----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 7:30 PM Subject: Re: They've cloned the president > > For what it is worth, I disagree with Murtha, I think it would be a > mistake to leave [not immediately, but too soon]. But I do want us out > of Iraq as soon as feasable and I want OBL dead. (Have you heard that > Zaqawri might be dead? Any news there?)
They are doing DNA, but the odds seem to be against it. > >Given the fact that he was repeatedly called a hawk in > > the reports I've seen; and given the fact that the president and VP > > both had to pull back due to political pressures, I don't see how > > one > > paints the mainstream news as conservative here. > (Dick C commenting on Jean Schmidts speech in the House) > Dick C: Well, she wasn't directing her comments at Murpha. > > News: Oh > > Dick C: blah blah blah blah blah > > In this example Dick C tells an outrageous lie and the newsperson does > not call him on it. I've noticed (and I am not alone in this) that > this is the pattern of the day. Any administration official can twist > the truth, deny the truth, or make something up of whole cloth, and > the news media will not challenge them in the least. I've watched the daily briefing on TV. I've seen a question asked and ducked 6 times in a row. There is an aspect of both sides (press and government) being well aware of how the game is played. In many ways, the press is very combative. What I think governs their actions is whether stories have legs or not. If they do, there is a full fledged hunt; if not, they back off. Look at this story. The first order story is the call by Murtha for withdrawl. One of many second order stories is the "Marines never cut and run" attack. When I heard it, I thought that it was fairly meaningless....there are enough Marine colonels around so that it was highly likely that one could be found to say almost anything. Thus, this colonel being part of a right wing group was not critical in my opinion....because little credence was lent to his statement. Indeed, my reading of the news on this is that the Republicans, after attacking Murtha personally, retreated rather quickly because his reputation stood so well on it's own. If the attack from the colonel was gaining traction, then news stories on him would be relavant and have legs....because they would affect the debate. But, since the Republicans made a hasty retreat from that position, simply reporting the hasty retreat seemed enough to me. I think the over-riding story that has a lot of legs is the collapse of the Bush administration. For example, the Senate resolution on Iraq was a stinging rebute of GWB by his own party. > Maybe everyone is getting a pass, I have not seen that myself, but it > is still wrong for the news media to conveniently forget the news they > have previously reported. Out of curiosity, if they keep on reporting on how well respected and well know Murtha's hawkish position is known, how do they conveniently forget their own news? The news media will never get Cheney to back down. Politics did get both him and Bush to back down. If I were to counter Cheney, I would be sure to not let him get any ammo for a "the liberal press is attacking us, America" arguement. Instead, I'd just put Murtha on for a long interview, write about the White House backing down, etc. > > Sure, that's why it is important to read liberals *and* conservatives > and then scan for content, and then scan for BS. Well, that's far better than most who rely on blogspace do. That makes sense. Plus, I'm sure that there are advocates for both sides who have a track record now of being partisian without deliberately distorting things. I should have remembered that you would do it this way, instead of hand picking bloggers you are predisposed to believe in. I stand by my comment about a larger grain of salt, but that is not really inconsistent with what you just wrote. Widening one's scope with the BS meter on high is a good thing to do. > You might say that what I'm seeing and complaining about is similar to > using the Bible to prove the accuracy of the Bible. That dog won't > hunt for me!<G> No, that's not what I see you doing. FWIW, I've seen little that has been fruitful in blogspace that I have not seen the impact of with > Dan, I've seen you make a case that the administration used the best > info they had not knowing that it was faulty. I respect your argument > but cannot agree with it. My case is actually slightly different from that. Let's go back to you proof texting comment. I wouldn't use it with respect to your position; but I would use it with respect to Bush's position. I think that, soon after 9-11 (within a week), Bush became fixated on the risks posed by Iraq. He knew in his heart that Iraq posed the most significant threat. He "proof texted" the intelligence to see the proof of this position. Remember my comparision between Bush and "wishful thinking" engineering? When I worked at my last company job, I was overwhelmed by the amount of money thrown down the drain on projects that fit the vision of the leadership team, but had little chance to work. That's what I called "wishful thinking" engineering....interpreting the data through a filter based on what you "already knew", instead of letting the data inform your understanding. So, my defense of him is that he has demonstrated that he has horrid judgement, instead of being a liar. I think he truely believed what he said, and thought that all the caveats were just ass-covering by weak willed bureaucrats....who are afraid to state the truth plainly. He "corrected" for the bias of the intelligence towards understating the risk. If you look back to our pre-war discussions, that was my conclusion at that time. I thought he was taking a real risk by overstating his case, because the WMD risk was as likely to be below the assessment of the intelligence community as above it. I think it is fair to say that finding no WMD was a shock to the intelligence services in all countries, not just to Bush et. al. So, I guess I'd defending him against being a liar by calling him an arrogant incompetent instead. I also realize that the differentiation partly lies within his head. However, given how clueless and pig-headed he is on many topics, I think that there is some emperical support for assuming that he actually believed everything his administration said. > > Personally, the benefit has for the most part leaked out of my doubts, > and I am back to the "Cherry Picking" argument square. At least that > is where I am today based on the things I have read. I'm not really too far from that position....my position is that GWB et. al. filtered all information through their a priori "knowledge" of what was true. I think that the arguement that the Bush White House made the best assesemnt possible from the information that was available, using the resources at their command in the best manner possible is now virtually impossible to make. My arguement is different from that. I'm arguing that they let their instincts cloud their judgement to the point that they did a horrible job assessing and presenting the evidence to the American people. >There is always a chance I might change my mind again. I'm open to it.......actually I'd > love to have reason to feel less cynical. Well, there is always the old adage: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by simple incompetence. :-) I'm not cynical concerning Bush, just sad that we have such an incompetent president...as well as clueless Democrats to oppose him. I see his administration as dysfunctional, not evil. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
