Asymmetrical Information

By my reading of the CBS News interview (can't find it on the cbsnews.com just yet) as well as the article posted on the MSNBC/NEWSWEEK site, it seems to me like Michael Isikoff did everythign right, up to and including having the story vetted for accuracy by the Pentagon. But if the people that you rely on for your information, and to insure one last time that your information is correct, lead you false, then what can you do?

Just like with a District Attorney, your case is only as good as your witnesses. This witness just screwed over Isikoff.

Well, fairly early on in the process you can ask:

"So, was it a POCKET Koran?" "Was it carefully shredded in advance?" Books don't fit down toilets with ease.

Little questions asked of unsourced quotes sometimes make stories better.

Anyone with an ounce of sense should know that a book just won't flush down a toilet. Isikoff just couldn't help himself. He found a story that would make Bushitler and the military look bad, and he ran with it. The fact that some people died, they couldn't care less.

It's always possible, of course, that Isikoff's sources in the military has simply changed their story, once it hit the fan.

Also, Michael writes: "Books don't fit down toilets with ease."

Being Gitmo, perhaps it was more of a latrine or porta-potty type of thing - a hole over a pit or container, rather than something involving plumbing. I think it'd depend on how permanent the structure was that they were in.

I found this gem from Student Life, Washington University of St. Louis, when Isikoff was just a mere lad:

Isikoff remembers the controversy surrounding a referendum to fire the president of the WU Board of Trustees for "dropping Napalm balms on Vietnamese peasants."

"I wrote an editorial advising a vote against the referendum to kick off the president, arguing that it was a non-binding referendum that would have no impact on ending the war in Vietnam, and a more useful method was to get involved in the editorial process," said Isikoff.

"The anti-war people got an advance copy of my editorial and stuffed every Student Life with a rebuttal," he said. "So that was my first lesson in how what we write can get people stirred up."

It's getting to the point that a free press is more trouble than it's worth....

Henry: that's highly doubtful, but there's a reason I don't read NEWSWEEK anymore.

The only time I read Newspeak any more is when the dentist's waiting-room alternatives are People and Root Canal Times.

It's absurd for Newsweek to try to shift blame to the military for failing to ask Newsweek to spike its story. The Pentagon knew quite well that, even if Newsweek complied with the request in the short run, the story would eventually have emerged, and the press would have attacked the Pentagon for trying to suppress the story. Why should the Pentagon help rescue Newsweek from itself, when it would certainly get burned sooner or later for having done so?

By the way, I can't resist: "Newsweek lied, people died!"

It's getting to the point that a free press is more trouble than it's worth....

Gawd, I love your people, Jane.

But it's not Newsweek's fault! Nothing is Newsweek's fault! Oh no!

SomeCalledYouTim: most of "Jane's people" probably agree with Jefferson that "The people cannot be safe without information. Where the press is free, and every man able to read, all is safe." But Jefferson also complained, "Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper." (Nor did Jefferson anticipate the alternative standards of literacy that would be achieved by public education by 2005 A.D...)

"Gawd, I love your people, Jane."
I don't suppose you ever complain when the far-left loonies get hung around your neck? We don't have people, we have commenters. You are one of them. love the company you keep..

BTW, recognize sarcasm when you see it?

Of course the original story was true. Either that or the Abu Graib pics are photoshopped fakery. Newsweek must have been leaned on to retract its story which wasn't even news anyway. See http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=5959

See also http://coldfury.com/reason/?p=511

There is a really sad truth here. The greatest enemy that the United States faces in trying to create a more democratic and peaceful world (without fascist dictatorships with WMD's who see us as the greatest threat to their kleptocracies) and one that threatens our very survival is:

The media.

If the world was a peace no one would pay any attention to them, ergo they must foment war and disaster to keep their viewer base. A newsman can't insure ratings if he just waits around for the next tsunami to happen. No he has to go out and "find" the news and if that takes starting a war, well you gotta break a few eggs to get an omlet.

