Letters to the Editor
Rob H.
Published Letters: 122 Editor's Choice: 30
-
Hey, Anon23... You're Flat-Out Wrong
[Read the article: CNN's more worldly cousin]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Church's allegation about Israel's capability to shoot down Katyushas was a STATEMENT, it was not posed as a question.
Let's take a look at her words referring to the rockets:
"Why would Israel not be trying to shoot them out of the sky?"
That is called a question, I agree. But to back up her question, here's what she says next:
"They have the capability to do that."
That's called a STATEMENT, and like any reporter trying to paint someone into a corner, Church tries to use that STATEMENT to establish the credibility of the question. It's a fairly simple routine. Get answers through the establishment of facts.
Only her fact was wrong. So that question -- combined with that statement -- would lead any person without knowledge of the situation to think that Israel not only has the capability to shoot down Katyushas, but that their failure to do so only illustrates their supposed heavy handed tactics. And that is the tone of the entire piece. But one of her key facts to back up her assertions happens to be blatantly false.
Now you can interpret it any way you like, Anon, but unless you're willing to be totally disingenuous, the fact is she got it totally wrong.
Israel doesn't have the capability to shoot down Katyushas. And any reporter with about 30 seconds and Google could find that out.
-
Nice Piece... But....
[Read the article: Marty Peretz and the fringe pro-war movement]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a good piece, but at its end, it can't resist taking a cheap shot at John Kerry and his supposed inconsistency on Iraq.
Half-truths over Kerry's position on the war in Iraq were fomented first by the Dean campaign and later on by the Bush campaign. Without dredging up the fine details, these exaggerations became the accepted truth in much the same fashion that 50% of Americans still believe we found WMD in Iraq. While they are both good case studies in gullibility, they also both happen to be untrue.
In fact, in October of 2003, the New York Times devoted a story to the issue of Kerry and Iraq and found that Senator Kerry had been consistent in his positions. Here's a passage from that piece:
"Though his emphasis has shifted, Mr. Kerry's writings, statements and speeches from before the vote on using force through now do show consistent underpinnings. He argued for using the threat of force to support the weapons-inspection program, but only using force when all other options were exhausted. And he often warned that the greatest challenge would be in stabilizing postwar Iraq."
So a close look by a reporter found that Kerry, despite Dean's harpings, had been consistent. Unfortunately, the spin of Dean, and later on Bush, became the accepted dogma on the subject.
This is of course all water under the bridge, but I have to say that while I certainly expect the people at FOX to repeat distortions, I don't expect it at Salon.
-
Lieberman's History/Lamont's Money
[Read the article: Demonizing fellow Democrats]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]This is a great piece by Greenwald that really lays out Lieberman's awful rhetoric on the war in Iraq. If Joe loses today, he set himself up to fall by being so damn bellicose when he didn't have to be.
But unlike many who are positively gleeful about Lieberman's possible demise, I'm a bit saddened by it. I can't fathom how a guy who traveled down to Mississippi in 1963 to register black voters could end up supporting something like the war in Iraq in the fashion he did. I know times change and people change, but I would have liked to think that the Joe Lieberman that cared so deeply about justice in the 1960's could still carry that spark today.
It's also strange because Lieberman has voted the right way on numerous issues of concern to the left, including voting against both of Bush's disastrous tax cut initiatives. But in today's world, that's simply not enough. In my opinion Lieberman deserves to lose simply because he has been on the wrong side of the single most disastrous American policy decision since the Vietnam War, a war which Joe actually opposed way back when. Furthermore, his rhetoric has contributed to the pervasive atmosphere of fear that contributes so much to Republican victories.
So I'll be glad to see a Lamont win, but not a Lieberman loss, if you know what I mean. And that's because at the very least, Joe Lieberman deserves our respect for doing what very few did during one of the darkest periods of our history. I'd like to see what many of these bloggers, filled with ire, would have done under similar circumstances. One could argue that people like Joe made it a bit safer for them to exercise their rights and that wouldn't be a stretch. I don't say that to lecture anyone, it's just a reality.
My only minor complaint about this piece -- and I'm sure Greenwald didn't mean to exclude it -- was his comment that, "The primary challenge to Joe Lieberman was never fueled exclusively, or even primarily, by his support for the Iraq war." That is certainly true, but it's also true that Ned Lamont's primary challenge has been fueled by Ned Lamont's money.
Money does still follow money and Lamont's ability to spend and raise has played a huge role in his rise as a candidate. In fact, the guy started matching online donations in July. I certainly don't begrudge him for his ability to do that, but it surely hasn't hurt his campaign to be able to raise and spend money in that fashion. And wouldn't it be great if all progressive candidates could do that?