|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/25/2004 06:04:43 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Was anyone else who saw the video struck by the pliancy that Mr. Berg showed as he was tipped over and beheaded? No fighting and no one holding him down as his head was sawn off. |
yes i noticed that myself. alltho because at the time i watched it i hadnt thought it might be fake, it still seemed real and horrible.
anyone else who saw it have an oppinion? |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 10:37:49 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
...A family which illegally raked in millions during world war two doing business with the Nazis through the use of Jewish concentration camp labor... |
Please do, show me the proof of this, I'm very interested in the fasinating propaganda!!!! |
Plenty of reading options
//www.google.com/search?q=nazis+bush
Dunno if there is any proof out there, but it isn't hard to look up the propaganda if you wanted to.
One, seemingly pro-Bush article on the historical facts can be found
here //www.straightdope.com/columns/030214.html
The central charge against Prescott Bush has a basis in fact. In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which he had an interest. Prescott at the time was an investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), which had funneled U.S. capital into Germany during the 1920s and '30s. Among the seized companies was the Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York, which was controlled by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financier of the Nazi party--in fact, in 1941 he published a book entitled I Paid Hitler. Ergo, Prescott helped finance the Nazis.
...
So, did Bush and his firm finance the Nazis and enable Germany to rearm? Indirectly, yes. But they had a lot of company. Some of the most distinguished names in American business had investments or subsidiaries in prewar Germany, including Standard Oil and General Motors. Critics have argued for years that without U.S. money, the Nazis could never have waged war. But American business has always invested in totalitarian regimes--witness our dealings with mainland China.
I cut out bits, including those that show that the slave labour claims are specious. |
And here is a published rebuttal to your article, specifically pointing out its errors:
The Straight Dope has been terrific fun for 30 years. The Chicago Reader column has been setting the record straight with Cecil Adams' wit and research. But Cece tried to answer this question, and seriously screwed up. Not only didn't he talk about one of the slimiest people of the early 20th Ccentury, George Herbert Walker, but he let Prescott Bush off with a mild rebuke. After I complained, he changed the question, but still didn't answer it. Here is the column I wish Cecil Adams had written. I'll try to stick to his style, but the words are mine. I may use some of the original column's research (and that from the Straight Dope's Message Boards).
Were Bush's great-grandfather and grandfather Nazis?
By David E Romm
with apologies to Cecil Adams
While there are no recorded incidents of them goose stepping or giving the "Heil Hitler" salute, the short answer to the question is yes. Both Bush's grandfather's palled around with sympathizers to the Nazi cause, with George Herbert Walker the worse of the two and grandfather Prescott Bush even worse as he dealt with Nazi Germany before and during WWII.
The Bushes don't like to talk about their past, and much of the early information comes from George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography by Webster G. Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin. While the book's origins are suspect and the authors tend to go off on wild LaRouchian rants, the basic research has held up to scrutiny since business dealings and government actions are a matter of public record. Note: I don't have Cecil Adam's resources, staff or salary, and all sources are from the web.
George Herbert Walker married off his daughter to Prescott Bush. It was a good arrangement for both: Prescott married into money and financial connections; the Walkers rose in society and power. A standard trade-off. George Herbert Walker isn't listed as a member of the Skull and Bones Society at Yale, but future son-in-law Prescott is, and the son and grandson named after him are, as are the Bush's who were his grandson and great-grandson. Aside: The Skull and Bones Society itself has been the subject of much speculation especially about the Bushes, and the real story is as interesting, but an entirely different column.
In 1919, Missouri deal-maker Bert Walker became the president and CEO of the W.A. Harriman and co. bank, which became one of the largest companies in the world. In 1922, the Harriman company set up a branch in Berlin under the residency of George H. Walker. In 1924, the Harriman company spun off the Union Banking Corporation, also run by Bert. The UBC was established to send American capital to Germany to finance the reorganization of its industry under the Nazis. Their leading German partner was the notorious Nazi industrialist Fritz Thyssen, who wrote a book admitting much of this called "I Paid Hitler." An article called Nazis In The Attic states boldly, "Walker was one of Hitler's most powerful financial supporters in the United States." and gives other details.
Samuel Prescott Bush, father to Prescott, was an Ohio manufacturer and close advisor to President Herbert Hoover. During WWI, Samuel was director of the facilities division of the US War Industries Board under Bernard Baruch. In 1920, Harriman and Bert Walker gain control of the German Hamburg-Amerika Line, said to be the world's largest private shipping line which had been confiscated by the US after the war. Still, while many of his business deals are with shady people who were more involved with the Nazis, Samuel himself wasn't a major player.
Prescott Bush was a major player. In addition to having ties with most of his father-in-laws friends (notably the Harrimans) and companies (notably the Union Banking Corporation), Bert hired Prescott to supervise the new Thyssen/Flish Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Company. John Loftus, a former Justice Department prosecutor whose latest series of lectures is on The Truth About Terrorism, has published a number of books about the Nazis and WWII. The page on Loftus' site linked above is from a Clamor magazine article by Toby Rogers entitled Heir to the Holocaust and also says, "Prescott Bush became managing director of UBC and handled the day-to-day operations of the new German economic plan. Bush's shares in UBC peaked with Hitler's new German order. But while production rose, cronyism did as well." and "According to classified documents from Dutch intelligence and US government archives, President George W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush made considerable profits off Auschwitz slave labor." Rogers says this information came from "A Dutch intelligence agent in 1941," before we were at war with Germany. While the companies were seized by the Germans during the war, claims Cecil, Rogers points out that Prescott was eventually paid $1.5 million for his interest in UBC after Thyssen died and the companies assets were unfrozen.
Dealing with Nazi Germany, and even financing Hitler, may have been ethically and morally repugnant, even at the time, but they weren't illegal until Hitler declared war on the US. Six days after Pearl Harbor, FDR signed the Trading With the Enemies Act. By then, most (though not all) of the companies that had been doing business with Hitler's war machine had stopped. But not Prescott Bush and the Union Banking Corporation. Writes Rogers, "Prescott Bush continued with business as usual, aiding the Nazi invasion of Europe and supplying resources for weaponry that would eventually be turned on American solders in combat against Germany." Citing the Tarpley book, this site goes on to say that on October 20, 1942, UBC assets in New York were seized under the act, and "On October 28, the government issued orders seizing two Nazi front organizations run by the bank (in which Bush was a partner): the Holland-America Trading Corporation and the Seamless Steel Equipment Corporation...U.S. forces landed under fire near Algiers on November 8, 1942; Nazi interests in the Silesian-American corporation, long managed by Prescott Bush and his father-in-law, George Herbert Walker, were seized under the Trading with the Enemy Act, on Nov. 17, 1942."
