Letters to the Editor
-
Perhaps the difference is...
...Hirsch's sources could lose their jobs if names are named. Ignatius could lose his job if names are named.
-
@scooter in short pants
Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
That's what you call the "high road"?
I'd hate to see what you would call the "low road."
-
Diplomacy and Compromise
Re Ignatius -- What diplomacy with Iran? Urging the rest of the world to put sanctions on Iran? Calling Al Baradei a lier for saying that Iran is cooperating with the NPT? If we "don't talk to Evil!!!!" how can we be trying diplomacy?
Re Broder -- I just got a letter from my ultra-creepy frothing wingnut congressman (in response to something anti-war I wrote him, I lose track) saying that he has sponsored some dumb initiative to promote "bipartisanship" in Congress. By which he means that anti-war people don't say anything critical of the administration or any wars it is/wants to be fighting. He and Broder should get together.
To whichever poster wrote in saying Glenn shouldn't bother with these guys, I say, as ludicrous as it may seem, these guys still have a lot of power to form the narrative. When Ignatius can blandly and bald-facedly state in a major paper that the administration is trying diplomacy with Iran but it may not work, then Glenn still has lots of hoeing to do in that row.
-
The Sensible (Sounding) Pundit
I agree, all too often we see pundits serving as the GOP echo chamber. But the more troubling aspect of this problem is not the pundits' refusal to gather information from an array of sources, but their ability to make arguments sound sensible. They try to sound as if they "wish" they could root for Democrats, but they just can't until the Dems begin adhering to the "realities" propagated in their columns. David Brooks pretends as if he tries to listen to Democrats, but cannot in good conscience do so until they stop listening to the netroots, which to him are so separated from reality. To many of us, it is clear from what they write that Brooks, Broder and co. do not even attempt to incorporate a Democratic position or even read the blogs they decry, but for probably a majority of their readers these arguments hold a lot of water due to their "insider" status. At times these pundits raise their own version of the Democratic position, and this gives their words a false sense of objectivity that is absorbed by readers who are not informed enough to see through the surface argument. To these readers the pundits matter-of-fact dismissal of the Democratic position sounds very sensible.
-
Well then, let's check Hersh's New Yorker article
We read:
"Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said, “The President has made it clear that the United States government remains committed to a diplomatic solution with respect to Iran. The State Department is working diligently along with the international community to address our broad range of concerns.” (The White House declined to comment.)
I was repeatedly cautioned, in interviews, that the President has yet to issue the “execute order” that would be required for a military operation inside Iran, and such an order may never be issued.
In contrast to Broder and Ignatius, Hersh sought comment from an opposing viewpoint and stated it explicitly within his article.
Try again, shooter.
-
Ignatius: The First Amendment is Superfluous!
Still contemplating Ignatius's extraordinary conception of the function of the press. He plainly believes that the ambit of the press's efforts is circumscribed by the political debate. He as much as stated that the press has no business questioning or examining policies or actions by government that enjoy consensus, bi-partisan support.
If that's the way things work, why would government have any occasion to silence the press? Silly founding fathers. Bunch of ninnies!
-
I used to think that Broder must have been better...
in the past, but then I came across some of his writing trying to help Nixon in 1969. Some of the text is here:
http://multi-medium.net/2007/04/26/the-dean-of-wankers/but I can't seem to get back to the whole thing. Anyway, I'm sure this seemed reasonable in 1969, but now we can see that he was a partsan GOP wanker then too. A wanker for the ages that Broder. Only in the Village could someone be a phony for 40 years and still be respected.
-
Reliance
Shooter is, of course, by far the most reliable source around, as long as one doesn't rely on him for clarity, intelligence, objectivity, compassion, or a decent respect to the opinions of mankind.
-
Mr. Shutoff? I shut-off and turn 'it' back on.
Wizard of Id-
The Pundit Pollster ask shooter, "How many beers did you drink today before attending church?" shooter say, "SHIX."
"Perfect." Then: shooter, would you take a poll? I always participate and help Salon's Glenn. YESH. I love Glenn.
_
Pundit says, "Sire GWB- The results of the latest polls are in: "Well, I'll report 'it' to Glenn via our beloved emissary shooter242=0." He reports: "Glenn, your popularity is the lowest ever- it is below freezing @ around 28 percent," shooter reports to Glenn. shooter ask, "Sorry about that, Glenn?" GG no crosses the moat. Glen plays mute.
_
The 'king' reads the GOP polls too: shooter says to the GOP-Politico's, "Our wonderful administration's latest, rigged polls say, "The 'king' is grumpier than Glenn's readers @ Salon.com."
shooter yells at the top of his voice, "What are we supposed to say to Glenn?"
"Nothing" says Coles. shooter foams 8- dark fuzz-balls from his red-lips, "NOTHING!" GWB said to shooter, "NOPE." "Nothing."
Then: The prez says: "SHIZ is how a beautifuler Monarchy flays." gads.
shooter gets invited to the GOP Troll prayer breakfast in Glenn's stead for some hot SHIX SOUP. apologies to the Wa/Po great cartoonist.
-
Further reflections on Ignatius
How can a journalist issue such an outrageous and indefensible utterance and not be howled out of the profession?
I'm a lawyer. I cannot imagine a lawyer who would say "well, it would unprofessional and unethical for lawyer to represent someone he believed guilty." But this is essentially what Ignatius argued about journalism; it similarly denied the very function of the press contemplated by the founding fathers and stood canons of professional ethics on their head!
Eric Boehlert called out Ignatius and leveled condign ridicule. But why haven't others? Why has Ignatius not been compelled by opprobrium from within his profession to correct such absurd notions?
And yet Dictation Dave Ignatius remains not only a member in good standing of the journalistic profession, he retains a chunk of some of the most highly valued space in all of Journalism on the editorial pages of the Washington Post. When you think about it, it's a little like having an anarchist on the Supreme Court.