Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1093 Editor's Choice: 15
-
kovie's optimism on oversight is refreshing
[Read the article: Yesterday's ruling on NSA warrantless eavesdropping]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's encouraging to see someone pointing out that there may still be hope. I would add that as Congress comes back into session this week, many members will be digesting the poll information showing a clear majority in favor of impeaching Cheney and nearly 50% in favor of impeaching Bush. I think it will be very difficult for them to ignore this level of dissatisfaction.
Let's hope that this result is used to bolster their enthusiasm for the oversight hearings. As pointed out, these hearings would then produce the raw material for either legislation to repair the damage and/or eventual impeachment.
-
My head is exploding
[Read the article: The NYT's growing pro-war fan club]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]How can it be that the NY Times has on its own staff an ombudsman, calling himself the readers' representative, who sees through the stenography presented by Gordon just as clearly as Glenn does, and yet this drivel continues unabated on the front page? In other words, it appears that the Times is at least aware enough of its transgressions that it needs an ombudsman on staff, yet even when wrongdoing is found, it is merely the topic of an editorial column, rather than any corrective action being taken.
Looking at the Times' description of the Public Editor position (http://www.nytimes.com/ref/opinion/hoyt-bio.html) and Hoyt, it appears that this position was created in 2003. Was the position created in response to an outcry over Judith Miller's reporting on the rationale for attacking Iraq?
Hoyt is clearly very well-qualified for the role he has been assigned. He is a veteran of Knight-Ridder and has a Pulitzer. The Times would do itself, and the world, a large favor if his observations as ombudsman were turned into action items with Hoyt having some authority in their implementation.
-
sysprog
[Read the article: The NYT's growing pro-war fan club]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You are entirely right that the structure for the Public Editor prevents an operational role for Mr. Hoyt in restoring journalistic integrity to the Iraq stories on the front page. While engaging in some wishful thinking, the point I intended to make is that what Hoyt, Glenn and a number of those in the blogosphere have pointed out is a level of dishonesty so pervasive that simply to point it out in an editorial is insufficient. Action is required.
Before someone decides to suggest that this is merely a healthy difference of opinion between Mr. Hoyt and Mr. Gordon, I know which one of the two I will trust.
I'll take the winner of the '73 Pulitzer for $1000, Alex.
-
Retired Military Patriot
[Read the article: The NYT's growing pro-war fan club]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree with you that the withdrawal editorial is an incredibly important development, especially with its insistence on real dialogue with Iraq's neighbors. There is one point where I felt the editorial did not go far enough and another I think they overlooked entirely.
First, while they did state: "...Americans must be equally honest about the fact that keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse", they would have done better to quote the Iraq National Intelligence Estimate directly in pointing out that it is our presence in Iraq that is recruiting more terrorists on a daily basis.
Second, the editorial, while ably refuting many neocon arguments, ignores the one that will receive most play in further discussions of withdrawal: "The terrorists will follow us home".
The complete failure of Al Qaeda to mount additional attacks within the US continues to drive home how isolated they really are. McClatchy ran a story this week on the repeated attacks within the UK and lack of attacks in the US.
So why do attacks keep happening here? And why, since the horror of 9-11, has America avoided another assault?
Karl-Heinz Kamp, the security policy coordinator at Germany's prestigious Konrad Adenauer research center, said it was easy to understand why.
"The U.S. has a historical advantage; America is still the land of opportunity to the whole world. The people moving there believe the American dream of social mobility," he said. "In Europe, we've historically treated our immigrants as hired help, and waited for them to finish the work they arrived for and go home."
Bob Ayers, a security and terrorism expert with London's Chatham House, a foreign-policy research center, thinks that immigrants to the U.S. actually become Americans, giving the United States a huge advantage in avoiding homegrown al Qaida terrorists. Europeans encourage immigrants to retain their native cultures, causing them to be ostracized more readily.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/17659.html
The bottom line is that we do have in place a system that, although subject to much criticism and worthy of improvement, has managed so far to keep out those with short-term intentions to attack. For now, our social structure works against the development of those inside the country who would attack us as well. Let us hope that we can restore wisdom to our country's leadership before this internal advantage is eliminated.
-
Wrong
[Read the article: The NYT's growing pro-war fan club]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Yeah, and Greenwald is not in Iraq and hates the military, hence his willingness to believe every word al Qaeda says and to disbelieve every word the US military says.
Try going back and reading the first update again. Glenn is just pointing out that the function of journalism simply consists of taking the public statement made by any party and then checking it against fact. A statement by the US military or by Al Qaeda should be subject to the same process: repeat the claim made and then look for, and report, evidence that either supports it or refutes it.
-
What confuses me
[Read the article: GOP hawks' sudden conversion]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They gaze upon the abandoned shipwreck of the once invincible presidential campaign of their colleague John McCain, and suddenly realize that they too can no longer ignore the grim message of the pollsters.
Yes, McCain has faltered miserably in the polls, yet the other Republican front-runners still do surprisingly well when Rasmussen presents poll results for individual Republicans against individual Democrats. This is mind-boggling when you look at public opinion on Bush and the war. Romney says he wants to double Gitmo and still does well in the polls. He and other Republican candidates parrot Bush talking points on Iraq, terrorism, wiretapping and even the US Attorney scandal. These issues have all made Bush toxic, yet they don't hurt Guiliani, Romney or Thompson. Can someone explain this?