Think this is a joke? Do a little research. Saddamn would have backed down in a minute if it hadn't been for the media providing him with all of the support thru playing up the antiwar movement. Had he thought that there was a majority of public support here and that we really were going whack him and his world he would have backed down. Thanks especially to Dan Rather for goin' over and chillin' with the Saddamn and giving him moral support.

The worst since the Maine?

How does it compare to Judith Miller peddling nonsense about WMDs?

"The worst since the Maine?"

Really? What about no WMD's?

Ridiculous. "Worst since the Maine". You've got to be f'ing kidding me.

A government source recants on the information he provided once he sees that the information caused riots, and Newsweek is guilty of the worst media screw-up in 100 years?

I generally read this blog because, even if I disagree, each post is reasonably intelligent and thought-provoking. I might have to delete you from my favorites after this idiocy.

Wayne- you're absolutely right that the media must 'foment war and disaster to keep their viewer base'. That's why CNN and MSNBC were thrilled to foment anxiety about Iraq in 2002/2003, the better to get a war started that would keep ratings high. Perhaps if the press had been more critical of Bush's WMD claims in '02/'03, 1,600 US troops and tens of thousands of Iraqis would have been spared.

Hrrm, seems like a string of commenters all making the same argument...perhaps you have been linked from another site?

"Worse than the Maine?" I'd put NYT Pulitzer winner Duranty's coverup of the famine in Ukraine way above Weaknews's latest abomination.

This must have the lawyers drooling. Newsweek may go bankrupt paying punitive damages.

A government source recants on the information he provided once he sees that the information caused riots, and Newsweek is guilty of the worst media screw-up in 100 years?

I seriously doubt that there`s a "government source" at all.
More likely a rumor that just happened to fit in with a story idea Isikoff had.
I fail to see why anyone should trust an orginization that demands full disclosure of information from the government while shielding themselves in secrecy by invoking "protecting their source".
Hypocracy of the highest order, and while it may be legally justified it`s far from morally justified.
Who`s to say if he even had a source for this?
Who`s to say he didn`t just make the whole thing up?
Am I and everyone else supposed to believe a reporter just because they say so?
Sorry but that ain`t gonna happen. Just like they demand accountability from the government, we (the people) are starting to demand accountability of them.
I personally don`t care what political party, gender, religion or national origin a reporter is as long as they can keep one thing in mind when reporting: News is just that, News.
It`s an account of events that are happening or did happen, nothing more.
It is NOT an intricately woven tapistry interspesed with strategiclly placed political ideologies designed to bring a reader to only one conclusion. THAT is called propaganda. By any other name it smells the same.

Keep the homemade Drama out of the news. If I want drama I`ll watch a movie.

60 Minutes Discovers New Dead Sea Scrolls

"CBS-TV’s award winning program 60 Minutes has announced that new Dead Sea Scrolls have been discovered and will be read on its next broadcast, featuring ex-anchorperson Dan Rather who was handed the documents by an unknown hairdresser. The photocopied scrolls alledgedly confirm the long-held thesis of senior editors of the New York Times that even if there is a God he let us make ourselves. An unnamed source suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome related to an abusive physical examination conducted by extra-terrestrial beings on the west side of Manhattan, confirms that these newly discovered scrolls prove that the Holy Land never actually existed as the Bible claims, and that it in fact was a small village in modern African-American Ethiopia enlarged through the use of reflecting mirrors. Jesus Christ, whom CBS-TV editors describe as the "well-known Messiah", may in fact have lived in modern Texas and never migrated to the Middle East."

"Some graphologists have raised questions about the veracity of the first century A.D. scrolls. They point out that they are typed with modern computer software which was not commonly available in first century Galilee, and that they do not employ the jots and tittles common to ancient manuscripts. Dan Rather issued a statement through his temporary hairdresser saying that he is absolutely convinced that the scrolls are genuine and that the evidence that Jesus stayed in Texas and used the Harvard MBA program as an excuse not to get crucified in Jerusalem and rise from the dead is news "so hot" that the American people need to hear it now and make their own decisions."

