|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/05/2004 07:30:04 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by thelsel:
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you made a point:) The last thing I discerned was some second or tertiary point you "believed" to be true. At least you didn't disappoint me with the diversionary tactic. |
Since you need help, here's my point:
Originally posted by bdobe:
[T]he charge of whether a candidate flip flopped is silly and, at root, misleading; because real world issues are always more nuanced than the opposition allows for... No one in everyday day life thinks in terms of, Oh, he's a flip flopper. In stead, we recognize that negotiations require give and take; and, know, that compromise is the glue of our representative system. I just hope that those that so unthinkingly use the label against Mr. Kerry would draw the same conclusion. But, alas, I think that's hoping for too much. |
No diversion, I just know when I'm wasting my time. |
So what was your reason for starting this thread? You were so adamant that bush was the flip-flopper in chief, you even defended your posts. Then, once proven wrong, you flip-flop on your own thread. Classic! |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 07:30:53 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Are you just going to ignore the atrocities that Kerry committed in Vietnam? Kerry's personal actions are just as bad, if not worse, than the violations committed at Abu Gharaib. Was Bush over there personally violating POW rights?
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions" --John Kerry
Listen to Kerry say it himself... |
***
Your link seems not to be working. And as far as Kerry goes, if he committed those war crimes I would condemn him for it too. Has it been proven that he killed people in Viet Nam? Was he responsible for torturing people, or is the jury still out on these crimes this book is alleging? Has the book even been published yet? I have already stated that I disagree with Kerry's plan on upscaling the war in Iraq and sending 40,000 more troops.
Bush, on the other hand, is responsible for over 1000 lost American lives and countless Iraqi and Afghanistani lives. He can't flip-flop on that...and anyway, two wrongs don't make a right. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 07:50:32 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Are you just going to ignore the atrocities that Kerry committed in Vietnam? Kerry's personal actions are just as bad, if not worse, than the violations committed at Abu Gharaib. Was Bush over there personally violating POW rights?
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions" --John Kerry
Listen to Kerry say it himself... |
2 more points: I believe Kerry made those points to show that he knows what war is all about. Besides, he eventually renounced the Viet Nam War and protested against it. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 08:21:34 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
if he committed those war crimes I would condemn him for it too. Has it been proven that he killed people in Viet Nam? Was he responsible for torturing people, or is the jury still out on these crimes this book is alleging? |
What more "proof" do you need than Kerry admitting it himself? These are his exact words:
"yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities..."
This was after he got back from Vietnam, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971. If the other link to the audio is not working, try this link.
So the question is this: why hasn't the media pressed Kerry on this issue, and asked him to explain, in detail, exactly which atrocities he admits to committing? The reason is because the media is too liberal-biased and doesn't want to press him on that issue. Hopefully the Swiftboat Vets' book will bring this issue to the forefront and force the media to finally address this issue.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Besides, he eventually renounced the Viet Nam War and protested against it. |
So that's makes the atrocities he admits to committing "OK"? You do realize that the book Unfit For Command alleges that "Kerry earned his Silver Star by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth" and "if Kerry's superiors had known the truth at the time, they would never have recommended him for the medal."
What would the Vietnam veterans who banded together to form Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have to gain by making such "false" accusations? I can't think of any upside for those vets to making such serious claims if they didn't feel they were true. (FYI, although their web site is currently under a DoS attack, you can read their FAQ via Google's cache.)
Message edited by author 2004-08-05 20:25:27. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 09:02:32 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
if he committed those war crimes I would condemn him for it too. Has it been proven that he killed people in Viet Nam? Was he responsible for torturing people, or is the jury still out on these crimes this book is alleging? |
What more "proof" do you need than Kerry admitting it himself? These are his exact words:
"yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities..."
This was after he got back from Vietnam, on NBC's "Meet the Press" April 18, 1971. If the other link to the audio is not working, try this link.
So the question is this: why hasn't the media pressed Kerry on this issue, and asked him to explain, in detail, exactly which atrocities he admits to committing? The reason is because the media is too liberal-biased and doesn't want to press him on that issue. Hopefully the Swiftboat Vets' book will bring this issue to the forefront and force the media to finally address this issue.
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Besides, he eventually renounced the Viet Nam War and protested against it. |
So that's makes the atrocities he admits to committing "OK"? You do realize that the book Unfit For Command alleges that "Kerry earned his Silver Star by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong in a loincloth" and "if Kerry's superiors had known the truth at the time, they would never have recommended him for the medal."
What would the Vietnam veterans who banded together to form Swift Boat Veterans For Truth have to gain by making such "false" accusations? I can't think of any upside for those vets to making such serious claims if they didn't feel they were true. (FYI, although their web site is currently under a DoS attack, you can read their FAQ via Google's cache.) |
***
I was able to listen to the quick 20 seconds of speech that Kerry made back in the early 70's, but he doesn't admit to killing, torturing or massacaring people. And that short 20 seconds is completely out of context and proves NOTHING. I think there's a lot of controversy regarding exactly what atrocities he did commit, if any, as well as, controversy regarding this organization making these allegations, Swift Boat Veterens for Truth. I"m compiling different links about them so give me some time to do so.
Any one person, or group, can make allegations, especially when it comes to people in politics and nothing regarding these allegations made by this group has been proven...it's all hersay (sp?) at this time. This group seems to have been organized by a public relations firm (Spaeth Communications) that has ties to the Bush campaign and has given a lot of money to them. Merrie Spaeth, who runs the company goes way back to have ties with other republicans such as Ron Reagan and was the PR firm that was responsible for a smear campaign against John McCain during the 2000 presidential campaign. But this is certainly the way the Republicans run their campaigns...not on the issues. I will look more into this group and the PR firm and post what I find later.
edit:
Here are a couple of web sites that I found that question the veracity of the claims in this book:
Veterans for Kerry
Disinfopedia
Message edited by author 2004-08-06 05:16:00. |
|
|
|
08/05/2004 09:05:45 PM · #56 |
BTW, Eddie, I'm still waiting for you to respond to posts that some of us made regarding Chapter 9 of the book you posted in another thread and recommned we read. Chances are that that book was also put out by a PR firm connected with the Republicans.
Message edited by author 2004-08-05 21:07:39. |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 02:23:03 PM · #57 |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 02:35:13 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by bdobe:
"David Kay has found the capacity to produce weapons. And when David Kay goes in and says we haven't found stockpiles yet, and there's theories as to where the weapons went. They could have been destroyed during the war. Saddam and his henchmen could have destroyed them as we entered into Iraq. They could be hidden. They could have been transported to another country, and we'll find out." [President Bush, Meet the Press, 2/7/04]
|
The weird thing about this statement is all the creative options they can think up for why they haven't found them, apart from the one that would be most likely by the principle of Occam's razor - in that long list of reasons 'maybe they didn't have them when we invaded' just doesn't figure at all...
I'm left with two potential conclusions: Either Bush simply can't even conceive of this as a possibility - which scares the hell out of me. Or that it is all just politically motivated statements, in which case its just disingenuous, which doesn't give me a whole lot of respect for the speaker, either - but is just politics as usual I guess.
Message edited by author 2004-08-13 14:37:58.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 02:55:47 PM · #59 |
Look the democrats are in big trouble. But all is fair in war, love and politics. However, notice that only raw and unfiltered emotion dominates the democratic movemnet of today. They are blind and they are in a rage.
I have not seen one intelligent exchange except two sides yelling and screaming. I would have to say that the democrats have proven the meaner simply because they are the underdogs and the Americam people have ousted them out of power. Their great aspirations of social engineering is at peril. Their socialist dreams are in danger of not being fully realized.
To take care of this matter, they know that a lie told long enough will stick with their constituency because the majority are mis-informed. They have allowed the most radical part of the wing to the fore because they yell the loudest. If I had a fraud like Michael Moore carrying the banner of my party, I would abandon party and at worst, I would never deign to quote him.