Bush family apologists like to point out that Prescott only had one share of UBC, though how that came to be worth a million and a half is never explained. Prescott was one of seven directors, says a Boston Globe article (payment required to see whole archive), quoting a 1942 New York Herald Tribune article, "Hitler's Angel has 3 Million in the Bank". While "Hitler's Angel" refers to Thyssen, Prescott was worried about the association. No need to worry; he was appointed senator in 1950. Apologists also claim that Prescott was an unpaid director, out of courtesy to a client. That's not completely creditable for two reasons: First, it's hard to believe he would do anything for free. Second, being a director has certain responsibilities, legal and ethical, and one can't duck from them quite so easily, especially when your assets are being frozen during a war. It certainly doesn't relieve him of culpability.
What all this says about future generations of Bushes is problematic. George Herbert Walker Bush, called "Poppy" in the family, fought in World War II, but was sent to Pacific theater, presumably so he wouldn't shoot friends. George W. was born in his senator grandfather's state of Connecticut, but moved to Texas fairly early, though he hung out and was arrested for drunken driving in the family estate in Kennebunkport Maine. He doesn't talk much in public about his progenitors. Still, in today's climate of "you're either with us or against us," there's no question that George Herbert Walker and Prescott Bush were against us.
End note: In the same week, defending the indefensible positions of George W. Bush has destroyed the credibility to Colin Powell and Cecil Adams. Proof that the terrorists have won.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to Dave Romm's Portal
or the Shockwave Home Page
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 10:41:22 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
...A family which illegally raked in millions during world war two doing business with the Nazis through the use of Jewish concentration camp labor... |
Please do, show me the proof of this, I'm very interested in the fasinating propaganda!!!! |
This was published all over the place, in major publications, just recently, as the diocuments came to light a few months ago.. I found this in ten seconds on Google:
BUSH-NAZI LINK CONFIRMED
Documents in National Archives Prove George W. Bush's
Grandfather Traded with Nazis - Even After Pearl Harbor
by John Buchanan (Exclusive to the New Hampshire Gazette)
WASHINGTON - After 60 years of inattention and even denial
by the U.S. media, newly-uncovered government documents in
The National Archives and Library of Congress reveal that
Prescott Bush, the grandfather of President George W. Bush,
served as a business partner of and U.S. banking operative
for the financial architect of the Nazi war machine from 1926
until 1942, when Congress took aggressive action against Bush
and his "enemy national" partners.
The documents also show that Bush and his colleagues, according
to reports from the U.S. Department of the Treasury, tried to
conceal their financial alliance with German industrialist Fritz
Thyssen, a steel and coal baron who, beginning in the mid-1920s,
personally funded Adolf Hitler's rise to power by the subversion
of democratic principle and German law.
Furthermore, the declassified records demonstrate that Bush
and his associates, who included E. Roland Harriman, younger
brother of American icon W. Averell Harriman, and George
Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather,
continued their dealings with the German industrial tycoon for
nearly a year after the U.S. entered the war.
No Story?
For six decades these historical facts have gone unreported
by the mainstream U.S. media. The essential facts have
appeared on the Internet and in relatively obscure books, but
were dismissed by the media and Bush family as undocumented
diatribes. This story has also escaped the attention of "official"
Bush biographers, Presidential historians and publishers of U.S.
history books covering World War II and its aftermath.
The White House did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
The Summer of '42
The unraveling of the web of Bush-Harriman-Thyssen U.S.
enterprises, all of which operated out of the same suite of
offices at 39 Broadway in New York under the supervision of
Prescott Bush, began with a story that ran simultaneously in
the New York Herald-Tribune and Washington Post on July 31,
1941. By then, the U.S. had been at war with Germany for
nearly eight months.
"Hitler's Angel Has $3 Million in U.S. Bank," declared the front-page
Herald-Tribune headline. The lead paragraph characterized Fritz
Thyssen as "Adolf Hitler's original patron a decade ago." In fact,
the steel and coal magnate had aggressively supported and funded
Hitler since October 1923, according to Thyssen's autobiography,
I Paid Hitler. In that book, Thyssen also acknowledges his direct
personal relationships with Adolf Hitler, Joseph Goebbels and Rudolf
Hess.
The Herald-Tribune also cited unnamed sources who suggested
Thyssen's U.S. "nest egg" in fact belonged to "Nazi bigwigs" including
Goebbels, Hermann Goering, Heinrich Himmler, or even Hitler himself.
Business is Business
The "bank," founded in 1924 by W. Averell Harriman on behalf of
Thyssen and his Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V. of Holland,
was Union Banking Corporation (UBC) of New York City. According
to government documents, it was in reality a clearing house for a
number of Thyssen-controlled enterprises and assets, including as
many as a dozen individual businesses. UBC also bought and shipped
overseas gold, steel, coal, and U.S. Treasury bonds. The company's
activities were administered for Thyssen by a Netherlands-born,
naturalized U.S. citizen named Cornelis Lievense, who served as
president of UBC. Roland Harriman was chairman and Prescott Bush
a managing director.
The Herald-Tribune article did not identify Bush or Harriman
as executives of UBC, or Brown Brothers Harriman, in which
they were partners, as UBC's private banker. A confidential
FBI memo from that period suggested, without naming the
Bush and Harriman families, that politically prominent individuals
were about to come under official U.S. government scrutiny as
Hitler's plunder of Europe continued unabated.
After the "Hitler's Angel" article was published Bush and Harriman
made no attempts to divest themselves of the controversial
Thyssen financial alliance, nor did they challenge the newspaper
report that UBC was, in fact, a de facto Nazi front organization in
the U.S.
Instead, the government documents show, Bush and his partners
increased their subterfuge to try to conceal the true nature and
ownership of their various businesses, particularly after the U.S.
entered the war. The documents also disclose that Cornelis Lievense,
Thyssen's personal appointee to oversee U.S. matters for his
Rotterdam-based Bank voor Handel en Scheepvaart N.V., via UBC
for nearly two decades, repeatedly denied to U.S. government
investigators any knowledge of the ownership of the Netherlands
bank or the role of Thyssen in it. Brown Brothers Harriman sent
letters to the government seeking reconsideration of the seizures
by using false information.
UBC's original group of business associates included George
Herbert Walker, President Bush's maternal great-grandfather,
who had a relationship with the Harriman family that began in
1919. In 1922, Walker and W. Averell Harriman traveled to
Berlin to set up the German branch of their banking and
investment operations, which were largely based on critical
war resources such as steel and coal.
The Walker-Harriman-created German industrial alliance also
included partnership with another German titan who supported
Hitler's rise, Friedrich Flick, who partnered with Thyssen in the
German Steel Trust that forged the Nazi war machine. For his
role in using slave labor and his own steel, coal and arms
resources to build Hitler's war effort, Flick was convicted at the
Nuremberg trials and sentenced to prison.
