Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2514 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Bullsmith:
[Read the article: Fred Hiatt and Iraq -- Together Forever]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I am constantly shocked that the simple idea that war is, quite simply, the worst of all human enterprises is fundamentally in dispute.
That is the most striking attribute of our political discourse, particularly when we debate war - the complete absence of any sense that war is something inherently heinous, literally the last resort, something justifiable only in the most extreme and the rarest of circumstances.
Instead, it's become just a standard foreign policy tool for this country, and in many places, the preferred one - the first resort, not the last.
-
Joe:
[Read the article: Iran-Britain conflict shows the dangers of our ongoing presence in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just based on the facts known don't you think Iran over reacted?
Totally - complete overreaction on their part. I'm sure if an Iranian naval vessel entered U.S. waters, we would have handled it much more delicately and less aggressively. Just a little hostile naval ship in their waters - what's the big deal. I'm sure that would have been our attitude.
-
Paul:
[Read the article: Iran-Britain conflict shows the dangers of our ongoing presence in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'd say one's instinct would be to trust the Iraqi fishermen. Just because two governments have weighed in doesn't mean they're claims should dominate our attention or views.
I'm not sure what you're differing with. I said the account of the Iraqi fisherman was the "only independent evidence" so far, though I hardly think it makes much sense to place great stock in the claims of two anonymous witnesses who may have all sorts of motives and basis (just as the Iraqi government officials promoting those claims might).
Anonymous people from the "community" aren't vested with inherent credibility or honesty. Some ordinary civilians lie as much as government officials do. What determines who to believe where, as is true here, the parties have relatively equal credibility (or lack thereof), is the available empirical evidence. So far, we don't have much of that, one way or the other.
-
Paul:
[Read the article: Iran-Britain conflict shows the dangers of our ongoing presence in Iraq]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The point I was trying to make was about what original reporting could do, and should aspire to.
If I was on the ground, I might well not want to identify the fishermen in my story, but I certainly would want to check them out, see if they were prone to telling stories, had a political grudge, etc.
Thanks for clarifying. Now I agree totally. I think reporters ought to include what the government claims are - that's news - but that's just the starting point. The role of the journalist is to then investigate those claims by gathering the evidence - such as interviews with fishermen. But journalists so frequently stop at the Press Releases of the Government - that's all they need so often for their stories.
-
Paul:
[Read the article: Congressional oversight is a linchpin of how our democracy works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm of the opinion, that they were so accustomed to having their own way and never being questioned substansively that even after Congress changed hands, it STILL didn't occur to them they could now be held accountable for their behavior.
At the time they were engineering these firings, and even once it started being discussed, they didn't think this would become any sort of a scandal. Their e-mails reflect that. But even if they did think that, you are absolultely right - six years of doing whatever they wanted, in secret, with every attempt to investigate squashed absolutely led them to assume that they could do anything and never be caught.
What is amazing is to listen to our journalists essentially urge that that immunity continue.
-
Kovie:
[Read the article: Congressional oversight is a linchpin of how our democracy works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]YouTube of Chris Matthews Show Segment where MSM pundits weigh in on how Purgegate amounts to little more than Dems making political hay of it:
I added that as an update. I don't know whether to thank you or curse you. That was genuinely hard to stomach, but so very instructive. It was just appalling on every level. If I wanted to write an illustrative script to illustrate everything wrong with our national press, I couldn't have dreamt up anything that good. Even the cast of characters what perfect - exactly who it ought to have been.
God, that was vile.
-
Gonzales' ethnicity
[Read the article: Congressional oversight is a linchpin of how our democracy works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Nab, you've made it abundantly clear that your ignorance knows no bounds, but please, don't insult the entire Hispanic community by telling us 'whitefolk' that we'd best stand by anyone with an Hispanic name, no matter what, or the Hispanics will vote in lockstep against the "offending" party.
I would respectfully suggest that Nab is not worth responding to (the respect there being directed to those to whom I am offering my suggestion, not to Nab), but it is worth noting that the point he made about Gonzales' ethnicity was also made by Chris Matthews at the very end of that clip -- that Democrats would be in big trouble if they really went after Gonzales because he's Hispanic. That point is wrong and offensive on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start, but it is what Matthews said.
-
EJ/Paul
[Read the article: Congressional oversight is a linchpin of how our democracy works]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Where did that come from, shooter?
This is what Glenn wrote:
The White House caused U.S. attorneys to be fired in order to impede investigations of their political allies or to punish those who refused to launch frivolous prosecutions of political enemies, and then lied about everything?
Fired. Not prosecuted.
When I first posted the update, it had the word "prosecuted" in it - it was just a typo from having re-worked the sentence that originally made reference to prosecutions. As soon as it was posted, I re-read it, saw the mistake, and edited it (to "fired"). Shooter likely read it between the time it was first posted and the time it was edited.