|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/06/2005 01:26:10 AM · #201 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Here's a legal analysis of the situation from an acknlowledged expert on White House cover-ups. |
I find the most revealing paragraph in Mr. Dean's article to be this ( I have highlighted the most important words ):
In answering, he ( Mr. Fitzgerald ) pointed out that "if national defense information which is involved because [of Plame's] affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act." (Emphasis added). (As noted above, gross negligence would also suffice.)
I love that. It clearly shows that after nearly two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald is unable to declare with certainty that Valerie Plame's affiliation with the CIA was even CLASSIFIED, let alone COVERT. No surprise there. |
Fitzgerald certainly does state in the indictment (more than once) that Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified. Here is one such statement:
"A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information." (pg. 10)
Fitzgerald also makes this statement during his press conference on October 28, 2005:
"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community."
Message edited by author 2005-11-06 01:26:57. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 03:32:49 AM · #202 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, just how many "spokespeople" are on the Vice President's payroll anyway, and how come we elected someone incapable of speaking for himself? |
I'm presuming you meant this as a sarcastic, rhetorical question, but just in case someone takes the question seriously, let me wade in and remark: it's not that Cheney can't speak for himself, it's that he chooses not to. If he were to make such statements in person, he might (gasp!) be subjected to questions he cannot (or does not choose to) answer.
R. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 11:38:24 AM · #203 |
| Why is it that Tony Blair gets bombarded with questions by the media, and gets put on the spot. But when Bush has a hard question thrown his way, he declines to answer. I think these reporters really need to grab their golf balls and force Bush to answer. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 12:34:21 PM · #204 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Why is it that Tony Blair gets bombarded with questions by the media, and gets put on the spot. But when Bush has a hard question thrown his way, he declines to answer. I think these reporters really need to grab their golf balls and force Bush to answer. |
He may get put on the spot but it doesn't mean we get the truth anymore than you do!
It looks like Blair may ber on the way out so perhaps Bush will lose his puppy!
P
|
|
|
|
11/06/2005 01:00:04 PM · #205 |
Read the rest of the article here.
 The Mysterious Death of Pat Tillman
    By Frank Rich
    The New York Times
    Sunday 06 November 2005
    It would be a compelling story," Patrick Fitzgerald said of the narrative Scooter Libby used to allegedly mislead investigators in the Valerie Wilson leak case, "if only it were true."
    "Compelling" is higher praise than any Mr. Libby received for his one work of published fiction, a 1996 novel of "murder, passion and heart-stopping chases through the snow" called "The Apprentice." If you read the indictment, you'll see why he merits the critical upgrade. The intricate tale he told the F.B.I. and the grand jury - with its endlessly clever contradictions of his White House colleagues' testimony - is compelling even without the sex and the snow.
    The medium is the message. This administration just loves to beguile us with a rollicking good story, truth be damned. The propagandistic fable exposed by the leak case - the apocalyptic imminence of Saddam's mushroom clouds - was only the first of its genre. Given that potboiler's huge success at selling the war, its authors couldn't resist providing sequels once we were in Iraq. As the American casualty toll surges past 2,000 and Veterans Day approaches, we need to remember and unmask those scenarios as well. Our troops and their families have too often made the ultimate sacrifice for the official fictions that have corrupted every stage of this war.
    If there's a tragic example that can serve as representative of the rest, it is surely that of Pat Tillman, the Arizona Cardinals defensive back who famously volunteered for the Army in the spring after 9/11, giving up a $3.6 million N.F.L. contract extension. Tillman wanted to pay something back to his country by pursuing the enemy that actually attacked it, Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Instead he was sent to fight a war in Iraq that he didn't see coming when he enlisted because the administration was still hatching it in secret. Only on a second tour of duty was he finally sent into Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, where, on April 22, 2004, he was killed. On April 30, an official Army press release announcing his Silver Star citation filled in vivid details of his last battle. Tillman, it said, was storming a hill to take out the enemy, even as he "personally provided suppressive fire with an M-249 Squad Automatic Weapon machine gun."
