[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually, that particular quote didn't set off my alarm bells: I'd assume that the staffer was speaking coloquially-- just using descriptive shorthand.you don't have to wear a turban or speak Farsi
I agree with Brian, this is total BS. The people in the White House (pro, politician, or zealot) did not get there by being stupid.
I believe the above quote to be the creative writing mistake of an amateur. The White House and its national security staffs are currently preoccupied with Iraq. Iraq's commonly used languages are Arabic, Armenian, Assyrian, and Kurdish (official in Kurdish regions). Why would a knowledgeable White House staffer make a Farsi reference? In our country, people knowledgeable in diplomacy and intelligence do not use the word Farsi to describe the Persian language/dialects spoken in Iran and Afghanistan.
But the main reason why I don't buy it is simple, but subtle. It's style. The article just didn't read as though an actual journalist wrote it. There are too many comments dropped in which sound more like cynical sniping than insightful commentary. I mean, if David Corn covers White House issues in _The Nation_, he doesn't wallow in melodrama. He's from the political Left, and he's likely to comment about issues that wouldn't be mentioned by more mainstream people like David Broder. But when he adds a side comment, it's relevant and well-reasoned, and it doesn't have the crankish tone that this article has. (The use of that threadbare Santayana quote is, to me, sort of a marker for crankishness.)
And frankly, when an article's this poorly written, I doubt that unnamed White House officials would give the writer any information. Granted, there's the precedent of the Drudge Report. Drudge is a terrible writer, and since he doesn't bother to check his sources, one can't call him a journalist, either-- but he's acquired influence, so he'll get stories like this. But he's an exception.
For what it is worth my father spoke with both Bush and his wife, separately, at the White House last Sunday. There was not a hint of the histrionics suggested in the article. In fact it was just the opposite, he was doing extraordinarily well for so much going on.There's a lot what's wrong with articles like this. Granted, the campaign waged against the Clintons has removed just about any standards of journalistic responsibiity from national coverage... so I guess that self-styled critics feel as though spreading lies is acceptable. I feel that way sometimes, especially when demented know-nothings like Ann Coulter flourish. But when such articles are widely circulated, and believed, it hurts the credibility of anyone critical of this disastrous Presidency. Right-wingers will crow about the gullibility and political fanaticism of their opponents (thus ignoring the beams in their own eyes). And sadly, those who believed the lies will just get sullen and defensive.
For Democrats who want change, this crap hurts our credibility. Nixon had a wonderful concept that we should embrace, "victory with honor". You academicians and legal types believe in cheating to win?
I believe that whether you like him or not, George Bush is the president of our country. A dishonest attempt to harm him is damaging to the nation as a whole. The foreign press pandering to people who hate all Americans then picks up this crap. Remember, we did not invent the concept "kill'em all, let God sort'em out."
---- You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named "UnivCity." To unsubscribe or for archive information, see <http://www.purple.com/list.html>.