About as accurate as Mr.Isikoff's story.
Apparently both have equally reliable sources.

"Hrrm, seems like a string of commenters all making the same argument...perhaps you have been linked from another site?"

Actually, no. I've been reading this blog daily for the last 6 months or so. And seeing as how the only Trackback so far is for the One-Handed Economist, which has no trackbacks as of 12 hours later, I'd say most of us are just lurkers that only comment when we see something worth commenting on. There might be the occasional troll that got here via some undisclosed TrollLine RedAlert System, but they'd pay much more attention to the bloviating going on at Powerline.

Reports of American soldiers desecrating the Koran go back to 2002 and dovetails perfectly with what American military intel was having American soldiers do to ALL detainees, "to soften them up for interrogation":   

III. Living conditions

The first incarnation of the detention facility at Guantanamo was the makeshift Camp X-Ray, consisting of small cages with chain-link sides, concrete floors and metal roofs, offering scant shelter from the elements, and with very basic sanitary facilities.  Not only the living conditions, but some of the practices applied to prisoners appear to have been harsher than in the facility that later replaced it, Camp Delta. Two of the detainees interviewed by Human Rights Watch described how initially they were not allowed to pray.  One, Mohammad Sangir, claimed that he witnessed Arab detainees being beaten for having prayed (for more on allegations of beatings, see below).20

Shah Mohammed Alikhil, a Pakistani who was interviewed by Human Rights Watch, described his introduction to life in Camp X-Ray:

A person came to my cell and explained the rules and regulations to me.  I was told not to talk with any other persons or shout or make noise or get close to the iron bars of my cell or the door of my cell…  My cell was one of ten cells that were located on both sides of a narrow corridor with five rooms on each side.  We could see each other, but we were prohibited to talk.21

Asif Iqbal, a British detainee, described Camp X-Ray:

In my cage there were two towels, one blanket, one small toothbrush, shampoo, soap, flip flops, and an insulation mat to sleep on as well as two buckets, one of water and one to use as a toilet (urinal). [The restrictions on the detainees initially] were probably the worst things we had to endure… in the first few weeks, we were not allowed any exercise at all; this meant that all day every day we were stuck in a cage of two meters by two meters. We were allowed out for two minutes a week to have a shower and then returned to the cage.  … During the day we were forced to sit in the cell (we couldn’t lie down) in total silence.  We couldn’t lean on the wire fence or stand up and walk around the cage. 22

After some time, the restrictions on conversations were slightly relaxed and the detainees were even permitted to speak briefly to some of the military police. Asif Iqbal, a British detainee, says that the military police told them that they had been told by their superiors that “we would kill them with our toothbrushes at the first opportunity, that we were all members of Al-Qaeda and that we had killed women and children indiscriminately.”23

Detainees were shackled when outside their cells.  Pakistani detainee Shah Mohammed Alikhil described one aspect of the camp living conditions:

I was told to call on guards if I wanted to go to the latrine or wash.  There was no problem with going to the latrines as many times as I wanted … Four guards were regularly keeping guard on our block and we were signaling at them to go to the latrine… [O]ne of them would keep guard and the other would enter the cell and shackle my hands, and then they would take me to the latrines.  On entering the latrine our hands were let loose, and on getting out of the latrine our hands were re-shackled.  And on entering my cell my hands were let loose.  It was a boring routine.24 

Another Pakistani detainee, Abdul Razak, recounted the following:

We were allowed to bathe twice a week.  But we could only use the toilet at the discretion of the guards and often they would not allow us to use the toilet when we needed to…. Some guards treated us OK.  Others were bad.  The bad ones did not help us or give us the bare necessities such as toilet paper, etc.  Also detainees were not allowed to talk to each other.  If people talked they were transferred to another block or the water would be turned off if they were in the shower.25 

Alif Khan, from Afghanistan, told the BBC about life in Camp Delta (the facility which replaced Camp X-Ray):

