Letters to the Editor
Foodle
Published Letters: 45
-
@casual_observer
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Within some undetermined limits, I do believe that the American people will accept deviation based upon a new assessment of the facts on the ground, that they will not demand absolute adherence to Obama's 16 month promise. See my 09:08 AM response to sinjan for one example. If Obama were to try to pull of a Nixonian multi-year delay in ending the war, or were to try to shift to McCain's policy of permanent basing, then I think President Obama would be in deep political trouble.
-
@YankeeFrankee
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I read Liasson here as saying that the American people want Obama to look at facts on the ground.
Me too. My point is that Glenn made her out to be asserting that the American people do not want troops to be withdrawn within 16 months. That is a very different statement than what we both took Liasson to be saying.
As for reducing half the American people to the "left wing base," that is no what she was doing. She did not assert that only the "left wing base" wants troops to be withdrawn within 16 months. Her claim was that only the "left wing base" wants the next commander in chief to stick to the 16 month campaign promise regardless of any new assessment of the facts on the ground in Iraq. Even if a large majority of Americans want our troops to be withdrawn from Iraq within 16 months of the beginning of the next presidency, it is still entirely consistent for the vast majority of those so desiring to want the next president to also choose policy based on the facts on the ground. That would leave only a fringe remainder of those desiring withdrawal within 16 months who just don't care what the facts on the ground are or may be. Liasson's claim is that this fringe remainder is the "left wing base."
-
What you wrote, Glenn
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You can spend all day writing this same statement another 100 times and it won't obscure how completely you're distorting the point.
Neither I nor anyone claimed that Liasson's point was that "the American people don't want to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months." So stop saying that.
I am not distorting.
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.
That is simply not what Liasson said.
-
@Kitt
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Point taken, although I did not write "commander in chief of the American people." President Bush is the American people's current commander in chief of the armed forces even though he is not the commander in chief of the American people.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The last time: Those two statements are not exactly equivalent.
Preferring policy based on the facts on the ground over blind adherence to a campaign promise is not the same as not wanting to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months. Policy based on the facts on the ground can be exactly the same as a policy of withdrawing the troops within 16 months if you believe that the facts on the ground support withdrawing within 16 months.
The polling data do not support the notion that the American people do not want the troops withdrawn within 16 months, but Liasson never claimed that the American people do not want withdrawal within 16 months. What she claimed was that they want a policy based on the facts on the ground, not on a campaign promise.
The polling data do not unambiguously support the notion that the American people want the troops withdrawn within 16 months regardless of any facts on the ground. The available data contain at least ambiguities if not outright contradictions that leave open the reading that the American people want BOTH for the troops to be withdrawn within 16 months AND for that policy to be based on the facts on the ground (which they presently assess to be in favor of withdrawal within 16 months.)
How the American people will react if the Obama administration releases a new assessment early next year of the facts on the ground in Iraq that indicates clear disadvantages to strictly adhering to the 16 month campaign promise and/or clear advantages to deviating from that promise is not clear from current polling data. Liasson's assertion that they will prefer policy based on the new assessment of the facts is not unreasonable, even though that assertion is not directly supported by the current polling data. She could have been more clear in stating that her assertion was her own opinion, not established fact or well-supported with data, but that seems a fairly minor quibble when she did not claim that there definitely were such factual supports and when she was speaking in the context of a political opinion/punditry show, not a news report.
-
@Kitt
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Geez, Kitt, I said I take your point. You seem not to have taken mine. What I originally wrote was ambiguous, not incorrect. It was not clear whether I meant "the American people would prefer their commander and chief of the armed forces..." or whether I meant "the American people would prefer that the commander and chief of the American people..." You choose to insist that I meant the latter. I did not, and I again accept your point that I should have written more carefully.
-
@YankeeFrankee
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That claim you say she made, which she did sort of make, is not based on THE FACTS AS EVIDENCED BY THE POLLS. She has no poll to base that on, as no poll we are aware of has asked that question.
Agreed, but faulting Liasson for asserting on a political opinion show an opinion neither directly supported nor contradicted by polling data (i.e., an opinion on a question of exactly the sort that is open to opining) seems a far less serious charge than the claim that she asserted an opinion directly and unequivocally contradicted by the polling data.
-
Thanks, Carol Richards
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]We agree.