Letters to the Editor
-
@ KateTex
... oh, puh-lease...
Criminal prosecuters nation-wide regularly lock people up every single day without whining, "well, we don't know what happened because the defendant won't answer our questions... woe is us! alas, alack!"
For that matter, actual investigative journalist manage to expose a fact or two despite not having the cooperation of the exposed. Read Sy Hersh to see how it's done.
If there are "questions"... investigate... report... repeat. That's a journalist's job.
To pretend, however, that investigative journalism can be stopped in it's tracks simply because of the absence of a Chatty Cathy is extravagantly dishonest, a dishonesty made even more galling in this instance because the "questions" have already been investigated, and debunked.
Senator Obama doesn't need to answer anymore questions on this matter. We need to learn to use Google.
Someone said once (and I can't remember who it was), a reporter's job was to a) tell what happened; b) tell what is happening; and c) tell, to the extent that it can be known, what it all means. Mr. Conason failed to do any of that (offering up innuendo and "advice" isn't on the list, you'll notice). I'm offended. And as trained, if not practicing, journalist, you should be too.
-
@ KathyD - on Iran, and a note to Mr. Conason
In 2007, Senator Clinton voted to authorize the President to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a "foreign terrorist organization."
There are, I believe, three important leadership qualities to be discussed here.
1 - Acknowledge past mistakes, something our current president is incapable of doing.
2 - Learn from said mistakes.
3 - Do not repeat those mistakes.
Arguably, 2 leads to 3. But my point is this: If the Iraq vote in 2002 was a mistake (something the Senator Clinton almost admits), then what does her vote in 2007 say?
And, for the record, Senator Obama was not present for this important vote.
Mr. Conason, please note - the above is an example of the kind of balance we are seeking. Hold your friends to a higher standard than you hold your foes.
A momentary parallel - Iraq was a mistake because starting wars is not what America does. Torture is not what Americans believe in. Our enemies start wars, they torture, they kill innocents.
But it's not not about what they do, who they are. It's about who WE are. Only we can destroy our national character.
The same way only you can injure your integrity by writing this kind of piece, or the way Senator Clinton can damage her vital and necessary role in American politics by adopting the methods of her former (and future) foes. My only hope is that Senator Obama does not follow your example.
-
Don't use the Tribune as a Source of Information
Chicago Native speaking here. The trib is a rag. It's better than the Sun-Times, but it's still a rag. This is the paper that denied wrongdoing in George Ryan's office until the guy got indicted. It's soul intention is to get Republicans elected in the State of Illinois, and it's editorial page is one of the most right leaning in the country. It's owned by one of the largest right-wing media organizations in the country, and I don't think has ever endorsed a Democratic candidate in the general election. (don't quote me, I'm probably wrong about that).
I'll also say I don't care about Senator Clinton's tax returns. Her money. her business. But the key here is when people are equating the Rezko trial with the Clinton tax returns. They're not the same issue, and shouldn't be treated the same way.
I heard Obama on NPR when Rezko was indicted, and he explained everything that has already been highlighted by several nonpartisan sites. His ties to Rezko aren't buried under mountains of paperwork and legalese, and he's made statements on the record. If the trib is too lazy to go look up statements he's made on the record, then why should he waste time with them covering the same things he covered two years ago? I mean, it's the trib. He could write out everything in detail and they would still find some way to question his transparency.
Also technically, there's a trial on, which he may be called as a witness for. If he opens his mouth in public to the media, he's DEFINITELY going to be called as a witness (which doesn't look good even if he's not guilty of any crime, and which he's probably been advised against by his attorneys). And he may have an adverse effect on the trial by creating some type of political pressure or creating a public image. If he's called as a witness (which is likely), his statements under oath will be public knowledge. He should be more forthcoming about why he won't answer questions.
So Joe, and everyone else clamoring for parity, these AREN'T the same issues, nor do they have the same scope. And public disclosure in one case does NOT have the same effect as public disclosure in another. I will expect Senator Obama to nationally answer these questions when it's appropriate, just as I'd expect Senator Clinton to release her records, when it's appropriate. However,saying "tit for tat" in this case just doesn't work.
-
What about the $5million loan to her own campaign?
Usually, I'm a big fan of Joe's writing. But what about Sen. Clinton's $5 million loan to her own campaign? Surely it is legitimate to investigate the Clinton's income prior to and following that loan. For example, if Bill Clinton was paid vast sums in speaking fees by large corps, foreign corps or foregin governments, then this should be disclosed immediately and closely scrutinized by the voting public. Sen. Clinton provides no plausible explanation regarding her refusal to release these records. These records are clearly relevant to the selection of the next Democratic nominee. Obama has not suggested that the investigation Clinton's Whitewater investment be resurrected as you seem to suggest. Your article is misleading in this regard. While I agree that Obama should be forthcoming about his own financial dealings, the same is true of Clinton. Finally, in my opinion, Obama has run a far more positive campaign than Clinton. Joe, what about that $5 million loan?
-
Joe, wanna buy back my copy of "The Hunting of the President"?
If that book, which I paid good money for during the Clinton years, is as two-faced and dishonest as this latest piece of swill you regurgitated on the pages of Salon, then I think you owe me a full refund of the purchase price.
In other words, I am very, very, disappointed in your blind hostility to anything non-Clintonian.