Tuesday Open Thread
Lots of discussion about Bush commuting Libby's sentence; Orin Kerr makes a few good points . In Pakistan, a standoff between police and extremists hiding in a mosque has turned deadly
. The Pentagon lost an appeal to charge a Gitmo prisoner because he wasn't declared an "unlawful" enemy combatant
. The police continue to round up people involved in the UK attacks, catching a doctor trying to flee from Australia
. And Specter and his wife had a baby yesterday
!
This is an open thread -- what's happening today?
Submitted by Brendan on Tue, 2007-07-03 09:14
Tags:
Comments :
More congrats to Specter, wife and new baby!
I'm only half stupid
Atomic bomb debate in Japan
I remember we debated dropping the bomb in tenth grade and I was in the camp that held the US ought to have begin by dropping a nuke on a non-populated area to demonstrate its power. Still seems sensible to me. It's a different world now, we don't face such threats and we wouldn't consider such tactics. Perhaps partially because of the shock and horror of these two bombings, the world has managed to avoid nuclear war since.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Wow!
Interesting that he resigned under an avalance of criticism.
I'm only half stupid
make no mistake about it
if someone smuggled and detonated a nuke inside US, some country in the Middle East would cease to exist, with a bunch of mushrooms blooming over it.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Maybe
but terrorists today are generally non-state actors (holding the Taliban accountable for al Qaeda was one of the few reasonable exceptions). So it wouldn't solve anything.
Terrorists also don't care about civilian casualties in a way that heads of state (even the slightly crazy ones) must. There's no deterrent effect by retaliating -- perhaps the opposite, if their goal is to provoke a large-scale conflict.
The only reasonable approach is prevention.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
there is deterrent
if all those terrorist families are completely wiped out. There wouldn't be large-scale conflict because the bombs would rain one way.
And deterrent should not be the primary motivator - justice would be. When radical Islamic terrorists see their holiest sites wiped out without Allah's doing anything to prevent it, perhaps some realization will sneak into their almost empty brains.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
As if
lobbing nukes in the general direction of some Muslim country is the best way to ensure the deaths of the terrorists responsible for the attack.
Collective punishment in the form of a nuclear holocaust visited upon innocent millions is not justice.
Simply put, there can be no justice for a terrorist nuclear attack within the US. There is no proportionate response. Dropping our own nukes is more likely to make things worse than better.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Agree on the prevention thing.
I'm only half stupid
Play what if
It's easy to say that we should prevent, and I wholeheartedly agree with that approach. So don't paint me as a war-monger.
But let's war-game and pretend a nuclear bomb did indeed go off in the States, say downtown Atlanta, killing thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands.
What should we do in response?
Find whoever did it
and either kill them or lock them up.
I know people think that sounds weak, but it's just folly to suppose that terrorists who would detonate a nuke inside the US are scared of death or concerned with our retaliation. We have no leverage over insane madmen of the type who would nuke a city with a suitcase bomb. There is no proportionate response possible against a non-state actor.
Nuking some other country wouldn't stop another attack.
Sorry, there just isn't any satisfactory answer to what we'd do in that situation -- that's why it is so important to prevent it from occurring.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
But that doesn't address
Brendan's important distinction: terrorists are generally non-state actors. I know you're asking what would be the response in such an extreme scenario, but I think Brendan's right that a response targeting those responsible would not involve nuclear weapons or any kind of large-scale retaliation. This is the perpetual headache of terrorism, and one that we still, as a culture, have not managed to sink into our skulls. We're still operating on a state-level mindset (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, whatever) which is unfortunately a distraction.
Do I have a better solution? Not really - it is a puzzlement.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
They have already attack the US
and I don't see any country in the Middle East that has ceased to exist.
Just wondering where you get the authority to speak as commander in chief...;+)
I'm only half stupid
I am talking
about nukes. Not just an attack. It's not that difficult to see a huge difference.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Come on, Ender
If someone detonated a nuke inside the USA, we'd have sensitivity sessions to try to make us more empathetic to those who set it off, and understand just how everything they did was understandable in lightof all the evil we do in the world.
We'd probably vow to increase our aid to the countries harboring the planners of the incident. And we'd make nice speeches about how now we understand the Japanese and their "true feelings." And we would wallow even more in guilt about dropping the nukes on Japan rather than have my father killed invading the place.
Those calling for retaliation would be condemned asa unfeeling persons who dismiss the inevitable unplanned for deaths as "collateral damage," who laughingly use this euphemism because they view humans as ants.
There would be a call to "make nice with 'em" perhaps with a meeting down at the gym (the gum's neutral territory).
Scooter LIbby represented Marc Rich
Just as a refresher in the tangled web that is tax evasion and foreign policy.
Scooter Testifies to Free Marc Rich
Craziness.
I'm only half stupid
There are some
people out there who seem to think Libby never participated in the leak process. (link
) I think you have to ignore a lot of very good evidence to still think Libby never intentionally leaked Plame's status and/or participated in the leak process at the behest of dick Cheney.
UK terrorists
According to the link Brendan supplied above, the terror suspects arrested so far for the UK bombings all appear to be doctors.
What does that say about the economic motivations supposedly behind terrorism?
Please explain.
Wasn't bin Laden also a well to do.
I wonder if we will soon be fighting them over there and over here.
Iraq has provided an excellent training ground for terrorists and given them plenty of cause to fear that Israel's borders are in fact creeping into Baghdad.
Using Saddam's palace and building permanent bases have given them an excuse to oppose the takeover of their country and what they see as a war against their culture even harder.
It is a sad reality.
I'm only half stupid
It's a question
I'm asking you to think about it and tell me what you think.
I could have sworn someone made a comment recently saying that disparity in economic situations was the driving factor behind someone becoming a terrorist. The case in the UK seems to contradict that hypothesis.
So, if it's not economics, and it's not a lack of education, and it's not a lack of exposure to the "good things" of the West, then what is it?
(You've been dancing with GR and MS too long. This is not a trick comment. . . .)
Edit again: Seems like you expanded your comment at the same time I wrote this ;} But I'm speaking of just the UK terrorists, not Iraq
I don't understand their motivation.
I believe in the first rule of war.
You can't win until you 'empathize with the enemy' or try to understand what goals they are trying to achieve.
Is it a temper tantrum? Is it a statement that the brits need to get out of Iraq?
I know Cato has come forth with concrete steps to prevent terrorism by pulling all US military bases out of the Middle East, and putting ALL US forces at the ready on the ocean.
It was the smartest policy statement I have heard. But too honest for most to agree with.
That Israel is backing the US creep into the Middle East is just another version of the crusades.
And there is no question is there that desparate refugees, orphans, fathers trying to feed their children become so hopeless that they will take the money for suicide missions just to feed their families. That is a part of the reality.
Not a trick question...... put a sort of poke in the eye question. Of course I never do that do I.
I'm only half stupid
Hehe
I posted another one too. . . if we're gonna argue, let's argue over something bigger than what "is" is ;}
this is stupid nonsense
"You can't win until you 'empathize with the enemy'"
Do you understand what empathize means? No, we don't need to try to feel like them to win. In fact we won without any problems in WW2 without empathizing with evil.
Those who empathize with evil are evil themselves.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
If you want to win
you have to understand the enemies motivation. Get inside their head to see what their motivations are and what goals they are trying to achieve.
If you don't get that then maybe someone else can explain that trying to anticipate is smart strategy.
I'm only half stupid
That's a good way to put it
Trying to anticipate, exactly right. Doesn't mean you approve of whatever the enemy is doing, just that you make an effort to understand and consequently predict their actions. If that understanding yields insight into how you can address their grievances in a non-military fashion, so much the better.
It's enlightened self-interest.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Isn't it a lot easier....
... just to make something up?
You know, like that they hate us for our freedom. Are you guys trying to tell me that it's more complex than that?
Ok sorry. Of course it's more complex than that.
I wonder -- could we reach a consensus here that that kind of sloganeering has been an impediment to understanding the true nature of the threat? Are we wise enough to admit that we don't understand the threat, and smart enough to take the steps we need to take to begin to achieve that understanding?
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
I would hope
Shouldn't it be obvious that the vast majority----nay maybe even all----of the posters here know a stupid slogan when they see one?
Is it an impediment to understanding the nature of the threat? Well, only if one believes that sort of BS. It's just a marketing slogan. I think we all know that. The real world is much more complex, as you said.
But in this age of 20 second time slots, they had to come up with something. It fit on the teleprompter and was easy for Mr Bush to remember.
Of course you're right.
Everyone is smart enough to see through stuff like, "they hate us for our freedom..."
I also agree that these are marketing slogans, and they're very carefully crafted to provoke a certain type of emotional response, or attitude shift. They don't stand up to scrutiny, but that doesn't prevent them from being effective. Still, that's what politics is all about, after all. Nothing new there.
What is new, and what I'm seeing increasingly, is a shift in rhetoric. Not long ago 'the terrorists' were mostly described as fringe fanatics whose fundamentalism coupled with violent extremism represented a perversion of Islam. But now, more and more, the focus is shifing to Islam itself. Now we're hearing people like Hassan Butt say that one can not be a true Muslim and a moderate at the same time. Right wing radio is hammering the meme that Islam is decidedly not a 'religion of peace' 24/7.
It's all beginning to sound a lot like the beating of drums to me.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Oddly, for this slogan
there is truth in the slogan. You can trace hatred of freedom tight back to Sayyid Qtub, the intellectual core of the terrorists, whose visit to the United States cemented his belief that America and the west granted too much freedom, which led to most of the evils and unhappiness of the world, and that it could only be counteracted by advancing Islam to the status of an ideology, which, as pointed out, would then spread Islam across the world under one Caliphate.
If freedom means freedom from the laws of Islam, then it is to be hated, AND feared, for it may weaken the religious fervor of Muslims.
And this points out another problem with sloganeering. Even if they have truth at the core, by being a partial explanation to a complicated situation in slogan form, they obscure the reality not only for those who simply adopt the slogan as the truth, but also for those who dismiss it as false.
That might be true
... in a world where the only choices are to believe or to dismiss. Fortunately it's possible to see the little nugget of truth that the lie is wrapped around without having the wool pulled over your eyes. So to speak.
But it's still an excellent point.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Well, true enough
That might be true
... in a world where the only choices are to believe or to dismiss.
I thihk we live in that world. See the remarks above which dismissed the idea entirely. I think many would say, "if Bush says it, it is a lie." Substitute anyone you wan on either side of the spectrum, and someone will say that.
And I'm not really sure what lies the truth is wrapped in. Sometimes when we hear these slogans, we say something like, "that's a lie because of something they didn't actually say." Here, the first obvious choice is to insert an 'only' in the slogan.
I think that one can make the same analysis of a counter slogan, which is also on its face true: "They hate us because of our foreign policy." This one also has the same deficiencies of a slogan.
It makes one long for the days when one packed a picnic lunch, took the kids and some toys, and went to hear politicians and political speakers of the day give two hour speeches on the pressing problems of the time.
One can't imagine Daniel Webster, Stephan Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, or Edward Everett resort to sloganeering.
At least someone gets my point: this isn't a world where we are required to accept or dismiss every slogan.
Isn't this
All too obvious:
"At least someone gets my point: this isn't a world where we are required to accept or dismiss every slogan."
The truth is that slogans work. Marketers spend billions of dollars on getting their slogans just right to sell their products, be it politicians or breakfast cereal. I love my frosted flakes, I think they are Grrrrreat!
I think many would say, "if Bush says it, it is a lie." Substitute anyone you want on either side of the spectrum, and someone will say that.
And you could say, 'if Liberals say it, it should be dismissed as the lunatic fringe.' This is done consistently by the right.
They hate us because....... should we really accept that slogan? 'They' don't hate us because of our freedoms. They want their own.
I'm only half stupid
We should look upon slogans
as slogans.
'They' don't hate us because of our freedoms. They want their own.
Interesting. Both of these are Bush slogans. The first refers to the terrorists, who do hate us because of (but not only because of) our freedoms, and who really don't want their own freedom.
The second was the slogan that really took the president to war, that everyone inherently wants freedom, and refers to the ordinary person everywhere.
The idea was that if we simply remove the impediment to freedom in Iraq, say, those people will embrace freedom, set up a democracy, and we'd be out in a few months (someone said recently that the problem with Bush's post war strategy was that it was ALWAYS a withdrawal strategy, not a counter-insurgency strategy). Further, the idealistic notion went, those people themselves would rise up against terrorists who hate freedom, and their example would spread freedom without our intervention in the rest of the Middle East over time.
Neocon dreams.
If you like you can say that.
Yes we can agree that it is a lovely idealistic concept........ the problem being that the neocons are idealistc to a glaring fault. Their model for governing and government seems a bit less than ideal..... seeing as how the sands of Iraq are covered with buckets of blood, no judicial system, no police, no jails and a refugee crises of major proportions.
Good government, as I have stated before, is something that conservatives don't believe in. The word good and government do not make it into the same sentence with conservatives. For them government =bad.
