Propaganda SpinMasters At Work?

[Winstonm]

4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act.

 

Note, Jimmy, in the law it takes agreement, not simply discussion. To actually get a conviction, it takes also a plan and at least indications of working to fulfill that plan. Three guys sitting around and agreeing to blow up the White House may technically be conspiracy, but a conviction is extremely unlikely unless they go rent a truck, but fetilzer, etc.

ok, just so i understand... if 3 guys so plot (or conspire) to blow up the white house, and if the fbi learns of this plot, they can't be said to "foil the plot" by arresting them prior to their renting of the truck, etc?

 

you seem to be speaking of conviction of a crime as if that is the same as bush's allegation of a plot having been foiled... i'm simply saying that plots can be foiled weekly, if not more often, by stopping them in the planning stages... you seem to be denying this

Nope. I said technically agreement is conspiracy - but in practicality it cannot be presecuted. Has nothing to with Bush's claims. Your argument leaves out a point, IMO. What if the plotters abandon their plot or change their minds? Technically, the law would allow a prosecution because there had been agreement, but a conviction would be impossible.

 

And the other question is: how do you thwart a plot - by changing their thinking? I doubt that will happen. Or is it enough to let them know "we're on to their plan" so they will abandon it and try something else? In my estimation, you haven't thwarted a thing until it comes to the planning stage, where actual work is being done to carry out the act - and that also happens to be the time when you could get a conviction.

 

To ask us to believe that a plot has been thwarted simply because the president said it occured is asking us to accept this statement based on the president's credibility, which has been shown time and again to be unreliable.

 

The Bush claims and counterclaims are anecdotal evidence - from the mass of refutations, it seems Bush is claiming prevention of a terrorist attack when the indications are that what happened was the so-called plot - if it ever existed - had been abandoned before the U.S. learned of it.

 

And I don't remember - and the president doesn't claim - anyone was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder. To claim an al-Qaeda plot is so vague as to be worthless - how do we know it was al-Qaeda if we do not know the names of the plotters? And if we know the plotters, why weren't they arrested for conspiracy? To claim al-Qaeda plot is somewhat like claiming a Baptist plot or a Methodist plot - it is an all-encompassing claim without having to rely on details - denialbly vague.

 

Keep in mind, also, that this claim is old and was dug up again for the State of the Union speech - it was originally used to show the need for warrantless surviellance and un-genova-convention interrogation tactics.

 

If you torture someone long enough and he knows you want to hear an al-Qaeda conspiracy theory, he'll make one up simply to stop the torture - Now you could claim you had a bad guy in prison who told you of an al-Qaeda plot and the fact that the news was made public halted the plot - but have you done anything, really?

 

I won't be impressed by this president's claims until they bring to court a group of terrorists with passports, airline tickets, and bomb fuses hanging out their butts.

 

All else is Bill Murphy and "Stripes"; "Razzle. Dazzle."

[hrothgar]

I seem to recall one of Aesop's fables from when I was growing up: It had something to do with a young shepard boy who cried wolf one too many times...

 

I have no way of knowing whether incident being discussed would have developed into anything serious. Quite frankly, none of the folks debating here can say definitively what would have happened. What I do know is the following:

 

The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions.

I don't trust a damn thing that they say.

[Winstonm]

The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions.

I don't trust a damn thing that they say.

 

Once again Richard cuts to the chase. This has been my point - and it seems again in the State of the Union that the president inflated the success of terror-fighting - and it is perplexing to me why only Keith Olbermann in the MSM called him out on it. Of course, I'm still wondering why Congress has not called for investigation into the intelligence quoted to initiate the war - among other things.

 

The bottom line is this: Bush has lost his credibility and nothing he says should be accepted as blanket fact - to go to war without forcing him to conclusively prove his case is ludicrous.

 

The latest is there is trouble finding proof of complicity that Iran is supporting the insurgents - who needs proof? Bush said it was so, didn't he?

[luke warm]

I have no way of knowing whether incident being discussed would have developed into anything serious. Quite frankly, none of the folks debating here can say definitively what would have happened.

and that's all i've been saying

What I do know is the following:

The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions. I don't trust a damn thing that they say.

right, that's also (if i understand it) winston's point... i have a healthy disrespect of him and his administration also, but it still does not follow that he's lying *this* time

[mike777]

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

 

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.

[macaw]

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

[mike777]

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

At some point you would think Congress would notice some High crime or misdameanor(sp). I guess they are too busy keeping their own promises of a 5 day work week(none so far), Pelosia(sp) complaining about not having a bigger Jet and passing non binding bills. ;)

[Winstonm]

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

At some point you would think Congress would notice some High crime or misdameanor(sp). I guess they are too busy keeping their own promises of a 5 day work week(none so far), Pelosia(sp) complaining about not having a bigger Jet and passing non binding bills. ;)

It is disheartening - vote in change and all you seem to get is a change in the tone of the rhetoric - nothing of import actually changes.

