Letters to the Editor
Both the Washington Post and the New York Times had the temerity to report on the Pentagon Papers.
The Post in particular — thanks to the team of Mark Felt, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — reported, in detail, on the Watergate break-in, an attempt by the Nixon White House to conduct a domestic spy operation at Democratic National Committee (DNC) Headquarters.
Now that William Barr has launched an investigation into the DNC, the FBI chain of causation and more, will the Post and the Times assiduously report on evidence of domestic, politically motivated, spying, as they did in 1972?
It conjures up that rhetorical questions, “If a chain of causation falls in a forest of politicized journalism, and no one gets to read about it, did it really happen?”
Months ago the Alameda Sun printed my thoughts in a letter sent to our local Congresswoman, Barbara Lee (“Open letter to Rep. Lee,” Nov. 29, 2018). I hoped for, but did not hear back from her.
Or did I? Recently there was a “resolution” to limit or eliminate the sale of arms to the Saudi Regime. It was crafted by a group of very analytical, wise and thoughtful folks, whose efforts seemed cohesive enough to have an unanimous commitment.
But alas, (as his “earbuds” filled his head with the voices of his influential constituents of arms manufacturers and NRA folks, perhaps the few preventing the unanimous commitment), the measure was vetoed by the President.
Last summer I spent a few days in the town of Remagen, on the Rhine River, in Germany. My father was in the 51st Army Combat Engineers Battalion in World War II.
In March 1945, his group built one of the two pontoon bridges across the Rhine to replace the access the Germans had denied the Allies when they destroyed the Ludendorff Bridge at Remagen. The Allies then pushed into Germany and eliminated Adolf Hitler and his thugs.
Hitler was a smooth talker. It is really good that enough people got together and put him out of business. I fear that, if their paths had ever crossed, he and our current President could have had a mutual admiration for one another. Two more names from these days could be considered to have joined in that admiration, Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin.
A “Butcher Supporter” is not the type of individual that we should reelect or ever elect to lead our nation.
The two respondents to my letter, (“No revenge for Mueller, but...,” April 11) missed the essential point. It’s the presidency itself that has been under attack in an unprecedented and dangerous way these past two years.
Be that as it may, we have much work to do and some of the wiser Democrats are realizing it’s time to sit down with Donald Trump to get some things done, like infrastructure. And think what we could do! The recent meeting between Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Trump discussed putting $2 trillion over 10 years into infrastructure, but did not include a method to pay for it. Trump says he’ll come up with a plan that “may not be typically Republican.”
Let’s think. How do you really build infrastructure — not just repair a few bridges and build a few more lanes for crowded freeways — how do you build for the next century? We need massive projects with advanced technology — like a nationwide magnetic levitation rail system for freight and passengers. We should build whole new cities, with utilities and freight delivery tubes underground, like they are now doing in China and Egypt.
We need major water management projects, including on the Missouri and upper Mississippi Rivers, sea walls for Texas, Florida, New York and, of course, major overhauls of urban transportation all over the country, including a complete upgrade of BART and a new transbay route.
How would you finance all this? You’re talking $10 trillion, not $2 trillion. Not a problem! The U.S. has a history of doing such things.
Study Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. As the late Lyndon LaRouche proposed, a federal infrastructure bank could issue $2 trillion of credit directed to infrastructure and related industries. With a Glass-Steagall restriction on speculative investment, this would not be inflationary. The increase in employment and productivity would bring in tax revenues, increasing greatly over time.
Let’s go for it! Put aside the complaints about Trump. We have a president willing to think and act outside the box. Wall Street and London will scream, but so what?