Open letter to a Commentator on my last post. (Can't seem to cut & paste in "Comments.) I would be happy to post my Commentator's riposte in this space.
...Billing myself as a "little old lady of 78" backfired on me for it allowed you a nifty shot below the belt. I gather "ageism" is one of your prejudices. But since I have no pre-natal memories, I suppose I should study up. You are far better informed on Israel/Palestine. They should be so knowledgeable.
Except I had the idea that not too long after August, 1945, we became involved in an expensive defense-driven "cold war" with Russia. As far as Eisenhower's fear of a growing "military-industrial complex. I think we can drop the "industrial" part, in light of what's happening today, and what looms in the future. Except for defense, of course.
A more careful reading of my opinion might have revealed to even the most confrontational mind that I was predicting huge military expenditures. I did not say we were yet at that point. But I stand by my opinion. Piling money into military capability beyond security needs, as well as tax cuts for the rich, will achieve three neo-com goals--again in my opinion--l. It will "starve the beast." 2. Provide jobs that once were held by two or three, now acquitted by one overworked person, or moved overseas with a portion of our industry. An exodus that is certain to grow. 3. Consolidate the death grip that the Republican Party has on the United States.
I wasn't there when the Towers went down, but I did work in Manhattan for six years, in the Graybar Building and at 666 Fifth Avenue. Also lived South of Houston for a time. So, not only have I many friends in the City, one of them watched the planes strike from her window in a nearby building. I do not take a sunny, California view of this attack from hell.
My viewpoint is colored by the fact that we defied International Law and retaliated (diverted attention?) by attacking Iraq. This country should not attack sovereign nations without U.N. backing, especially when the reasons for doing so are disingenuous. I hope not to change the thrust of this argument by reminding you that Saddam was in power because we helped keep him there when it served our purposes; same goes for Noriega, and all the other dictators this country has historically supported, through both Democratic and Republican Administrations.
I thought it was clever of Mr. Bush to refer to our retaliatory efforts as a "War," which allows all kinds of latitude for further adventures, and I smell Karl Rove. To use an old saw, "It takes a thief to catch a thief." There's no way that an all out military attack on another country could have solved our terrorist problems. We needed to bolster the C.I.A. and the F.B.I. and we needed to pay off thieves and thugs in the night to slip around and use these newly-created terrorists to fight the Terrorists. Also, we did not need to intimidate our own spies by forcing them to tailor their information to help foment Mr. Bush's war.
You may be right about the Israeli/Palestinian connection to 9/11. But, then again, like mine, it is only your opinion. Please quote your sources, if I'm wrong about this.
