The Cyber-Spy.Com Usenet Archive Feeds Directly
From The Open And Publicly Available Newsgroups
These Group And Thousands Of Others Are Available
On Most IS NNTP News Servers On Port 119.
Cyber-Spy.Com Is NOT Responsible For Any Topic,
Opinions Or Content Posted To These Or Any Other
Newsgroups. This Web Archive Of The Newsgroups And
Posts Are For Informational Purposes Only.
From: "Gary S. Simon"
Subject: Re: trying to fool "the media"
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 16:17:33 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-Server-Date: 18 Jul 2003 20:15:25 GMT
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)
In article ,
"David Marc Nieporent" wrote:
> For the umpteenth time, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT IT IS
> VALID. They don't say that they thought it was valid at the time, and now
> realize otherwise. They say that it *is* valid.
And the Americans have not accepted that it was valid. George Tenet
was coerced into taking the blame for not editing it out of the State of
the Union address, in a fairly transparent effort to protect whoever
insisted on putting it there in the first place.
For the British to have "learned" something implies that what they
claim to have learned is true. And, given the stakes, and the context,
it requires that there be persuasive evidence of truth.
[If we made decisions based on what the British simply believe,
however mistaken, there's be lots of British restaurants in America.]
> > I do confess, however, that I've been very worried since learning
> > that Hussein was (or, for all I know, remains) in possession on not
> > only WMD but also Romulan cloaking technology which renders those
> > weapons invisible. I don't understand how anyone in the Bush
> > (aside from the puppet) can sleep, for fear that the WMD have already
> > been distributed to al-Qaeda.
> Gee, was that sarcasm?
The part about the cloaking tecknology certainly was. I suspect that
the former British Foreign Secretary, from whom I gleaned the other
remark, also meant to be sarcastic.
Good sarcasm (as I regard both remarks as good sarcasm) has in common
with good comedy the essential element of honesty.
My country made a big deal about the inability of UN weapons
inspectors who were being harassed to find WMD. And now, nearly twelve
weeks after the staged announcement of "Mission Accomplished", we can't
find the stuff either. That would be funny if it weren't so sad.
> And there was no citation of the forgery in the SOTU address.
Of course not, simply a reference to a story that (like much of the
administration's propoganda) played on page one and was discredited
somewhere between the legal notices and the obits.
> See, this is what I mean about engaging in deception. I'm sure that by now,
> anybody who follows the debate (rather than the facts) thinks that
> (A) Bush said "We have documents proving that Iraq got uranium from Niger,"
> (B) That wasn't true, and
> (C) Bush knew it wasn't true.
> But in fact
> (A) He never said any such thing. It's wrong on four important points.
> First, he said that the British government had learned it, not that the US
> government had.
Repeating it in that context required that he _believed_ it.
> Second, he didn't say that Iraq got anything; he said they
> were seeking to obtain it. Third, he never mentioned the forged documents as
> evidence. And fourth, he never mentioned Niger.
He was dishonest unless he believed that Iraq had "recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa". And, if he believed it,
he'd better have solid evidence for it.
> (B) There's no evidence that his statement wasn't entirely accurate on all
> points. The documents were forged; everyone agrees. That doesn't mean that
> Iraq wasn't _trying_ to get uranium from Niger, and it _certainly_ doesn't
> mean that he wasn't trying to get uranium from Africa. The British
> government specifically says that it relied on evidence other than the
That good old "secret" evidence?
On this side of the Atlantic, we like there to be good reason to
[Note that our British allies have some other agenda items which
might be driving their public comments; they're busily removing troops
from Iraq and getting their citizens released from America's prison
> > Read the sales pitches put forth from the administration starting
> > last summer. There was very little, if any, "maybe" about it.
> The phrase "unaccounted for" appears all over the place. The entire point
> of the whole inspections charade was that Iraq refused to explain where its
> WMD were _or what had happened to them._
If that _were_ the entire point of the sales pitch, there'd have been
no Congressional resolution or strong polling numbers in favor of the
pre-conceived war (or, quite possibly, no Republican majority in the
Congress and the public fell for orchestrated innuendo.
> > Here's the acid test. Ask yourself whether the administration's
> > attitude toward learning that a large percentage of the public thought
> > Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9/11 attacks was more along the lines of:
> > (a) oh my goodness; the public is seriously misinformed. We must
> > make certain that our mandate for military action isn't clouded by
> > such misunderstand; or
> > (b) good, it's working.
> Or (c) Oh, my goodness. Democrats are going to throw a fit. Their attempts
> to deflect attention from foreign policy to the attempt to hand over large
> chunks of other people's money to senior citizens isn't working. Good.
> Let's get on with our job of protecting the country.
> I think it's (c), personally.
You should be required to disclose that non-response (and the
question it dodged) in your sigfile, as a warning against anyone
repeating my mistake or thinking you were interested in seriously
discussing the administration's agenda and tactics in selling the war.
My future efforts will be directed at those who might otherwise
repeat my mistake.
> >> Let's not even get into the intellectual dishonesty of pretending
> >> that global warming is established scientific fact.
> > The intellectual dishonesty was censoring discussion of the issue
> > from the EPA report.
> If I write a draft of a report on some topic and the government comes to my
> house and rips out parts of it before I can submit it to a publisher, that's
> censoring it. If I write a draft of a report on some topic and then I cross
> out a section before submitting it to a publisher, that's not censoring it.
We disagree. The first definition for "censor" at dictionary.com is
"A person authorized to examine . . . material and to remove or suppress
what is considered . . . politically . . . objectionable." And,
although no person is willing to stand up and admit having been the
censor, that's what happened to the EPA's discussion of global warming.
Go Back To The Cyber-Spy.Com
Usenet Web Archive Index Of
The alt.politics.org.fbi Newsgroup