We are at war, but the extreme left does not care. Everytime there is an alert they scream politics. So the white house goes to the times and explains the basis for their high alert. The Times, an instrument of the left rushes out and irresponsibly prints out names. So Times shafts the White House. Personally, I would never give socialist Times the time of day.
But no: the great Flip flopper is Kerry. "I voted for it after I voted against it." I wish you luck, but Kerry is a dubious character. A supposed intellectual without deep convictions of what is right and what is wrong. Yes, I understand the left enjoys bathing in the gray area, most American do not. Liberalism is socialism. I am sorry, but I do not see the benefits since it has failed evrywhere it has been tried. But each man to his own dream. |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 03:01:07 PM · #60 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Liberalism is socialism. I am sorry, but I do not see the benefits since it has failed evrywhere it has been tried. But each man to his own dream. |
Strange then that Bush's biggest ally and main supporter is a socialist government. Politics makes odd bedfellows after all.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 03:13:59 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
Liberalism is socialism. I am sorry, but I do not see the benefits since it has failed evrywhere it has been tried. But each man to his own dream. |
Strange then that Bush's biggest ally and main supporter is a socialist government. Politics makes odd bedfellows after all. |
You are right. But consider, we are indeed the only nation on the face of the map that towers above all. We are the most productive, we feed the highest amount of people throughtout the earth. This is strictly the end result of capitalism tied to Freedom. No other giant exist like us and no other as benevolent as the US. So, when we reach out to other countries, who are these countries? Most of them are socialist structure who are mainly in finacual straits. They hate us, because we continue to succeed. Yet we must co-exist with them, but they never tire of extending the hand out to the USA. |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 03:17:29 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by graphicfunk:
...notice that only raw and unfiltered emotion dominates the democratic movemnet of today. They are blind and they are in a rage. |
Hmmm... let's see, what did Ms. Anne Cutler, a well known Republican/Conservative pundit, have to say about Senator Max Cleland's Vietnam war wounds:
"Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman â or what Cleland sneeringly calls "weekend warriors." Luckily for Cleland's political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam."
See the rest here.
And, of course, never mind how Senator Clealand's Republican opponent in the 2002 election ran the same sort of smear campaign that's being waged against Mr. Kerry.
A 2003 article reflecting on Senator Max Clealand's senatorial bid offered this headline:
"Max Cleland Survived His Vietnam War Wounds. But He Has Yet to Recover From His Last Campaign Battle."
Read the rest here.
Message edited by author 2004-08-13 18:47:44.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 03:27:29 PM · #63 |
Moore does not engage in smears. he is a true honest intellectual, not.
Kerry needs no attacks, he falls of his own weight. |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 04:53:29 PM · #64 |
Graphicfunk, given what you've previously stated, you might find some points in this relevant:
Originally posted by RonB:
You missed my point entirely. I wasn't demonizing Trial Lawyers - I was merely pointing out that with so many LAWYERS backing the Democrats it seems that the media would be able to use all that legal talent to edit their articles befor printing them. I agree that both Trial Lawyers and CEO's are both required, and also worthy of villification. |
Your point and intentions are very clear:
1. Once gain, you're following the Republican talking points and attempting to associate Trial Lawyers with the Democratic party. See, you know that over the past 40+ years, the Republican party and the American Enterprise Institute have been successful at driving the "Trail Lawyers Bad" idea into the public's mind; so, Republican party hacks keep on hammering that notion into our heads. You know very well that Trial Lawyers (or, Public Interest Defenders, as I prefer to think of them) represent a huge threat to one of the biggest constituencies of the Republican party: Big Multinational Corporate Money (yeah, I know it's a mouthful). Because, as you know, Public Interest Defenders, as a group, have amassed sufficient resources to go head-to-head against Big Money, and force them to comply with, among other things: safety regulations, labor protection laws, and pro-enviromental measures -- of course, I'll grant you that by so doing, Public Interest Defenders hope to make a buck. (Hey, it's the American way!) Now, as we've concurred, there are good-guys and bad-guys in both camps: the Big Money and the Public Interest Defenders camp. The point here is your continued effort to associate what you call "Trial Lawyers" with one party, and not the other -- a common practice among those that follow the Republican talking points. (See here for an example of the Republican talking points.)
2. Again you rely on one of the Republican talking points: the specter of the so-called liberal media. Interestingly, later in your response, you acknowledge that the so-called liberal media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias (but I'll get to that later). You insinuate that the so-called liberal media is aligned with the Democratic party and, therefore, the news items should be edited by the Democratic party lawyers. First, it is ridiculous to suggest that the media is in the pocket of Democrats and that the two somehow coordinate with each other. But I'll leave that aside, it's so ridiculous and you know it. Again, the specter of the so-called liberal media has been so repeatedly beaten into the public's mind, that many don't even question it anymore. Of course, Republican partisans know that they won the battle over the so-called liberal media label long-ago. Here's an instructive piece I came across: //conservativehq.com/. Of course, the author is not widely known to the public at-large. However, it is precisely that anonymity that allows him to speak so candidly, as he knows who his audience is and who is likely to read his book. He writes:
Our cause has come a long way in the past 40 years. We've learned how to use the alternative media-political direct mail and talk radio and cable TV-to build our movement and convert more and more Americans to our cause. "Liberal" is now such an unpopular label with the American people that every liberal I know has run for cover and calls himself a "progressive."
He later comments, "smart people on the Left are learning from the past successes of conservatives." Well, he's right about that... the model that the Republican/Conservative movement laid out is extremely educational.
Refuting the myth of the so-called liberal media is like pulling teeth: painful, arduous and always approached with weariness -- given how entrenched the notion is. However, for those interested on the subject, please see the following:
* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
* Media Matters for America
* The Republican Noise Machine
* Control Room (documentary on how the Iraq war was covered by U.S. vs. Middle Eastern media)
* Out Foxed (documentary on the inner workings of the Fox News operation)
* What Liberal Media?
* Manufacturing Consent (summery)
Originally posted by RonB:
The purpose of mainstream newspapers is NOT to provide news and it is NOT to inform the public - the purpose of mainstream newspapers is to make money for its owners by selling as many newspapers as it can. The best way to sell newspapers is to appeal to the potential buyer by enticing them with headlines that appeal to their base desires and then not disappointing them with the content of the stories. SO...given a choice of headlines like
1) Publication of Informant's Name Compromises Intelligence Efforts
or
2) Leak allowed al Qaeda suspects to escape
which one do you think would entice someone to buy a paper? The second one, of course ( USA Today ). |
I couldn't agree with you more. As I noted earlier, and as you concur above, the media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us -- all U.S. citizens -- have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they're doing of covering substantive issues. What's pertinent to the point at-hand, is how closely you've followed the Republican talking points by raising the specter of the so-called liberal media -- even though you acknowledged and recognize that "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests are what drive the media, and not some liberal bias.
Originally posted by RonB:
As I have pointed out in prior posts, this was not a "leak". A "leak" is when information is made known secretly, outside of official channels. This information ( the informant's name ) was made known in an official background briefing to which the media had been invited.
If you like to read books ( as it appears you do ), then I would suggest these three: "Coloring the News" by William McGowan, "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, and "It Ain't Necessarily So" by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter. They should all be available at Amazon.com. |
Ron, you do a fantastic job of splitting hairs, and of deploying the same sort of linguistic jujitsu used by two masters of verbal dexterity: Mr. Clinton and Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Clinton asked, "it depends on your definition of what IS is." And, of course, Mr. Rumsfeld's use of gab has been described thus:
"It uses playful language to address the most somber subjects: war, terrorism, mortality. Much of it is about indirection and evasion: He never faces his subjects head on but weaves away, letting inversions and repetitions confuse and beguile."
