Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2221 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Science Guy
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It’s entirely reasonable to think that the Iraqis could have used bentonite precisely because it is cheap and readily available. Iraqi scientists may have found a very clever, low technology way to process bentonite such that it was particularly useful in processing anthrax. The U.S. and other countries, having access to more sophisticated materials than the Iraqis, may not have spent the time necessary to perfect the use of bentonite.
No doubt all of that MIGHT be true. But as the source I linked to above in Comments made clear, the U.S. itself experimented with anthrax and bentonite. And even the Weekly Standard, which was trying most vigorously to promote the "bentonite = Iraq" claim, admitted in its April, 2002 article that Iraq is NOT the only country to have used bentonite in anthrax:
It has been just as widely reported, and more or less confirmed, that the Soviet and Iraqi biowarfare programs each at some point used a substance called bentonite, instead.
So sure, while it might be "entirely reasonable to think" that Iraq used bentonite in the past, that does not justify the claim that Iraq is the ONLY country to have used bentonite. And, as indicated, that claim was factually untrue.
Further, it is not unreasonable to think that a particular method of using bentonite could have produced markings that would be distinctive under an electron microscope (which is something I do know a bit about). Of course, the fact that there really was no bentonite in the antrhrax is proof that the electron microscopy “results” were a fabrication. However, my point here is that, given what ABC reporters were told at the time, it really was not unreasonable (and certainly not “absurd”) to think that the presence of bentonite (along with the purported electron microscopy results) was highly indicative of Iraqi involvement.
Two things -
(1) I have heard conflicting accounts, including from geologists and others I spoke with, that it is extremely unlikely that anyone could tell distinct forms of Iraqi bentonite from other types, but I don't know nearly enough (in fact, I know next to nothing about that) to know what's true. But more importantly:
(2) My criticism here is not necessarily of ABC's original reporting. If they were told by four sources that bentonite was found, OK - fair enough. And if people, including experts, were telling them that that is some sort of compelling proof that it's a sign of Iraqi anthrax, fair enough again. I don't have a huge problem with the original decision to report this, and didn't really focus on that.
My problem, instead, is with the conduct AFTER that - once it was revealed that those claims were false and it was clear people were inventing myths, almost certianly with a pro-Iraq-war agenda to raise public hostility toward Iraq and used ABC to do that. ABC then had multiple obligations - including full-scale retraction and explanation, if not revealing those sources - which they failed to fulfill. That is the crux of my criticism here (and I recongize that you acknowledge that fact).
-
thelastnamechosen:
[Read the article: The unresolved story of ABC News' false Saddam-anthrax reports]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Believe it or not Glenn, I think this a very important article you have written and I just wanted it to be as strong as it could be. A little less defensiveness and I might have been the one to do your leg work for you:) Oh well...Back to lurk mode.
There's this odd dynamic in comments which I've noticed. Sometimes, when commenters here criticize what I wrote, and I respond - especially when I do at length - I get accused of being "defensive" or thin-skinned, as though I'm angry at the criticism.
The opposite is almost always true. Typically, the only criticims in comments that I respond to are the ones that I think make substantive objections to what I wrote and that merit a full response. I didn't respond to your arguments at such length because I thought they were outrageous or because I felt unfairly attacked or was being "defensive." The opposite is true - I thought you raised a strong and rational (though ultimately invalid) objection to what I wrote and I wanted to respond for that reason.
You're a reader of my blog so you know that my style of debating points is fairly unrestrained - not uncivil or insulting, but I believe in the truth-finding process where two people with opposing views advocate and debate those views as strongly as possible and the truth usually emerges from it. My responses were in that spirit (and in the last post, I even conceded that the point you were criticizing was one that I was not as attentive to in the post as I could have been).
Many times, people here mistake that for being "defensive" or even angry that what I wrote is being criticized. It's actually the opposite. I tend (as a general rule - with some exceptions) to respond to criticisms that I believe merit the most respect and I ignore the ones I think merit the least respect. But the fact that I disagree with the objections and even do so aggressively isn't a sign of "defensiveness."
-
Bamage:
[Read the article: A light bulb goes off on the Washington Post editorial page]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In the studio w/ Seder or via telephone?
Phone.
-
"Editor's Choices"
[Read the article: A light bulb goes off on the Washington Post editorial page]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First I've seen "Editor's Choices"...
Is that more work for Glenn, or do we have someone else to thank/blame?
They are being done by someone else (I don't know who). I have never been able to get around to doing the "Editor's Choice" designations (and there is something ever-so-slightly teacher-ish that creates an aversion, for me at least, to giving out stars to people for good comments). But they do seem helpful to readers who can't read though 100 or more comments and want to read only a selected few, so it's good that someone is doing that.
-
Fred rated:
[Read the article: A light bulb goes off on the Washington Post editorial page]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Don't you mean
A light bulb goes on?
Funny - I guess I did mean that. I wonder which metaphors/images got mixed as a result of the brain short-circuit responsible for that mistake.