- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Manjoo's article is the kind of execrable hit piece I would expect from a right wing shill. In the second paragraph he writes:
"Many [experts] have concluded that the election there strains conventional notions of what a democracy ought to look like; very little about that race was fair, clean or competent."
He then proceeds to dismiss the consequences of that out of hand. WTF? His rebuttal to arguments that point to great probabilities of fraud is that it's possible that there are other explanations, even if they are less likely. This is like a defense lawyer claiming that although there is massive evidence against my client, it's POSSIBLE, if the moon and stars align just so, that he's innocent. He then titles the piece "Was the 2004 election stolen? No." The honest title might have said "Not Proven" or "Not Proven to my Satisfaction."
Other letter writers above have given ample reasons to debunk Manjoo, so I won't repeat them, but I, as well, wonder what Salon is doing publishing this as their sole response to Kennedy's piece in Rolling Stone.
Coincidentally, my subscription to Salon expired yesteday. I've been a member four years. I would like to thank Manjoo for saving me the cost of renewal.