Everyone was in a cage individually.  Every cage had a tap, a toilet and water for washing.  There was room to sit but not enough to pray.  We were praying with difficulty.  My joints were damaged.  The light was very bright there as well.  They were switched on all the time.  Because of that our eyes were damaged and from constantly having to look through the netting [i.e. the tight mesh from which the door and walls of each cell are made].26

Detainees also complained about the interference with their ability to pray and the lack of respect given to their religion.  For example, the British detainees state that they were never given prayer mats and initially were not provided Korans.  They also complained that when the Korans were provided, the guards “would kick the Koran, throw it into the toilet and generally disrespect it.”27

Apart from interrogations, and limited recreational and shower time out of cell, the detainees’ time was passed in boredom—which heightened the fear and anxiety. According to the three British detainees:

After a year, one day they came with boxes of books all in English.  They were given out to people including those who couldn’t speak English. We each got something to read. … There were a limited number of books. You soon had read all.  In 2003, the books that we were given started to have a large amount of the contents torn out…for instance novels would have large chunks ripped out but we would still read them because we were so desperate for something to distract ourselves. The Red Cross told us that they had brought 2000 books but they had mysteriously disappeared and never got to the detainees.28

Camp Four, a less restrictive facility in which the detainees have more privileges, was initiated in April 2003 within Camp Delta.  In Camp Four, the detainees live communally, wear white rather than orange overalls, and have more exercise time and other benefits.  According to the U.S. military, this facility is for those detainees who are considered less of a security risk to guards and other detainees, and who have been cooperative in the interrogation process.  It is also the place where some detainees were held preparatory to their release.  The fact that there is significant variation in released detainees’ accounts of their living conditions at Guantanamo might be explained by the fact that some are describing only their recent experiences of Camp Four. For example, one of a group of twenty-three Afghans released in March 2004, Haji Osman, told a New York Times journalist that he was well-treated, allowed to spend up to six hours a day outside his cell, allowed to play sports, and had eaten well enough to put on weight, albeit he had observed that not all prisoners were detained in the same level of comfort.29  Afghan detainee N.H., who spent his last five months at Guantanamo in Camp Four, described some serious problems with his previous conditions, but commented of Camp Four that he had “felt at home and it was easy to live there.”30

On January 29, 2004, the U.S. released three children believed to be between thirteen and fifteen years of age, having detained them for most of their time at Guantanamo in a separate part of the camp known as “Camp Iguana,” with no contact with other detainees.  Following their release they were interviewed by foreign journalists in Afghanistan.  They spoke positively of the conditions of their detention, which had involved classes and leisure activities, and of the kindness of their guards.31 The U.S. continues to hold an unspecified number of older children un-segregated from the population of adult detainees at Guantanamo.32 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

[20] Human Rights Watch interview with Mohammad Sangir, January 17, 2004.

[21] Human Rights Watch interview with Shah Mohammed Alikhil, January 3, 2004.

[22] Statement of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, “Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay,” released publicly on August 4, 2004, para. 63,65 available online at: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/Gitmo-compositestatementFINAL23july04.pdf, accessed on August 19, 2004.

[23] Ibid., para. 76.

[24] Human Rights Watch interview with Shah Mohammed Alikhil, January 3, 2004.

[25] Human Rights Watch interview with Abdul Razak, June 4, 2004.

[26] BBC Panorama, “Inside Guantanamo,” broadcast October 5, 2003.  Transcript available online at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/insideGuantanamo.txt, accessed on August 19, 2004.

[27] Statement of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, “Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay,” released publicly on August 4, 2004, para. 72, 74, available online at: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/Gitmo-compositestatementFINAL23july04.pdf, accessed on August 19, 2004. The disrespect of the Koran by guards at Camp X-Ray was one of the factors prompting a hunger strike. Ibid., para. 111-117.

[28]Statement of Shafiq Rasul, Asif Iqbal and Rhuhel Ahmed, “Detention in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay,” released publicly on August 4, 2004, para. 136, available online at: http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/docs/Gitmo-compositestatementFINAL23july04.pdf, accessed on August 19, 2004.