The Family Business
In 1926, after Prescott Bush had married Walker's daughter,
Dorothy, Walker brought Bush in as a vice president of the
private banking and investment firm of W.A. Harriman & Co.,
also located in New York. Bush became a partner in the firm
that later became Brown Brothers Harriman and the largest
private investment bank in the world. Eventually, Bush became
a director of and stockholder in UBC.
However, the government documents note that Bush, Harriman,
Lievense and the other UBC stockholders were in fact "nominees,"
or phantom shareholders, for Thyssen and his Holland bank,
meaning that they acted at the direct behest of their German
client.
Seized
On October 20, 1942, under authority of the Trading with the
Enemy Act, the U.S. Congress seized UBC and liquidated its
assets after the war. The seizure is confirmed by Vesting
Order No. 248 in the U.S. Office of the Alien Property Custodian
and signed by U.S. Alien Property Custodian Leo T. Crowley.
In August, under the same authority, Congress had seized the
first of the Bush-Harriman-managed Thyssen entities,
Hamburg-American Line, under Vesting Order No. 126, also
signed by Crowley. Eight days after the seizure of UBC,
Congress invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act again to
take control of two more Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses
- Holland-American Trading Corp. (Vesting Order No. 261)
and Seamless Steel Equipment Corp. (Vesting Order No. 259).
The documents from the Archives also show that the Bushes
and Harrimans shipped valuable U.S. assets, including gold, coal,
steel and U.S. Treasury bonds, to their foreign clients overseas
between 1931-33, as Hitler engineered his rise to power.
Still No Story?
Since 1942, the information has not appeared in any U.S. news
coverage of any Bush political campaign, nor has it been included
in any of the major Bush family biographies. It was, however,
covered extensively in George H.W. Bush: The Unauthorized
Biography, by Webster Tarpley and Anton Chaitkin. Chaitkin's
father served as an attorney in the 1940s for some of the
victims of the Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
The book gave a detailed, accurate accounting of the Bush
family's long Nazi affiliation, but no mainstream U.S. media
entity reported on or even investigated the allegations,
despite careful documentation by the authors. Major
booksellers declined to distribute the book, which was
dismissed by Bush supporters as biased and untrue. Its authors
struggled even to be reviewed in reputable newspapers. That
the book was published by Lyndon LaRouche's organization
undoubtedly made it easier to dismiss, but does not change
the facts.
The essence of the story has been posted for years
on various Internet sites, including BuzzFlash.com and
TakeBackTheMedia.com, but no online media seem to
have independently confirmed it.
In the 1990s, former U.S. Justice Department Nazi war
crimes prosecutor John Loftus, now honorary president
of the Florida Holocaust Museum, wrote a book and launched
a web site (www.john-loftus.com) which did breakthrough
reporting, including establishing the link between Prescott
Bush, Consolidated Silesian Steel Corporation and forced
labor at Auschwitz. Although the widely-respected Loftus
established a successful international speaking career with
his information, no U.S. newspaper or major TV news
program acknowledged his decade of work, nor did he ever
see many of the recently released documents.
Meanwhile, the mainstream media have apparently made no
attempt since World War II to either verify or disprove the
allegations of Nazi collaboration against the Bush family.
Instead, they have attempted to dismiss or discredit such
Internet sites or "unauthorized" books without any journalistic
inquiry or research into their veracity.
Loyal Defenders
The National Review ran an essay on September 1 by their
White House correspondent Byron York, entitled "Annals of
Bush-Hating." It begins mockingly: "Are you aware of the
murderous history of George W. Bush - indeed, of the
entire Bush family? Are you aware of the president's Nazi
sympathies? His crimes against humanity? And do you know,
by the way, that George W. Bush is a certifiable moron?"
York goes on to discredit the "Bush is a moron" IQ hoax,
but fails to disprove the Nazi connection.
The more liberal Boston Globe ran a column September 29
by Reason magazine's Cathy Young in which she referred
to "Bush-o-phobes on the Internet" who "repeat preposterous
claims about the Bush family's alleged Nazi connections."
Poles Tackle the Topic
Newsweek Polska, the magazine's Polish edition, published
a short piece on the "Bush Nazi past" in its March 5, 2003
edition. The item reported that "the Bush family reaped
rewards from the forced-labor prisoners in the Auschwitz
concentration camp," according to a copyrighted
English-language translation from Scoop Media
(//www.scoop.co.nz).
The story also reported the seizure of the various
Bush-Harriman-Thyssen businesses.
Still Not Interested
Major U.S. media outlets, including ABC News, NBC News,
CNN, The New York Times, Washington Post, Washington
Times, Los Angeles Times and Miami Herald, as well as
Knight-Ridder Newspapers, have repeatedly declined to
investigate the story when information regarding discovery
of the documents was presented to them beginning Friday,
August 29. Newsweek U.S. correspondent Michael Isikoff,
famous for his reporting of big scoops during the
Clinton-Lewinsky sexual affair of the 1990s, declined twice
to accept an exclusive story based on the documents
from the archives.
Aftermath
In 1952, Prescott Bush was elected to the U.S. Senate,
with no press accounts about his well-concealed Nazi past.
There is no record of any U.S. press coverage of the
Bush-Nazi connection during any political campaigns
conducted by George Herbert Walker Bush, Jeb Bush,
or George W. Bush, with the exception of a brief mention
in an unrelated story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune in
November 2000 and a brief but inaccurate account in
The Boston Globe in 2001.
John Buchanan is an award-winning and internationally
published journalist and investigative reporter with 33
years of experience in New York, Los Angeles, Washington
and Miami. His work has appeared in more than 50
newspapers, magazines and books. He can be reached
by e-mail at: jtwg@bellsouth.net.
unverified letter from the above author -READ THIS !
Related articles:
BUSH - NAZI STORY GOES MAINSTREAM
CHECK OUT THE SPIN
Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy
In October 1942, ten months after entering World War II, America
was preparing its first assault against Nazi military forces.
Prescott Bush was managing partner of Brown Brothers Harriman.
His 18-year-old son George, the future U.S. President, had just
begun training to become a naval pilot. On Oct. 20, 1942, the
U.S. government ordered the seizure of Nazi German banking operations
in New York City which were being conducted by Prescott Bush.
The Bush-Rove-Schwarzenegger Nazi Nexus - George W. Bush's grandfather helped finance the Nazi Party. Karl Rove's grandfather allegedly helped run the Nazi Party, and helped build the Birkenau Death Camp. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Austrian father volunteered for the infamous Nazi SA and became a ranking officer.
