What should happen to Newsweek

[Swifty_Johnson]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/15/newsweek.quran/index.html

Newsweek printed a report that turned out to be false. Now 15 people are dead, and anti-American passions are flared thoughout the Muslim world. What should be done?

Swifty

[Grundy]

Anti-American passions are the responsibility of neo-cons in charge of foreign policy. Newsweek is just their tool of propaganda.

[Allison]

There's nothing to be done. Newsweek reported an incident confirmed by a U.S. official, and not denied by a senior official at the Pentagon. When the U.S. official changed his story, so did Newsweek. It's unfortunate, but Newsweek did nothing improper.

[Boom]

The question is, what should be done to the Pentagon official who confirmed the story.

[Boom]

Newsweek printed a report that turned out to be false. Now 15 people are dead, and anti-American passions are flared thoughout the Muslim world. What should be done?

Hmmm, interesting statement. Let's change a few key words and see what we get....

George Bush told many stories about WMD that turned out to be false. Now tens of thousands of people are dead, and anti-American passions are flared thoughout the Muslim world. What should be done?

Oh no no no, that won't do, right? George Bush shouldn't be held accountable for any of his mistakes, but Newsweek should be held accountable for mistakes made by the Pentagon. That seems fair, right?

I love the double standard here. Newsweek prints a story which was confirmed by the Pentagon and you want to punish Newsweek even though they had every reason to believe their story was true. Bush told stories about WMD that he KNEW were based on forged documents. He had every reason to suspect that his story might be wrong (which it was), and you re-elected him.

Standard for liberals, if they tell a story that turns out to be untrue, they should be punished, even if the story was confirmed by the pentagon.

Standard for conservatives, if they tell a story that turns out to be untrue, they should be rewarded, even if they had reason to believe the story was untrue.

Very nice.

Why don't you just treat liberals and conservatives the same for once? Hold them to the same standard. If someone makes an honest mistake, like Newsweek did, its not their fault, whether they are conservative or liberal. If someone purposely tells the public bad information that he knows is based on forged documents, it is his fault, whether he is conservative or liberal.

[Allison]

Sorry, Boom. I had said earlier it was a Pentagon official that confirmed the story. But I think he's only been identified as a "US official." He may or may not work at the Pentagon. My bad.

[Boom]

Oh no! I relied on a mistake that Ailia said and published it! I need to be punished like Newsweek! Because when liberals repeat a story with a mistake in it, they should be punished! Too bad I am not a conservative, because then I would just be allowed to say whatever I want, even if I know its wrong.

[Swifty_Johnson]

George Bush told many stories about WMD that turned out to be false. Now tens of thousands of people are dead, and anti-American passions are flared thoughout the Muslim world. What should be done?

Sorry, but a lot of people said Saddam had WMD, not just G.W.B. Even the French and Russians said Saddam had WMD, the disagreement wasn't on weither nor not Saddam had WMD, the disagreement was on weither or not inspection and sanctions were enough to find and destroy it. Also WMD wasn't the only excuse for going into Iraq. So soon you forget the 400,000 dead in mass graves scattered around Iraq.

Why don't you just treat liberals and conservatives the same for once?

That is a question I pose to you. 15 people died becasue Newsweek couldn't take time to fact check and printed a story that everyone knows would cause U.S. major poblems in the mid-east. You can't yell "fire" in a crowded theather, but it appears you can in newsprint.

You defened John Kerry's anti-Vietnam testominy as all he was doing was repeating lies that some other people told him, he's innocent!!! Yet here you attack GWB who went on inforamtion based on what other people told him. Why do you have a lesser standard for John Kerry then GWB?

Swifty

[Hammer]

LOL @ Boom/Alli. I think the point is that good ole rule about 2 independant sources for a story is long gone and this is the result. I don't think there is anything to be done. Newsweek can print whatever they like but they have to worry about consequences when they get it wrong. See CBS & Dan Rather.

