Dan Minette wrote: > ----- 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.
News reports from the Jeruselam papers agree as of last night. > >>> 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. A combative press is something that has jumped up a few notches in the last few months. Some of the press briefings have been *very* entertaining! (More so if you have been following the political news closely<G>) > 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. Also, to some degree it depends on who is being interviewed. Scott McClellen gets hounded with questions in a manner that no reporter would ever subject Dick C to. My impression is that the press is a bit afraid of Cheney (or afraid of pissing him off), but feel that McClellen is fair and/or easy game. > > 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. I dont think it is Bubp's statement that drew attention so mach as Schmidts inappropriate use of it. Bubp's words were common "redneckery" that can be heard in almost every part of the country, but Schmidt risked House censure by repeating them as a response directed squarely at Murtha. I'm sure you've seen the pictures of her speech. She appeared to be a bit out of control, not a good position for a freshman Rep. > > 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 agree with what you say here as it stands, but I think you miss the point I was after. After the fact, on talking head Sunday morning shows, more than one Republican official characterized Schmidts speech as "not an attack on Murtha" (clearly not the case I think you agree), and no one on any of these shows (AFAIK) challanged that statement. Of course, It may be felt (by all concerned) that the forced retraction of Schmidts words from the record was sufficient. I do not. It irks me greatly that an elected or appointed government official can plainly prevaricate and not even their opposition puts their feet to the fire. Maybe I expect too much from career polititians, but so much was made of Clintons prevarication (note the singular since I'm refering to one particular issue here) and so many allegations were inferred via campaign rhetoric concerning *character*....................well, lets just say that I'm downwind from the outhouse and it is quite obvious that it is occupied by someone that I pray God has not blessed with olfactory sensory deprivation. > > 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. In a moment of self-examination, it occurs to me that perhaps my impatience with the news media stems from the admittedly radical idea that they are not helping that collapse along as much as they could. (By revealing and discussing the story with a bit more depth, much less a bit more investigation) It seems to me that the Media handled Nixon quite differently during Watergate and I might be unfair in expecting the media to photograph for posterity the emperers full frontal nudity rather than dance around the subject trying to pinch his behind. > >> 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? I wasn't strictly limiting myself to this one news article. The fact that "Curveball" has been a developing story for over two years (reported on this list a few times at that), but not reported to any great degree over here has weighed on me lately. > The news media will never get > Cheney to back down. Agreed >Politics did get both him and Bush to back down. And by extension, public opinion. > 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. Have you read Brad's blog? It is currently #8 in popularity on one of the 2 sites that track blog traffic. Brad is probably a bit more partisan than most of the blogs I read. > 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. > Each of us is born with a built in predisposition for self-deception. Knowing this is the only way to find any objectivity in the world. I decieve myself frequently, but I find it helps if I try to imagine how others view me when they think harshly of me. Keeping this in mind helps me to think twice or thrice, maybe even backing away til a clearer resolution presents itself. IMO indecisive is quite a different thing from undecided. I try to know where I am in that regard. > >> 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 [Lost in The Excitement] <G> > >> 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. I give more weight to reports that the administration was looking at Iraq months before 911. It doesn't disagree with your stance so much as it modifies it substatially. I think Bushco was looking for a reason. > >> >> 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. > I think where we differ the most is that you attribute to instinct what I would attribute to desire. > > >> 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. :-) Occams Razor for Politics. Rob's Corrolary: If any of the particulars are of a malicious personality, all bets are off. <G> > > 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. Many of the Dems are clueless, but what I think is more important here is that their diversity has balkanized them. They are not of one mind, philosophy, or able to decide on one direction. That is why the Republicans have been so successful, they *are* following the leader in a purposeful manner. xponent Too Many Cooks Maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