[Winstonm]

I have no way of knowing whether incident being discussed would have developed into anything serious.  Quite frankly, none of the folks debating here can say definitively what would have happened.

and that's all i've been saying

What I do know is the following:

The Bush administration has lied to country and manipulated the press on multiple occasions. I don't trust a damn thing that they say.

right, that's also (if i understand it) winston's point... i have a healthy disrespect of him and his administration also, but it still does not follow that he's lying *this* time

That pretty much sums it up - and to end the debate over he/said she/said, let me just say that if the best he could do was dig up old and debatable cases of how terrorists were stopped then his claims were not convincing.

[Winstonm]

It follows if he was talking, he was lying.

At some point you would think Congress would notice some High crime or misdameanor(sp). I guess they are too busy keeping their own promises of a 5 day work week(none so far), Pelosia(sp) complaining about not having a bigger Jet and passing non binding bills. ;)

Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges? Of course, if it did the WH would claim executive priveledge, and the SC would have to step in to solve a constitutional crises.

 

Which of the scores of Watergate-like investigation themes that are available will actually be investigated? My bet is zero.

 

Hey, but at least we got the minimum wage raised to 7.50 an hour unless bush vetoes his first bill - yep, that ought to do it.

 

No wonder everyone is sitting around, numbed, and watching American Idol - what channel was that on, anyway?

[mike777]

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."

 

 

Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

 

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

[mike777]

I was a bit surprised, ok very surprised by a poll I saw saturday. Mrs. Clinton was far ahead of the Dems by a huge margin and Gulianni(sp) had a big lead over McCain..sure it is early but this poll surprised me.

[Winstonm]

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."

 

 

Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

 

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

We could start with illegal wiretaps which have been admitted.

[Winstonm]

I was a bit surprised, ok very surprised by a poll I saw saturday.  Mrs. Clinton was far ahead of the Dems by a huge margin and Gulianni(sp) had a big lead over McCain..sure it is early but this poll surprised me.

I don't understand how some of these characters so misjudge political climate - with the approval rating of Iraq at around 28%, McCain has as much chance of election as Bush does of a third term.

 

I wonder if we will have a third party run this time around.

[hrothgar]

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

 

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.

Comment 1: If you look at my original posting my comments were directed to the Bush administration in general, not just the shrub.

 

Comment 2: From my perspective, the war in Iraq provides the best evidence that the Bush administration systemically distorted the truth. The American people didn't wake up one day and develop a mass hallucination that the 9/11 was perpetrated by Iraq. These lies entered into the mass conciousness through a very deliberate propaganda effort.

 

The so-called "Downing Street Memo" provides some very useful outside commentary:

 

"C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

 

Here's another useful little piece of information that showed up on my doorstep this morning: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/20...by_cia_on_niger

 

Comment 3: Theres a nice little website out there called "Bushlies". Its easily accessible at www.bushlies.net

 

Here are some of my favorite quote from this site:

 

BUSH: "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories."

 

Bush "We are finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. We are gathering information about where the terrorists may be hiding. We are trying to disrupt their plots and plans. Anything we do ... to that end in this effort, any activity we conduct, is within the law. We do not torture."

 

During the 2004 campaign, Bush claimed “Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.”

 

No Time for Warrants It could not wait to get a warrant because it needed ”to move quickly to detect" plotting of terrorism between people in the United States and abroad. (President Bush 12/19/05)

[mike777]

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."

 

 

Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

 

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

We could start with illegal wiretaps which have been admitted.

I agree that if the President ordered illegal wiretaps and they were illegal at the time of the order and he knew this, all of this would seem to be an impeachable offense.

 

Does Congress know this and have evidence? What are they doing about this?

[luke warm]

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

 

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.

this time he's being accused of lying about his reference in the SoU speech to a foiled terrorist plot, knowing (so the disbelieving ones say) that this is not true... i personally lost faith when he assured us that WMD existed in iraq when in fact none did... that means, to me at least, that we went to war without sufficient reason and without due diligence... he may not have lied then, but he at the very least excercised poor judgement... even so, the earlier lie (or lack of judgement) has no bearing on the SoU excerpt

[Winstonm]

"....Does anyone think this Congress will actually use supoena power to investigate anything that might lead to impeachment or war crimes charges?..."

 

 

Hmm lets try and not be a hanging jury.....I hope there would be some evidence of an impeachable crime before the witch hunt begins ok? I hope you are not voting for a blind investigation now?

 

If you have some evidence of an impeachable offense please send it to Nancy P.

We could start with illegal wiretaps which have been admitted.

I agree that if the President ordered illegal wiretaps and they were illegal at the time of the order and he knew this, all of this would seem to be an impeachable offense.

 

Does Congress know this and have evidence? What are they doing about this?

 

In response: 1) did he do it? 2) did he know it was illegal? 3) what is being done?

 

Question #1)

Bush, however, said he authorized the program on several occasions since the September 11 attacks and that he plans on doing it again.

 

"I have re-authorized this program more than 30 times," he said. "I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from al Qaeda and related groups."

 

Sounds like a confession to me. Too bad no Miranda rights read. This should be suffidient proof for Congress, don't you think?

