The Lying American Press

[Jason]

lenbrazil said:

That was an offer unlikely to have been accepted.

"Unlikely to be avoided" is not the same as "unavoidable."

There wasn’t sufficient evidence that Saddam was an “imminent threat” his refusing to go into exile is not a reasonable justification for war.

The U.S. Congress disagreed.

“Joseph Wilson was a Bush critic long before his trip to Niger…”
Citation, please.

Wilson donated the maximum allowable amount to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, and so did his wife (as a seperate donation).

Was it perhaps to Bush Sr. who nominated him ambassador to Gabon? He spent over 20 years in foreign service mostly in Africa including Niger but also in Iraq during which time he won several foreign service awards. He was The National Security Council’s Senior Director for African Affairs under Clinton. Are you really sure “he wasn’t very well suited to the mission at hand”?

Well, not absolutely sure, but the fact that the Senate Intelligence committee concluded that Wilson's mission actually provided evidence for Iraq attempting to purchase the yellowcake, rather than evidence against it speaks to his possible bias.

Perhaps you read too much Ann Coulter

Probably. Just about any amount of Ann Coulter is probably too much, and I have run into her stuff occasionally.

The Times knew about the illegal wiretaping before the election but "sat" on the story at the administration's request.

The wiretapping program has never been determined to be illegal.

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo,

Two unnamed, and therefore unverifiable British officials, and even so, did they specifically claim that the U2 plan really was discussed, or were they confirming the memo in general?

We’ll have to agree to disagree on Bush’s wisdom he always struck me as a complete idiot when he spoke “off the cuff” but then again I’m partisan* , he could well have been ‘brainstorming'.

Public speaking ability, especially "off-the-cuff" isn't a real indication of intelligence or the lack thereof.

[rocky]

David, what part of "I'm not chasing down your links" did you fail to understand in my last post? Also, you've completely left out the meat of my argument. That's intellectually dishonest of you. You also failed to answer the questions I asked in the section you did quote.

Yesterday I didn't have time to answer all of the responses. That was a response to echnaton's post--not yours.

Oh, and I'm not chasing down most of your links, as I told you before.

Those links explain the points I'm trying to make. All you have to do is scan them. If you think there are inaccuracies in them, tell me what they are and we can talk about it.
Just showing scorn for them without commenting on them is not very impressive.

I note that you include Lies My Teacher Told Me, however, which I have read. Yes. There are inaccuracies, there are speculations not labelled as such, and--if you know what you're looking for--there is obvious bias. I got rid of my copy because it was so clearly trying to make a point without knowing a lot of what was being talked about.

You have to go into some detail and say what is inaccurate. The guy seemed to do good research. I didn't get the impression you got at all.

For example, the author mentions at some point the Plague, saying something about it only being in the 14th Century. (I think. I hope, anyway, as that's when the most famous outbreak was.) However, one of the other extremely famous outbreaks in it was in 1665, well after the events he's using the Plague to make a point about, and that outbreak killed an enormous number of people. In fact, the Black Death only stopped hitting London on a regular basis after the Great Fire, a fact the author did not seem to know.

You seem to have completely forgotten what the book said. He didn't go into any detail about the plague in Eurpope at all. He said the only plague we learn about in school in the US is the Black Plague that occurred in Europe. He said that the British brought a plague to America that wiped out the indians and that's is why it was so easy to take possesion of the land. The point he was trying to make was that we are taught in school that we displaced the native Americans because we were superior to them. The real reason he alleges is that the plague killed nineteen out of every twenty native Americans so there was almost nobody to fight. They only had to start cultivating the already-cleared land that they found. I'll have to look for my copy and read that part again but he did cite his sources.

And if you couldn't find anything that said how nasty the US government was, you clearly weren't looking terribly hard. The Howard Zinn you cite above was first published in 1980. As I've said before, if it's published by a US publishing house, it's sold in the US. If you couldn't find it, again, you weren't looking terribly hard.

In fact, I doubt you were looking at all.

That was before I ever heard of Howard Zinn. I wasn't specifically looking for his book. I used to look around in bookstores and libraries and I never found anything that objectively explained American imperialism. Do you think mainstream bookstores and libraries carried Zinn's book in the late eighties and early nineties? It might have been in a larger library but I never came across it. Just because something is in print doesn't mean that it's in the bookstores and libraries.

You're not being very clear about your position on American imperialism. Those links I posted explain a lot of it. Here are some more.

www.wilsonsalmanac.com/mark_twain_war_prayer.html

atheism.about.com/b/a/119948.htm

www.marxists.de/culture/twain/noteach.htm
(excerpt)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As U.S. industry expanded at a dizzying pace at the end of the nineteenth century America was using its growing might to challenge its European rivals and conquer markets and territory abroad. In the process, it violated other peoples’ rights to independence and self-determination – the very values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The country’s first efforts to build empire focused on wresting Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines from Spanish control in the Spanish-American War of 1898. The war was portrayed as one to free subject peoples from Spanish tyranny, and this initially confused Twain. But he quickly came around. For Twain, and many others at the time, Americas imperialist expansion violated the expectation that America would be different from the colonial powers of Europe. Twain explained in 1900 how he went from praising to condemning the “American Eagle”:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please state exactly what your position on American imperialism is.