So why would we think they could create a good govt in Iraq. They can't. Because they believe all govt functions should be for profit and unregulated. Well they have been and so far it hasn't worked. A few thousand dead people later........what good do your ideals do you, as sheer desparation lack of hope a refugee crises, a failed oil contract negotiation and muslims now thinking that when American says we will bring you democracy, they look at Iraq and say, 'no thanks'. Not to mention that the unrest in Iraq seems to be spreading rather than abating. If it was a war of ideas..... we are losing because we have displayed incompetent hubris, and thumbed our nose at little things like, say torture.
How easy it is to sit and read books, make up glorious theories and have no clue as to realistic application. Maybe 'they' your heroes the 'classic liberals' should have listened to more voices of experience, instead of resoundingly dismissing all advice that disagreed with their hard core ideological bent.
What American ideal should we export next?
I'm only half stupid
You know
thee were no "classical liberals" involved. Do you think Ron Paul had a big say in this? No, the JFK liberals, now called "neocons" seemed to have had this dream.
But the dream is that America would not impose a government, but that the peopleof Iraq would naturally form their own government. So, missliberties, back in the days after the war ended, were you loudly proclaiming that the Americans should be forming a government and imposing it to our standards against the will of the people of Iraq, as you now seem to be saying should have been done?
Because they believe all govt functions should be for profit and unregulated.
Thjis is just effen stupid. No one believes this.
You love building false strawmen.
I thought the dream was silly, just as Ithink that the dream of intervening in, say, Darfur like white knights righting a dragon's wrong is silly.
And know this: if my heroes, the classical liberals had had any say in this, there would have been no war. Check out Ron Paul's vote on the war.
Then look at the Dems. In 2004 they put up as candidates two people who actually delivered us the war!
Whatever....
your double speak for today is typically contrarian.
Ron Paul is your hero. I will remember that for next time, when you were before whatever, before you were against it.
I'm only half stupid
Ron Paul is not my hero
Another of your straw men.
Ron Paul voted against the war.
weirdness
user error.
I'm only half stupid
Unclear
from this statement.
"And know this: if my heroes, the classical liberals had had any say in this, there would have been no war. Check out Ron Paul's vote on the war."
You mean Scoop Jackson wouldn't have agreed with the neocons?
I'm only half stupid
Your little back and forth with Maddy aside
I am a classical liberal. Don't even try to lump me or anyone even remotely like me with the people driving our foreign policy.
In a way, I'm rather insulted that all my writing on this blog hasn't steered you ,or anyone who may be prone to such errors, away from such flippant broad brushing.
If SC serves any good purpose, it should be foster better understanding of views that may differ from yours. Statements like that are prevalent on insulated partisan blogs where people don't actually interact regularly with the not-totally-like-minded people they pretend to know about. On a site like SC, posters, especially regulars like you, should be well past that.
Take what I said at face value. This is about demonstrating that all the debate and discussion with others actually widens and sharpens your understanding of others' views.
I note that you
come from a position of consistency and integrity.
So true confessions I still don't know what a classic liberal is. Mad says JFK??? I don't see that at all.
I also confess to a strong distaste for neoconservatives, and have heard them refer to themselves in the grand sense as 'classic liberals' which could be where I got my prejudice. (Richard Perle)I guess I haven't recovered or got past the assault of the neocons on public discourse or the direction they have taken the nation.
If you feel I lumped you into a 'category' I apologize. I am not to up with categories, frankly. I thought you were a libertarian democrat. And I thought a classic liberal was someone in the Wilsonian tradition.
My beef with Maddy is, I think he is a pretender so I poke him flippantly to see where he stands. I certainly meant you no offense whatsoever.
I'm only half stupid
JFK
is a modern liberal, not a classical liberal. Classical liberals are more what we now call "libertarian." They include Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison, other founders. Interestingly, John Stuart Mill is claimed by both the classical and the modern liberals.
Today, what you call a liberal in North America (but not the rest of the world) is a social democrat. Here, they follow FDR and those who followed. Today's liberals in the Democratic party have given up on the military as an instrument for doing good in the world, a tenant of FDR, HST, JFK, LBJ, HHH, and Scoop, and many others, but they still retain the notion that government is your friend, thqat it is an instrument to do good, it should replace private charity, and so on. Classical liberals think government is necessary, but should be feared and limited. It was such a notion that led the founders to make a government with checks and balances, and to severely limit the powers of the federal government.
It didn't always work, which is why you have to be vigilant. Modern liberals are fond of "reinterpreting" the constitution and precedents in order to achieve some end. (they aren't the only ones.)
Did you ever wonder why Congress makes laws abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, when the constitution says clearly, "Congress shall make no law....abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press? Well, one of the reasons is that in WWI, the Wilson government (proto-FDR liberal) thought that distributing pamphlets asking people to consider resisting the draft were dangerous, and liberal justice Holmes wrote a rousing opinion upholding a law abridging freedom of the press! Here is an OYEZ:
Here is the typically liberal reasoning, from the opinion:
So, you see, the constitution must really have said "Congress will make some laws depending on the circumstances to abridge the freedom of the press, or of speech." One decides what is legal or constitutional not by actually reading the Constitution, but by considering the circumstances! (The same reasoning was used by those opposed to the recent SCOTUS ruling against using race to determine school placement. You know, "yes, it says we can't do that, but oh, what about the circumstances?")
And notice that there is the same idea you heard from the neocons: we're at war, so you shouldn't say certain things. Remember people calling criticism of the war "treason?" It's all a matter of whose war it is.
Anyway, Ron Paul and John are examples of people we can call classical liberals.
Classical Liberals....
are not neocons by any stretch of the imagination.
As unsettling as this may sound, to understand what a classical liberal really is would almost necessitate that the observer acknowledge that most prominent Democrats are closer to being neoconservatives than any classical liberal could ever be. To deny that or not believe it is to not understand classical liberalism.
Wilson was not a classical liberal any more than he was a woman. The closest we ever had to classical liberal president in the 20th century was Coolidge and on a scale from 1 to 10 with 10 being a true CL, Silent Cal was a 6.5 at best IMHO. Perhaps some would rate him higher....I don't know.
Since then none were. As Maddy said, JFK is a Modern Liberal...plain and simple.
A classical liberal, by definition, is wary of any "top down" management of society or the economy and would use such methods sparingly and only after great deliberation and prudent consideration of all other less "statist" methods. He does not project any great agenda thru government empowerment or grand scale collectivism via the state. To believe otherwise is to believe that a cat barks. If you keep that in mind, you don't see many classical liberals in modern politics.
The key here is not a negative view of central power for its own sake but rather a healthy fear of what can come of it along with healthy optimism about the results of less centralized methods.
Why
on earth would you say that dems are close to neocons. Hardly. Neocons stick together like glue. Dems not so much.
The closest thing I see to a neocon in the dem party is Joe Lieberman, and he is no longer a dem, and is considering supporting a Republican in '08.
So I guess you can say I still don't understand classical liberalism. Either that or you don't understand neoconservatives.
I think it is human nature to question authority or as you say have a healthy skepticism of the powers that be. I also think it is human nature to look to good leaders for guidance.
I'm only half stupid
MissL,
Please understand. I said closer than classical liberals. This is a relative statement. I also have a better chance of marrying Jennifer Aniston than you do. That doesn't mean it's a good chance but seeing that I'm a male and you're a female, my chances are better than yours even though they are not good.
Look at it this way, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or any of the other leading Dems are more likely to exhibit neoconservative behavior than Ron Paul. This is a true and fair statement. Why? Because Hillary and Co. are more likely to support or propose measures that neocons would even mildly endorse than they would from Ron Paul.
Neocons know that a Dem victory in 2008 would less threatening to their agenda than a victory by Ron Paul or someone like him because Paul does not in any way support any of needed apparatus that makes the neoconservative agenda possible....be it military size, number of bases, willingness to stretch executive power, willingness to project American might against others etc.
Yes, it's human nature to question authority and classical liberals do this far, far, far more in far, far, far more areas of governance and authority issues than dems or repubs would ever do.
But ah, that second sentence is a bit vague. Here's the wrinkle. I, as a CL, would never word it that way...either that or I would not accept that as a necessarily good thing. Keep in mind that we have a Bill of Rights that protects us...yes protects us from the guidance of otherwise "good leaders" as you say. We have rights that are immune to the guidance of leaders. We have laws that are above any of those would-be leaders. CL's don't like "leaders"....they prefer effective, prudent, humble and wise administrators. "wise" meaning the knowledge to know their limits and those limits are far stricter and tighter in the eyes of a CL.
What you say implies that government can be an omnipresent force for good if we just had the right people in charge. NO. That's a hopeless ideal. That's why the founders designed limited government. They knew long ago that good governance has its limits and designed our constitution with that in mind. Over 230 years later, and its clear they knew what they were talking about.
What does
neoconservative behavior mean to you? I don't think we are on the same page with that one. William Kristol is a neoconservative. Ted Kennedy is not.
Limited government still requires competent leadership. And limitied government should be a force for good. Good governance does not have its limits. Why would you limit something that is 'good'.?
Expanded powers of government is what needs limits, which is why our forefathers implemented checks and balances. I think you are confusing your terms.
I didn't read where I said government is/should be an omnipresent force if we had the right people. You are assuming way too much.
Remember part of what shrinks govt is regulations. Politicians with special favors and defense contracts (or survelliance camera contracts) seem to expand govt powers. Regulations help prevent that sort of expansion.
I am more for taking a position on the issues, than defining myself by this or that ideology. But I do believe that good government is what we should strive for. I do believe in providing boots to people who don't have them so they can have bootstraps to pull themselves up by. And I do believe in capitalism that is ethical, and not deregulated capitalism that creates monopolies.
What our forefathers saw and recognized from the abuses of King George was that too much power corrupts especially if you marry that with a state dominated religon. We need checks and balances. I am still in awe of the brilliance of our forefathers.
This statement:
"Look at it this way, Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or any of the other leading Dems are more likely to exhibit neoconservative behavior than Ron Paul."
also apples to Republicans, who played follow the leader. No questions asked.
I'm only half stupid
Come on now, MissL....
Please, reread what I said. You make these discussions much longer than they need to be.
OK. But I never said otherwise. I said Ted Kennedy and other leading Dems are closer to be neocons than a classical liberal ever could be. I've already explained this and what I meant by it.
Yes, it requires competent leadership as I explained and said myself. Your next two sentences contradict. government is good because it is limited, to expand it nullifies this concept.
That's like saying ingesting certain foods in moderation, like red wine, is good for health...so why not drink a lotof it??! Same for aspirin. See?
agreed. I'm not confusing anything.
Oh really? I don't think I'm assuming too much. It's a concept that is very prevalent, even if implied, and that lies at the heart of Leftist thinking. come on. Let's not even dwell on this one. Whether you spelled it out here or not is irrelevant. really now.
Regulatory power is an example of expanding government, not shrinking. Special favors and such are products of expanded power. If you're referring to self-imposed regulation, that's a dicey topic that often backfires. Let's leave that one aside.
One last thing, if you really awed at the brilliance of the forefathers, you wouldn't be embracing all the uses of government that you surely do. You would be a classical liberal.
Good explanation John
Classical liberalism to me combines the best aspects of the current left (fear of too much government power) and the traditional right (limits on centralized power) and a dash of modern libertarianism (optimism and faith in less-centralized methods). It embodies the principles behind our founding, IMHO.
Scoop Jackson
was a stereotypical JFK liberal, even worked on his campaign. He was a hawk.
What he wasn't was a classical liberal like Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, Madison, and so on.
If old Scoop, JFK, FDR, LBJ, HHH, HST and the gang were around, they would be neocons. Ever hear of a little place called Nam? Where we had to fight them there so we didn't have to fight them here?
Interesting
that you can speak for the dead.
Since JFK did not go full on with Cuba, I somehow doubt he would have gone into Iraq. And weren't we already in Nam when JFK came into office?
Odd that the neocons had the advantage of the history of guerilla warfare in Viet Nam and choose to ignore it. I believe the famed Gen. Patreaus wrote a long paper on the mistakes made and lessons learned from Nam and a better way to address guerilla warfare, and every single lesson was ignored by the cabal of neocons that insisted on running the war 'their way'.
I'm only half stupid
We necessarily guess
with the dead, so we must mean that we guess from their past behaviours.
Einsenhower had a few advisors in Vietnam. Kennedy dumped in many more "advisors," (we always used the quote marks at the time), and was committed to winning the war. A lot of people uninterested in college or science started contemplating a college degree and a career in science. (It gave you a deferment.)
Odd that the neocons had the advantage of the history of guerilla warfare in Viet Nam and choose to ignore it.
It is a general characteristic of ideologues that they have difficulty learning from experience, especially as it fades into the past and it counters their ideology. So, you can expect that those thinking we should dart around the world doing good will bloom once again.
a better way to address guerilla warfare, and every single lesson was ignored by the cabal of neocons that insisted on running the war 'their way'.
Because, you see, they never expected a guerilla war. The expected the government to rise, and they would leave. I think the plans were to be down to 50,000 troops by fall of 2003. Their plan was never about fighting a protracted war; it was always about withdrawal.
