Letters to the Editor
Margalis
Published Letters: 614 Editor's Choice: 16
-
The insurgency is the direct result of the US-led invasion (and Petraeus' screwups)
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, many conservatives including the ones that troll here don't understand basic causality. Their grasp of reality is extremely limited. For all their bloviating about the enemy, they can't even keep straight who the enemy is. Many of the refugees have been driven out by government militias and the official Iraq Security Forces. Are those the enemy? They truly have no idea - it's sad. They are less savvy that the writers of the old GI Joe cartoon. Best not to engage them but to nod and let them embarrass themselves. (Still waiting for Shooter or Elephantman to say something remotely intelligent)
As far as Petraeus and the missing weapons, he always has the same excuse when something goes wrong, the same excuse Cheney delivered to Larry King: sometimes the unexpected happens! (And by "unexpected" we mean "easily predictable") These guys claim to be constantly surprised when the most likely scenarios occur.
-
Great interview
[Read the article: The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Type of the thing the MSM just does not provide.
It's a bit hard to fathom what is going on here. Glenn I think you are right to focus mostly on what occurs in our government and media and less on motivation, because the motivation is truly difficult to understand. To his credit Michael O'Hanlon was willing to answer your questions in fairly straightforward manner, conceded many points, and appeared to be genuinely unaware of how shaped by the military his reporting was. Why he wrote what he wrote is a mystery but it's safe to say that people like Michael O'Hanlon, for whatever reason, are simply not good reporters.
I've said this before and I'll say it again, people who claim to have been "on the ground" in Iraq are as a whole *less* trustworthy, because "on the ground" nearly always means imbedded with US troops or participating in military-led trips.
When trade-magazine writers attend closed-door showings of consumer electronic devices they usually come away impressed -- that is the entire point of the closed-door showing after all. The same logic applies to these military-sponsored tours of Iraq: the entire point is to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative.
If you are looking to get an unbiased view of a meat-packing plant you don't take an official tour with the CEO. This logic is obvious to most people, but for some reason they can't apply that same logic to the Iraq War.
It is in the vested interest of the military to foster rosy views of the situation, just as it is in the vested interest of the military to narrowly scope internal investigations.
This is a fundamental point you have brought up many times, which seems to be making modest headway at best: when relying on any source, the motivation of that source is of utmost importance. Isn't this journalism 101?
-
Personal stakes and bias
[Read the article: The truth behind the Pollack-O'Hanlon trip to Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let me ask it this way: do you acknowledge that you have a large personal stake in ensuring that the US adventure in Iraq ends in failure
Whether or not someone is biased or has some personal stake does not change the facts of their argument or their logic.
The points that Glenn make - that we should not rely on anonymous sources, that we should examine what motivates sources, that we should practice good journalism, that people who point to progress now wrongly pointed to progress in the past - are all valid points regardless of how the Iraq War turns out.
Even if the Iraq War turns out to be raging success it doesn't change the fact that the constant reports of progress have turned out to be lies. It doesn't change the fact that there were no WMDs, or that the press relies on stenography of dubious claims and practices shoddy journalism.
The boy who cried wolf eventually saw a real wolf. The boy who cried progress might eventually see real progress. But the takeaway from The Boy who Cried Wolf is that the boy was a dumbass, not that the boy was a genius who was eventually validated.
Glenn's blog makes substantive arguments and complaints, not untethered opinions and predictions.
Michael O'Hanlon is guilty of practicing poor journalism, and nothing about the success or failure of the Iraq War or even the veracity of his claims contradicts that, any more than the success of a Magic 8-Ball would demonstrate that relying on that ball for advice is a sound decision.
-
The Muslims are taking over?
[Read the article: The Islamists are coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm still concerned about those dirty Mexicans out-breeding us. Man my xenophobia is so last week.
-
Why are you all forgetting about the dirty Mexicans?
[Read the article: The Islamists are coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I really don't get it. I mean, they are pouring into our country, breeding nonstop, taking our jobs - for God's sake they have leprosy!
When the Muslims do eventually take over the US, they'll be taking over The United States of Mexico anyway.
Muslim takeover is weeks if not months away, but Mexican takeover is happening right now. And not just Mexicans but even fouler minorities as well!
PRIORITIZE PEOPLE!!!!!!
-
Off topic but interesting - more vaunted "progress"
[Read the article: The Islamists are coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]http://web.archive.org/web/20031211235243/www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/wmd.search/index.html
"WMD hunters tout progress in Iraq
Kay says search will 'take time'"
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me a hundred times - yeah, that's just fucking stupid.
Always with the "progress" and always with the "more time needed." We truly never ever learn.
-
Why are we talking about Rushdie?
[Read the article: The Islamists are coming]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What happened to him is obviously awful, no two ways about it.
And?
There are a lot of Muslim nutjobs out there. What that has to do with Islam being an evil religion and those Muslims taking over America is beyond me.