Rumsfeld Lied.

[WussGawd]

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by WussGawd

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact

Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

[samifan24]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

No spin in the article, Chief. BTW, thanks for the label.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

I'm not only ready for it, I'm looking forward to it for the entertainment value.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Get ready for the Republi-nazi spin on this...

I'm not a Republican, but it's morons like you that make liberals look REALLY bad.

[Chubby]

Where's all of our republican fanboys now? I was holding off on posting in hopes of setting a record for being quoted for the most consectutive posts...

[MrBug708]

The New Yorker isn't quite the NY Times

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

The New Yorker isn't quite the NY Times

You're right, they are the National Enquirer in disguise

[Chief Rum]

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

[MrBug708]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

Well played Chief....

[HornedFrog Purple]

In 2003, Rumsfeld’s apparent disregard for the requirements of the Geneva Conventions while carrying out the war on terror had led a group of senior military legal officers from the Judge Advocate General’s (jag) Corps to pay two surprise visits within five months to Scott Horton, who was then chairman of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on International Human Rights. “They wanted us to challenge the Bush Administration about its standards for detentions and interrogation,” Horton told me. “They were urging us to get involved and speak in a very loud voice. It came pretty much out of the blue. The message was that conditions are ripe for abuse, and it’s going to occur.” The military officials were most alarmed about the growing use of civilian contractors in the interrogation process, Horton recalled. “They said there was an atmosphere of legal ambiguity being created as a result of a policy decision at the highest levels in the Pentagon. The jag officers were being cut out of the policy formulation process.” They told him that, with the war on terror, a fifty-year history of exemplary application of the Geneva Conventions had come to an end.

If Scott Horton will testify before Congress, I am afraid not.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

you're right, we should be more focused on whether the President got a hummer in the oval office last night...

oh wait, now I see your point was "anything anti-Bush is biased and wrong" much like anything anti-Bush TO Bush is "anti-American".

So, when Bush says "We're going to get the guys that did this." he's only referring to people that do inhumane things AGAINST us and not FOR us right?

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Chubby

you're right, we should be more focused on whether the President got a hummer in the oval office last night...

oh wait, now I see your point was "anything anti-Bush is biased and wrong" much like anything anti-Bush TO Bush is "anti-American".

So, when Bush says "We're going to get the guys that did this." he's only referring to people that do inhumane things AGAINST us and not FOR us right?

For a former moderator, you sure troll a lot. And it's sloppy, unintelligent trolling at that.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

For a former moderator, you sure troll a lot. And it's sloppy, unintelligent trolling at that.

I guess your definition of troll is anything you disagree with.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Chubby

you're right, we should be more focused on whether the President got a hummer in the oval office last night...

oh wait, now I see your point was "anything anti-Bush is biased and wrong" much like anything anti-Bush TO Bush is "anti-American".

So, when Bush says "We're going to get the guys that did this." he's only referring to people that do inhumane things AGAINST us and not FOR us right?

Hmmm...did you see any mention by me about Clinton, hummers or really anything about this? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

I never said anything anti-Bush is wrong. I just pointed out the blatant biases associated with the above posts, specifically yours and WussGawd. If you can't even acknowledge to yourself what an extreme liberal you are, you're clueless and helpless, man, just completely lost from rationality.

Bush can claim is "anti-American" what he wants to. Doesn't mean you or I have to agree with it. Of course, I never talked about any of this at all, so I'm not sure what the point is in bringing it up to a quote from me. I'm no Bush fanboy--I'm not sure I agree with even half the things he and his administration does anymore.

You will have to take up your crusade against Rumsfeld with someone else, I am afraid. You will also have to learn the difference between someone pointing out a simple reality (the blatant bias of the article, the New Yorker, Wussgawd, yourself, and the lack of any attributed name to back up the article's claims), and someone giving tacit approval to the acts done in the Abu Ghraib prison. I am doing the former, not the latter.

But, what do I know? I'm just a Nazi, right? Cue PA announcement: "Paging Mr. Chubby, your objectivity is lost. You may claim it at the lost and found. If you care, which we doubt."

CR

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Hmmm...did you see any mention by me about Clinton, hummers or really anything about this? Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

I never said anything anti-Bush is wrong. I just pointed out the blatant biases associated with the above posts, specifically yours and WussGawd. If you can't even acknowledge to yourself what an extreme liberal you are, you're clueless and helpless, man, just completely lost from rationality.

