Steve (as 41oo),
Mctag,
I think what you're saying is that you believe Newsweek's charges were accurate, but that they decided or were forced to cover-up the story with a retraction.
As you can guess, I don't believe that's what happened. However, that's irrelevant for now.
Newsweek's story has already been put under scrutiny on Able2know. Some of us who've been discussing it to this point (in fact I think most) have already concluded that Newsweek leveled false accusations, and were subsequently forced to retract their story when it became publicly obvious - at least in the US (I don't know how it's been reported in Europe or elsewhere). If you have a something to add or rebut, please don't hesitate to bring it to our attention there. Reading and responding to that thread...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51530
...ensures that none of us have to rehash old arguments and posts. (You probably already know the inconvenience, from both sides, of repeating old arguments to latecomers).
The thread we are in now, is a follow-up to the one I just linked to, and is based on the overall (and now somewhat redundant) conclusion reached in that forum about Newsweek's charges. Although the title of this forum is [intentionally] pithy and biased, the question it provokes is whether or not Newsweek knowingly printed false charges. And that is what we are trying to determine in this venue.
Polstar,
Welcome to A2k; but this
Quote: Some of us who've been discussing it to this point (in fact I think most) have already concluded that Newsweek leveled false accusations
Is somewhat of a stretch.
There isn't a single bit of evidence that Newsweek falsified anything and quite a bit that they didn't.
I would direct you to my post on page 3 of this thread for more info...
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn,
Thank you for the welcome.
I think it was already acknowledged (on the thread, at least), that unproven charges were false charges [and vice-versa] because if all unproven charges were merely those that had not proven a negative, then there would be no such thing as "False charges." There would always be some rationale to dismiss a vindication [sometimes, to the point of absurdity].
Also, my understanding of legalese is that "false accusations" and "unproven accusations" are indeed synonymous.
Ticomaya wrote:Parados: Focus on this bit from Armitage:
Richard Armitage wrote:Iraq has refused to identify the location and fate of its considerable stocks of anthrax, botulinum toxin, VX, sarin, and mustard gas;
....
and Iraq has refused to account for tens of thousands of empty -- and full -- chemical and biological warheads. And, mind you, these are just the materials and the weapons we know about, just some of what UNSCOM catalogued in 1999 after inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. We do not know what Saddam Hussein may have amassed in the years since.
And where are all these items? There were not tens of thousand of unaccounted for warheads. Geez.. Go read the Unscom reports. There was no mobile lab for biological weapons. This turned out to be made up stuff. Hardly a reason to go to war.
You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.
Polarstar wrote:Cycloptichorn,
Thank you for the welcome.
I think it was already acknowledged (on the thread, at least), that unproven charges were false charges [and vice-versa] because if all unproven charges were merely those that had not proven a negative, then there would be no such thing as "False charges." There would always be some rationale to dismiss a vindication [sometimes, to the point of absurdity].
Also, my understanding of legalese is that "false accusations" and "unproven accusations" are indeed synonymous.
A news organization is not a court of law. Using legalize in the discussion of whether they met the standards of journalism is hardly appropriate.
When a newspaper or magazine prints something it is meant as news not as an accusation. If the story turns out to be false it could be for several reasons. In this case it appears that a source told them some information that was not true. They went with it without a confirmation.
Cylcloptichorn,
parados,
As an added clarification, I think you read my post as pursuing a "Newsweek lied" meme. That wasn't my assertion, and - truth be known - I was wondering if someone would make that conclusion. Essentially, we had different definitions for the term "False charges/accusations."
That doesn't mean that I don't think Newsweek "falsified anything." I just wasn't addressing that particular question.
As far as the accusations themselves, we discussed Newsweek's charges . I've read your posts, but I hold that Newsweek's accusations were false based on reading Newsweek's explanation of how it came to publish its story. I'll give you some of my reactions (three posts) and you can comment on them. I don't want to re-argue this, and I hope you don't either. If we're both comfortable with our [contending] positions in the end, I'm alright with it and I hope you are too...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about51530-0-asc-90.html
http://www.able2know.com/forums/about51530-0-asc-70.html
parados wrote:
When in doubt accuse my question of not being intelligent. Yeah.. typical of you Brandon. Instead of addresssing the issue raised you dance around it and call names.
