Gelisgesti wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Read the thread with your BAF glasses off and it should be very clear, Gel.
You made the claim ..... put up or shut up..
She quoted what she thought was relevant, Gel, and I commented accordingly. Twice now. If you're too thick to follow that simple progression that's not my problem. And who do you think you are telling anyone to shut up?
OCCOM BILL wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:OCCOM BILL wrote:Read the thread with your BAF glasses off and it should be very clear, Gel.
You made the claim ..... put up or shut up..
She quoted what she thought was relevant, Gel, and I commented accordingly. Twice now. If you're too thick to follow that simple progression that's not my problem. And who do you think you are telling anyone to shut up?
I told you to put up or shut up because you never answer a direct question, and didn't this time either. Once more ...... which fact needs to show proof of cause?
Put up or don't answer. Better?
News or Public Relations? For Bush It's a Blur
By DAVID BARSTOW
and ROBIN STEIN
Published: March 13, 2005
It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.
"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.
To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public-relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.
Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 different federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.
This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.
Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.
Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, such as the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.
Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest TV markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.
An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.
It is also a world where all participants benefit.
MPs urge Bar Council to investigate advice on war
By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent
12 March 2005
The Attorney General is facing a damaging inquiry by the barristers' ruling body after the revelation by the country's most senior civil servant that Britain went to war on the basis of one page of legal advice.
MPs have lodged a formal complaint with the Bar Council, which regulates barristers, and asked for an investigation into Lord Goldsmith's conduct in offering his "definitive advice" on the legality of invading Iraq on a single page of A4. It came as the Government confirmed yesterday it would not release the legal advice for war despite a request to review its decisions.
Yesterday, Clare Short, the former international development secretary, was also told her complaint about the Attorney General's presentation of legal advice - with no supporting documentation - would be investigated by the council's complaints commissioner.
The chief executive of the Bar Council, David Hobart, confirmed in a letter to Ms Short that its complaints division would look into the matter. "I am told the inquiry will be independent," she said. The Attorney General has strongly denied Ms Short's allegations.
The inquiry could prove damaging to Tony Blair as it will look at what instructions the Prime Minister gave Lord Goldsmith when he asked him to produce his view of the legality of war without a second UN resolution.
It comes after the revelation by Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, that a short parliamentary answer by the Attorney General was the "definitive advice" on the war sent to the Prime Minister and that there was "no other version".
Jack Straw was also under pressure after MPs claimed he "misled the Commons" over the legal advice on the war. The parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, Elfyn Llwyd, said there were "inconsistencies" and called for Mr Straw to "either explain himself or apologise."
He said the Foreign Secretary had implied the Government had a copy of the full legal advice during a debate in the Commons in March. On 9 March 2004 Mr Straw said that Lord Goldsmith "gave an outline of the case but he never published his advice".
"Jack Straw told MPs during my debate on the Attorney General's legal advice, in no uncertain terms, that there is a longer version of the advice that has not been published. Now the most senior civil servant says there was no other version. In that light, it seems the Foreign Secretary has misled members of Parliament," Mr Llwyd said.
But this week Sir Andrew admitted under cross-examination from MPs that the one-page parliamentary answer sent to MPs and peers was "the definitive advice that he had reached. It does not purport to be a summary of his advice," he added.
Senior lawyers said it was extraordinary that advice on such a serious issue should be produced on one piece of paper without accompanying documents or "reasonings".
Gordon Harris, partner at Wragge and Co said it was "frankly extraordinary". He said: "You can't produce serious legal advice on a single piece of paper. I would expect legal advice on war to run to 10 to 20 pages of argument at least supported by a couple of ring binders of documents."
Philippe Sands QC, professor of law at University College London, said the admission there was "no other version" beyond Lord Goldsmith's parliamentary answer implied there was no legal basis for invading Iraq without a second resolution.
He said the only formal legal opinion was that of 7 March to Mr Blair which is thought to have been equivocal about going to war without a second UN resolution.
"Sir Andrew Turnbull seems to have given the first confirmation from within government that there was no further legal advice in writing after the 7th March," he said. "It would be surprising for the Prime Minister to claim that formal legal advice could ever be given orally."
Yesterday, the Bar Council told The Independent that all the complaints on the advice would be taken seriously.
When such an important legal issue can be fully discussed by HM's cabinet in a one page document, it surely won't bother here - I've tried that with a seperate thread already some hours ago :wink:
Will be a hard work for Blair to get unhurt out of that, I suppose.
Gelisgesti wrote:I told you to put up or shut up because you never answer a direct question, and didn't this time either. Once more ...... which fact needs to show proof of cause?
Put up or don't answer. Better?
No, that's not better. It's still an order you're in no position to give. Besides, the information you seek is no less obvious now. Click
here and read the highlighted portions... to see the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc in action. I don't know how to make that any clearer.
Do you ever wonder why you're so frequently the only one who doesn't get it? Try trying instead of being deliberately obtuse.
You don't have to agree to understand.
Will be a hard work for Blair to get unhurt out of that, I suppose.
Well you would think so Walter. But our Tony is a clever fellow.
What really makes me laugh about this is that for months if not years the opposition has been demanding that the full text of the Attorney General's advice be made public. The government has always resisted on the grounds that it has legal confidentiality between lawyer (Attorney General and cabinet member!) and client (the government, our tony, and the Attorney General as member of the government...hope you are still with this) which leads one to believe that the full text is most certainly there, but will for ever remain secret. It now transpires that there never was any "full text". It was only ever Peter Goldsmith's jottings on the back of a fag packet. On this basis, we invaded Iraq. (!.........?)
old europe wrote:Have you read anything about Kerkar at all, ican?
