Letters

Letters

Readers weigh in on our endorsement of Obama, our coverage of terrorism and our grammar.

Facebook
Twitter
Email
Flipboard
Pocket

Change of Heart & Mind

Astoria, N.Y.

Recently I wrote saying that I would not be renewing my subscription because of your endorsement of Barack Obama. But he brought me to his side with his brilliant speech on race (and America), and I now think it would be almost sinful not to vote for him. So you were right, and I will be renewing my subscription after all. Thank you.

MARI GORMAN


For Whom Would Jesus Vote?

West Lafayette, Ind.

I find it difficult to support a magazine that, while claiming to uphold certain values to which I subscribe, would exhibit such blatant disregard of fundamental English grammar as the headline “Who Would Jesus Vote For?” on Bob Moser’s March 24 piece on evangelicals. My mother taught for years in the East Bronx to get students to write correct English. I cannot disregard her memory by letting such blatant disrespect for our language to pass unnoticed.

W.L. McBRIDE


Palm Bay, Fla.

I am a high school English teacher and am mildly amused yet slightly disturbed by the bad grammar on your cover. I tell my students to read your magazine not only for its content but also for its edifying vocabulary and writing style. But I also wish to thank you for keeping me informed over the years with your frankness, good writing and intellectual stimulation.

THOMAS JACKSON


Jamaica Plain, Mass.

So good to read about how some evangelicals’ beliefs go beyond the stereotype of supporting Jerry Falwell and his kind. At first I misread the headline as “Who Would Vote for Jesus?” I foresaw a tragicomic article about how the neocon attack machine would go after Jesus for being soft on enemies (“Turn the other cheek”), even for speaking to them, or for bringing up “class war” (“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven”).

MICHAEL WEINSTEIN


OSS–Of Swashbuckling Sages

Washington, D.C.

Robert Dreyfuss, in “Hothead McCain” [March 24], describes the Office of Strategic Services, predecessor of the CIA, as a “rambunctious, often out-of-control World War II-era covert-ops team.” Led by the legendary “Wild Bill” Donovan, the OSS was a visionary, daring, innovative, unorthodox, effective intelligence organization. It abetted Allied victories in North Africa, Europe, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Donovan recruited an array of “glorious amateurs,” as he called them, including Arthur Schlesinger Jr., Ralph Bunche, Arthur Goldberg, Julia Child, John Ford [and Nation puzzle setter Frank W. Lewis–Ed.]. Many OSS personnel–including my father–risked their lives volunteering for missions behind enemy lines.

Creating a new intelligence service patterned after the OSS is an intriguing notion that deserves serious consideration, not Dreyfuss’s casual dismissal.

CHARLES PINCK, president
The OSS Society


Terror Experts Speak

Washington, D.C.

In “Experts in Terror” [Feb. 4], Petra Bartosiewicz made an error in reference to our latest book, Jihad Incorporated. Alluding to the book’s treatment of the terrorism-related case of Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain, Bartosiewicz writes: “Emerson incorrectly cites the Aref and Hossain case as evidence that individuals in the United States are ‘directly linked’ to the JeI [Jamaat-e-Islami]. With the exception of a single newspaper clip, the only sources cited in the section on the case are government documents from the trial.”

In fact, the book refers to allegations in the criminal complaint stating that Hossain himself told an FBI informant that he was a member of Jamaat-e-Islami. The complaint provides these details: “In response to CI-1 talking about martyrs having spilled their blood, HOSSAIN told CI-1 that he was a member of Jamaat-e-Islami (‘JEI’), a group identified by public source information as an Islamic fundamentalist political party in Pakistan with chapters in Bangladesh.

“When a third party joined the conversation, the three discussed politics. During the conversation, HOSSAIN stated that he was a ‘Nazim,’ or administrator for JEI.”

Rather than take a position on whether Hossain was a member of JeI–something about which Bartosiewicz seems to have her doubts–Jihad Incorporated merely states the fact that the complaint reports Hossain’s incriminating statement to an FBI informant.

STEVEN EMERSON, executive director
The Investigative Project on Terrorism


Bartosiewicz Replies

Brooklyn, N.Y.

As Steven Emerson surely knows, criminal indictments or complaints are the government’s allegations and are not always borne out at trial. That’s why it’s a tricky proposition to rely on them so heavily. No evidence beyond this single comment was brought in Hossain’s trial to support his being an “administrator” or a meaningful member of JeI. Even if he had been, that’s neither a crime nor an incriminating statement, as the group is not a designated foreign terrorist organization. Many things can be said about Aref and Hossain, but if, as Emerson’s book seems to suggest, Hossain is among the best examples of a fundamentalist JeI presence within our borders, we can all sleep more peacefully.

PETRA BARTOSIEWICZ


Corrections & Clarification

In Laila Al-Arian’s “Winter Soldiers Speak” [April 7], it was incorrectly stated that John Kerry testified in Detroit at the 1971 Winter Soldier Investigation. He attended the event in Detroit, but he testified three months later before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

In Marcela Valdes’s “Windows Into the Night” [March 31], Michael Chabon, Douglas Coupland and Raymond Chandler were labeled American, instead of North American, novelists (Coupland is Canadian). Also, the last names of Amaldo Nuevo and Vicente Huidobro were misspelled.

In Tom Hayden’s “The Old Revolutionaries of Vietnam” [March 10], an editorial error made it seem that Lady Borton was describing party leaders as “bulldogs.” She was describing the Vietnamese press.

Thank you for reading The Nation!

We hope you enjoyed the story you just read. It’s just one of many examples of incisive, deeply-reported journalism we publish—journalism that shifts the needle on important issues, uncovers malfeasance and corruption, and uplifts voices and perspectives that often go unheard in mainstream media. For nearly 160 years, The Nation has spoken truth to power and shone a light on issues that would otherwise be swept under the rug.

In a critical election year as well as a time of media austerity, independent journalism needs your continued support. The best way to do this is with a recurring donation. This month, we are asking readers like you who value truth and democracy to step up and support The Nation with a monthly contribution. We call these monthly donors Sustainers, a small but mighty group of supporters who ensure our team of writers, editors, and fact-checkers have the resources they need to report on breaking news, investigative feature stories that often take weeks or months to report, and much more.

There’s a lot to talk about in the coming months, from the presidential election and Supreme Court battles to the fight for bodily autonomy. We’ll cover all these issues and more, but this is only made possible with support from sustaining donors. Donate today—any amount you can spare each month is appreciated, even just the price of a cup of coffee.

The Nation does not bow to the interests of a corporate owner or advertisers—we answer only to readers like you who make our work possible. Set up a recurring donation today and ensure we can continue to hold the powerful accountable.

Thank you for your generosity.

Ad Policy
x