Tearing this republic apart
I appreciate your printing my letter as I realize its content was provocative. I have no doubt that Zucker or someone else will claim I took his words out of context though nothing could be further from the truth.
When Zucker brought up the Nuremberg trials, he was specifically referring to a period in history after the fall of the third Reich. The movie was a star-studded masterpiece I’ve often enjoyed watching. Its content spoke of the moral decline in Germany suffered as a result of Nazi rule. And it centered, on the trial of a Jew who had been wrongly accused of crimes and dragged before a tribunal. The man was publicly ostracized for propaganda purposes before being hanged. Later those involved were brought to justice as well and they, some at least suffered the same fate. All were guilty of crime against humanity. And most were connected to the political and the industrial machinery that transported gassed and annihilated millions. And almost all were dedicated Nazi’s.
When Zucker used that trial as a metaphor, he implicitly did so to implicate the bush administration and units of the CIA as worthy of the same scorn and ridicule. Thus he is guilty of using the stigma of Nazi’s atrocities to further his goals.
As to the Senate CIA report itself anybody who’s fair can easily see through the political rhetoric..
After Sept. 11, Americans, rightly, expected the government to keep us safe. The use of waterboarding and other interrogation methods were used to exact information. And though Feinstein, boxer, and Pelosi may claim otherwise, they were of course kept informed as to those specific methods being used. How could they serve in such powerful positions and claim otherwise?
Later as the war grew unpopular it suddenly became politically expedient to distance themselves from anything pointing to their involvement; thus a report that did just that, how convenient. Can I prove it, no? Yet Zucker uses it, and the Times, as proof of his assertions. This is where fairness comes into play. Let’s be honest, The New York Times is blatantly biased against the Bush administration as well any Republican seeking high office. There editorial pages will of course back any suggestion that the CIA acted improperly. Understand therefore my anger at Zucker’s assertions that Bush and his administration are in fact guilty of war crimes.
This is not the first time Zucker has used Nazi rhetoric to make a point. I’d like to know why Zucker is given a platform to continue his rant against conservatives or anyone who disagrees with him politically.
There are plenty of instances where he simply accuses, uses unreliable sources and offers no solutions other than to suggest Democrat’s be in charge of everything. The worse though was in a previous column in which he accused Tea Party advocates of using mob rule to enforce their agenda.
In it he compared these folks to the Nazi scum who on the night of Nov. 9 1938, across the Reich instigated the Kristallnacht, also known as the night of the broken glass. More than 250 synagogues were burned, 7,000 Jewish businesses, homes, schools and hospitals were looted and also burned. The following day, it’s estimated 30,000 Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps.
Somehow, I don’t believe people peacefully protesting for smaller government, are deserving of Zucker’s assertions that they are just as contemptible.
I was busy at the time on a fixer, a home I purchased and did not respond as I wanted to. Actually I expected some other member of this community to do so as that column deserved condemnation.
I never before have written a letter to the editor. I prefer to sit back for the most part and sigh occasionally on matters I disagree with. Lately, however, with all the racial division occurring and Islamic radicals seeking to create as much havoc as possible I may need to re-think that position.
One of your reporters recently wrote on the Ferguson shooting of Michael Brown in an
Op-Ed. In it he concerned himself solely with the officers’ conduct never once mentioning the events that led up to the shooting. Just the cops actions were scrutinized. That is precisely what needs to change. Both sides on every issue need to be explored. Concentrating only on the officer’s state of mind, basically shoot first, question later, is not the style of a prudent journalist.
Let’s face it were all wrong some of the time. It’s our God-given right. What’s not right however is attacking others based on ideological differences. We need editors that demand accountability from both their staff as well the public. I for one hope our nation can quickly find a way to heal the divisions that is tearing this republic into two deeply antagonistic camps. In fact I pray for it. If not, in time we will fail to hold together and you can bet the world will be worse off for it.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around the Lake Tahoe Basin and beyond make the Tahoe Tribune's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User