Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
WT:
[Read the article: Still more extraordinary anti-democracy comments from Giuliani]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Some just like to be thought of as the smartest kid on the block. I read that book years before you did, etc. An annoying trait, but an ally is an ally, no?
Yes, all true - and definitely part of what makes it annoying (though tolerable). But I think also that people read a post that has some type of anger or outrage in it and assume that the person expressing the anger must be realizing it for the first time.
What's important to realize is that it's not enough to simply assert a proposition. You have to show evidence to prove that it's true, and sometimes evidence for a long-realized proposition becomes available only on a certain day, so one then takes the evidence to prove the proposition (like the ABC News report on Iran - it's hardly new that the media is shoddy this way, but this is an illustrative example, so I wrote about it - but someone then came and said "This is surprising to you? C'mon!").
-
Jestalpero
[Read the article: The people who claim "the surge is working"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Did Fitzgerald choose not to indict Rove?
I obviously don't need to tell you that nobody can really know exactly what a prosecutor's case is without knowing what the prosecutor knows, and in this case - given the secrecy of the grand jury testimony at the time and the leak-proof operation Fitzergald ran - it was hard to know for sure.
But the consensus of Plame experts at the time certainly was that Rove's repeated appearances before the Grand Jury - some voluntary, some not - strongly suggested that there was much inaccurate testimony given (which of course does not make it perjurious, but the amount of it suggested as much). Moreover, Fitzgerald himself made clear in his press conference that his decision not to seek underlying indicments was discretionary -- he explained why he thought it was unnecessary -- and Rove definitely was one of the people who leaked Plame's identity to reporters (if you haven't read Fitzgerald's press conference on the day of the Libby indictment, I recommend it.
I think there are times when a prosecutor believes a crime has been commmitted and could even secure an indictment when it is right to refrain from doing so -- if he questions whether he can prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, if the crime is sufficiently mitigated or unimportant not to warrant the resouces, if there are strategic benefits not to indict, etc. Fitzgerald clearly proved he has no fear of prosecuting the most powerful people (he proved that before the Plame case, and certainly in it). And indicting Rove would have made the case much more politically important and high-profile (which motivates many ambitious prosecutors). So part of it is trust, and I trust that Fitzgerald chose not to indict Rove even though doing so may have benefitted Fitzgerald. I think that's admirable.
As to whether they actually sought an indictment of Rove, you'd have to ask people who followed the case more closely than I did for (email Marcy Wheeler) proof, but I do think it's clear (from lawyer leaks and the like, though my recollection is fuzzy on that) that no indictment of Rove was sought.
-
JF:
[Read the article: The people who claim "the surge is working"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm pretty much uniformly sold on anything you write, but you seem to be drifting into the realm of hyperbole, lately. Your arguments are among the most solidly researched and supported, so you shouldn't have to tell us they are.
I always appreciate constrcutive criticisms, but a big part of blogging - especially daily blogging - is recording your reactions to things you read and see. I'm not trying to be a New York Times reporter - just the facts and nothing more. I'm a citizen like anyone else who is sometimes amazed, angry, astonished at what I see and hear happening in this country. And while I always try to ensure that whatever I say is grounded in facts and evidence, I don't try to exclude passion, emotion, or other aspects that can produce hyperbole. This is a case where, after spending an hour or so reading through Mike Pence's statements over the years, I just wanted to express how I reacted to it - not just with his words, but mine, too.
There's a cathartic and reactive aspect to blogging which I think is what gives its vibrancy, authenticity and force - it may not always produce the most restrained prose, and sometimes might even produce some hyperbole and gratuitious foot-stomping, but that's just the price that is paid for the benefits.
-
D Butler
[Read the article: If only Newt Gingrich were president]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The idea is Newt says this is what he would SAY to the Iranians, not necessarily what he would do.
I can assure you that is NOT what he is advocating. Nobody would recommend a policy of issuing threats accompanied by demands, and then not following through if the demands are not met.
And I would absolutely expect the Iranians NOT to comply with those demands if they were accmopanised by such threats. Nothing would be more damaging to the U.S. than if we did a naval blockade and took out their gas refineries in response to something like this. That is completely insane.
Also, Blair said expressly he did NOT do that - so unless you think he's outright lying, and I don't, that is not what got these sailors released.
-
Amerigo
[Read the article: National journalists believe you should trust them]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't know what you mean by "illuminating". Although this guy's title is "Senior Vice President of ABC News" his resume actually suggests that he is a PR flack and not a journalist.
Spokespeople reflect the views of the people they represent. His defense of ABC News is the defense of ABC News itself, and it reveals what journalists think about the product they create. That's why I found it "illuminating," since the whole thing boils down to an entitlement they have to be trusted.