No, actually, I called you a name and then addressed the issue. The statement that struck me as imbecilic was:
parados wrote:Is a factually false statement a lie or not?
I identified this as stupid because I would think anyone knows that a factually false statement might be a lie or might not. I imagine you've made numerous statements that turned out to be false, as have I.
parados wrote:Let me see if I can understand your logic. Clinton lied because he statements were factually true but misleading but Bush didn't lie because his statements were factually false and misleading. Is that your argument Brandon?
Actually, what I think is this:
1. Whether Clinton lied or not is a very complex issue. I believe that his intent was to say something that was factually true but misleading. Personally, I wouldn't call it a lie. Although, when he later said to the media, "I did not have sex with that woman," I think it was a bit closer to a lie. In any case, I don't blame him much.
2. Bush doesn't seem to have lied because there is no evidence that he wasn't simply mistaken.
parados wrote:Ticomaya wrote:Parados: Focus on this bit from Armitage:
Richard Armitage wrote:Iraq has refused to identify the location and fate of its considerable stocks of anthrax, botulinum toxin, VX, sarin, and mustard gas;
....
and Iraq has refused to account for tens of thousands of empty -- and full -- chemical and biological warheads. And, mind you, these are just the materials and the weapons we know about, just some of what UNSCOM catalogued in 1999 after inspectors were kicked out of Iraq in 1998. We do not know what Saddam Hussein may have amassed in the years since.
And where are all these items? There were not tens of thousand of unaccounted for warheads. Geez.. Go read the Unscom reports. There was no mobile lab for biological weapons. This turned out to be made up stuff. Hardly a reason to go to war.
"Geez"? I thought the code word for the day was "SHeesh". His refusal to cooperate was a good reason.
Quote:You stated that Saddam refused to cooperate. I stated you can not provide any evidence that he did refuse to cooperate. Your argument here is simply that he refused to show us where stuff that didn't exist was. Hardly an argument to his non cooperation. Rather it is an argument about setting an impossible standard then accusing someone of failing to cooperate because they couldn't do the impossible.
The evidence I provided was the first link I came to when I searched for some. It is the testimony of Richard Armitage before the Senate, where he states Saddam refused to cooperate. So don't try and tell me I didn't provide any evidence of his refusal. Where is your evidence that he did cooperate?
You are an apologist for Saddam Hussein. I don't expect you to agree with the way I view this issue.
An apologist for Saddam Hussein. Typical right wing hysterical rhetoric. Overused to boot.
Newsweek might have made some errors.
Ticomaya wrote:You would also see that I only asked someone to prove Bush had lied.
Quote:
IRAQGATE
How Bush Justified A War With Lies
The Bush Administration's Iraq strategy appeared to be based on the proposition that if you repeat lies enough times, people will accept them as facts. This pattern of deception and deceit rivals the Nixon Administration and, as former Nixon White House counsel John Dean points out, launching a country into war based on fabrications would make Watergate "pale by comparison."
In the September/October Columbia Journalism Review, David Greenberg cited BushLies.net as among the few columnists and Web sites that "framed the [Niger] uranium deceptions as part of the President's familiar M.O., which was to utter untruths with such nonchalance that no one could possibly believe he was deliberately lying."
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/9/index.htm
Link above, Iraq war lies.
For all the other lies, see,
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/
Polarstar wrote:Steve (as 41oo),
Mctag,
I think what you're saying is that you believe Newsweek's charges were accurate, but that they decided or were forced to cover-up the story with a retraction.
As you can guess, I don't believe that's what happened. However, that's irrelevant for now.
Newsweek's story has already been put under scrutiny on Able2know. Some of us who've been discussing it to this point (in fact I think most) have already concluded that Newsweek leveled false accusations, and were subsequently forced to retract their story when it became publicly obvious - at least in the US (I don't know how it's been reported in Europe or elsewhere). If you have a something to add or rebut, please don't hesitate to bring it to our attention there. Reading and responding to that thread...