See the rest here.
Look, use whatever qualifier you want: leak, disclosure, background briefing, etc. That's not the point. The point is that valuable human-intelligence resources should not have been publicly disclosed by the Bush administration, whether it be a mole within al Queda or an undercover C.I.A. agent. Both of these actions directly undermined our national security and put the lives of U.S. operatives on the field at risk.
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
I'll keep this short. If the Bush administration did not have a serious credibility problem there wouldn't be any need for them to defend/qualify/substantiate the terror alerts. |
Ah, but there would be. Its difficult to entice people to buy newspapers ( or watch TV News programs, or browse Internet News sites ) without "news" to proffer. And again, its necessary to appeal to the base desires of people to entice them. If you don't HAVE news, you have to CREATE news. One way to do that is to push conspiracy theories - raise lots of questions through innuendo, nuanced accusations, etc. And by doing so CREATE in the public a "demand to know" the "truth". Then, leverage that public sentiment to pressure those in power to respond to the "questions". You get the drift. |
You did not address the issue, which is that the Bush administration -- over the past two years -- has squandered whatever credibility they had left. Jeesh, talk about "conspiracy theories"; you'd have us believe that the media have gotten together to conspire against Mr. Bush, and so must "CREATE" news. Well, I think it's a lot simpler than that, I think: Mr. Bush & Co. have a serious credibility problem and, therefore, many in the public cannot take them at their word anymore.
Originally posted by RonB:
1) Spies being unmasked for political gain: I assume that you are referring to the release of the name of an informant in the background briefing. While I think that it is a VERY remote possibility that the release of his name may have been "politically" motivated, I don't see what "political" purpose it would have served. The "political" purpose would have been served WITHOUT naming him. I believe that his name was provided only to "prove" that there WAS credible information to raise the terror alert level in NY, NJ, and DC - a proof that was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. |
Yes, I'm referring to the al Queda mole whose name was released, and to the under cover C.I.A. agent whose identity was revealed. One of these cases is under criminal investigation, and we'll just have to see how high up the Bush White House the investigation goes -- of course, Mr. Bush has already consulted a lawyer on the matter.
As for the "political gains" to be made by the leak/release/disclosure of these names: 1. Rather than expending political capital explaining to the public how four year old information had now yielded the possibility of a new threat, the Bush administration took the easy way out by releasing Mr. Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan's name as their main supporting proof. (I'll grant you that they are related; however, the evidence should've been supported without disclosing the identify of such a valuable resource.) Intelligence analysts agree that it's extremely hard to penetrate al Queda for various reasons, including: language, culture, insularity, etc.; even so, Bush & Co. decided that a valuable resource inside of al Queda wasn't really all that important after all. Aside from the ramifications that the release of the mole's name has for us at home, our allies have to deal with the consequences, too. Thereby, further damaging our already fragile relationship with the international community. 2. As for the release of the under cover C.I.A. agent's identify, let's remember that her name was leaked when it appeared that her husband, Ambassador Wilson, was going to publicly refute Mr. Bush's claim that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials from Niger. (Now, you and I will interpret the players' motives very differently; however, luckily for us, the facts can be debated elsewhere -- as there already is a criminal investigation underway in the case of the C.I.A. agent's identity leak.)
Originally posted by RonB:
2) an elective war was pursued for the wrong reasons: The "wrong reasons" are perhaps evident in hindsight, but I would ask you what you would have done in Bush's place if you did NOT know then what you know now. Have you ever made a well-thought out decision that resulted in your doing something that had completely undesirable, if not terrible consequences? I'll bet you have. |
Wow, now I know you know better. You know that the evidence was shotty, inconclusive and circumstantial. Yet, the Bush administration presented their case to the American people and the world as rock solid. Again, let's remember that not everyone thought that there was solid proof that Iraq possessed W.M.D.(s) that presented a clear danger to the world, much less to the US. Dr. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector before Bush & Co. muscled him out of the position before the invasion, had this to say:
"Well, they [the Bush administration] certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time."
You can read the full interview here. Of course, Dr. Hans Blix is a diplomat and, therefore, walks a fine line on the subject -- never explicitly saying, Yeah, Bush & Co. lied and made a fool of us all. But, hey, we're not diplomats and we can read between the lines just fine. You know, Ron, for a man that so often employs the, "oh shucks, I want just the facts," you sure are willing to cut Bush & Co. a lot of slack when it comes to circumstantial evidence that lead to the loss of 934 of our sons, daughters, fathers, brothers, uncles, mothers... not to mention an estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilian casualties.
Damn, I could go on and on about this subject, but I'll spare you all... not to mention that posting to this board is seriously affecting my productivity at work. I'll just add one more thing: to say that it's only in hindsight that we can judge the Iraq invasion to be a mistake and that there was no way to know, is to lie to yourself, and to others on this board. Now, as for what should've been done: 1. Bush & Co. should've let inspections work, and 2. Bush & Co. should've pushed for a larger coalition (a' la Gulf War I), in case force need to be used. However, military force should not have been an immediate option, as we still had unfinished business in the Afghan-Pakistan border, a.k.a. Osama Bin Laden.
For further information please see:
* Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq
* Disarming Iraq by Dr. Hans Blix
Originally posted by RonB:
3) manipulation of pre-war intelligence: The 9/11 commission did not find any manipulation on the part of the administration. It appears that you do not believe their findings. I do. |
I sincerely hope that you're not being intentionally misleading; because, as you may or may not know, the 9/11 Commission did not deal directly with the issue of Iraq nor with the issue pre-war intelligence manipulation.
Originally posted by RonB:
4) unapologetic breaches to our national security: I am not willing to ignore breaches to our national security, and I would hope that President Bush doesn't either ( I won't speak to the "unapologetic" part, yet - I'm waiting, and hoping, that someone in the Bush administration accepts responsibility for that major mistake and apologizes ). If this plays out like many previous instances, I believe that Bush is bringing pressure to bear behind the scenes - he seldom "outs" those who need to 'fess up - he lets them do it on their own or quietly removes them from their position of trust. |
I agree, Bush & Co. should apologize for the repeated national security failures, including the lack of W.M.D.(s) in Iraq.
Originally posted by RonB:
5) tolerate the questionable expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood: I don't tolerate the "questionable" expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood. But then, I don't think that the war in Iraq is a "questionable" expenditure. What I myself find hard to believe is that a great number of otherwise humanitarian individuals in America would so callously discount the value of foreigners' blood. It seems to be the group-think that the blood of 932 Americans are worth more than the blood of thousands, if not tens of thousands of Iraqis, or Sudanese, or Somalians. To me, that appears to be xenophobia. I wonder if people who think like that would be willing to come to the aid of a french woman being attacked by an American on a street corner in Paris. After all, the American's blood is worth so much more. Well, actually I know of SOME Americans who would - they are called soldiers, and many of them are in Iraq right now. |
Nice bait-and-switch. Look, no one will argue against the premise that aiding our fellow human-beings is a laudable goal. Shoot, I would certainly come to the rescue of a French woman -- where do I sign up? :) And, by the way, you're absolutely correct, as a former enlisted man, I met many brave young men that without hesitation would've risked their lives to defend another fellowman. Likewise, I now count myself equally lucky to know many Democratic friends and, yes, many Liberal friends, that would also risk themselves to come to aid of another. That said, Mr. Bush did not say that we were invading Iraq to help our fellowmen -- Mr. Bush, at the time, offered one reason: Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's only after W.M.D.(s) failed to turn up that Mr. Bush invoked the humanitarian aspect of the war. Ha, I would've loved to have seen Mr. Bush & Co. make the case for invading Iraq under the guise of "Nation Building" and "Humanitarian Aid" -- that would've caused such a feud within the Republican party, it would've beautiful to watch.