[Allison]

What really gets me is all the fuss the White House and the Pentagon are making about this report. I mean, this isn't the first report of abuses at Guantanamo Bay. Prisoners have been forced to shave their beards, which has been confirmed. And there have been allegations for years of prisoners being forced to eat pork and of Qurans being desecrated. And let's not forget about all the lovely photos from Abu Ghraib.

The reputation of the United States among Muslim nations is at an all-time low because of these things and so much more. How many riots and deaths can be attributed directly to U.S. actions? And now they're going to make a fuss about a single sentence in a Newsweek article as if it's the sole reason our credibility and reputation is suffering in the Muslim world?

I don't understand where all this outrage is coming from. It's like, "Yeah, we tie them up, masterbate them, sick dogs on them -- but we would never flush a book down the toilet! How dare you suggest such a thing!"

Well, I take it back. I do understand. If it didn't happen, I can see why they'd be pissed. The U.S. has damaged its own credibility to the point that things like this will be automatically believed, whether it's true or not. That's gotta suck.

[Gwylenna]

Also WMD wasn't the only excuse for going into Iraq.
Swifty

At least you admit it was an excuse.

[Allison]

Yeah, Hammer, two sources are always better than one. And, the press doesn't always get it right. And, sometimes, there are consequences for that. All true.

[Boom]

Also WMD wasn't the only excuse for going into Iraq. So soon you forget the 400,000 dead in mass graves scattered around Iraq.
The mass graves were an AFTER THE FACT excuse for going into Iraq. The justification for going into Iraq BEFORE THE FACT was WMD. Yes, there were some sources that said Saddam had WMD. There were also many sources that said Saddam did not have WMD anymore. Bush passed the "yes WMD" sources on to us, and didn't tell us about the "no WMD" sources. He even passed on "yes WMD" sources that he knew came from forged documents. Do you have a problem with that? Nope, you sure don't.

Look, if you are a newspaper or magazine, you have a duty to confirm your stories. If a U.S. official confirms it, that is good enough. If that official is lying, he should get in trouble.

If you are a president taking us to war, you have a much much much greater duty to confirm your stories. If you have conflicting reports, you MUST resolve them. You can't simply say, "well, I am going to ignore the reports that say we shouldn't go to war, because I really want this war." You MUST look at all the reports and make some attempt to find the truth.

Do you not agree that a president taking us to war has a much greater responsibility to find the truth then a magazine reporting the story? Aren't much more lives at stake? Yet you condemn a magazine for relying on its government source (which is what all media routinely does) and you forgive GWB for relying on documents that he knew were forged. How can you do that? How can you possibly say its acceptable to rely on bogus documents but its not acceptable to rely on official U.S. government sources?

You are basically saying that its not ok for Newsweek to trust the statement of a U.S. official, but its ok for GWB to rely on documents that he knows are forged? Does that seem fair?

15 people died becasue Newsweek couldn't take time to fact check and printed a story that everyone knows would cause U.S. major poblems in the mid-east.
They did fact check it. The story was confirmed by a U.S. official. That has always been enough confirmation for the media. Now you want more? You think the media shouldn't trust U.S. officials and shouldn't report anything said by U.S. officials? That is crazy. Meanwhile tens of thousands of people died because GWB refused to believe the reports of no WMD and lied to us by telling us WMD stories based on forged documents so that he could go to war. But that is ok. Magazines gotta get their stories right, but presidents taking us to war can just sift through the reports and use the ones that support the war without trying to find out the real truth.

You defened John Kerry's anti-Vietnam testominy as all he was doing was repeating lies that some other people told him, he's innocent!!! Yet here you attack GWB who went on inforamtion based on what other people told him. Why do you have a lesser standard for John Kerry then GWB?
Because GWB was told the yellowcake story came from forged documents. Kerry was told that his stories were true.

Can you see the difference? Want me to explain it? Ok. Here you go. Repeating a false story that you think is true, is making a mistake. Repeating a story that you know is based on forged documents, is lying.

Pretty simple, huh?

[Swifty_Johnson]

What really gets me is all the fuss the White House and the Pentagon are making about this report.