By BOB FITRAKIS and HARVEY WASSERMAN
excerpted from the book
Trading with the Enemy
The Nazi - American Money Plot 1933-1949
by Charles Higham
Delacorte Press, 1983
(Bush Family) Standing on the Dead - By Marc Ash
The Bush Family and Nazi Blood Money
by Victor Thorn
Bush family funded Adolf Hitler -
The Nazi phenomenon was no historical coincidence, and far less a philosophical whim made real by just one man. Nazism had its followers, many of them exceptionally wealthy, veritable alchemists of the financial world back then.
WALL STREET AND
THE RISE OF HITLER
MISC.
Vatican drawn into scandal over Nazi-era gold
-Newly declassified documents in the United
States allege that the Vatican served as a postwar repository of Nazi-era gold.
Neo-Nazi leader 'was MI6 agent' -
Germany's most notorious postwar neo-Nazi party was led by an intelligence agent working for the British, according to both published and unpublished German sources. The alleged agent - the late Adolf von Thadden - came closer than anyone to giving the far-right real influence over postwar German politics. Under his leadership, the National Democratic party (NPD) made a string of impressive showings in regional elections in the late 60s, and there were widespread fears that it would gain representation in the federal parliament. Yet, according to a report earlier this year in the Cologne daily, the Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger, the man dubbed "the New Führer" was working for British intelligence throughout the four years he led the NPD, from 1967 to 1971.
Heir to the Holocaust : //www.clamormagazine.org/features/issue14.3_feature.3.html
The Bush Nazi Connection : //www.lpdallas.org/features/draheim/dr991216.htm
Gold Fillings, Auschwitz & George Bush : //www.spiritone.com/~gdy52150/bushies.htm
Could Bush Become another Hitler? By Henry Makow, Ph.D
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 10:43:04 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
An administration which has no qualms outing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, an act of treason, in order to put political pressure on her husband to stop blowing the whistle on their false claims for a unilateral invasion of Iraq... |
Please do show me the proof of this, I'm very interested in the fascinating propaganda!!!!
You must be kidding! Propaganda??
Ron |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 10:56:52 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Russell2566:
Originally posted by Norman D. Livergood:
Bush is foisted on the American public through a coup d'etat of the Supreme Court after massive election fraud perpetrated by his brother in Florida. |
Not true. A the supreme court didn't step in untill the liberal florida state court decided t break federal election laws.
Really? which ones?
Also, Gore never won any of the dozen or so re-counts, including those afterwards done by biased medias, UNLESS, they counted anything with a dimple anywhere near gore's name as a vote for him and they threw out a shit load of the military absentee ballots...
Please prove ANY of that statement. ( I've decided that you radical regressive types shouldn't bee the only ones demanding proof! :D Now get to work!! :D :D )
The Democrats threw out zero miltary ballots, unlike the Republicans, although they bloody well had a right to.
And, in case you missed it, Gore WON the recount under every legal scenario resembling Florida state law.
Originally posted by Norman D. Livergood:
Thousands of voters were illegally disqualified in the 2000 election in the state of Florida, when Jeb Bush and his Secretary of State compiled a false list of felons who would not be allowed to vote.[quote] Felons are not allowed to vote last time I checked, this is legal and I would hope they would do this... In all my research I could only find 5 or 6 people who were falsely or wrongly placed on the list. |
BTW: I bet most of you would be amazed by how many dead people, illegal aliens and unregistered indians vote for the democratic party every year. While it happens on both sides, it's a HUGE accurance on the left.
Yeah, SURE.
Originally posted by Norman D. Livergood:
The Supreme Court was packed with reactionary right-wingers, several of whom had conflicts of interest because of their ties to the Bush family. |
Do I really need to touch this one?
Originally posted by Norman D. Livergood:
Dubya appoints convicted criminals, racists, and corporate-controlled underlings to his cabinet. |
HAHAHAHA, I guess everyone who is white and conservative is a racist.
No, just the racists are racists. :D Gee, you shouldn't generalize like that - it's bigoted! :D
President Bush has the most diverse white house of any president EVER!
True! he has more different kinds of people who hate programs that help poor, colored, and disadvantaged people than any administration in history! :D
Originally posted by Norman D. Livergood:
commands the FBI to stop investigations concerning the Bin Laden family and other suspected terrorist cells. |
False!
Really?? Several books have been published on saying this is true. I have not seen any published proving this is false. Several FBI field agents testified to Congress that they were not allowed to continue investigations into areas involving Saudi money trails, and individuals. The FBI's Chief antiterrorism expert resigned in protest over this exact issue.
Do you think you would like to reconsider your opinion?
Originally posted by Norman D. Livergood:
The Bush junta forced the Patriot Act bill through Congress, suspending essential civil liberties, excusing oppression as essential to the "war on terrorism," and maintaining that dissent was treason. |
Oh my god, I almost fell on the floor laughing at this one!!!! Not worth a rebuttle on this one!
As I continued to read I realized that the rest didn't even diserve being recognized... Did you read that crap before you posted it???
The left is so pathetic in it's attempt to regrab power... |
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:10:19 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
An administration which has no qualms outing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, an act of treason, in order to put political pressure on her husband to stop blowing the whistle on their false claims for a unilateral invasion of Iraq... |
Please do show me the proof of this, I'm very interested in the fascinating propaganda!!!!
Ron |
You must be kidding! Propaganda?? |
I take that to mean that you have no proof. Just a "You must be kidding!". I'm not surprised in the least. Thanks for the confirmation.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-05-25 23:11:06. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:13:25 PM · #32 |
And now, viewers, back to the video!
There are some very suspicious discrepancies apparent with the video which suggest that it is , indeed, a sham.
1) the main accused perpetrator - can't remember his name - sorry its late -
*has been reported dead several times previously by OUR people
* is known to have lost his leg, and wore a prosthesis - he limped big time, had no mobility - and this was NOT the case in the video, I'm told
* identified himself as himself on the video - yet he wore a mask????? Guess why??
2) Medical experts say that without a doubt, a real beheading would have covered everyone with blood copiously. This was NOT the case. Mr Berg HAD to have been dead beforehand. At the very least, that part of the video was staged.
3) The wall, baseboard, and floor paint all match that seen in the U.S. miltary prison, as does Mr Berg's outfit, and the chair he sits in.
4) All the alleged terrorists are heavy set males - NONE of them are thin. They all appear to have untanned hands. This is totally out of character with typical Middle eastern men.
Of interest - I have read a single blog report which claims that videos have digital watermarks, which can identify INDIVIDUAL cameras. Could it be possible that the camera might turn up as one used to take videos of prisoner abuse?
I'm betting......... |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:20:21 PM · #33 |
why wouldn't he scream "the US is behind this!" as they were killing him? you think he would just sit quietly watch that happen? hardly. he already had two bad runins with us officials there, so i doubt he would look at them in good light. you people are crazy
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:22:04 PM · #34 |
oh and also we never walked on the moon, right?