Even that is like Kennedy and LBJ, who insisted that they wanted to get out of Vietnam right after the victory. Kennedy's advisors not long before his death told him that they thought it would come in 1965.
On sloganeering and independence
Or the always trite but useful...... this is a clash of civilizations, the east vs the west, good vs evil. The supremist argument for US exceptionalism. I see no respect for individuals in this argument. Split any hairs and and you are on the side of evil. It's a convenient slogan to get people to shut up, period. Absolutisim at it's best.
Which is my beef with right wing fundamentalist christianity. Heaven or hell take your pick. If you don't accept my absolute version of christ hell it is. Absolutism in the name of 'salvation'. Of course you have to buy into the, 'if you don't do this, you will own real estate in hell argument'.
Or the always useful moral imperative..... whosoever shall argue against it is therefore immoral and doesn't respect life.
These arguments are useful to charismatic leaders trying to sway public opinion.
Which is why I am always in awe of our fouonding fathers. They put in a system of checks and balances, just to avoid this kind of absolutism, and provide a sense of justice for all, and a sense of pride around a set of ideals for the many. Truly amazing.
On that note Happy Independence Day!
I'm only half stupid
Liberty
Living in a free society is hard and dangerous. People are free to be smart or stupid. And it's easy to assume we know which they are. But give me freedom over the alternatives any day.
I trust you. If you can't trust me, trust the founders' checks and balances.
Happy Independence Day!
The goal of the enemy
is to establish a worldwide caliphate and impose sharia law. We know this because that is what the radical islamists tell us in their speeches, writings, etc. Maybe it sounds simplistic, but they are religiously motivated. see quote below:
Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror
by Mary Habeck
name the enemy, win the war
wanting to form a caliphate and actually doing it
are two different things. There are and have always been extremist groups with agendas. Knowing there agenda, for what it's worth, and knowing how likely that agenda is to come to fruition is an important distinction.
The KKK had an agenda too...as do modern neo-nazis in Germany....Big Woop.
Al Qaeda and their adherents aren't forming any caliphate....even if we, as a nation, vanished off the face of the earth. They cannot succeed. They lack the ability on many levels to get anywhere near enough Muslims behind them to accomplish this.
Agreed!
And this constant prophecy of an imment caliphate if we don't destroy all 'enemies' and fight the constant war against the 'east', is actually encouraging the zealots. They think they are more powerful than they really are. We keep telling them that.
I'm only half stupid
No comfort
The fact is that Qtub's followers have no notion that it will be a short term battle. More importantly, they don't envision any other end.
In Qtub's formulation, what is important is to understand why there came to be a lull in the drive for a worldwide Caliphate in the first place. (And this has been a most popular subject for books since the Turks were defeated in Europe.)
What it means practically is that they will not go away. This is a long term problem that will not disappear just because WE think they are defeated.
Ordinarily, we thik that at some point, groups with agendas admit that they cannot meet the ends of their agenda. These people will not.
So, I agree that we need not worry about the agenda coming to fruition. But we do need to worry about endless terrorism.
Even the President....
... knows this. The 'War on Terror' doesn't end. Like GWB said:
I wonder when we're going to get around to creating those conditions? I mean, we could continue to pursue the strategy of blow them up until they stop hating us..... that might start to work. One of these days.
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Where are we
pursuing a strategy of blowing (presumably non-terrorists) up until the stop hating us?
At this moment. if you know.
Well
I made that bit up, sir. Fabricated it, purely for effect. But see! I admit it :)
A politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man -- e e cummings
Funny
but i have often seen that argued! usually goes like this:
A: We are killing eoight billion people in iraq, and that is just in Baghdad!
B: Don't you think that in most cases, iraqis are killing each other, and in most of the rest, outsiders are killing Iraqis?
At this point, this is often simply denied, and the first claim is repeated, often with an even higher number.
Alternately, it will be admitted that Iraq has become a place of terrorist-driven ethnic cleansing, but it is argued that it is and always was our fault. this can be because we started it with those there bombs, or because there wouldn't be any killing if we left! (I kid you not.) I once asked someone to ponder a scenario where some Sunni insurgent got up in the morning preparing to go kill some Shia, and his buddy told him that the Americans had left, so they celebrted not having to kill the Shia anymore. In fact, in my scenario, the Sunni and Shia met and celebrated together, saying things like, "sorry I had to shoot your uncle, Ahmad" Which might meet with, "And I'm sorry that your boy got in the way of Sayyid's bomb. he was a good boy. Look what those Americans made us do!" One person said that she thought that this is exactly what would happen if we left!)
The common thrad is that Iraqis are incapable of making moral decisions, and either we have to enforce civil behaviour, or we have to leave, which are the only two ways that killing in Iraq will stop.
So, you see, all the killing in Iraq is our fault. All our fault, all the time.
As you can tell, I've been down this road a few times.
but not very discomforting either
you say they have no notion that it will be a short term battle or that they envision any other end. I say:
So what?
I don't mean to sound dismissive or naive but Islamists have an insurmountable task in front of them even without us in the middle of things....in fact our involvement and the consequences of it only obscure the impossibility of their grand vision by not allowing the ideological wall they'll hit with the greater Muslim world to come to pass. They can't win. And "win", I mean among the very people they wish to control.
First they have to get past the governments without becoming outcasts and unsavory radicals among the majority of Muslims. Then, assuming they did this, they'd have to overcome opposing factions who do not adhere to their ideology and vision...like we see now in iraq...then assuming they did this and haven't become hated by the Muslims for all the fighting and destruction who once admired them in their heroic fight against the West, they have exercise control and hegemony over this vast world.
remember, success in the form of a caliphate, assumes "successive successes" at each step described which are virtually unattainable.
not gonna happen.
It's not about the ends
It's about a bunch of ill equipped, largely untrained fighters, few in number, driving a super power out of Afghanistan in such a way that it collapsed shortly thereafter.
And it is about the old story of Richard watching as a Mualim general waved to two soldiers on a cliff, whereupon they leaped to their death. It is about religious fervor, and not your logical and reality based analysis.
I agree with you in a way, but it is more like something you have to keep an eye on, like some permanent boil that without attention may take over half your body.
You also underestimate the extent to which Muslims really do believe in a unified Ummah.
I remember an American Muslim saying to me just after 9/11, in the midst of the rhetoric, "America and the West have no idea what they are up against in Islam."
Most of the leaders
of our own revolution were well to do. But that does not mitigate the fact we were fighting, to a very large degree, against the economic oppression of the British King. I don't think the fact that the leaders are often well to do invalidates the underlying point that economic oppression is a root cause.
I would like to take credit for originality of this thought, but I read it somewhere and have forgotten where.
Yes, but
It has been mentioned more times that I can count how Al Queda and the terrorists in general are not a state so the parallel does not quite work, IMHO. The USA was fighting for independent existence, for land, resources, and self government.
Given that, for example, Bin Laden is personally extremely wealthy (as are many in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere), why would they not just fix the economic situation of the economically disadvantaged that they are fighting for? If that is the real root cause.
They don't
have enough money. But there is more also. The leaders are mostly Islamic fundamentalists, so they have a driving force other than economic oppression. But it is to a large extent the economic issues that make their message resonate with the people.
economics is a big one...
...but more important I believe is simply the issue of being meddled with. Countries that are poor and generally left alone don't seem to spawn terrorist groups. Rather it's countries or populations that are actively oppressed from the outside (and some of that oppression may well be economic) that spawn terrorist/geurilla movements. The Tamil, the Chechynians, most of central america, the kurds, the sunni in Iraq now, the shia in Iraq under Saddam, the sunni in Iran, And so on...
The issue is one of desparation, of hopelessnes in any other avenue to redress greivances. Economics can play a role in that certainly. And of course we are speaking of the population as a whole, not of individuals. A wealthy (and originally pretty free) sunni like OBL may very well be moved to terrorism by the plight of others he feels kinship withwho are oppressed. Or maybe it's just a tool to power for him. Or maybe he's a total religious fanatic who bought the jihad ideology.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
If they were
content, and more often than not I think that comes down to economics (whether it should or not is another issue but I think it does), they would not be vulnerable to extremist rhetoric.
Tlaloc posted something to that effect yesterday (nt)
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Do you happen to
remember what thread that was in?
It's here
http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/1306#comment-56183
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Thanks!
I'll give you credit for this
as your original statement...... since I didn't read it anywhere else!
I'm only half stupid
Thanks!!!
Here
is a two year old diary of mine that I think still has a lot to think about in it as far as understanding our "enemies."
Hey purpleface
You might find this
interesting.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Excellent!
This should be required reading for anyone who thinks that things would be OK if we were only nicer to them and did something about their economic problems.
The truth is ugly; I understand that, and I wish it were different. But hiding from it is foolish.
Bird dog is full of it.
You could just as easily post a conversation with a radical soviet as proof that communists and capitalists can never find peace. And yet at the end of the day it turns out that when they stop provoking each other they pretty quickly manage to settle the big issues (the little issues are immortal and always will be).
The key is that by being "nicer" to, say, Syria we strip people of the motivation that sends them to the radicals to be followers. A comfortable people do not become terrorists by and large. Oppressed people do.
Or to put it in another way- the biggest hornet's nest in the world isn't a problem until some idiot throws a rock at it.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Well
We obviously disagree.
I'm not saying
we have to be "nicer" to "them" whoever "they" are. But I am saying that economics is something we cannot ignore. This isn't a yes or no thing but rather a very complicated thing that has to looked at from a multiplicity of levels. And I know plenty of Muslims who could refute Bird Dog's rather simplistic diary. There are a lot of moderate Muslims.
I am not excluding economics
My original point was to dispute the fact that economics is the major factor. It plays a role, like it plays in everything, but I personally do not believe it is the key factor.
Newsflash: Michael Moore makes money
Loaded Deal For Moore
Free Enterprise is good isn't it LA Times?
And what's more, Moore's employees have great benefits including dental. No co-pay. Good for him.
I'm only half stupid
In which I approvingly link to Cato
on Bush's stinginess with respect to pardons
(from this 
Radley Balko post).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Wait till after the '08 elections.
Then dubya will become Santa Claus with the pardons. First on the list will be Scooter.
I'm not being cynical, just realistic. They won't do anything to jeapardize elections that already look bad for Republicans. After that though, well, it isn't like he really cares about the populace now. I don't expect him to give to cents afterwards.
The only thing that will stop Scooter getting a full pardon are if both bush43 & Darth are killed at the same time. Now for all those impressionable folk who might be reading this, I do NOT support the murder of politicians, even horrible despots like bush43 & Darth. Don't do it!
I do like the sound of President Pelosi though.
Maybe, but
Bush just doesn't strike me as someone who really cares about pardoning people.
If he actually pardons people who deserve it that would be great.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Strikes me
You know, Cheney doesn't strike me as a person who would be especially kind to those under him, but that is exactly how he is described in the Washington Post series last week.
And I know it is true because missliberties called it "great journalism."
I've noticed that sometimes what strikes me about persons I know nothing about isn't worth much. Not that that ever stopped me from telling everyone what strikes me about someone.
How very fortunate
that I am able to support my opinion (repeat, opinion! -- it is allowed) simply by noting that Bush has issued very few pardons compared to his predecessors. Which makes his commutation of Libby's sentence all the more noteworthy.
I've noticed that sometimes what strikes me about persons I know nothing about isn't worth much. Not that that ever stopped me from telling everyone what strikes me about someone.
That's half of what keeps blogs going, I think =(
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Pardoning your party
Simple Wiki check:
In December, 1997, Cisneros was indicted on 18 counts of conspiracy, giving false statements and obstruction of Justice....
In September, 1999, Cisneros negotiated a plea agreement, under which he pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of lying to the FBI, and was fined $10,000. He did not receive jail-time or probation. He was pardoned by President Bill Clinton in January 2001
Henry's girlfriend got an even better deal:
[Linda} Medlar [also known as Linda Jones] used some of the Cisneros hush money to purchase a house and entered into a bank fraud scheme with her sister and brother-in-law to conceal the source of the money. In January, 1998, Medlar pleaded guilty to 28 charges of bank fraud, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and obstruction of justice.
From the DOJ pardons site, Jones' convictions (without count number):
Conspiracy to commit bank fraud, to make a false statement to a bank, to launder monetary instruments, and to engage in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity; aiding and abetting bank fraud; aiding and abetting false statements to a bank; aiding and abetting laundering monetary instruments; aiding and abetting engaging in monetary transactions in property derived from specific unlawful activity; obstruction of justice; falsifying, concealing and covering up a material fact by trick, scheme, or device; making a false statement; 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 371, 1001, 1014, 1344(1) and (2), 1503, 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (B)(i), and 1957
That's 28 counts, guilty. Sentence: 42 months. Reduced to 18 months. Pardoned by Clinton.
The Independent Counsel assigned to the Cisneros case issued his final report last year (my how Independent Counselors seem to live forever.) In the press release issued at the same time, he notes:
This has been a long and difficult investigation. It is my hope that people will read the entire Report and draw their own conclusions. An accurate title for the Report could be, “WHAT WE WERE PREVENTED FROM INVESTIGATING.”