    It would be a compelling story, if only it were true. Five weeks after Tillman's death, the Army acknowledged abruptly, without providing details, that he had "probably" died from friendly fire. Many months after that, investigative journalists at The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times reported that the Army's initial portrayal of his death had been not only bogus but also possibly a cover-up of something darker. "The records show that Tillman fought bravely and honorably until his last breath," Steve Coll wrote in The Post in December 2004. "They also show that his superiors exaggerated his actions and invented details as they burnished his legend in public, at the same time suppressing details that might tarnish Tillman's commanders."
    This fall The San Francisco Chronicle uncovered still more details with the help of Tillman's divorced parents, who have each reluctantly gone public after receiving conflicting and heavily censored official reports on three Army investigations that only added to the mysteries surrounding their son's death. (Yet another inquiry is under way.) "The administration clearly was using this case for its own political reasons," said Patrick Tillman, Pat Tillman's father, who discovered that crucial evidence in the case, including his son's uniform and gear, had been destroyed almost immediately. "This cover-up started within minutes of Pat's death, and it started at high levels." |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 01:15:48 PM · #206 |
| Don't forget the supposed heroic rescue of Jessica Lynch by American troops that was also a bogus story and conconcted for the press by the Bush administration. Funny how the conservatives put down Hollywood, but yet they use them for their own political ends. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 06:08:13 PM · #207 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Here's a legal analysis of the situation from an acknlowledged expert on White House cover-ups. |
I find the most revealing paragraph in Mr. Dean's article to be this ( I have highlighted the most important words ):
In answering, he ( Mr. Fitzgerald ) pointed out that "if national defense information which is involved because [of Plame's] affiliation with the CIA, whether or not she was covert, was classified, if that was intentionally transmitted, that would violate the statute known as Section 793, which is the Espionage Act." (Emphasis added). (As noted above, gross negligence would also suffice.)
I love that. It clearly shows that after nearly two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald is unable to declare with certainty that Valerie Plame's affiliation with the CIA was even CLASSIFIED, let alone COVERT. No surprise there. |
Fitzgerald certainly does state in the indictment (more than once) that Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified. Here is one such statement:
"A major focus of the Grand Jury Investigation was to determine which government officials had disclosed to the media prior to July 14, 2003 information concerning the affiliation of Valerie Wilson with the CIA, and the nature, timing, extent, and purpose of such disclosures, as well as whether any official making such a disclosure did so knowing that the employment of Valerie Wilson by the CIA was classified information." (pg. 10)
Fitzgerald also makes this statement during his press conference on October 28, 2005:
"Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer. In July 2003, the fact that Valerie Wilson was a CIA officer was classified. Not only was it classified, but it was not widely known outside the intelligence community." |
Thank you, Judith. I erred. It was my mistake to only read the article by Mr. Dean that GeneralE provided a link to - and not the original source of the quotation I referenced. My excuse, if it were possible to excuse me, is that that article contained a link to the transcript of Mr. FItzgerald's Press Conference, but that link only pointed to a NOT FOUND page, so, I didn't pursue it, and hence referenced only the portion of the transcript provided in the article itself - mea culpa.
In the press conference, Mr. Fitzgerald not only said what you quoted, but actually did confirm that Valeria Plame's employment was classified, in that precise wording. He actually said:
"I will confirm that her association with the CIA was classified at that time through July 2003."
That's good enough for me. Henceforth, I will not refute the claim that Valerie Plame's affiliation with the CIA was classified. Again, thank you for pointing out my error.
That being said, I will continue to refute claims that she was a covert agent. In the same press conference, just prior to the above quote, Mr. Fitzgerald states:
"I am not speaking to whether or not Valerie Wilson was covert. And anything I say is not intended to say anything beyond this: that she was a CIA officer from January 1st, 2002, forward."
So, until someone in an official capacity confirms that she WAS a covert agent, that claim should still not be made in these fora. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 07:06:59 PM · #208 |
What boggles my mind is how people still keep referring to the constitution, and they actually feel like they are being protected by it. The constitution is an obstacle for these bastards. Has anyone heard of the Patriot act? just forget your damn constitution already.
