1
   

Constitution - Nothing But a Piece of Paper?

 
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 10:19 am
Colin Powell had satellite photos of trucks. We based our conclusion of what was in those trucks on the testimony of anonymous sources. Using your reasoning, I could take this article and say "Doug Thompson is hardly anonymous".
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 10:20 am
Could you site a source for the anonymous sources you speak of?
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 10:27 am
Say again?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 10:38 am
FreeDuck wrote:
Not that I don't agree that we should be skeptical of anonymous sources, but where were you guys with your skepticism when anonymous sources were telling us where Saddam's wmd was?


I don't recall seeing anonymous sources telling us where the WMD's were. Can you please show me where you read that via a link? I'd appreciate it very much as I don't recall reading about them previously.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 10:50 am
I'm just curious, McG. How do you think we came to believe we knew where the wmd was? Was it our many cia spies on the ground? Our superior human intelligence? Our satellite photos of trucks?

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001434737

Quote:
"Mr. Libi was not alone among intelligence sources later determined to have been fabricating accounts," Jehl continues. "Among others, an Iraqi exile whose code name was Curveball was the primary source for what proved to be false information about Iraq and mobile biological weapons labs. And American military officials cultivated ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, who has been accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war."


http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/jun2003/mill-j27.shtml

Quote:
The evidence suggests that Judith Miller is guilty of deception that goes far beyond anything Blair ever imagined. While Blair's misconduct may have offended some of those to whom he attributed invented quotes or whose work he plagiarized, there was nothing in the reports filed under his byline that fundamentally distorted news developments. In Miller's case, however, news reports based on anonymous sources and hearsay, which subsequently proved false, served a hidden political agenda and played a direct role in promoting an illegal war.


I'll find you some more just as soon as I get the time.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:10 pm
I believe "curveball" was an alias to protect the identity of the individual, not an anonymous source.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:13 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
I have it on solid authority from 3 people who were in the room and heard it that Squinney, when asked what she thought of GWB, exclaimed "He's the most wonderful man. So intelligent. We're lucky to have him in the White House."

Of course, I cannot name these three people who swear they heard her say this, but I assure you it is true.


These same three people, when asked about Coastal Rat, said "Who?"
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:19 pm
Now, back to the question... Is the Constitution just a piece of goddamn paper? Do we make more of it, give it more creedence than it deserves?

Surely the founding fathers were fallible men. They left some things out that later had to be added.

Maybe it isn't all that important...


(As others have said, given the history of this president and his dumb, off the cuff comments that have been confirmed, I don't have any trouble believing he said it since he assumed he was in a room of followers. Whether he said it or not, he has made it obvious it's how he feels about the Constitution. His actions speak louder than words.)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:20 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I believe "curveball" was an alias to protect the identity of the individual, not an anonymous source.


This is rare idiocy indeed--it is astounding to me that it does not occur to you that sources are described as anonymous precisely because their identity is to be protected. This ranks as one of the most idiotic statements you have ever made--and that's filling a damned tall order.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:25 pm
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
I have it on solid authority from 3 people who were in the room and heard it that Squinney, when asked what she thought of GWB, exclaimed "He's the most wonderful man. So intelligent. We're lucky to have him in the White House."

Of course, I cannot name these three people who swear they heard her say this, but I assure you it is true.


These same three people, when asked about Coastal Rat, said "Who?"


Well, see, they didn't recognize me because I was not in makeup at the time. You gotta be tricky when trying to get people to say things that fit your agenda. Cool
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:27 pm
So you were protecting your identity, huh--but not necessarily wishing to remain anonymous?
0 Replies
 
Letty
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:28 pm
Squinney, no it is NOT just a piece of paper, and yes, the framers were capable of error, but it still remains one of the most cogent documents in history.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:48 pm
CoastalRat wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
CoastalRat wrote:
I have it on solid authority from 3 people who were in the room and heard it that Squinney, when asked what she thought of GWB, exclaimed "He's the most wonderful man. So intelligent. We're lucky to have him in the White House."

Of course, I cannot name these three people who swear they heard her say this, but I assure you it is true.


These same three people, when asked about Coastal Rat, said "Who?"


Well, see, they didn't recognize me because I was not in makeup at the time. You gotta be tricky when trying to get people to say things that fit your agenda. Cool


Even without your makeup CR, no one could miss that nose. :wink:
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:51 pm
McGentrix wrote:
I believe "curveball" was an alias to protect the identity of the individual, not an anonymous source.


a·non·y·mous Audio pronunciation of "anonymous" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nn-ms)
adj.

1. Having an unknown or unacknowledged name: an anonymous author.
2. Having an unknown or withheld authorship or agency: an anonymous letter; an anonymous phone call.
3. Having no distinctive character or recognition factor: "a very great, almost anonymous center of people who just want peace" (Alan Paton).


But back to the actual topic...
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:52 pm
McG, i have not quoted your post, because i have reported it to the moderators, and don't wish to have this post pulled at the same time that your post is pulled. Whether or not the administration staff who were playing footsie with Chalabi and the INC in the days before the war were being truthful about the alleged "curveball" is a matter of conjecture to exactly the same degree that the reliability Mr. Thompson's allegations about WH staff is a matter of conjecture. The only substantive difference here is that you wish to believe the former, but don't wish to believe the latter.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:52 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Setanta wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I believe "curveball" was an alias to protect the identity of the individual, not an anonymous source.


This is rare idiocy indeed--it is astounding to me that it does not occur to you that sources are described as anonymous precisely because their identity is to be protected. This ranks as one of the most idiotic statements you have ever made--and that's filling a damned tall order.


tsk, tsk, tsk.

"curveball" is a verifiable source. Officials know whom the person is and have the ability to question as needed. "unnamed sources" are not verifiable, nor are they reliable.

.

Speaking of revisionist history.

"curveball?" was verifiable? But best of all, "Curveball" was reliable? I don't think Curveball was even available to be questioned as needed since it was the Germans that had him.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:55 pm
McGentrix wrote:

"curveball" is a verifiable source. Officials know whom the person is and have the ability to question as needed. "unnamed sources" are not verifiable, nor are they reliable.


The reporter who cited him did not (or did she?). She also cited several unidentified sources from the government in her articles.

I think you are spending too much time nitpicking a flippant comment which you well understand. Can we get back to the analysis of the use of the Constitution as toilet paper now?
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:58 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Can we get back to the analysis of the use of the Constitution as toilet paper now?

I imagine it to be rather scratchy and not at all absorbent....
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 12:59 pm
Is parchment actually paper? Perhaps a topic on the differences between parchment and paper is in order. This would serve us well as we decided the question of verifiable sources.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2005 01:04 pm
Setanta wrote:
McG, i have not quoted your post, because i have reported it to the moderators, and don't wish to have this post pulled at the same time that your post is pulled.


Too bad you won't listen to what he said and realize it's true. Instead of having a conversation and discussing issues, you would prefer to assign the responses of the posters you disagree such labels as "idiocy" or "horsie poop."

And yet you complain when others cast you in a negative light.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/08/2025 at 04:51:50