Print
E-mail
Comment
Rate
Taos News political coverage: Readers' responses
 |
Readers weigh in on "War, what is it good for?"
Staff Report
Editor's note: Earlier this month, political reporter Patricia Chambers wrote a commentary piece called "War, what is it good for?" in preparation for her coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention in Denver Aug. 25-28. In that piece, Chambers solicited comments from the public. Here is what we received.
Paul Wagoner of El Prado wrote:
"Dear Ms. Chambers,
The heading of your Aug. 7 commentary, 'War, what is it good for?' is the essential question facing our country and humanity.
Clearly, the groups, organizations, industries and political parties that promote and conduct war benefit. It gives them power, domination and money. A sense of pride, of superiority in destroying the lives of millions of people s the foundation of our country, our society, our financial system and the Judeo-Christian “religious” tradition.
At the Democratic convention you, you will be among thousands of people who are absolutely, totally committed to war. To economic, financial and trade war. To the cowardly starvation, destroying infrastructure and withholding medicine wars that Hillary is so fond of. There are the surrogate wars in Indonesia, Palestine, Africa and Latin America. The American-owned dictators. The Wall Street plundering of many countries around the world. All these wars whole-heartedly engaged in by each and every administration and Congress in our country’s history.
We are totally and absolutely dependent on war, plunder and looting. Maybe Obama will change the words used, but he and the Democrats will not, cannot change our addiction to war.
P.S. As you become aware of the lies we’ve been taught, the manipulation and the betrayal, you too, will be angry."
Karen Wittwer of Taos wrote:
" 'Don’t expect the old order to like you. That was then. This is now. The abuse of leaders is the last unchallenged oppression in America. The adversarial games that define politics today are psychologically and socially destructive to all of society, each individual.
Mature leadership will not arise from an immature body politic. Our leadership lacks because we lack--our leaders reflect back to us our own limitations. Americans, at their best ,are psychologically suited to forging new ground.
The hopeful voice has the expanded view from falseness to possibility. If so, the voice calls us to be more. Who we really are---how America was founded and destined to be.
Group intelligence and group conscience exist-- the true political issue is to invoke them.'
— Karen Wittwer/Marianne Williamson
Ignore truth. Say it often enough and we begin to believe it . Keep your opponent busy answering attacks . We all know it was the “swift boat” ads that sunk Kerry.
No. Being a part of the Vietnam war does not make you Presidential material.
Hopefully, it enriches you as a person; however, no special powers are accrued to leadership.
WE, as citizens , must take back our power. Have faith in the big step forward into the uncharted space where action replaces words. Words and thoughts have power. Each of us is the action."
Robert Barry of Questa wrote:
"John McCain has run ads ridiculing Barack Obamas celebrity. What is his claim to fame? He was a POW in the Viet Namwar! Using this as a claim to be preparation for leading the US for the next four years in smoke and mirrors that the voters should easily see through come November.
John would assume the mantle of war president from the current mental midget based on his experience as a Navy pilot who flew bombing missions high above Viet Nam. He was poor enough at his job that he got shot down and taken prisoner. As a Navy pilot, he knows nothing about any war on the ground and had never met a combat soldier until he was taken prisoner.
How he ever got into an airplane in the first place is another Bushian tale that should be noted. John McCains father and grandfather were both Admirals in the United States Navy and were well thought of by all accounts. Their navel careers got young John into the Navel Academy were he commenced to astound the military community by finishing in the BOTTOM 1% of his graduating class, which certainly calls into question his mental abilities and capabilities.
Graduates taken into the aviation program have historically come from the top 5% of the graduating class but John “somehow” managed to wrangle an assignment to flight school. John managed to crash 5 planes during the course of his illustrious career and was told flat-out that he would never be promoted to Admiral.
Thus he ended his military career and took a shot at a political career by becoming engaged to a soon to be multi-millionaire beer distribution princess from Arizona. After accomplishing this guaranteed future, he divorced the woman who had stood by him during all those years in the POW camp. Yes, he got engaged and then divorced. We are talking family here!
So what does this portend for us taxpayers? McCains past would suggest more war, fought in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons and poorly executed by a chief executive whose military back ground is almost embarrassing in its ineptitude."
Art Ortiz, former Taos County Republican Chairman and current chairman of the Taos County Planning Commission, wrote:
"Referring to your article of Aug. 7, I believe that voters will focus on the issues, especially as we get nearer to election day.
I believe that the principal issues are the economy, taxes, smaller or bigger government, conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, our energy independence and national security.
In all of these issues, I find Obama wanting and McCain better prepared.