After a thorough reading of the Report it would not be unreasonable to conclude as I have that there was a coverup at high levels of our government and, it appears to have been substantial and coordinated. The question is why? And that question regrettably will go unanswered. Unlike some other coverups, this one succeeded.
Most of the final report's sections on the cover-up are redacted to the public, but they were sent unredacted to members of Congress. Call your congressman and ask for an unredacted copy.
Interestingly, The Independent Counsel says that the DOJ actively worked to squash his investigations of a coverup. By "DOJ" here he means not only the Clinton DOJ, but the Bush DOJ!
Yep., giving some politico in your party a break. That's real news!!! Heck, they'll even work cross parties at times to protect their own.
It always amazes me to see people shocked, SHOCKED to learn that there is politics in politics.
Another pointless point
So, Cisneros plead guilty (i.e. accepted guilt) to a misdemeanor, for which he was eventually pardoned after paying the full cost of his sentence.
You likewise give no information as to how much of her sentence his girlfriend served. Which is highly relevent to a pardon discussion.
Compared to someone who has made no admission of guilt and continues to appeal their case which involved accusations of covering up for misdeeds of administration officials.
Coming soon "Sure, Bush took us to war in Iraq, but Clinton took us to war in Kosovo!"
Ok, knocienz, have it your way
Sure, bush took us to war in Iraq (with the absolutely necessary help of the Congress), but Clinton took us to war in Kosovo.
I did in fact give information on how long Linda Jones served.
To me, all that you said is interesting, but hardly a defense. On the other hand, the use of an absolute power like the clemency power of the President doesn't need a defense. Actually arguing about whether this or that pardon or commutation should or should not have been granted or denied is pure barroom talk, you know, like when drunks spend their time telling each other how the entire country would be better run if someone who, like themselves, had spent his life on a bar stool were running the country.
So, I made my comments in that spirit. What made the Clinton thing interesting to me politically was that both his and Bush's DOJ made every effort to squash the investigation of the cover up. And, of course, the pardons could be seen as part of the cover up. Cisneros has done quite well since the affair (shall we say). In fact, his resignation from the Clinton administration was said to be because he could no longer afford to work in it.
The plea deal (which you correctly state was reduced to one misdemeanor count) is interesting. The Independent Counsel who had to sign off on it cited the real punishment that Cisneros received for his crimes outside the justice system, the loss of his ability to hold public office, financial loss and so on. At the same time, he reiterated that he was confident that he could have sustained all charges against Cisneros. In other words, he thought that doing so would have resulted in too harsh a punishment overall. Sound familiar?
Compared to someone who has made no admission of guilt and continues to appeal their case which involved accusations of covering up for misdeeds of administration officials.
Of course, Jones had more counts relating to obstruction of justice involving an investigation of a public official than Libby had, and the bank charges on top of that. She originally was sentenced to 6 months more than Libby got. I haven't seen any evidence that she got a fine.
And inevitably, someone must ask whether Marc Rich showed remorse for his crimes.
This is just another case of expressing phoney outrage when the matter is involved in the other party that one wouldn't express when it is done by a member of one's own party.
Technically, it is hypocrisy. Period.
Absolute power can still be commented on
In fact, pardoning someone connected to the president for related activities was considered impeachable by those who wrote the constitution. So yes, he commuted the sentence to next to nothing. TaDa! And the legislature can pass stupid laws. We can complain and vote basd on those "corrupt and/or stupid" issues. We can let our congressmen KNOW that we taks such things seriously so they investigate.
You are rather ridiculous. You go on about how great it would be if the country were run by non-ideological folks who just tried solving problems, but are A-OK with supremely ideological decisions like letting a fellow party member who obstructed an investigation into a failure to secure classified information get less jail time than Paris Hilton.
Btw, the "Clinton did it too (even if he didn't)" is a right-wing favorite meme. Your talking points are showing.
And this is another case of Mad Scientist falling back on the "My
dementiamind reading powers tell me how someone would take things in a different situation, so I shall ignore all that disagrees with my preconceived notions"You did it again, knocienz
Please tell me where i said that i am "A-OK with supremely ideological decisions like letting a fellow party member who obstructed an investigation into a failure to secure classified information get less jail time than Paris Hilton."
$100 to the charity of your choice if you can find where i said that. Otherwise, I will gladly accept your apology.
My point stands about phoney outrage, but I will make you the same offer I always make: simply give us some of your writing showing that you took the same position with regards to people in the other party. If you are attacking Republicans now, simply copy and paste some of your writings from the Clinton times attacking Democrats for doing the same things. For any Republicans out there defending their party's actions now, simply copy and paste any writings you made defending Democrats dpoing the same thing.
If one cannot do so, a reasonable conclusion (not based on mind reading) is that it is a political matter, and any expressed outrage is phoney. Sometimes, one can get specific. Best example I've seen recently is a note in Time magazine when it became known that Carter fired US Attorney Daniel Marston, who was investigating Demcratic Representative Joshua Eilberg for corruption, at the request of Eilberg. The Times noted that "Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch roared" from the floor of the Senate, and in another plce described hoim as "thundering." Does anyone remember Sen. Hatch doing any roaring or thundering this time around? Don't you think that difference in his response is likely political? Sen. Kennedy defended Carter then; did he defend Bush now?
I will be looking forward to your purple prose on previous president's clemency decisions for comparison.
Doctor, heal thyself
I didn't say you said it, I said that you ARE. I will gladly modlfy and say that you merely give all the appearances of someone who doesn't care. Your defense of Rove's involvment in the leak (not that he wasn't convicted or committed a crime, but in fact hadn't even leaked at all) showed a lack of concern with the whole issue.
How's this? Pass your own test:
Simply copy and paste in your own writing where you said othewise. But I'll go further and let you self-rectify. Object to this action NOW or we'll just take the reasonable conclusion that you have none.
Meanwhile, let me find my blog entries from the 90s... Oh, wait a second...
Hey, maybe another reasonable conclusion is that I had no blog during the nineties nor was a journalist and communicated my concerns verbally to my friends instead of saving them for posterity.
.
Test in Time
I've noticed that no one has old board entries. I could actually go to certain Muslim boards and dredge up my defenses of Clinton against charges that he was a Muslim hating war monger. Or my notion that the impeachment was a waste of time, and did nothing for the people of America. Most importantly, that the whole Monica episode was stupid (I used to say that if the president couldn't get a BJ, who could?)
I didn't say you said it, I said that you ARE..."A-OK with supremely ideological decisions like letting a fellow party member who obstructed an investigation into a failure to secure classified information get less jail time than Paris Hilton."
What i think is that my fellings on the matter are of little consequence. Note that I compared this to a barroom discussion. Please don't infer that I don't like barroom discussions. In fact, I like them. It allows idiots (sometimes reasonable people made idiotic by alcohol) to forget that the argument is moot, so that they can adopt the fire and rhetoric one might have seen at the Constitutional Convention. It's fun. But it is an argument held by idiots, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Fun though.
My point here is more that those who pretend to care oh so much often ooze more emotion in a partisan direction than the other way. So, in my career talking politics, now well into its fifth decade, I have noticed that one's partisan politics is a better predictor of when one will emit the foul odor of moral outrage than the actual crime for which the outrage is emitted. I gave Hatch and Kennedy as public examples, but any of us could provide plenty more.
Your defense of Rove's involvement in the leak (not that he wasn't convicted or committed a crime, but in fact hadn't even leaked at all) showed a lack of concern with the whole issue.
You just can't help yourself, can you? I haven't defended anyone with regard to the leak. I don't even know the facts. I follow the principle that those making charges must sustain their charges. I have said that those charging that Karl Rove knowingly leaked classified information with the express purpose of hurting Mrs. Wilson to get at her husband have not only not provided any evidence to back up the charge, but have ignored evidence to the contrary and simpler explanations for the whole leak.
However, as I always invite, please give me any evidence you have that supports the charge. I will note that Mr. FitzGerald didn't think he had enough evidence to make such a case. (And he didn't have the burden often assumed by the religious antiBushites of proving the intent of hurting Mrs. Wilson to get at her husband.)
I must have asked 100 people altogether to give me some evidence to back up this claim, and have gotten exactly none. What am I to conclude? What would you conclude? That is, what would you conclude if you were not concluding on the basis of partisanship?
Here is what I conclude: "There has been no evidence to back up the claim." Now, am I saying that I know that Rove didn't engineer the leaking of Mrs. Wilson's data to get back at her husband?
The exact issue I think you are referring to was different. It was ignoring the actual, identified leaker, who actually named Mrs. Wilson and gave away her status, (but who must have done so without knowledge that it was classified or Fitz would have indicted him) to go after Rove because he said, apparently, "I heard that, too." To make a deal out of this legally would require that one know or had evidence to reasonably conclude that Rove purposely confirmed what the reporter heard in order to< leak what he knew to be classified information. Apparently Fitz thought he could not prosecute on that basis.
So, I, to my mind, reasonably concluded that those who want to go after Rove but not Armitage are making this choice for political reasons, not in order to find some truth. further, the tone of most of these discussions has provided me evidence that this is not only a partisan matter, but one of hatred. Armitage just isn't as hated as Rove.
Again, if you have evidence about Rove's actions and his motives, I would welcome it. The best i ever get is absolute lies like, "Rove always punishes anyone who opposes him politically." That statement is false on it's face. Yet is is repeated by the sheeple continually. Why?
As for my being "A-OK," I have nothing to prove. Your charge, your burden.
Nice try, though, even if a little sophistic and obvious. (Hint: sophistic works better when it is not obvious.)
Not this tired commentary again
Yes. This is more than sufficient to lose a secuirty clearance, which is exactly what should have happened to Armitage as well. As I have said repeatedly. Such an investigation is outside the scope of Fitzgerald's investigation but something that was supposed to be investigated by one of the various investigative services such as DSS (though I'm guessing for CIA related leakes, it would have been a different organization) something which they admitted in hearings was never done.
Patronizing likewise works better without being so obvious.
I think this
is evidently a widely shared Republican debate trick that MS is using: accuse your opponent of doing what you are actually guilty of and, as dramatically as possible, claim offense.
Or is this a Mike Pridmore debate trick?!?!?!
Sorry, couldn't help the meta-response. ;-)
:b
That's the sign for sticking one's tongue out at another, in case you're wondering. I use it with Ender a lot. :)
Huh?
Where did I claim offense?
I have always acknowledged the argument
that such things could cause one to lose his security clearance if the person was aware of the classified nature of the information. And I have always stated that, as JFK said, "the ship of state is the only ship that leaks from the top." Leaking of classified information is a daily occurrence. Are you saying that Washington should be cleared out.
I notice that you chose this little item out of all the rest. Nice deflection from the real issues.
Once again, do you have any evidence that Rove knowingly and intentionally outed a classified agent for the purposes of punishing her to get back at her husband (for telling a falsehood about the administration)?
Do you?
And, as I understand it, when the Special Prosecutor took over, any other investigation stopped. I don't know if that is the way it usually is or not.
What do you think was patronizing? We aren't talking here of Rove losing hi8s security clearence. As you well know, the calls have been for him to be jailed. Before Fitz announced the indictments on that October day, all around the net the speculation was on just how many charges would be olevied on Rove, and just what his chances for ever getting out of prison were. People were drooling so much at the thought that they were having keyboard outages.
Even after he got no indictments, hope was coininuously rekindled with arcane arguments, and, as I rememberr, in the spring of the next year, Fitz was going to make some more announcements, and many people speculated with glee that Rove "was finally going to get his." Over on MLW, an article appeared, I think copied from dKos that announced categorically that Rove was about to be indicted.
The only thing I didn't see was someone saying, "Get a rope."
btw, if Fitz had found that Rove had deliberately and knowingly leaked classified information, such an investigation as you fervently want would not be necessary. That is exactly what such an investigation would be trying to find.
So, once again, if it feels good to you to read into what I say to find "patronizing" soi that you can express your moral outrage at same, have at it. I'll simply stick with reality.
You are acknowledging a false argument
Again. This IS NOT CORRECT. Awareness of the classified nature is not necessary. Being uncertain is sufficient. The identity of ANYBODY who works for the CIA is likely to be classified and Rove had an affirmative duty to verify that it wasn't classified.
We have a confession that Rove DID in fact participate in an outing of a covert agent AND another confession that he considered her 'fair game'. To me, if somebody strikes another person and argues that they had it coming, I'm going to have limited faith in a "but you can't provie it was intentional" excuse. Good enough for a jury, I don't know. But way more than sufficient to lose his clearance.
No, when the special prosecutor took over, damage reports and determinations to suspend clearances would not have stopped as there are many circumstances where suspension or revocation of a clearance is appropriate when indictment is not and the special prosecutor can't release information that isn't related to an indictment.
The reason I am focusing on this issue is because a) you keep making erroneous statements in this context (b) I can speak authoritatively on it and (c) when the context widens, you go back and forth, so I'm keeping it narrow.
The larger context point is that someone who was incredibly sloppy with classified information is being protected by the President, just like the guy who obstructed an investigation into the leak in the first place.
Sorry
That's your slant.