Huh? A false report comes out and they are not supposed to raise a fuss? There have been reports of Qurans being descrated in the past, they have been invisgated and none of them have been shown to be true.

And now they're going to make a fuss about a single sentence in a Newsweek article as if it's the sole reason our credibility and reputation is suffering in the Muslim world?

don't understand where all this outrage is coming from. It's like, "Yeah, we tie them up, masterbate them, sick dogs on them -- but we would never flush a book down the toilet! How dare you suggest such a thing!"

Yup, becasue it was portray as being true, and in several Muslim countries messing with the Quran is a death sentance. We admit where we are wrong, and punish the people who did it. All of those responsible for the abuse at the prison are going to Jail.
In this case, what we can we do? How do we punish someone for this act when it never happened?

I find it intresting that the Muslim world can fly jets into the WTC killing thousands of Americans, we are not supposed to be outraged at them for it. Yet the muslim world can be outraged at the U.S. over this.

Swifty

[Boom]

Think of it this way. We all agreed that Dan Rather was the biggest loser of the year because he reported a story based on forged documents. He had no idea they were forged, but he should have checked them out better before showing us that garbage. No one would have complained if he got fired.

GWB reported a story in his SOTU that he KNEW was based on forged documents. He did the exact same thing Dan Rather did, but worse! I really don't see why we hold the media to a higher standard than our president.

Dan Rather's crime was telling us a story when he should have known the documents were forged.

GWB's crime was telling us a story when he ACTUALLY KNEW that the documents were forged.

Which crime is more reprehensible? The sloppy mistake, or the direct lie? And how did we punish them? Well, Dan Rather is a liberal, so he was basically ruined by this. GWB is a conservative, so he was reelected for it.

[Boom]

I find it intresting that the Muslim world can fly jets into the WTC killing thousands of Americans, we are not supposed to be outraged at them for it. Yet the muslim world can be outraged at the U.S. over this.

Have you lost your mind? Who says we are not supposed be outraged for 9/11??? We all agree that we are outraged by it. We haven't been so pissed off and offended since Pearl Harbor. Most of the countries in the world agreed that 9/11 was horrific and shared our outrage. We may have pissed off many of those countries since that time, but right after 9/11 almost the entire world was outraged with us. Where do you get this stuff??!?

[Allison]

I think we should be clear here. The "US official" is not retracting his story, he's just saying that he might not have read it in the particular report he said he had read it in -- but, that he did read it in an official report.

[Swifty_Johnson]

You are basically saying that its not ok for Newsweek to trust the statement of a U.S. official, but its ok for GWB to rely on documents that he knows are forged? Does that seem fair?

What "U.S. offical"? It's it nice that they have this nameless faceless "U.S. Offical" to back this claim?

Also, name ONE country that said Saddam did NOT have WMD besides Iraq.

Because GWB was told the yellowcake story came from forged documents. Kerry was told that his stories were true.

Wrong on both accounts. To this date the British claim that the story is true, and not based on the forged documents, but on other classifyed sources. So are you saying the President should ignore the British?

Also, why do you act now like the only source for WMD in Iraq was the yellow cake documents?

Ever read any of the Winter Soldier testimony? I have. It doesn't match what Kerry said. There are also parts that are impossible to have happened, anyone with 1/2 a brain would know they were being lied to. There are also alligations that Kerry asked for people to lie and sex it up. But hey, he was speaking against the evil Vietnam war, so he gets a pass right?

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

Have you lost your mind? Who says we are not supposed be outraged for 9/11???

All those people dancing in the streets and celebrating when 9/11 happened. All those people who claim that 9/11 was a Zionist plot, or staged by Bush.

Swifty

[Boom]

Btw, did you read your own link Swifty? You keep saying that the story was false. Your link does not say that the story was false, just that the source is having trouble documenting it.

From your link....

A day later, Isikoff reached his source again, who said that although he remembered reading investigative reports about desecration of the Quran, including a toilet incident, "he could no longer be sure that these concerns had surfaced in the [Southern Command] report."

The source is still saying it happened, just that he doesn't think the incidents made it into the Souther Command report. Which isn't suprising. I don't think many Abu Ghraib activities made it into the official reports at first either, do you?