Bush can claim is "anti-American" what he wants to. Doesn't mean you or I have to agree with it. Of course, I never talked about any of this at all, so I'm not sure what the point is in bringing it up to a quote from me. I'm no Bush fanboy--I'm not sure I agree with even half the things he and his administration does anymore.

You will have to take up your crusade against Rumsfeld with someone else, I am afraid. You will also have to learn the difference between someone pointing out a simple reality (the blatant bias of the article, the New Yorker, Wussgawd, yourself, and the lack of any attributed name to back up the article's claims), and someone giving tacit approval to the acts done in the Abu Ghraib prison. I am doing the former, not the latter.

But, what do I know? I'm just a Nazi, right? Cue PA announcement: "Paging Mr. Chubby, your objectivity is lost. You may claim it at the lost and found. If you care, which we doubt."

CR

Well that's what happens when there's like 3 political threads going at once what can I say

So if the New Yorker is liberal (which I guess it is but I don't read it regularly) then that automatically disqualifies it from ever reporting accurtate news? But what do I know, I'm just another liberal dolt

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Chubby

Well that's what happens when there's like 3 political threads going at once what can I say

So if the New Yorker is liberal (which I guess it is but I don't read it regularly) then that automatically disqualifies it from ever reporting accurtate news? But what do I know, I'm just another liberal dolt

Good, then, take it up with those folks. Until I do it, leave me out of it.

Automatically? No. Any source has to be judged on the evidence it presents and the way in which it is presented, both in specific instances and across the history of its publication on related issues. It is my understanding that The New Yorker has established itself as a very left-wing publication. This is further backed by the fact they seem comfortable in spinning together the above article, which doesn't include one single attributable name to support their claims, hiding behind anonymity.

The New Yorker article would be taken a lot more seriously, if the evidence it presents could actually be judged for objectivity. As a former journalist, I can tell you from experience that no mid-stream paper would have run that article without attribution (or let it run amok with its conspiracy-theorist spin). From a journalistic and evidence-based perspective, it's a horribly-written article, and that aspect necessarily leads one to question the veracity of the information it contains.

And, yes, you are a liberal dolt. You're not going to deny you're a liberal are you? And I reserve the right to call anyone a dolt who labels an entire group of people who don't agree with him as "Nazis".

CR

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Chubby

I guess your definition of troll is anything you disagree with.

Huh? I don't have an opinion on this topic, since I didn't even read the article. My definition of a troll is someone who continuously instigates people, which you seem to do at every opportunity you can since you came back to FOFC.

Regardless, I don't give a shit about what you do, I just didn't want you to think people don't realize what you are.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Schmidty

Huh? I don't have an opinion on this topic, since I didn't even read the article. My definition of a troll is someone who continuously instigates people, which you seem to do at every opportunity you can since you came back to FOFC.

Regardless, I don't give a shit about what you do, I just didn't want you to think people don't realize what you are.

uh huh.

[Havok]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

beautiful....

[ISiddiqui]

Btw, the guy who wrote this article is the one who exposed the My Lai massacre. So, basically, he's a respected journalist, and Rumsfeld is fucked.

[timmynausea]

It's funny to me that it seems more and more common that moderate or conservative people label liberals as "biased," and seem to use that term to mean that they are simply wrong and/or not worth listening to. I don't know if anyone else saw the Al Franken vs. Bill O'Reilly CSPAN book show battle, but O'Reilly kept saying that Franken was biased and implying that what he said had no merit, which seemed hilarious to me considering that so far no one has found a significant factual error in any of Franken's books, and the content of his books is essentially pointing out all the lies that people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush spew.
It's faulty logic, though. I mean, everyone who has a political opinion is biased to some extent. I just don't see why being liberal completely discredits what someone has to say, whether it be a well-known journalist being published in a well-known national magazine or some guy on a messageboard. It's a total bullshit debating tactic. Also Rumsfeld is so so fucked.

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Btw, the guy who wrote this article is the one who exposed the My Lai massacre. So, basically, he's a respected journalist, and Rumsfeld is fucked.

I'm sure that if and when this story grows more, that will bear itself out. Still, from a journalistic perspective, he didn't do himself any favors by not attributing his sources. There's a reason why anonymous sources are looked down upon in the media community--they quite often prove to be faulty or to have their own purposes for revealing the information (purposes which often impact on the validity and veracity of the information itself).