[29] Amy Waldman, “Guantanamo and Jailers: Mixed Review by Detainees,” New York Times, March 17, 2004, available online at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A15F63F550C748DDDAA0894DC404482, accessed on August 19, 2004.

[30] Human Rights Watch interview with N.H. (name withheld), June 2, 2004.

[31] James Anstill, “Cuba? It Was Great, Say Boys Freed from US Prison Camp,” The Guardian, London, March 6, 2004, available online at:http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1163312,00.html, accessed on July 1, 2004.

[32] For a more detailed discussion of the special risks to children held at Guantanamo, see Human Rights Watch, “Despite Releases, Children Still Held at Guantánamo,” January 29, 2004,  online at: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2004/01/29/usint7117.htm, and Human Rights Watch, “Letter to Secretary Rumsfeld on Child Detainees at Guantanamo,” April 24, 2003, available online at: http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/04/us042403ltr.htm, accessed on August 19, 2004.

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/gitmo1004/3.htm

OK, am I the only one wondering how many bloggers have tried to flush a Koran down the toilet and posted the QuickTime movie? Come on people, you can do it. Maybe if the blogosphere rises to the occasion, the nutcases will light their jockey shorts on fire.

The "60 Minutes Discovers New Dead Sea Scrolls" is good satire. And it has more facts than the threat of WMD, which unfortunately, wasn't satire.

Ms. Galt's comments about "worst media screwup" are way over the top and provoke the appropriate reaction.

Unless you plan to argue that Judith Miller singlehandedly drove the US to war, for which you would have a very hard sell indeed, Ms Miller's reports, however badly sourced, didn't kill anyone. Unlike the Newsweek piece, which not only killed 16 people, but injured 100 more, and may have singlehandedly precipitated the destabilisation of Afghanistan.

Actually, according to the Chair of the Joint Chiefs:

"It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," he explained.

Jane -
Your semantic (and incorrect) hair-splitting is breathtaking.

Judy Miller (acting as Chalabi's mouthpiece, so to speak) provided valuable cover for the Bushies' WMD fantasy/lie. Since the "official" reason for attacking Iraq was Saddam's WMD capability, this cover was instrumental in deflecting the press from doing a large part of their real job, i.e. questioning government. (Oh, and please spare me the "bringing freedom and democracy" BS party line re: justification for the invasion). Coupled with the comments Daniel highlighted, it seems pretty clear that Newsweek's culpability pales in comparison.

But, hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good screech.

"Worst since the Maine"? Only in your dreams.

C'mon Jane, get a sense of perspective. Those on the right shed a tear for the 16 killed in anti-american rioting without a hint of concern for the 16,000+ civilians killed in the debacled WMD hunt.

I blame neither on the press. I put it squarely on those who A) made the decision to go to war and B) thought we could do it with a below-minimum number of troops.

So, SFAW... is it BS because you don't like it? Because it's there anyway, on record pretty much everywhere you'd care to look.

Jane,

The Pentagon disagrees with you and says that the Newsweek piece did not kill anyone.

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-05-12-voa74.cfm

So all in all I'd say Judith Miller was worse.

No, Jamie, it's BS because it didn't become the "raison du jour" (which one was it? #3? #4? #5?) until well after the invasion started, and after it became clear there were no WMDs. And in between WMDs and "freedom and democracy" was the canard of "butbutbut Saddam is EVIL". He had been an evil &*@#$%^& for the previous 20 years (including when your boy Rummy was chatting him up in the 80's), but suddenly it's a compelling reason to invade? Why don't you try that on someone who just bought the Brooklyn Bridge, you'll have more success.

Re: "it's there anyway, on record pretty much everywhere you'd care to look": see previous paragraph.

And, not that you'll understand this, but: if Bush & co. had come to the citizenry and made the "freedom and democracy" case for invasion BEFORE the invasion, then a real debate could have taken place between pro-invasion groups and their opponents. And, frankly, if that debate - an HONEST debate, none of the "Saddam was intimately connected to 9/11 and Al Qaeda" lies - had taken place, and the country still had opted for invasion, I think the left, myself included, would have been far more gracious in "defeat".
And who knows? Maybe if Bush/Cheney/Rummy/Condi had told the whole truth beforehand, the country might have said "Don't invade". But I guess we'll never know, since being straight with the public was/is the LAST thing on the Administration's mind.

