<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Guantanamo Bay Letter to the Editor</title>
	<link>http://www.proudprogressive.org/blog/2008/06/28/guantanamo-bay-letter-to-the-editor/</link>
	<description>A blog by Nicholas Solter about politics and everything else</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 17:49:27 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Matt</title>
		<link>http://www.proudprogressive.org/blog/2008/06/28/guantanamo-bay-letter-to-the-editor/#comment-777</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:04:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://www.proudprogressive.org/blog/2008/06/28/guantanamo-bay-letter-to-the-editor/#comment-777</guid>
		<description>Well put. It's great to hear that the Gazette is giving you and Sonja so much "airtime." What an interesting title they put on it, since you never mention anything about shame. I wish that the Gazette had highlighted the aspect of your letter that emphasized that it doesn't have to be a discussion of moral outrage, but is instead a pragmatic discussion about what actually will serve us best in deferring future terrorism. When framed that way, which really is best for the country? I've seen opinion polls and anecdotes from foreign countries about how our credibility goes down, but there also have been some important successes with the leadership in some foreign countries (notably Libya and now North Korea) which could stem in part from our aggressive , shoot-em-up attitude. Will Bush's strategies end up being effective in the long run? While there are definitely some concerns about "ends" v. "means," is there merit to the preemptive approach? Or does it end up hurting us more long term. This pragmatic discussion is one that I would like to have before we embark on the moral discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well put. It&#8217;s great to hear that the Gazette is giving you and Sonja so much &#8220;airtime.&#8221; What an interesting title they put on it, since you never mention anything about shame. I wish that the Gazette had highlighted the aspect of your letter that emphasized that it doesn&#8217;t have to be a discussion of moral outrage, but is instead a pragmatic discussion about what actually will serve us best in deferring future terrorism. When framed that way, which really is best for the country? I&#8217;ve seen opinion polls and anecdotes from foreign countries about how our credibility goes down, but there also have been some important successes with the leadership in some foreign countries (notably Libya and now North Korea) which could stem in part from our aggressive , shoot-em-up attitude. Will Bush&#8217;s strategies end up being effective in the long run? While there are definitely some concerns about &#8220;ends&#8221; v. &#8220;means,&#8221; is there merit to the preemptive approach? Or does it end up hurting us more long term. This pragmatic discussion is one that I would like to have before we embark on the moral discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

