Letters to the Editor
-
I was going to say ...
... that the standard Bush line is "We're winning, but we haven't yet won," but you put it even better, Glenn: "We're winning in Iraq again." THanks.
-
"July deaths lowest in seven months" supporting meme
Notice how all the press dutifully reported the spin that July had the lowest number of US deaths in seven months. No one in the MSM bothered to fact check and note that this July was also by far the most deadly July in the war. The brutal heat makes doing anything nearly impossible, even planting IEDs.
-
@ Mona & SusanMc
Hear that snoring sound? That's the dog. Please stop poking at him.
Thanks loads,
WT for the Cabal :-)
-
Shield law non-sequitor
Whether the fact that anonymity is used primarily to hide the dissemination of government talking points has nothing whatsoever to do with a shield law. After all, it will never be the case that the stenographers at the Post or the Times will be called before a court to reveal their sources on aluminum tubes or why the war is going so well.
If, by denying a federal shield law, you hope to eliminate the use of these mendacious anonymous quotes; you can't really hope for that because there is no shield now, and the quotes happen with clockwork regularity. Could it be really any worse if there was a shield law?
In any case, I happen to agree that a federal shield law is not a good idea. The pressure put on Judy Miller and Novak, because of the absence of that law, is what allowed Fitzgerald to pursue his case to an [sadly limited] conclusion. In most cases, government pursuit and persecution of reporters will only serve to highlight the very information that they are trying to repress, and that serves as an adequate shield for the time being.
-
The Hysterical Thing Is
That evidence, no matter how recent, is ignored until after the fact--It's like--Hey, didn't this happen to the Soviets in Afghanistan. Well, we're America, we can win.
-
Shhhh! We can't debate that!
War is how we rule the world. The only debates allowed are how many we should fight, where we should fight them, and how "wisely" we prosecute them.
Actually, it’s even worse than that. We can’t even debate how “wisely” we prosecute them – such a debate is no longer legitimate – it helps the enemy.
General McCaffrey said yesterday that we shouldn’t even bother to ask whether or not the surge is working until Petraeus “the most talented person I have ever met” has had a year. Until then, everybody must be quiet.
Also, yesterday, Dick Cheney warned us: “Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda..”
So, once a war is started, we must not question if it is being wisely fought, we must leave it up to Gen. Petraeus (“he who must not be questioned”).
Of course, it’s all right for totally objective “anti-war critics” like O’Hanlon and Pollack to judge the surge – because they see progress. John McCain also sees “remarkable progress” and so does Dick Cheney who thinks “we could be successful.”
So the only ones who can debate whether a war is “wisely” prosecuted are those who think a war is "wisely" prosecuted. Everyone else must withhold judgment.
Shhh!
-
Pro-war!!!??
"That's the kind of pro-war Democrat that we ought to be: the war that we fight wisely, the ones that we engage in wisely."
Now I've seen everything. I can understand how someone might feel that war is unfortunate but necessary. I can even understand how someone might think that it's important to maintain an aggressive stance lest our enemies think us weak. But anyone who can use the phrase "pro-war" in a sentence and have it refer to anything that's NOT bad is certifiably insane. One might as well declare oneself to be pro-evil or pro-death or pro-murder. Am I missing something? Why is there anyone on the planet who REALLY thinks that war is a good thing?
-
Regarding Item (3)
While I can understand why many Americans may find this "extraordinary", from the outside looking in, it is completely un-extraordinary (so to speak). What *is* extraordinary is the fact that many Americans do not realize how war-dependent you are, have been and will continue to be.
That is the development that the rest of the world is awaiting.
While I find it difficult to believe, as Mr. Greenwald advocates, that this topic will ever become a subject for national debate, there are many lives around the world who might be spared the carnage of war if you folks were able to accomplish this.
-
There's A Video Someone Made On You-Tube Now
Hannity played it with glee..........It's the opening scene from Patton, roaring in front of the huge flag. There's a bunch of cuRSING that had to be bleeped for Hannity to present it on TV, but you got the jist.
It's new words over-dubbed over the Wolrd War Two rhetoric. Now it's a Patton rant about the war on terror. Insulting anyone not up to the challenge.
It's amazing how many millions that this type of thing hits home with. Politicians have to pander to it. Put a General in front of a big flag, and anything he hollers is gospel. Including the cussing and name-calling.
-
You raise some interesting points
Mr Greenwald, but really I don't think we should judge these things until Gen. Petraeus delivers his report in September.
-
Thanks again
Glenn, for continuing to advocate with a clear and conscientious voice our deepest concerns about a tribe run amok. Your work is monumentally encouraging to me and, I know, to those who are frustrated by the lies and uncanny prevarications of powerful people.
I don't know how you keep up your pace, but please know we are behind you 100 percent.
Peace n' love,
Tgrdug
-
Libertarians and shield law
I think there are some libertarian objections to the shield law proposal. In the course of determining who is a journalist under the law and who isn't, the government gets itself into something that looks a lot like licensing journalists, i.e. making an official determination of who is and who isn't engaged in state-sanctioned journalism.
-
Sadly
Lincoln Davis is from Tennessee; whatever his actual views are, my guess is that he's used to pre-empting attacks from his right flank, and does it without thinking. That's no excuse, of course.
The case of Barack Obama is far worse. Until this morning, I was prepared to believe that he was attempting, however tentatively, to introduce an element of rationality into the discussion of Middle East foreign policy. This business about Pakistan, if reported accurately, is as bad as shooter claims it is, and puts him squarely in the Hillary Clinton/Madeleine Albright school of self-righteous imperialism. I'll have no part of that.
Which leaves me where as a Democrat? As a scold, I'm afraid, and possibly one willing to throw what money he has for political contributions down the Dennis Kucinich rathole. This really is going to be like Viet Nam, I'm afraid, i.e. long and inconclusive. Did I ever think otherwise? Well, no, but one does sometimes harbor irrational hopes.