Letters to the Editor
Foodle
Published Letters: 45
-
@YankeeFrankee
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I have tried to deal evenly with Foodle throughout this entire thread until it became obvious to me that she is sliding on her own slippery version of the truth just like Liasson did.
"He," thank you.
Glenn:
How much clearer could that be? The truth is exactly the opposite of what Liasson said. Americans want to withdraw from Iraq in accordance with Obama's timetable (if not faster) regardless of circumstances "on the ground" -- not conditioned on those circumstances.
You:
I don't think anyone here is trying to say that all Americans want us out of Iraq damn the consequences.
I also don't think anyone is trying to say that all Americans want us out of Iraq damn the consequences, but if you think Glenn is not trying to assert that most Americans indisputably and unequivocally want us out of Iraq damn the consequences, then you would be the one sliding on your own slippery version of the truth. Glenn's claim is false. The polls do not unambiguously indicate that Americans want to withdraw from Iraq regardless of circumstances on the ground; the polling responses equivocate between seeming contradictions, leaving open the possibility that what most Americans really want is a withdrawal within 16 months based on the facts on the ground -- they want to get out confident that doing so is the right thing, and with no hints of remorse or regret. It is unclear how they will react if it becomes clear that such an outcome is impossible and what the nature of the regrets and remorse is likely to be.
-
You're fudging it, Glenn
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In logical terms, the statement reads: "Liasson said that Americans don't want A, but rather, want A only if B."
A = withdrawing troops
B = "conditions on the ground" warrant it
Polls conclusively show that Americans want A - not "A only if B."
That is an inaccurate abstraction of what you originally wrote. In logical terms, the statement reads: Liasson said that Americans don't want A but rather want B.
A = "to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months"
B = "withdrawal only when 'facts on the ground' permit it"
A and B are too different kinds of withdrawal: A is withdrawal in 16 months; B is withdrawal only when "facts on the ground" permit it. The polls do not conclusively show that Americans want A and do not want B. The polling data are ambiguous and equivocal, making the possibility that Americans want both A and B a plausible reading. What will happen if Americans come to believe that they cannot have both A and B at the same time is unclear from the current polling data.
-
Glenn
[Read the article: Beltway myth: "The left-wing base" vs. "the American people" on Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]That is not my claim. My claims are that 1) The polling data allow for the reading that Americans want both A and B; and 2) The polling data do not unambiguously show that Americans want only A regardless of any facts on the ground in Iraq.
Liasson's claim was that American's want B, not C -- where C is "withdrawal based upon a campaign promise."