Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Hatch:
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Orrin Hatch
Said the very same thing yesterday on Press the Meat.
I just checked the transcript. I only see them talking about Gonzales. Did he say it somewhere else, or perhaps it was someone else who said it?
-
Just a Guy:
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Glenn, don't be guilty of the same thing
Your photo of the polling on the surge is deceptive. . . .On the other hand, if you combine the "make things better" and "have no effect" bucket, you get a larger majority. The data support both of these statements:
1. A majority of Americans believes the surge will not improve the situation.
2. A majority of Americans believes the surge will not make the situation any worse.
I recognize the fallacy you're describing -- where you can prove or disprove a point by grouping together selected answers in a poll to create a "majority" -- but your point is completely inapplicable in this instance.
Those who believe the surge will achieve nothing CONTRADICT the point May is making -- namely, that because of the surge, Americans are now more optimistic about the war and willing to stay in order to let it work.
It is May who is asserting that the Surge chaged the views of Americans regarding the war. Therefore, his point is disproven by (a) those who believe that the surge will make things worse AND (b) those who believe that the surge will have no effect. Both groups independently disprove May's point, and therefore should be grouped together in the analysis.
Grouping together those who like the surge with those who believe it will have no effect proves nothing. That doesn't help May's point at all, since his point depends upon the assertion that Americans view the war more favorably in light of the surge.
-
"Just questions"
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]May doesn't actually make any claims in his post. He just asks misleading questions that sound like claims.
He's asking rhetorical questions which, by definition, are affirmative claims. Admittedly, there is no mathematically discernible line there, so I suppose one could strain to read them as questions, though I think the intent is clear. Either way, if he were genuinely just asking questions, one would expect that he would post the answers once he has them. Otherwise, why ask them?
-
Mike Doheny:
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Would you mind forwarding that e-mail to me so I can see and then post it (GGreenwald@salon.com) - obviously with your information redacted.
The idea that May was merely asking a question - rather than making a point - is completely absurd, but even if so (as I indicated), now that he has the answers to his questions, shouldn't he post them so his readers can see? Why just ask questions and then deprive your readers of the answers?
-
Ed Richter:
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"The Authoritarians"
by Bob Altemeyer Dept. of Psychology Univ. of Manitoba Canada.
I've read most of Altemeyer's book and have linked to it and recommended it several times. It certainly does explain a lot.
A regular commenter here, Mona, wrote a great post a few days ago on the blog she writes on, centered around Altemeyer's book:
http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/01/6166
-
"Baldie":
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I also just emailed Cliff May after reading his post, saying more or less what I said in my post above, and "I am forced to conclude that you are a liar."
The response:
I can't tell you how sick I am of people like you who can't disagree in a civil manner and have to resort to calling their opponents liars.
So funny - he must be using that as a form response. After I read May's last reply on The Corner, I just couldn't take it - the utter refusal to simply state in a straightfoward way: "I believe my views on Iraq are correct, but it is true that they are shared only by a minority of Americans. A majority opposes those views and favors unconditutional withdrawal."
Why not just ADMIT that fact??? It's mind-boggling. So I wrote him my own email similar to the one you wrote - and I almost NEVER use the word "liar" in political discussions, and did not start off accusing him of that -- and he wrote back basically accusing me of being uncivil, saying he won't answer or link here for that reason, etc. etc. (even though he didn't long before I said anything "uncivil"). So he has his excuse now for ignoring the argument (I'm "uncivil" - not that he was responding to it before).
I think it's important for two reasons - (1) there are so few aspects of reality that end up being acknowledged in our political debates that where there are facts this clear and undeniable, it is important to demand that they be acknowledged; and,
(2) a big part of the rhetorical tactics of the neoconservative, warmongering Right is constantly to depict themselves as representing the "normal, mainstream" Americans, while "liberals" and the like represent the bizarre freaks on the coasts.
Yet on the most critical political question of our time, Republicans are in a small minority, isolated and repudiated by most of America. They are desperate to conceal that fact because it reveals how fringe and radical they really are. That's why they continue to posture as though "Americans" are with them on the war - it's critical to the whole house of cards they have constructed.