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:23:55 PM · #35 |
and go look at the video of the beheading of daniel pearl
|
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:24:14 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
An administration which has no qualms outing the identity of an undercover CIA agent, an act of treason, in order to put political pressure on her husband to stop blowing the whistle on their false claims for a unilateral invasion of Iraq... |
Please do show me the proof of this, I'm very interested in the fascinating propaganda!!!!
Ron |
You must be kidding! Propaganda?? |
I take that to mean that you have no proof. Just a "You must be kidding!". I'm not surprised in the least. Thanks for the confirmation.
Ron |
No, Ron, it just means that I am tired of needing to provide you with "proof" for issues which are common knowledge.
This issue has been written about in virtually every major newspaper, journal, and blog in the world, made for hundreds of editorials, and several law review articles.
Yeah - it is treason. And even George W admitted it came from the west wing.
If you have a problem with my statement - then please show how someone with credentials might disagree.
"Not surprised in the least that I gave no proof?
That's being a bit of a poor sport, considering how much proof I have been providing you in the past in reponse to your " where is the proof" ploy, don't you think?
Message edited by author 2004-05-25 23:31:08. |
|
|
|
05/25/2004 11:30:34 PM · #37 |
Achiral...in another thread you stated that you did NOT think war was an atrocity...if you want, I'll find it, but I would like to know what you mean because that to me seems to be the most crazy statement I have ever heard. Does that relate to the "rapture" in any way?
Originally posted by achiral:
why wouldn't he scream "the US is behind this!" as they were killing him? you think he would just sit quietly watch that happen? hardly. he already had two bad runins with us officials there, so i doubt he would look at them in good light. you people are crazy |
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 12:04:39 AM · #38 |
Here you go, RonB.
Some "fascinating propaganda" for you, from Richard Nixon's lawyer, as published in FindLaw:
The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic:
The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives
By JOHN W. DEAN
----
Friday, Aug. 15, 2003
On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother of three-year-old twins - was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm.")
Why was Novak able to learn this highly secret information? It turns out that he didn't have to dig for it. Rather, he has said, the "two senior Administration officials" he had cited as sources sought him out, eager to let him know. And in journalism, that phrase is a term of art reserved for a vice president, cabinet officers, and top White House officials.
On July 17, Time magazine published the same story, attributing it to "government officials." And on July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." More specifically, according to a "senior intelligence official," Newsday reported, she worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer."
In other words, Wilson is/was a spy involved in the clandestine collection of foreign intelligence, covert operations and espionage. She is/was part of a elite corps, the best and brightest, and among those willing to take great risk for their country. Now she has herself been placed at great - and needless - risk.
Why is the Administration so avidly leaking this information? The answer is clear. Former ambassador Wilson is famous, lately, for telling the truth about the Bush Administration's bogus claim that Niger uranium had gone to Saddam Hussein. And the Bush Administration is punishing Wilson by targeting his wife. It is also sending a message to others who might dare to defy it, and reveal the truth.
No doubt the CIA, and Mrs. Wilson, have many years, and much effort, invested in her career and skills. Her future, if not her safety, are now in jeopardy.
After reading Novak's column, The Nation's Washington Editor, David Corn, asked, "Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?"
The answer is plainly yes. Now the question is, will they get away with it?
Bits and pieces of information have emerged, but the story is far from complete. Nonetheless, what has surfaced is repulsive. If I thought I had seen dirty political tricks as nasty and vile as they could get at the Nixon White House, I was wrong. The American Prospect's observation that "we are very much into Nixon territory here" with this story is an understatement.
Indeed, this is arguably worse. Nixon never set up a hit on one of his enemies' wives.
Leaking the Name of a CIA Agent Is a Crime
On July 22, Ambassador Wilson appeared on the Today show. Katie Couric asked him about his wife: "How damaging would this be to your wife's work?"
Wilson - who, not surprisingly, has refused to confirm or deny that his wife was a CIA operative - answered Katie "hypothetically." He explained, "it would be damaging not just to her career, since she's been married to me, but since they mentioned her by her maiden name, to her entire career. So it would be her entire network that she may have established, any operations, any programs or projects she was working on. It's a--it's a breach of national security. My understanding is it may, in fact, be a violation of American law."
And, indeed, it is.
The Espionage Act of 1917 and the Intelligence Identities and Protection Act of 1982 may both apply. Given the scant facts, it is difficult to know which might be more applicable. But as Senator Schumer (D.NY) said, in calling for an FBI investigation, if the reported facts are true, there has been a crime. The only question is: Whodunit?
The Espionage Act of 1917
The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.
In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.
Although the photos compromised no national security secrets, and were not given to enemy agents, the Reagan Administration prosecuted the leak. That raised the question: Must the leaker have an evil purpose to be prosecuted?
The Administration argued that the answer was no. As with Britain's Official Secrets Acts, the leak of classified material alone was enough to trigger imprisonment for up to ten years and fines. And the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit agreed. It held that the such a leak might be prompted by "the most laudable motives, or any motive at all," and it would still be a crime. As a result, Morrison went to jail.
The Espionage Act, though thrice amended since then, continues to criminalize leaks of classified information, regardless of the reason for the leak. Accordingly, the "two senior administration officials" who leaked the classified information of Mrs. Wilson's work at the CIA to Robert Novak (and, it seems, others) have committed a federal crime.
The Intelligence Identities and Protection Act
Another applicable criminal statute is the Intelligence Identities Act, enacted in 1982. The law has been employed in the past. For instance, a low-level CIA clerk was convicted for sharing the identify of CIA employees with her boyfriend, when she was stationed in Ghana. She pled guilty and received a two-year jail sentence. (Other have also been charged with violations, but have pleaded to unrelated counts of the indictment.)
The Act reaches outsiders who engage in "a pattern of activities" intended to reveal the identities of covert operatives (assuming such identities are not public information, which is virtually always the case).
But so far, there is no evidence that any journalist has engaged in such a pattern. Accepting Administration leaks - even repeatedly - should not count as a violation, for First Amendment reasons.
The Act primarily reaches insiders with classified intelligence, those privy to the identity of covert agents. It addresses two kinds of insiders.
First, there are those with direct access to the classified information about the "covert agents." who leak it. These insiders - including persons in the CIA - may serve up to ten years in jail for leaking this information.
Second, there are those who are authorized to have classified information and learn it, and then leak it. These insiders - including persons in, say, the White House or Defense Department - can be sentenced to up to five years in jail for such leaks.
The statute also has additional requirements before the leak of the identity of a "covert agent" is deemed criminal. But it appears they are all satisfied here.
First, the leak must be to a person "not authorized to receive classified information." Any journalist - including Novak and Time - plainly fits.
Second, the insider must know that the information being disclosed identifies a "covert agent." In this case, that's obvious, since Novak was told this fact.