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=51530
...ensures that none of us have to rehash old arguments and posts. (You probably already know the inconvenience, from both sides, of repeating old arguments to latecomers).
The thread we are in now, is a follow-up to the one I just linked to, and is based on the overall (and now somewhat redundant) conclusion reached in that forum about Newsweek's charges. Although the title of this forum is [intentionally] pithy and biased, the question it provokes is whether or not Newsweek knowingly printed false charges. And that is what we are trying to determine in this venue.
Huh? How on earth do you or others think you know the truth or falsehood of the charges?
You may guess - or like to think you know - but you do not, any more than those who think they are true do.
I find your reading of the "conclusions" of that thread to be most biased.
Ticomaya wrote:
And there's nothing wrong with being pedantic.
You are the very definition of pedantic, you are the paladin of pedantic, Tico.
M-W:
Main Entry: pedantic
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant
2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3 : UNIMAGINATIVE, PEDESTRIAN
Main Entry: pedant
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, from Italian pedante
2 a : one who makes a show of knowledge b : one who is unimaginative or who unduly emphasizes minutiae in the presentation or use of knowledge
dlowan,
I think I've already covered this with a few posts. It's the third and the sixth ones down on Page 13.
If, however, you're arguing that Newsweek's charges are proven, then we operate on two different planes, and it doesn't benefit either of us to contest this point with each other. We'd just ignore each other's arguments because we work on incompatible sets of Rules and Assumptions.
And I'm not interested in shouting or getting yelled at across streaming electrons.
It's nothing personal. It just wouldn't work out.
So here's to you, Buttercup...
...Cheers.
Read the post.
I state quite clearly that it is neither proven nor disproven.
You may find less to complain about in debate here if you actually read what is written.
I have no desire to shout either.
I just think you made a quite unwarranted statement.
The mirror image of the one you jumped on me about, which I never made - and just as wrong.
dyslexia wrote:gungasnake wrote:dyslexia wrote:very interesting commentary and yet I sit here and wonder, was the Newsweek article accurate or not?
FDR would have hanged their asses for publishing such a thing in 42 whether it was accurate or not. The idea of the interests of the United States never entered the minds of the cretins running Newsweek.
Probably true and Churchill blasted the beeb for broadcasting the truth as they saw it at the time, tried to shut them down in fact, but then the beeb is still there which, I think, demonstrates that the people want the truth even more than they want propaganda. You prefer propaganda gunga?
As it turned out, it now looks like what was printed was anti-Bush propaganda, rather than the truth. It appears that they printed a story for which no one posesses any evidence because they were in a hurry. Just out of true puzzlement, what does supporting your country in time of war mean to you? Please don't tell me what it isn't. What do you think it does mean?
Supporting one's country, and blindly following one's leaders are two entirely different things.
Newsweek has made an honest mistake.
I'm challenged to prove that Newsweek was not simply misled considering it relied on its source, "a senior government official." Knowing this, its defenders wonder aloud how any reasonable person can justifiably call Newsweek a liar. (The implication about me is not flattering).
There's more than a little slight of hand in this reasoning, whether unknowing or intentional. In explaining Newsweek's mistake, these people leap over an essential (some would say "troublesome") assumption: that Newsweek's source Exists.
They'll say: "But Newsweek shouldn't have to reveal its source and there are journalistic reasons for this."
Irrelevant.
It is not tenable to force others to prove a Negative. If a person claims that he has evidence, its existence must be revealed so that it can be cross-examined by others in toto. That person must prove an Affirmative - A Positive existence - evidentiary or otherwise.
If not...
Some have insinuated hypocrisy against Newsweek's critics by saying that Bush was also wrong about WMD's. It's also clear [and sometimes stated in the same breath] that they believe that Bush falsified evidence or lied about it.
IMHO [and aside from the obvious bait and switch], it's bad argumentation to draw analogies between Newsweek and Bush if you believe that Bush lied.
But there's a bigger psychological blind-spot here.
