|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 11/22/2005 : 01:18:10 [Permalink]
|
Well I listened to some of Woodward on the Larry King interview. I take it his position is one of very narrow mindedness. He sees Fitzy as a threat the the free press by having demanded exposure of news sources. So all of Woodwards complaints about Fitz had nothing to do with the Libby indictment, but rather the the Judy Miller jailing. Woodward seems to think the attempt to discredit Wilson's report wasn't significant.
I stick by my first conclusion, Woodward doesn't get it. And given his history, he certainly should. He seems just all caught up in himself. He got the big interview with Bush. He kept Deepthroat a secret for 30 years and on and on. But the fact we have a new administration trying to deceive the country, over something as critical as war, and the fact they obviously knew they had done something wrong or why the hell else would any of them have needed to cover anything up is described by Woodward as "nothing there", meaning no story, no big deal.
I hope I never get that old. Old so that your brain gets fixed in some limited context. What a shame. |
 |
|
|
vrwc
New Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 15:57:14 [Permalink]
|
Kil
AMERICAN SPECTATOR, September '05. SADDAM REMOVAL, WHY THE US HAD NO ALTERNATIVE,William Shawcross.
The 9/11 report contains several references to the Saddam-terrorists connections. If you like I'll dig up the citations. Right now the book is buried in a bunch of stuff in the back of my truck cab. It is no secret that Saddam offered a bounty to be paid to the families of suicide bombers. Are we supposed to say, "ah, that was only Hamas and Hezbolla and wasn't a U.S. interest"?
We're kind of wandering here. Maybe a seperate Iraq question for discussion?
Anyway, accusations are cheap. I haven't seen any evidence introduced for the oft proclaimed "Bush lied us into Iraq".Evidence that he had intelligence exonerating Saddam, that he withheld from congress and the public. vrwc |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 16:24:00 [Permalink]
|
vrwc, do you consider it a lie to pass along false intelligence reports to the American people without mentioning that intelligence officials deem the sources of these reports to be unreliable? Because I do. It's a lie of omission. Why on earth would anyone have to produce "intelligence exonerating Saddam?" Just admit that withholding critical stipulations on the quality and trustworthiness of the intelligence is in and of itself a kind of lie. It has the same effect--people draw conclusions favorable to your agenda that they perhaps wouldn't have arrived at if you revealed the whole truth.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/22/2005 19:10:28 |
|
|
|
vrwc
New Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 16:42:56 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by Kil
Like his accusations that only the political left resorts to name calling to shortcut discussing issues, vrwc seems unaware of the possibility that conservative political pundits ever spin things in their favor. His accusations that the independent investigator in the leak case, for example, is a willing participant in an ax to grind liberal consperiacy to bring down or at least tarnish the Bush administration is an example of that. The fact that this particular prosecutor has brought more democrats than republicans up on charges in his pursuit of prosecuting ethics violations by politicians is by in large ignored by the republican spin machine. So I find all the hand waving about political motivations laughable. Spin spin and more spin. The fact is Fitzgerald has remained amazingly focused on the only issue he was hired to investigate. He has resisted any temptation (if he felt tempted) to broaden his investigation.
Starr kept at it until he had something. After years of investigating Whitewater, the only thing he could hang Clinton on was for lying under oath. And that charge was unrelated to what he was hired to do.
“A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest” seems to apply to vrwc. He says that he wants to talk about issues and yet all he delivers is the spin. So maybe it's time to drop the pretences and concentrate on spin vs. spin. Like his continued insistence that the left mostly argues by calling conservatives names, even as the conservatives do the same to the left, perhaps he is unaware that conservatives spin too. And in fact, they spin better than the left. They are far more polished.
At this point, having read all of vrwc's posts, I would say that he is only arguing from spin. It's as though he is of the belief that propaganda is news and can be trusted, as long as it's right wing propaganda…
____________________________________________________________________
Kil
Most conservative pundits label themselves as such.I don't know of any who try to pretend they're only news reporters and "objective".
Where did I say the leak investigator is part of a political conspiracy? You're putting words in my mouth. I said he didn't resolve the question he was assigned to investigate. He spent over two years and didn't even unearth Woodward. I see Woodward will now be attacked by the same left who used to adore him.
I don't know why you keep bringing up Ken Starr. I don't bring up Lawrence Welch, who spent almost 7 years and $100million trying to get something on Reagan. I've earlier made the point that the principals in the illegal Chinese campaign contribution scandal were allowed to flee to China, so that ended that part. Anyway, the DNC admitted the contributions were "improper" but there was no way to give them back.
As to my "spin". Make it concise and specific and I'll answer it.
Meantime, conservatives are gleefully anticipating the Libby trial When his defense lawyers start calling up people like Joe Wilson under oath the left is going to squirm. Alas it probably get to trial, the indictment about lying to cover up a non crime may not be actionable. vrwc
|
|
|
|
vrwc
New Member
47 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 17:06:25 [Permalink]
|
[quote]Originally posted by H. Humbert
vrwc, do you consider passing along false intelligence reports to the American people without mentioning that intelligence officials deem the sources of these reports to be unreliable? Because I do. It's a lie of omission. Why on earth would anyone have to produce "intelligence exonerating Saddam?" Just admit that withholding critical stipulations on the quality and trustworthiness of the intelligence is in and of itself a kind of lie. It has the same effect--people draw conclusions favorable to your agenda that they perhaps wouldn't have arrived at if you revealed the whole truth.
___________________________________________________________________
HH
Please be specific about which intellegence reports were known to be false. Congress certainly had the authority question any of them and the accusers in congress,now, were using phrases like "without qurestion" when they voted to resume the war.
Please note the onus was on Saddam to prove he wasn't violating the cease fire agreement. So where's the proof of his innocence?
From my perspective the mass graves of Saddam's genocide programs are reason enough. They surpass anything Slobodan did in the Bosnia
arena and Clinton went to war without congress' approval. vrwc |
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 17:10:01 [Permalink]
|
| How does one prove a negative? Isn't the burden of proof on the prosecution (the US in this case)? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 18:57:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by vrwc
Please note the onus was on Saddam to prove he wasn't violating the cease fire agreement. So where's the proof of his innocence?
Nevermind that the U.S. Government considers people to be innocent until proven guilty. Except, of course, for "illegal combatants," but Saddam surely wasn't one of them.quote:
From my perspective the mass graves of Saddam's genocide programs are reason enough.
I thought we went into Iraq to protect the U.S. from Saddam. But as far as you're concerned, we went in to get justice for people who weren't even U.S. citizens? Is that correct? If so, when did Bush decide to be Sheriff of the World? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2005 : 21:13:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
vrwc:
Where did I say the leak investigator is part of a political conspiracy? You're putting words in my mouth. I said he didn't resolve the question he was assigned to investigate.
I went back and looked. You are right, you did not say that he was out to get anyone. I took it that way and I stand, (for the second time in this stinking thread,) corrected. As for resolving the question he was assigned to investigate, I do believe he is still working on it. Perhaps the original source of the leak is too well insulated to be caught. Did someone in the Bush administration leak it? Why did administration officials talk to so many journalists about it if they didn't want it leaked?
quote:
vrwc:
Alas it probably get to trial, the indictment about lying to cover up a non crime may not be actionable.
Getting a blowjob, even in the Whitehouse, isn't a crime. Apparently lying about it under oath is…
Did Bush lie? See my post:
http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5267
Follow the link. It's a very good read…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
