| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/24/2004 02:50:56 PM · #1 |
GW falls off his bike while mountain biking and his buddy Kerry, after hearing about it, asks if his training wheels feel off. Hysterical. I nearly fell off my chair laughing. Butâ€Â¦ he made the comment off the record so it’s not really newsworthy.
What does off the record mean? Can I start commenting on photo’s “off the record” so I can crack jokes and not have people think I’m an ass? Because I say something off the record, does that mean I can’t get in trouble for saying it? Does it mean I didn’t really say or mean it? Just curious.
By the way, didn’t Kerry fall off his bike recently?
Off the record; Props to ol’ GW for falling. In mountain biking, if you don’t fall and hurt yourself once and awhile, you’re not doing it right. From the looks of it he had a pretty good tumble.
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 04:30:29 PM · #2 |
| I love how GW is either the biggest idiot in the world or the brilliant mastermind behind every major conspiracy theory in the world. Make up your mind already! |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 05:24:19 PM · #3 |
| Stay on topic! I'm asking about what "off the record" means. Nothing about Bush being a mastermind or idiot. (HEHE) |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 05:40:13 PM · #4 |
"Off the record" is supposed to mean something told in confidence to a member of the media, for their own personal background information, but not for publication.
Someone who publishes an explicitly "off the record" comment deserves ostracism (as a reporter), unless the information were of such over-riding importance that the reporter is willing to sacrifice their career for humanity's greater good by divulging it.
Message edited by author 2004-05-24 17:40:40. |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 05:46:27 PM · #5 |
kerry would be sunk if he couldn't fit his insults into the off the record category. this reminds me of the couple other times where he stupidly forgot the camera was still running or his mic was on and proceeded to look idiotic. but he's a true politician, i'll give him that
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 05:52:58 PM · #6 |
| If John F. Kerry (he served in Vietnam you know) were to be elected and then shot off his mouth and insulted an important world leader or messed up some delicate negotiation would the 'off the record' excuse still work? |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 06:06:53 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by louddog:
Stay on topic! I'm asking about what "off the record" means. Nothing about Bush being a mastermind or idiot. (HEHE) |
According to the most common interpretation, everything said in a reporter's presence is "on the record" - that is, directly quotable and attributable, unless both the reporter and the speaker have agreed beforehand that the conversation is NOT "on the record". Not "on the record" includes speech that is classified as "Background", "Deep Background", "Off the record", or "Non-attributable".
Neither Background nor Deep Background information can be used without being explicity released ( as happened recently with Clarke's Background briefing to the press about terrorism plans under Bush / Clinton ).
Non-attributable speech means that the information can be used, but cannot attributed to the speaker, even indirectly.
When a conversation is "off the record" the information cannot be used unless it is corroborated by a third party. If the information IS corroborated, then the information can be attributed to that third party ( if they are speaking "on the record" ), or it can be used but not attributed. If the information is NOT corroborated, it cannot be used, period.
To make a long story short - since Kerry did not request that his comments be "off the record" in advance, they were, by default, "on the record".
Ron |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 06:57:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
something told in confidence to a member of the media, |
isn't that a bit of a contradiction? ;)
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 07:00:08 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Alecia:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
something told in confidence to a member of the media, |
isn't that a bit of a contradiction? ;) |
In these days of unbridled greed and ethical vacuousness I suppose it may be at that ... |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 07:13:57 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by thelsel:
I love how GW is either the biggest idiot in the world or the brilliant mastermind behind every major conspiracy theory in the world. Make up your mind already! |
Hey wasn't that Dr. Evil in The Spy Who Shagged Me?
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 08:18:37 PM · #11 |
No one has ever confused Bush with being a brilliant mastermind to anything. When Bush's name is mentioned it's within the context of his whole administration. Few people really believe that he is running the country. More credit there is given to Cheney and Rumsfeld and maybe Ashcroft. Bush's job is PR.
Originally posted by thelsel:
I love how GW is either the biggest idiot in the world or the brilliant mastermind behind every major conspiracy theory in the world. Make up your mind already! |
|
|
|
|
05/24/2004 08:26:45 PM · #12 |
| Off the record, Cheney and Rumsfeld shared top secret documents with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia of plans and maps of the invasion of Iraq a few weeks prior to the invasion. This was an illegal act. |
|
|
|
05/24/2004 09:47:38 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Off the record, Cheney and Rumsfeld shared top secret documents with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia of plans and maps of the invasion of Iraq a few weeks prior to the invasion. This was an illegal act. |
Not that I concede that that act did, in fact, take place, but just out of curiousity - if it did, under what law would it have been illegal?
