|
|
||
|
|
READERS REPLY TO THE 'WAR ON IRAQ TEST' Dear Mr. Martin, I certainly am not surprised at the editorial content of the Review Magazine or your viewpoint for editorials - the sympathy for a left leaning take on issues is well established and openly admitted and straightforward. I definitely take no issue with the editorial policy or the right of anyone to express those views, whether or not I agree with them (I often don't) but I often do as well. I would describe myself as a libertarian (small 'l' intended, refer to an article by Brink Lindsey in "Liberty" magazine March 2003, vol. 17, no. 3 titled 'Am I Libertarian?' for a good understanding of my political reasoning) and so hold some views that inflame liberals and some that inflame conservatives. I do take issue with the 'Take the War on Iraq Test' in Issue #544. Not for it's content, which is what I would expect to find in Review, but with your comment that the 'test' is offered in the spirit of non-judgmental open-mindedness. Robert, present your well established point of view with whatever spin you like, but please don't condescend to your readers by claiming to be presenting a moderate point of view. Anyone with an 8th grade education could quickly and easily see the transparency of such a statement. The whole point of my discourse is this - we are in this war now like it or not and protesting and railing against our involvement amounts to tilting at windmills. That debate was lost and it's now time to focus on issues that can still be influenced and actively debated. Of primary importance is seeing to it that we, as concerned citizens, insist on staying there until the country is truly rebuilt and functioning, like we did in Japan and Europe. Our track record of foreign policy decisions in the Middle East is dismal at best, and we must not allow our government to continue to conduct itself on our behalf in this manner, but is it helpful to allow the voice of dissent to become cliched? Vaclav Havel addressed this issue in his essay 'The Power of the Powerless' in which he labeled this type of cliched dissent the "dictatorship of the ritual" that is easily used by the Party as a false brand of ideological glue used to maintain it's control. Incidentally, he has stated his support of the US led war as necessary and just. Also, domestically we need to be very, very concerned and vocal in opposition to the assaults on our civil freedoms now being institutionalized through the Patriot Act, such as Letters of Security and many other devious schemes to erode the autonomy of the individual citizens of the US. That's why it is my opinion that by keeping the dissent focused on an unattainable or defeated ideal clouds the more vital issues, like the old Timbuk 3 lyric "Presidential elections are planned distractions to divert attention from the action behind the scene". Valid dissent must not allow itself to become the flip side of the same coin. Respectfully, Bruce Niederer Gougeon Brothers, Inc. Bay City Editor's Reply: Thanks for your letter, Bruce. I do, however, take issue with your statement that our editorials are 'left leaning'; rather, I think it a case where the balance has tipped so far towards the right that any factual reality becomes more a matter of that which is being reasonable immediately becoming labeled left-leaning or extremist. The 'War on Iraq Test' was open-minded because it is absent normative postulates and deals mainly with statistics - simple facts that tend to become forgotten when rarely mentioned or considered in this war debate. I also agree with that statement from Havel because I concur with your point that cliché's, though often founded by truth, often become brittle and disintegrate to pieces by the force of stronger truths. In short, I'm not being 'moderate' about this issue, because that signifies equivocation; rather, I'm simply saying extreme positions, whether radical or reactionary, conservative or liberal, do not wash at this point of the 21st Century. Too many people have firmly made up their minds and therefore simply refuse to listen to anything that violates their sensibility on the issue. In that sense, please don't tell me my 'viewpoint' is 'established', because believe me, it is undergoing a lot of deconstruction these days, as are the majority of Americans. And I definitely agree with your point that we need to be more concerned about issues currently happening, such as the Patriot Act. (Refer to the article on Page 4 of this edition.) In conclusion, all this labeling doesn't wash anymore - it's like listening to 8-tracks in a digital world. Respectfully, Robert E. Martin Editor/Review Magazine Dear Mr. Martin, This letter is in response to your editorial, Take The War On Iraq Test in the March 27 - April 10 edition of The Review. I am very disappointed to see this type of journalism in Review Magazine. It is obvious this article is biased by your own personal & political beliefs and there are many exaggerations, half-truths, and partisan political statements in the article I would like to comment on. "Fox News labeling protestors as Anti-U.S." I saw this broadcast and the entire statement went more like, "the protestors that are breaking the law and pulling law enforcement away from providing security against terrorist attacks like 911 is Anti-U.S.". I personally don't think it's anti U.S., but I do think it is stupid and agree that we need our police to be protecting us from possible terror attacks. People do have the right to protest, but when it becomes confrontational and breaks the law then the protestors infringe on everybody else's rights. Maybe it will take another 9-11 type-terror attack in one of our large cities with protestors for those people to realize what they are doing. The Bush-bashing paragraph, "The president asking Congress to cut Medicare an pensions of veterans to deliver large tax cuts to the wealthy." This sounds like Democratic Medi-scare propaganda and we are all getting sick of election year partisan politics while nothing gets done in government. I don't consider myself wealthy and I can't think of any other administration, Republican or Democrat, that has given a tax refund. Where were these Democratic leaders that are speaking out against Bush when Clinton took military action without even going to the UN? Then there is the War on Iraq Test. This is obviously written in a way to make the U.S. look bad and I fail to see the relationship between some of these questions and the war with Iraq. I would like to see the answers to this test: 1) How many U.S. military assets are located in buildings with day care centers? 2) How many Iraqi women & children are being held prisoner forcing the men to fight in the war? 3) How many Americans have had their tongues cut out and nailed to the wall for speaking out against our president? 4) How many gallons of Agent Orange did the U.S. use on its own cities to control the citizens? 5) How do the survivors and victims of loved ones of the 9-11 terror attack feel about the US's war on terror? 