• The economy: Obama has never run or managed and thing. After some years of social work in Chicago and less than two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has zero experience in guiding the massive and complex U.S. economy. McCain managed the second largest squadron in the U.S. Navy and has served 26 years in the Senate.
• Taxes: Obama wants to raise them, McCain wants to lower them.
• Smaller or Bigger government: Obama wants to expand government, especially in health care and other programs by $900 billion. McCain wants to eliminate earmarks and keep a rein on the fast growing bureaucracy.
• Conflicts: In Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq in less than 1 ½ years, before even consulting with our commanders in the field. He than wants to send more troops to Afghanistan and even invade Pakistan in order to get Al Qaida. McCain wants to put out of Iraq when our commanders on the ground think that Iraq is ready and able to handle it’s own security and reconstruction efforts. He also wants more troops in Afghanistan to settle the situation there, but does not proposed o invade Pakistan, a friendly nation.
• Energy Independence: McCain favors offshore drilling to achieve independence from Mid-East oil and nuclear energy to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. He also favors exploring alternative sources of energy (wind and solar). Obama opposes offshore drilling and nuclear. He favors wind and solar that are still in their infancy, and yes, he wants everyone to inflate their tires.
• National Security: I prefer a battle-tested Naval commander and four-term Senator protecting our homeland, to a former social worker that give a great speech.
Good luck in Denver, Ms. Chambers. Don’t be surprised if Hillary makes a run for the nomination from the floor of the convention."
John E. Wilson of El Prado wrote:
"Patricia............I am a Vietnam combat veteran & I take issue with the premise that "combat" or other wartime experiences necessarily prepares one, is indicative of one's ability to lead or is even a fair guage of one's talents in terms of leadership.
Of the gentleman mentioned in the article that precipitates this response, I will comment:
1) McCain: I think "hero", as he is described by a staffer, is rather presumptious - we have no knowledge of how he handled his captivity other than his own descriptions or that of "prejudiced fellow prisoners". Besides, I've always thought of heroes as those who had the opportunity to make choices about an action. McCain in my view chose to follow "family tradition" & serve in the military. The circumstances that resulted in him becoming a POW were circumstantial. He didn't choose to be a POW, therefore I agree with the retired general who stated recently that " flying a fighter jet & getting shot down doesn't necessarily qualify one to be president".........
2) Bush: As a Vietnam vet, I recall that those serving in the "reserves" were generally those that chose not to be on "active duty" if they could wangle it or former pilots that wanted to keep flying & the reserves was an easy & cheap way to do it. Bush's decision to join the reserves as a young pilot when there was a "real war" to fly in, says more about his personal priorities than anything I could conjure & it sure wasn't the "patriotism" he'd so like us to believe he's swaddled in........My personal opinion is that Bush is just as much a draft dodger as those who actually had the guts to protest or leave the country, only he was able to use his family's influence to get into another state's National Guard (or Reserve unit???) & make himself "look good" doing it..........
3) Kerry: The only thing I can say about Kerry is that at least he was over there getting shot at (unlike Bush). Anyone I served with knows that though there were certainly many heroic deeds - some recognized with medals & some not - it was a given that medals were handed out quite readily by both the US & Vietnam Armies as morale boosters, usually by medium grade officers that thought having decorated personnel in their units made them personally look good while "making the troops feel better"......& I'd have to think that such a policy was, if not officially endorsed by senior officers, at least looked askance at by them.........
4) Obama & Clinton: neither of these two were in the service, yet they both display outstanding leadership qualities. Clinton's are somewhat tainted by poor judgement at the end of his administration, but one can't deny the success he enjoyed during 2 terms both domestically & internationally (in fact his charitable work continues to this day & very effectively). As to Obama, one does not rise as he has without phenomenal leadership skills. One may argue policy & question his experience, but leadership he's got in spades..............
As to my personal experiences in Vietnam I saw some really "gungho" military types that were despised & disparaged by both the troops under them & their commanding officers. How one reacts to the stress of combat can say much about an individuals character, but it doesn't necessarily make them effective leaders. This country's obsession with Vietnam & whether or not you're a "good & patriotic American" because you served or didn't serve, is so much nonsense. I have a great many friends, both here & in Canada, that didn't serve, that are wonderful individuals, good husbands & community leaders & they are every bit as "American" or "Canadian" as those who did...............
This seems to be an ideal that has it's roots in WWII. Our country's experience with a truly evil individual like Hitler & our national reaction to that threat permeates our thinking on an international level. What we accomplished in WWII (along with the rest of the allied forces, lest we forget) doesn't necessarily apply to every crisis our nation confronts.
