Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Palomar · 2005-05-16 09:29:22

Question: Why are we held in such low repute in the Arab world that a report issued as a "maybe" causes anti-US riots?
They hate our freedoms!

*Some of it is no doubt due to mistakes/bad policies on our part. Our fault.

Some of it is doubtless due to brainwashing via their religious leaders and state-run TV. Their fault.

The world is full of sheeple, Bill. Regardless of where on the globe they reside or skin color.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-05-16 10:34:45

I think not.

Truer words were never spoken. :laugh:

What really hasn't gotten much air-time is the Downing street memo from a meeting with the Bush Administration back in 2002. It stated that the US administration knew that there was no credible intelligence to support the WMD assertion, and that the intelligence was being fit to make the case anyway because Iraq was viewed as a soft target.

But of course reporting on that now would simply be supporting terroism. :laugh:

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, … 07,00.html

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-16 11:27:58

But of course reporting on that now would simply be supporting terroism.

Funny ain't it, sometimes reporting news, even if true, is working as a propagandist for the enemy.

It stated that the US administration knew that there was no credible intelligence to support the WMD assertion, and that the intelligence was being fit to make the case anyway because Iraq was viewed as a soft target.

Which is possible. As I've pointed out on many occasions there was a need to expand operations beyond Afghanistan. Fundie Islam can only be defeated with a broad approach and another theater was needed. Iraq had alot going for it in that regard. Maybe the weapons were long gone, maybe they were smuggled out, maybe they're still sitting in a hole someplace. We don't know, but we know that Saddam once had various WMD agents and hasn't be able to account for them. Was that aspect overhyped? Most certainly. But that doesn't make it false, and being false doesn't make it lying.

If you say something you believe is true and I prove it false, it doesn't make you a liar. Same thing here.

But there we are, everyone wants a clean black and white world and what we have is a stirred up bucket of grey goo.

Bondo politics, if you will.

clark · 2005-05-16 12:04:17

I believe your full of sh*t. Prove me wrong, but I still ain't lying. :laugh:

Palomar · 2005-05-16 15:17:30

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/World/Media_Watch]Read the signs in the photo

*Interesting, huh? They appear to have been written/produced by the same source.

So.

1. Are they mad at Newsweek too?
2. Do they believe Newsweek screwed up/went FUBAR?
3. If -not-, why do they want a magazine BANNED which did them a favor?

Other sign:

1. They want Bush to apologize for the story (which was Newsweek's fault...but then these people don't understand the concept of "freedom of the press" because they don't know freedom of the press).
2. If the story ISN'T true, why should Bush apologize for a specific incident which DIDN'T happen?

Looks like a contradicting messages to me. There's more I could say, but some things are probably best left UNSAID...

--Cindy

Palomar · 2005-05-16 15:26:20

--besides what I wrote above--

PS - - Newsweek has NOT retracted the story.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … quran]They have now...

*I think we should take Mr. Whitaker and colleagues responsible for this fiasco, put them in soldier's outfits complete with all the "accessories," strap a parachute to their backs and kick their butts over the area.

Let them deal with it, up-close and personal.

There's got to be more consequences to this sort of unforgiveable irresponsible stupidity than a meeping, mewling "I'm sorry."

Again: A mere allegation with questionable proof behind it is a mere allegation with questionable proof behind it. Whether it's Bush/WMDs or this horrific situation.

I guess they didn't learn from Dan Rather's experience.

--Cindy

reddragon · 2005-05-16 16:17:23

Maybe the weapons were long gone, maybe they were smuggled out, maybe they're still sitting in a hole someplace. We don't know, but we know that Saddam once had various WMD agents and hasn't be able to account for them.

Before the war started I feared that it might provide an opportunity for weapons to fall into terrorist hands, something that wasn't that likely before hand. (Although he certainly was evil, Saddam almost certainly never had any links to Al Quaida.) If Iraq did have WMD, I ceratinly hope that some terrorist didn't snatch them up after the Baathists lost control of the country but before the U.S. was able to secure important military sites.

If you say something you believe is true and I prove it false, it doesn't make you a liar.

True, and it may apply to both Bush and Newsweek. However, if your incorrect belief causes serious problems and even death, it doesn't mean you're not responsible just because you were saying what you honestly thought was true. This is especially the case if you could have avoided the catastrophe by doing a bit more research. Again this may apply to both Bush and Newsweek.

There's got to be more consequences to this sort of unforgiveable irresponsible stupidity than a meeping, mewling "I'm sorry."

