Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Mona:
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I find myself playing Armchair Altemeyer and trying to decide whether Cliff May is just a high RWA whose dogmatism makes him impervious to any possibility of reasoned debate and a change of view (IOW, he cannot see that he is wrong or that he is "lying"), or whether he is a Social Dominator who knows exactly what he is doing. Or worse yet, one of those odious Double Highs.
I will send to you the truly amazing email exchange I just had with him (which he is DEMANDING that I publish in full, and accusing me of all sorts of things for not having done so, even though he steadfastly refuses to link to or mention a single poll I included here or anything else - when I promised him I would print every word of his e-mails as long as he just printed that Washington Post poll question and answer, he started refusing on the ground that he had no time - and then proceeded to send me five more emails).
Trust me, once you read his emails, you will have no doubt that he absolutely believes all of this and that he is as immune from facts as can possibly be. He keeps saying things like this:
Based on the polling we've seen, I don't concede that a majority of Americans favor undermining Gen. Patraeus' mission. Nor do I concede that a majority both understand and accept the likely consequences of U.S. defeat in Iraq.
None of that was ever the point. But he keeps insisting that Americans agree with him, no matter how many times you show him that they don't.
It's just staggering.
-
Email exchange
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I for one, would love to see it....
I definitely will - but since he wants me to, I'm trying to withhold doing so as leverage to force him to include those polls in The Corner.
I just want NRO readers to go to The Corner and read that a clear majority of Americans want to withdraw from Iraq even if things are exactly as they are now. I think their heads will explode, which is exactly why May won't include it or link to it.
-
e_five & Holly:
[Read the article: Will National Review correct Cliff May's false Iraq claims?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The Two Settings of the Modern Republican Noise Machine
1. Quasi-Sadistic authoritarian bully.
2. Principled, put-upon, well-meaning martyr.
So, so true - and a superb summary.
And it just underscores (as Holly asked) why this sort of browbeating of May is productive. He isn't going to simply print or acknowledge this evidence unless he's besieged or shamed into doing it. And I think it really would be beneificial to make National Review, in what I would bet is the most-read aspect of its whole network (the Corner), to acknowledge that a majority of Americans favor the Demcoratic withdrawal position on Iraq.
Most of them usually avoid raising the issue of Americans' views on the war this clearly, precisely because it's a huge vulnerability for them. But when May did so, in suhc a patently false way, it just struck me as a potentially valuable opening to force into a right-wing venue a clear fact that they almost always try to conceal.
It wouldn't be earth-shattering, per se. As Kristen said, they can continue to deny facts even when you shove their faces in it. But it makes it harder, and every bit chips away at their ability to maintain these myths.
-
LWM:
[Read the article: Still more extraordinary anti-democracy comments from Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]but we should get Cintra Wilson's name correct as a courtesy to a fellow salon contributor.
Agreed (and I like the royal "we" there - makes the error seem so much less harsh, so shared) - I fixed it - and appreciate it.
-
JAO:
[Read the article: Still more extraordinary anti-democracy comments from Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Just so we understand the facts, presidents do have limited authority to reprogram funds appropriated for one authorized purpose to another.
In the case of the Iraq war supplemental, that does mean there are practical steps that legally can be taken in the short term, a matter or weeks or a couple of months, to support combat operations if the bill is not enacted quickly. This was explained in a recent , and in a CRS report. (Sorry, can't find a link for that.)
In the Corner, they are now trying to suggest that perhaps Giuliani was simply referring to this short-term statutory authority. But it clearly wasn't, since -- as Lowry even said -- Giuliani continously emphasized "inherent authority" as the source for this power, not any statutory right to re-shuffle appropriations. That inherent authority, by its very terms, would have no real limit and couldn't be overriden. Presumably, he means "inherent authority" to prosecute war once it's authorized -- a power that Congress cannot restrict because it's "inherent."
It's just the Yoo theory applied to war funding, and the fact that Giuliani repeatedly invoked "inherent authority" provides clarity to what would otherwise be unclear remarks (as does his history and other comments).
Having said that, and as I stressed, Giuliani's comments are not just disturbing by thesmelves but particularly so when viewed in the context of how he thinks and governs.