Originally Posted by timmynausea

It's funny to me that it seems more and more common that moderate or conservative people label liberals as "biased," and seem to use that term to mean that they are simply wrong and/or not worth listening to. I don't know if anyone else saw the Al Franken vs. Bill O'Reilly CSPAN book show battle, but O'Reilly kept saying that Franken was biased and implying that what he said had no merit, which seemed hilarious to me considering that so far no one has found a significant factual error in any of Franken's books, and the content of his books is essentially pointing out all the lies that people like Bill O'Reilly and Rush spew.
It's faulty logic, though. I mean, everyone who has a political opinion is biased to some extent. I just don't see why being liberal completely discredits what someone has to say, whether it be a well-known journalist being published in a well-known national magazine or some guy on a messageboard. It's a total bullshit debating tactic. Also Rumsfeld is so so fucked.

It's funny to me when someone takes specific instances and believes it is only one side doing it. Like when liberals complain about the dishonesty of the Bush administration and seem to think that if Kerry were elected, he would suddenly be some honest guy in the office.

Fact is, timmy, that both sides are subject to bias, and I see both sides accuse the other of it. So I wouldn't just accuse conservatives or moderates of this approach with liberals, but everybody with everybody.

The logic is not faulty. Bias is a very real issue. Consider the recently posted views of the same story on the three major cable new networks, CNN, MSNBC and Fox. The differences in perspective are just immense, and yet, it's the same story.

Does that mean someone or some information is automatically wrong because it comes from a potentially biased source? Not at all. It just means that that is an aspect of that information you have to consider--that parts of the story may have been left out or downplayed for political/personal purposes, or that someone may feel so strongly about certain views that the resulting coloring of the information they are privy to may affect the message, the truth inherent in the information itself. Bias is distortion, and is a very real presence in the media.

It's not faulty in logic at all to consider the veracity of the information before considering the information itself, and the possible biases of the source are very important to that.

CR

P.S. If the article is true, yes, Rumsfeld is so fucked, which as a Republican, I wouldn't mind--I think he's a bad influence on W.

[Glengoyne]

I too wouldn't mind if Rumsfeld went down. I guess my take on the New Yorker story is that I will wait and see if the story has legs.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Just thought you would all like to know that Seymour Hersh has won a Pulitzer Prize for international reporting and the prestigious George Polk Award (arguably the most coveted prize by journalists). You don't get these things for lying and shoddy journalism.

Do I believe it all? Not yet. But I am not discounting it out of hand it either, as some liberal nonsense. One thing I do know is that it wasn't 7 or 8 grunt soldiers getting out of hand. It was controlled and coordinated interrogation. My guess is we will all learn it soon enough, thanks to reporters like Mr. Hersh.

[timmynausea]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

It's not faulty in logic at all to consider the veracity of the information before considering the information itself, and the possible biases of the source are very important to that.

I agree with you entirely in terms of bias being a legitimate element to consider when evaluating an article or what someone says, and surely bias exists on both sides. It just seems to me that someone being liberal or having a liberal bias is used to dismiss the person or what they have to say right off the bat more often than a conservative bias is. This is just based on my experiences and things I've observed.

I think that the word liberal has really become kind of a bad word because of things like this, so much so that people like John Kerry try to seperate themselves from the term. It's also exactly the reason that the RNC tried to make Kerry known as a liberal right away when he became the Democratic candidate. If you're a liberal anything you have to say can be dismissed immediately.

This is what I was trying to say earlier. To simply dismiss something or someone because they are a liberal and that makes them biased is faulty logic. I mean, maybe this article in the New Yorker is all wrong and full of lies, but considering the New Yorker is a pretty respectable magazine, to dismiss the article just because it's a liberal magazine is poop. Dismiss it because it's full of lies, etc.

[ISiddiqui]

Well, not only is Rummy fucked... but if Bush doesn't come down hard and show that he's totally outraged, he could be fucked as well.

[Chief Rum]

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, timmy.

For the record, my opposition to that article at the moment is not so based on liberal bias (the noted facts about Hersh's record in journalism are very compelling, not to mention I wouldn't mind seeing Rumsfeld out on his keister anyway, so long as it doesn't put Kerry in office), as it is on the glaring omission of attributed sources. As a former journalist myself, that really stands out.