Also from your link...

But Newsweek said Isikoff has uncovered more allegations of Quran desecration.

One, from an attorney representing some of the detainees, provided some declassified notes indicating 23 detainees had tried to commit suicide in August 2003 when a guard dropped a Quran and stomped on it. (Full story)

Isikoff found two other references to Qurans being tossed into toilets or latrines, the magazine reported.

Luckily for us, we learned our lesson from Abu Ghraib so we don't see a lot of pictures coming out of Guantanamo. If our boys down there did desecrate any books, there will not be any pictures of it.

Right now we don't have any proof. But I think, based on Abu Ghraib, that it would be a little foolish to dismiss it as an impossibility.

[Boom]

Wrong on both accounts. To this date the British claim that the story is true, and not based on the forged documents, but on other classifyed sources. So are you saying the President should ignore the British?
No, I am saying he should have told us THE WHOLE TRUTH at the SOTU. He could have said that HIS OWN PEOPLE were saying the British intelligence is bad and based on forged documents. Why do you not have a problem with him keeping that from us? Why are you ok with him telling us half the story? He had reason to believe the yellowcake story was bogus. His own experts were telling him that. He acted like he had no reason to believe it was bogus. He told it to us as if it was uncontested. That was a lie. Why do you not have a problem with that?

Also, name ONE country that said Saddam did NOT have WMD besides Iraq. UN inspectors.

Also, why do you act now like the only source for WMD in Iraq was the yellow cake documents?
Please re-read my posts a little more thoroughly. Should I quote where I repeatedly said Bush had other sources which supported his WMD allegations? Or can you find them yourself? I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, acted like he had no support for WMD. My point was that he only passed on those stories to us and ignored the sources that said no WMD.

And again with Kerry. The worst you can allege is that he SHOULD have known the stories were suspect. George ACTUALLY DID KNOW that at least one of the stories he passed on was suspect.

Which is worse, passing on a story that you should know is suspect, or passing on a story that you actually know is suspect.

[Swifty_Johnson]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,156612,00.html

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the report was demonstrably false, and that investigators at the FBI and SouthCom, which oversees operations at Guantanamo, have not found any evidence to support it.

Well Boom, your a lawyer, if there is nothing to show that it did happen, what does that mean?

Do you really think an attorney for the defendants is going to be totally honest? Come on, "23 detainees had tried to commit suicide in August 2003 when a guard dropped a Quran and stomped on it". Really? So all we have to do to wipe out radical islam is run around somping on Qurans and they all commit suicide! If the guard did that they'd try to kill him.

Swifty

[Post]

"I never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, acted like he had no support for WMD."

Haha, too late. You're already in the downward spiral.

[Boom]

There isn't "nothing" to show that it happened. But there is a lack of documentation. As a lawyer, that means it needs to be investigated more thoroughly before we make any conclusions as to whether it happened or not.

[Allison]

Boom, you should join me and Hep in the Land of Ignore. It's very nice here. :)

[Swifty_Johnson]

He acted like he had no reason to believe it was bogus. He told it to us as if it was uncontested. That was a lie. Why do you not have a problem with that?

No, it was not a lie. He told us the truth. According to British intelligence, Saddam did try to by yellow cake. They hold onto that story, to this date. And it's not based on the forged documents. Why is that to hard for you to understand?

The U.N inspectors never said Saddam did not have WMD, they said they could not find it. BUT we knew they were barred from locations, and that he moved items out from locations right before they got there. So his actions showed that he had something to hide.

My point was that he only passed on those stories to us and ignored the sources that said no WMD.

What country said Saddam had no WMD? What sources said Saddam had no WMD?

Saddam used WMD on the Kurds and Iranians
Sadam had a documented stock pile of WMD
The U.N. documented what it destroyed, it was less then what he had
There was no information coming from Iraq on what happened to the missing items
They were playing games with the inspectors

So what were we to think? It's not like Saddam never had any WMD and we just made it up. He had it, it was missing, so the safe bet was he still had it.