There is also a conflict within the CIA and between Gov't agencies, FBI, NSA, etc...it's like a football team with bad chemistry, our downfall is in it's early stages, and hopefully we wont have to deal with things such as martial law, or having our gov't bulldoze homes or just seizing them for economic development projects. A law was passed to allow eminent domain authority for tax revenue generating commercial purposes. personal privacy is ending. Passports, driver's licenses, all will include scanning chips for easy tracking. Clothes that you will buy in stores will have hidden tracking chips so small , they are undetectable. I fear for my generation, and the younger ones too.
Message edited by author 2005-11-06 19:15:41. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 07:27:54 PM · #209 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
What boggles my mind is how people still keep referring to the constitution, and they actually feel like they are being protected by it. The constitution is an obstacle for these bastards. Has anyone heard of the Patriot act? just forget your damn constitution already... |
Indeed -- here's an exerpt -- read the rest here:
    The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
    By Barton Gellman
    The Washington Post
    Sunday 06 November 2005
In hunt for terrorists, bureau examines records of ordinary Americans.
    The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
    Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow.
    Christian refused to hand over those records, and his employer, Library Connection Inc., filed suit for the right to protest the FBI demand in public. The Washington Post established their identities - still under seal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit - by comparing unsealed portions of the file with public records and information gleaned from people who had no knowledge of the FBI demand.
    The Connecticut case affords a rare glimpse of an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, which marked its fourth anniversary on Oct. 26. "National security letters," created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.
    The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters - one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people - are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.
    Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 09:01:48 PM · #210 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
or having our gov't bulldoze homes or just seizing them for economic development projects. A law was passed to allow eminent domain authority for tax revenue generating commercial purposes. |
Any comments on what portion of the Court (right or left) voted in favor of this Law?
A sad day indeed. Just a precursor of where we are headed if the Kennedy's, Schumers, etc. get their way.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2005 09:07:12 PM · #211 |
It wasn't a law, it was a decision on existing law.
I believe the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain was 7-2 or 8-1.
I think some people in Connecticut have started a movement to seize Justice Anthony Kennedy's home, so it can be turned into a memorial museum for the Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, Congress is poised to pass a bill which will ban any Federal funds from going (for a couple of years anyway) to cities which seize private property purely for private economic development.
Message edited by author 2005-11-06 21:10:15. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 09:11:18 PM · #212 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
What boggles my mind is how people still keep referring to the constitution, and they actually feel like they are being protected by it. The constitution is an obstacle for these bastards. Has anyone heard of the Patriot act? just forget your damn constitution already... |
Indeed -- here's an exerpt -- read the rest here:
    The FBI's Secret Scrutiny
    By Barton Gellman
    The Washington Post
    Sunday 06 November 2005
In hunt for terrorists, bureau examines records of ordinary Americans.
    The FBI came calling in Windsor, Conn., this summer with a document marked for delivery by hand. On Matianuk Avenue, across from the tennis courts, two special agents found their man. They gave George Christian the letter, which warned him to tell no one, ever, what it said.
    Under the shield and stars of the FBI crest, the letter directed Christian to surrender "all subscriber information, billing information and access logs of any person" who used a specific computer at a library branch some distance away. Christian, who manages digital records for three dozen Connecticut libraries, said in an affidavit that he configures his system for privacy. But the vendors of the software he operates said their databases can reveal the Web sites that visitors browse, the e-mail accounts they open and the books they borrow.
    Christian refused to hand over those records, and his employer, Library Connection Inc., filed suit for the right to protest the FBI demand in public. The Washington Post established their identities - still under seal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit - by comparing unsealed portions of the file with public records and information gleaned from people who had no knowledge of the FBI demand.
    The Connecticut case affords a rare glimpse of an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, which marked its fourth anniversary on Oct. 26. "National security letters," created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, originated as narrow exceptions in consumer privacy law, enabling the FBI to review in secret the customer records of suspected foreign agents. The Patriot Act, and Bush administration guidelines for its use, transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.
    The FBI now issues more than 30,000 national security letters a year, according to government sources, a hundredfold increase over historic norms. The letters - one of which can be used to sweep up the records of many people - are extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans.
