Letters to the Editor
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 459
-
Lying Liars and the Lies They Lie About
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I respect what you guys (where I’m from “guys” doesn’t upset any gender) are saying, but I just disagree. You say:
“A lie is a lie”
That’s no lie. But I don’t know how helpful it is to call Glenn a liar when he says something that later he acknowledges was not true. Like last week when he took Obama to task for the specific claim (I have NO problem with the strong criticism Glenn is applying to Obama) that Obama is saying that Telecom Amnesty is essential for fighting terrorism. Glenn is smart. He knows what each of those words mean and he certainly understood Obama’s point (no matter how weak it is; and it IS weak). Glenn came back and changed that, highlighting only one aspect of what makes up his strong integrity.
But even if you could make a case that it is ok to call him a liar for what he said (and what he certainly will say in the future), I’m not interested.
I think there is a great satisfaction in boiling this kind of thing down to a simple kind of notion. President Bush and people all over the spectrum are good examples of what this tendency looks like. “There are those who lie and those who don’t. We can have compassion on Liars like Mara, but we must call them what they are!”
But perhaps I get a little jolt of righteousness when the folks on my side argue their points passionately without needing to hallucinate about the moral landscape of those “others”. I like it when “my” side has no need to get red in the face, even in the midst of passionately defending our positions.
Just to note: even on this comment thread, I have read 4 or 5 different interpretations of Mara’s comments. Everybody agrees she is lying, but not everybody agrees on what she means. Somebody who just wrote finds it obvious that Liasson is lying about Obama’s base. This person claims that she said his base is “left wing”. Did Mara say this? Does it mean this person is lying about Mara? It just becomes kind of silly when we “know” so much about lying.
I could be wrong but I thought Liasson was specifying an aspect of Obama’s base. However, you can see that other readers believe other things about what she said. Our “side” should be quick to see ambiguity and not let that interfere with the fundamental points. Everytime we get righteous and “intelligent” about the moral nature of other people, we lose the kind of power we need, I think. The quick jolt that it gives us to be “religious” isn’t worth it, in my opinion.
On the one hand the very fact that there is a discussion about what lying really is highlights my point. On the other hand, I think it is extremely worthwhile to talk about this tendency to “know” who the liars are.
-
@ On lying (and I might be just dumb here)
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]So Liasson just flatly stated that "the American people" -- as opposed to "the left wing base," which is (of course) a different animal altogether -- don't want to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months but instead favor withdrawal only when "facts on the ground" permit it.
I am not the sharpest tool in the shed, but is Glenn correct in saying that:
Liasson just flatly stated "the American people”…don’t want to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months
I know Glenn is a fan of being very careful with words, so I’m not worried about this question. I’m more worried about my ability to comprehend what I read. I can’t find where Liasson “flatly” states that Americans don’t want the troops home in 16 months. I can see how inferences can be made based on her comments, but Glenn would be the first to not only make that distinction but to argue why it is a highly significant one.
Would somebody please show me how Liasson “flatly” made this claim?
-
Sorry Glenn
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really am. You did state that she said that. I didn't think leaving off the second independent clause changed the meaning of what you wrote. Does it? I'm not being sarcastic here. Isn't it ok to take out parts of quotes if it doesn't alter the meaning or implication. I'm not a pro here.
Over the last few months, I've gotten over 20 people I know to begin reading your column (I've been fawning). And 7 or 8 of them have come away scratching their heads. Not about most of your main points, but about certain assumptions you make about folks.
Your legal analysis seems solid. The patterns you point out about press coverage and strategy has been very enlightening to me. It does not seem as obvious that we are to conclude that Liasson made the claims you suggest (and I'm far from a fan of hers!). It does not seem obvious to me that our only ways of understanding her comments is that she consciously lies or doesn't care at all to tell the truth.
Either way, I obviously am annoying you. I tried not to imply negative intend on your part and I think I made clear that I might not be correct. I don't find it worthwhile asking you questions if you simply assume I'm coming from a dishonest place. There is much for me to learn from your work regardless of how you see me. And I'm sorry I cut off your sentence. I was trying to highlight the "flat" part of her claim.