Originally posted by RonB:
6) brand loyalty to Bush: No. I am quite frankly extremely disappointed in the way Bush has pandered to the Democrats by approving more spending bills, for more money, than any president in recent history. I am disappointed that he has not used his position to persuade the Republican senators to break the unconstitutional blockage of his judicial nominees or to make more recess appointments. There are MANY areas in which I disagree with Bush. What I AM opposed to is the unsubstantiated charges, accusations, and innuendo that are constantly being tossed about in the media, and in these boards. You can call that brand loyalty if you'd like. |
Man, you're a true believer. I salute. And, like you, I understand that ultimetly it's about "personal values." So, once again, let me relly on a couple of sentences I've used on this board before:
Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on what choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must.
We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to.
I say Amen! And I'll see you November, 2nd.
You can read the rest here.
|
|
|
|
08/13/2004 08:13:31 PM · #65 |
Hmmm. Speaking of a SMEAR campaign. It looks like bdobe is conducting his own, and I am the target. And, it appears that a one-thread smear is not enough - even though I haven't had a chance to respond to his post in the original thread, he repeats it here so that I have to post my reply twice - after I finish formulating my response, which is taking more time than usual because I'm working between power outages due to the hurricane here in Florida.
It would appear that, like most liberals, bdobe has found that he cannot win a debate based on facts - so he must stoop to invalid suppositions, false analogies, unsubstantiated allegations and accusations, and innuendo - but nothing of substance. He and his liberal comrades attack funding, and they attack sources, but it appears that they can seldom back up their statements once I show their fallacy by exposing the facts. They CLAIM science, but quote commentary - because they seem unable to counter scientific studies. Instead, they attack the "funding" of the studies - how lame. More often then not their sub-headings are flat out not supported by the text and/or links they provide - but they sure do sound good to the liberals who resound with a YES! YES! Once you take away the adjectives, unsubstantiated allegations, and innuendo in their arguments, you're left with nothing of substance. It's all sizzle but no steak, as the saying goes. Smoke and Mirrors.
I will get around to responding to this latest smear in due time. But when I do, I will rebut, as usual, based on facts, not fiction - substantiated statements, not the innuendo and false analogy that are the signs of desperation.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/13/2004 10:55:32 PM · #66 |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 03:29:59 PM · #67 |
Hmmm.
On Aug 1st, Kerry said:
"I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops ...In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."
but then, 17 days later, after Bush announced a major redeployment of American troops overseas, including South Korea, Kerry said:
"Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons. This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time."
Flip...Flop...Flip...Flop...
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 03:44:01 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm.
On Aug 1st, Kerry said:
"I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops ...In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."
but then, 17 days later, after Bush announced a major redeployment of American troops overseas, including South Korea, Kerry said:
"Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons. This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time."
Flip...Flop...Flip...Flop... |
and here was me thinking you'd be able to handle the concept of time.
Tick... Tock... Tick... Tock...
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 05:44:36 PM · #69 |
The Bush administration, and even some fellow DPCers, have been passing the buck and have been promoting the false idea that it's only in hindsight that doubts over Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) are apparent. Certainly, Iraq HAD possessed WMD; however, at the time of our invasion, it wasn't clear whether Iraq CONTINUED to possess WMD. Mr. Bush's supporters -- on this board and elsewhere -- point to some quotes by Democratic officials (including Mr. Clinton and Mr. Kerry,) where they state what was the U.S. government's public position on Iraq's WMD: 1. That Saddam Hussein had used WMD in the past (over 10 years ago), 2. That Saddam Hussein was a dangerous man, and 3. That the U.S. would prevent Iraq from developing WMD. Here's one of the quotes that Mr. Bush's supporters point to, and which I lifted from another thread in the DPC message board:
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real"
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
Please notice how ellipses (i.e., ...) are used in the quote; indicating that it's not a complete statement, thus Mr. Kerry's meaning has been completely stripped. Now, Mr. Kerry's full statement is longer, but worth reading if you're interested in discerning his real meaning:
First, destroying al Qaeda and other anti-American terror groups must remain our top priority. While the Administration has largely prosecuted this war with vigor, it also has made costly mistakes. The biggest, in my view, was their reluctance to translate their robust rhetoric into American military engagement in Afghanistan. They relied too much on local warlords to carry the fight against our enemies and this permitted many al Qaeda members, and according to evidence, including Osama bin Laden himself, to slip through our fingers. Now the Administration must redouble its efforts to track them down. And we need to pressure Pakistan to get control of its territories along the Afghanistan border, which have become a haven for terrorists.
Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses.
He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.
That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.
So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies.
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 (For the full text of the speech before the Council of Foreign Relations please see here).
Mr. Kerry, in that same speech, continues:
As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.
The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.
Please note how important sentences were completely omitted from the quote that Mr. Bush's supporters -- on this board and elsewhere -- attribute to Mr. Kerry. The example of this quote is a good illustration of Bush & Co. twists facts, omit important truths and aim to deflect criticism against the Iraq war -- a war of choice, and not one of necessity.
From Mr. Kerry's full statement the following are clear:
1. Mr. Bush failed to aggressively pursue al Queda in the Afghan-Pakistan border; thus allowing Osama Bin Laden to get away.
2. Saddam Hussein is a bad man and that if permitted to obtain WMD -- that is, "Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction" -- would be bad, given his propensity to miscalculate. However, note that Mr. Kerry's full statement makes it clear that there were doubts about whether Iraq possessed WMD. I'll grant you that there's some nuance here; however, I'd hope that my fellow citizens would have the patience to weight issues of war and peace with some serious consideration.
3. At the time that Mr. Kerry made this speech, only eight weeks before the Iraqi invasion, it wasn't absolutely clear that Iraq possessed WMD; nor, as Mr. Kerry points out, was it clear that Mr. Bush had made a compelling case for war as the only alternative.
Again, it's worth remembering that Mr. Bush's rhetoric during the pre-invasion period did not hint at any doubts over the existence of Iraq's WMD. In fact, Mr. Bush unequivocally stated that Iraq still had WMD: "The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons." (George W. Bush, Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002). Please see Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq.) So, even though doubts over the continued existence of Iraq's WMD abounded, Bush & Co. sold war to the American people as if it were a clean cut case without any detractors. I sincerely wonder whether the American people would've supported invading another country if the serious doubts that abounded had been publicly weighted by the Bush administration (not to mention the media).
Mr. Bush and his supporters are desperately hoping that the American public will now forget the serious doubts that were voiced about the CONTINUED existence of Iraq's WMD. It's worth remembering that various United Nations members and millions of people around the world, were not convinced by the weak case that Bush & Co. were making for invading Iraq. The head of the U.N.'s WMD inspection team at the time, Dr. Hans Blix, reflecting back on the pre-invasion period, said:
"Well, they [the Bush administration] certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time."
Dr. Hans Blix (read the rest here)
One can argue if Mr. Bush intentionally misled us about the CONTINUED existence of Iraq's WMD; however, one thing is not open to interpretation, because it's a FACT: THERE WERE SERIOUS DOUBTS ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF IRAQ'S WMD AT THE TIME OF INVASION. That fact simply isn't going away, no matter how often Mr. Bush & Co. beat us over the head with their trite excuse of, "Oh, it's only in hindsight that doubts have come to light." As I mentioned to a fellow DPCer on this board, to believe that it's only in hindsight that doubts over Iraq's WMD seem apparent, is to lie to one's self and to willfully ignore recent history.
