SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsPolitics for Pros- moderated


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148616)11/24/2005 4:56:55 PM
From: Lane3
   of 762993
 
Don't you see something strange in a column whose first half says, "they were sincere, there was no deception" and whose second half concludes "they will successfully stonewall and cover up"?

No. You can be sincere in your initial efforts, then, when challenged, want to avoid explaining yourself.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: LindyBill11/24/2005 4:59:35 PM
   of 762993
 
Spielberg steps in it
American Thinker
November 24th, 2005

Warning signs are already out and should be for the coming Steven Spielberg movie on the Israeli effort to hunt down those who participated in, or planned the Munich massacre in 1972. In an article in the LA Weekly about the movie, the clear spin is that it will be a great film: nuanced, balanced, thoughtful, and all the other good stuff. Friends of Israel will wonder of course how balanced a movie can be under the weight of the heavy hand of Tony Kushner, an anti-Israel playwright, who was Spielberg’s choice as screenwriter. . . Spielberg has not said much about the movie, but made one statement about it to a New York Times interviewer that is quoted in the LA Weekly article:

“Viewing Israel’s response to Munich through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy adds a human dimension to a horrific episode that we usually think about only in political or military terms. By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today.”

So the slaughter of Israel’s Olympic athletes is a “tragedy” and Israel’s response to capture or kill those responsible is classified as a “horrific episode”, which over time raised “troubling doubts” among the Israelis involved. . What more do you need to know about the film?

This would be similar to describing 9/11 as a tragedy, and our response in Afghanisan as a horrific episode. It is a level of “thinking” that puts one on a par with Chris Matthews, who recently told a college audience that we need to stop hating our enemies, and just understand them better. Yes, we in he West can benefit from talking more to those who murder athletes, behead journalists, and blow up mosques and tall buildings. Our problem is that we are not talking enough to Zarqawi and Bin Laden, to get to understand them better. Sure, and FDR should have hit Japan hard with more understanding after Pearl Harbor.

Spielberg seems to believe that the Israeli Palestinian conflict is resolvable, if only the two sides talked a bit more with each other, and stopped fighting. Note the involvement of Dennis Ross as an advisor to Spielberg on the film. Ross knows from talking to both sides. It was his job. He did it between 1991 and 2001 almost nonstop. And all that talk eventually ended when Yassar Arafat decided enough talk, now let’s get on with a suicide bombing campaign.

For the heroes of Hollywood, living their sheltered existence in mansions on each coast, every conflict is resolvable, if only each side took the time to understand the “other” a bit more, and talked more and fought less. In the real world it is not so easy. But Hollywood is not the real world.

Richard Baehr 11 24 05

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lane3 who wrote (148628)11/24/2005 6:14:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 762993
 
No. You can be sincere in your initial efforts, then, when challenged, want to avoid explaining yourself.

Won't wash. The explanation they gave - "we got bad intelligence" IS the alleged coverup.

Logically, either they were sincere and thus there is no cover up (unless you want to discuss the CIA's attempts to cover up and distract attention from its dismal track record), or they were insincere and "intentionally misled" the nation into war, which is the charge being made against them.

You can't have it both ways. Greeley is trying to.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (148629)11/24/2005 6:28:47 PM
From: Lazarus_Long
   of 762993
 
Some Iraq Insurgent Groups Consider Negotiations

POSTED: 6:34 am PST November 24, 2005
UPDATED: 2:27 pm PST November 24, 2005

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Some insurgent groups in Iraq are reportedly considering reaching out to Iraqi leaders.

Residents of Anbar province said four insurgent groups are considering naming a representative to spell out their conditions to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.

The residents, who have contacts with the insurgents, spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal.

The four groups include the Islamic Army of Iraq, the 1920 Revolution Brigade, the Mujahedeen Army and al-Jamea Brigades.

But the country's most feared terror organization, al-Qaida in Iraq, is not among them. It and two other Islamic extremist groups are believed to have staged many suicide attacks.

U.S. and Iraqi officials believe their best chance for a negotiated settlement of the insurgency involves driving a wedge between extremists and groups led by members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party who want a share of power.

continues....
ktvu.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148630)11/24/2005 6:46:34 PM
From: Lane3
   of 762993
 
either they were sincere and thus there is no cover up

I'm not following your argument. If they selectively heard the intelligence or selectively interpreted the intelligence subconsciously, then they were sincere. Wrong, but sincere.

The explanation they gave - "we got bad intelligence" IS the alleged coverup.

And if some of the intelligence they relied on turned out to be wrong, then they would blame the intelligence. It's better than acknowledging that subconsciously distorted their readings and judgments and that's what lead them astray. Or maybe they don't yet realize that that's what happened.

In any case, no matter how you screw up, bad intelligence is the perfect excuse because it implicates others. Whether or not they were sincere, bad intelligence is their best excuse. Even if you don't want to cover up, only distract, bad intelligence is your best claim.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (148631)11/24/2005 6:47:02 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 762993
 
U.S. and Iraqi officials believe their best chance for a negotiated settlement of the insurgency involves driving a wedge between extremists and groups led by members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party who want a share of power.


Al Qaeda is lending a hand by blowing up mosques and hospitals, and generally giving the insurgency a bad name.

But it's not going to be easy. The Sunni insurgents are going to want to "negotiate" Palestinian style - with talks at the table AND bombs in the streets. If the Iraqi government wants the bombs to stop they will have to make them an offer they can't refuse.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill11/24/2005 6:47:53 PM
   of 762993
 
This "Pajamas media" play has really caused hostility among my favorite bloggers. Ann Althouse and Glenn Reynolds are no longer talking to each other. :>) They went "corporate" and really screwed up.

