Letters to the Editor
Bill Keane
Published Letters: 26
-
Were they deliberately misleading the Telcos?
[Read the article: More fallout from the Comey revelations]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Let's assume that Gonzales and Card were seeking Ashcroft's signature to address the concerns of third parties and they knew that Ashcroft had relinquished his authority to Comey. Let's also assume that third parties would not be aware of Ashcroft's incapacity to verify the program and that Card and Gonzales (and the President) knew this also. Is it ridiculous to infer that Card and Gonzales were sent to the hospital for the deliberate purpose of obtaining a document that they knew was invalid? Did they intend to use the invalid authority to deliberately mislead third parties into cooperating with the NSA program? If the President made the call to Ashcroft's wife, then he must have been briefed on the purpose of seeking Ashcroft's signature. He would therefore have known Ashcroft's signature was meaningless, except as a tool to mislead third parties. This appears to be a crime that is readily provable and that the public will easily understand (as opposed to the more complex facts of warrantless spying)?
-
Fairness for Libby, limbo at Gitmo
[Read the article: Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn
I couldn't help laughing at the following quote from Libby's lawyers:
"...asking the Court and Mr. Libby to take the government's word on Ms. Wilson's status, based on secret evidence, without affording Mr. Libby an opportunity to rebut it. Such a request offends traditional notions of fairness and due process."
Do you think these guys have read the rules that will apply to the trials of "enemy combatants" now held a Gitmo?
Regards
Bill Keane
-
Fairness for Libby, limbo for Gitmo
[Read the article: Scooter Libby responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I couldn't help laughing at the following quote from Libby's lawyers:
"...asking the Court and Mr. Libby to take the government's word on Ms. Wilson's status, based on secret evidence, without affording Mr. Libby an opportunity to rebut it. Such a request offends traditional notions of fairness and due process."
Do you think these guys have read the rules that will apply to the trials of "enemy combatants" now held a Gitmo?
Regards
Bill Keane
-
Personal?
[Read the article: The Clinton vs. Obama slugfest continues]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Why do intelligent people have so much trouble distinguishing between a relevant criticism of a candidate and a personal attack? When candidate A falsely states that candidate B has a drinking problem, that's a personal attack. When Hillary runs on experience and Obama observes that she did not hold a cabinet position, that's a relevant (and accurate)criticism. Confusing these two very different kinds of conduct is one of the many causes of the dumbing down of political discourse in this country.
-
Deliberate distortion
[Read the article: More about race and the Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hillary said: "the Obama campaign is deliberately distorting this". I don't think so. I would like to see any evidence of distortion of any kind by the Obama campaign on this issue. I have not seen any. Hillary's response to Russert is based on a lie. She is doing this to try and obscure the origin of the controversy. The origin is clear - she suggested that black leaders need white politicians to put their ideas into practice. Her message was: in the real world, white people get things done and black people talk. That's the kind of politics she's practicing. Obama, on the other hand, is not commenting at all on the "fairytale" comment or the King comment. If I had any doubts before, I know who I want to vote for now.
-
90% right
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn,
I think you are mostly right about this but King does make one good point: You should have called and checked that the whole interview was what you commented on. Also, you missed an element of the standard journo response, which is to denigrate your writing style as "ramblings". Anyone who reads you knows how precise you are and how effective and clean your written expression is. To describe your writing as "ramblings" is laughable.
-
Walter_Map
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You asked what purpose is served by calling King first. Quite simply, it closes the loop. King is clearly a potential source of facts. He may have commented, or presented facts that would have thrown more light on the matter. Glenn assumed that the broadcast portion was the entire interview and, based on the footage, he may have been right to do so but there is no harm in checking and it is easy to do. It is always better to research than to assume. More information is never a bad thing because if you do not inform, you cannot persuade. If, as you suggest, CNN was unresponsive, Glenn could have stated so in his post, thus robbing King of the (admittedly thin) basis for his indignation. The outcome would have been better for Glenn, since it would have more fully have revealed King for what he appears to be. Does that make sense to you?
-
@Family Circus
[Read the article: CNN's John King responds]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"So, are we all reduced to calling the reporter for every story which we think may be substandard or incomplete? Would that make a reporter's quality inversely proportional to the volume of recordings in their voicemail?"
No. But if you are going to criticise the reporter personally for being a lapdog (and I'm not saying he wasn't), you should check if the fault was, in fact, editorial. Glenn's criticism of King was scathing and I believe, accurate. Of course you don't need to ask permission to write a critical story. Not all reporting is this critical of a reporter personally. It is easy to make a single call. My point is; doing this small thing makes the story a more effective and complete critique. I don't understand why this is such a contentious point with you guys, unless you simply want to swallow all of Glenn's views without independent thought. Somehow, I don't think that is the kind of readership he wants.