6) How do the survivors and victims of loved ones of Pearl Harbor feel about the U.S. dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima & Nagasaki? 7) How many Americans were killed at Normandy saving France? 8) How many Jews would have been murdered had we had the same ability to disarm Hitler? Then you state it is highly unlikely Iraq can become a free democratic society because of 3 cultural divisions. How many cultural divisions are there in the U.S.? Nobody I know wanted this war. We all wanted to disarm Iraq through the UN but it didn't happen. The U.S. is much different since 9-11 and we should support our government and our troops to fight terrorism. In your own words, "it is imperative at this point in time to listen and learn with open minds." We all enjoy our right to freedom of speech, but as the Editor it should be your responsibility to report fairly, accurately, and without bias and to give the 'unslanted' facts so we can make up our own minds, otherwise you might as well change the name of your paper to the Bleeding Heart Liberal Review. In fact I will be in Shock & Awe if this letter even gets published. Sincerely, Peter Joseph Saginaw Proud to be an American Editor's Reply: Dear Peter, Thanks for your thoughtful letter. I would like to take a moment to reply to your accusations and address some of your concerns. First, the War on Iraq Test was anything but biased, as it was based upon simple factual information that I do not believe the majority of Americans are aware of. Indeed, I was trying to keep my own beliefs out of the piece because as I noted in the introduction, there is too much intransigence on both sides of the issue, with each side already firmly operating under their own belief system, ears and minds shut off, which is unhealthy in any democracy. Indeed, to my knowledge, there is not one exaggeration or half-truth contained in the piece, and if so, please be specific in terms of where you find one. Regarding the Fox News broadcast, the 'teaser' that ran before the segment was precisely phrased, "Are protestors anti-U.S." Moreover, I fail to see the credibility in any news station that would hire Oliver North as a correspondent. Apart from being found guilty for shredding documents and violating the wishes and law of the Congress of the United States by selling weapons to Iran in order to finance a clandestine war in Nicaragua, he does not possess one iota of the integrity necessary to be classified a journalist. Unfortunately, the move by President Bush to cut Medicare & pensions to veterans is indeed happening, as was the move he made last week while the nation's attentions were distracted on the war to dramatically expand provisions of the Patriot Act in Congress. With the combination of exempted Freedom of Information Laws this in essence will provide very little oversight over the Executive branch by the Legislative & Judiciary - in essence allowing the operation of a secret government immune from the checks & balances mandated by our Constitution. (See the article on Page 4 of this current edition.) Regarding President Clinton's moves to address the massacre going on in Kosovo, along with the initial attacks on Iraq after the embassy bombings, he couldn't do much to lobby for UN approval because he was belabored with impeachment proceedings that undermined his authority to make such a case to the UN because Congressional Republicans were too concerned about the alleged transgressions going on in his pants instead of on the world stage. Moreover, Republicans led by Bob Dole severely limited authorization for action in Kosovo (remember, Clinton didn't have a Congressional majority back then.) Regarding your own test questions, I do know that a day care center was located right next to FEMA headquarters in Oklahoma City, only it wasn't the Iraqi's that bombed it but Timothy McVay. I also know that Agent Orange has wrought devastation on many Vietnam Veterans that did not know it was being used because they were never informed by the government. In fact, a current issue of The New Yorker contains an alarming article by Seymore Hersh concerning fraudulent documents presented by the CIA to Congress and the U.N. that attempted to link uranium supplies to Iraq by sales supposedly made by Niger. This information was proven false by United Nations security inspectors yet has hardly been covered by the mainstream press or TV, yet is fairly big news in Europe because it formed a key basis for the Congressional vote allowing President Bush to use force. Remember Daniel Ellsberg and The Pentagon Papers? The CIA also presented false information that drew our initial involvement into Vietnam with The Gulf of Tonkin resolution. And actually, the U.S. got involved with World War II quite late in the game and it was the Russians that lost mass numbers of men fighting Hitler on the Eastern front (arguably, if the U.S. had gotten involved earlier, not so many Jews would have died.) So you see, there are many grey areas involved with these subjects of war. Please do not misunderstand me. I do support the men & women fighting, and because of that, do not wish to see their lives shed in vain - especially given the geo-political nature of the country and the prospect that somebody worse than Saddam could rise to power through democratic elections in that country. Don't get me wrong, Saddam is heinous, but so was Mobutu and Marcos and the first President Bush invited them for dinner to the White House regularly. Again, my biggest worry in waging a war of this kind is that you cannot claim moral superiority by fighting one dictator and inviting other dictators over for dinner. I believe in fighting terrorism wholeheartedly, but the minute you pick & choose your villains without acknowledging your own hand in the business (remember, we sustained Hussein in power and armed him to a great degree when we were going after the Iranians) than it should give us all pause for concern. The main thing to remember is that we are all Americans and like it or not, are all in this together. I am always willing to listen to arguments from both sides of the aisle and rather than resort to 'labeling' such as liberal or conservative, feel it more significant to look at arguments & facts that shape the moral question of whether what we are doing is truly right or wrong. In short, if we are going to fight terrorism we need to be consistent. And if we are going to fight for freedom abroad, we need to support, sustain and foster that freedom at home. Sincerely, Robert E. Martin Editor & Publisher Review Magazine Also Proud to be an American The Review welcomes your letters and comments. Please send all correspondence to: Letters to the Editor, Review Magazine, 318 S. Hamilton St., Saginaw, MI 48602. Or you can e-mail us online at letters@review-mag.com |
|
|
|
Enable frames | |
|
home | out/about | events | personal | store | classified | real estate | forums | archives | contact |
||