Somebody get these guys a mirror
By Jeff Jarvis on Weblogs

Well Pajamas Media, nee OSM, nee Open Source Media, nee Pajamas Media is trying to do some navel-gazing on Thanksgiving and one thing becomes painfully, loudly, self-apparently apparent:
pajamasmedia.com

They have no idea what they want to be or why they exist.

Which is what I’ve said from the start.

Really: Just read the closed-loop discussion among only the PM people — no outsiders allowed, no comments allowed (though Roger is thinking about requiring a donation to God-knows-what charity to be allowed the privilege of allowing comments), no different perspectives welcome. And boy, do they need some.

Here’s the challenge, folks: Stand back and see whether you can agree on just one thing. Finish this sentence in no more than 10 words: Pajamas Media is _________________.

Until you can do that, there is no sense in arguing over logos, names, functionality, linking, comments, anything. What are you? Why do you exist? Until you can answer that, you shouldn’t exist. You don’t exist. You are just, everyone there seems to agree, a corporate-looking page that does too little.

But it sure is amusing to watch.
buzzmachine.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill11/24/2005 6:50:37 PM
   of 762993
 
GINGRICH TO CONGRSS: “Time is not on our side”
FDD blog

Former House Speaker (and FDD Distinguished Advisor) New Gingrich recently testified on the Hill about the threat that Iran represents to the United States, to Israel and to the Free World.

Excerpt:

Not since the failure of the League of Nations in the 1930s to confront the aggression of the dictatorships in Japan, Italy, and Germany have we seen the willful avoidance of reality which is now underway with regard to Iran.

In the 1930s Winston Churchill read Hitler’s Mein Kampf and came to understand that Hitler meant exactly what he said. Churchill found himself isolated and alone among British political leaders as the British government refused to recognize the depth of Hitler’s evil and the seriousness of his statements.

The League of Nations found itself able to issue press releases and diplomatic condemnation but unable to do anything effective about the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and later China, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia (now Ethiopia) and later Albania, Germany breaking the Versailles Treaty by remilitarizing the Rhineland and then absorbing Austria and occupying Czechoslovakia.

Each weak, paper response of the democracies simply increased the contempt and boldness of the dictators.

There are lessons to be learned from the 1930s and those lessons apply directly to the current government of Iran.

Indeed, the new Iranian President does not even require us to read a book like Mein Kampf to understand how serious he is. He enthusiastically makes speeches proclaiming to the world his commitment to genocidal annihilation of another nation …

Meanwhile the civilized world wrings its hands and the United Nations acts with contemptible weakness.

The central proposition of this testimony is this: the combination of two elements – the virulence of the ideology of Iran’s current regime and advanced military capabilities it is working energetically to acquire – when added to Iran’s inherent endowment – its strategic location, natural resources, population, and proximity to the vital resources of other nations in the region and the seaways through which these sources reach the rest of the world – poses a threat of such scope and magnitude which leave us with no choice but to take it with the utmost seriousness. We must prepare and take actions of the same intensity and seriousness as the threat.

Yet, time is not on our side.

Read the rest here. defenddemocracy.org

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lane3 who wrote (148632)11/24/2005 6:52:37 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 762993
 
It's better than acknowledging that subconsciously distorted their readings and judgments and that's what lead them astray.

subconscious, schmubconcious. None of the clowns making the "I was misled" argument can point to any piece of intelligence that would have been read differently by non-hawks. They cry about how "the President saw more than me" without mentioning that the evidence the President saw (according the Senate Intelligence Committee report) was even MORE scary about Saddam Hussein than the evidence shared with Congress.

This is no more than a demand that the President conduct foreign policy with 20/20 hindsight, and absolve the Congress of the responsibility of their votes.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


From: LindyBill11/24/2005 6:58:05 PM
1 Recommendation   of 762993
 
The contacts below are priceless. I am putting a link to this in the header.

How Do We Send a Message?
Media Blog
Stephen Spruiell Reporting
Media Culture

MB reader Barb H. wrote on Monday, Nov. 21, with the question that puzzles all of us who critique the media over and over, yet rarely see any meaningful change:

First, I want to tell you how much I enjoy your blog as well as your recent article on NR digital specific to Chris Matthews. My question is whether you have any advice how best to 'send a message' to the MSM, people like Katie Couric, Chris Matthews and the like, to influence any sort of change at all in their reporting. I know that changing deep-rooted beliefs/mind-sets is almost impossible, but you can't change anything unless you try. My frustration is that I don't know where to start. Do you send a generic e-mail via the 'contact us' link on a website? Do you write a handwritten letter? What makes them nervous?

What would have the best chance of actually making someone, anyone in a position of power within those organizations, stop and think that maybe, just maybe, they really aren't supporting our troops — that they really are hurting this country?

I know the work you do on your blog holds them accountable, just wondering if there is anything the common reader can do to help support change.

These are great questions, Barb. I don’t know the answers, but I can point out a couple of links with media contact points. I think that when media organizations get lots of e-mails with the same basic wording, they tend to tune them out and think, “Oh, this must be some right-wing plot against us.” But when they get a lot of e-mails and they seem unconnected, maybe over time this will have more of an impact. I don’t know. In any case, here are some sites that have contact links:

Daily Alert Action Recommendations
dailyalert.org
Honest Reporting Media Contacts
honestreporting.com
LGF Media Contacts
mrc.org
MRC Media Contacts

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10