But we seem to be crippled in our strategic thinking & planning by the misguided need to apply that strategem over & over again. The rest of the world has moved on in their thinking & it's time we did as well. There are other ways to be strong & to lead effectively that don't require combat veterans. There may very well be combat veterans that come to the fore in the years ahead, but it should not be considered a prerequisite."
Albert Simms wrote:
"Hi Patricia,
You asked if I as a veteran of combat in Vietnam think that experience makes one more or less qualified to be president. Certainly I don’t agree with the 00 Bush smear of McCain that imprisonment in Vietnam made him mentally unstable.
The 04 Bush smear that Kerry really didn’t deserve all his medals was equally absurd. Whether or not the Vietnam experience is a positive factor depends on what one learned from it.
What I learned from it is that America can be strong in better ways. I support Obama as the candidate clearly in favor of Strong in Better Ways."
Randy Nason wrote:
"So — The question is what? Whether or not magnetism and charisma are bad things? The Republican Party loves to take something positive and turn it into a negative. I like Obama's upbeat energy a heck of a lot more than Gramp McSame's tired, passive aggressive attacks. McSame was a P.O.W. Does that give him a special qualification? Likewise, Obama was twelve years old during the Vietnam War. While he has no actual military experience, maybe that is a good thing. Wartime experience should not be a prerequisite for leadership qualities. Good, solid, no nonsense ideas should be.
Incidentally, I absolutely LOVED Paris Hilton’s ad that has been airing this past week. McSame had some nerve, using her image without her permission and she just turned it into one of the funniest and most right-on responses that I’ve heard in a long time."
Pat McManus wrote:
"Hi Patricia,
Here is my view on Denver. Yes, Obama is great. Yes, I feel hopeful about Obama in a powerful position in U.S. politics. But to me, THE MOST important thing is this:
GET THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
forget everything else -- THE most important thing is that the Republicans do not continue their control of U.S policy, both domestic and foreign, PERIOD."
Paul Wagoner of El Prado wrote:
"Dear Ms. Chambers,
The heading of your Aug. 7 commentary, 'War, what is it good for?' is the essential question facing our country and humanity.
Clearly, the groups, organizations, industries and political parties that promote and conduct war benefit. It gives them power, domination and money. A sense of pride, of superiority in destroying the lives of millions of people s the foundation of our country, our society, our financial system and the Judeo-Christian “religious” tradition.
At the Democratic convention you, you will be among thousands of people who are absolutely, totally committed to war. To economic, financial and trade war. To the cowardly starvation, destroying infrastructure and withholding medicine wars that Hillary is so fond of. There are the surrogate wars in Indonesia, Palestine, Africa and Latin America. The American-owned dictators. The Wall Street plundering of many countries around the world. All these wars whole-heartedly engaged in by each and every administration and Congress in our country’s history.
We are totally and absolutely dependent on war, plunder and looting. Maybe Obama will change the words used, but he and the Democrats will not, cannot change our addiction to war.
P.S. As you become aware of the lies we’ve been taught, the manipulation and the betrayal, you too, will be angry."
Karen Wittwer of Taos wrote:
" 'Don’t expect the old order to like you. That was then. This is now. The abuse of leaders is the last unchallenged oppression in America. The adversarial games that define politics today are psychologically and socially destructive to all of society, each individual.
Mature leadership will not arise from an immature body politic. Our leadership lacks because we lack--our leaders reflect back to us our own limitations. Americans, at their best ,are psychologically suited to forging new ground.
The hopeful voice has the expanded view from falseness to possibility. If so, the voice calls us to be more. Who we really are---how America was founded and destined to be.
Group intelligence and group conscience exist-- the true political issue is to invoke them.'
— Karen Wittwer/Marianne Williamson
Ignore truth. Say it often enough and we begin to believe it . Keep your opponent busy answering attacks . We all know it was the “swift boat” ads that sunk Kerry.
No. Being a part of the Vietnam war does not make you Presidential material.
Hopefully, it enriches you as a person; however, no special powers are accrued to leadership.
WE, as citizens , must take back our power. Have faith in the big step forward into the uncharted space where action replaces words. Words and thoughts have power. Each of us is the action."
Robert Barry of Questa wrote:
"John McCain has run ads ridiculing Barack Obamas celebrity. What is his claim to fame? He was a POW in the Viet Namwar! Using this as a claim to be preparation for leading the US for the next four years in smoke and mirrors that the voters should easily see through come November.
John would assume the mantle of war president from the current mental midget based on his experience as a Navy pilot who flew bombing missions high above Viet Nam. He was poor enough at his job that he got shot down and taken prisoner. As a Navy pilot, he knows nothing about any war on the ground and had never met a combat soldier until he was taken prisoner.