    Issued by FBI field supervisors, national security letters do not need the imprimatur of a prosecutor, grand jury or judge. They receive no review after the fact by the Justice Department or Congress. The executive branch maintains only statistics, which are incomplete and confined to classified reports. The Bush administration defeated legislation and a lawsuit to require a public accounting, and has offered no example in which the use of a national security letter helped disrupt a terrorist plot. |
I find it amazing how the left is quick to complain of these "infringements", but gleefully accepted the infringements against gun dealers when ATF wanted records of sales. It is a slippery slope we slide, so when the left argues FOR the infringements of individual rights (like the right to bear arms)or(to ban smoking)or (huge lawsuit awards), with each victory, the government has more standing to infringe on other individual rights. We (right and left) should be wary of what we ask for, as we just may get it.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2005 09:14:02 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I believe the Supreme Court ruling on eminent domain was 7-2 or 8-1. |
For some reason, my memory had it split 5-4 with the 4 right leaning Jurists voting AGAINST. But my brain cells deplete as my age continues, so I could be of poor memory.
sp edit
Message edited by author 2005-11-06 21:17:10.
|
|
|
|
11/06/2005 09:31:16 PM · #214 |
Flash--there's a difference between asking for specific records for specific purposes, especially when (as I'm guessing is the case with gun registrations) to agree to the discosure in the first place, contrasted with a generalized fishing expedition into people who are not suspects, and keeping it secret from them.
If you read the article, you'll see that the law allows you to complain about these searches, only no one is allowed to tell you (forever)you've even been searched, so the option to complain seems a rather empty and unusuable gesture. |
|
|
|
11/06/2005 09:48:19 PM · #215 |
GeneralE -- You are correct that there is a difference, however the fact remains that a groundswell from the left (preceeding the '96 elections) promoted severe restrictions on individual firearm ownership, and continues today. This assault on individual rights is promoted and accepted by many on the left, and in some circles deemed "necessary". It is this mindset of their rights can be infringed but our rights can't, is the slippery slope I address. Not that it relates to this thread, but to me, the same people arguing FOR a womans right to choose, or FOR religious freedom, or FOR choice of same sex living partners, should also be arguing for individual right to bear arms. My mind does not make the distinctiion. As I also believe that those who argue for "right to arms" should also argue for the other individual choice issues as well. I simply do not understand a left that argues for abortion, yet against firearm ownership due to child murder rates. But I digress and am way off topic.
Choice is choice. I support choice. Choice to choose who to elect to office, and whether or not to engage in an editorial in the NY Times, claiming the sitting administration are liers. I also support the choice of those attacked to choose to put out their side of the story.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:20:44 AM · #216 |
Exerpt from this article:
 What the Vice President Denied Knowing
    The indictment against Cheney's Chief of Staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, clearly states that Cheney and Libby discussed Plame's undercover CIA status and the fact that her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, traveled to Niger to investigate claims that Iraq tried to acquire yellowcake uranium from the African country in early June of 2003.
    Yet the following month, Cheney and then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer asserted that the vice president was unaware of Wilson's Niger trip, who the ambassador was, or a classified report Wilson wrote about his findings prior to the ambassador's July 6, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times.
    We now know, courtesy of the 22-page Libby indictment, that Cheney wasn't being truthful. Cheney did see the report; he knew full well who Wilson was. He also knew that the CIA arranged for Wilson to travel to Niger, and he personally sought out information about Wilson's trip to Niger, was briefed about the fact-finding mission, and even obtained classified information about Plame's covert CIA status. He also came to know one other important nugget: that Plame may have recommended her husband for the trip.
    Cheney's public campaign and that of other White House officials to discredit Wilson and strategically lie about the Plame leak started on Sept. 14, 2003, during an interview with Tim Russert of NBC's "Meet the Press."
    During the interview, Cheney maintained that he didn't know Wilson or anything about his trip.
    "I don't know Joe Wilson," Cheney said, in response to Russert who quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium claims. "I've never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson - I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back ... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came ..."
    "The CIA did," Russert said, interjecting.
    "Who at the CIA? I don't know," Cheney said. "He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back."
    What happened once Cheney received information on Plame and Wilson in June 2003 remains unclear. But the indictment illustrates - in no uncertain terms - that the vice president's office staged a concerted effort to undermine Wilson for questioning the veracity of the Niger claims.