You haven't mentioned that the buzz in Washington that spring was that Cheney himself sent Wilson, with the implication that he therefore knew that (whatever about the 16 words. I leave it general because what Wilson said about them is wrong.)
So, your reading into "she's fair game" is natural for a partisan, but, fo ahead, why not. That's politics.
My actual argument here is not about thge "affirmative duty" stuff, iyt is rather that classified informtion is leaked every day, and although I have scanned these pages, I don't see you objecting to it most of the time. I will think you are serious in your great concern about these leaks when I read your scathing denunciation of those who leaked the CCIA secret prison information, or the NSA wiretap information, for example. Otherwise, you are just pushing a partisan agenda for vindictive reasons. Not that that is a crime. It's just that if I wanted to go to a blog where vindictive political attacks take precedence over truth and reason, I would go elsewhere. I just don't expect it here.
So, my argument is that this leak out to be purued with the same vigour that all the other leaks that have occurred are pursued by this administration. Just as (oops, forgot his name) lost his clearence in the CIA prisons leak, and a specialk prosecutor was brought in.........
damage reports and determinations to suspend clearances would not have stopped as there are many circumstances where suspension or revocation of a clearance is appropriate when indictment is not and the special prosecutor can't release information that isn't related to an indictment.
It is certainly my understanding that damage determinations were done.
I can speak authoritatively on it
Really? Good. I'm waiting.
So far, you have nicely avoided speaking authoritatively to simply write partisan polemics.
Let me test your authoritativeness on the issue: On what date did Joe Wilson begin working for the Kerry campaign?
The larger context point is that someone who was incredibly sloppy with classified information is being protected by the President, just like the guy who obstructed an investigation into the leak in the first place.
Can we hear a hallelujah?
The sheeple are applauding.
If the rumour mill had it that you should have known something because you sent someone on a trip to investigate it, might you not ask the question of who actually sent the person on the trip? Especially if you didn't even know about the trip?
Thing is, Fitz knew about the situation, and declined to bring charges. Are you denying that? No, you are just discounting it because it is inconvenient to your intent, and focusing on this other minor point.
I agree that Rove should have been more careful about sort of but not actually confirming something that already was out there leaked by someone else, and which any reasonable person would know at that point would be appearing in public soon. He probably should have confirmed it with his silence, or perhaps by saying, "I can't comment on matters concerning the CIA." Either way, it would have been confirmed.
But in fact, this is only a grievous crime against nature for you because it is Rove.
Your lack of reason here is shown with this:
To me, if somebody strikes another person and argues that they had it coming,
Of course, this is not what happened. First, no one was struck, and second, no one said "they have it coming." This is overreading what was actually said.
Anyway, please explain the entire incident to me. Objectively. With no charges unsupported. In an unbiased manner. In a way that would convince the average reader that you have no interest in getting Rove.
Please.
A professional slant however
On authority
"Really? Good. I'm waiting."
One of my past positions was as a Facility Security Officer. One duty of an FSO is managing clearances and reporting breaches to the agency providing the clearances and supporting any necessary investigations.
As for Joe Wilson working for the Kerry campaign, that would be AFTER his wife's identity was leaked. Wow, someone who feels screwed over decides to work for the screwer overs' opponents. Relevence?
He said that they were "fair game". If somebody caused somebody damage, say, leaked the IRS records of someone whose big issue was fighting poverty (a pretty fair analogy) and claimed that they were "fair game" would you believe it was an 'accidental release'?
As for no interest in getting Rove, I've never said I have no interest in getting Rove. Words such as "Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.", piss me off. But I don't feel the need to manufacture crimes or misdeeds.
What he should have done is say "No comment", that would have been above reproach.
Sure. And once I found out it was an Ambassador from the region who had been sent by the CIA, I MIGHT even dig further. And once I found out that a Marine General and the US Ambassador to Niger had also investigated and come to the same conclusion I would probably be more curious as to why the reference kept getting inserted into speeches.
But considering that the President himself has acknowledged that those words should NOT have been put in the State of the Union, what does Valerie Wilson's identity have to do with this?
BTW, special prosecutors are only brought in when the government is determined to have a conflict of interest in self-investigation. Nobody has argued that such a conflict exists in the NSA and CIA leaks. I've given my thoughts on the NSA and CIA leaks several times. If someone here actually argued that giving such information to the Washington Post was the right was to deal with such issues, I'd hammer them the way I'm hammering you. That some people argue that the acts themselves are more serious than the leaks is a different discussion.
Tell you what, write a diary with YOUR theory on why they are the same or not. Set the scope and context of the discussion and I'll be happy to repeat it, but the context on this is way too large. "Rove should lose his clearance and it offends me that he and Libby are not suffering appropriate consequences of their sloppiness and/or dishonesty" is a bit more narrow than "How do you feel about all leaks both general and specific"
More and more
As for Joe Wilson working for the Kerry campaign, that would be AFTER his wife's identity was leaked.
In fact, he began working for the Kerry campaign in May of 2003. I've always wondered who arranged the July 6-7, 2003, media blitz.
As for relevance, to me it has little. But some have tried to portray Wilson as just a good American with no political motives. The fact is that he made a false political attack, and got pushed back on his credibility. Part pof the story was that Cheney had sent Wilson, and many attributed this idea to Wilson, who had been peddling his story around Washington all spring, and even contributed to at least two published columns. So, part of undermining Wilson's credibility was to show that this idea attributed to
Wilson was false by saying exactly who it was that sent Wilson to Niger. Of course, they got that wrong also.
If somebody caused somebody damage, say, leaked the IRS records of someone whose big issue was fighting poverty (a pretty fair analogy) and claimed that they were "fair game" would you believe it was an 'accidental release'?
Not a fair analogy. But let's take the point. This is what is called "dirty politics." I believe that it is also illegal now. Back in the day (as the kids say) this was common. You could bring the analogy into line by supposing that the person was fighting a political opponent.
Here, there was damage, but whether there was an accidental kinda sorta confirmation of leaked information by Rove is the unsettled question. Personally, although I have no evidence to back this up, it seems reasonable to conclude that Cheney wanted the notion of his sending Wilson to Niger countered, and if he thought he had information that Wilson's wife sent Wilson, he would want that out there. hardly seems like an unreasonable response to a false proposition circulating about him.
So the question, and here we have left your hatred of Rove to enter your hatred of Cheney, is exactly what Cheney knew about Mrs. Wilson's status and its classification level. The "your charge, your burden" rule should be used by all rational people to self-police against rash accusations here.
And once I found out it was an Ambassador from the region who had been sent by the CIA, I MIGHT even dig further. And once I found out that a Marine General and the US Ambassador to Niger had also investigated and come to the same conclusion I would probably be more curious as to why the reference kept getting inserted into speeches.
Yes, but because y ou are knowledgable on the issue, you would realize that Cheney never got a report on the trip, but that the CIA felt that Wilson's verbal report confirmed both things they believed about Niger, that Irawq had not OBTAINED any urainium from Niger, but that he had SOUGHT uranium in Niger. And you, of course, also know that the CIA not only vetted the 16 wiords, they wrote them! And, of course, being able to read, you will notice that the words do not make any claim that Iraq OBTAINED any uranium in Niger. (The distinction between OBTAINED and SOUGHT is often lost, even by the Bushies, and leads always to great confusion.
The irony here is that when the CIA vetted the 16 words, Wilson's report is one of the foundations for the statement! And of course you know that the claim was continually made in intelligence products going to the policymakers.
But considering that the President himself has acknowledged that those words should NOT have been put in the State of the Union, what does Valerie Wilson's identity have to do with this?
From the point of view of hindsight, which is from where he made this statement, he may be right. But at the time, it was what the intelligence community was saying. Are you suggesting that it would have been better for him to lie?
As for Rice and Tenet makeing their statementsw in June and July of 2003, respectively, I remember just being curious about why they would do that. it seemed to be political and reactive, and based on the confusion I outlined above. if you remember, when Wilson came out with his story (about March of 2003, publically in an all out media blitz on July 6, 2003), the distinction between OBTAINED and SOUGHT was often not made.
ON this issue here, Ijust don't know. People are careless, things get leaked, my bet is that most often it goes unpunished. It seems to me to be a natural response (from Cheney--I never understood why people would go after Rove on this) which should not have happened. I know that the information on Mrs. Wilson being involved in sending her husband came from a cdocument generally marked as classified, but I do not know that her status was specifically marked as classified. I know that the document went on a trip to Africa. I do not know if or how that information went from that document to Cheney. The document is said to be a State department dpocument, so maybe Armitage actually saw the original, and would have noticed the classification marking. Maybe he didn't think it applied to Mrs. Wilson.
Note that she wasn't ever named in the leaks. Novak got her name from secondary sources, and got it wrong. Mrs. Wilson prefered to be called "Mrs. Wilson," not Plame.
"Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals."
I think the bit about motives is reprehensible. That's not relevant to this discussion, however. By the way, what were the words of Sen. Durbin? I found this amid an attack piece listing some of Rove's more egregious quotes from a fund raising speech:
Mr. Rove also said American armed forces overseas were in more jeopardy as a result of remarks last week by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, who compared American mistreatment of detainees to the acts of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime - Pol Pot or others."
It then quotes exactly the words you put up. So, how do you feel about Durbin's quotes? Do you think he could have reasonably known that this sort of thing could be used for propaganda by the enemy? Di he think, perhaps, that making his unhappiness with policy known in these inflammatory words was necessary,m, and outwieghed any negative consequences?
Finally, has Durbin ever heard of Godwin's law? [And Reagle's addendum that: As a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one AND the signal to noise ratio approaches 0?]
Fair enough
If Joe Wilson started advising the Kerry Campaingn after he felt his report was ignored but before the leaking that changes the story a little bit. Not in a major way IMO but still relevant. Not sure how it excuses leaking an operative's identity however.
Actually, the head of the CIA repeatedly had Stephen Hadley remove those 16 words and their equivalent from a series of speeches. That they could get someone in the CIA to put them in a memo doesn't buy much. Different analysts come to different opinions all the time. That's why such serious statements get vetted. It certainly didn't qualify as "the opinion of the intelligence community"
As the matter of fact
it WAS the opinion of the intelligence community. Check out the NIE, for example.
[Note: the uranium section does not have a confidence indicator.]
The "foreign government service" report was the reports on the forged documents, shown to be forged in March, 2003. It was because these reports had not be corroborated, or the documents even seen by CIA Washington, that references to the "deal" were removed from the Cincinnati speech.
Hadley removed a reference from the Cincinnati speech that referred to OBTAINING (more exactly, making a deal). Remember, there were always doubts about OBTAINING. These were not the 16 words, which were composed specifically for the speech they occurred in because the CIA wanted to avoid citing classified material. So they decided to reference the British white paper, which was unclassified.
That they could get someone in the CIA to put them in a memo doesn't buy much.
This negotiation between the NSA (who was writing this part of the speech) and the CIA took place over the phone.
That's why such serious statements get vetted.
Vetting ws exactly what this was all about.
Wilson does not remember his report as backing the notion that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger, but the specific story he told about the Iraqi ambassador is what caused the CIA to put a check in the SEEKING column. This in itself should show anyone how slim the evidence is. One must also realize that Wilson was not allowed to speak to anyone then in government, and only talked to officials of the previous government, now out of office (because the amabassador had made recent inquiries on the matter, and thought it would look bad to have more inquiries on the same matter so soon.)
I see no reason to doubt Wilson about this. And he had no (legal) way to know that his report was being used to support the SOUGHT language in the 16 words. So it is entirely reasonable to suppose that he felt ignored when in fact he wasn't.
To me, it's kind of simple. Wilson was spreading the story around, including some things that were later shown to be...well, let's call them "non-facts," and the notion that Cheney sent him to Niger and got a report were attached to that. I can't find any evidence that Wilson himself ever made the claim about Cheney sending him (although he did claim that Cheney got a report), but that was attributed to the story that Wilson was peddling that spring. And that could have been the impression taken from the two columns based on his story. It is not surprising that Cheney in particular would be interested in this person who was spreading this false story about him, and would be interested in knocking it down. One way to knock down a counter-factual story is to give the real facts )although they didn't quite do that. In fact, if they had simply realized that the CIA sent Wilson to Iraq and had left it at that, this never would have been an issue. But once they realized that Mrs. Wilson worked in the office that sent Wilson to Iraq, and that she had something to do with it, they were off to the races.)
The output of the July 6 media blitz is somewhat altered from the story he had been telling, altered to reflect the...non-facts discovered in his story by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, with whom he met not long before July 6.
While I agree with you on the abstract rule that every mention of the CIA should be treated as classified unless it is known not to be, from what I understand, the practical rule is that each transmitter of information is responsible for also passing along the classification with the information. So, if we are looking for the weak link, it is the first person who said "Mrs. Wilson works at the CIA" and, knowing that this was classified, didn't pass the classification information along also.
The weak link
Which is why before anyone with a clearance speaks to the press concerning anything that is conceivably classified, they pass it by people who would know. That's why it takes so long for ex intel folks to publish memoirs.