[stutefish]

Please state exactly what your position on American imperialism is.

What does that have to do with anything?

Why not state our positions on principles of physics, the scientific method, and rules of evidence, and proceed on that basis?

[gillianren]

rocky said:

Yesterday I didn't have time to answer all of the responses. That was a response to echnaton's post--not yours.

Then why did you quote me?

Those links explain the points I'm trying to make. All you have to do is scan them. If you think there are inaccuracies in them, tell me what they are and we can talk about it.
Just showing scorn for them without commenting on them is not very impressive.

Neither is linking to them without discussion, as we keep telling you.

Besides, I can't possibly comment on the validity of a book I haven't read based solely on the Amazon page, and since my reading list just keeps getting longer, I don't really feel like adding books to it just for the sake of someone whose arguments I have never felt had any real intellectual weight.

You have to go into some detail and say what is inaccurate. The guy seemed to do good research. I didn't get the impression you got at all.

Probably because you haven't put as serious a study into US history as I. I have advanced college credit in it from a, shall we say, unconventional college here in Washington. In fact, the scorn of the average Evergreen student for the US government is so well-known that, every time there's a protest in Olympia, the local paper assumes that Greeners were behind it.

The professor who taught the history I learned at Evergreen has a pretty impressive historical record all by himself--he was one of the first teachers of one of the first black students at the Unviersity of Georgia, and he's been threatened by the Klan in the past. He was part of the March on Washington--in fact, he extended a leave he had from the college where he was teaching at the time in order to be there.

Both Howard Zinn and Ralph Nader were on the list of potential graduation speakers for my graduating class; we ended up with Ken Kesey after Michael Moore screwed us over.

In short, there is no whack-a-loon theory of history I haven't heard, and I have the scholarly basis to reject quite a lot of them. Based on all of that, I can assure you that the obvious bias of Lies My Teacher Told Me means that it's not a work I would consider for serious argument. (For one, he completely blows off the Mormon church's complicity in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

You seem to have completely forgotten what the book said. He didn't go into any detail about the plague in Eurpope at all. He said the only plague we learn about in school in the US is the Black Plague that occurred in Europe. He said that the British brought a plague to America that wiped out the indians and that's is why it was so easy to take possesion of the land. The point he was trying to make was that we are taught in school that we displaced the native Americans because we were superior to them. The real reason he alleges is that the plague killed nineteen out of every twenty native Americans so there was almost nobody to fight. They only had to start cultivating the already-cleared land that they found. I'll have to look for my copy and read that part again but he did cite his sources.

He said, as I recall, that it "only lasted a few years." Which is completely wrong. What's more, I was never taught that Europeans were "superior" to the Americans, and I had, by the point at which I learned about the existence of his book, been taught far more details about the American pandemic than he gave. For one, I come from a place in California called "Altadena." Its neighboring city, Pasadena, was intended to be given a name in the language of its native, not a Spanish one, but the language was dead by 1888, when the city was named.

That was before I ever heard of Howard Zinn. I wasn't specifically looking for his book. I used to look around in bookstores and libraries and I never found anything that objectively explained American imperialism. Do you think mainstream bookstores and libraries carried Zinn's book in the late eighties and early nineties? It might have been in a larger library but I never came across it. Just because something is in print doesn't mean that it's in the bookstores and libraries.

Yes, actually, Zinn's book was in those very libraries and bookstores. As were the political works of Noam Chomsky. In fact, how would you know they weren't, if you'd never heard of Howard Zinn? Is it possible you just assume so? Is it, in fact, more than likely that you're stating what you believe based on what you assume to be true?

And, indeed, given your own logic, that it is possible means it is true, just as it being "possible" that evidence has been planted means that evidence was indeed planted.

You're not being very clear about your position on American imperialism. Those links I posted explain a lot of it. Here are some more.
[snip of links I won't follow]
Please state exactly what your position on American imperialism is.

I don't think you'll believe I really think what I do, because it isn't black and white, but all right.

I believe that the man I love is currently on another continent fighting an illegal war that we got into because Saddam Hussein insulted our current President's old man. I believe he intended to get us embroiled in such a conflict from the moment he took office. I believe that he's primarily interested in the freedom of people who look like us, and his so-called interest in the freedom of the Iraqi people is just to sound good.

I believe that the US has, in its history, done truly shameful things, and that it continues to do them. However, I believe those things quickly come to light, though the average American ignores them. I believe that half the problem in the US is caused by the average American not voting and certainly not becoming educated about how their government works.

It is also caused by people who blindly oppose the system just because it is the system, such as imbeciles who assume that the US government is lying every moment. The situation could be improved if people truly looked at evidence objectively, instead of assuming that the US was either always right or wrong. No one is always right or always wrong.

As I've said before, an objective examination of the evidence shows that Apollo is real, 9/11 was not an inside job, and Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK. This is not based on my political beliefs. This is based on evidence.

[twinstead]

Rocky, ideology is a cool thing to discuss with your mates at a pub over a nice pint slapping yourselves on the back and whining about how evil America is, but to use ideology as evidence in a situation like this, to the kind of people who hang out here, well that's just silly.