    Fitzgerald has eyed Cheney in seeking to ascertain who ordered the leak, as previously reported. While the Vice President stands accused of no wrongdoing, his role may come into greater focus during a trial.
    In an interview with the syndicated radio program "Democracy Now," Wilson argued that Cheney may have been lying to Russert when he said he didn't know about the ambassador's Niger trip.
    "While we've never met, he certainly knows who I am and should know unless his memory is flawed and faulty," Wilson said during the Sept. 16, 2003 interview. "There were at a minimum three reports that had been generated shortly after the Vice President had asked the question, 'what do we know about this?'"
    The Vice President certainly must have known Wilson during his tenure as secretary of defense during the first President Bush's administration. In the weeks leading up to the first Gulf War, Wilson served as the acting US ambassador on the ground in Baghdad. In fact, Wilson was the only line of communication between Washington and Saddam Hussein. The White House held daily briefings with Wilson, and Cheney sat in on a majority of those briefings.
Message edited by author 2005-11-08 00:21:08. |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:25:55 PM · #217 |
From the article above:
Yet the following month, Cheney and then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer asserted that the vice president was unaware of Wilson's Niger trip, who the ambassador was, or a classified report Wilson wrote about his findings prior to the ambassador's July 6, 2003 op-ed in the New York Times.
...and...
"I don't know Joe Wilson," Cheney said, in response to Russert who quoted Wilson as saying there was no truth to the Niger uranium claims. "I've never met Joe Wilson. And Joe Wilson - I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back ... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him and it never came ..."
"The CIA did," Russert said, interjecting.
"Who at the CIA? I don't know," Cheney said. "He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back."
...and...
"While we've never met, he certainly knows who I am and should know unless his memory is flawed and faulty," Wilson said during the Sept. 16, 2003 interview. "There were at a minimum three reports that had been generated shortly after the Vice President had asked the question, 'what do we know about this?'"
From Wilson's NYT Editorial:
Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission.
Lots of questions come up, which could take some time to investigate, but this one jumps right out at me...
The implication you get from reading this article is that Wilson filed a report, the VP received that report, and then lied to Tim Russert about having ever seen it. (Which is not a crime, per se, but wouldn't be very defensible in this scenario.) The assertion is even made (by the reporter) in the first snippet that Wilson did write a report. However, by Wilson's own writing, and by omission from his statements in the interview, he never wrote a report on his trip or his findings. (Which, as I understand it, is a detail in this whole affair which is questionable in itself.)
So, where did Cheney lie?
"I don't know Joe Wilson." Wilson even agrees they've never met. You may consider this misleading, but its not a lie.
"I don't [know] who sent Joe Wilson." This may be borderline, though inconclusive. Certainly he knows the CIA sent him, but did he know who at the CIA sent him? I'm not sure I've seen that asserted one way or the other. If he (Chenney) did know what person made the decision, then I suppose this could be a lie.
"He never submitted a report..." Shown to be true above.
"...that I ever saw..." Since there was no report, Chenney couldn't have seen it.
Most of the other statements are repeats of the ones above. Except...
"I probably shouldn't judge him." AHA! We have him now, cause that's definitely a lie. Chenney very much should have judged Wilson.
Message edited by author 2005-11-08 12:26:31. |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 01:21:41 PM · #218 |
So let me get this straight.
It appears that some in the anti-Bush contingent have now resorted to not writing their own posts any longer, but instead just post passages and links to the innuendo-laden, rhetoric-filled, yellow journalism ( I use the term "journalism" in the most liberal ( pun intended ) sense ) of those who say what they themselves dare not say, knowing that they ( the posters ) will have an "easy out" by not having to defend what is written, since it is not what "they" wrote.
So it now becomes necessary for those who find false accusations in the posts to rebut third person articles. And the writers of those articles are not accountable to defend their statements.
And to think that some have accused ME of being disingenuous. At least I defend my own postings.
Thanks for stepping up to the plate, Scott. |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 05:35:59 PM · #219 |
| The source of the leak has finally been exposed: Joe Wilson. |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 09:34:07 PM · #220 |
Originally posted by RonB:
So let me get this straight.