Third, the insider must know that the U.S. government is "taking affirmative measures to conceal such covert agent's intelligence relationship to the United States." For persons with Top Secret security clearances, that's a no-brainer: They have been briefed, and have signed pledges of secrecy, and it is widely known by senior officials that the CIA goes to great effort to keep the names of its agents secret.
A final requirement relates to the "covert agent" herself. She must either be serving outside the United States, or have served outside the United States in the last five years. It seems very likely that Mrs. Wilson fulfills the latter condition - but the specific facts on this point have not yet been reported.
How the Law Protects Covert Agents' Identities
What is not in doubt, is that Mrs. Wilson's identity was classified, and no one in the government had the right to reveal it.
Virtually all the names of covert agents in the CIA are classified, and the CIA goes to some effort to keep them classified. They refuse all Freedom of Information Act requests, they refuse (and courts uphold) to provide such information in discovery connected to lawsuits.
Broadly speaking, covert agents (and their informants) fall under the State Secrets privilege. A federal statute requires that "the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible for protecting intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure." It is not, in other words, an option for the CIA to decide to reveal an agent's activities.
And of course, there's are many good reasons for this - relating not only to the agent, but also to national security. As CIA Director Turner explained in a lawsuit in 1982, shortly after the Intelligence Identities Act became law, "In the case of persons acting in the employ of CIA, once their identity is discerned further damage will likely result from the exposure of other intelligence collection efforts for which they were used."
The White House's Unusual Stonewalling About an Obvious Leak
In the past, Bush and Cheney have gone ballistic when national security information leaked. But this leak - though it came from "two senior administration officials" - has been different. And that, in itself, speaks volumes.
On July 22, White House press secretary Scott McClellan was asked about the Novak column. Offering only a murky, non-answer, he claimed that neither "this President or this White House operates" in such a fashion. He added, "there is absolutely no information that has come to my attention or that I have seen that suggests that there is any truth to that suggestion. And, certainly, no one in this White House would have given authority to take such a step."
So was McClellan saying that Novak was lying - and his sources were not, in fact, "two senior administration officials"? McClellan dodged, kept repeating his mantra, and refused to respond.
Later, McClellan was asked, "Would the President support an investigation into the blowing of the cover on an undercover CIA operative?" Again, he refused to acknowledge "that there might be some truth to the matter you're bringing up." When pressed further, he said he would have to look into "whether or not that characterization is accurate when you're talking about someone's cover."
McClellan's statement that he would have to look into the matter was disingenuous at best. This ten-day old column by Novak had not escaped the attention of the White House. Indeed, when the question was first raised, McClellan immediately responded, "Thank you for bringing that up."
As David Corn has pointed out, what McClellan did not say, is even more telling than what he said. He did not say he was trying to get to the bottom of the story and determine if it had any basis in fact. He did not say the president would not tolerate such activities, and was demanding to know what had happened.
Indeed, as Corn points out, McClellan's remarks "hardly covered a message from Bush to his underlings: don't you dare pull crap like this." Indeed, they could even be seen as sending a message that such crimes will be overlooked.
Frankly, I am astounded that the President of the United States - whose father was once Director of the CIA - did not see fit to have his Press Secretary address this story with hard facts. Nor has he apparently called for an investigation - or even given Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson a Secret Service detail, to let the world know they will be protected.
This is the most vicious leak I have seen in over 40 years of government-watching. Failure to act to address it will reek of a cover-up or, at minimum, approval of the leak's occurrence - and an invitation to similar revenge upon Administration critics.
Congressional Calls For Investigation Should Be Heeded
Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) was the first to react. On July 22, he delivered a lengthy speech about how the Bush Administration was using friendly reporters to attack its enemies. He knew this well, because he was one of those being so attacked.
"Sadly, what we have here," Durbin told his colleagues, "is a continuing pattern by this White House. If any Member of this Senate - Democrat or Republican - takes to the floor, questions this White House policy, raises any questions about the gathering of intelligence information, or the use of it, be prepared for the worst. This White House is going to turn on you and attack you."
After Senator Durbin set forth the evidence that showed the charges of the White House against him were false, he turned to the attacks on Ambassador and Mrs. Wilson. He announced that he was asking the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate this "extremely serious matter."
"In [the Administration's] effort to seek political revenge against Ambassador Wilson," Durbin said, "they are now attacking him and his wife, and doing it in a fashion that is not only unacceptable, it may be criminal. And that, frankly, is as serious as it gets in this town."
The House Intelligence Committee is also going to investigate the Wilson leak. "What happened is very dangerous to a person who may be a CIA operative," Congressman Alcee Hastings (D - FL), a member of the Committee, said. And the committee's chairman, Porter Gross (R- FL), a former CIA agent himself, said an investigation "could be part of a wider" look that his committee is taking at WMD issues.
In a July 24 letter to FBI Director William Mueller, Senator Charles Schumer (D -NY) demanded a criminal investigation of the leak. Schumer's letter stated, "If the facts that have been reported publicly are true, it is clear that a crime was committed. The only questions remaining to be answered are who committed the crime and why?"
The FBI, too, has confirmed that they are undertaking an investigation.
But no one should hold their breath. So far, Congress has treated the Bush Administration with kid gloves. Absent an active investigation by a grand jury, under the direction of a U.S. Attorney or special prosecutor, an FBI investigation is not likely to accomplish anything. After all, the FBI does not have power to compel anyone to talk. And unless the President himself demands a full investigation, the Department of Justice is not going to do anything - unless the Congress uncovers information that embarrasses them into taking action.
While this case is a travesty, it won't be the first one that this administration has managed to get away with. Given the new the nadir of investigative journalism, this administration has been emboldened. And why not? Lately, the mainstream media has seemed more interested in stockholders than readers. If Congress won't meaningfully investigate these crimes - and, indeed, even if it will - it is the press's duty to do so. Let us hope it fulfills that duty. But I am not holding my breath about that, either.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 12:25:21 AM · #39 |
And yet another blunder by the Bush WH. They appoint Ahmed Chalabi as chief of the Iraqi National Congress and Iraqi Governing Council and he's got a long history of corruption. Now we find out that he's been passing US secrets to Iran.
Excerpts from THIS CNN article.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. intelligence officials on Friday said Ahmed Chalabi, a member of the Iraqi Governing Council with ties to senior Pentagon officials, gave intelligence secrets to Iran so closely held in the U.S. government that only "a handful" of senior officials know them.
The information he has passed on, as one U.S. official put it, "could get Americans killed."
Even Gen. Anthony Zinny has admitted that this administration has screwed things up.