SFAW

Living in a fantasy world are you?
Still playin' that old "No ties to Al Quaida", "Where are the WMDs?" tune?
Here`s some copy and pasting and link whoring of my own, since that`s all you seem to rely on.

On April 12, the U.S. Justice Department reported the indictment of three British nationals accused of planning a WMD attack on New York and Washington in 2000 and 2001. One of the three was said to include a leading Al Qaida operative.

On April 12, the U.S. military reported the capture of leaders of three Al Qaida-aligned groups during an operation in Baghdad. Officers identified the groups as Ansar Al Sunna group, Ansar Al Islam and the Tawhid and Jihad group, led by Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi.

Reason to invade: UNSC Resolution 1441

Like it or not that`s all we really needed. Nations have went to war on far less authority or reasons.

WMDs?

Behold:

The Agency is concerned about the implications of the results of its review of satellite imagery, especially with respect to sites known to the Agency to have contained items subject to monitoring under the OMV plan. The imagery shows that there has been extensive removal of equipment and, in some instances, removal of entire buildings. Other information available to the Agency, confirmed through visits to other countries, indicates that large quantities of scrap, some of it contaminated, have been transferred out of Iraq, from sites monitored by the IAEA. It is not clear whether the removal of these items has been the result of looting activities in the aftermath of the recent war in Iraq, or as part of systematic efforts to rehabilitate some of the locations. In any event, these activities may have a significant impact on the Agency’s continuity of knowledge of Iraq’s remaining nuclear-related capabilities and raise a concern with regards to the proliferation risk associated with dual use material and equipment disappearing to unknown destinations. The United States Government has been informed of these observations, and clarifications are expected.

From a Letter to the UNSC persuant to Resolution 687

We (the U.S.) didn`t dismantle the equpiment. Since it was there in Gulf War I and it was there right up to the beginning of Gulf War II, so who could have possibly dismantled it?

Answer the question if you can, without vague BS.

Not that that`ll make any difference as far as your concerned.
After all, you have such reliable and infallible sources as the MSN and Michael Moore.
How could facts and logic ever compete with that?

Joatmoaf -
I'll try to resist the temptation to laugh at your ramblings/cacklings.

Ties to al Qaeda: once the election was over, and they no longer had any need to play the fear card, Cheney and Bush both stated there were no such ties. Are you calling Dear Leader a liar?

Re: al Zarqawi: blogwhoring from "the Talk Show American" is hardly credible. Had you bothered to pay attention to the news last year (which was 2004, in case you lost track), you would recall that the expression of support from bin Laden to al Zarqawi was the first known/documented link between the two. (And, no, al Zarqawi stating previously that he supports bin Laden doesn't mean much, if anything.)

UN Res 1441: It's funny you should bring that up, since it was the US who told Blix and company to get out. A cynic might suggest that the Admin did that because BlixCo would eventually finish their report and state there were no WMDs. Can't have that! Then there would be no justification to invade. And since EVERY SINGLE CREDIBLE REPORT - including Bush lackeys sent there by Bush & Co specifically to find WMDs - has since concluded that HOLY COW!! THERE WERE NO WMDs IN IRAQ, I guess Resolution 1441 may have been violated, but perhaps more by the US? Oh yeah, I know, they moved the WMDs to Syria. Or Qatar! Or Yemen! or Saudi Arabia! or Iran! or Boston! or Michael Moore's house! Or a Halliburton warehouse (where do you think the $8 Billion disappeared to?) etc.

Re: dismantling of equipment: your claim "it was there right up to the beginning of Gulf War II" is silly. There has been no/none/zip/zero/zilch credible evidence provided anywhere that WMDs existed in Iraq any time "immediately" prior to the invasion. ("Immediately" is used here to mean starting at the point at which BlixCo renewed their investigation). And, as your cut-and-paste so helpfully provided: "It is not clear whether the removal of these items has been the result of looting activities in the aftermath of the recent war in Iraq".

