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: Lane3 who wrote (148632)11/24/2005 6:52:37 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764339
 
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 764339
 
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)


To: LindyBill who wrote (148637)11/24/2005 7:00:27 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764339
 
Now this is a new development:

DEBKAfile Exclusive: US Marines are locked in battle with Syrian troops after crossing the border from Iraq into Syria at a point west of al Qaim

November 25, 2005, 12:27 AM (GMT+02:00)

Both sides have suffered casualties. US soldiers crossed over after Damascus was given an ultimatum Thursday, Nov. 24, to hand over a group of senior commanders belonging to Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s al Qaeda force. According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148638)11/24/2005 7:04:43 PM
From: LindyBill
   of 764339
 
According to US intelligence, the group had fled to Syria to escape an American attack in Mosul. Syrian border guards opened fire on the American force.

About time we got rid of this "Cambodia" crap. Look for the left to scream about us "widening the war."

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (148636)11/24/2005 7:04:55 PM
From: Lane3
   of 764339
 
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.

I think we're talking about two different things. You're into the technical partisan infighting. I couldn't care less about that. I'm interested in the rationale for the war.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Lane3 who wrote (148640)11/24/2005 7:09:51 PM
From: LindyBill
   of 764339
 
I'm interested in the rationale for the war.

What are you looking for? I am not going to bother to "laundry list" the reasons we went in. They have been chewed to death here, and we both know them.

I suspect that you now don't agree with the reasons we went in. I don't remember you being outspoken against us going in before the war, but I am not sure when you started posting here. So I don't know if you have changed your mind, or if you held the same views earlier.

Either way, it's obvious that you no longer accept the reasons we used when we went in and that no amount of discussion is going to change your mind.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Lane3 who wrote (148640)11/24/2005 7:15:36 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764339
 
I think we're talking about two different things. You're into the technical partisan infighting. I couldn't care less about that. I'm interested in the rationale for the war.

They are all related - the partisan stances spring from the different world-view that the left and the right have held since 9/11. And, imo, the left's unwillingness to face the realities of the situation because there are no answers for it in their playbook. You may not like the neocon answer, but they had one ready. The liberals were caught completely on the hop; the paleocons and the realists too for that matter.

You can suppose all you like the neocons read too much into the evidence because of their subconscious views or whatever, but you won't persuade me until you find some evidence. And no, just saying 'they were wrong in the event' is not evidence because policy decisions cannot be made in hindsight.

Saddams track record was of development and use of WMDs of all kinds, and of persistent attempts to evade the UN sanctions and keep developing them. Whenever the US was caught by surprise by Saddam before 2003, it was always because Saddam had MORE than we knew about, whether it was his nuclear program in 1991 or the biological weapons program that Hussein Kamel spilled the beans on in 1995. The evidence of 2202 was sketchy, but it pointed to more of the same pattern of behavior. Bear in mind that Saddam could have got the sanctions lifted if he'd come clean, and was costing himself literally hundreds of billions in revenue by his "cheat and retreat" policies.

No reasonable person would give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the doubt in that situation, and none did. Not in the US, not in Great Britain, not in France or Germany or Israel.

So what special pro-war "rationale" are you talking about?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: LindyBill who wrote (148639)11/24/2005 7:18:56 PM
From: Nadine Carroll
   of 764339
 
About time we got rid of this "Cambodia" crap. Look for the left to scream about us "widening the war."

Naturally. Goes without saying.

Actually, to scream about widening the war, they might have to cover the war as a war, instead of list of explosions and body counts. So I don't know if they will.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: LindyBill11/24/2005 7:19:28 PM
   of 764339
 
You are going to be reading a lot about a Texas case where a witness has recanted. What will not be mentioned is that the hoodlum who was executed was in jail for shooting and trying to kill a police officer. He was then ID'd and executed for a previous killing.

Is a “Beyond All Possible Doubt” Standard for the Death Penalty Workable?
By Patterico on Crime

In response to my argument that no death sentence should be imposed unless the defendant’s guilt is proved with absolute certainty, some have argued that my standard is unworkable. I disagree. How can we know who is right?

One way is to ask someone who has actually been on a jury that imposed the death penalty on someone. So when commenter George S. left a comment on my blog saying that he had been on such a jury, I sent him an e-mail which said:

Thanks for your comment. I am interested to know whether you would have convicted your defendant, and sentenced him to death, applying a standard of beyond all possible doubt. What about the other members of the jury? Could you leave a comment on the blog, or respond in an e-mail that I can quote in a post? It’s important to the debate. Thanks.

He responded:

This was a case of “Beyond all Doubt.” The first poll of the jury after selection of a leader was 12 for guilty. We played devil’s advocate for a while but all agreed very strongly on the guilt. At the sentencing phase the result of the first poll was death (as opposed to a prison sentence of life) (it wasn’t discussed but I think all the jurors knew that it would be less than “life”). We again discussed it in great detail, the pros and cons and should we or shouldn’t we. Every poll (of several) agreed to the death penalty.

It’s hardly a comprehensive survey, but George S. has more relevant experience than most commenters here on the issue of what it’s like to confront these issues in the real world.
patterico.com

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: LindyBill who wrote (148641)11/24/2005 7:23:14 PM
From: Lane3
   of 764339
 
<iThey have been chewed to death here, and we both know them.

I don't want to go there either. Didn't mean to suggest that. Don't worry. I don't plan on going there nor to I plan to allow anyone to drag me.

The context of the discussion was whether Bush etc. lied. I have repeatedly suggested that he selectively read the tea leaves rather than lied. Nadine argued, as I understood her, that that was incompatible with the bad-intellegence cover-up/stonewall. I don't understand her point. It seems not only compatible but very natural to me.

I don't remember you being outspoken against us going in before the war, but I am not sure when you started posting here.

Actually, I argued strenuously that entering the war was precipitous (KLP will remember that one) at best and ill considered. I even argued at the time that he selectively read the tea leaves. Odd that you don't remember that. There were so few of us and it caused a lot of heat.

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