Gen. Zinni: We 'Screwed Up' in Iraq
The speech comes just a day after four-star General Anthony Zinni, who was once in charge of all American troops in the Middle East, appeared on 60 Minutes and scathingly criticized the administration's handling of Iraq. Zinni, the former commander-in-chief of the United States Central Command said, "At this stage, it should be evident to everybody that they've screwed up." He later added, "To think that we are going to 'stay the course,' --- the course is headed over Niagara Falls. I think it's time to change course a little bit, or at least hold somebody responsible for putting you on this course. Because it's been a failure." (From democracynow.org)
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 01:19:51 AM · #40 |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 10:50:20 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Here you go, RonB.
Some "fascinating propaganda" for you, from Richard Nixon's lawyer, as published in FindLaw:
The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic:
The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives
By JOHN W. DEAN |
All I can say is WOW - you are the cut & past KING!
Too bad you don't read what you post thouroughly. Let me fish out some key stuff for you. First, it should be noted that Dean is writing in an editorial style - so it is understandable that he feels free to use whatever adjectives/adverbs convey his opinion, and, in fact, that he states his opinion as though it were fact. But, he is still careful to use phrases such as:
In other words... ( spin follows )
The answer is clear... ( though it obviously isn't, so conjecture follows )
No doubt... ( or is there? why say this if there isn't? )
The answer is plainly... ( again, it obviously isn't )
Now the question is... ( warning, innuendo follows )
...may both apply... ( or not )
...it is difficult to know... ( but not a barrier to conjecture )
It seems very likely... ( but may not be )
What McClellan did not say, is even more telling that what he said... ( insert conjecture and/or innuendo here )
...they could even be seen as... ( insert conjecture here )
And here is a REAL classic ( even repeated twice, for emphasis ):
"If the reported facts are true"
Huh? If the facts are true?
FYI, if they are facts, they have to be true, don't they? Otherwise they aren't facts.
Anyway, since it's such a long post, I won't refute each and every point. Just be aware that every major point that is made is preceded with a disclaimer such as I have listed above.
Ron |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 11:58:48 AM · #42 |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 12:18:57 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Here you go, RonB.
Some "fascinating propaganda" for you, from Richard Nixon's lawyer, as published in FindLaw:
The Bush Administration Adopts a Worse-than-Nixonian Tactic:
The Deadly Serious Crime Of Naming CIA Operatives
By JOHN W. DEAN |
All I can say is WOW - you are the cut & past KING!
Too bad you don't read what you post thouroughly. Let me fish out some key stuff for you. First, it should be noted that Dean is writing in an editorial style - so it is understandable that he feels free to use whatever adjectives/adverbs convey his opinion, and, in fact, that he states his opinion as though it were fact. But, he is still careful to use phrases such as:
In other words... ( spin follows )
The answer is clear... ( though it obviously isn't, so conjecture follows )
No doubt... ( or is there? why say this if there isn't? )
The answer is plainly... ( again, it obviously isn't )
Now the question is... ( warning, innuendo follows )
...may both apply... ( or not )
...it is difficult to know... ( but not a barrier to conjecture )
It seems very likely... ( but may not be )
What McClellan did not say, is even more telling that what he said... ( insert conjecture and/or innuendo here )
...they could even be seen as... ( insert conjecture here )
And here is a REAL classic ( even repeated twice, for emphasis ):
"If the reported facts are true"
Huh? If the facts are true?
FYI, if they are facts, they have to be true, don't they? Otherwise they aren't facts.
Anyway, since it's such a long post, I won't refute each and every point. Just be aware that every major point that is made is preceded with a disclaimer such as I have listed above.
Ron |
That's quite a good trashing of the article. Shame several of your accusations are off the mark (two different people are quoted as saying 'if the reported facts are true' one a lawyer, one a US senator, both who, (and I assume like you) would understand that the only place that the facts under consideration can be decided would be in court, with actual confirmation that she was a CIA agent.
Though you could quite easily read through it and pick out all the non-editoral comments from this lawyer and perhaps not spend your entire time trying to avoid acutal facts by looking for the non-issues. I realise of course that that is all you normally do, but it gets quite tiresome as a debating tactic. At some point it wouldn't hurt to actually address the issues at hand rather than continually trying to shoot the messenger(s).
For example, just because no doubt you'll ask for 'proof' here are some facts from the article:
On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother of three-year-old twins - was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm.")
Why was Novak able to learn this highly secret information? It turns out that he didn't have to dig for it. Rather, he has said, the "two senior Administration officials" he had cited as sources sought him out, eager to let him know. And in journalism, that phrase is a term of art reserved for a vice president, cabinet officers, and top White House officials.
On July 17, Time magazine published the same story, attributing it to "government officials." And on July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." More specifically, according to a "senior intelligence official," Newsday reported, she worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer."
Leaking the Name of a CIA Agent Is a Crime
The Espionage Act of 1917
The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.
In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite.
and so on - see, it isn't so hard to look for the facts, but that would get in the way of trying to trash the message, wouldn't it ?
The FBI, too, has confirmed that they are undertaking an investigation.
Message edited by author 2004-05-26 12:24:36.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 12:41:52 PM · #44 |
more links on the Nick Berg beheading questions:
lots of links
some pictures compairing similarities/differences
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else"
- Theodore Roosevelt |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 01:40:12 PM · #45 |
| wouldn't it be easier to fake a beheading then doing it for real. it makes no sence to actually go through with it for real if the whole thing is a hoax. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 01:59:31 PM · #46 |
Message edited by author 2004-05-26 14:00:00.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 02:00:18 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
more links on the Nick Berg beheading questions:
lots of links
some pictures compairing similarities/differences
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. In either event, it is unpatriotic not to tell the truth, whether about the president or anyone else"
- Theodore Roosevelt |
You know whats funny???
I have that same chair. I have 3 of them on my patio. I guess Nick Berg was beheaded at my place also.
LOL....
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 02:13:57 PM · #48 |
Man those chairs are popular aren't they? I've got one too, only mine's gray.
|
|
|
|
05/26/2004 03:43:28 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
That's quite a good trashing of the article. Shame several of your accusations are off the mark (two different people are quoted as saying 'if the reported facts are true' one a lawyer, one a US senator,... |
Yes, I know. But since it was ( said by two different people ) and quoted twice, I said it was repeated ( In other words, quoted twice ).
Originally posted by Gordon:
...both who, (and I assume like you) would understand that the only place that the facts under consideration can be decided would be in court, with actual confirmation that she was a CIA agent. |
Hmm. My take on it is that if it has to be decided in court, then it isn't fact. It could be ALLEGED, or SUPPOSED, or something like that, but it can't be stated as FACT until it is, in fact, fact.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Though you could quite easily read through it and pick out all the non-editoral comments from this lawyer and perhaps not spend your entire time trying to avoid acutal facts by looking for the non-issues. I realise of course that that is all you normally do, but it gets quite tiresome as a debating tactic. At some point it wouldn't hurt to actually address the issues at hand rather than continually trying to shoot the messenger(s). |
If the facts are, indeed, facts, there is no use debating them. They're facts. However, if they are presented as facts, but are NOT facts - well, then I am inclined to debate them. I will be glad to address the issues, when you decide to present the issues plainly and not just rely on someone else's lengthy tome in which you maintain that some issues are buried.