It's been lovely chatting with you, but your "facts" don't quite pass muster - except perhaps on Bill O'Reilly's show.

Oh, I'll leave you with a little something to make you feel as though it wasn't a total loss: Michael Moore is STILL fat.

Joatmoaf -
Almost forgot; two things:
1) Your comment regarding my so-called "copy-and-paste" makes no sense. The only pasting I did was comments from Jane and Jamie. Since people sometimes forget what they say (e.g. Larry DiRita) a mere 48 hours after uttering it, sometime the right-wingers need to be reminded of their own words.
2) Regarding your (or "Talk Show Amerika's") comment: "On April 12, the U.S. military reported the capture of leaders of three Al Qaida-aligned groups during an operation in Baghdad. Officers identified the groups as Ansar Al Sunna group, Ansar Al Islam and the Tawhid and Jihad group, led by Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi": nice try, but they have as much to do with Saddam as Tom DeLay does. And your cut-and-pasting still doesn't show a link between Saddam and 9/11. If you're going to try to shoot down my points, at least have the courtesy to address the points, not unrelated garbage which your fevered brow thinks makes sense.

Thanks for playing, I'm off to find better competition.

True to form you answered with a bunch of vague BS. How could you not? It`s in your blood.

Hmm. I could have sworn that the US told Blix to get out because he kept appeasing Saddams stonewalling and dragging out the alleged "inspections" as long as possible.
Do you think that maybe Kofi and Phrance had a stake in keeping the US out?

Anyway that`s all off topic and it wouldn`t matter if an Iraqi nuke landed in your lap because you`d probably still deny it in order to justify your Bush/Hitler mentality.
Ta ta troll.

It`s in your blood.

You know, I didn't even pick up on the fact that SFAW is Jewish (or black). How could you tell?

SS,
Since it was a reference to Liberalism as you very well know, I`d like to ask you what does race have to do with an individuals politics?
Are you implying that all blacks and Jewish people are liberals?
Where is this all inclusive tolerance in such a sweeping statement?
Pot,meet Kettle.

I didn't bring the term "blood" into it. Very nice maneuver, though, acting like I did. So the question you asked is really for you--what does a person's "blood" have to do with their politics?

SS,
Actually you did.
You knew very well in what context that messege was framed and yet rather than address the meat of the matter you chose to twist the meaning out of context and present a case that I`m a racist.

OK I`ll apologize. I didn`t know you rode the little yellow bus to school so I`ll put it all in context.

Liberalism is a disease and as such it`s in the blood. Duh!

If you still don`t understand, ask your "social scientist" friends to explain it to you better.

Actually you did.

You're a liar. And an obvious one, too. All anyone has to do is scroll 5 messages up to see you using "blood" before I ever posted.

Liberalism is a disease and as such it`s in the blood. Duh!

Nice attempt at a recovery, liar.

HAhahaha..
You`re hilarious.

SocSci -
Now, now, please don't confuse Joatmoaf with facts. He's only following the example of his Dear Leader - dodge, lie, evade, lie, don't respond to the issue presented, lie.

What's amusing is his "vague BS" BS is a case of the pot calling the milk black. I think the head doctors call it "projection". But it can sometimes be an effective way of dodging an issue where someone (i.e. Joatmoaf) knows his point or points is/are a load of crap. That's why Joatmoaf cuts-and-pastes things which bear no relation to the discussion - except in his own fevered mind. Of course, when Joatmoaf is caught dissembling (Joatmoaf: that's a fancier way of saying "lying", in case you were wondering), he plays the time-honored wingnut game of name-calling.

I guess you must have hit close to home, because his "You're hilarious" is an indicator of how full of crap ("Iraqi nukes"? Wow, my BS detector just went off!) he really is. And given that some of HIS pastes support my contentions/points, he probably is not too big in the reading comprehension area.

