Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Taking a strictly bipartisan view, there has to be an inexorable deadline for bringing the troops back home because the President can't be allowed to use arguments of "not cutting and running" and "staying the course" to leave American troops in Iraq indefinitely.

This could turn out to be years or even decades from now. I respect the argument of not leaving Iraq in a fragile state of anarchy and instability or leaving the country worse than we met it, but that's no excuse to leave the troops there forever. It's more than four years now, with not much to show for it, and no reconstruction to boast of even after billions of taxpayers' money has been spent.

A clear, fair and binding deadline needs to be given to both sides, giving a fair amount of time for the Administration to achieve what it wants to achieve in Iraq and sending a clear message out to the American people that its troops will be coming home.

With a clear deadline dangling in front of the Iraqis and this Administration, a new sense or "urgency to get things done" will be created, which will include training a strong and stable Iraq security force and institutions to serve the country and relieve the job from our troops, and create a strong and stable democratic government of the Iraqi people to rule Iraq.

The insurgents' major battle cry is removal of what they see as an invading force. A withdrawal deadline would remove this--plus, if they are represented in a stable democratic government, this removes the need to bomb and maim.

A fair and clear deadline would be between eighteen and twenty-four months from today. This is the best bipartisan way forward.

Lotenna Okeke

New York, NY

Jul 30 2007 - 1:11pm

Web Letter

It's déjà vu, all over again, this time, against Iran. And again, the "Al CIAduh" boogeyman is trotted out for all to see and fear to help start another Bush war of aggression.

Some of the same lies, distortions, half-truths and an American military buildup in the Middle East, all with one goal in mind: to start the bombing campaign against Iran.

Although this time around, some of the media are a bit reluctant to go along with the agitprop being dished out. They're nervous bridesmaids, still a bit chafed that they bought all the lies and BS that led to the current illegal and immoral war against Iraq.

But they won't wait long at the MIC altar. The same echo-chamber that was so successful in selling the War against Iraq is being cranked up again. Slowly, the MSM, still blushing like the new bride it is, will open it's mouth eagerly and quickly swallow whole the treat that is being offered by their newest husband, the demented neocons.

Somewhere, there's a budding Judith Miller, toiling away furiously, retyping pro war talking points as she carries out the goals of her masters, the White House War Mongers. And let's not forget Mr. Judith Miller, the idiotic and easily fooled NYT hack, Michael Gordon. Gordon does his master's bidding exceedingly well, prepping the gullible American public for the next war of aggression.P.S. Hey, Mikey: You can always tell your readers that the War against Iraq was a typo. It should have read: War against Iran.

And there's CNN, which like to boast it's the best in the news business. Which can be easily verified by the amount of time CNN always devotes to blonde bimbos, like Paris Hilton.

When President Cheney cracks the whip, CNN will jump on board even more than it already is and start selling this next war of aggression as "Us against Them."Us being the good guys in white hats and them, well, them is anyone the neocons deem an obstacle to its goal of ME hegemony.

Soon, American troops will again be used as mercenaries for neocon dreams of ME domination.

Greg Bacon

Ava, MO

Jul 19 2007 - 4:30pm

Web Letter

Hardly anybody noticed a great example of bipartisanship on the Capitol Hill. After Senator Denis Vitter disappeared into seclusion, the Senate Democrats brought a bunch of beds, many pizzas and organized exclusive late night session to lure him back by fooling the missing Senator that some wild party might be underway.

But, the Senate Republicans dimissed this action by calling it senseless for they wanted (in departure from their official Iraq policy) to go home early.

Additionally, a staunch Republican supporter Bill Bennett in his letter to the National Review Online asked for the Republican leadership to stay united, shoulder to shoulder, with our troops in Iraq and not let a single ray of daylight come between them.

I had no idea that daylight rays are so wide, knowing there is a geographic separation equal to the sum of the Atlantic Ocean, Africa, the Arabian Peninsula, the Red Sea and the Arab Gulf between the GOP and the military personnel, as well as the financial difference equal to dozens of millions of dollars between the individual banking accounts of the members of Republican leadership and our troops serving in Iraq.

No wonder that Mr. Bennett preferred to keep the geographic and financial separation between them and the troops, so he offered only poetic and platonic support.

Kenan Porobic

Charlotte, NC

Jul 19 2007 - 3:08pm

Web Letter

George W. Bush has the attitude Nixon stated thirty years ago on Face the Nation, that "if the President does it, then it is not illegal". When George H.W. Bush was President, it didn't seem like the Bushes had such tyranny in them, because most past Presidents when they traveled the world were respectable. Bush Jr., like Nixon, believes that he is above the law. However, Nixon got caught and agreed to resign the presidency. George W. Bush has yet to admit that he is wrong, except for claiming that he "takes responsibility" for the various scandals that occur (e.g., Iraq, Hurricane Katrina, Walter Reed etc.), which does not sound very convincing to most people. He may seem to be in the same category as a king, but if he is President past January 20, 2009, then he is most certainly a king, since US Presidents are only entitled to two terms for four-eight years in office. Either he will run out his term miserably for the next two years, or there can be legislation pushed for impeachment, since it is evident that Bush and the Administration breached constitutional barriers on torture abroad, which is against the Geneva Conventions, and warrantless domestic wiretapping, which violates FISA and the Fourth Amendment, and misled Congress to a very flawed war in Iraq. Unfortunately, some bad people either get a slap on the wrist or get off very easily. Thus, the Constitution Restoration Act must be enacted to enforce the rule of law not only on US citizens, but on hypocritical government officials and politicians as well.

Nick Rosen

Great Falls, VA

Jul 18 2007 - 5:48pm

Web Letter

Ho Hum! This hackneyed argument continues, the only thing missing was how the '00 and '04 election were stolen. You continue your mindless rhetoric, offering the same old critique with no support to your claims and no solutions to the problems posed. The Democrats have the majority in Congress and have the power to end this war, you know this but refuse to criticize your own side. Ask youself an honest question, why don't they end the war? Leave polls aside and think about the question.

Will Museler

Portsmouth, RI

Jul 18 2007 - 3:20pm

Web Letter

The most concise analysis of this failed presidency. Should be required reading for everyone, especially those in government.

Dan Havely

Athens, AL

Jul 18 2007 - 1:03pm