Kerkar? Are you spelling it correctly? If yes, then I do not recollect reading anything about it.
I have read all of this:
www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
Quote:The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States Report, i.e., The 9-11 Commission Report, 8/21/2004, alleged the following:
...
And in particular this:
Chapter 2.2, page 61, note 54 & 55.
Quote:
... Bin Ladin ... continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.54
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995.
... 55
OCCOM BILL wrote:Gelisgesti wrote:I told you to put up or shut up because you never answer a direct question, and didn't this time either. Once more ...... which fact needs to show proof of cause?
Put up or don't answer. Better?
No, that's not better. It's still an order you're in no position to give. Besides, the information you seek is no less obvious now. Click
here and read the highlighted portions... to see the fallacy of Post hoc ergo propter hoc in action. I don't know how to make that any clearer.
Do you ever wonder why you're so frequently the only one who doesn't get it? Try trying instead of being deliberately obtuse.
You don't have to agree to understand.
Do you ever wonder why you're so frequently the one that is misunderstood?
You have given me nothing to agree to. It's like talking to a four year old. If you don't know try this ..... I'm sorry, I don't know.
OK, I'm going to try once more, this is called 'fill in the blank' .... the fact/s that need to show proof of cause is/are [blank]
if you need more space take it. If I don't post back that means I am tired of spoon feeding you
old europe wrote:It's well known that Saddam had WMD pre-91, RR...
Yes, so is this well known. Is it well known to you?
Charles Duelfer's Report alleged, 9/30/2004:
www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/Comp_Report_Key_Findings.pdf
Quote:1. [Regime Strategic Intent, Key Findings] Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
2. [Regime Finance and Procurement, Key Findings] Throughout sanctions, Saddam continually directed his advisors to formulate and implement strategies, policies, and methods to terminate the UN’s sanctions regime established by UNSCR 661. The Regime devised an effective diplomatic and economic strategy of generating revenue and procuring illicit goods utilizing the Iraqi intelligence, banking, industrial, and military apparatus that eroded United Nations’ member states and other international players resolve to enforce compliance, while capitalizing politically on its humanitarian crisis.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:What puzzles me is how some people can swallow propaganda hook line and sinker time after time. Even when it is clear they've been lied to, they come back for more, eager to believe.
They must be either psychotic, unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy, or lazy in not bothering to think.
Or it could be that they know exactly what they are doing. They might be involved in the production or dissemination of propaganda. Or as ordinary citizen, they feel somehow they have a duty to demonstrate belief, not believing or even scepticism being equated with disloyalty.
Now that which you wrote is a clear case of the griddle calling the pot greasy.
What puzzles
me is how
you can swallow propaganda hook line and sinker time after time. Even when it is clear
you've been lied to
and defrauded,
you come back for more, eager to believe.
You
may be either psychotic, unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy, or lazy in not bothering to think.
Or it could be that
you know exactly what
you are doing.
You might be involved in the production or dissemination of propaganda. Or as
an ordinary citizen,
you feel somehow
you have a duty to demonstrate belief, not believing or even scepticism
of your invidious liturgy being equated with disloyalty.
Foxfyre wrote:Possible scenario:
The base commander is approached by NY Times reporter(s) questioning about alleged death of Afghanistan prisoners.
The commander calls up somebody and is advised that all deaths have been of natural causes. This is what he tells the reporters.
The reporters tuck that information into their notebooks and continue investigation. Meanwhile the commander also checks further and finds out that in fact there is an investigation in progress.
When the story is written you get: "The military initially asserted that the deaths were of natural causes" separately from 'an investigation is in progress"
Those who don't look for a link, or who just wish to believe the worst, will link the two statements as 'proof' that simply isn't there.
Foxfrye, that is one possible scenario of why they first denied the deaths being a homicide and then later admitting it after an investigation was done.
Another just as likely scenario is that they lied.
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:The powerful have always used lies deceipt and fabrications to influence the way people think. The biggest confidence trick of the lot is to get ordinary people to think that the people at the top are playing by the same rules as the rest.
Life is pretty good if you are a prominent figure in the elite. I would suggest that for most people the only compensation for not being in that group is that they imagine such people must be weighed down with the cares of office. But its not like that at all. The ruling elite only allow themselves to be troubled by weighty matters if they want to. Their only real concern is (as ever) maintaining their powerful positions, which they do by playing games with other peoples lives. Getting people to believe in propaganda is just part of that game.
By golly, that's an excellent characterization of the
invidious liturgy of the irrational Left, the irrational Liberals, and the irrational Democrats. I call 'em the
Irratio
Gel, I am flattered as well glad that you are attempting to address Bill on my behalf. I am not going to respond as he just sends me in a bad mood of which I don't need.
your invidious liturgy
lovely phrase ican.
One question, what made you think I had you in mind?
Steve (as 41oo) wrote:your invidious liturgy
lovely phrase ican.
One question, what made you think I had you in mind?
Two answers! I didn't think you had
me in mind. I thought you had
you in mind.
"an excellent characterization of the irrational Left, the irrational Liberals, and the irrational Democrats. I call 'em the Irratio".
So I suppose your religiously inspired zionist crusader imperialist hegemonist president is rational?
Because president Bush knows nothing, whatever he promises is not a lie. He believes he's telling the truth 100 percent of the time. He never lies. Sounds logical to me!