I hate ideologues. Seriously. I don't care what flavor, leftist, rightist, religious, Christian, Muslim, whatever.

Extremists are mindless idiots. And I mean that in the nicest way Rocky...

[echnaton]

rocky said:

You talk about this “official American version” as if it exists. Unfortunately for your argument, there is no such thing. History books are written by a individuals who are not censored into writing one version of events. Anyone can publish anything, and pretty much they do. Just because some sources don’t follow your political agenda doesn’t make the anything official.

I don't recall ever seeing any info like what those links say in any library or bookstore in the US. I used to look for it too. I haven't been back since 95 so I don't know what it's like now. The press certainly didn't tell us what was really going on.

So because something doesn't show up on your anti American web sites it must be in some way "official?" Do you agree that there is no official history or news that others must follow in publishing in the U.S.?

[Jason]

gillianren said:

Based on all of that, I can assure you that the obvious bias of Lies My Teacher Told Me means that it's not a work I would consider for serious argument. (For one, he completely blows off the Mormon church's complicity in the Mountain Meadows Massacre.)

Well even a broken clock can be right twice a day.

[3onthetree]

Back to the lying media. I don't think it is just a problem in the US, though they seem to be a lot less subtle about it there from what I've seen from afar.

www.brasschecktv.com/page/7.html

In Australia at least they do pretend to be at odds with politicians from time to time, though never taken any deeper than a superficial level. Our next Prime Minister will be a creation of the media, a Labour prime minister will win with the aid of Liberal spoilers like Hanson who is being groomed on the sidelines now. She's being recreated into a media darling much the same way Obama will be run in the US.

Forgot to add that Rupert learnt his trade here in Aust, he's poor powerful now than ever.

www.brasschecktv.com/page/45.html

[lenbrazil]

jason said:

lenbrazil said:

That was an offer unlikely to have been accepted.

"Unlikely to be avoided" is not the same as "unavoidable."

Bush had other options than giving Saddam such an ultimatum. It made war all but inevitable since the chances were very slim he would accept. Even Bush Sr. seemed to think it was a mistake at time. Pearle has since admitted it probably was.

There wasn’t sufficient evidence that Saddam was an “imminent threat” his refusing to go into exile is not a reasonable justification for war.

The U.S. Congress disagreed.

Based on (possibly intentionally) faulty intelligence and a broken promise to avoid war.

“Joseph Wilson was a Bush critic long before his trip to Niger…”
Citation, please

Wilson donated the maximum allowable amount to Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign, and so did his wife (as a seperate donation).

Citation. But presuming it’s true OK he’s a Democrat does that equal being a critic of Bush? Does it demonstrate bias as you insinuated?

Well, not absolutely sure, but the fact that the Senate Intelligence committee concluded that Wilson's mission actually provided evidence for Iraq attempting to purchase the yellowcake, rather than evidence against it speaks to his possible bias.

Citation please, it could speak to nothing more than a difference of opinion. So are you withdrawing your claim he was unsuited for the job and only appointed due to his political connections?

Perhaps you read too much Ann Coulter

Probably. Just about any amount of Ann Coulter is probably too much, and I have run into her stuff occasionally.

At least we can agree about Coulter, guess I unfairly stereotyped you.

The Times knew about the illegal wiretapping before the election but "sat" on the story at the administration's request

The wiretapping program has never been determined to be illegal.

Never determined by whom? - Bush’s lawyers and Justice Department? Numerous law professors including some Republicans said it was illegal. They were in violation of the 4th Amendment which guarantees:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

Application of the amendment to wire taps and other types of bugging (a situation unforeseeable in 1789) is not disputed even by the most conservative justices. The Bush wiretaps even violated the FISA statue which allowed after the fact warrants (issued up to 48 hours after the initiation of bugging IIRC) to be issued by secret courts which approved something on the order of 99.99% of the governments requests.

In any case this has nothing to do with the point I was making which was that the Times withheld a story potentially embarrassing to Bush till after the election.

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo,

]

Two unnamed, and therefore unverifiable British officials,

Using anonymous sources has long been considered a valuable journalist tool and has uncovered a lot of skullduggery. In such situations one has to consider the reputation and reliability of the journalist and publication. Despite a few limited problems with a few of it reporters outside of far right, far left and CT circles the NY Times is one of the best respected news outlets in the world.

Also you ignore that a NSC spokesman seemed to accept the authenticity of the memo as did the Guardian (also highly respected), a London TV station and Tony Blair’s wife’s boss!

The lack of any sort of a denial by the White House or any of its supporters is also quite telling.

…and even so, did they specifically claim that the U2 plan really was discussed, or were they confirming the memo in general?

The latter it seems but they might have vouched for the content as well. It really amounts to the same thing. If the memo was authentic the only excuse would be that its author made it up.

We’ll have to agree to disagree on Bush’s wisdom he always struck me as a complete idiot when he spoke “off the cuff” but then again I’m partisan* , he could well have been ‘brainstorming'.

Public speaking ability, especially "off-the-cuff" isn't a real indication of intelligence or the lack thereof.