Newsweek on the other hand was just looking to sex up a story and sell copies. 15 people died, and the lifes of U.S. troops have been placed in danger, all to sell some magizines.

And again with Kerry. The worst you can allege is that he SHOULD have known the stories were suspect. George ACTUALLY DID KNOW that at least one of the stories he passed on was suspect.

No, Kerry did know and asked for them to be spiced up. On the other hand you have failed to show that GWB actually did know the story was false, and we'll never know as we will never have access to the sources from MI 5.

Swifty

[Noleader]

Boom, you should join me and Hep in the Land of Ignore. It's very nice here. :)

It sure is... I don't have him outright ignored because I like to read the results of 20+ years of republican brainwashing for kicks.

I stopped replying when I figured out that he was so far gone that it all fell on deaf ears.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I stopped replying when I figured out that he was so far gone that it all fell on deaf ears.

Ah, getting owned is now called "fell on deaf ears". IF you ever had anything constructive to say you'd be worth listening to.

And it's not 20 years of brainwashing, it's 20 years of free thinking. I understand that someone with the ability to think for themselfs would be considered "brainwashed" to a liberal.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

There isn't "nothing" to show that it happened. But there is a lack of documentation. As a lawyer, that means it needs to be investigated more thoroughly before we make any conclusions as to whether it happened or not.

That's not what Newsweek did, they printed it like it did actuall happen, no investigation, no checking of a source. It looked good, made good copy, so they ran with it.

Swifty

[Noleader]

All humor now...

[Post]

"I stopped replying when I figured out that he was so far gone that it all fell on deaf ears."

See, when people on my own side say, "what the hell?" to me, I listen. It takes a while, but at some point, provided your mind is open at all, you have to let it go even if you think you're right. After all, if practically everyone is saying something is a bad idea, it's worth atleast looking into.

Other people cannot do that. They are stuck in a righteous cause so they feel the fruit of the labor is being able to pick the last pedal to say "she loves me" instead of having her actually love you.

[Noleader]

Very true.

[Gwylenna]

That's not what Newsweek did, they printed it like it did actuall happen, no investigation, no checking of a source. It looked good, made good copy, so they ran with it.

Swifty

Where did you get this info Swifty?? From what I read they had one US government source confirmed it, a pentagon source who declined to say anything and one more Pentagon source who looked at it, and took issue with part of it, but not the part about the Koran (sp) being desicrated (sp).

How is that not an investigation and not checking a source??

[Boom]

No, it was not a lie. He told us the truth. According to British intelligence, Saddam did try to by yellow cake. They hold onto that story, to this date. And it's not based on the forged documents. Why is that to hard for you to understand?
Bush's own sources said the story was bogus. He kept that part from us. That is what I have a problem with. Why don't you?

[Boom]

Gwyl, in the land of Swifty, if a liberal gets a story from a U.S. official, and goes to two other U.S. officials who decline to deny the story, that counts as zero investigation. If a conservative tells us that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake, based on British Intelligence, and purposely doesn't mention the fact that our own U.S. Intelligence says that the British story is bullshit, that is telling the truth.

[cogsliastro]

i think i might join you in there too allia :)

as for this story,does anyone think that the "false" report is staged because the administration understands the severity of this in the islamic region??

they will plant reporters in the white house why not plant a story about wrong information when in fact it could be true and they are just trying to cover it up??

i know that you are going to think that im just being radacle,but this administration has proven time and time again its malcontent for the truth.

[Noleader]

Bush's own sources said the story was bogus. He kept that part from us. That is what I have a problem with. Why don't you?

That can be explained at the bottom of this thread Boom.

http://www.legionoflions.com/showthread.php?p=95674#post95674

[Swifty_Johnson]

Where did you get this info Swifty?? From what I read they had one US government source confirmed it, a pentagon source who declined to say anything and one more Pentagon source who looked at it, and took issue with part of it, but not the part about the Koran (sp) being desicrated (sp).