Ron |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 01:30:41 AM · #14 |
I would imagine that some espionage laws would apply, but given their lack of enforcement, it's unlikely the vice president or Sec of defense would incur any legal consequences.
Why do you have cause for doubting that these leaks actually did occur? Do you think that Woodward is lying? If it did come out that the administration did, in fact, leak those top secret-not for foreigners documents to Bindar, would you condemn that action? Funny how the present administration is currently and successfully gagging Sibel Edomnds, even in a court of law, for talking about issues and documents that have already been discussed legally in public. Funny also how Prince Bindar has easy access to the WH and how the current administration is not investigating the perpetrators of 9/11. Why aren't we trying to find out more about who was involved in 9/11 and proceed to prosecute? But then again, it's really not so funny.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Off the record, Cheney and Rumsfeld shared top secret documents with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia of plans and maps of the invasion of Iraq a few weeks prior to the invasion. This was an illegal act. |
Not that I concede that that act did, in fact, take place, but just out of curiousity - if it did, under what law would it have been illegal?
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 08:23:14 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would imagine that some espionage laws would apply, but given their lack of enforcement, it's unlikely the vice president or Sec of defense would incur any legal consequences.
Why do you have cause for doubting that these leaks actually did occur? Do you think that Woodward is lying? If it did come out that the administration did, in fact, leak those top secret-not for foreigners documents to Bindar, would you condemn that action? Funny how the present administration is currently and successfully gagging Sibel Edomnds, even in a court of law, for talking about issues and documents that have already been discussed legally in public. Funny also how Prince Bindar has easy access to the WH and how the current administration is not investigating the perpetrators of 9/11. Why aren't we trying to find out more about who was involved in 9/11 and proceed to prosecute? But then again, it's really not so funny.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Off the record, Cheney and Rumsfeld shared top secret documents with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia of plans and maps of the invasion of Iraq a few weeks prior to the invasion. This was an illegal act. |
Not that I concede that that act did, in fact, take place, but just out of curiousity - if it did, under what law would it have been illegal?
Ron |
|
You would "imagine". . . In other words, you have no substantiation that it would have been an illegal act even if it had occurred. The statement then was just another in a string of unsubstantiated accusations stated as though it were fact.
I have doubts that these "leaks" actually did occur, because they weren't "leaks". "Leaks" occur when one (or more) of those with firsthand knowledge share that knowledge outside of the circle with knowledge. If Cheney/Rumsfeld shared this information with Bindar, it was not a "leak".
Do I think that Woodward lied? No, in fact Prince BANDAR ( not Bindar ) said, in an interview with Larry King "Both Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld told me before the briefing that the president has not made a decision yet, but here is the plan..."
Now, I have a question for you - on what basis do you state ( as fact ) that the documents were a) top secret, and b) not for foreigners?
No, I would not and do not condemn their actions. As was made known just recently, Sauda Arabia did, in fact, permit U.S. military operations to originate in that country. Prince Bandar is the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. As such, it was probably necessary to inform the Saudi Leadership through him of the U.S. plans in order to obtain their cooperation. Those communications were probably best done via diplomatic rather than military channels in order keep the communications discreet.
I don't know why you keep bringing up the Sibel Edmonds "gagging" story. But since you have repeated it, I will repeat my response, yet again:
The DOJ gag-order against Sibel Edmonds is for PUBLIC testimony under provisions of the "State Secrets Privilege", citing that disclosure of her evidence 'would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States'.
The Bush administration has, in fact, permitted Sibel Edmonds to testify in PRIVATE to those agencies that have been cleared to hear such testimony, INCLUDING the 9/11 commission.
Edmonds has testified before the Sept. 11 commission, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee Ref HERE
I do not believe that we should be privy to "all she's got to say".
It's not funny about Prince Bandar at all. He is, after all, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.s.
It's not funny why the WH is not investigating - we have a Senate panel doing that. How many concurrent investigations would you like to have? Would you trust the WH more than the 9/11 commission?
Ron |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 10:39:04 AM · #16 |
Maybe they should have just shared the info with Bandar off the record? Then everything would be okay because it wouldn't have really counted and the press couldn't report it without fear of losing their job or being unethical.
Then everyone would be happy. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 12:01:26 AM · #17 |
As far as I know, leaking classified information is a crime. I"m not a lawyer though, and so I can't cite or quote you the exact statute.
