Site Presented By
Thursday, Nov 26, 2009
A counterpoint to a Canadian reader's letter on Salon war coverage. Plus: Responses to "War? What War?" by Jake Tapper, and "Briefing for a Descent Into Hell" by Fred Branfman.
Apr 4, 2003 | [Read "Letters"]
I am another Canadian reader, and I disagree with Darya Farha -- it's not your job, Salon, to care as much about the rest of the world, which can take care of itself, as you care about America, which needs your leadership if it is to survive.
John LeCarre said several months ago that America had gone mad, but I don't think it's this simple. A little Prozac isn't going to solve this problem.
What you have to confront, in yourselves and in your nation, is the Culture of Fear.
Since 9/11, fear has enslaved your country. Your leaders are doing nothing to stop it. Neo-conservatives are using it to advance their own agendas and the rest justify their own cowardice by making sure that everyone else stays afraid.
Now you are embroiled in a war which, as Gary Kamiya pointed out in his excellent article three weeks ago, will have unknowable and possibly horrendous consequences.
I have been reading a lot of comparisons lately to World War II. Here is one which is, I think, relevant now: during the Blitz, living in a world where sudden death was likely, Britons gave us the example of a society which conquered fear -- they saw it as their personal responsibility to do this; it was not their country's job to make them feel safe. So they sang in the shelters as the bombs exploded overhead.
Did anyone sing on 9/11? Actually, yes -- in the evening of that terrible day, I saw your Congress stand on the steps of your Capitol Building and sing "God Bless America" -- it was an act of spontaneous courage and incredible inspiration.
Is anyone still singing in America today? Right now, I see no sign of this.
Salon, you must start America singing again. If you do not do it, who will?
-- Cathie Fornssler
[Read "War? What War?" by Jake Tapper.]Jake Tapper seems critical of Howard Dean for laying low on the topic of the war since the fighting started. As a Dean supporter, I'm glad he's doing so. Dean has made his position very clear on whether we should have gotten into this war. He's been by far the most eloquent of the candidates in pointing out what was wrong with the administration's failures of diplomacy, failure to make their case, etc.
But given that it is almost impossible to get accurate information on what's currently happening in the war, given that the situation is likely to change significantly from day to day, and given the propensity for the Republicans to spin, twist, and take out of context anything a Democrat says, I think Dean is doing exactly what he should.
If we care about getting a Democrat elected, we should make sure that we have other people out there questioning the administration's policies and holding them accountable -- but we shouldn't be trying to goad the best candidate we have into taking on that role, when it could easily backfire and sink him (sorry for mixing metaphors there).
At the moment, the Republicans are actually doing a fine job of criticizing the conduct of the war without any help from us -- the current circular firing squad of "former senior officials" and "unnamed sources" vs. Rummy is making Bush and his gang look terrible.
What could Howard Dean really add to that?
-- Katie Kenney
Jake Tapper's criticism of the execrable Terry McAuliffe is thoroughly justified. But his criticism of Dean is not, because he is not inconsistent.
He said he would be quieting his criticism while our men were in the field, though he still has the same opinion of the policy. That's not a cowardly position to take.
For sheer cravenness, look elsewhere in the Democratic field, at the prevaricators like Kerry and Lieberman.
-- Jim Hassinger
Dean is absolutely correct in his assertion that many of his supporters and potential supporters don't want to hear about the war anymore.
I was among the 600 plus crowd that gathered to hear Dean discuss his ideas at Boston's J.F.K. library last week. We loved him. We ate him up. He spoke about the war for maybe 10 out of his allotted 90 minutes. He's against it, we know it, 'nuff said.
His moderator, however, pushed and pushed and pushed. Dean would have none of it, saying he didn't get us into this mess and he wouldn't hypothesize about how to get us out, other than by changing presidents.
We were right there with him. One of the best reasons to be antiwar is to recognize the havoc it will wreak on our domestic policies.
Dean gives specifics about healthcare, a balanced budget and equal rights for all Americans -- and that's what I want to hear. Not someone pandering to my seething hatred for the Bush administration's ham fisted war.
-- Jacqueline Mitchell