Makes sense in theory, but it would be hard to turn into law. Reporters need to be able to tell us what's going on in the world without fear that they may be punished for some little mistake. (Granted this was a big mistake, but where do you draw the line to avoid it applying to something less important.) Such a law would provide a powerful tool for the government to exert undue control over the media. Certainly freedom of the press is sometimes abused, but I tend to believe that's better than losing that freedom.

BWhite · 2005-05-16 17:28:55

A coerced retraction has the same value as a coerced confession - - zero!

The bigger question is why have our policies in Afghanistan have left the place such a powderkeg that a tiny Newsweek entry can cause such an explosion?

Edited By BWhite on 1116286204

Palomar · 2005-05-16 17:47:41

A coerced retraction has the same value as a coerced confession - - zero!
The bigger question is why have our policies in Afghanistan have left the place such a powderkeg that a tiny Newsweek entry can cause such an explosion?

*Your proof the retraction was coerced?

As for your question: Is it just our policies? Can't be combined with brainwashing, their state-controlled medias, etc.? Can't be troublemakers who simply hate Westernism keeping the pot stirred behind the scenes?

It's a combination of factors, IMO.

Bill, have you answered a question I've asked more than once? Namely: What was America doing that was oh-so terrible in the mid-1970s, during all those nasty airplane hijackings (which often resulted in rapes and murders)?

Might the phrase "it takes TWO" be apt?

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-16 17:52:15

Cindy:-

1. Are they mad at Newsweek too?
2. Do they believe Newsweek screwed up/went FUBAR?
3. If -not-, why do they want a magazine BANNED which did them a favor?
Other sign:
1. They want Bush to apologize for the story (which was Newsweek's fault...but then these people don't understand the concept of "freedom of the press" because they don't know freedom of the press).
2. If the story ISN'T true, why should Bush apologize for a specific incident which DIDN'T happen?

Good point.
The placards are contradictory and therefore make no sense.

The Arab people are extraordinarily demonstrative. By comparison with northern Europeans, for example, their emotions are just barely sub-surface and apt to come bubbling and gushing to the surface at the slightest provocation.
Highly emotional people are not necessarily logical people; and any human being in the grip of emotional turmoil will behave irrationally.
Anyone with half a brain adjusts his/her approach to different people in the light of what they know about the sensibilities of those people. This is the essence of social interaction. So, if you run Newsweek and you know the power you have as a result of that, and if you know you're dealing with extraordinarily inflammatory material you know will reach a highly emotional, excitable, and potentially violent audience, you tread very carefully.

This is a very delicate time in the politics of the Middle East. The first glimmerings of democracy are showing in Arab countries all across the region, spurred in part by the liberation of Iraq from the grip of a savage despot. If things go well, millions of oppressed people may one day enjoy the kind of privileges we take for granted - yes, including freedom of the press.
If things turn sour, the old status quo will re-establish itself and the breeding grounds for religious fanatics will be fertile once more. Not to mention that the efforts of the Coalition forces will have been in vain.

There is no excuse for Newsweek's behaviour. As CC says so rightly, it is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium. In fact, given the experience of the outlet involved (and this stretches to many other media outlets, too), it cannot be seen as an error of judgment.
I call it politically motivated treachery.
You cannot plead stupidity in a case like this. Afghan people have been killed as a direct result and scores have been injured. There's no doubt at all that more of our troops on the ground will probably be killed than might otherwise have died, again as a direct result of this irresponsibility.
And don't tell me nobody foresaw this when the story was aired.

We can't stop our media expressing their distaste for the Iraq War in despicable displays of petulant mischief-making like this. Our Western freedoms ensure that and that's what we're fighting for in places like Iraq.
But I can only hope the perpetrators cringe in guilt when more of our soldiers die as a result of the pot they keep stirring so maliciously. ???

BWhite · 2005-05-16 17:59:56

A coerced retraction has the same value as a coerced confession - - zero!
The bigger question is why have our policies in Afghanistan have left the place such a powderkeg that a tiny Newsweek entry can cause such an explosion?
*Your proof the retraction was coerced?

All Washington came crashing down on Newsweek.

Unless we open up Gitmo (a genuine blemish on American principles!) we will NEVER know the truth.

= = =

When did the Taliban fall? Why haven't we made the Afghan people more grateful? if we had done the nation-building thing right, they would have answered the Newsweek story by saying: "No way! Americans are not like that!"

Sadly, we are like that - - too often.

???

