- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Here are my 2 main problems with Mr. Manjoo's article:
1. As others have pointed out, Robert Kennedy's article did not claim to prove that the 2004 election was stolen, but to show that there were enough substantive questions and unexplained discrepancies to support the need for a full investigation by legal authorities and mainstream journalists. Mr. Manjoo's response is to essentially say that since his questions aren't incontrovertible answers, they have no credibility. It's rather like saying that if you can't prove the nature of a phenomenon, then there's no justification in doing scientific research on it -- in fact, exactly the opposite is true! While Mr. Manjoo makes some apparently good criticisms of some of Mr. Kennedy's assertions, it doesn't change the overall conclusion: there are legitimate questions about the fairness of the 2004 Presidential election, and there should be a full, public investigation (with subpoena powers) to determine what really happened.
2. I, like others, was also struck by Mr. Manjoo's use of polling and voting discrepancies in the 2002 election to "prove" that similar discrepancies in the 2004 election must have been innocent happenstance! Talk about a ridiculous standard of reliability!
