Hi Tuesday, I guess I don't get what he was trying to say about why the list of politicians were wrong. He didn't say why in my estimation. I haven't seen the episode beyond what you posted. So, what is his agruement in saying that these politicians were wrong? I don't think rounding Julian Assange is a bad idea and others at Wikipedia and trying them in whatever way the justice dept. sees fit for the crime committed. If you could help me out into seeing why his critizism is wrong, I would appreciate it. Thanks though for all your insight you continually bring to your blog!!!
I think Glenn is trying to make the point that things have changed, in the sense that people are keeping their eyes upon America, as well as all the various other issues that are going on around the world.
Now that WikiLeaks have come out with these cables, there's no going back.
He did not go into what exactly should be done about Assange though...which I found odd. I think his main criticism was simply that the argument should be "either-or." Meaning the outcome shouldn't be more documents, nor should it be to hunt him down like a terrorist. He's arguing for a median of some kind.
3 comments:
Hi Tuesday, I guess I don't get what he was trying to say about why the list of politicians were wrong. He didn't say why in my estimation. I haven't seen the episode beyond what you posted. So, what is his agruement in saying that these politicians were wrong? I don't think rounding Julian Assange is a bad idea and others at Wikipedia and trying them in whatever way the justice dept. sees fit for the crime committed. If you could help me out into seeing why his critizism is wrong, I would appreciate it. Thanks though for all your insight you continually bring to your blog!!!
I think Glenn is trying to make the point that things have changed, in the sense that people are keeping their eyes upon America, as well as all the various other issues that are going on around the world.
Now that WikiLeaks have come out with these cables, there's no going back.
He did not go into what exactly should be done about Assange though...which I found odd. I think his main criticism was simply that the argument should be "either-or." Meaning the outcome shouldn't be more documents, nor should it be to hunt him down like a terrorist. He's arguing for a median of some kind.
***shouldn't be "either-or"...
Post a Comment