I try really hard to keep the 'lied us into war' meme separate from this for this very reason. All I'm trying to get is "Yes, Rove violated the rules on his security clearance". I would never argue that an NSA or CIA leaker on either of those two stories has a right to maintain their clearance*, though I'd question jail time.
*Unless they told someone on one of the intelligence committee, which isn't technically a leak by the intelligence official (Considering the periodic poly's these folks need to take, this or somebody about to retire seems the most likely anyways)
Maybe
Which is why before anyone with a clearance speaks to the press concerning anything that is conceivably classified, they pass it by people who would know.
I really, really doubt that this is true for those officials powerful enough to declassify things simply by saying them. I can't see FDR or JFK asking for a study of what he was about to say before he rep[lied to a reporter at a press conference.
For retiring CIA agents, it would be another story.
Rove? he shouldn't be in the former class, but again, you INO would not be insisting on repeating this about Rove if it was, say, Sandy Berger. I've long ago conceded the point that he should have been more careful not to make this petit mal mot. If the point is the emotional distress caused by the leak, your sights should be set on Armitage, and he should be getting all your press.
Now, if you simply said that you were pressing it this way for purely political reasons, i could accept that.
All I'm trying to get is "Yes, Rove violated the rules on his security clearance".
I thought it was, "Rove was careless." Anyway, I don't see and have not seen a case made that Rove purposely violated the security rules. I think the assumption is that when he was told that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA, he rubbed his hands together, a smile broke out on his face, and he told himself, "Oh, boy, I get a chance to break the security rules," and then said, "I heard that, too." That night, he made himself an extra martini to celebrate his breaking of the rules, one supposes.
Just to get philosophical a bit. There's a lot I don't like about Rove. But here, he just seems like a normal human being. Should he be hunted down and punished? Maybe, but that is not my decision. I expect that whomever makes that decision will be wise enough not to make it narrowly. What damage was done? Was the horribly evil act done maliciously (in fact, not just in the minds of dKos denizens)? Is Rove's value to the administration, in the mind of the decider enough to offset this minor offense?
I've worked a lot in confidentiality situations, and I can tell you, confidentiality is sometimes betrayed. (Not that i would ever do that.) Sometimes it just slips. Often, it is in exactly this situation, where the information is already out.
So, I am not arguing anythng here, because i really don;'t care. Seems that if you want to make the strictest interpretation and implemenataion, like you, you can. I just wonder about the motivbes for that stance.
Here, I just don't think that Rove was going to stop the phone call to run it by the CIA people before uttering the non-committal "I heard that, too."
Being careless IS a violation
BTW, Sandy Berger pled guilty and lost his clearance. Again, as was correct.
I'm not arguing it from an emotional damage perspective. From my understanding, Armitage reported his leak and cooperated. From a security control perspective that is highly mitigating. Rove EITHER did not cooperate (which is not necessarily the same as lying in a security investigation) or he did cooperate and the President was lying way back when about firing anyone who leaked information (yes, I know, big shock, Presidents lie). Either way, from a treating classified information properly perspective, it is inappropriate. It also concerns me that anyone would consider this to be a minor offense. One security officer described Top Secret as "Involving body parts if released"
I agree. I don't think Rove rubbed his hands together and looked forward to leaking the information. I don't think he cared. And I think that's why the whole "fair game" think pisses me off. Armitage at least had the grace to express regret at his sloppiness. Rove has never showed any contritiion for what, is at best, extremely sloppy actions that helped ruin both a career and damage our intelligence apparatus.
Still, the important lesson here for me is probably that I shouldn't discuss things that I find very important and take personally with someone who doesn't care.
I already agreed
careless. i wouldn't make this "extremely sloppy" just to get some superlative in.
the President was lying way back when about firing anyone who leaked information
I will take the President at his revised statement. ""if someone committed a crime [in leaking Plame's identity], they will no longer work in my administration." " I'm just nice that way, and it makes more sense anyway.
You prefer for your own reasons to hold him to the earlier:
Listen, I know of nobody -- I don't know of anybody in my administration who leaked classified information. If somebody did leak classified information, I'd like to know it, and we'll take the appropriate action. And this investigation is a good thing.
I remember hearing this one and thinking that it was patently stupid. We'd wake up and find the administration had disappeared. By the way, just to warn you off of anything they ever say, Media Matters reported that quote this way: "at a press conference the following day, Bush similarly promised to fire anyone who "leak[ed] classified information." Most of their case is actually based on thngs that McClellan said.
So, let's take Bush at his word that he will take appropriate action, and if they committed some crime, they would no longer work in his administration.
btw, I have a statement from June, 2004 where Bush seems to say he will fire anyone who was involved in the leak. But it is a bit misleading, unless you are playing gotcha. I'll let you have the pleasure of the gotcha.
And I think that's why the whole "fair game" think pisses me off.
That always seemed an awful small hook to mount seething anger on. You have to read a lot into it, which, of course, you have.
One security officer described Top Secret as "Involving body parts if released"
Pump it up. but say, rove didn't release anything. I wonder how amny body parts went with the CIA prisons? Bet you're really worked up about that one.
I'm just saying t6hat there is a balance. This isn't the greatest crime in the world. it is not even big. What is behind your stuff here is obviously, and I mean obviously, your own thoughts and feelings about Rove. to me, this kind of a slip up is not worth getting worked up over. But then, I don't have a partisan motive.
Yes, Berger lost his clearance, although it is hard to understand why he had it in the first place. But Berger not only STOLE classified documents, he destroyed classified documents. That should personally offend you as a citizen. This means that no American citizen in the future in some FOIA or document dump will ever know what was in those documents.
But, you know what, I'm not that upset about it. Worse things go on daily.
Again, I agree that Rove should have been more careful, and have communicated that the information was correct in some more acceptable way, for, if the truth be known, there was nothing he could do not to affirm it. Inb fact, I have a hard time thinking of something better to say. You can't say, "I can neither affirm nor deny that." You can't simply go silent. Both of these give it away. The rules you cite do not allow you to deny it. that gives it away also. Novak said that when you work with CIA people, you come to have some sense of how they make a denial that is really a denial, but any denial on first blush is an indication that you have hit something.
One thing you can do is to try to deflect the conversation from the information to something else, in a natural manner. You might, say, refer not to the information, but to it's being around, by saying, perhaps, "I heard that, too." See. it doesn't affirm or deny, and gives the impression that you know nothing.
Like when you come out of a meeting with the boss (I've had to do this) where he's told you that Jackson was going to be fired at the end of the day, and tells you not to say anything to anybody. You come out, and Smith says, "I hear Jackson's a goner." Personally, I liked, "Really? Where'd you hear that?" Sometimes you'd here Smith hitting the next person and saying, "He didn't deny it."
it's one of those no win situations. Eventually it will get back to Jackson, and the boss will call you in and say, "I thought I said not to tell anyone."
Basically, this is Much Ado about Next to Nothing.
Unless you're playing gotcha.
Still, the important lesson here for me is probably that I shouldn't discuss things that I find very important and take personally with someone who doesn't care.
Sorry, I just read this. maybe that is a good idea. i didn't realize that you took anything Rove did personally. just between you and me, I doubt he knows much about you.
For me, it's more that i try to let life flow like water. When things don't go according tomy own ides about how they should go, I try not to let that ruin my day. Or week. Or month. Or year. Or decade. Or life.
Let me assure you that it has not always been that way, and I can understand where you are coming from.
Mostly now when I see folly in others, I see myself, andI can relate to them also. I have much less righteous indignation now. I still have it, but not so much. I am notnearly so smart and morally superior as i was years ago, when I was angry at the imperfect world I never made being dumped in my lap, and I was surrounded by poverty, war, and injustice, and it seemed to me that no one around me but a few saw anything wrong, continuing their bourgeois lives as if the suffering of others didn't matter to them. I was really angry then. Angry enough to raise a fist. Angry enough to hate. Angry enough to take it personally.
Now I am just trying to not let one of them politicians cause me a heart attack. Personally, I don't think Rove deserves to have enough control of my life for me to have bad feelings about him. I've worked lately to take control of my life back from people and events I have no control over.
When the cat jumps on the mouse, I don't have a rooting interest anymore.
Try reading this
Attacking Joe Wilson would have been fair game.
Going after his wife, no.
Your assertion that this is much ado about next to nothing is ridiculous on its face.
While out of one side of your mouth you say you would never have gone to war, out of the other side of you mouth you make flippant excuses for those that took us there at every turn.
No need to site 10,000 reasons why everyone else, especially democrats, did it so that makes it okay.
I'm only half stupid
Let me explain this one more time
Sit down. clear your mind. Open same.
Attacking Joe Wilson is what they did. He was fair gave for two reasons: first, he was making a political attack on them, and secondly, some of what he said was wrong.
Part of what they thought he said was that Cheney sent Wilson to Africa, and therefore her would have gotten a report saying that the 16 words were wrong. In fact, Wilson's report supported the 16 words in the minds of the CIA. Cheney never got a report. Wilson could not have known these two facts (legally).
So naturally Cheney did exactly what you would do. He asked who sent Wilson to Africa. The answer is that the CIA sent Wilson to Africa, and Wilson's wife was involved with that. (The extent of her involvement is a matter of dispute.)
It also turns out that the document oin the State Department that noted that Wilson's wife worked in the CIA did NOT mention that her status was classified. Further, Rove did not leak her employment; that was Armitage.
Now, "defending." As I ahve stated several times, when working with rapists, murderers and thieves, to me, but not to you, apparently, one is still bound to speak truthfully about them. If someone says that Jake, the mass murderer, smuggled drugs into the prison, one doesn't assume it is true just because Jalke is a mass murderer. if there is no proof that Jake was the smuggler, one says, "there is no evidence that Jake smuggled in the drugs." Now there are always missliberties there who then say, "How can you defend this man, who is a mass murderer?"
Do you get it now?
Just because Rove, Bush, Rumsfeld, Mrs. Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and the r4est brought us a war I didn't agree with doesn't mean that i will simply accept things without question against them. That would be childish and dishonest.
One difference is that I believe you are assuming that mentioning that Mrs. Wilson was involved in sending Wilson was a deliberate attempt to hurt her, something for which there is no evidewnce. it is rather easily explained by an attempt to show that Cheney did not send her.
If you actually read the column by Novak that "outed" her, you would realized that she is mentioned in ecxactly that context. Well, let me reword that: the reasonable, unprejudiced person would realize that.
Here's a portionof Novak's column:
Note that the CIA also gave information about her!
Novak's column
You know you are just plain wrong here
I disagree with you and I am a reasonable person.
Joe Wilson's wife was a covert agent. Period.
If the press really was liberal they would be calling this
by it's proper name. Treason.
So to discredit Bush we should go after Laura?
That's fair game apparently for folks like Karl Rove.
[Edit: Yes I know the whole history. I have followed the story closely, starting with Novak's article, and Libby's calls to Chris Matthews and Tim Russet]
I'm only half stupid
Yep, you're reasonable
Joe Wilson's wife was a covert agent. Period.
What is usally not made clear in these arguments is what the term means. I accept, having no reasons not to, that she was a covert agent in the CIA as claimed by the CIA. But the question usually discussed is whether she was a covert agent under the definition of the 1982 Intelligence Identity Protection Act, which would make anyone who divulged her status subject to prosecution.
No one was prosecuted under this act, and most legal scholars didn't expect anyone to be prosecuted under that law. A major reason is the definition of 'covert agent' in the law.
If the press really was liberal they would be calling this
by it's proper name. Treason.
It's not treason. But, it's your charge. Perhaps you have an argument. Remember, you have to show intent to aide the enemy.
So to discredit Bush we should go after Laura?
You are assuming the matter in dispute. If you want to discredit Bush and revealing Laura's role in something would do so, why should she be protected? The point here isn't about Mrs. Wilson, it is about her status. If she were in the steno pool at the CIA and had had the same role (delivering the request to take the trip, at a minimum), and this was revealed, there would be no problem.
There is no evidence that "they" went after Mrs. Wilson. the evidence is that they were trying to find out who sent Wilson to counteract the story that Cheney sent him. You know, they acted just like you would if something false were said about you.
Yes I know the whole history.
Really? Quickly now, give me the names of the writers of the two published articles that used Wilson as the source which came out before the July 6 media blitz by Wilson? You shouldn't have to look them up.
On Covert
Plame would likely have been covert under the law as well. Victoria Toensing's tortured contortions aside, most people would say that those who fought on D-Day served at Normandy even if they didn't get "stationed" there long term.
The high hurdle here was proving the "knowingly" and intent portion of the law in question which have nothing to do with her actual covert status under the law.
I've seen this
article of doctrine.
I did a surprising thing. I read the law and decided for myself.
But information released last month makes it more likely that she could be squeezed in.
Since she couldn't be identified as covert, it seems that no one involved was likely to be prosecutable under the law, as you say.
I'm still wondering about the 1917 law on leaking classified information.
And, just personal opinion, I think Fitz' whining that he couldn't determine things because of Libby's lies is nonsense. I'll give him delayed, obstructed, but not totally obscured. Eventually he knew the truth. Why would it matter whether he got it from Libby or some other person?