How he ever got into an airplane in the first place is another Bushian tale that should be noted. John McCains father and grandfather were both Admirals in the United States Navy and were well thought of by all accounts. Their navel careers got young John into the Navel Academy were he commenced to astound the military community by finishing in the BOTTOM 1% of his graduating class, which certainly calls into question his mental abilities and capabilities.
Graduates taken into the aviation program have historically come from the top 5% of the graduating class but John “somehow” managed to wrangle an assignment to flight school. John managed to crash 5 planes during the course of his illustrious career and was told flat-out that he would never be promoted to Admiral.
Thus he ended his military career and took a shot at a political career by becoming engaged to a soon to be multi-millionaire beer distribution princess from Arizona. After accomplishing this guaranteed future, he divorced the woman who had stood by him during all those years in the POW camp. Yes, he got engaged and then divorced. We are talking family here!
So what does this portend for us taxpayers? McCains past would suggest more war, fought in the wrong places, for the wrong reasons and poorly executed by a chief executive whose military back ground is almost embarrassing in its ineptitude."
Art Ortiz, former Taos County Republican Chairman and current chairman of the Taos County Planning Commission, wrote:
"Referring to your article of Aug. 7, I believe that voters will focus on the issues, especially as we get nearer to election day.
I believe that the principal issues are the economy, taxes, smaller or bigger government, conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, our energy independence and national security.
In all of these issues, I find Obama wanting and McCain better prepared.
• The economy: Obama has never run or managed and thing. After some years of social work in Chicago and less than two years in the U.S. Senate, Obama has zero experience in guiding the massive and complex U.S. economy. McCain managed the second largest squadron in the U.S. Navy and has served 26 years in the Senate.
• Taxes: Obama wants to raise them, McCain wants to lower them.
• Smaller or Bigger government: Obama wants to expand government, especially in health care and other programs by $900 billion. McCain wants to eliminate earmarks and keep a rein on the fast growing bureaucracy.
• Conflicts: In Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama wants to withdraw our troops from Iraq in less than 1 ½ years, before even consulting with our commanders in the field. He than wants to send more troops to Afghanistan and even invade Pakistan in order to get Al Qaida. McCain wants to put out of Iraq when our commanders on the ground think that Iraq is ready and able to handle it’s own security and reconstruction efforts. He also wants more troops in Afghanistan to settle the situation there, but does not proposed o invade Pakistan, a friendly nation.
• Energy Independence: McCain favors offshore drilling to achieve independence from Mid-East oil and nuclear energy to lessen our dependence on fossil fuels. He also favors exploring alternative sources of energy (wind and solar). Obama opposes offshore drilling and nuclear. He favors wind and solar that are still in their infancy, and yes, he wants everyone to inflate their tires.
• National Security: I prefer a battle-tested Naval commander and four-term Senator protecting our homeland, to a former social worker that give a great speech.
Good luck in Denver, Ms. Chambers. Don’t be surprised if Hillary makes a run for the nomination from the floor of the convention."
John E. Wilson of El Prado wrote:
"Patricia............I am a Vietnam combat veteran & I take issue with the premise that "combat" or other wartime experiences necessarily prepares one, is indicative of one's ability to lead or is even a fair guage of one's talents in terms of leadership.
Of the gentleman mentioned in the article that precipitates this response, I will comment:
1) McCain: I think "hero", as he is described by a staffer, is rather presumptious - we have no knowledge of how he handled his captivity other than his own descriptions or that of "prejudiced fellow prisoners". Besides, I've always thought of heroes as those who had the opportunity to make choices about an action. McCain in my view chose to follow "family tradition" & serve in the military. The circumstances that resulted in him becoming a POW were circumstantial. He didn't choose to be a POW, therefore I agree with the retired general who stated recently that " flying a fighter jet & getting shot down doesn't necessarily qualify one to be president".........
2) Bush: As a Vietnam vet, I recall that those serving in the "reserves" were generally those that chose not to be on "active duty" if they could wangle it or former pilots that wanted to keep flying & the reserves was an easy & cheap way to do it. Bush's decision to join the reserves as a young pilot when there was a "real war" to fly in, says more about his personal priorities than anything I could conjure & it sure wasn't the "patriotism" he'd so like us to believe he's swaddled in........My personal opinion is that Bush is just as much a draft dodger as those who actually had the guts to protest or leave the country, only he was able to use his family's influence to get into another state's National Guard (or Reserve unit???) & make himself "look good" doing it..........
