*Letter re Frank Rich & Stern + notes

Emboldened by the strong language the NYT allowed in its letters column on October 29th (see my letter and Fritz Stern's letter below) I decided to burn up some energy and time testing whether they were in the mood for another version of reality.

*On another matter, I guess we're seeing Kerry's version of an October surprise. The treachery never ends.

*On Scott Ritter's silly prediction that the attack against Iran would occur BEFORE the election, he might have learned the lesson of the Nixon and the Reagan years: the period just before the election is the quiet time: do whatever is necessary to keep oil prices low and the stock market and housing prices high. If the attack on Iran happens, early 07 is the target time. Look for the rhetoric to heat up when appropriate.

*As far as the election, there's nothing visible to revise the prediction that Bush is so confidently making: the fix is very much in. How many readers doubt that Rove (and Bush) know within 2-3 exactly the margin that they will keep the House and 1 or 2 the Senate. If Ritter were clued into election fraud and stolen elections, he'd know they didn't need an October surprise. They've got a November surprise -- only the 3rd or 4th since 2000.

The only question is how the public will take it: just another bad day in Dodge City? Or is it time to storm the barricades and demand change? Note that Hendrik Hertzberg of the New Yorker is already making excuses for another stolen election: it's gerrymandering and so on. Will the NYT and the Democratic Party go down so easily again? --Ronald
***

The New York Times
Letter to the Editor

letters@nytimes.com

October 29, 2006

To the Editor:

At first sight, letter writer Fritz. Stern (“Conservatism Abandoned,” Oct 29, 2006) seems to be dead on in excoriating President Bush for instituting a “chaotic recklessness…a subversion of the constitution, finally provoking…a universal disillusionment with America’s place in the world.”

On closer examination, however, Mr. Stern faults the president with “ill-planned and maladministered actions in Iraq.” This misses the point as does Frank Rich (“Dying to Save the G.O.P. Congress,” Op-ed, October 29, 2006) when the usually superbly on target columnist wrongly predicts that after the election Bush will allow “adults to step in…and pull the plug” on our Iraq adventure.

Both writers ignore the reality of the billions of dollars that continue to be spent erecting about a dozen permanent military bases in Iraq. But the larger point that few speak about is that the aim of the Iraq war is to destroy Iraq. This is a work in progress that will not be completed by November 7. The White House wants to ensure that Iraq remains a failed state unable to challenge Israel’s hegemonic ambitions. In addition, the neocons in command are bent on maintaining the momentum of a permanent war agenda and a national security state.

Sincerely,
Ronald Bleier
www.bleiersblog.blogspot.com
http://desip.igc.org
***


New York Times
Letters
October 29, 2006

Letter writer, Fritz Stern wrote:
Conservatism Abandoned (1 Letter)
To the Editor:

In “The Era of What’s Next” (column, Oct. 26), David Brooks posits that between 1980 and 2006, a conservative ideology held sway. This characterization of the chronology strikes me as unhistorical.

Does he really not see that instantly upon his inauguration in 2001 President Bush broke with longstanding foreign and domestic policies that had been supported by both parties, substituting a chaotic recklessness in every respect, a subversion of the Constitution, finally provoking with his ill-planned and maladministered actions in Iraq a universal disillusionment with America’s place in the world?

In the last six years, America has been led not by conservatives but by radical right-wingers, empowered by an astounding plutocratic machine, infused by a neoconservative ideology that believes in projecting American power — even in defiance of American interests and capacities.

Since 2001, genuine conservatives have seen the G.O.P. desert its basic principles; actually, the country is now in desperate need of leaders who truly represent the rectitude and realism associated with traditional conservatism.

Fritz Stern
New York, Oct. 27, 2006
The writer is university professor emeritus at Columbia University.