So, can we say that anyone betting that anyone would be indicted or convicted under the IIPA would have been throwing away their money? Wishes aside, that is.
What Joe Wilson wrote before
July 6th has zero to do with whether or not Valerie Wilson was a covered CIA agent.
The charge IS not what Joe Wilson wrote or Joe Wilson's character, the charge is that a covert agents cover was blown. The seriousness that it put the whole of her front company and every contact she ever made in danger..... and why, to get even with Joe Wilson for daring to contradict the President.
The motive to leak her name is obvious. Shut up Joe Wilson, how dare you contradict my claims about Iraq and the immediate threat of a mushroom cloud. (see yellow cake forgeries exposed by Wilson's op-ed)
The 'evidence' did not pass the smell test, which is why the claim of yellow cake was attributed to the British and why it was later retracted.
Not only is it treason to knowingly out a covert agent, it is also criminal for the President to make false statements to Congress, using 10 year old fake documents forged from Italy. It is a serious charge..... which is why he quickly retracted, AFTER Joe Wilson's op-ed stating what he did not find in Africa. The CIA told Bush not to use claim and he did anyway.
Interestingly at the time this Identities Act was passed democrats voted against it. If they had got their way the law wouldn't even exist.
I'm only half stupid
What you said, Sweetheart
is "Yes I know the whole history."
The whole history includes Wilson and Cheney's actions before Wilson's July 6 media blitz. You can't understand why Mrs. Wilson would even come up without it.
The motive to leak her name is obvious.
And you know the motive how? Mind reading again. You are not good at it. Try using reason instead.
Shut up Joe Wilson, how dare you contradict my claims about Iraq and the immediate threat of a mushroom cloud. (see yellow cake forgeries exposed by Wilson's op-ed)
I suggest you actually read Wilson's op-ed. then go to the interview with him on the same day written up by Walter pincus in the Washington Post. Move on to his appearence on Meet the Press the same day.
Wilson said nothing about mushroom clouds, and you are just ignorant about that image anyway. Wilson exposed nothing in his op-ed, and, in fact, simply said that he thought the intelligence was twisted" in the 16 words. Turns out, Wilson's own report was one of the things that vetted those words, which were fully vetted by the CIA. Did you know that?
The claim was attributed to the britsh because the CIA didn't want to refer toclassified intelligence, and the British White Paper involved was unclassified. Did you know that?
Not only is it treason to knowingly out a covert agent, it is also criminal for the President to make false statements to Congress, using 10 year old fake documents forged from Italy.
The 16 words were not based on the forged documents, which so far as I know, Bush has never seen to this day. In fact, the CIA did not think they were forged until March, 2003, two months after the speech. Did you know that?
The CIA told Bush not to use claim and he did anyway.
This is absolutely wrong.
Since you can't seem to exercise the minimum amon=unt of intellectual honesty rewquired to actually look for the evidence, I will bring the SSCI Report on the matter directly to you:
The whole history
of course includes what Valerie was actually working on at the CIA, so I assume you know what her job and position were and that she was in fact covered.
I'm only half stupid
She was
It's not the issue.
As i recall, she was on non-official cover, which makes her work at Langley puzzling. It also makes one wonder how the information about her got into the State Department document, or why a CIA person confirmed information about her to Novak.
In looking at things today, it seems clear that she was reserving "Plame" for the undercover stuff, and that is the name Novak got out of a secondary source (I think a Who's Who.) That's what blew her cover.
But here is what i think is the most important thing: if there had been no circulating story that Cheney sent Wilson, there would never have been any reason to mention his wife.
And, of course, even if she did work at the CIA, if she hadn't been involved in Wilson's trip, she would never have been mentioned.
Which all would have meant nothing
if........ Joe Wilson had not written his op-ed.
That would have all been behind the scenes scuttlebutt. Wilson had the audacity to contradict the 'cherry picked' claims that the VP was using to sell the war.
Even worse when the 'crew' casually tried to discredit Wilson's wife, it came to light who and what Plame was and what her position was, they knew they were in trouble.
That is why Ari resigned. That is why Armitege was concerned. That is why Libby spent all night on the phone trying to keep the story out of the papers. That is why Novak and Rove got off...... they didn't knowingly know.
This was a case of smear the messanger and they picked the wrong person. Wilson made an issue of it, because his wife WAS working on WMD intelligence matters in Iraq and she was outed. If WMD was the big concern the administration said it was....... why out the head of CIA working on gathering intelligence about the state of the weapons program? Because it contradicted the VP's claims.
In the famous flood of pleas to Judge Walton to save Libby, Paul Wolfowitz himself indvertently admits that Libby knew in advance that Plame was covert.
Of note: Fitzgerald has said the investigation is not closed. Obstruction of Justice means that Libby prevented Fitz from getting at the truth.
That this investigation has been so convuluted shows how many people were involved. And that includes the VP's efforts to influece Tim Russert and Chris Matthews.
There was a war between the CIA and the VP's office. This is the culmination
and the CIA doesn't take kindly to having their own high ranking officials outed for the sake of politics. That is why the claim was brought to the DOJ in the first place. Outing of Valerie's name is a crime.
I'm only half stupid
Sorry, MissL
you just can't make up your own facts to suit your religion.
Wilson had the audacity to contradict the 'cherry picked' claims that the VP was using to sell the war.
Wilson contradicted nothing from Cheney. Wilson's piece concerns only the 16 words in the SOTU address. In his poece, he argues very convincingly that it would have been possible for Iraq to OBTAIN uranium from Niger. Of course, the 16 words do not make such a claim.
Wilson's op-ed makes sense when you realize that not long before he published it, on media blitz day, the SSCI caught him in some...er, "untruths," that he had been peddling around town. These had to be taken out of the op-ed. It left the op-ed a bit incoherent.
Even worse when the 'crew' casually tried to discredit Wilson's wife,
So far as i know, NO effort was made to discredit Wilson's wife. The point was that Cheney didn't send Wilson to Niger, Wilson's wife did. (Turns out, she didn't actually send him, the office she was working in did, and she had some involvement in it. Also turns out that Wilson had gone to Niger for the CIA once before, I think in 1999, so it is not so odd as the righties would make it.)
As for Wilson, he made a political attack, what he said was in fact false, so what is wrong with pushing back on the false messenger?
Remember, this all came about, according to Wilson, because he felt "ignored." Seems he thought that his trip to Niger was the only bit of intelligence the CIA ever had. Poor Joe. He felt aboozed. And he's still whining to this day.
In the famous flood of pleas to Judge Walton to save Libby, Paul Wolfowitz himself indvertently admits that Libby knew in advance that Plame was covert.
And so that means what about, say, Arrmitage, from the State Department?
I will issue the standard request: show me something that a Bushie said that was a lie, that is, that was false, not supported by the intelligence, and they said it knowing that.
Now that you know beyond the shadow of a doubt that the 16 words were fully vetted by the CIA, where to next in your quest to make uup the facts.
First, go read the op ed and tell me what it says.
Stole documents?
Cite please. All I've seen is that he made copies and then tried to destroy them. Typically, when one copies classified documents, they get registered at the same site where the original is registered, transported to another secure location for storage until they are not needed, after which they are either destroyed or returned to the original site for destruction.
From everything I've seen, Berger violated this procedure and then tried to destroy the copies himself (in a very poor and stupid way) rather than return them for destruction (as doing this would have revealed his unauthorized destruction). These are fairly common violations that typically cause no actual damage as no classified information is lost, but I still agree that he should have lost his clearance because he attempted to cut them up with scissors rather than return it and take his violation.
I've never seen any evidence he actually destroyed originals, just right wing paranoia that the "destroyed" classified documents meant originals even though all references were to his taking copies. If you have evidence he took originals and destroyed them, then I would agree that it was much more serious.
You're right
Damn, I'm guilty of headline reading, and I should know better. The headline said Berger destroyed classified paper, and I assumed. Shouldn't do that.
(From WaPo)
The Rove thing sounds like it might be inadvertent. Since even you say that he can't be charged with a crime, how about for his carelessness, beginning in 2009, he loses his security clearance for a year?
Assuming an investigation showed it to be inadvertant
He should lose his clearance pretty much immediately (the whole point of losing it is that you can't be trusted 'till you learn your lesson). Clearance suspension doesn't really work on the "at the start of the next season thing"
Suspending it through the current administration would make more sense than losing it when he probably wouldn't have one anyways.
BTW, for someone with that type of clearance, I'd expect a polygraph to be part of the investigation (same with the NSA leak btw)
There are actually several reasons why Sandy Berger's leak is much less serious than the leak of Plame's identity
I realize that
Berger is a Democrat.
Sigh... Can't you simply ask why instead of the blanket charge?
Sheesh.
How's this: As a result of Berger's mishandling of data, what classified information actually was released? As far as I know, the answer is none. It was all recovered or destroyed. Thus the 'damage' would be considered very low.
I was joking
I was reacting more to the notion that Rove committed some great crime. How about this: nothing happened as a result of Rove saying "I heard that, too."
In fact, I find it interesting that the State paper thought to be the source of the information on Wilson's wife did not note that her employment was classified. So it requires the religious antiBushites (antiRove sect) to reach for, "Oh, it is truly awful and the greatest of sins not to assume that someone in the CIA is covert and information classified even when it is not marked that way and people are talking about it openly."
So, what i am joking about is that your position is partisan. You are trying to make this an issue of the letter of the law where in practice it almost never is (or there wouldn't be daily leaks of classified informtion).
You have been honest about what fuels it, hatred. And this comes from your assuming that this was all a plot to hurt Mrs. Wilson.
In fact, I don't see any evidence for that, except maybe that dubious fair game quote. this claim comes from Wilson himself, reported like this in Vanity Fair:
Next, Wilson got a call from a journalist whom he won't name-but who is widely thought to be Chris Matthews-who, according to Wilson, gushed, "I just got off the phone with Karl Rove. He says your wife is fair game. I gotta go." Click.
Kind of slim to me, since this isn't presented by Matthews as an exact quote, and Mathews himself, much as I like him, is a bit truth challenged at times. Not to mention that Wilson has trouble remembering things.
I did a bit of googling, and I have not found where Matthews has ever confirmed that he told Wilson this. (Sorry, I decdied not to go through a couple of years of show transcripts.) I did see a couple of his refusals to affirm it ("I don't talk about off the record conversations").
Do you he a direct reference to Matthews.
On the other hand, I saw references to Rove denying he ever said that, but never ran into an actual citation to Rove. But, then again, I didn't actually look.
Again, this is a lot of work for something so minor. Armitage? He did the leaking.
Now, just a note: I saw the same kind of effort you here put into Rove put into Berger when that story broke. You knowl, the anit-Clinton crowd. It was a nice Gotvcha for them. They wanted him in jail for the rest of his life, and some had wild conspiracy theories about how Bill himself was behind this to cover up his failures.
I just don't get involved much in gotcha politics. i think it is counter to the public good.
Read what I said
I very specifically avoided saying that Rove's role was more important than Berger's. I said the leak itself was more serious. And based upon the level of damage, it was.
OK
but we were discussing Rove, and you were bolstering your arguments with the seriousness of the leak.
I would be with you when you tear into Armitage, who, btw, had a reputation for such mishaps. He has been described as "gossipy."
Find me someone defending Armitage
And I'll tear into that debate. Reports are that Armitage fully cooperated with the investigation, which IS important, but I've already said that he should have lost his clearance, so I don't know what your beef is.
I'm not looking
for anyone defending Armitge.
What i am looking for is someone whoi is ripoping into him with the maliciousness that Rove is being ripped into.
Today i heard someone say that Armitage deserves a pass because he confessed and cooperated. Okay, go out to the 100 times more he deserves than Rove, then ratchet back some, maybe 5% for cooperation.
the fact is that one can go on boards and observe whole discussion of the Mrs. Wilson leak case and not even find Armitage mentioned, Cheney? Check. Rove? Check. Armitage? Who's he? He's just not one of the most hated inner circle.
By the way, as i said, i don't have a beef. I've been acting as a sounding board for your feelings about Rove for a while here. I think you should move on with your life.
But my God, (if there is a god and you are listening) I would love to last until president Clinton comes in so I can hear who can't goive up the attack dog habit and turns it on her, and who can immediately turn it around for partisan reasons.
And, of course, this is gotcha politics, and we have been leap frogging. So it will be interesting to see if the Republicans can out nasty the Democrats at the next leap frog (or is it frog leap?)
This sort of reminds me of the scene in Duck Soup where Rufus T. Firefly (Groucho) head of Freedonia, awaits the visit of Ambassador Trentino, to discuss peace. While waiting, he comends Margaret Dumont for setting up the meeting for peace, talks about offering his hand in peace to the ambassador, then wonders what would happen oif the ambassador refuses it, talks about "what a fine thing that would be, " gets angrier and angrier at the thought of the ambassador refusing his offer, and when the ambassador enters, he slaps him. The war is on.
I used to show that clip to my anger management classes.
Once again, the Philosopher
"Mistrust those in whom the urge to punish is strong."
Nietzsche
It's fairly simple
to understand that Rove's scruples have made him a ton of enemies in political circles.