Originally posted by Gordon:
For example, just because no doubt you'll ask for 'proof' here are some facts from the article: |
emphasis mine. You obviously believe that all of the following are FACTS. I will attempt to enlighten you.
Originally posted by Gordon:
On July 14, in his syndicated column, Chicago Sun-Times journalist Robert Novak reported that Valerie Plame Wilson - the wife of former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, and mother of three-year-old twins - was a covert CIA agent. (She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm.") |
Facts?: 1) Novak wrote an article on July 14. 2) It was a syndicated column. 3) He is a journalist. 4) He is a journalist for the Chicago Sun-Times. 5) His article reported that Valerie Plame Wilson was a covert CIA agent. 6) Valerie is the wife of Joseph C Wilson IV. 7) Joseph is a former ambassador 8) She is a mother. 9) Her children are three-yer-old twins. 10) She had been known to her friends as an "energy analyst at a private firm".
Responses: 1) True 2) True 3) True 4) True 5) FALSE: He said, quote "Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction." He did NOT use the word COVERT. 6) True 7) True 8) True 9) True 10) I can neither confirm nor deny
Originally posted by Gordon:
Why was Novak able to learn this highly secret information? It turns out that he didn't have to dig for it. Rather, he has said, the "two senior Administration officials" he had cited as sources sought him out, eager to let him know. And in journalism, that phrase is a term of art reserved for a vice president, cabinet officers, and top White House officials. |
Facts?: 1) Novak learned some information. 2) The information was highly secret. 3) He didn't have to dig for it. 4) He has said that the "two senior Administration officials" sought him out. 5) They were eager to let him know 6) in journalism, that phrase is a term of art reserved for a vice president, cabinet officers, and top White House officials
Responses: 1) True 2) IFFY: Don't know if highly is a correct description, but it should have been secret. Then again, in Novak's own words, quote "How big a secret was it? It was well known around Washington that Wilson's wife worked for the CIA. Republican activist Clifford May wrote Monday, in National Review Online, that he had been told of her identity by a non-government source before my column appeared and that it was common knowledge. Her name, Valerie Plame, was no secret either, appearing in Wilson's "Who's Who in America" entry." 3) FALSE: Novak DID go digging for information. In his words, quote "I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment." So he called a "senior Administration official". 4) FALSE: As I said in response to item #3, Novak called them. Again, in his own words, quote "The published report that somebody in the White House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me as a willing pawn is simply untrue."[/b] 5) FALSE: The information slipped into a conversation. In Novak's own words, quote "I asked why Wilson was assigned the mission to Niger. He said Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife. It was an offhand revelation from this official, who is no partisan gunslinger." 6) If you, or your "source" say so. I wouldn't know, not being a journalist
Originally posted by Gordon:
On July 17, Time magazine published the same story, attributing it to "government officials." And on July 22, Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." More specifically, according to a "senior intelligence official," Newsday reported, she worked in the "Directorate of Operations [as an] undercover officer." |
Facts?: 1) Time Magazine published a story on July 17 2) They attributed it to "government officials" 3) Newsday's Washington Bureau confirmed something on July 22 4) What they confirmed is "that Valerie Plame ... works at the agency [CIA] on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity." 4) Newsday reported something else 5) She worked in the "Directorate of Operations 6) She worked [as an] undercover officer
Responses: 1) True 2) True 3) Apparently true 4) Probably true, but since they don't quote the source of confirmation, it is unsubstantiated 4) True 5) True 6) True
Originally posted by Gordon:
Leaking the Name of a CIA Agent Is a Crime |
Facts?: 1) Leaking the name of a CIA agent is a crime
Responses: 1) True
Originally posted by Gordon:
The Espionage Act of 1917
The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak - to the horror of the news media. It was a case that was instituted to make a point, and establish the law, and it did just that in spades.
In July 1984, Samuel Morrison - the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name - leaked three classified photos to Jane's Defense Weekly. The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, which had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite. |
Facts?: 1) The Reagan Administration effectively used the Espionage Act of 1917 to prosecute a leak 2) - to the horror of the news media 3) It was a case that was instituted to make a point 4) and establish the law 5) and it did just that in spades 6) In July 1984, Samuel Morrison leaked something to Jane's Defense Weekly 7) That something was three classified photos 8) The photos were of the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered aircraft carrier 9) The photos had been taken by a U.S. spy satellite 10) Morrison was the grandson of the eminent naval historian with the same name.
Responses: 1) True 2) No Idea, you'll have to ask someone from the news media whether they were horrified or not 3) Pure conjecture 4) FALSE: Under the Constitution, only the Legislative Branch can establish law, not the Executive Branch. 5) Couldn't have - see response to Item #4 6) True 7) True 8) True 9) True 10) True
Originally posted by Gordon:
and so on - see, it isn't so hard to look for the facts, but that would get in the way of trying to trash the message, wouldn't it ? |
No, it's not too hard to look for the facts, but it IS a bit more difficult to differentiate which "facts" are "facts" and which are not.
Originally posted by Gordon:
The FBI, too, has confirmed that they are undertaking an investigation. |
True
By the way, If you are going to quote authors that use other authors for their "facts", be sure that the authors you quote have accurately quoted their sources. To wit: Read BOTH of Robert Novak's articles before relying on mis-information from a third party.
FYI
Novak's FIRST Article
Novak's SECOND Article
The SECOND Article is the one that is more pertinent. I suggest you read it.
Ron
Message edited by author 2004-05-26 15:46:18. |
|
|
|
05/26/2004 03:56:03 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Achiral...in another thread you stated that you did NOT think war was an atrocity...if you want, I'll find it, but I would like to know what you mean because that to me seems to be the most crazy statement I have ever heard. Does that relate to the "rapture" in any way?
Originally posted by achiral:
why wouldn't he scream "the US is behind this!" as they were killing him? you think he would just sit quietly watch that happen? hardly. he already had two bad runins with us officials there, so i doubt he would look at them in good light. you people are crazy |
|
i don't think war is an atrocity, you are correct. but that has nothing to do with what i'm trying to say(obviously i haven't explained it clear enough i'm sure)
my point is if berg were surrounded by americans don't you think he would have said something as they were pushing him tothe ground about an american conspiracy? i find it hard to believe that he would just sit there and say nothing while US operatives did this to him
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 06/21/2025 02:31:08 AM  |
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: 06/21/2025 02:31:08 AM EDT.
|