True if someone makes a couple of stupid remarks but Bush does so repeatedly. He normally seems lost in situations unforeseen by his handlers. He repeatedly failed to turn a profit in one of the world’s most lucrative businesses despite family connections and being son of one of the most powerful people on the planet. What evidence do you have that he is of average or better intelligence?

As I pointed out the suggestion could have been the result of brainstorming which would leave him off the ‘stupid idiot’ hook of not the ‘deceitful liar’ one.

[Jason]

lenbrazil said:

Bush had other options than giving Saddam such an ultimatum. It made war all but inevitable since the chances were very slim he would accept. Even Bush Sr. seemed to think it was a mistake at time. Pearle has since admitted it probably was.

It may have been a mistake. I personally think it was a mistake to give Iraq so much warning before invading. The invasion was just about the most telegraphed punch ever.
What do you think would have been a better option than giving an ultimatum? What else would Saddam have listened too at that point?

Based on (possibly intentionally) faulty intelligence and a broken promise to avoid war.

I think Congress knew full well that a war was the most likely outcome of their vote.

But presuming it’s true OK he’s a Democrat does that equal being a critic of Bush? Does it demonstrate bias as you insinuated?

The source is www.fec.gov. Mr. Wilson contributed to both President Bush's campaign and Al Gore's campaign, but he contributed twice as much to Al Gore. Wilson also admitted that he voted for Al Gore in the election.

I admit the evidence the Mr. Wilson was a Bush critic is not strong until after the Niger trip and Mr. Wilson's op-ed piece in the New York Times. He is obviously a Bush critic after this point, and has made the statement "'it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican, even for dog catcher."

[Concering Wilson's trip to Africa providing evidence that Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium] Citation please, it could speak to nothing more than a difference of opinion. So are you withdrawing your claim he was unsuited for the job and only appointed due to his political connections?

No. Wilson's approach to the investigation was simply to interview Niger government officials, hardly a thorough investigation. (Imagine the questioning: "Did you sell yellowcake to Iraq, against UN sanctions?" "Why no, of course not. Iraq never even asked.")
The source that the Senate Intelligence Committee found evidence that Iraq had been trying to purchase yellowcake from Wilson's investigation is the "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments in Iraq", available at intelligence.senate.gov. The former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, said in his interviews with Wilson that he was approached in 1999 about "expanding commercial relations" and that he took that to mean a purchase of yellowcake. That portion of the Senate report concludes that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake, based in part on Wilson's interview with Mayaki.

[Concerning the warrantless wiretapping of international calls that involve a terrorist suspect] Never determined by whom?

Never determined in a court of law. Since you can find legal opinions on both sides of the question, a court of law would be the only place to find a definitive answer if it was illegal or not. It has not been tested in court, and since arrangements have been made to allow the FISA court to provide oversight over the program it probably never will.

In any case this has nothing to do with the point I was making which was that the Times withheld a story potentially embarrassing to Bush till after the election.

Even the Times realized at first that tipping the terrorists off to an effective program was not conducive to U.S. security. After there were no further attacks on U.S. soil they changed their mind.

Using anonymous sources has long been considered a valuable journalist tool and has uncovered a lot of skullduggery.

Point taken, but anonymous sources should never be considered the most reliable. Confirmation should come from other sources.

In such situations one has to consider the reputation and reliability of the journalist and publication. Despite a few limited problems with a few of it reporters outside of far right, far left and CT circles the NY Times is one of the best respected news outlets in the world.

Not by me.
I consider the NY Times to be generally very far left of where it should be if it were providing unbiased news coverage.

Also you ignore that a NSC spokesman seemed to accept the authenticity of the memo as did the Guardian (also highly respected), a London TV station and Tony Blair’s wife’s boss!

It is the claim that President Bush was seriously proposing getting a U2 in false colors shot down that I find unbelievable.

The lack of any sort of a denial by the White House or any of its supporters is also quite telling.

Sometimes denying something gives it cache it doesn't deserve. That's the reason NASA dropped the project to write an anti-Apollo hoax book.

If the memo was authentic the only excuse would be that its author made it up.

It's remotely possible that President Bush could have been joking with the Prime Minister, and the memo writer was not accurately reporting the emotional context of the remarks.

True if someone makes a couple of stupid remarks but Bush does so repeatedly.

I'll admit that he is not a scintillating public speaker.

What evidence do you have that he is of average or better intelligence?

He was a graduate of Yale. Although he considered himself an average student, an average student at Yale is not of average intelligence.
He was a fighter pilot. Pilots of supersonic high-performance aircraft (even in the Air National Guard instead of the regular service) are generally of above average intelligence.
He also obtained an MBA from Harvard - again something generally considered above average.
He made $15 million while managing the Rangers, which I would consider successful.

[gillianren]

jason said:

He was a graduate of Yale. Although he considered himself an average student, an average student at Yale is not of average intelligence.

Dude, he was a legacy whose professors can't even remember him! If he considers himself an average student, he must have a really low opinion of the average student, based on what I understand of his grades.

