MONDAY's LETTERS: Iraq Debate Continues, in New E&P Feature

By: Greg Mitchell Letters, we get letters, we gets lots and lot of letters. The problem is, the "letters" section at this Web site is pretty much buried up there in the site index (this will probably come as a surprise to most of you reading this). When we launch our new blog in September, publishing a lot of feedback will no longer be any problem. Until then, or until we are able to set up a more prominent letters feature right here on the home page, we will carry a daily entry in this spot, called, variously, "MONDAY's LETTERS," "TUESDAY's LETTERS" and so.

We will add letters as they come in, at the top, so check back every few hours, if you wish, for the latest update. Or, blog-like, you can respond to a letter you find here. Here's a start for Monday, most recent first, with many more to come.

***

Several readers commented on Joe Strupp's interview with New York Times Executive Editor Bill Keller, who expressed concern over the health of his reporter, Judith Miller, currently in jail for refusing to testify about who leaked the name of a covert CIA officer:

All she has to do is talk. That's it. Then she can go home and have a cup of hot chocolate and the country can move on.

Otherwise, she's a lawbreaker and in this country lawbreakers can go to jail. I believe our Supreme Court said so -- even specifically ruling against her and her partner in crime at Time magazine.

...

I'm not holding my breath, waiting around for Ms. Miller to come to her senses and end this circus. The democrats and a bunch of clowns in the media have deceived themselves into thinking that they are getting a lot of Bush-bashing mileage out of this story, whether there is any truth to it or not.

Paul A. Gaier
Lancaster, Ohio

***

In response to Greg Mitchell's column, "Plame Gets the Gate":

Why did the "gate" suffix arise so late in the coverage of the Rove/Plame scandal? During the Clinton administration, the press and Republicans gave us:

Travelgate
Haircutgate
Filegate
Whitewatergate
Investmentgate
Monicagate

Every time Clinton or his press secretary had a press opportunity, the gaggle became hysterical and jumped on what ever the latest "gate" happened to be. I remember when Clinton was introducing Ruth Bader Ginsberg at a press conference, the wolves were asking about the Starr investigation. No shy press during the Clinton years. Since Bush became President, we have had lies about WMD, lies about our reasons to go to war (ah, but the press wanted that war so much), continual interference in Department reports and information, paid journalists, over 8 billion dollars lost in Iraq, contracts with little or no oversight, troops poorly outfitted, and on and on.

Only when the press is threatened do they become incensed enough to ask really hard questions. I guess the excuse is there isn't an oppositional Congress to generate outrage, only Republican talking points. This is our most corrupt administration and the media still doesn't get it. After all, besides outing Plame, how many in the press have asked what the collateral damage to her sources might be? Has anyone carefully disputed the lies in the Republican talking points regarding Wilson and Plame? It is time.

Jeanne Fischer
Rocklin, CA


In response to Joe Wilson's statement regarding the covert status of his wife, CIA officer Valierie Plame, at the time she was outed in a column by Robert Novak:

Joseph Wilson IV?s assertion appears to have the same strength of accuracy of his now discredited assertion that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Niger as well as all the other lies he has demonstrably told.

H. Michael Sarkisian
Sacramento, CA

***

Columnist Mark Yost dares to tell readers of the St. Paul Pioneer Press that Knight-Ridder's Iraq coverage is overly negative. It's too much for E&P pundit Greg Mitchell, who upbraids Yost (column, July 13) for daring to venture opinions from "the air conditioned splendor of his office or home in leafy Minnesota." Seconding that assessment, Knight-Ridder editor Clark Hoyt is beside himself that Yost "presumes to know what's going on" from the safety of St. Paul. And a colleague of the columnist, Chuck Laszewski, froths in a nasty public missive that Yost has "spat on the copy of brave men and women" reporting from Iraq.

I beg to disagree. Yost has a right and, indeed, obligation to express his opinion without suffering such chest-thumping and juvenile criticism -- criticism that, quite frankly, reveals the conceit of his attackers. Their diatribes remind me of the gung ho Vietnam vets I occasionally met in the early 1970s, who grew indignant and belligerent when somebody who'd never been to Vietnam offered an opinion about the war: one that conflicted with their own.

A lot they knew, huh?

Isn't it possible that Yost may, in some ways, have a clearer perspective on what's going on than is being offered by some reporters in Iraq, including even Knight-Ridder's twenty-something bureau chief, Hannah Allam? I'm sure she's not out and about in every corner of Iraq 24-hours a day. Didn't I just read something about Allam spending a good part of her day in her office, too?

Consider how journalistic history might have changed had Seymour Hersh, as a young reporter, figured he was unqualified to write about Vietnam because he was based in the states, not Saigon. First, he never would have dug up the My Lai massacre. Secondly, the revelations of other, smaller massacres in an atrocity-producing war --- all but ignored in the U.S. media until Hersh's revelations -- may never have come to light when they did. That was despite lots of reporters pounding the ground in Vietnam who, together with their state side editors, had all but ignored this grisly aspect of Vietnam. (For more on this, read Philip Knightley's "The First Casualty.")

How amazing that Hersh uncovered My Lai from the comfort of his state side office! The same might be said of the Toledo Blade, whose Pulitizer Prize-winning story about Vietnam atrocities, decades after they occurred, evolved from basic reporting in the U.S.

I don't mean to minimize the importance of having good reporters on the ground, but they are not necessarily the last word on what's going on. Walter Cronkite's dubious claim that the war was all but lost after 1968's Tet offensive is a case in point.

Given the tremendous hubris I sense in Mitchell and Hoyt, I can't help but wonder whether they, not Yost, will be proven wrong down the road. As for Laszewski, he seems like the colleague from hell.

David Paulin
Austin, TX

***

Thank you, Greg Mitchell, for finally getting some truth to rise above the propaganda that has been so prevalent in our news. As the mother of a 20-year-old reservist with the Ohio National Guard, currently pulling International guard duty in Baghdad, I am livid at the way this President and his staff have hidden behind the soldiers' families. I can assure you they will never be permitted to hide behind mine.

Unlike many military moms, I have a college degree and I have studied war and terrorism. This war was invalid from its conception and I knew this. The press never bothered to investigate--I hold them partially responsible for this mess. A free press is supposed to look out for Democracy and the people; you folks failed and many young people are paying the price with their lives and limbs. I urge you to begin pressing for a pullout.

Is it any wonder newspaper purchases keep slipping? Why buy half the news?

Teresa Fowler Dawson