Israel and the United States Are Headed For a Breakup
Missouri Policeman Threatens Al-Jazeera Journalist: 'I'll Bust Your Head Open'
Rebellion in Ferguson: A Rising Heat in the Suburbs
Are Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Fooling Us All?
Missouri Burning: Why Ferguson's Inferno Is No Surprise
sign up to get updates
Dig led by Mike Rose
Dig led by Truthdig Staff
By Michael Lewis $15.37
Angel Boligan, Cagle Cartoons, El Universal, Mexico City
More Below the Ad
Email to a friend
Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.
If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.
By Money is funny, July 6, 2010 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment
Demoralizing men is very helpful. Thank you very much.
By blorb, July 6, 2010 at 10:06 am Link to this comment
I don’t get it - why’s the remote not working?!?!
By Rogers, July 6, 2010 at 8:56 am Link to this comment
This next question is from Truthdig reader, Rogers -
Scheer, it seems to me that your take on this does not recognize the differences between the situation we currently face and the sixties. What do you think are the relevant differences and similarities?
I don’t see the differences in terms of claiming to fight an international enemy that threatens you. In the sixties, there was something called international communism, but communism was even then hopelessly fragmented. There were hardly two communist governments that were on decent speaking terms—certainly not the Chinese and the Vietnamese communists. Yet we insisted we were fighting a war against a unified international communism. Now we commit the same error in insisting we are fighting a war against a unified international terrorism, but the Taliban in Afghanistan is, like the Viet Cong in Vietnam, a homegrown movement that has to be dealt with by people in the country who understand the culture, and change will come—as it has in Vietnam and China—from within, and not by foreign invasion.
Sorry I didn’t get this in last week. You are certainly correct, but I would suggest we look at the differences, also, specifically the differences between Obama and Johnson in promoting these false claims. Wouldn’t giving Obama room rather criticising him be more effective? Instead shouldn’t we following the grand old American tradition of attacking the Secretary of State?