Quantcast

Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

Seems to me that Mr. Scahill is a bit obsessed with Blackwater. I looked at his archive for thenation.com, and approximately 75 percent were about Blackwater. Is this all he can do? It seems clear, also, that from early on his writing has been skewed to turn public opinion about the firm negative.

Nowhere do I see in Mr. Scahill's journalism the story of how Blackwater personnel rushed an Iraqi child who had been burned over about 90 percent of her body to the US for emergency medical treatment. Blackwater used its own equipment and at its own expense, transported this girl and her family to the US AND paid for her treatment. There are many, many more such stories that Scahill conveniently overlooks.

How about how every time Hillary goes to Iraq, who's there to escort her around? That's right. Or how Benazir Bhutto begged President Musharraf to allow her to use Blackwater security days before her assassination. How Blackwater has never lost a principal that they were protecting.

I know that The Nation is a left-wing rag, but I mean other journalists can multitask, why can't Scahill?

James Smith

Portland, OR

Dec 7 2009 - 9:00pm

Web Letter

Once again I compliment Jeremy Scahill on his relentless exposés of Erik Prince, Blackwater and the nefarious enterprises they engage in. In fact, Mr. Scahill has been instrumental in making public the incredible murders with impunity committed by all kinds of mercenary organizations in Iraq that instead of being punished are rewarded handsomely with our money by our supposed government of the people, for the people. Yet nothing of substance has yet resulted.

Perhaps this is because we should concentrate on the real culprits; those of our public servants directly accountable to us who have authorized and empowered these assassins to act in our name. The buck must go up to the directors of the CIA, NSA and ultimately the president himself. The comparison with Oliver North as the ultimate antecedent is appropriate in more ways than one. Just like the CIA director back then (who shortly died of a brain tumor) and president Reagan himself were prosecutable, so are the present holders of the public trust. So Jeremy Scahill should now concentrate on those who permitted a despicable character such as Erik Prince to have carte blanche for murder.

Stanley Laham

Davie, FL

Dec 7 2009 - 4:45pm

Web Letter

Erik Prince, a covert CIA asset? What a laugh. The difference between Mr. Prince and Valerie Plame is that everyone knows and has known Prince has been working for the CIA for years. Like Wall Street with its revolving door of CIA personnel, Blackwater has had numerous high-ranking CIA officials through its doors. A little tip-off there.

Laurel Burik

Los Angeles, CA

Dec 7 2009 - 4:19am

Web Letter

I believe Mr. Scahill is mistaken when he indicates that revealing Erik Prince's name as a CIA "affiliate" is prosecutable. Erik Price's role relative to the US government has been widely known for years and is therefore no revealed "secret." It has been widely published for several years in most media outlets.

M.-L. Reifschneider

Raleigh, NC

Dec 6 2009 - 9:35pm

Web Letter

Graymailing could work the other way, too. Let's say that it's more than a rumor that Barack Obama's mother was CIA, and let's add to that the fact that Barack Obama's first job, out of college, was as an employee of a company that served as a CIA front. Now imagine that a deal was made in favor of the famous one-world Government, and voilè! It turns out, after Obama's served two terms as president of the US, that having as one's president someone who was born outside the US isn't as bad as one had imagined.

Personally, I prefer this scenario: there’s still no evidence in favor of our having gone to war against Iraq. Hillary Clinton is an attorney whose prowar vote says of her that she favors carrying out the death penalty against innocents. If Clinton had cited evidence in favor of the suspect’s (Iraq’s) guilt, she’d have been off the hook with me. Unfortunately for her, she didn't cite such evidence, and I require exactly such evidence.

Because evidence played no part in what members of Congress were doing the day they engaged in what looked like a vote on a war, members of Congress (or at least those who went on to vote Aye) will excuse me for thinking that they must've been engaging with Bush in some sort of private ritual, which private ritual, if it were carried out in full view of everyone, would secure for certain members of Congress entrance into a fraternity or brotherhood with Bush.

Clinton and Obama could be two versions of the same person. Clinton as president would be more easily impeached. This indicates the promise of the con that was pulled by both political parties on the public, and which con had as its purpose taking advantage of the color of Obama’s skin and using it as a distraction from the fact that so many members of Congress had made themselves into (what I contend are) war criminals, saboteurs or both.

J.E. Bernecky

Westover, PA

Dec 6 2009 - 10:03am

Web Letter

When does the Official Secrets Act kick in so that he can be prosecuted for compromising national security?

Alan Morgenstern

Northridge, CA

Dec 5 2009 - 12:16pm

Before commenting, please read our Community Guidelines.