= = =

Our nation-building must be SO successful that Koran-flushing stories (whether true or not) are rejected by the Arab world.

OR, we can just kill 'em all and be done with it.

Palomar · 2005-05-16 18:46:04

Unless we open up Gitmo (a genuine blemish on American principles!) we will NEVER know the truth.

*First of all, isn't a Koran too big to be flushed down a toilet? I own a copy of the Koran -- it's a thick book. (And NO, I don't believe in desecrating or damaging items of other peoples' faiths/religions...even if I'm not religious myself).

I'm all for opening up "Gitmo." All for it.

But what could we hope to find there NOW? If a comparable incident DID happen, that event is long since over. Could we find proof?

If we don't find proof, people will yell "cover up."

If we do find proof, others will claim it's a "plant."

::shakes head::

Probably Newsweek DID retract from all the heat coming down on it. But I hope they retracted out of principle (lack of proof).

--Cindy

P.S.: There's a rule in transcription (pertaining primarily to punctuation): "When in doubt, leave it out." Newsweek was in doubt...they should have left it out.

They published that story on the word of ONE source -- just 1 (and unidentified so far) -- who has now recanted his/her story.

It's disgraceful and inexcusable.

BWhite · 2005-05-16 19:54:08

The whole thing?

Nah. One rumor is one page at a time. After being used. ???

The litany of inexcusable behavior is so very long its hard to say where to start. I am willing to trade Robert Novak for Michael Isikoff. Novak is the guy who published the name of a covert CIA operative allegedly as payback ordered by Cheney.

Judith Miller is the NY Times reporter who trumped up the WMD stuff.

Lock-up Novak & Miller and Isikoff and one of Isikoff's pals all in the same cell and you got yourself a deal, from me.

But blast Newsweek and say we will get Novak later and lets forget the WMD stuff and then I say that's hypocritical.

Shaun Barrett · 2005-05-16 20:50:35

Bill:-

Our nation-building must be SO successful that Koran-flushing stories (whether true or not) are rejected by the Arab world.
OR, we can just kill 'em all and be done with it.

"Our nation-building must be SO successful that Koran-flushing stories (whether true or not) are rejected by the Arab world."
- Yes, that would be just so lovely.

"OR, we can just kill 'em all and be done with it."
- Hmmm. But that's against everything we stand for.

So, we have to choose one or the other, black or white, and there's no middle ground? We can't guarantee a story-book outcome, so we should never act. ???
I think I see.

[O.K., O.K. So I'm being a little facetious. But Bill started it .. about 2 years ago! ]

Palomar · 2005-05-17 04:13:59

The whole thing?
Nah. One rumor is one page at a time. After being used. ???
The litany of inexcusable behavior is so very long its hard to say where to start. I am willing to trade Robert Novak for Michael Isikoff. Novak is the guy who published the name of a covert CIA operative allegedly as payback ordered by Cheney.
Judith Miller is the NY Times reporter who trumped up the WMD stuff.
Lock-up Novak & Miller and Isikoff and one of Isikoff's pals all in the same cell and you got yourself a deal, from me.
But blast Newsweek and say we will get Novak later and lets forget the WMD stuff and then I say that's hypocritical.

*Bill:

I'm NOT taking sides here.

I thought I already made myself clear that EVERYONE should be held accountable -- regardless.

I don't give a damn if they're reporters, gov't officials, Dem, Repub, whatever else; if it's about WMDs or the alleged Koran flushing incident.

I'm not playing favorites.

The point of my outrage is basically that the LAST thing we need is more fuel added to an already bad fire.

That's it.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-17 05:12:52

Word of a Koran flushing incites the Arab world to fits of violence, a few WMD stories dupe the entire American public into war, finger pointing ensues, "you lied, no you lied! They should pay for tricking us!"

All in the name of democracy! :laugh:

Silly humans. If such a large percentage of the global population is that irrational and/or stupid, this whole "democracy" idea is ill-conceived at its core.

Just a thought from your friendly neighborhood fascist.

Palomar · 2005-05-17 05:31:08

Silly humans. If such a large percentage of the global population is that irrational and/or stupid, this whole "democracy" idea is ill-conceived at its core.

*Gave me a chuckle in spite of myself and everything else.

I think you're right, Cobra. As much as I'd like to disagree.

Really, it's not surprising (to me, anymore) that democracies in general don't last much past 200 years.

People are such suckers for punishment, everyone thinks they KNOW what's best (even if they can't balance their own checkbook), few folks can reason let alone compromise, let alone conceive of a win/win strategy.