That's not what is being said now, the one "U.S. offical" said that where he thought he saw the report, it wasn't there, so it must have been another document. Declining comment or not saying anything does not mean that it happened. They needed to find someone else who could have said "Yes, it's true it happened and it's documented in report X."

Bush's own sources said the story was bogus. He kept that part from us. That is what I have a problem with. Why don't you?

How could Bush's own sources comment on the yellow cake information from MI5 when MI5 did not disclose who it was from?

Gwyl, in the land of Swifty, if a liberal gets a story from a U.S. official, and goes to two other U.S. officials who decline to deny the story, that counts as zero investigation.

And Boom, I thought there was no liberal bias in the media, so why did you turn this into a liberal vs conserative thing? I was looking for comments on the Newsweek story and fallout and you turned this into a liberal vs Conserative thing.

Anyway Boom your supposed to be a lawyer, when did someone refusing to comment on a story mean that the story is true? So what they took it to two people, both refused to comment on it. That doesn't mean that it's true, as we are finding out now.

If a conservative tells us that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake, based on British Intelligence, and purposely doesn't mention the fact that our own U.S. Intelligence says that the British story is bullshit, that is telling the truth.

When did our intelligence say the story is bullshit? They didn't.

Swifty

Swifty

[Boom]

That's not what is being said now, the one "U.S. offical" said that where he thought he saw the report, it wasn't there, so it must have been another document. Declining comment or not saying anything does not mean that it happened. They needed to find someone else who could have said "Yes, it's true it happened and it's documented in report X."

Your comment was that Newsweek did zero investigation. What their source says now is irrelevant to whether or not Newsweek did investigation before they printed the story. Prior to printing the story, they did do investigation. After printing the story, their source notified them that he is not sure what report he got his information from, so they retracted it. Prior to printing the story, they brought it to two other gvmt officials. One of which didn't deny anything in the story, the other one denied some parts of the story, but not the Quoran thing. If someone denies part of a story, but not the rest, its kind of like he is confirming the rest. I mean, let's say Ailia told you that I went to the titty bar last night and got really drunk. Then you went to Noleader for confirmation and he said, "Boom wasn't that drunk." Would you take that as confirmation that I was at the titty bar? And again, I'm not asking whether or not it makes it true, I am asking whether or not it qualifies as "investigation."

Anyway Boom your supposed to be a lawyer, when did someone refusing to comment on a story mean that the story is true? So what they took it to two people, both refused to comment on it. That doesn't mean that it's true, as we are finding out now.

Again, please respond to what I actually say, not what you imagine I said. I never said that if two people refuse to comment on a story that means it's true. I said that if you get a story from one gvmt official, and then bring it to two more gvmt officials who don't deny it, then that qualifies as "investigation." I never said it makes the story absolutely true. I said it qualifies as investigation. If you want to argue with me, please argue against the points I actually make. If you want to argue that this doesn't count as investigation, feel free to make your argument. If you want to argue that the investigation didn't prove the story was true, you need to find someone who thinks the investigation proved the story was true and argue with that person. Since I never said that, its just weird that you are trying to argue it with me. It's like we are having the following conversation.

Swifty: Newsweek did no investigation.
Boom:: Talking to three gvmt officials qualifies as an investigation.
Swifty: You are wrong, just because you talk to three gvmt officials doesn't mean the story is true.
Boom: Huh? All I said was that it was an investigation, I never said it makes it true. Who are you arguing with?

Also, you are mistating the facts when you say that newsweek brought it to two people who refused to comment on it. One of the two actually went through it and made a point of denying other parts of the article but didn't deny the Quoran allegations. That is hardly "refusing to comment."

And Boom, I thought there was no liberal bias in the media, so why did you turn this into a liberal vs conserative thing? I was looking for comments on the Newsweek story and fallout and you turned this into a liberal vs Conserative thing.
You have made your feelings regarding Newsweek very obvious in the past. I know you consider it to be a liberal rag. I don't deny that it has a liberal slant. And again, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said there was zero liberal bias in the media, I merely agreed with leading conservative pundits who say that the media as a whole is no longer owned by the liberals. There is both liberal and conservative bias in the media. I have never said otherwise. Again, you are arguing against points I never made and its kind of weird.

