Letters to the Editor
DCLaw1
Published Letters: 838 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Glenn
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I first encountered this argument -- that Democrats can't de-fund because Bush will leave the troops in Iraq anyway -- in the comment section here over the weekend and I was pretty amazed by it, for all the reasons you said.
But then I heard Joe Biden make the same argument on CNN in explaining his vote to fund the war and I was even more amazed.
I saw your update re: Biden, but didn't know he had said anything to the effect that we have to fund the occupation because Bush will keep troops there regardless (I didn't read his entire remarks). Biden has a rather honed ability to make a strikingly true statement one minute, and an appallingly stupid one the next. He's like the Senator version of Chris Matthews in that respect. One consistent strain I see in both is their automatic and frenetic saluting to all things military or "Merican." And of course I'm not talking about the natural respect for our country or those who actually bear the burden of our military engagements -- I mean that almost pathological uberpatriotism that so many pundits and politicians feel compelled to exhibit any time the opportunity presents itself.
Anyway, I definitely agree that the "argument" that Bush will do as he pleases in any circumstance is comfort not only to defeatists but also to feckless Democrats who need an excuse to give the president yet another blank check.
I have to say, however, that I think the suggestion by some (I don't think I've heard you advocate this, Glenn) that Democrats are behaving in this way simply because "moneyed interests" force them to, or because they are really no different from the Republicans, is similarly lazy thinking. I ascribe to Democrats' continuing inability to end the occupation a combination of (a) a continuing bewilderment at Bush's utter stubbornness and (b) an ingrained fear of being bludgeoned with GOP national security talking points. Other factors exist as well, such as the tactical belief that Democrats would fare better in 2008 if Bush was still directing a tremendously unpopular occupation of Iraq. I will just say that anyone familiar with Washington knows that Congress is just too big and cacophonous an institution to be controlled by a single industry or cabal. Confusion and fear are more often its masters.
-
more mindlessness
[Read the article: The risks of staying]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]A friend of mine recently sent me an email a right-wing friend forwarded to her. I have left out all names, obviously:
I continue to be amazed this morning as I watch the news. Do you ?
We need to show more sympathy for these people.
They travel miles in the heat, they risk their lives crossing a border, they don't get paid enough wages, they do jobs that others won't do or are afraid to do, they live in crowded conditions among a people who speak a different language, they rarely see their families, and they face adversity all day every day.
I'm not talking about illegal Mexicans, I'm talking about our troops.
Doesn't it seem strange that the Democrats are willing to lavish all kinds of social benefits on illegals, but don't support our troops and are now threatening to defund them? Please pass this on, this is worth the short time it takes to read it.
This is the level of sophistication and honesty we are dealing with.
-
noise machines
[Read the article: Right-wing blogger geniuses expose another journalistic fraud!]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The question now being whether "mainsteam" media outlets and pundits will consider the egregiousness and stupidity of the source when the inevitable slander about the Democratic candidate for president bubbles up.
I won't hold my breath.
-
pardon the interruption
[Read the article: After everything we did for them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Is anyone else having the problem of Salon windows just suddenly closing (usually when you access a link or try to post a comment)?
This has been happening to me lately and is extremely frustrating.
While I'm here, I just want to highly, highly recommend Al Gore's new book The Assault on Reason. It's amazing -- and if you're a fan of this blog (or if your name is Glenn Greenwald) you will love it.
-
no, I'm not affiliated with Al Gore, but
[Read the article: Right-wing noise machine: Plame not covert]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you've got to get his new book The Assault on Reason. As the title suggests, it confronts the entire panoply of speciousness and mendacity that has consumed the nation for the past five or so years.
It's loaded with not only recent examples of manipulation, fear-mongering, and power-grabbing, but also great quotes from the founders on how much importance they placed on an informed and rational public debate.
-
Re: Item 2
[Read the article: Various items]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hear hear. A significant -- if not a majority -- of the time, one does not have an independent means of evaluating the veracity of these anonymously given claims. Instead, the sourcing of the claims, and the putative objectivity or credibility of those (identified) sources serve as the touchstones of the truth of the assertions, which in turn forms the basis for identifying what is true in the first place. Accordingly, in most cases, asking solely whether anonymous or one-sided claims are "true" is simply begging the question -- circular reasoning.
Consequently, for a citizenry or punditry to grow comfortable with accepting anonymous, self-serving statements in news stories -- because in the past such statements happened to be correct in a handful of cases -- would be utterly disastrous to our entire means of evaluating truth in the absence of direct, personal knowledge of the subject. To use another metaphor, this would be a bit like looking at the strikingly high conviction rate of people who are prosecuted for crimes in our judicial system, then concluding that we can therefor do away with trials, rules of evidence, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth.
In a constitutional democracy such as ours, process is itself paramount to identifying what is true or prudent.
Process takes more effort than reflexism, blind faith, or assumption, but it forms the entire basis for our trust in power and information.
Statements to the contrary no not befit the Columbia Journalism Review.