[lenbrazil]

jason said:

lenbrazil said:

Bush had other options than giving Saddam such an ultimatum. It made war all but inevitable since the chances were very slim he would accept. Even Bush Sr. seemed to think it was a mistake at time. Pearle has since admitted it probably was.

It may have been a mistake. I personally think it was a mistake to give Iraq so much warning before invading. The invasion was just about the most telegraphed punch ever.
What do you think would have been a better option than giving an ultimatum? What else would Saddam have listened too at that point?

Among the less than ideal options available ‘more of the same’ probably would been the least ruinous. Clamping down on problems with the “oil for food” program and placing additional pressure on countries helping Saddam might have helped a bit.

Quote:

Based on (possibly intentionally) faulty intelligence and a broken promise to avoid war

I think Congress knew full well that a war was the most likely outcome of their vote.

Perhaps you’re right but that doesn’t change the fact that:
- The intelligence was dead wrong possibly because it had been manipulated or because the intelligence community was telling the White House what it made clear it wanted to hear.
- Bush was insincere when he told congress and the American people he would only go to war as the last possible option

Quote:

But presuming it’s true OK he’s a Democrat does that equal being a critic of Bush? Does it demonstrate bias as you insinuated?

The source is www.fec.gov. Mr. Wilson contributed to both President Bush's campaign and Al Gore's campaign, but he contributed twice as much to Al Gore. Wilson also admitted that he voted for Al Gore in the election.

I admit the evidence the Mr. Wilson was a Bush critic is not strong until after the Niger trip and Mr. Wilson's op-ed piece in the New York Times. He is obviously a Bush critic after this point, and has made the statement "'it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican, even for dog catcher."

“Not strong” sounds like a euphemism for nonexistent if all you can come up with are a) he gave more to Gore than Bush and b) voted for Gore. If he so disliked Bush why would he have donated any money at all? I believe he made that quote after Bush’s cronies “outted” his wife.

Quote:

[Concering Wilson's trip to Africa providing evidence that Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium] Citation please, it could speak to nothing more than a difference of opinion. So are you withdrawing your claim he was unsuited for the job and only appointed due to his political connections?

No. Wilson's approach to the investigation was simply to interview Niger government officials, hardly a thorough investigation. (Imagine the questioning: "Did you sell yellowcake to Iraq, against UN sanctions?" "Why no, of course not. Iraq never even asked.")
The source that the Senate Intelligence Committee found evidence that Iraq had been trying to purchase yellowcake from Wilson's investigation is the "Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments in Iraq", available at intelligence.senate.gov. The former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, said in his interviews with Wilson that he was approached in 1999 about "expanding commercial relations" and that he took that to mean a purchase of yellowcake. That portion of the Senate report concludes that Iraq was attempting to purchase yellowcake, based in part on Wilson's interview with Mayaki.

Please cite which part of the report backs your conclusion. They said most but not all intelligence analysis though so but didn’t state their own opinion. The State Dept believed that Wilson’s report cast doubt on the CIA’s.(conclusion 13, pg 38) I only skimmed the Niger chapter but they seem rather dubious they mentioned the forged document and difficulty in transporting significant amounts of yellowcake without the US and French discovering it. Though you believe he did a poor job you haven’t shown he was unsuited due to lack of experience or pre-existing bias. a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/13jul20041400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/sec2.pdf

Quote:

[Concerning the warrantless wiretapping of international calls that involve a terrorist suspect] Never determined by whom?

Never determined in a court of law. Since you can find legal opinions on both sides of the question, a court of law would be the only place to find a definitive answer if it was illegal or not. It has not been tested in court, and since arrangements have been made to allow the FISA court to provide oversight over the program it probably never will.

Please provide the opinion of a legal scholar not directly linked to the Bush administration who agrees with you. The Constitution rather unambiguously says warrants are required for searches, the Supreme Court has only made exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Asking for test that is unlikely to take place is a bit disingenuous, but you are incorrect. FISA courts only hear warrant requests, a step the administration avoided. Any cases that came to trial would do so in a normal court. If the government tried to submit evidence from a warrentless wire tap defense counsel would certainly challenge its admissibility, I doubt even the Rehnquist court would rule in the government’s favor. Indeed the probable lack of admissibly of such evidence was one of the points of criticism. AFAIK the government has yet to tried to admit such evidence.

Oh and in case you forgot a federal judge already ruled that it was illegal. Will the goal posts move now?

tinyurl.com/222r34

Quote:

In any case this has nothing to do with the point I was making which was that the Times withheld a story potentially embarrassing to Bush till after the election

Even the Times realized at first that tipping the terrorists off to an effective program was not conducive to U.S. security. After there were no further attacks on U.S. soil they changed their mind.

Nor had there been any foreign terrorist attacks on US soil since the 1970’s I think it was (a couple of hijackings), there is no evidence the lack of further attacks was due to the illegal wiretapping program. The problem was not the wiretaps themselves but the lack of warrants.

Since FISA courts only turned down only 4 or 5 warrants (0.02%) and modified only 176 (0.9%) out of 18,761 requests and warrants cab be requested AFTER the fact on what basis do you justify the lack of warrants other than the arrogance of the Bush White House.

