Letters to the Editor
Amity
Published Letters: 1110 Editor's Choice: 106
-
What Clinton Knows
[Read the article: What Hillary won't say about torture]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Clinton knows something of which the other candidates are either willfully ignorant or disingenuously pretending to be. Back during her husband's administration, American intelligence and law enforcement worked together to sniff out and break up a series of attempted attacks on the United States by al Quaeda. The success of their operations in the Philippines and Central America were covered by the mainstream press but nobody paid any attention at the time, and they've fallen completely out of American cultural memory.
Maybe that was deliberate. One aspect of these operations was that one or more of al Quaeda's guys would be captured and "disappeared" by the CIA. Where do you think they were taken? How do you think the CIA got the information it needed to round up the rest of the bunch, or at least drive them into hiding?
The answer is the same as the answer to the question of where these "secret sites" and rendition programs originated (since they were already in place when Bush came along). They've probably been around since the 1970s, and only used sparingly and by a class of people trained to make sure that it doesn't get out of hand — until Bush's cronies got their hands on the system, and decided that if a little was okay, a lot must be even better.
We can only speculate about a lot of that stuff, but that the CIA's grey ops capability existed and was used under Clinton (quite effectively against terrorists who, it turns out, really did want to blow us up) is a matter of public record. It's a little dishonest to be all shocked about it now.
-
Up to the Rest of Them
[Read the article: The era of Hillary begins]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There is a common opponent, a single woman who stands in their way. Clinton has become the master narrative, the reason for being.
Maybe this is true now, but if so it will only last as long as Hillary out-campaigns her rivals. She's working hard and running a good campaign, unfettered by the usual party allegiances that have typically plagued Democratic front-runners over the past quarter century. (In this respect she's very simply repeating her husband's formula for success.)
She doesn't benefit from any mysterious sway she has over the press (the very idea is laughable) or from some convoluted set of factors that have accidentally propelled her to the front of the pack. She just works hard. Is it any surprise that she's in the lead?
The bottom line is that if anyone is unhappy with Clinton winning then it's up to them to do something about it. I would love to see someone beat her in the primaries but if they aren't able to put together a campaign and a strategy to rival hers how do they expect to win next November?
-
casual_observer on political theater
[Read the article: Mukasey's nomination and the sudden opposition to "waterboarding"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So what good are the hearings? Are they simply political theater, as the GOP claims?
Not "simply." To paraphrase a Salon article on a related subject from some time ago[1], a Congressional hearing (or at least a good one) is a political process with theatrical overtones. It allows legislators to conduct inquiries, of course, and if Congress is working the way it should sometimes the outcome of such an inquiry is enough by itself to influence policy.
But there's also a way in which Congressional hearings are trial balloons — the people conducting them are testing the waters to see how the public reacts. The Senate showed every sign of being willing to confirm Mukasey if his hearing was followed by the usual deafening silence of disinterest from all but the most dogged public-interest lobbying groups.
Instead, it would appear, you all are starting to have an impact. Keep it up and who knows where it might lead.
As for the GOP's claims, nothing would be funnier if we weren't in such dire straits as a nation. One of the things that distinguishes contemporary Republican governance is its inversion of the usual principle — government for them has been all theater, with only the most fleeting overtone of real politics.
1. "The I-word", http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2005/06/09/impeachment/
-
The Question Not Answered
[Read the article: How Oprah ruined the marathon]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Edward McClelland's article posits an essential question — what has happened to American competitive long-distance running? — which he frustratingly then does not answer.
He seems to suggest that the United States no longer produces competitive world-class marathoners because of a general psychic weakness brought on by popularization of the sport. While this is an interesting (and extraordinary!) claim, it's not clear how or why this enervation has (supposedly) come to pass.
It's easy to imagine how if major league baseball, say, were adulterated by mass participation, the best guys out there wouldn't want to play anymore. But road racing doesn't work the same way. If you're in front, every minute that passes separates you even more from the ten thousand goofballs behind you. Vade retro!
So really, where are the great American marathoners who just don't compete anymore because Oprah has demoralized them? I just don't see it — though McClelland's original question is still a good one and I would love to hear it answered by someone with real insight into American running.