Boom: Liberals no longer control the media. Conservatives now have a strong voice in the media as well.
Swifty: You think there is no liberal bias in the media. You are wrong.
Boom: Huh? I never said that. There is plenty of liberal and conservative bias in the media. I am just saying that liberals don't totally control the media like conservative whiners like to say.
Swifty: You are wrong, you think there is no liberal bias in the media.
Boom: Who are you talking to?

Anyway, I "made" this a liberal/conservative thing because I am amazed at how harsh and demanding you are of liberals (politicians and media) and how forgiving and easygoing you are towards conservatives. Newsweek or Dan Rather gets a story wrong by accident and you are ready to tar and feather them. GWB gets a story wrong (on purpose) and that's okey dokey. Seems like a liberal/conservative issue to me.

How could Bush's own sources comment on the yellow cake information from MI5 when MI5 did not disclose who it was from?
When did our intelligence say the story is bullshit? They didn't.

So the CIA didn't specifically tell GWB to take that line out of his SOTU because it was based on forged documents? That never happened? They didn't say, "Don't mention the yellowcake in your SOTU because we think its bad intell." And they didn't get pissed and throw a fit when he kept it in the SOTU? I am making all of this up? You are hearing this for the first time? You have got to be kidding me.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I mean, let's say Ailia told you that I went to the titty bar last night and got really drunk. Then you went to Noleader for confirmation and he said, "Boom wasn't that drunk." Would you take that as confirmation that I was at the titty bar? And again, I'm not asking whether or not it makes it true, I am asking whether or not it qualifies as "investigation."

Um no, you need someone to actully say "Yes, Booms was drunk at the Titty bar." An "investigation" of something finds out if that is true, which means that someone else says "Yes, that happened." Having two people give no comments does not confirm that it actually happened.

Again, please respond to what I actually say, not what you imagine I said. I never said that if two people refuse to comment on a story that means it's true. I said that if you get a story from one gvmt official, and then bring it to two more gvmt officials who don't deny it, then that qualifies as "investigation."

To me you need people to confirm the story to count as an invesgation, you just can't call up two random people and take their no comments as confrimation.


Anyway, I "made" this a liberal/conservative thing because I am amazed at how harsh and demanding you are of liberals (politicians and media) and how forgiving and easygoing you are towards conservatives.

There is no liberal media, you keep telling me that. It's human nature Boom. You are more hash with conseratives then you are with liberals, and I am more harsh with liberals than conseratives. It has to do with the fact that while you see problems with policies of the right, I see more problems with the policies of the left.

So the CIA didn't specifically tell GWB to take that line out of his SOTU because it was based on forged documents?

The claim of the British MI5 wasn't based on the forged documents.

Swifty

[cogsliastro]

new developments here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/17/AR2005051700583.html

[Boom]

I am more harsh with liberals than conseratives.
Thank you for finally admitting that. You have been lying about it here for the last two years.

Your understanding of the word "investigation" is incorrect. An investigation is the process of looking for information. Look it up. It doesn't matter whether the result of the investigation confirms your theory or not, if you look for the information, you did an investigation. You can perform an investigation and come up with nothing. You are saying that in order for it to be an investigation, you must actually confirm that the thing you are investigating is true. That is incorrect. If you are looking for the information you are investigating. If you ask people about something, whether they tell you anything or not, you are investigating. You said Newsweek did no investigation. That is incorrect. They did an investigation. Stop being silly and pretending to not know what investigation means.

To me you need people to confirm the story to count as an invesgation, you just can't call up two random people and take their no comments as confrimation.
I've already corrected you on this. Are you purposely misstating the facts now? They didn't say "no comment." One person declined to comment on the story, the other person actually denied other parts of the story but didn't deny the Quoran parts. Please stop misstating the facts. And yes, it does count as an investigation. Look up the word investigation if you don't believe me. It may not qualify as "confirmation" but it definitely is "investigation."

The claim of the British MI5 wasn't based on the forged documents.

