- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
... but really, is this column edited at all before it's published? How can this paragraph be allowed to let slide?
If, however, anyone is actively engaged in a conspiracy to violate the laws of this country and to do violence against its citizens, the conservative response is to arrest the conspirators, charge them, give them a fair trial in front of a jury of their peers and, if they're convicted, to jail them for a very long time.
This is laughable coming from a member of the Bush White House. Theoretically I can see the point of airing the wingnut point of view, as it would be useful to have a true believer explain the mind-numbing contradictions and delusions inherent in this way of thinking. But wouldn't it be more useful for the editors to challenge the author to make a coherent argument, before this goes to press? I don't know how GW can possibly be satisified with his/ her own argument, as it's plainly too stupid for a sentient person to take seriously. If the point of this column is to demonstrate that the modern right is plagued by hypocrisy and sloppy thinking then I guess it's done its job. Unfortunately it doesn't do anything to advance the conversation it addresses itself to, which I thought was the point of running it in the first place..