At the very least, Mr. Bush & Co. should: 1. Stop deploying the "it's only in hindsight" defense; 2. Mr. Bush should acknowledge that mistakes were made; and, 3. We should not let anyone mislead us (again), by their distortions of the record and by ignoring recent history, into believing that war was the only alternative that we had before Bush & Co. invaded Iraq.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 06:44:24 PM · #70 |
I believe that it's certainly true that Bush let al Qaeda off the hook by invading Iraq, but I really don't believe that his administration really cares about terrorism or what happens in the US. His administration is not about defending the people of the US, nor about defending The Constitution. The Bush administration's goals are imperialistic and for furthering the aims of the neocon agenda of conquer and divide. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perl, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, etc. Their aims can be seen at the Project for the New American CenturyWeb Site.
I think part of that strategy is looking down the road to see where they want to go next. Imo, they are planning on not only appropriating the oil from these fossil fuel rich areas, but there is a military strategy going on here...that is to surround Iran, who may be the next target. Iran will then be surrounded by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and the US and other coalition ambitious countries who join in, like GB, will then be able to establish MORE military presences in these countries, as well as, Israel, and also launch attacks on Iran, and other countries they want to have leverage over in the long term, such as China. |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 06:53:31 PM · #71 |
Forgive me for the long delay in responding to bdobe's post. Hurricane Charley delivered a one-two punch. No one in my family was hurt, and there was no significant damage to our property, but we lost power from Friday night thru late Sunday afternoon, then lost it again from early Monday afternoon thru late Wednesday night. Anyway, herewith is my response - sorry it's so long:
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
You missed my point entirely. I wasn't demonizing Trial Lawyers - I was merely pointing out that with so many LAWYERS backing the Democrats it seems that the media would be able to use all that legal talent to edit their articles befor printing them. I agree that both Trial Lawyers and CEO's are both required, and also worthy of villification. |
Your point and intentions are very clear:
1. Once gain, you're following the Republican talking points and attempting to associate Trial Lawyers with the Democratic party. See, you know that over the past 40+ years, the Republican party and the American Enterprise Institute have been successful at driving the "Trail Lawyers Bad" idea into the public's mind; so, Republican party hacks keep on hammering that notion into our heads. You know very well that Trial Lawyers (or, Public Interest Defenders, as I prefer to think of them) represent a huge threat to one of the biggest constituencies of the Republican party: Big Multinational Corporate Money (yeah, I know it's a mouthful). Because, as you know, Public Interest Defenders, as a group, have amassed sufficient resources to go head-to-head against Big Money, and force them to comply with, among other things: safety regulations, labor protection laws, and pro-enviromental measures -- of course, I'll grant you that by so doing, Public Interest Defenders hope to make a buck. (Hey, it's the American way!) Now, as we've concurred, there are good-guys and bad-guys in both camps: the Big Money and the Public Interest Defenders camp. The point here is your continued effort to associate what you call "Trial Lawyers" with one party, and not the other -- a common practice among those that follow the Republican talking points. (See here for an example of the Republican talking points.) |
First of all I am not attemptingto associate the Trial Lawyers with the Democratic party. Their association is FACT. In the 2000 election cycle, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America Political Action Committee gave over two million dollars ( $2,295,000 to be more specific ) to Democratic candidates but only $343,500 to Republican candidates. That's a 6.68 to 1 ratio in favor of Democratic candidates. The 2004 cycle is tracking about the same. Hence, it is a matter of FACT, not an ATTEMPT, to associate trial lawyers with the Democtatic Party.
Secondly, it is really of no import whether this is or is not a "Republican talking point". What matters is that the association is TRUE. For those interested in the TRUTH, they can verify it for themselves at this tracking database site
Originally posted by bdobe:
2. Again you rely on one of the Republican talking points: the specter of the so-called liberal media. Interestingly, later in your response, you acknowledge that the so-called liberal media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias (but I'll get to that later). You insinuate that the so-called liberal media is aligned with the Democratic party and, therefore, the news items should be edited by the Democratic party lawyers. First, it is ridiculous to suggest that the media is in the pocket of Democrats and that the two somehow coordinate with each other. But I'll leave that aside, it's so ridiculous and you know it. Again, the specter of the so-called liberal media has been so repeatedly beaten into the public's mind, that many don't even question it anymore. Of course, Republican partisans know that they won the battle over the so-called liberal media label long-ago. Here's an instructive piece I came across: //conservativehq.com/. Of course, the author is not widely known to the public at-large. However, it is precisely that anonymity that allows him to speak so candidly, as he knows who his audience is and who is likely to read his book. He writes:
Our cause has come a long way in the past 40 years. We've learned how to use the alternative media-political direct mail and talk radio and cable TV-to build our movement and convert more and more Americans to our cause. "Liberal" is now such an unpopular label with the American people that every liberal I know has run for cover and calls himself a "progressive."
He later comments, "smart people on the Left are learning from the past successes of conservatives." Well, he's right about that... the model that the Republican/Conservative movement laid out is extremely educational.
Refuting the myth of the so-called liberal media is like pulling teeth: painful, arduous and always approached with weariness -- given how entrenched the notion is. However, for those interested on the subject, please see the following:
* Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting |
Even within its OWN puffery, FAIR couldn't resist pointing out where they are mentioned in the news - including an article in USA Today on 5/04/04 that refered to them as the "left-leaning Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting". It's has to be pretty obvious when even USA Today calls them left-leaning. And, as if that weren't enough, Jeff Cohen, the founder of FAIR, is the former communications director for socialist Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. Now, I'm not complaining about their FUNDING, just pointing out how their agenda, staff, and affiliations are of questionable fairness.
It would appear that this site can not come up with a single NEWS source that is biased toward conservatism - all they can do is rant and rail against TALK SHOW hosts and guests. I've already debunked the charges against Fox NEWS by showing that the likes of O'Reilly are COMMENTATORS, not NEWS reporters. Note: I'm not defending the Fox News Channel - which contains Commentary shows along with News reports.
By its own admission "Brock mounts a less gossipy and more systematic assault on the right-wing media juggernaut of think tanks, publishers, talk radio shows, Web sites and cable networks". Well surprise, surprise - I never said anything about Air America or Al Franken & co. So why do you counter with links that make allegations about Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? Again, I'm talking about liberal NEWS reporting, not liberal COMMENTARY. Why is it that liberals just don't seem to understand the difference.
Originally posted by bdobe:
* Control Room (documentary on how the Iraq war was covered by U.S. vs. Middle Eastern media) |
I won't even comment on even this. Even the liberal media has the sense not to stoop to the level of Al Jazeera.
Originally posted by bdobe:
* Out Foxed (documentary on the inner workings of the Fox News operation) |
Please concentrate and repeat slowly: The Fox News CHANNEL is not JUST NEWS - it includes COMMENTARY, which is not meant to be NEWS reportage. If you insist that, because the name is Fox NEWS, then everything must be NEWS, then I will insist that Air America must be nothing but AIR, and hot air at that.
Sorry, but that site is only an advertisment for a book - and doesn't offer anything to counter the claim of liberal bias in the media ( except, of course, to make a counter claim ). While the book, itself, may - the book is not excerpted on that site.
Another ad for a book - but nothing of substance - e.g. no examples of conservative bias.
Now, as to the charge of liberal bias - again, it is really of no import whether it is or is not a "Republican talking point". What is of import is whether the point is or is not TRUE. And it is.
For example, When Republican Jim Kolbe announced in 1996 that HE was a homosexual, the Headline in the N.Y. Times was Republican Congressman Discloses He is a Homosexual but when Democratic Governor McGreevey announced just recently that HE is a homosexual, the Headline in the N.Y. Times was New Jersey Governor Resigns, Disclosing a Gay Affair. Notice the lack of identifying his political party in the headline. His political affiliation ( Democrat ) is not mentioned until the third paragraph of the story. The media knows that there are still a significant number of voters that hold negative feelings towards homosexuality ( just stating the facts ), so whenever they can, they point out the party affiliaton of homosexual politicians, but only if they are Republican. That's bias.
