Get Connected
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • Sign In
  • Classifieds
  • Sections
Print

Wall Street Journal engages in warmongering

Wall Street Journal engages in warmongering

Editor:

The Wall Street Journal opinion page of June 20, states: “We would support that goal [The battlefield defeat of the Islamic State of Iraq] if the administration were serious about committing the resources and time to achieve it.” Badly and more honestly stated, the WSJ recommends the U.S. go to war in Iraq.

On the next page a sympathetic book review of the book “A Time to Attack” (no euphemisms here!), is titled “Bombing Iran Is The Best Option.” The thesis is that war with Iran is inevitable and it is better that we attack them now before they have nuclear weapons.

An article about NATO and Russia is not quite so dire: It merely calls the current situation “a new escalation of the crisis.”

Wake up people!

One of the USA’s premier newspapers is warmongering. Sending in a few hundred troops here and there may result in U.S. interests being protected while the fight rages and eventually dies down. But, alternatively, these troops may act as trip wires and suddenly — we will be at war.

Peace lovers had best lay in some white cardboard sheets and markers. We may have very little time to protest before events sweep us away into yet another futile, deeply immoral war.

John D. Palmer

Charleston

Condoleezza Rice didn’t deserve to speak

Editor:

Boo hoo. Condoleezza Rice didn’t get to speak at Rutgers and pick up another honorary doctorate for her wall. I respond to the whiny “College speaker protests poor sign” by Gene Budig and Alan Heaps (June 20), who no doubt fancy themselves her peer. They decry “liberal intolerance,” distinguished I suppose from the tolerance shown by tea party members to speakers. Ah, but they speak of educational institutions, which should be above such rough-and-tumble, especially in light of the salaries that Budig and Heaps no doubt command.

Budig and Heaps speak, perhaps unwittingly, from a point of privilege that reveals a sharp class distinction. They really feel that Rice is entitled to speak, never mind the incalculable suffering she helped cause two countries.

No matter how much harm people like Rice do, they seem to come out rich, unindicted, and in fact, expect to be honored. Budig and Heaps overlook that Rice had more than enough time to speak during the Bush years, and much of her speech was filled with lies. I doubt that those who really bore, and still bear, the cost of the Iraq War are impressed that they think she is a “distinguished” professor, or find “her integrity unquestioned”.

Rice, I think, really did not have to speak at Rutgers; she’s already said quite enough.

Robin L. Godfrey

Charleston


Print

User Comments