Pulitzer Prize or not, that is shoddy work. His information might be good (I guess we'll find out), but the way Hersh went about it here is all wrong, especially considering he then used it as the basis for a lengthy piece that reads like someone desperate to put together a massive conspiracy theory and pulling little bits and facts from anywhere to fit his view.

Without the quotes/information supplied by the unknown Pentagon informant and former intelligence officer, his entire article falls apart like a house of cards. The fact he can't attribute those sources for some reason and that is the basis for the entire article lends me more than a little doubt in my mind to how accurate his take on the situation is.

CR

[ISiddiqui]

Didn't Woodward and Berstein use unattributed sources to bring down Nixon?

[Greyroofoo]

Bush lied so thousands died

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Didn't Woodward and Berstein use unattributed sources to bring down Nixon?

Heh, true enough, but the few sterling examples amongst a sea of false reports in the history of media doesn't mean we can't give some consideration to the veracity of any sources that are unattributed.

CR

[Chief Rum]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Bush lied so thousands died

Catchy. You should write music.

CR

[Greyroofoo]

I only wish I created the phrase

[ISiddiqui]

He could be a hip-hop supa-star!

[Chief Rum]

I know how Kerry can ensure victory. He should try out for American Idol. They'll let him on for the ratings, and if he sucks, he can become the next William Hung.

If against all odds, he's good, he can truly be a hip hop supa-star.

CR

[ISiddiqui]

If he's the next William Hung, he'll win in a landslide in November. That's just how it is, people .

[Greyroofoo]

Why did we go into Iraq anyways?

Was it because of WMDs?
Can't be that because there are none

Was it because of a connection to Osama?
Bush said himself there never was one

Was it so the average Iraqi citizen wouldn't be tortured?
Nada on that as well

And why is this war costing the US more now than it did during Shock and Awe?

[Vinatieri for Prez]

hxxp://msnbc.msn.com/id/4988252/

Washington Post joining the fray; although not going as high as Rumsfeld, yet. The smoke may be turning into fire shortly.

Note: even Republicans believe it goes higher than the low level MPs.

[Dutch]

That's right, because everybody knows nobody on this planet would be mean to other people without the written consent of their CEO...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Why did we go into Iraq anyways?

Was it because of WMDs?
Can't be that because there are none

Was it because of a connection to Osama?
Bush said himself there never was one

Was it so the average Iraqi citizen wouldn't be tortured?
Nada on that as well

And why is this war costing the US more now than it did during Shock and Awe?

There have always been WMD in Iraq. Clinton and foreign intelligence has said the same (UNSCOM even inventoried and documented most of it with the assistance of the Iraqi military back in 94).

If you think there aren't any terrorists in Iraq that are trying to kill Americans, I think CNN can fill in the blanks for you on that one. And yes, they are Al Qaeda.

If you are suggesting that the US Military is the same as the Saddam Regime, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Is money all that greedy neo-socialists care about these days? That's not in line at all with what you folks were screaming about prior to liberating Iraq...

[RawIsDan]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Nice. So, we get a biased article from a biased publication that doesn't mention a single name to back its "evidence", posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths, and then before anyone can even bother to respond, we get some other liberal dolt label the other side Nazis. Great, yeah, I am rushing out to vote for Kerry, you guys on the left are the answer for everything!

CR

Well put.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Dutch

There have always been WMD in Iraq. Clinton and foreign intelligence has said the same (UNSCOM even inventoried and documented most of it with the assistance of the Iraqi military back in 94).

If you think there aren't any terrorists in Iraq that are trying to kill Americans, I think CNN can fill in the blanks for you on that one. And yes, they are Al Qaeda.

If you are suggesting that the US Military is the same as the Saddam Regime, you have no idea what you are talking about.

Is money all that greedy neo-socialists care about these days? That's not in line at all with what you folks were screaming about prior to liberating Iraq...

Dutch, you've gone off the deep end on this one.

1. Yes, we knew there were WMD's 10 years ago. But were they still there 1 year ago when we started the war? Perhaps the UN got most or all of them. Perhaps Saddam sold them for cash. Perhaps he destroyed them and kept quiet so he could continue to appear strong to his neighbors and dissident forces inside Iraq.

Whatever it is, we have found ZERO WMDs in over a year. Right now, all evidence supports that there aren't any. At this juncture, if any popped up, it would look more like we "planted" them than there were really there.