Here's another example:
In a story on Donald Rumsfeld's remarks to the graduating class at West Point ( ref here), here is the lead paragraph:
"Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, making no mention of the prisoner abuse scandal that has led to calls for his ouster, told a cheering crowd of graduating cadets Saturday that they will help win the global fight against terror."
Let's see, how could there be any bias in that? Every word is true, right?
Except for this: The first thing mentioned, the lens through which we are forced to view the rest of the story, is something that did not happen and that only an idiot would expect might happen: Mr. Rumsfeld mentioning the prisoner-abuse scandal at a commencement address at West Point.
The lead, in other words, is not the graduation that is supposedly being reported, but rather Mr. Rumsfeld's failure to resign in the face of events that happened weeks ago. How is Mr. Rumsfeld's not resigning news? It's mentioned in this story only because the reporter does not want to let go of it.
This is bulldog journalism: Once you get hold of a story, you never loosen your grip until your victim dies--at least politically.
Does it happen to everybody? Or just Republicans? Well, try this fictitious opening paragraph: "Senator Hillary Clinton, making no mention of the $100,000 she once made by trading cattle futures with astonishing perfection, told a cheering crowd of activists that President Bush's globalist economic policy is hurting poor people in other countries and costing American jobs."
Nope. You've never seen it, and you never will. Because bulldog journalism only goes one way in your so-called "unbiased" mainstream media.
And then there's this admission of liberal bias in the media by Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of NewsWeek, in an interview on the PBS program "Inside Washington":
âLetâs talk a little media bias here,â said Thomas. âThe media, I think, want Kerry to win. And I think theyâre going to portray Kerry and Edwards â Iâm talking about the establishment media, not Fox, but â theyâre going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all, thereâs going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, thatâs going to be worth maybe 15 points.â
Read it for yourself here
One of the oft-used liberal "tricks" is to create the illusion of agreement with their positions where none exist. Bdobe, himself, does this by stating that I "acknowledge that the so-called liberal media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias"
Of course, I did nothing of the sort. While I DID acknowledge that the media ( and for the record, I did not use the phrase "so-called"; neither did I use the adjective "liberal"; the only adjective I used was "mainstream" ) is driven by comercial and sensationalistic interests, I did NOT acknowledge that it was driven "not by a so-called liberal bias". In fact, I believe that it DOES present a liberal bias - as I have shown above.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
The purpose of mainstream newspapers is NOT to provide news and it is NOT to inform the public - the purpose of mainstream newspapers is to make money for its owners by selling as many newspapers as it can. The best way to sell newspapers is to appeal to the potential buyer by enticing them with headlines that appeal to their base desires and then not disappointing them with the content of the stories. SO...given a choice of headlines like
1) Publication of Informant's Name Compromises Intelligence Efforts
or
2) Leak allowed al Qaeda suspects to escape
which one do you think would entice someone to buy a paper? The second one, of course ( USA Today ). |
I couldn't agree with you more. As I noted earlier, and as you concur above, the media is driven by "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests, and not by a so-called liberal bias. All of us -- all U.S. citizens -- have much to complain about regarding the media, and the terrible job they're doing of covering substantive issues. What's pertinent to the point at-hand, is how closely you've followed the Republican talking points by raising the specter of the so-called liberal media -- even though you acknowledged and recognize that "commercial" and "sensationalistic" interests are what drive the media, and not some liberal bias. |
As I pointed out above, this is an oft-used liberal tactic - creating the illusion of agreement where none exists. Nowhere did I say ( or concur, as you put it ) that the media is NOT driven by liberal bias. As I pointed out above, liberal bias is employed because it appeals to the average potential purchaser - and it appeals to the average purchaser because it uses emotion laden headlines. That the "news" articles often contain inflammatory or inaccurate verbiage that have no basis in fact is immaterial to the libera media - so long as it sells papers.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
As I have pointed out in prior posts, this was not a "leak". A "leak" is when information is made known secretly, outside of official channels. This information ( the informant's name ) was made known in an official background briefing to which the media had been invited.
If you like to read books ( as it appears you do ), then I would suggest these three: "Coloring the News" by William McGowan, "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg, and "It Ain't Necessarily So" by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S. Robert Lichter. They should all be available at Amazon.com. |
Ron, you do a fantastic job of splitting hairs, and of deploying the same sort of linguistic jujitsu used by two masters of verbal dexterity: Mr. Clinton and Mr. Rumsfeld. Mr. Clinton asked, "it depends on your definition of what IS is." And, of course, Mr. Rumsfeld's use of gab has been described thus:
"It uses playful language to address the most somber subjects: war, terrorism, mortality. Much of it is about indirection and evasion: He never faces his subjects head on but weaves away, letting inversions and repetitions confuse and beguile."
See the rest here.
Look, use whatever qualifier you want: leak, disclosure, background briefing, etc. That's not the point. The point is that valuable human-intelligence resources should not have been publicly disclosed by the Bush administration, whether it be a mole within al Queda or an undercover C.I.A. agent. Both of these actions directly undermined our national security and put the lives of U.S. operatives on the field at risk. |
But the use of "leak" instead of "disclosure" IS the point. A background briefing is NOT a leak and the media knows perfectly well that there is a very substantial negative connotation with the word "leak" that does NOT exist with the terms "disclosure" or "background briefing". And it is exactly that negative connotation that they want to convey - because it sells newspapers. If you want to talk about linguistic ju-jitsu, then talk about the media, not me - THEY are the one's employing words with negative connotations where more appropriate wording could be, and should be, used to convey the facts.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by bdobe:
I'll keep this short. If the Bush administration did not have a serious credibility problem there wouldn't be any need for them to defend/qualify/substantiate the terror alerts. |
Ah, but there would be. Its difficult to entice people to buy newspapers ( or watch TV News programs, or browse Internet News sites ) without "news" to proffer. And again, its necessary to appeal to the base desires of people to entice them. If you don't HAVE news, you have to CREATE news. One way to do that is to push conspiracy theories - raise lots of questions through innuendo, nuanced accusations, etc. And by doing so CREATE in the public a "demand to know" the "truth". Then, leverage that public sentiment to pressure those in power to respond to the "questions". You get the drift. |
You did not address the issue, which is that the Bush administration -- over the past two years -- has squandered whatever credibility they had left. Jeesh, talk about "conspiracy theories"; you'd have us believe that the media have gotten together to conspire against Mr. Bush, and so must "CREATE" news. Well, I think it's a lot simpler than that, I think: Mr. Bush & Co. have a serious credibility problem and, therefore, many in the public cannot take them at their word anymore. |
The Bush administration have not "squandered" whatever credibility they had left. Their credibility is intact. The administration has withstood every attack launched by those who oppose them. No proof to the accusations that "BUSH LIED", no proof that Bush & Co. forced the intelligence agencies to support his desire to attack Saddam Hussein, no proof that Bush & Co. were involved in the Abu Ghraib abuse. The so-called loss of credibility is in the eye of the beholder and is based on false accusations and a failure to factually report the results of investigations about those claims BY THE MEDIA. This is like a man who is accused of rape. His accusation is carried in a two column headline on page one. When it is discovered that his accuser was mistaken, or recants their accusation, his innocence is disclosed in a little one column inch article on page thirteen. As far as the population in general is concerned, he remains an unincarcerated rapist forevermore. He is effectively forced to prove his innocence over and over again, to one person at a time. But think about how difficult that would be if the newspaper kept referring to him as "the alleged rapist" every time his name appeared in print?
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
1) Spies being unmasked for political gain: I assume that you are referring to the release of the name of an informant in the background briefing. While I think that it is a VERY remote possibility that the release of his name may have been "politically" motivated, I don't see what "political" purpose it would have served. The "political" purpose would have been served WITHOUT naming him. I believe that his name was provided only to "prove" that there WAS credible information to raise the terror alert level in NY, NJ, and DC - a proof that was becoming the cause célèbre of the media. |
Yes, I'm referring to the al Queda mole whose name was released, and to the under cover C.I.A. agent whose identity was revealed. One of these cases is under criminal investigation, and we'll just have to see how high up the Bush White House the investigation goes -- of course, Mr. Bush has already consulted a lawyer on the matter.
