Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Holly:
[Read the article: Still more extraordinary anti-democracy comments from Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]They don't want to be forced onto bended knee themselves to kiss the ring -- even if they want to see that done to all those uppity inferiors who have come into equality over the past 3-4 decades.
The noisy portion of the Republican "base" that spouts in blogs, magazines and on TV/radio is distinctly different from the bloc that provides the real votes.
I think the distinction you're drawing is a meritorious one, and there are definitely parts of the GOP voter base who won't vote for Giuliani (the question is: how large is that chunk?). But I guess, for now, the largest impediment to your theory is the fact that Giuliani has large leads in virtually every state in every region among GOP voters. How do you explain that?
For awhile there was this popular theory that the "average voter" saw him only as the heroic 9/11 Mayor and weren't aware of his more controversial social positions and personal life turmoil, but even as there is more focus on him, his numbers aren't declining any. To the contrary, he seems to be strengthening.
People underestimate his political skills (though most NYC residents don't). He has a great ability to communicate even views that people disagree with in a way that makes them feel like he's being very thoughtful, reasonable and in tune with their values.
-
Paul:
[Read the article: ABC News' bizarre "scoop" on Iran's nuclear program]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The date 2009 came from David Albright. I haven't dug past his bio but he does appear to be an expert in the field. The existence and location of the centrifuges are attributed to "sources familiar with the dramatic upgrade" but Albright is quoted extensively including this:
Albright isn't the source for the claims about Iranian nuclear activity. He's just the expert they're citing to say what if the claim is correct about what Iran is doing - i.e., he's just calculating how long it would take Iran based on its current pace IF the report of ABC is true.
Admittedly, the entire report is unclear and so it's theoretically possible that the "sources" referenced in the first several paragraphs reporting on Iran's nuclear activity happens to be the same person as the expert they include to calculate the time needed. But if that's your argument, there is no basis for it in the article.
The source for this article is anonymous with regard to the newsworthy aspect.
-
eebee:
[Read the article: ABC News' bizarre "scoop" on Iran's nuclear program]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I saw this yesterday and went looking for info on David Albright, who is quoted as... not the source, but someone who is taking the claims seriously.
The part that Albright is saying isn't news at all. This is the newsworthy part:
Iran has more than tripled its ability to produce enriched uranium in the last three months, adding some 1,000 centrifuges which are used to separate radioactive particles from the raw material. . .
The sources say the unexpected expansion is taking place at Iran's nuclear enrichment plant outside the city of Natanz, in a hardened facility 70 feet underground.
That is the only newsworthy part. Without that part, there is no story. And Albright is NOT the source for that.
The only thing Albright is doing is analyzing what it means IF IT IS TRUE.
As for his being a "serious expert," I don't know one way or the other - and I really doubt ABC News told him the source - so I don't see how you can infer that he's "taking it seriously," or even what basis he would have for taking it seriously.
And plenty of Serious Experts took very seriously the pre-war Iraq claims about WMDs and other threats (as Paul's single paragraph notes, Albright seemed to, even if with some scepticism), so the fact that he "takes it seriously" isn't convincing, and shouldn't be to anyone without knowing more about the source.
-
Jack Hughes:
[Read the article: ABC News' bizarre "scoop" on Iran's nuclear program]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I agree that it's likely that Bush and the neocons are ginning-up for air attacks on Iran and that ABC is simply reprising the White House/Judy Miller/aluminum tubes circle jerk.
But could ABC's source have been the Iranians themselves? Projecting a false assumption of their imminent nuclear-weapons capability could serve as an effective "Bush repellent."
Or it could be an Iranian source opposed to the governemnt.
I really don't understand why they couldn't provide basic information about the source, and if there was a good reason not to, why they didn't acknowledge that.
-
Arne:
[Read the article: Still more extraordinary anti-democracy comments from Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I understand that Glenn was also in the neighbourhood as well. But I don't know to what extent he knew back then about the panoply of Giuliani's authoritarian impulses, but you're right; I should have given him some credit and benefit of the doubt. Giuliani's nature is no secret to anyone that paid attention (and as a First Am lawyer, that would be Glenn, no doubt).
I lived in NYC the whole time when Giuliani first ran unsuccessfully, then the two terms he was Mayor. Of course none of this is new to me.
But (a) whether it's new or not has nothing to do with whether it needs to be stated and documented, and (B) it is infinitely more disturbing - infinitely - for an authoritarian like Giuliani to be President of the United States than Mayor.
While I have the opportunity, permit me to share one of my pet peeves with comments (and I'm not saying your comment was an example) - I do not understand why, when a blogger writes a post that makes a point, people come and say "This suprises you?" or "You're shocked by this?" or "You never realized this before??"
Just because a blogger writes a post making Point X does not mean that Point X is "shocking" or "surprising" or "new" to them - there are all sorts of reasons why it might be worth making even if it's a point they've realized for 30 years. I see that reaction everywhere and I always find it ever-so-slightly irritatating (in that "pet peeve" sort of way we all have).
-
TCinLA
[Read the article: ABC News' bizarre "scoop" on Iran's nuclear program]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Someone is surprised that the Mickey Mouse News
Network would say things like this?
Who is surprised?