2. Terrorists? Or patriots fighting a insurgent war aginst an occupying force? There's not much of a difference many times. I refuse to call them terrorists at this point. To me, they're insurgents. Terrorists attack us on our turf. They're defending their turf. Also, were those insurgents there BEFORE we attacked Iraq? Or have we made the civilians there into insurgents? Probaby some of both.

Yes, now Al Queda has people on the ground in Iraq. But there is very little evidence to show that Iraq supported Al Queda in any material way or that there were major Al Queda forces in Iraq. Not nearly like they exist in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi and Egypt at the very least. Most evidence supports that Al Queda has become much more of a force since we removed Saddam. So it appears that using "terrorists" as a cause to invade Iraq really isn't accurate. We either created or, at the very least, compounded the problem of terrorism in Iraq.

3. We are a step up from Saddam, no doubt. At least in a global sense. But to the average Iraqi, I'm not sure we're much of an improvement right now. At least they knew the rules and what to watch out for under Saddam. Now, there's so many different factions and agendas in Iraq that it would be very easy to get caught on the "wrong side" with some bad folks. The folks in the middle are being forced to choose up for fear of being caught in the crossfire. And many of those folks aren't choosing our side.

[HornedFrog Purple]

I'll wait and see if Scott Horton denies the quotes attributed to his name before I hide behind the typical "this reporter and magazine are out to get me" schtick.

[wig]

1 more for the wignore list.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

...posted by a poster that is only more outclassed in bias by No Myths...

I think if you bothered to read over the things I've posted here, you'd find that most of them were not only reasonable, but more significantly are being proven more and more true as time goes on.

[WussGawd]

Originally Posted by Chief Rum

Yeah, I see where you're coming from, timmy.

For the record, my opposition to that article at the moment is not so based on liberal bias (the noted facts about Hersh's record in journalism are very compelling, not to mention I wouldn't mind seeing Rumsfeld out on his keister anyway, so long as it doesn't put Kerry in office), as it is on the glaring omission of attributed sources. As a former journalist myself, that really stands out.

Pulitzer Prize or not, that is shoddy work. His information might be good (I guess we'll find out), but the way Hersh went about it here is all wrong, especially considering he then used it as the basis for a lengthy piece that reads like someone desperate to put together a massive conspiracy theory and pulling little bits and facts from anywhere to fit his view.

Without the quotes/information supplied by the unknown Pentagon informant and former intelligence officer, his entire article falls apart like a house of cards. The fact he can't attribute those sources for some reason and that is the basis for the entire article lends me more than a little doubt in my mind to how accurate his take on the situation is.

CR

I will concede that yes, it'd be better if somebody went on the record, but consider who the story is about. This is in effect an article that totally discredits the second in command of the most powerful military in the world.

The facts are that people are going to speak a lot more freely about such a powerful figure if they know they aren't going to face repercussions. And let's face it, the Bush administration record is well established on how they punish whistleblowers (consider the fate of Joseph Wilson's wife, for starters, continue to the actuary who wanted to inform Congress that the Bushies were lying about the cost of this Medicare boondoggle). Members of the Bush administration have shown they are not afraid to go so far as to commit treason to get back at detractors.

If it wasn't for anonymous sources, Watergate would have never been exposed. Ultimately, the use of anonymous sources comes down to the credibility of the reporter. Now if you're a dirtbag like Jayson Blair, that credibility is nil. On the other hand, if you are Seymour Hersh, veteran reporter, and winner of numerous awards for journalism including the holy grail of journalism prizes, a Pulitzer, that credibility is a lot greater. In fact, it's a pretty safe bet that a journalist like Hersh wouldn't risk that credibility unless the story was at least broadly true.

Now I will agree with those that say it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it, but I sincerely believe this is a stake in the heart of Rumsfeld. There will probably even be calls for his resignation from moderate Republicans if this story has any legs at all.

[Flasch186]

wasnt it the new yorker that first publicized the Abu Garaib photoe and broke that story? I could be wrong here but...I think it was that publication that did, no? Just wondering.

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by wig

1 more for the wignore list.

HFP didn't say anything too salacious to warrant that

(and I just thought I needed to post in this thread so people don't forget about me and so people can call me a crazy liberal.)

[wig]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I think if you bothered to read over the things I've posted here, you'd find that most of them were not only reasonable, but more significantly are being proven more and more true as time goes on.

He didn't say they were false, just incredibly biased.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by wig

He didn't say they were false, just incredibly biased.

And I was pointing out that, despite the left-leaning bias he's criticizing, I have been very credible.