As for the "political gains" to be made by the leak/release/disclosure of these names: 1. Rather than expending political capital explaining to the public how four year old information had now yielded the possibility of a new threat, the Bush administration took the easy way out by releasing Mr. Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan's name as their main supporting proof. (I'll grant you that they are related; however, the evidence should've been supported without disclosing the identify of such a valuable resource.) Intelligence analysts agree that it's extremely hard to penetrate al Queda for various reasons, including: language, culture, insularity, etc.; even so, Bush & Co. decided that a valuable resource inside of al Queda wasn't really all that important after all. Aside from the ramifications that the release of the mole's name has for us at home, our allies have to deal with the consequences, too. Thereby, further damaging our already fragile relationship with the international community. 2. As for the release of the under cover C.I.A. agent's identify, let's remember that her name was leaked when it appeared that her husband, Ambassador Wilson, was going to publicly refute Mr. Bush's claim that Iraq was attempting to acquire nuclear materials from Niger. (Now, you and I will interpret the players' motives very differently; however, luckily for us, the facts can be debated elsewhere -- as there already is a criminal investigation underway in the case of the C.I.A. agent's identity leak.) |
First of all, only a liberal, or a liberal reporter, would equate "leak" with "background briefing". The release of information about the al Qaeda mole was a disclosure which, admittedly, should not have occurred. There will be no criminal investigation of that disclosure, because no criminal act was committed. The criminal investigation is looking into the Plame leak - and that WAS a leak, and was a criminal act.
You make the statement "Bush & Co. decided that a valuable resource inside of al Queda wasn't really all that important after all". That is pure conjecture - I am sure that you were not present at the meeting where it was decided to release his name - hence you have no way of knowing the basis for that decision. You need to learn how to phrase conjecture as such ( hint: use lead in phrases like "I believe", "It would appear", etc. )
Originally posted by bdobbe:
Originally posted by RonB:
2) an elective war was pursued for the wrong reasons: The "wrong reasons" are perhaps evident in hindsight, but I would ask you what you would have done in Bush's place if you did NOT know then what you know now. Have you ever made a well-thought out decision that resulted in your doing something that had completely undesirable, if not terrible consequences? I'll bet you have. |
Wow, now I know you know better. You know that the evidence was shotty, inconclusive and circumstantial. Yet, the Bush administration presented their case to the American people and the world as rock solid. Again, let's remember that not everyone thought that there was solid proof that Iraq possessed W.M.D.(s) that presented a clear danger to the world, much less to the US. Dr. Hans Blix, the chief U.N. inspector before Bush & Co. muscled him out of the position before the invasion, had this to say:
"Well, they [the Bush administration] certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time."
You can read the full interview here. Of course, Dr. Hans Blix is a diplomat and, therefore, walks a fine line on the subject -- never explicitly saying, Yeah, Bush & Co. lied and made a fool of us all. But, hey, we're not diplomats and we can read between the lines just fine. You know, Ron, for a man that so often employs the, "oh chucks, I want just the facts," you sure are willing to cut Bush & Co. a lot of slack when it comes to circumstantial evidence that lead to the loss of 934 of our sons, daughters, fathers, brothers, uncles, mothers... not to mention an estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilian casualties.
Damn, I could go on and on about this subject, but I'll spare you all... not to mention that posting to this board is seriously affecting my productivity at work. I'll just add one more thing: to say that it's only in hindsight that we can judge the Iraq invasion to be a mistake and that there was no way to know, is to lie to yourself, and to others on this board. Now, as for what should've been done: 1. Bush & Co. should've let inspections work, and 2. Bush & Co. should've pushed for a larger coalition (a' la Gulf War I), in case force need to be used. However, military force should not have been an immediate option, as we still had unfinished business in the Afghan-Pakistan border, a.k.a. Osama Bin Laden.
For further information please see:
* Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq
* Disarming Iraq by Dr. Hans Blix |
First of all, whenever a pre-emptive action is taken, the decision to do so is based on inconclusive, circumstantial evidence augmented with historical evidence and situational evidence. For example, if a man in a stocking mask hands a shopkeeper a note that says "Give me all the money", and he has his hand in his jacket pocket waving it around and pointing it towards the shopkeeper, the shopkeeper MAY decide to use the gun he keeps behind the counter to shoot the alleged robber. That action is based on circumstantial evidence ( since no gun was actually seen ) coupled with historical evidence ( stocking mask ) and situational evidence ( the robber has his hand in his pocket and is waving it and pointing toward the shopkeeper ). Whether the evidence was shoddy or not, at the time the decisions were being made, there was no way to know how reliable the evidence was, and it would have been nothing short of foolhardy to assume that it was shoddy. After the attacks of 9/11, it seemed prudent to err, if error were a possibility, on the side of assuming that it was valid. Just like the shopkeeper should assume that the robber had a gun in his pocket, rather than a ball-point pen.
As to what YOU would have done:
1) let inspections work
a) We played the inspection game for years - it didn't work. Even near the end, we were continuing to "negotiate" with Hussein as to when and where inspections were "permitted".
b) There were obvously "leaks" taking place that alerted Hussein & Co. as to when and where inspections were going to take place. Satellite imagery showed that stuff was going out the back door hours before the inspectors were coming in the front door.
2) pushed for a larger coalition
Bush & Co. DID push for a larger coalition. They pushed for months. They reasonably concluded that no other countries were likely to join the coalition.
3) unfinished business in the Afghan-Pakistan border
If I'm trying to deal with a man who is sprinkling gasoline on my house, and then I find a man pointing a gun at my head, forgive me if I stop focusing on the man with the gas while I deal with the man with the gun.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
3) manipulation of pre-war intelligence: The 9/11 commission did not find any manipulation on the part of the administration. It appears that you do not believe their findings. I do. |
I sincerely hope that you're not being intentionally misleading; because, as you may or may not know, the 9/11 Commission did not deal directly with the issue of Iraq nor with the issue pre-war intelligence manipulation. |
You are correct - I erroneously referenced the wrong Commission. I meant the Senate's Select Commission On Intelligence. In their report, which you can review here ( warning - PDF file requires Adobe Acrobat Reader ), the Commission concludes:
a) The assesments regarding Iraq's continued development of prohibited ballistic missles were reasonable and did accurately describe the underlying intelligence
b) When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security COuncil (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting. A CIA official's original testimony to the Committee that he told an NSC officia to remove the words "Niger" and "500 tons" from the speech, is incorrect.
c) The assessments that Iraq was in the final stages of development of the al Samoud missle, may be preparing to deploy the al Samoud and was deploying the al samoud and Ababil-100 short-range ballistic missle, both which exceed the 150-km United Nations range limit, evolved in a logical progresson over time, had a clear foundation in the intelligence reporting, and were reasonable judgements based on the intelligence available to the Committee.
d) Human Intelligence (HUMINT) gathered after the production of the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), did indicate that Iraqi commanders had been authorized to use chemical weapons as noted in Secretary Powell's speech.
e) The committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgements related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.
f) None of the portrayals of the intelligence reporting included in Secretary Powell's speech differed in any significant way from earlier assessments published by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
4) unapologetic breaches to our national security: I am not willing to ignore breaches to our national security, and I would hope that President Bush doesn't either ( I won't speak to the "unapologetic" part, yet - I'm waiting, and hoping, that someone in the Bush administration accepts responsibility for that major mistake and apologizes ). If this plays out like many previous instances, I believe that Bush is bringing pressure to bear behind the scenes - he seldom "outs" those who need to 'fess up - he lets them do it on their own or quietly removes them from their position of trust. |
I agree, Bush & Co. should apologize for the repeated national security failures, including the lack of W.M.D.(s) in Iraq. |
The jury is still out on the so-called "lack of W.M.D.(s)". The latest intel, for what it's worth, appears to indicate that Saddam was smuggling WMD's into Syria right up to the day before the coaliton initiated hostilities.