Bush relied on intelligence agencies, domestic and foreign, from countries that were supportive (Britain) to adversarial (Germany), from Republicans to Democrats, from Foxnews to CNN, from Bill Clinton to his own Father. All of them, including Newsweek, assumed the same thing long before he ever became President - that Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. For my part, I assumed the same - and even in hindsight, I think it was a reasonable assumption to make. Truth be known, I think a lot of people here thought so too.
You've heard all this.
And it's not the point.
Newsweek says it was informed by a single Anonymous Source, which it refuses to reveal.
It cannot be ascertained whether this source said what Newsweek claims he said. It cannot be verified that he misled Newsweek with a SouthCom report he never corroborated and whose charges do not exist. It cannot be verified that Newsweek informed the Pentagon who denies ever being informed, and for which Isikoff in turn claims two additional "defense department officials." In short, Newsweek's assertions [conveniently] can never be cross-examined by anyone else.
"Not to worry", some say. "He exists. Newsweek says so."
I've already seen that from too many Muslims.
Bush was informed by so many people from such differing, and at times conflicting, backgrounds over a very long period of time. They were all very intelligent, some of the best the world had to offer, with the credibility to accompany it. Yet they all assumed the same thing, right through the run-up to the Second Iraq War when Everyone had to put their money where their mouth was if a Wmd DID go off. Those people EXIST. They can be found under oath before the 9/11 Commission on tape, television and in a report at your local bookstore. They can be found in countless other committees, official or otherwise (and that includes Able2know). They can be found in Presidential speeches under Clinton and Congressional speeches under Kennedy. They can be found in MSM editorials proclaiming the folly of invading Iraq because Saddam might use his Chemical weapons [again]. They can be found just about everywhere for more than a decade from the time he used them against the Iranians and the Kurds to the time his statue fell in Baghdad.
Yet despite everyone who informed him, Bush was not "mistaken" or "misled."
He lied.
And People died.
Newsweek ran with an article with so many unknown sources and heresy claims that you'd swear it was a Jayson Blair original on Steroids. Now, days after the retraction, I'm still not surprised that our country's detractors aren't interested in knowing who this phantom "Source" is.
He exists. And, perversely, nobody except Newsweek can say otherwise.
And because he/she/it exists, Newsweek was simply "misled."
The worst part of it all isn't the absurdity, although much of it is certainly obtuse. The worst part of it all is the implication that I'm dumb enough to blindly accept all this.
As Mark Steyn would say: MBITRW
What still surprises me is that the allegation about a Quran flushed down a toilet at Guantanamo constituted less than a sentence in Newsweek's short, inside report.
The only ones blowing it out of proportion are anti-American agitators in places like Afghanistan and the conservative cheerleaders here and in some American media.
However, since the conservatives already managed to take down the CBS anchor, the progress of "synchronising the media" seems to go on.
(Btw: last Thursday, before Newsweek admitted its error and McClellan launched his offensive, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said reports from his officers said the riots were sparked by tensions between Afghan factions, not the Newsweek article.)
Lord Ellpus wrote:Supporting one's country, and blindly following one's leaders are two entirely different things.
I knew that unable to tell me what it does mean, you guys would attempt to tell me what it doesn't. I knew it so well, that I even incorporated it into my question:
Brandon9000 wrote:Just out of true puzzlement, what does supporting your country in time of war mean to you? Please don't tell me what it isn't. What do you think it does mean?
If you have the capacity, tell me what supporting your country in time of war does mean, not what it doesn't.
This one is too good to pass up. A trip down memory lane for some, for others, it's new.
=========
Lies:
On July 24, 2003, Vice President Cheney cited Iraq's "ties to terrorist groups" as a justification for the war.
In his "victory" speech on the USS Lincoln, Bush proclaimed "We have removed an ally of Al Qaeda."
In September 2003, Cheney claimed US success in Iraq is "a major blow right at the heart of the . . . geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9-11."
Facts:
The 9-11 Commission found "no credible evidence of a collaborative relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda." The Commission stressed that "it had access to the same information [that Vice President Cheney] has seen regarding contacts between Al Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks." This finding led Jon Stewart to quip, "Mr. Vice President, it's my duty to inform you that your pants are on fire."