Hard-headed slow learners seem to dominate the human population.

Some of this was excusable in the days before the printed word. I wonder if humans will ever LEARN from history, see past patterns and attempt to avoid repeating them, etc.

--Cindy

clark · 2005-05-17 05:32:09

A Koran handled by a non-believer is a violation of its sacredness. :laugh:

Anyway, Newsweek did run the story (prior to print) past some person in the Pentagon. That person disagreed with one aspect of the story, and it wasn't related to the Koran.

There was no reaction or counter from anyone for 11 days after the story ran.

The Newsweek article referenced an anonymous source (who had been used before, thus demonstrating a certain level of reliability) who had seen a Pentagon report that would soon be published that was to detail the Koran incident.

Furthermore, Newsweek reporting on the Koran incident was inline with other accounts of abuse within Gitmo. There have also been many accounts of the Koran being abused in other ways (a Hunger strike by detainee's was started due to mistreatment of the Koran, and ended only by an apology given by the base commander).

Now, perhaps Newsweek could be colored irresponsible if we lived in a time prior to Abu Gharib, water-boarding, sending prisoners off to other countries for torture, and secret detentions, but the Newsweek article came out after all of these events. Is it so hard now to believe something like this?

That's the fundamental problem. Any agency that reports on abuse by the military is found credible given our previous known behavior.

Personally, I think we're missing the forest for the tree's. This is ONE incident, the outcome and veracity of which is largely irrelevant. I'm talking big picture folks.

We have squandered our good name and the trust of the world for what? A war predicated on proven lies? The wasting of our military strength to the point where recruitment numbers are not going to be met, which thus brings the specter of a draft back to the front? To act in ways not in line with the fundamental principles we claim to uphold?

Newsweek acted on an assertion that cannot be proved correct, and people died as a result. Our President acted on an assertion that cannot be proved correct, and people died. Some here call for the heads over at Newsweek, while satisfied with a "blue ribbon" panel to investigate intelligence failures in the government. (Note to ourselves, we have evidence that the intelligence was fitted to policy)

Anyway, I read in the paper, "Dog bites Man", I hear PETA is calling for a retraction as the source for the story was anonymous and dogs have been euthanized as a result.

This isn't insane, this is simply inane. :laugh:

DonPanic · 2005-05-17 07:09:54

Word of a Koran flushing incites the Arab world to fits of violence, a few WMD stories dupe the entire American public into war, finger pointing ensues, "you lied, no you lied! They should pay for tricking us!"
All in the name of democracy! :laugh:
Silly humans. If such a large percentage of the global population is that irrational and/or stupid, this whole "democracy" idea is ill-conceived at its core.
Just a thought from your friendly neighborhood fascist.

LO
C'mon, don't say anything, you're all but stupid ??? and you perfectly know as well as me that those which manipulate Arabs with Koran one side and Americans which manipulate the american crowd with lies about WMD the other side are people which don't care a dim about democracy.

The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national autodetermination practiced in past centuries ..." -

Palomar · 2005-05-17 07:15:29

There is no excuse for Newsweek's behaviour. As CC says so rightly, it is the equivalent of yelling "Fire!" in a crowded auditorium. In fact, given the experience of the outlet involved (and this stretches to many other media outlets, too), it cannot be seen as an error of judgment.
I call it politically motivated treachery.
You cannot plead stupidity in a case like this. Afghan people have been killed as a direct result and scores have been injured. There's no doubt at all that more of our troops on the ground will probably be killed than might otherwise have died, again as a direct result of this irresponsibility.
And don't tell me nobody foresaw this when the story was aired.
We can't stop our media expressing their distaste for the Iraq War in despicable displays of petulant mischief-making like this. Our Western freedoms ensure that and that's what we're fighting for in places like Iraq.
But I can only hope the perpetrators cringe in guilt when more of our soldiers die as a result of the pot they keep stirring so maliciously. ???

*I agree, Shaun.

Perhaps what's most disturbing is that the reaction went on for DAYS...and Newsweek had nary a thing to say until yesterday.

Were they gloating? Apathetic? Afraid to say anthing for genuine shock at the reaction?

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-05-17 07:40:28

The Arab people are extraordinarily demonstrative. By comparison with northern Europeans, for example, their emotions are just barely sub-surface and apt to come bubbling and gushing to the surface at the slightest provocation.