Do you really think Al-Queda didn’t already presume it was being surveilled?

Quote:

Using anonymous sources has long been considered a valuable journalist tool and has uncovered a lot of skullduggery

Point taken, but anonymous sources should never be considered the most reliable. Confirmation should come from other sources.

Other sources like Blair’s wife’s boss confirmed its authenticity.

Quote:

In such situations one has to consider the reputation and reliability of the journalist and publication. Despite a few limited problems with a few of it reporters outside of far right, far left and CT circles the NY Times is one of the best respected news outlets in the world

Not by me.
I consider the NY Times to be generally very far left of where it should be if it were providing unbiased news coverage.

Can you cite examples of such bias in its coverage? This was the paper of Judith Miller after all who served as a virtual mouthpiece for the administration’s claims about Iraqis WMDs. Other than that can you point any other bias drivel errors relating to national security/ foreign affairs?

Quote:

Also you ignore that a NSC spokesman seemed to accept the authenticity of the memo as did the Guardian (also highly respected), a London TV station and Tony Blair’s wife’s boss!

It is the claim that President Bush was seriously proposing getting a U2 in false colors shot down that I find unbelievable.

How is that any different than a CT dismissing evidence because it doesn’t jibe with their preconceived notions? Why is it unbelievable? He lied twice about seeing flight 11 hit the North Tower before going into the class room.

Quote:

The lack of any sort of a denial by the White House or any of its supporters is also quite telling

Sometimes denying something gives it cache it doesn't deserve. That's the reason NASA dropped the project to write an anti-Apollo hoax book.

Not applicable, no reputable news sources have backed the claims of the HBs nor did Van Braun’s wife’s boss.

Quote:

If the memo was authentic the only excuse would be that its author made it up

It's remotely possible that President Bush could have been joking with the Prime Minister, and the memo writer was not accurately reporting the emotional context of the remarks.

Yes remotely, it’s also remotely possible Silverstein meant “pull the building”

What evidence do you have that he is of average or better intelligence?

He was a graduate of Yale. Although he considered himself an average student, an average student at Yale is not of average intelligence.
He was a fighter pilot. Pilots of supersonic high-performance aircraft (even in the Air National Guard instead of the regular service) are generally of above average intelligence.
He also obtained an MBA from Harvard - again something generally considered above average.
He made $15 million while managing the Rangers, which I would consider successful.

It is unclear if his “accomplishments” were due to his abilities or his family’s wealth and influence. He went to Phillips Academy which traditionally sends a large portion of its student body to Yale which is also known for giving preferential admissions to “legacies” his father and grandfather studied there before him. He was a less than average student his GPA was 2.35. He almost certainly got into the ANG due to political pull. One also wonders why with his dismal grades at Yale why Harvard admitted him, could it have had anything to do with who his parents and grandparents were?

His success with the Rangers was also a bit suspect can you name any other managers of a major league sports team in the US who had absolute no previous sports experience and had failed in all his previous business ventures? Most of his profit was due to a sweetheart bonus and the team being bought for 50% over its assessed value*. Could it be that the people involved wanted to curry favor with him and his dad?
* espn.go.com/mlb/bush/timeline.html

[Jason]

lenbrazil said:

Among the less than ideal options available ‘more of the same’ probably would been the least ruinous.

And probably the least effective. It wasn't working already, so why would more of the same make any difference? Didn't someone on this thread earlier take the president to task for making "more of the same" his strategy in Iraq?

Perhaps you’re right but that doesn’t change the fact that:
- The intelligence was dead wrong possibly because it had been manipulated or because the intelligence community was telling the White House what it made clear it wanted to hear.

No one has proven that the intelligence was manipulated. Flawed yes manipulated no.

- Bush was insincere when he told congress and the American people he would only go to war as the last possible option

I don't think he was being insincere. Again, there's no way to prove that either way.

If he so disliked Bush why would he have donated any money at all?

Covering his bases.

Please cite which part of the report backs your conclusion.

Section 2-b:
"The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(deleted) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
"[The CIA's DO] said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting."

Please provide the opinion of a legal scholar not directly linked to the Bush administration who agrees with you.

No. You can find such opinions if you look for them.

Oh and in case you forgot a federal judge already ruled that it was illegal. Will the goal posts move now?

I had forgotten, because this ruling is basically meaningless - it was not the final word on the matter (it had been appealed). And as I said, it never will be determined whether the original program was illegal or not because it has now been altered to fend off the president's critics.

...on what basis do you justify the lack of warrants other than the arrogance of the Bush White House.

I don't. Arrogance may have been involved. I am generally in favor of the program, however - the intent of the New York Times in revealing the existence of the program was to attack the Bush Administration.

Do you really think Al-Queda didn’t already presume it was being surveilled?

No, but confirming their guess is not helpful.

Can you cite examples of such bias in its coverage?

I could, yes. I'll get back to you on that.

Why is it unbelievable?

Because it is. The President isn't that stupid.

He lied twice about seeing flight 11 hit the North Tower before going into the class room.

I wouldn't call that a deliberate lie. A mis-statement seems more likely. Do you remember the exact order in which you saw things on the news that day? I don't.

