Letters to the Editor
GlennGreenwald
Published Letters: 2123 Editor's Choice: 18
-
Chris:
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Hold on... Complexity and uncertainty scare authoritarian followers and make them feel weak and vulnerable. Not everyone.
You make a good point, but I think it needs to be modified. I think complexity and uncertainty create some fear in everyone. That's just human psyche. But you are right that what distinguishes authoritarian followers from non-authoritarians is that the latter can endure that fear, live with it and accept it, while the former cannot and seek out means to eliminate it.
Your correction to what I wrote is correct, I think, to the extent that there are many people who do not seek out or accept ideologies that eliminate the uncertainty and provide absolutism, but instead prefer truthful uncertainties (even if more unsettling) to fictitous absolutes (even if more comforting).
-
Nick:
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Thanks for providing a forum where people can seriously discuss ideas without the usual name-calling and knee-jerk emotional responses found on many blog commenting pages (or, conversely, the echo-chamber "we are so great and right" lists). I am continuously impressed with the quality of the comments - we have some good folks here.
I couldn't agree more. I was out for the last few hours, came back, just spent the last 15 minutes reading through all the comments -- from Paul Rosenberg, WT, Che Pasa, really from everyone -- and it was all thought-provoking. I felt like I couldn't have spent my time better reading anything else. I don't think there are many blog comment sections about which you can say that.
(Along those lines, I'm still working on getting the format returned to a single-page layout, though I think people are getting accustomed to things and it is more of a petty inconvenience than a real impediment).
-
Susan:
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]What an opportunity we missed after 9/11 to show the world the way it should be done. Other than the tens (hundreds?) of thousands of lives lost and ruined unnecessarily, that makes me more sad than anything else in this long, costly debacle.
What could a true leader with vision have done with this chance? Reaffirming our values, refusing to take the low road, believing in our resilience and trusting the patriotism of the citizens (and guests) of this country, truly modeling notions like "justice," and relying on reasoned responses, cool heads and negotiation instead of a ridiculous display of brute force-- ironically, showing what BushCo et al believes is "weakness" might have taken this country to another level of greatness. Instead, we're plumb out of money, and nothing to show for it.
That's the true tragedy of the Bush presidency and my book discusses this a fair amount. If you go back and read Bush's post 9/11 speeches, not just the ones immediately afterwards but even for a few months afterwards, you won't recognize the tone or the content. All of it emphasized NOT the need to go on an endless bloodthirsty crusade to eradicate evil with violence (though it did emphasize, rightfully so, I think, the need to take the threat of Al Qaeda more seriously), but it very much stressed the need to adhere to our national values, and tied our national security to an affirmation of these values, ones which would limit what we were willing to do -- a trade-off that was well worth it. And within a matter of days, Bush was publicly meeting with American Muslim leaders, giving very stern and even angry warnings about violence against Muslims, etc. There was a decency and balance and even eloquent appeal to the need to adhere to our ideals which vanished completely in a very short period of time.
As you say, the opportuninty was rare and enormous, and they squandered it beyond what even seemed possible.
-
Paul in KY
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It displeases me when I see one of our most progressive bloggers insinuates that the only force preventing the total destruction of Israel is the good ole USA. Ha, ha. Which is what your quote 'protection of Israel' implies.
I insinuated no such thing. I generally don't argue by "insinuation." I try hard to be expressly clear about what I am arguing and not express points I am not making. I did not say or suggest that Israel needs the U.S. in the Middle East to be protected, nor do I think that.
There are, however, people who do believe that, and I think that a desire to protect Israel is, in the minds of many, one reason why they want us to remain in the Middle East. Therefore, I mentioned that as one of the reasons people have for advocating our ongoing involvement in that region and therefore one of the issues that needs to be aired more. To reference that belief does not, in any way, suggest or "imply" my agreement with it.
-
Jerry Rubin
[Read the article: Emulating the enemy]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Israel has every right to fear a nuclear Iran, and has a right to defend itself against a nuclear Iran.
That's a brilliant point. I'm sure all the people who said otherwise are dazed by your rationale -- all none of them.