Letters to the Editor
DLF
Published Letters: 233 Editor's Choice: 21
-
Great speech, good commentary
[Read the article: Was Obama's speech enough?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Joan, I disagree with you about Obama's "grandmother comparison." So, I suspect, do quite a number of us who had a beloved, benighted grandmother like Obama's. And that's a lot of Americans.
Whether or not our grandmothers (grandfathers, parents, uncles,...) are public figures is entirely beside the point; the point is that these are people we love who have said things that (as we can see and they can't) contradict the very values they have taught us. I sure get it. I guess you were lucky enough not to have any racists in your family -- that must put you in a pretty tiny minority of Americans. But if everyone were in your position, a speech like this would not be necessary in the first place.
This is not to attack your take on the speech; I just a different point of view on this aspect of it. I thought your comment was entirely fair and forward-looking. I hope the letter-writers who jumped in to attack you for your imagined anti-Obama bias will learn to do what all American voters ought to do between now and November: listen; reason; don't just assume you already know what "they" are going to say before they've even finished saying it.
To the letter writers: if you really believe in Obama's cause, then remember he's about bringing Americans together, not mindlessly attacking one another over imagined slights.
(Great, now they'll think I'm a Clintonista too! Oh, well.)
-
There's a good chance Fox is in on this game
[Read the article: McCain's repeated "slips of the tongue" on Iran and al-Qaida]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First, you have to admire the artistry of their statement: "McCain misspoke in the way he accused Iran of fomenting violence in Iraq" -- i.e. he wasn't wrong to accuse Iraq, he just slipped up in the way he accused them.
But beyond that, Fox and those behind Fox are well aware by now of recent research on memory and denials. Specifically, if you tell a group of people "The statement 'Vinegar cures the flu' is false" and then quiz them two days later, most people -- especially older people (McCain's base!) -- won't remember the "is false" part, they'll just remember the "Vinegar cures the flu" part. Denials are forgotten; the erroneous fact that is being denied is remembered.
Republicans use this trick constantly. Constantly. It's a twofer -- they get the message out once when they "misspeak," and then they get it reinforced (for free!) when friendly Fox media politely point out the "mistake."
"Al Qaida is allied with Iran -- that's wrong! Remember this: it is false that Al Qaida is in Iran!"
We'll have a quiz on this in November.
-
He's doing it on purpose, and the GOP is behind him
[Read the article: John McCain's mix-up on al-Qaida]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Five times in less than a week is no "gaffe," it's what used to be called a "lie."
On NPR this evening, Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard (house organ of Moonies and the Washington Republicans) insisted that it was not a gaffe or even a misstatement, because, he claimed, there was solid proof going back many years to back up the connection between Al Qaida and Iran's ayatollahs. You can hear the piece at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88689984
There's no transcript yet, but I've taken the liberty to transcribe it myself -- enjoy:
Continetti: "McCain's statement that Iran is aiding Sunni terrorists has been treated as a gaffe in the media, but I think it isn't a gaffe. I think if you look at the 9-11 Commission, I think if you look at the Washington Post's own reporting on some things that Major General William B. Cauldwell has said, there IS a pattern of Iranian assistance to Al Qaida -- not just since the Iraq War began but even in the 1990s. We can't forget that Imad Muniyah, the terrorist who was recently killed in Syria, was allied with the Iranians, and of course also helped Al Qaida when it was becoming an organization."
Robert Siegel: "He was Lebanese."
Continetti: "He was Lebanese."
Siegel: "So you think he believed it, you think he meant it when he said it."
Continetti: "McCain believed it, and I think the facts, under strict scrutiny, bear him out."
Siegel: "Matt Continetti, E.J. Dionne, thanks so much."
End of show. Follow-up? None. Amazing.
-
Not a gaffe; a new Republican talking point
[Read the article: Scott Bateman: Isn't John McCain supposed to know a lot about national security?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here](I'm copying my own comment here from another Salon blog -- hope that's playing by the rules!)
On NPR this evening, Matthew Continetti of The Weekly Standard (house organ of Moonies and the Washington Republicans) insisted that it was not a gaffe or even a misstatement, because, he claimed, there was solid proof going back many years to back up the connection between Al Qaida and Iran's ayatollahs. You can hear the piece at
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88689984
There's no transcript yet, but I've taken the liberty to transcribe it myself -- enjoy:
Continetti: "McCain's statement that Iran is aiding Sunni terrorists has been treated as a gaffe in the media, but I think it isn't a gaffe. I think if you look at the 9-11 Commission, I think if you look at the Washington Post's own reporting on some things that Major General William B. Cauldwell has said, there IS a pattern of Iranian assistance to Al Qaida -- not just since the Iraq War began but even in the 1990s. We can't forget that Imad Muniyah, the terrorist who was recently killed in Syria, was allied with the Iranians, and of course also helped Al Qaida when it was becoming an organization."
Robert Siegel: "He was Lebanese."
Continetti: "He was Lebanese."
Siegel: "So you think he believed it, you think he meant it when he said it."
Continetti: "McCain believed it, and I think the facts, under strict scrutiny, bear him out."
Siegel: "Matt Continetti, E.J. Dionne, thanks so much."
End of story.