It is unclear if his “accomplishments” were due to his abilities or his family’s wealth and influence.

Admission might be gained because of contacts, but performance would be up to him alone. The Air National Guard wouldn't put someone in a fighter plane who couldn't handle it because of political contacts - there are plenty of other jobs they could have given him instead.
Also, his GPA was better than John Kerry's.

Can't you simply admit he isn't stupid and still disagree with him? Why does your criticism have to include a personal attack?

[lenbrazil]

jason said:

lenbrazil said:

Among the less than ideal options available ‘more of the same’ probably would been the least ruinous.

And probably the least effective. It wasn't working already, so why would more of the same make any difference?

As I said it wouldn’t have been a very attractive option but I believe America and the other Allies, Iraq, the Middle East, Afghanistan and the world would be better off than we are today.

Didn't someone on this thread earlier take the president to task for making "more of the same" his strategy in Iraq?

If you are referring to me you took my statement out of context. More of the same isn’t inherently bad if there isn’t a better option. Pre-invasion there wasn’t now there is. The US currently is in the midst of a ruinous war it has little chance of prevailing in, in a country whose populace doesn’t want us there. A war that has killed more than 3000 Americans and over 600,000 Iraqi civilians and has left the US and the “Allies” less safe than before, it is largely responsible for a growing deficit and has been a boon for Al Qaeda and other extremists, made the US hugely unpopular overseas (esp. in Muslim countries) over extended the US military, diverted resources from Afghanistan and strains the US’s relations with many of its allies. .

Perhaps you’re right but that doesn’t change the fact that:
- The intelligence was dead wrong possibly because it had been manipulated or because the intelligence community was telling the White House what it made clear it wanted to hear.

No one has proven that the intelligence was manipulated. Flawed yes manipulated no.

Proven no, strong indications yes (the Downing St. memo), the CIA etc at least telling the White House what it wanted to be told even more probable. The Senate Select Committee didn’t examine whether or not the intelligence had been “steered” because the Republican chairman put off such inquiries, now that a Democrat presides he might rue having done so.

- Bush was insincere when he told congress and the American people he would only go to war as the last possible option

I don't think he was being insincere. Again, there's no way to prove that either way.

I guess your right, no proof either way we are both swayed by our political biases. IMO the evidence shows he had already decided to go to war when he said he hadn't.

If he so disliked Bush why would he have donated any money at all?

Covering his bases.

Since donations are public and he gave Gore twice as much it wouldn’t have been a very effective policy. He says he was bi-partisan. He was retired from foreign service what would he have to gain currying influence? I don’t think the amount he donated would have bought much sway. You still haven’t shown any evidence of a pre-existing bias against Bush.

Please cite which part of the report backs your conclusion.

Section 2-b:
"The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(deleted) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."
"[The CIA's DO] said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting."

So perhaps Saddam had tried unsuccessfully to buy yellowcake in 1999, the Republican dominated committee seem to agree there was no evidence he was still trying in 2002 when Bush says he was and that such attempts were unlikely to bear fruit. The report admonished the DCI for not having read Bush’s speech and removing the yellowcake reference.

Please provide the opinion of a legal scholar not directly linked to the Bush administration who agrees with you

No. You can find such opinions if you look for them.

I haven’t that’s why I asked, if they are so readily available you should easily be able to cite a few

Oh and in case you forgot a federal judge already ruled that it was illegal. Will the goal posts move now?

I had forgotten, because this
ruling is basically meaningless - it was not the final word on the matter (it had been appealed). And as I said, it never will be determined whether the original program was illegal or not because it has now been altered to fend off the president's critics.

The goal posts moved as I expected, you asked for a determination from a judge, I gave you one. It’s been appealed but not overturn. How has the program been altered? Is the president now obeying the 4th amendment and getting warrants? If the question is now moot why is it under appeal?

...on what basis do you justify the lack of warrants other than the arrogance of the Bush White House.

I don't. Arrogance may have been involved. I am generally in favor of the program,

You can’t justify it but you support it? Why couldn’t they have gotten warrants?

however - the intent of the New York Times in revealing the existence of the program was to attack the Bush Administration.

Evidence?

Do you really think Al-Queda didn’t already presume it was being surveilled?

No, but confirming their guess is not helpful.

In “Touch of Evil” Charlton Heston’s character said (approximate quote) “the job of the policeman is only easy in a police state”. Orson Wells showed more wisdom than Bush and his cronies. Protecting the constitution is important.

Why is it unbelievable?

Because it is. The President isn't that stupid.

I think he is and he could have tossed the idea out without thinking about it very much. You’re still basically saying “the evidence must be fake because I don’t believe it’s true”. The authenticity of the memo was indirectly confirmed by someone from his administration.

He lied twice about seeing flight 11 hit the North Tower before going into the class room.

I wouldn't call that a deliberate lie. A misstatement seems more likely. Do you remember the exact order in which you saw things on the news that day? I don't.

