EXCELLENT! Naomi Wolf on c-span yesterday- must see

If you didn't get a chance to see Wolf discuss the issues behind her new book, watch the show online here.

Viet Dihn, the guy who interviewed her, was in the Bush admin. from 2001-2003 and helped to write The Patriot Act.

Her appearance is beyond 'preaching to the choir' rhetoric -- her responses to Dihn are definitive, she takes him to task, in a civil(ized) manner as she questions his use of talking points to look at her concerns. (My concerns too, actually.)

"You are such an honorable and decent man, I'm very sorry that you are repeating administration talking points about torture..."

She didn't want to waste the important moment with administration talking points -- history is so instructive.

Her answer to one of his talking point questions compares pre-Nazi Germany's loss of democracy to things that have occurred in the U.S. (which will not be new to most anyone here) but she presents this in such a way (and Dihn is civilized enough not to simply try to shout her down) that it does not sound like the rantings of a "conspiracy theorist" whose words are easily dismissed. He gets in his stereotypical conservative digs... Martha's Vineyard concerns, to which she also responds calmly and firmly.

A lesson in rhetoric if you want to persuade and not just use your pov to pound others'.

I have her book.

she was so good when talking to someone who obviously has a drastically different pov. Courage to confront his attempts to twist issues.

The most egregious bit of Orwellian b.s. in the U.S. at this time is the "We don't torture" statement by defining torture as such a vague and outside-of-civilized discourse. She takes this on when he tries to make a point with that issue.

...by Naomi's refusal to let Dinh frame the issues. I will buy her book today.

that's what made this more than a simple interview.

She not only did not let him frame the issues, she noted that he was doing so and dismissed this tactic -again, in the way in which persuasive rhetoric is accomplished - by first noting his own expertise.

And she also notes her specific invocation of the use of fascism as the closing down of a democracy...her use of Nazi examples were instructive, not meant to be seen as the endgame of every fascist regime... although all end up torturing their own citizens... I loved the part when she challenged him to find any fascist regime that did not do this.

She is being dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" by Bush supporters. History, not only truth, has a known liberal bias, I suppose.

I found only one substantial quibble, other than being uncomfortably aware that Dinh was doing his level best to trip her up.
Fairly late in the interview, Dinh referred to the "unprecedented" firing of all USAs at the beginning of the Clinton administration, and she did not follow up, merely letting it stand.

The man is a consummate liar. His position as a supposed teacher makes it doubly shameful.
It has long been the custom, at the beginning of a new administration, for all the US attorneys to submit letters of resignation, from which the president elect can choose to accept none, any or all. There was nothing unprecedented about Clinton's decision to accept the resignations exactly the way he did. It is also rare, until the current aberration, for second term removal of these attorneys, except for graft or driving personal issues.

This confirmation of false republican talking points and the setting of those same talking points for future discussion is more than shameful; it is an example of such intense partisanship that the man should not be in any position of influencing uncritical minds.

Hopefully Wolf will have that information available when she speaks about this issue again.

I didn't know about Clinton, but that was back when I thought that democracy could protect itself. seems like sooooo long ago.

throw out talking points without being confronted he started stuttering (or whatever the hell he was doing). Cretins like Dihn are not capable of an honest exchange of ideas.

I noticed that too because it was so severe after she starting talking specifics related to current tactics that are also available for use on anyone any despotic mentality would like to invoke. I've always wondered why more republicans were not out screaming in the streets over the obvious denial of "strict constitutional" issues by giving the executive branch so much power against any checks or balances.

but too, the congress that enabled these acts have their answers to give to us and to history.

Or maybe it was because she insisted on addressing the spin behind his questions.