Letters posted here are associated with the following Salon Premium Member:

Jebbie

Published Letters: 3985

Friday, October 26, 2007 09:32 PM

Capt. John Rohan

"So it's stupid to worry about the military being politicized when you don't seem to mind it happening to the media."

John, perhaps had you taken the time to read a little of Greenwald's work before engaging your piehole, you would have learned that Greenwald spends a hell of a lot more time criticizing the politization of the media than even mentioning the military. As a matter of fact, he has NEVER criticized the military as a whole, but rather has confined his criticism to extremely small parts of the military organization, and then only when it appears that our military has been directly involved in propagandizing the American people (Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman) or when he has good evidence that individual members of the military have stepped over the line from being a non-political arm of our government to becoming directly involved in the political games being played in Washington (Petraeus).

"And about military experience, hey Greenwald can comment about whatever he wants, it's a free country. But there's a difference between being "detached" from the problem and sitting in an ivory tower - so detached that you have no idea what you are talking about."

I am gratified that a 15 year veteran officer of our Army, a full Captain, has acknowledged that Glenn Greenwald can write about whatever he wants because "it's a free country". Perhaps you've spent so much time figuring out this basic fact that you have failed to realize that there's also a difference between being "detatched" from the problems facing this country at home, and sitting in a nice Bavarian Bierhous getting the news from home filtered by that very same media you criticize.

Get off your horse, Captain. We all want the same thing here. You seem to be content to attempt to acheive this end primarily through force of arms, and most of us here at UT have determined, one way or another, that force of arms isn't going to get it done and that it is quite possible that through the misuse of arms, we may be placing this country at a much greater risk than would be the case had they allowed you to stay at that Bavarian Bierhaus and not sent you to Iraq at all.

Hoo-ahh!!

Sir.

Saturday, October 27, 2007 08:17 AM
Original article: Telecom amnesty update

No is Yes and Yes is No

A quick down and dirty read of the whip count tells me that the key player in this could end up being Diane Feinstein. Without her vote to strike the amnesty provision from the Bill, those who favor no amnesty would have to rely on Arlen Spector's vote and that's a chilling thought on any vote.

In looking at the count, I have put Kohl, Leahy, Whitehouse, Schumer and Durbin into the 'No' column along with those already committed to voting against amnesty.

Is there any reason to doubt Leahy, Schumer and Durbin on this one?

Saturday, October 27, 2007 09:27 AM
Original article: Telecom amnesty update

Glenn

"A major problem is that Whitehouse (along with Feinstein) already voted FOR amnesty in the Intelligence Committee, of which they are both members."

If that's the case, we are indeed in deep Kim-Chi.

Saturday, October 27, 2007 10:32 PM

Paul

Not to worry.

Somethings are worth repeating.

Sunday, October 28, 2007 10:14 AM

Glenn

Are you positive the first email didn't originate at FEMA.org?

It shows the same incomprehensible blather that they seem to specialize in.

Monday, October 29, 2007 03:28 PM

Anon of long ago

"Is he a West Point grad? If so, I would have expected a better person."

No. He did not go to the Army's trade school at West Point, NY. He went to small Baptist College which I believe is located in Atlanta.

No Ringknocker worth his salt would ever announce to the world that he was a Public Relations anything, much less getting his ass caught up in a mess like this.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:20 AM

The way I read that Zogby poll

is that it depends on how the question of Iranian nukes is worded.

If it is proven that Iran is sneaking in a military nuke program, as opposed to a civilian nuclear power program, it makes all the difference in the world how a lot of people react.

Thus far, there has been absolutely no proof, whatsoever, demonstrated by this administration that Iran is indeed working on a nuclear weapon.

Do Americans have a right to demand that their leaders provide proof of such evidence before going to war with another country?

Has our experience with the Iraq war taught us anything?

Anything at all?

Tuesday, October 30, 2007 02:29 PM

-- L.W.M.

"Glen Greenwald is Jewish, btw."

No shit?

Most Active Letters Threads

685

Obama's exceedingly familiar justifications for escalation

The "new" approach to Afghanistan touted by White House officials seems quite old
596

The commendably missing element from Obama's speech

There was no pretense that human rights is our goal, or the likely outcome, in escalating the war
440

The face of rotted Washington

Evan Bayh demands more debt-financed war - fought by others - while boasting that he's a stern "deficit hawk."
317

Yes, it's Obama's war now

An uninspiring speech sells a dubious policy, but progressives who feel betrayed have only themselves to blame
209

Bigotry wins in Switzerland

By voting to ban the construction of minarets, Switzerland apes the most extreme intolerance in the Muslim world

View all »

Letters Help

Currently in Salon