Irrespective of his involvement in the affair de Plame.
His willingness to put your grandmother in jail just to serve his own political interests are historical.
HIs enemies comes in many places. Trent Lott has been none too happy with Rove.
I'm only half stupid
And the state dept memo WAS marked
At least according to reports
A classified memo is inherently marked. Unless it specifically says UNCLASS, it is considered marked as classified.
I read that
I believe i said above that the document was marked but not her status. You quote from "one account" confirms it. There is nothing about her being a covert agent, as one would expect.
So is all this about her working at the CIA?
(Do we have to go through he "everybody knew" thing again and drag up Andrea Mitchell?
One more thing, for information
The CIA asked that a reference to "500 tons" be removed from the Cincinnati speech. Latger on, Tenet asked that the following statement be removed:
"And the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa, and a central ingredient in the enrichment process."
This is a reference to the deal "documented" in the foreign services report, based on the forged documents.
Although the forged documents certainly cna support "SEEKING," the actual 16 words SEEKING do not depend on the forged documents.
The point is that the claims removed by Hadley are different from the claims in the SOTU.
RE: Not this tired commentary again
[ Begin Good Natured Retort ]
To quote my dear departed father, "in this case the evidence appears to be against you."
In this context that would translate to, "well neither of these people has lost their security clearances so apparently you are wrong (since otherwise they would have)."
Admittedly not a conclusive, but clearly a pertinent, point. :)
[ End Good Natured Retort ]
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Since the whole point is the unserious protection of information
The fact that a second Bush official didn't lose his clearance doesn't damage my case. Armitage's cooperation with the investigation could reasonably have had an impact on a reasonable decision to simply put it in his record and not revoking. (Though reasonable doesn't mean I'd agree with it as correct)
Who here hasn't seen Mike Gordon's article for the NY Times
U.S. Says Iran Helped Iraqis Kill Five G.I.’s
although yesterday it was titled U.S. Ties Iranians to Iraq Attack That Killed G.I.'s.
DKos has a good thread going this afternoon discussing it
. You know that whole NY Times beating the drums of war to invade a new country disregarding what it did to help sway the US populace to invade Iraq. Money Quote from Editor & Publisher's Greg Mitchell:
"As if he hadn’t done enough damage already, helping to promote the American invasion of Iraq with deeply flawed articles in The New York Times, Michael R. Gordon is now writing scare stories that offer ammunition for the growing chorus of neo-cons calling for a U.S. strike against Iran – his most recent effort appearing just this morning. What’s most lamentable is that editors at The New York Times, who should have learned their lessons four years ago, are once again serving as enablers.... Perhaps even his editors were concerned or embarrassed. The same story suddenly gained a couple of qualifiers, though not nearly enough, later yesterday (first spotted by Salon blogger Glenn Greenwald), and then got enlarged somewhat today, and with the byline of Burns added to Gordon's."
Speaking of which, you have to read Glenn's piece particularly the updates
as this was/is a moving target story.
I know some here want to see the US attack Iran. My point in putting this in today's thread was to express my dismay. Dismay at the neo-cons for thinking they can do this trick again, especially so soon. Dismay with an Administration that obviously spoon fed the article to the Time's stenographer, but my most profound dismay is for the NY Times itself. I'll let Joseph Welch's quote speak for me:
"Have you no sense of decency?
"
Here's the question
What are the facts?
If you say you know the facts, how do you know?
If you say that the reported facts are not the facts, how do you know this? obviously, you must have the facts, and have compare the false report to them.
Me, I simply don't know. Haven't been to Iraq for a while.
The facts
The facts are:
1) Michael Gordon wrote and the NYT published an article accusing the Iranian government of an act of war.
2) The given source of all the reported information was one military spokesperson.
3) Past claims by the military about high-level Iranian involvement have been refuted by people who have pretty good credibility (Gen. Pace, for example).
4) The article was later edited to cast some doubt on the accuracy of the military's assertions, including additional reporting and a second byline.
The main conclusion drawn by kindness from this is that the NYT was guilty of shoddy reporting. Seems to me like the facts back that up pretty well, don't you think?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Why shoddy?
If I say "military spokesman says X," and it is true that a military spokesman says X, am I being shoddy for reporting this?
If follow up reporting casts doubt on what the Military spokesman said, and I report that, does that in itself make the first reporting shoddy?
Shouldn't we simply applaud the follow up reporting?
Although I'm not going to claim a bright line, I think a better example of shoddy reporting would be to end a four year vendetta against, say, a president with a ballyhooed report making charges not proven to be true based on forged documents.
In this case, kindness seems to be making allegations with no backup that this was done for certain motives, that is, not to report what a military spokesman actually said, but because the NYTimes (apparently) wants the US to invade Iran, perhaps because they think it would help sell papers. Kindness tells us that for objective corroboration of this notion, we should turn to dKos!!!! Nowhere, from what i read, did kindness dispute that message of the story, the statement that a military spokesman said X.
What kindness said is that the NYTimes had deep, dark, and evil motives for writing that a military spokesman said X. One can usually translate this into the proposition:
I know they had deep, dark, and evil motives in publishing this story because I would have deep, dark, and evil motives if I published this story.
As Nietzsche noted, what people say about reality usually doesn't tell us much about reality, but often tells us something about them.
The main conclusion drawn by kindness from this is that the NYT was guilty of shoddy reporting. Seems to me like the facts back that up pretty well, don't you think?
So, you are saying that Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner did not say what the story said he said? What did he really say?
In fact, I followed all of the linkage here that I could stomach without vomiting, and I saw actual quotes like, "Brig. Gen. Kevin J. Bergner said...." then immediately and dishonestly translated into, "the NYTimes is saying...."
And then there was the absolutely idiotic or dishonest, take your pick, dragging of the aluminum tubes into it, as if the tubes were not an intelligence assertion. Mushrrom clouds even made an appearance, as if the writer knew absolutely nothing of the context and extent that this image was used by the Bushies.
So, since you seem to be acting as counsel here, and everyone deserves a defense, what can you say that would justify any of this gibberish?
The defense says...
Actually, I didn't read a word of the comments on dKos. Rarely do. So I won't try to defend any of that. I strongly suspect much of it is indefensible!
Regarding the NYT reporting, and the shoddiness thereof, it just seems to me somewhat alarming that something so important as allegations of acts of war would be reported based on only one source, with no apparent attempt to verify, and no mention of past allegations that have since come under suspicion. Especially given the mea culpas that some in the press have expressed about their lack of scepticism regarding claims made in the run-up to the Iraq War. I for one don't want to see something like that happen again.
If I were a reporter, and the owner of McCool's Bar & Grill told me that Smitty's Pub had a serious problem with rats, would it be bad reporting for me to write a story headlined "Local Bar Owner Voices Concern About Rat Infestation at Smitty's Pub"? Should the paper publish such a story?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Not quite the same.
I am sorry I don't share your absolute trust in the commenters at dKos to deliver the abs0olute truth about events in Iraq. It's not that someone there couldn't stumble onto something that turned out to be true, it's just that it isn't the place a rational person would go for such information.
Here's the thing: I can read. I read the article as saying that an Army spokesman said X. Every chance they had to say that what he said was true, they avoided saying it. I believe that you can't write the story as you propose: "An Army spokesman said something yesterday, but we aren't going to tell you what it is." I think you could do that for a local bar owner.
Here, you are saying exactly that because that particular Brig. Gen. has a n insterst similar to a competing bar owner that would cause him to make remarks similar to the bar owner which may be ffalse, in other words, because you have reason to distrust this particular Brig., Gen, then we shouldn't just publish his comments. Thing is, the General's comments themselves were very conservative.
What you seem to be suggesting is that the NYTimes should refuse to publish facts that someone, somewhere might use to bolster an argument they don't like. I think that that would be bad journalism. You know, it would be like, in the lab, refusing to publish a fact found that tends to support a theory competing with yours. Careers have been lost in science for doing what you propose the NYTimes do. Data is sacred.
Now, should the local paper report, "Spokesman for City Health Authority expresses concern about rat infestation at Smitty's Pub?"
That would be comparable.
And, you know, you might find out later that the city health officer who reported the rat infestation is the brother-in-law of McCool's wife.
Here it is again:
it just seems to me somewhat alarming that something so important as allegations of acts of war would be reported based on only one source,
You might try to tell me how allegations by one source would be reported by more than one source. The article said, in essence, "one source said...." Even gave one name.
You know, we aren't all idiots.
btw, just to get it on record, do you think the General weas lying? If so, what do you think his motives were?
Edit: Maybe I read you wrong oon dKos, that you weren't speaking ironically. Mockingly.
So, I'm sorry for that. But I will leave it in for honesty and my first reaction.
SL
I'm trying to work (in your defense) on a rewording of this statement:
it just seems to me somewhat alarming that something so important as allegations of acts of war would be reported based on only one source
I think the problem is not with the reporting of the allegations, but with the acts of war themselves. So, maybe, and I find this hard, something like, "it is disturbing that acts of war should be reported on the basis of one person's allegation."
So, I'd be with you if the NYTimes reported the allegations as true based on just this one souirce. but I don't think that is what they did. They seemed always to carefully say "the general said X" not "X happened, as reported by the General."
It may even be that the considerations you cite are in part responsible for their carefulness here.
Yeah
You did initially misinterpret my dKos comment. I really don't read the comments much. It generally feels like a waste of time. No worries.
I understand what you are saying, as far as the reporting being careful to always say "the general said..." So "shoddy reporting" is maybe not a fair description. I do feel, however, that the "disclaimers" that were added later should have been in there from the beginning, and I wonder if they were only added as a response to bloggers like Glenn Greenwald calling them out on it. I think the editors really "fell down on the job," so to speak, by letting this through in it's original form.
So, yes, I applaud the additions, but I also applaud Greenwald for crying foul, and perhaps forcing the NYT editors to do their jobs!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I went back to read Glenn's
I went back to read Glenn's piece. My critique stands. He is making something out of nothing for partisan reasons.
Except for one statement for which he doesn't provide context, these are simply statements reporting what someone said. I agree that if there was reason to believe that the person named dcid not make the statements, as asserted, there shoud have been some statement to that effect.
But the actual investigation of the truth of what the person said is not within the scope of this report. I also believe that it would be beyond the capabilities of the reeporter making the report in all likelihood. For instance, when the spokesman says, "We jhave intelligence..." how is some reporter with a note pad going to determine whether or not there actually is intelligence saying whatever? Normally, we simply say, "So and so said...." Ordinary English speakers know that you are not either vouching for nor denying the truth of the statement. You are doing what you are supposed to do: report what the person said accurately.
Glenn apparently believes that people are stupid, something common with those on the left.
So, I still don't see any foul.
Now, I am waiting for Glenn to turn his sights on the Tribune papers which published this about Bush's speech yesterday:
I expect Glenn to say that the Tribune papers printed this simple restatement of what Bush said uncritically, as if they were just the same as the administration war machine. They didn't point out, for instance, that none of our troops are fighting with muskets, and probably the vast majority did not drop their pitchforks. How could they simply preint this from his mouth uncritically?
Shouldn't there be some long and critical reflection about how and how net this war is similar to the Revolutionary War?
And Glenn could bear to miss the reference to 9/11. Shouldn't the Trribune papers have insisted on a long critical essay on that point?
Is the war really "new and unprecedented?" Surely a list of precedence should be required here, rather than just repeating what Bush said, wouldn't Glenn think?
Damn those Tribune papers for becoming simply a part of the Bush war machine. Damn them!
My wife just came home and told me that she brought chicken and cole slaw home. That's what she said, and I report that she said it here. Now Glenn would perhaps say that I should not report what she said unless I do some investigative reporting to see if it is in fact true that she brought chicken and cole slaw home, how much, of what sort, and so on. But all I am vouching for is that this is what she told me. By telling you what she said, I am not becoming, at least to me, a part of her conspiracy to get us into war with chickens. (Heck, I don't even eat meat.)
So, tell me again what the "foul" was, and tell me how one should report what someone says when the purpose of the reporting is to tell the public what that someone says.
It's lazy
It's lazy reporting. And it is exactly this kind of reliance on official sources with little or no skepticism that "The Press" now seems ashamed of regarding pre-Iraq War reporting. And here they are doing it again!
So I don't give a damn that it had "he says" in all the appropriate places, it was still a one-sided report on a subject that is just to @#%!ing important to NOT present the other side! If you don't think it's that important, that's fine. I completely and utterly disagree with you, and you will never ever change my mind.
Oh, and regarding the reporting of the Bush speech, it says right in there that it was President Bush making these statements. That's already a huge disclaimer that the words that follow are likely complete B.S.
(That last paragraph was a joke.)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I still think
it comes down to reporting that someone said something as opposed to reporting as true what they said.
I didn't see any hint of "and we know it's true because the spokesman said it" in this report. thinking that the reader is generally a complete idiot (unlike the very intelligent writer of the piece) is a big part of the problem, IMNSHO.
Judge Walton Seek Clarification from the White House
Now What
The Judge asks the White House for guidance on the terms of probation.
I'm only half stupid