It appears that some in the anti-Bush contingent have now resorted to not writing their own posts any longer, but instead just post passages and links to the innuendo-laden, rhetoric-filled, yellow journalism ( I use the term "journalism" in the most liberal ( pun intended ) sense ) of those who say what they themselves dare not say, knowing that they ( the posters ) will have an "easy out" by not having to defend what is written, since it is not what "they" wrote.
So it now becomes necessary for those who find false accusations in the posts to rebut third person articles. And the writers of those articles are not accountable to defend their statements.
And to think that some have accused ME of being disingenuous. At least I defend my own postings.
Thanks for stepping up to the plate, Scott. |
I completely think the same way. Here I am saying things about Media creating so-called public opinion, therefore a tool for the elite to shape people's thinking. It's making society similair to an assembly line of zombies, Not to sound crazy or nothing, It just makes sense to me from a certain standpoint. It is Social Democracy's most reliable way to police nations. Mainstream media, but our freedom on the internet is going to end someday, it's bloggers and the underground forms of media which is being recognized now and republicans and conservatives are trying to limit that too. So, why post the other work of other journalists, when you should get in touch with your own voice. Don't post an article and not give your own 2 cents about it and opt to wait to see what others think.
Message edited by author 2005-11-08 21:38:21. |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 10:11:16 AM · #221 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Mainstream media, but our freedom on the internet is going to end someday, it's bloggers and the underground forms of media which is being recognized now and republicans and conservatives are trying to limit that too. |
I'm curious what your basis for this statement is. Republicans and conservatives rely heavily on alternative media to get their message out. Dan Rather's complaint was quite the opposite of your observation - I think he would much rather shut the bloggers down than any conservative source. Unless you have something specific and concrete to base that observation on...? |
|
|
|
11/09/2005 08:45:48 PM · #222 |
Scott, my observation was based on countless articles in our tabloids here describing how alternative media, citizen journalists, bloggers, etc. is allowing this country to become more divided. Freedom of the Internet, is hurting the amount of control Mainstream media corporations have on the public. Carl Rove, the media king, is being indicted right now for numerous things, everything ranging from false Bin Laden tapes, to false terrorism alerts. (He decides whether to change our alert system from yellow to orange) No secret is safe anymore. I should of said it's the republicans and conservatives who believe the bloggers are helping divide this country. Im sure they use alternative media for their own means.
Message edited by author 2005-11-09 20:47:31. |
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:20:40 AM · #223 |
//www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/11/10/us.sudan.ap/index.html
At least someone still cares......(the right)
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 11:45:01.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 11:42:19 AM · #224 |
//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9983091/
another example of politics gone awry......(the left)
Message edited by author 2005-11-10 11:45:28.
|
|
|
|
11/10/2005 01:21:34 PM · #225 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Scott, my observation was based on countless articles in our tabloids here describing how alternative media, citizen journalists, bloggers, etc. is allowing this country to become more divided. Freedom of the Internet, is hurting the amount of control Mainstream media corporations have on the public. Carl Rove, the media king, is being indicted right now for numerous things, everything ranging from false Bin Laden tapes, to false terrorism alerts. (He decides whether to change our alert system from yellow to orange) No secret is safe anymore. I should of said it's the republicans and conservatives who believe the bloggers are helping divide this country. Im sure they use alternative media for their own means. |
Hmm. Still confused. I personally hear more complaints from the liberal/progressive/whatever media complaining about internet blogs, but don't recall hearing much, if any, compaint from conservatives. Tune into any conservative talk show, and they praise the "blogospehere". Yet CBS, Dan Rather and Mary Mapes still think it was awful that bloggers dare question the validity of their documents. (Did you see Mary on Larry King last night? She actually doesn't think it matters whether the documents that were the basis of her allegations were authentic. Amazing.)
See. The above is what I'm looking for. Can you point me to a conservative stating the point of view that bloggers and the internet are bad, and control should be returned to mainstream media? We were anti-mainstream media long before the left coopted that stance! |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 09/19/2025 07:30:13 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: 09/19/2025 07:30:13 PM EDT.
|
