- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Before even reading this article, I can't get over the dishonesty with which Salon and Manjoo approach it. Take the first sentence of the deck: "Robert F. Kennedy Jr. argues that new evidence proves that Bush stole the election." But no, he doesn't. He only says that he's convinced by the evidence, and that we don't really know whether the right man is in the White House, and that's a far cry from saying the theft is "proven." But it's a lot easier for you to dismiss his article if you distort it first. And, for god's sake, just look at the headline: "Was the 2004 election stolen? No." Excuse me?? How the hell do you know? If you think the evidence is weak, you could say "Probably not" or "Not based on this evidence" or even "Fat chance," but you can't just say "No," if for no other reason than the obvious fact that you can't prove a negative. Absent a real criminal investigation, NOBODY knows; all we can do is examine the evidence and speculate. So why your bullshit? It's reflective, though, of Manjoo's odd belief (as a previous letter writer wisely pointed out) that if there exists any plausible explanation for an irregularity, no matter how improbable, then the argument for corruption thereby falls apart. That's just illogical. I'd be a lot more persuaded by Manjoo's arguments if he (and Salon) seemed fairminded about the subject, but unfortunately that's not the case.