3) Kerry: The only thing I can say about Kerry is that at least he was over there getting shot at (unlike Bush). Anyone I served with knows that though there were certainly many heroic deeds - some recognized with medals & some not - it was a given that medals were handed out quite readily by both the US & Vietnam Armies as morale boosters, usually by medium grade officers that thought having decorated personnel in their units made them personally look good while "making the troops feel better"......& I'd have to think that such a policy was, if not officially endorsed by senior officers, at least looked askance at by them.........
4) Obama & Clinton: neither of these two were in the service, yet they both display outstanding leadership qualities. Clinton's are somewhat tainted by poor judgement at the end of his administration, but one can't deny the success he enjoyed during 2 terms both domestically & internationally (in fact his charitable work continues to this day & very effectively). As to Obama, one does not rise as he has without phenomenal leadership skills. One may argue policy & question his experience, but leadership he's got in spades..............
As to my personal experiences in Vietnam I saw some really "gungho" military types that were despised & disparaged by both the troops under them & their commanding officers. How one reacts to the stress of combat can say much about an individuals character, but it doesn't necessarily make them effective leaders. This country's obsession with Vietnam & whether or not you're a "good & patriotic American" because you served or didn't serve, is so much nonsense. I have a great many friends, both here & in Canada, that didn't serve, that are wonderful individuals, good husbands & community leaders & they are every bit as "American" or "Canadian" as those who did...............
This seems to be an ideal that has it's roots in WWII. Our country's experience with a truly evil individual like Hitler & our national reaction to that threat permeates our thinking on an international level. What we accomplished in WWII (along with the rest of the allied forces, lest we forget) doesn't necessarily apply to every crisis our nation confronts.
But we seem to be crippled in our strategic thinking & planning by the misguided need to apply that strategem over & over again. The rest of the world has moved on in their thinking & it's time we did as well. There are other ways to be strong & to lead effectively that don't require combat veterans. There may very well be combat veterans that come to the fore in the years ahead, but it should not be considered a prerequisite."
Albert Simms wrote:
"Hi Patricia,
You asked if I as a veteran of combat in Vietnam think that experience makes one more or less qualified to be president. Certainly I don’t agree with the 00 Bush smear of McCain that imprisonment in Vietnam made him mentally unstable.
The 04 Bush smear that Kerry really didn’t deserve all his medals was equally absurd. Whether or not the Vietnam experience is a positive factor depends on what one learned from it.
What I learned from it is that America can be strong in better ways. I support Obama as the candidate clearly in favor of Strong in Better Ways."
Randy Nason wrote:
"So — The question is what? Whether or not magnetism and charisma are bad things? The Republican Party loves to take something positive and turn it into a negative. I like Obama's upbeat energy a heck of a lot more than Gramp McSame's tired, passive aggressive attacks. McSame was a P.O.W. Does that give him a special qualification? Likewise, Obama was twelve years old during the Vietnam War. While he has no actual military experience, maybe that is a good thing. Wartime experience should not be a prerequisite for leadership qualities. Good, solid, no nonsense ideas should be.
Incidentally, I absolutely LOVED Paris Hilton’s ad that has been airing this past week. McSame had some nerve, using her image without her permission and she just turned it into one of the funniest and most right-on responses that I’ve heard in a long time."
Pat McManus wrote:
"Hi Patricia,
Here is my view on Denver. Yes, Obama is great. Yes, I feel hopeful about Obama in a powerful position in U.S. politics. But to me, THE MOST important thing is this:
GET THE REPUBLICANS OUT OF THE WHITE HOUSE.
forget everything else -- THE most important thing is that the Republicans do not continue their control of U.S policy, both domestic and foreign, PERIOD."
 |
 |
|
| Pueblo receives honor for Blue Lake ‘struggle’ | Tourism marketing grants benefit Taos Valley |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
Submit a Comment
We encourage your feedback and dialog, all comments will be reviewed by our Web staff before appearing on the Web site.
The Taos News requires all commenters to register before posting comments. It's quick, it's easy, and it's free! Just fill in the information below to get started!
Your privacy & trust is important to us. The registration information we request is secure and for the use of The Taos News only & will not be given to any third party in any way. Your Member ID is the only part of this information that will appear on your comment posting. Any violation of our conduct policy will result in the suspension of your registration.
Already a Member?Login Here:
|
Become a Registered MemberWhen you register, you will get an email confirming your registration. Please read the email & click the link provided. This confirms your registration and you can post comments. If you do not respond, you will not be registered and unable to comment on stories. If you have SPAM filters, please add registration@taosnews.com to your address book or filter to ensure you get this email. |