LO
Aren't these guys big children ?
Can't you stop with stupid préjugés ?
Where people are ineducated, you can lead them to scream anything, otherwise the are the same the world over.
Some are reactive, others cold blooded with the same distribution

BWhite · 2005-05-17 18:44:45

Heh!

Today, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan lectured the media about a “journalistic standard that should be met” before running with a story. Fine, but isn't there also a political standard of accountability that should be met as well? McClellan's issue with the Newsweek story was that it was “based on a single anonymous source who cannot personally substantiate the report.”
Remember when we learned that the evidence for
Iraq's supposed mobile biological weapons labs came
from an unreliable source? What was McClellan's response then?
QUESTION: Does it concern the President that the primary source for the intelligence on the mobile biological weapons labs was a guy that U.S. intelligence never every interviewed?
MCCLELLAN: Well, again, all these issues will be looked
at as part of a broad review by the independent commission
that the President appointed… But it's important
that we look at what we learn on the ground and compare that
with what we believed prior to going into Iraq.
[White House Press Gaggle, 4/5/04]
There you have it. When confronted with an anonymous source who provided faulty intelligence that the President relied upon to go to war, McClellan chose not to talk about standards of accountability that should be met. Instead, the White House passed the buck to an independent commission and suggested that it didn't matter what subsequent information they learned about Iraq's intelligence because they didn't know it when they went to war. Newsweek has taken responsibility by retracting its story. Will President Bush take responsibility for his own errors?
QUESTION: He's the president of the United States. This thing he told the country on the verge of taking the nation to war has turned out to be, by your own account, not reliable. That's his fault, isn't it?
MCCLELLAN: No.

Before Isikoff ever ran with the Koran story Dick Cheney and Colin Powell screamed from the rooftops about Saddam's mobile weapons labs based on a single source code-named - - no lie here:

Curveball

BWhite · 2005-05-17 19:59:01

Newsweek perhaps retracted their story however the Philadeliphia Inquirer ran a similar story on January 20, 2005.

And there are numerous reports of hunger strikes by Gitmo detainees concerning disrespect for the Koran.

BWhite · 2005-05-18 05:36:34

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … Washington Post says:

By Carol D. Leonnig
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 18, 2005; Page A12
Newsweek magazine's now-retracted story that a military guard at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, flushed a copy of the Koran down a toilet has sparked angry denunciations by the White House and the Pentagon, which have linked the article to Muslim riots and deaths abroad.
But American and international media have widely reported similar allegations from detainees and others of desecration of the Muslim holy book for more than two years.

Yup.

Blame Newsweek and the story just goes away.

Or not.

clark · 2005-05-18 06:11:07

A failed foreign policy can't be the fault of the Administration, it's the fault of reporters! It's the fault of the media. It's liberabl Democratic sinful naysayers!

It's the blame game!

Considering Bush's low opinion of FDR, perhaps he hasn't heard the old phrase regarding where the buck stops. :laugh:

So in recent news, Iran's foreign head huncho showed up in Iraq 48 hours after Rice. He *drove* to Baghdad! :laugh:

Apparently Iran is demonstrating their resolve to maintain a sphere of influence over a newly liberated Iraq. Peace, Harmony, and Theocr...er, Democracy for All!

The Foreign Minister of Iran will be meeting Sistani... American officals still have yet to meet with him directly. :laugh:

This is all so brilliant. Only a Harvard Grad could have masterminded it!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2005-05-16 09:29:22

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#227 2005-05-16 10:34:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#228 2005-05-16 11:27:58

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#229 2005-05-16 12:04:17

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#230 2005-05-16 15:17:30

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#231 2005-05-16 15:26:20

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#232 2005-05-16 16:17:23

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#233 2005-05-16 17:28:55

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#234 2005-05-16 17:47:41

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#235 2005-05-16 17:52:15

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#236 2005-05-16 17:59:56

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#237 2005-05-16 18:46:04

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#238 2005-05-16 19:54:08

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#239 2005-05-16 20:50:35

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#240 2005-05-17 04:13:59

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#241 2005-05-17 05:12:52

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#242 2005-05-17 05:31:08

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#243 2005-05-17 05:32:09

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#244 2005-05-17 07:09:54

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#245 2005-05-17 07:15:29

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#246 2005-05-17 07:40:28

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#247 2005-05-17 18:44:45

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#248 2005-05-17 19:59:01

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#249 2005-05-18 05:36:34

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

#250 2005-05-18 06:11:07

Re: Political Potpourri IV - Continued from previous

Board footer