I also liked his casual rewriting of history re: BlixCo. It's funny (but not "ha ha funny") that Bush's hand-picked team spent more time in Iraq than Blix's team, without interference from Saddam and crew, and STILL couldn't find any WMD. I guess David Kay is an appeaser, too, eh Joatmoaf?

Listen, Joatmoaf, if you're going to do your usual response ("Ha ha" "vague BS" "in the blood"), why don't you do Jane a favor and save her the bandwidth? Although I disagree with her politics, I have no desire to see her reputation suffer because her supporters can only muster the debate equivalent of "Yo' mama!"

(Now Joatmoaf is probably trying to figure out if my use of "yo' mama" means I'm black. What a zipperhead.)

SocSci -
We should find out if Joatmoaf has a PayPal account - maybe we could each chip in a buck so he could buy a clue.

Unfortunately, I think it would take a lot more than $2 to get him anywhere near a clue. But maybe I'm being too kind to him?

Jane: the Newsweek piece, which not only killed 16 people...

Jane - How did the Newsweek piece kill 16 people? (Was it printed on poison ink?)

Did Newsweek force anyone to burn down buildings, storm aid offices and ransack aid offices?

Shouldn't Muslim rioters be held just as responsible for their actions as anyone else?

Yes. My complete cluelessness must be because of my low brow, sloping forehead and knuckle dragging.
I made my point and I stand by it. What have you contributed besides meaningless blather and DU talking points and of course the insults which is always a reliable tactic when you have no faith in your position.
Debate is fine with me and I love the give and take of opposing ideas, but you didn`t come here for that did you?
I have no patience with idiots so blather away since this is the last time I`ll address you until you can at least come up with something legitimate.
P.S.
I didn`t even bother to read your last post past the first few sentences.
If you`re going troll then learn to be a competent one.
Address the issue first. That way you get the attention of the reader. Then you can sling the insults because you already have them interested.
It wouldn`t hurt if you got your news at different places than DU, Kos, CBS and CNN also.

Oh go ahead, You know you want to say something completely irrelavent and insulting and in such a manner that I come out looking like Hitler or the Klan. Go ahead it`s in your troll blood.
When you get a brain let`s debate.

(Sorry Jane, I couldn`t pass that up :)

Joatmoaf -
You truly are a wonder of nature.

As with many right wingnut trolls, you try to convince yourself (and anyone else willing to read your blather) that your opponent is the one using the tactics that you in fact employ to such "great" effect. Specifically: you have responded to each of my points with irrelevant rantings ("vague BS") and postings that bear no relation to the issue(s) being discussed. You seem to feel - as with your Dear Leader - if you repeat BS long enough, it becomes truth. Sorry, but in the real world, your BS remains BS, no matter how many unrelated "facts" you cut-and-paste.

And when called on something, you either try misdirection, or lie, or both. And that's certainly fine - it's worked for your beloved Dear Leader and Deputy Leader, so far - but PLEASE don't try to pretend that you've actually been responding with relevant facts.

Interesting Hitler fixation you have, though: you've mentioned him twice; your comments about my "blood". Is there something you want to tell us? Why do you fixate on Hitler instead of Goebbels? After all, Goebbels was Minister of Propaganda, and knew how to demonize others a little better than you.

It's certainly been amusing watching your name-calling escalate, it's a sign of desperation. Now why don't you toddle off and have a snack, I think your school recess must be over.

Unless you plan to argue that Judith Miller singlehandedly drove the US to war, for which you would have a very hard sell indeed, Ms Miller's reports, however badly sourced, didn't kill anyone. Unlike the Newsweek piece, which not only killed 16 people, but injured 100 more, and may have singlehandedly precipitated the destabilisation of Afghanistan.

How stable could Afghanistan be if a single piece, in a foreign language press, in a country with mass illiteracy could destabalize it????

BTW, what's this nonsense about not being able to flush a book down the toilet? People are not familiar with the concept that paper can be ripped out of a book and crumpled???

Comments are Closed.