According to THIS article the documents/maps in question did say "top secret-no foreign." How could informing and presenting Bindar, regardless of who he is, with our plans of the invasion of Iraq not be a leak if the documents were so marked?
I bring up Sibel Edmonds again because a new twist on the govt's gag of her testimony has now been expanded to include information that is already out in the public domain.
And as far as the 9/11 commission goes, their investigations are going to lead to no more than further restraints of our liberties and further erosion of our constitutional rights...that's how I feel about the work their doing, and I'm not the only one who does. Many of the 9/11 families feel that way too. They are not investigating all there is to know about the horrible crimes perpetrated on that day...who was behind it and where the money came etc... We don't know who was really behind the crime...and there are so many unanswered questions that they are not even getting to.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
I would imagine that some espionage laws would apply, but given their lack of enforcement, it's unlikely the vice president or Sec of defense would incur any legal consequences.
Why do you have cause for doubting that these leaks actually did occur? Do you think that Woodward is lying? If it did come out that the administration did, in fact, leak those top secret-not for foreigners documents to Bindar, would you condemn that action? Funny how the present administration is currently and successfully gagging Sibel Edomnds, even in a court of law, for talking about issues and documents that have already been discussed legally in public. Funny also how Prince Bindar has easy access to the WH and how the current administration is not investigating the perpetrators of 9/11. Why aren't we trying to find out more about who was involved in 9/11 and proceed to prosecute? But then again, it's really not so funny.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Off the record, Cheney and Rumsfeld shared top secret documents with Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia of plans and maps of the invasion of Iraq a few weeks prior to the invasion. This was an illegal act. |
Not that I concede that that act did, in fact, take place, but just out of curiousity - if it did, under what law would it have been illegal?
Ron |
|
You would "imagine". . . In other words, you have no substantiation that it would have been an illegal act even if it had occurred. The statement then was just another in a string of unsubstantiated accusations stated as though it were fact.
I have doubts that these "leaks" actually did occur, because they weren't "leaks". "Leaks" occur when one (or more) of those with firsthand knowledge share that knowledge outside of the circle with knowledge. If Cheney/Rumsfeld shared this information with Bindar, it was not a "leak".
Do I think that Woodward lied? No, in fact Prince BANDAR ( not Bindar ) said, in an interview with Larry King "Both Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld told me before the briefing that the president has not made a decision yet, but here is the plan..."
Now, I have a question for you - on what basis do you state ( as fact ) that the documents were a) top secret, and b) not for foreigners?
No, I would not and do not condemn their actions. As was made known just recently, Sauda Arabia did, in fact, permit U.S. military operations to originate in that country. Prince Bandar is the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. As such, it was probably necessary to inform the Saudi Leadership through him of the U.S. plans in order to obtain their cooperation. Those communications were probably best done via diplomatic rather than military channels in order keep the communications discreet.
I don't know why you keep bringing up the Sibel Edmonds "gagging" story. But since you have repeated it, I will repeat my response, yet again:
The DOJ gag-order against Sibel Edmonds is for PUBLIC testimony under provisions of the "State Secrets Privilege", citing that disclosure of her evidence 'would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States'.
The Bush administration has, in fact, permitted Sibel Edmonds to testify in PRIVATE to those agencies that have been cleared to hear such testimony, INCLUDING the 9/11 commission.
Edmonds has testified before the Sept. 11 commission, the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee Ref HERE
I do not believe that we should be privy to "all she's got to say".
It's not funny about Prince Bandar at all. He is, after all, the Saudi Ambassador to the U.s.
It's not funny why the WH is not investigating - we have a Senate panel doing that. How many concurrent investigations would you like to have? Would you trust the WH more than the 9/11 commission?
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 12:37:56 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
According to THIS article the documents/maps in question did say "top secret-no foreign." How could informing and presenting Bindar, regardless of who he is, with our plans of the invasion of Iraq not be a leak if the documents were so marked?
I bring up Sibel Edmonds again because a new twist on the govt's gag of her testimony has now been expanded to include information that is already out in the public domain. |
Thanks for the link, I missed that. I did do some additional research myself, and it appears that you are correct - no one refutes the allegation that the documents, maps, etc. were classified top-secret, noforn. I still maintain that since Bandar was in the room, it wasn't a "leak".
As for the Sibel Edmonds issue, if what she has to say is already out in the public domain, then a gag order is completely moot.
Ron |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 05:11:52 PM EDT.