 

 

Question #2)

After hearing Bush's response, Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said there was no law allowing the president's actions and that "it's a sad day."

 

He added that the law clearly lays out how to obtain permission for wiretaps.

 

"If he needs a wiretap, the authority is already there -- the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Act," Feingold said. "They can ask for a warrant to do that, and even if there's an emergency situation, they can go for 72 hours as long as they give notice at the end of 72 hours."

 

That pretty much says it is against the law - and it is of interest to note that illegal wiretaps were one of the impeachable charges against Nixon.

 

Question #3) Pelosi and Co. have raised the minimum wage - yep, that ought to do it.

[Winstonm]

Lost me ...another simplistic question, what is Bush accused of lying about this time and what is the evidence of this lying? If you just believe nothing that comes out of his mouth, nevermind.

 

Hard to keep track of all the accusations at this point.

The debate is whether Bush lied when in his SoU address he made these types of statements:

 

3.-"Just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean."

 

And this is what has been learned about this so-called plot:

 

Well, the British "authorities" did arrest two dozen people, but numerous reports found consensus among experts that those arrested could not have possibly mixed together on an airplane the liquid explosives they allegedly planned to use.

 

Craig Murray, former British Ambassador to Uzbekistan, summed this case up well:

 

"None of the alleged terrorists had made a bomb. None had bought a plane ticket. Many did not even have passports, which given the efficiency of the UK Passport Agency would mean they couldn't be a plane bomber for quite some time. In the absence of bombs and airline tickets, and in many cases passports, it could be pretty difficult to convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that individuals intended to go through with suicide bombings, whatever rash stuff they may have bragged in internet chat rooms.

 

"What is more, many of those arrested had been under surveillance for over a year - like thousands of other British Muslims. Nothing from that surveillance had indicated the need for early arrests. Then an interrogation in Pakistan revealed the details of this amazing plot to blow up multiple planes - which, rather extraordinarily, had not turned up in a year of surveillance. Of course, the interrogators of the Pakistani dictator have their ways of making people sing like canaries. As I witnessed in Uzbekistan, you can get the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tends to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert torture. What it doesn't give is the truth."

 

So if you want to quibble, it is whether knowingly exagerating is lying. Unlike in court when we are not allowed to know the previous pattern of crimes, in this case we are allowed to use our judgement on previous patterns of lies and half-truths. So maybe you want to say that uncovering a chat room talk about water-bottle bombs made on a plane is indeed a plot, so technically there was no lie - but to associate such blatant crap with real terrorists and claim some kind of victory is a lie in itself, IMO.

 

Pakistani interrogation: "you can get you the most extraordinary information this way. Trouble is it always tend to give the interrogators all they might want, and more, in a desperate effort to stop or avert toruture."

 

But then, if you suspend the Genova Convention for terrorist suspects, this is the kind of truth you get.

 

However, we don't have to believe it.

[Winstonm]

On a slightly unrelated subject:

 

Republicans block Senate debate on Iraq

 

What are the Republicans trying to do - commit suicide? I do not think this party truly grasps the degree of anger felt by the majority of Americans over Iraq and the lies that led us there.

 

If they don't want a return to the Johnson Democratic-control era, they had better quickly get wise and start listening to the people instead of trying to rule their monarchy.

[mike777]

Suicide?

 

 

HMMMM

 

1) pro anti gun

2) pro gay

3) hmmm ok ok ...this is a really long shot......pro choice?

 

ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this

[pbleighton]

"ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this"

 

WAY too many :P

 

Peter

[Al_U_Card]

Suicide?

 

HMMMM

 

1) pro anti gun

2) pro gay

3) hmmm ok ok ...this is a really long shot......pro choice?

 

ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this

Well more people because less will be killed by guns.

 

Less people because gays can't produce offspring.

 

Fewer unwanted children so those that remain are happier and better off and there will be fewer total.

 

Sounds like a good plan to save humanity...and it all revolves around equality and individual freedom.....how (UN?) american......

[hrothgar]

Suicide?

 

 

HMMMM

 

1) pro anti gun

2) pro gay

3)  hmmm ok ok ...this is a really long shot......pro choice?

 

ok ok...must be too many brandys to write this

Personally, I think that the Republican's carefully orchestrated "Daily Hate" regarding homosexual marriage is one of the last gasps from a dying generation. All of the political polls within the United States show that the single most significant predictor of individual positions regarding gay rights is age. Religious identification is also significant, but not nearly so much. (Luckily, the younger evangelicals aren't nearly as bigotted as their parents... Maybe there's some hope for them after all) There is a reason that the the Religious Right is trying so hard to push "Protection of Marriage Measures" here and now. They recognize that every passing day weakens their position. Quite honestly, I expect that gay rights and single sex marriagewill be complete non-issues in 20 years time. I think that America will be a stronger country for it.

[luke warm]

(Luckily, the younger evangelicals aren't nearly as bigotted as their parents... Maybe there's some hope for them after all)

that's just a fill in the blank thing... the younger evangelicals aren't nearly as __________ as their parents... as for hope, i guess it depends on how it's defined and for whom it tolls