No one saw the first crash on TV that day that clip did show up till 2 or 3 days later, it was the most pivotal day in his presidency, probably in his whole life. It was the most pivotal day in American history since Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination. It’s difficult to believe he couldn’t remember it a few months later. If he saw the second plane (flight 175) hit the 2nd tower (2 WTC) and thought it was the first crash and hadn’t figured it out month later he must really be a complete moron, did he think a TV news camera just happened to be trained on the top of the WTC? Could he have failed to notice that the other tower already was on fire?

It is unclear if his “accomplishments” were due to his abilities or his family’s wealth and influence.

Admission might be gained because of contacts, but performance would be up to him alone.

Yes and his performance at Yale wasn’t very impressive. I knew a Harvard legacy who freely admitted he never would have gotten in if it were for his dad, he told me getting in (for most people) was the hard part, getting passing grades wasn’t as hard as he expected.

Also, his GPA was better than John Kerry's.

Yeah LOL he had a 76 average and Bush a 77**. My point was that merely graduating from Yale with poor grades if he got in as a legacy isn’t very strong evidence of above average intelligence. Poor grades there aren’t evidence in themselves of stupidity. Kerry has proved his intelligence in other ways. “He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker”* he still is very articulate though he had a head start having a rich aunt to bank his prep school and Ivy League education his accomplishments (getting into Yale, top grades at officer training school, success as a prosecutor and politician) were of his own making.

* www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/06/07/yale_grades_portray_kerry_as_a_lackluster_student/

The Air National Guard wouldn't put someone in a fighter plane who couldn't handle it because of political contacts - there are plenty of other jobs they could have given him instead.

I don’t think that can be stated with certainty, how familiar are you with the internal workings of the Texas ANG back then? The commanded IIRC was a friend of the family his dad was one of the most influential men in the state and was an ex-aviator, ee had graduated from one of the top schools in the country they might have assumed he was intelligent. He only flew training missions and drills and it isn’t clear how many flights he took in fighters. His performance was even more dismal than at Yale he was suspended "due to failure to perform to USAF/TexANG standards and failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered. ... Officer has made no attempt to meet his training certification or flight physical."

www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-bush-national-guard-timeline,0,6302344.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

Can't you simply admit he isn't stupid and still disagree with him? Why does your criticism have to include a personal attack?

Because hard as it is for you to believe I honestly think he is an idiot, I disagree with everyone else who is or was part of his administration but I don’t think they are stupid, most are very intelligent. You are the one who made a big deal about his supposed intelligence. He is President not someone I’m debating on a forum there’s no need for me to be polite and not express what I think about him.

[Jason]

lenbrazil said:

If you are referring to me you took my statement out of context.

I honestly don't remember who made the statement or if it was several people.

The US currently is in the midst of a ruinous war it has little chance of prevailing in, in a country whose populace doesn’t want us there.

The majority of the Iraqi populace don't want us to leave yet.
The terrorists would have no possibility at all of winning the war in Iraq if there weren't politicians here at home willing to exploit the war for their political benefit. Internal divisions used to end at the coastline, but the current political climate has served to encourage and embolden the terrorists. I believe if the US had presented a united front from the beginning that the war would be over and successful at this point - there would be a functioning and secure democracy in Iraq. If the terrorists had seen no possibility of dividing America against itself and turning public opinion against the war they would have put their efforts elsewhere.

The goal posts moved as I expected, you asked for a determination from a judge, I gave you one. It’s been appealed but not overturn.

I'm sorry if I'm tugging on the goalposts - as I said I had forgotten that a judge did rule that way because I felt it was of no consequence whatsoever (as it would certainly be appealed).

How has the program been altered?

As I understand it the program was altered so that the FISA court would provide warrants and oversight for it.

If the question is now moot why is it under appeal?

It's possible the appeal has been dropped - I'm not certain where it's at.

You can’t justify it but you support it? Why couldn’t they have gotten warrants?

I'm not a legal scholar, so I rely on the opinions of others to do my justifying for me on a legal basis.
Just a cursory glance at Wikipedia shows arguments from John Eastman, Chapman Law professor and Director of the Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Robert Turner, Associate Director of the Center for National Security Law at the University of Virginia, and Michael Stokes Paulsen, Associate Dean, University of Minnesota Law School arguing that the program was legal.

I personally am all for the idea of monitoring the phone conversations of those who may be planning future 9/11s - therefore I support the program in principle, presuming it can be done legally.

Protecting the constitution is important.

I generally agree.

No one saw the first crash on TV that day that clip did show up till 2 or 3 days later, it was the most pivotal day in his presidency, probably in his whole life. It was the most pivotal day in American history since Pearl Harbor or the Kennedy assassination. It’s difficult to believe he couldn’t remember it a few months later.

It's the events that were important. Details as inconsequential as exactly when you saw what media coverage of the event that day are not as likely to be remembered as the content of the coverage itself, even only a few months after.

Kerry has proved his intelligence in other ways. “He was chosen to deliver his senior class oration, a testament to his reputation as a public speaker”

Again, public speaking ability is no real indication of intelligence.
I don't think John Kerry is stupid either - I just don't like him.

I don’t think that can be stated with certainty

No, I can't say it with certainty, but I think it likely.

I think we're just going to have to say that there is enough room on these issues for reasonable people to disagree and leave it at that.