just about Iraq now, this about American war policy in the future. As such I find it odd that cntrl/f for "Israel" returns nothing for this article. The Israel lobby is the elephant in the living room when you talk neocon foreign policy, especially attacking Iran.

Why mention the unmentionable? Because a fair-minded US policy toward Israel would immeasurably help our relations with Arab states (besides that fact that it would be the right thing to do). Because Christian Zionists cowed by men like James Dobson basically put Bush in office. Because major elements of the neocon leadership like the Kagans are rabid Zionists playing the terrorism card for ulterior motives. Because the Israel lobby here is absolutely pro US warring away in the Mideast, including Iran, for reasons that have nothing to do with 911, and it lobbies with huge effect.

Not bringing in the Israel lobby is like talking gun control without mentioning the NRA.

Chris Kent

Portsmouth, NH

Dec 1 2007 - 3:01pm

Web Letter

Left unanswered is the point that Hayden's main assumption is that the war's diminishing must be some sort of smokescreen. It ain't necessarily so! What if the war actually ends? Should all political bets be placed on it continuing? A bit of sober thinking is due about where that might put the Democrats strategically.

John D. Froelich

Upper Darby, PA

Nov 30 2007 - 2:05am

Web Letter

While he has some good points, with Tom Hayden's name on any letterhead, involving any peace movement, it would be "Swift Boated" to death. Further, Iraq is not Vietnam and opposition to that war has been fueled by the incompetence of the Bush Administration and the neoconservatives. You have a majority of Americans wanting our troops out of Iraq. You need bottom-up organizations who may have different political views united behind getting the troops out. This means Ron Paul Republicans too. You might need a blog devoted to that single issue, that ignores any other partisan issues.

I am not going to vote for any candidate who supported the war or refused to cut off funding for the war. I have never voted for any candidate that wasn't a Democrat, but I am tired of settling for the lesser of two evils. I will therefore cut any candidate off at the knees, who will not bring the troops home from Iraq. Congress is under the impression that they know what they are doing and the American public is ignorant. The only way you will get their attention is to kick them out of office. The Republicans learned the hard way with immigration reform. We need to punish both parties over Iraq!

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA

Nov 29 2007 - 4:47pm