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
5) tolerate the questionable expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood: I don't tolerate the "questionable" expenditure of our fellow citizens' blood. But then, I don't think that the war in Iraq is a "questionable" expenditure. What I myself find hard to believe is that a great number of otherwise humanitarian individuals in America would so callously discount the value of foreigners' blood. It seems to be the group-think that the blood of 932 Americans are worth more than the blood of thousands, if not tens of thousands of Iraqis, or Sudanese, or Somalians. To me, that appears to be xenophobia. I wonder if people who think like that would be willing to come to the aid of a french woman being attacked by an American on a street corner in Paris. After all, the American's blood is worth so much more. Well, actually I know of SOME Americans who would - they are called soldiers, and many of them are in Iraq right now. |
Nice bait-and-switch. Look, no one will argue against the premise that aiding our fellow human-beings is a laudable goal. Shoot, I would certainly come to the rescue of a French woman -- where do I sign up? :) And, by the way, you're absolutely correct, as a former enlisted man, I met many brave young men that without hesitation would've risked their lives to defend another fellowman. Likewise, I now count myself equally lucky to know many Democratic friends and, yes, many Liberal friends, that would also risk themselves to come to aid of another. That said, Mr. Bush did not say that we were invading Iraq to help our fellowmen -- Mr. Bush, at the time, offered one reason: Weapons of Mass Destruction. It's only after W.M.D.(s) failed to turn up that Mr. Bush invoked the humanitarian aspect of the war. Ha, I would've loved to have seen Mr. Bush & Co. make the case for invading Iraq under the guise of "Nation Building" and "Humanitarian Aid" -- that would've caused such a feud within the Republican party, it would've beautiful to watch. |
No bait-and-switch. You implied that the expenditure of one of our fellow citizens blood to save multiple ( Iraqi ) lives for reasons that you don't agree with, is "questionable". If you would come to the aid of a French woman, will you support the Bush administration if they push for a humanitarian intervention in Sudan? WOuld you consider the expenditure of one of our fellow citizens blood to save multiple lives for THAT reason "questionable"?
Originally posted by bdobe:
Originally posted by RonB:
6) brand loyalty to Bush: No. I am quite frankly extremely disappointed in the way Bush has pandered to the Democrats by approving more spending bills, for more money, than any president in recent history. I am disappointed that he has not used his position to persuade the Republican senators to break the unconstitutional blockage of his judicial nominees or to make more recess appointments. There are MANY areas in which I disagree with Bush. What I AM opposed to is the unsubstantiated charges, accusations, and innuendo that are constantly being tossed about in the media, and in these boards. You can call that brand loyalty if you'd like. |
Man, you're a true believer. I salute. And, like you, I understand that ultimetly it's about "personal values." So, once again, let me relly on a couple of sentences I've used on this board before:
Democrats and Republicans have very different and honestly held ideas on what choices we should make, rooted in fundamentally different views of how we should meet our common challenges at home and how we should play our role in the world. Democrats want to build an America of shared responsibilities and shared opportunities and more global cooperation, acting alone only when we must. |
Yes, and Democrats also support shared resources - like taking MY money, that I worked for, and giving it to someone who refused to study in high school, and now refuses to work at a the only jobs that they are qualified for. The opportunity is already there, and has been all along - but many of the liberals' most staunch supporters don't want to have to work at exercising it - and why should they, when they have been promised that the government will take care of all their needs, and they only have to vote to make it happen.
Originally posted by bdobe:
We think the role of government is to give people the tools and conditions to make the most of their lives. Republicans believe in an America run by the right people, their people, in a world in which we act unilaterally when we can, and cooperate when we have to. |
So do Republicans and Libertarians - but they don't want to give them cash without condition. There is an old saying: "While it is true that God feeds the birds of the field - take note that He does NOT just throw seed into their nests." That's what the Democrats want to do, but they want to throw MY seed into some other bird's nest.
And you end with a link to a speech from Clinton? As far as I'm concerned, that man has already demonstrated that he and the truth never exist in the same place at the same time.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 07:36:19 PM · #72 |
| MAN,you talk too much,they should cut your power again :-) |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 09:38:16 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm.
On Aug 1st, Kerry said:
"I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops ...In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."
but then, 17 days later, after Bush announced a major redeployment of American troops overseas, including South Korea, Kerry said:
"Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons. This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time."
Flip...Flop...Flip...Flop... |
and here was me thinking you'd be able to handle the concept of time.
Tick... Tock... Tick... Tock... |
Could you be a little less cryptic? I'm pretty familiar with the concept of time, but I really don't understand your response to my post.
Ron |
|
|
|
08/19/2004 10:04:05 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by RonB:
Hmmm.
On Aug 1st, Kerry said:
"I will have significant, enormous reductions in the level of troops ...In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps."
but then, 17 days later, after Bush announced a major redeployment of American troops overseas, including South Korea, Kerry said:
"Why are we withdrawing unilaterally 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula at the very time that we are negotiating with North Korea, a country that really has nuclear weapons. This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time."
Flip...Flop...Flip...Flop... |
and here was me thinking you'd be able to handle the concept of time.
Tick... Tock... Tick... Tock... |
Could you be a little less cryptic? I'm pretty familiar with the concept of time, but I really don't understand your response to my post.
Ron |
This is a good illustration of the problems you and I have encountered in our exchanges. Here you've crystallized for me the impression I've had of your responses. Simply put, they are TOO BLACK AND WHITE/TOO LITERAL. I found it curious that you thought it necessary to comment on what clearly were just book summaries. Note that I included the links and books in that section simply as recommendations, for those that might have an interest on the subject media bias. To me, this post also illustrates just how people of our diametrically opposed political views tend to see the world. This is an old generalization, of course, but it seems that those that lean towards your world view see nothing but blacks & whites; while those that disagree with your world view see the vast greys that lie in-between the blacks & whites.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2004 10:41:19 PM · #75 |
Eddy, Don't even try to talk sense to those who simply hate Bush. It's sad that there is so much hatred. What Kerry confessed to was an atrocity, but people hear what they wanna hear. It's so weird that the liberals were protesting the war in Nam, and I was among them all those years ago. Now many of the same libs are praising Kerry for what he did there. Make sense? Nope! Seems to me that Kerry isn't really standing up for anything. I've been tuning in to listen somewhat. I honestly try to discern the truth. But all I really hear about Kerry is his 4 months in Viet Nam.
On the other hand, Bush is a scapegoat. He is largely opposed because of his religious stand. Some people HATE christianity passionately. Some believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc, as long as it's not about Jesus Christ. A whole lot of closed mindedness. I've been on both sides, and I know what I see. Christianity doesn't preach taking peoples rights away. A true christian knows that a person's heart can't be changed through legislation. Not everyone who calls her/himself christian is one.
Anyway, I know I'm beginning to preach...lol Didn't mean to. Just bubbles right up from within.
The point is issues. Kerry tends to change his mind, it seems. Anyway, I'm praying for him too...:-)
Originally posted by EddyG:
Are you just going to ignore the atrocities that Kerry committed in Vietnam? Kerry's personal actions are just as bad, if not worse, than the violations committed at Abu Gharaib. Was Bush over there personally violating POW rights?
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions" --John Kerry
Listen to Kerry say it himself... |
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/16/2025 09:42:44 PM  |
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: 08/16/2025 09:42:44 PM EDT.
|
