----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:57 PM Subject: Re: They've cloned the president
> 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. Well, I'd guess that she was being emotional, and said things in anger that she regrets...for a number of reasons. She broke a lot of rules in her attack, and the GOP suffered for it. Bubp now has said that he was agast at how his words were twisted into an attack...so she looks even worse. > 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. I think it is a general rule of talking head news shows....they get top people but only if they don't go after them hammer and tong. News conferences, which are non-exclusive, are more for that sort of thing...and White House briefings. > 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. Well, what was really known with any certainty before one of the Curveball's handlers came public? Second hand stories, that ended up being true. But, as Mike Wallace can tell you, there are second hand stories that are supported by forged documents and are aired to the great embarassment of the news media. Clinton and Nixon were both caught on tape. The lies were bald-faced....I didn't have sex with that women; I know nothing of a coverup. If Clinton didn't 'fess up, there would have been a DNA test on Clinton. Curveball's statements were not manufactured from whole cloth. They were taken at face value when the handlers suggested that they should not be. This can be consistent with real bad judgement on the part of Bush et. al. People do cherry pick reports to fit preconceived notion. This makes them unreliable, but it is a different thing from saying you didn't have sex with someone when there is physical evidence to prove it. > And by extension, public opinion. Of course....the important politics is winning the next vote. > > 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. Not recently, it sounds like a reasonable blog to read, though. > 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. What I try to do is have the exact same set of rules for evaluating reports on people I like and dislike. I'm no fan of GWB. But, I see some people who attack him use his standards for Saddam's actions on him. Data are cherry picked and set up, not contrasted with other data. > > > >> 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] I have not seen the impact of which on the non-blog news reports. Indeed, the reports, up until now, on Curveball are a bit like Curveball's reports...the sources are indirect enough so that one really doesn't know whether to trust them. If I see, in mainstream media, an unattributed report from someone close to the scene, there is a high probability that it is indeed a report from someone close to the scene. One of the problems is that news is spun by all sides...as well as intelligence. Seymore Hearsh, who has done some good work, has also reported nonsense from his sources. He was spun. When he reports something, it is an interesting maybe....not hard news. So, given the fact that CBS got a black eye with their report based on forged documents, I can understand why mainstream news media may err on the side of caution. With regard to Watergate, the reporters had an overwhelmingly good source....with personal connections to one of the reporters. The #2 man at the FBI is a darn good source. > 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. But, if you listen to Bush before and after 9-11, you will see evidence of something akin to a conversion experience around 9-11. In the campaign, he sneered (literally in one debate IIRC) at the US military being engaged in nation building (which is what he's been trying for almost three years now in Iraq). One of his anti-drug folks praised the Taliban. He wanted to get US soldiers out of Bosnia, if you recall. He seemed very much against idealism in foreign policy. Recalling the official statements of the US about Iraq after his inaguration and before 9-11, I remember nothing that indicated that Bush was thinking of invading Iraq. I knew that Clinton had thought of it, but IIRC, the bombing runs in '98 were more extensive than any bombing runs pre 9-11. After 9-11, I think he bought the neocon arguement that US security was dependant on us draining the swamp. He had a "revelation" that he was called to bring democracy to the world, thus both helping all of God's children and fulfilling his responsibility to protect the United States. > > > >> > >> 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. >From reading the neocons white papers in the late '90s, I see them as fairly ernest, rather idealistic, and actually worried about the future of the United States. I differ with them, but that's not the same thing > >> 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. I've heard said that, recently, Democrats are more concerned with being ideologically pure than governing; while the Republicans are more concerned with governing (i.e. winning elections) the purity. The Democrats use to manage with much more diversity; having both blacks and segregationalists in their camp. It seems that, particularly on foreign policy, they have a hard time with "the vision thing" right now. I've also heard, but haven't checked it out, that they have actually gerrymandered districts in a way that cuts their representation in Congress. For the most part, I still consider the Democrats "my team." Right now, I'm happier with the Vikings than the Democrats. :-) Dan M. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
