Plausible deniability is the ability of a person or organization to deny knowledge of, responsibility for or involvement in a controversial action in a manner that cannot be conclusively disproved.
A number of years ago, our daughter found our grandson sitting next to a freshly marked wall with a crayon in his hand. She started recording the incident. She asked: “Logan, did you write on the wall?” “No, Ella did it” was his reply. This made him an Instagram star, and it also became a very teachable moment. He has been shown this video on numerous occasions, and he sees the error of his way.
Plausible deniability can be cute when coming from a 2-year-old, but when coming from government officials, it is disgraceful. Take the example of the Starshield communications system and what it means for Ukraine’s defense. According to the Guardian, Ukraine’s military reported that Starlink, “produced by SpaceX but managed by the US government, was no longer working on terminals moving at speeds greater than 100mph.” Ukraine’s strike force became inoperable behind front lines; Russian drones were able to hit populated areas, adding to Ukraine’s already high civilian death toll.
Does SpaceX founder and CEO Elon Musk take any responsibility? Musk said any disruption of Starshield was the responsibility of the U.S. government.
Marco Rubio is the secretary of state. He said: “The important point is we cannot direct a private company as to the decisions they make or do not make.”
President Donald Trump said: “I don’t know if it was anybody, because it wasn’t me, and I don’t think it was Elon.” A very firm and resolute answer from the White House resident.
When a 2-year-old gets caught writing on a wall, it’s something that a fresh coat of paint can fix. But you can’t bring the dead back to life when incompetent adults start playing the plausible deniability game.
— Mick Vendel, Elgin
Unconditional surrender
No one wants a “forever war.” We therefore need to understand what causes a forever war in order to avoid it. I believe that forever wars are the result of “negotiated” settlements, which are then ignored by one or both sides. No one has actually won the war, so the sides have to continue negotiating/fighting forever.
I am aware of only two wars in my 79-year lifetime (in which the U.S. participated) that were won by someone. The most recent, Vietnam, was won by the communist rebels, and that country is stable today. Ho Chi Minh started the revolution because he really did care about his people; when Vietnam eventually realized that socialism by itself wasn’t working, it adopted a hybrid capitalist-socialist model. The second was World War II. Adolf Hitler’s government and Japan were so dangerous to the rest of the world that nothing but unconditional surrender was adequate.
We can’t keep doing the same things we’ve been doing for the last 40 years and expect different results. Iran and its proxies are just as dangerous to the world as Nazi Germany and Japan were. The stated goal of Iran and its proxies is “death to the United States.” Iran has shown that it aims to achieve that goal given enough time, especially if it develops a nuclear weapon. We must win the war with Iran and its proxies like Hamas and the Houthis. Unconditional surrender, not a negotiated settlement, is needed now as it was then, because they have shown that they care nothing about their own citizens with their unwillingness to negotiate in good faith (both now and in the last 40 years).
More Top Picks Best Smokeless Fire Pits For Backyard Use
Winning will require boots on the ground, but the situation is serious enough that it should be a price we are willing to pay.
Everyone laughed at President Donald Trump’s talk about making Gaza the Riviera of the Middle East. But he was, in his dumb way, talking about postwar assistance with rebuilding Gaza into a place where its citizens can live a good life. Just like we did in Germany and Japan after that war.
My biggest disappointment with Trump is that he abandoned the strategy of winning and is now trying to negotiate with an enemy that has no intention of negotiating in good faith. Iran is even bragging that it is winning this war. Well, maybe it is winning.
— Mike Noonan, Elmhurst
Good working relationship?
The letter from Dan Schuchardt (“Learn to work with Trump,” Oct. 22) states that he doesn’t understand the “No Kings” name for protests because he hasn’t seen a coronation ceremony. He’s right, of course, but what he fails to grasp is that Donald Trump is behaving the way a king would, despite being elected by the people. Making unilateral decisions contrary to constitutional law and the will of Congress is king-like behavior.
Secondly, calling Democrats “scum,” “vermin,” “animals” and “enemies of the people”; doling out disaster assistance based on loyalty, such as voting for him; doing what he can to disenfranchise voters; expelling journalists; and siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the war with Ukraine, among other things, are all much more serious than being “a little more cantankerous,” as Schuchardt describes Trump.
For these reasons, I must respectfully reject his suggestion that Democrats try to forge a working relationship with Trump, and I hope that the new Congress holds him to account.
— Ronda Schiess, River Forest
Parties vote against the other
I’m having a very hard time adjusting to the political situation America finds itself in. In another lifetime, I was involved in local politics for some 37 years. There is a reason for political parties — different points of view and different constituents, for example. But their purpose ultimately is to provide what is best for the folks they represent. This is not happening in our country today.
Both parties are at fault. Each party votes against the opposing-party proposal regardless of the positive merit of the proposal. Each party is blind to the other and automatically votes against the opposing party simply because it is the opposing party. Who is left out? Citizens.
Sadly, I see no immediate solution. Polarization has set in on both sides with no compromise on the horizon. And this has filtered down not only at the state level but also at the local level.
— Ed Zabrocki, Orland Park
Census Bureau questions
An Oct. 24 front-page story by Robert McCoppin (“Proposals for census alarming advocates”) reports that President Donald Trump’s administration has proposed that the 2030 census omit questions about citizens’ race, ethnicity and sexual orientation. According to McCoppin, Trump’s Census Bureau now claims the process of data collection “should be colorblind and not be distorted in any way by questions about immaterial personal characteristics.”
Gee, has Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth gotten the Census Bureau’s memo? He seems to think that color, gender and sexual orientation are critically important to the battlefield performance of our troops. If those characteristics are immaterial, Trump needs to tell Hegseth.
Perhaps Trump can call the Census Bureau and the Defense Department into a meeting to devise a consistent policy.
— F.K. Plous, Chicago
No need for Halloween
I have no need for Halloween this year. Having Donald Trump as president and the cost of living are scary enough for me.
— Nancy Morton, Harvard
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email [email protected].