Are you doing the thing where you pretend to not understand so that you can keep the argument going? I understand that the British say the yellowcake story is true. But Bush had OTHER SOURCES (our own intelligence) which said that he shouldn't believe the yellowcake story. Our own intelligence told him to keep it out of his SOTU because they didn't think it was true. Bush told us the yellowcake story but did NOT tell us that the CIA thought it wasn't true. This was misleading at best and a flat out lie at the worst. You really have no problem with Bush telling us the yellowcake story, as if it was a proven fact, after the CIA told him that they thought it wasn't true?

[Boom]

There is no liberal media, you keep telling me that.
Am I talking to a wall?

[Post]

Do you really want an answer?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Thank you for finally admitting that. You have been lying about it here for the last two years.

No I haven't. Unlike you I don't use a double standard vs liberals and conseratives, when a conserative does wrong I will say so and not cover it up, it's just I'll take a more harsh stance with the liberals.

Your understanding of the word "investigation" is incorrect. An investigation is the process of looking for information. Look it up.

No, it is not. As I said, for them to have properly invisigated it they would have had someone confirm what was said. Seeing they have now retracted the story, it appears they failed to do that.

Are you purposely misstating the facts now? They didn't say "no comment." One person declined to comment on the story, the other person actually denied other parts of the story but didn't deny the Quoran parts. Please stop misstating the facts.

I am not misstating any facts at all, you just confirmed what I said. I said "take their no comments as confrimation."

You said "One person declined to comment on the story,"

When you don't give a comment to a story, what does the person have? No comments.

You then said "the other person actually denied other parts of the story but didn't deny the Quoran parts. "

Still, he didn't offer any validation for it. So he didn't comment on that part, so what did they have? No comments again.

There is no misstating going on.

Are you doing the thing where you pretend to not understand so that you can keep the argument going? I understand that the British say the yellowcake story is true. But Bush had OTHER SOURCES (our own intelligence) which said that he shouldn't believe the yellowcake story.

What am I talking to a wall here?

The MI5 information was NOT BASED ON THE FORGED DOCUMENTS. Are you just trying to keep a loosing argument going so you don't have to admit you are wrong? There was NO information from our own people that could dispute what MI5 was saying as it was NOT BASED ON THE FORGED DOCUMENTS.

Swifty

[Post]

Let me guess what happened in that last post:

- he looked for a source to show you stated that there is no liberal media, couldn't find one, so he admitted he was wrong in accusing you of that and apologized.
- he admitted that it was really incorrect to state that there was no investigation, and apologized.
- he admitted that the purposeful declination of a comment is a statement within itself, so it was really unfair to act as if no comments were made, and apologized.
- he admitted that there was information that was held by our own people that conflicted against what other countries were saying about Iraq, and that was never told to us, so that really was bad, and apologized.

That's what happened, right? I'm psychic!

[Swifty_Johnson]

- he looked for a source to show you stated that there is no liberal media, couldn't find one, so he admitted he was wrong in accusing you of that and apologized.


Everytime I say the liberal media he keeps telling me that Rush said it wasn't so.

- he admitted that it was really incorrect to state that there was no investigation, and apologized.

As I explained several times, to me what they did could not be called an investigation.

- he admitted that the purposeful declination of a comment is a statement within itself, so it was really unfair to act as if no comments were made, and apologized.

A no comment does not confirm a statement.

- he admitted that there was information that was held by our own people that conflicted against what other countries were saying about Iraq, and that was never told to us, so that really was bad, and apologized.

There was no information that disputed the source of MI5's statement.

I see you are still batting .000

Swifty

[Noleader]

Am I talking to a wall?

Yes.

[cogsliastro]

no boom its not a wall,just a politically blinded person who thinks he knows everything.

[Boom]

Swifty.

Did the CIA tell Bush that they yellowcake story was bogus before he put it in his SOTU? Yes or no? (The answer is yes, feel free to google it, there are about 100 articles confirming it).

Did Bush keep it in his SOTU? Yes or no? (The answer is yes, we all heard it.)

When Bush told us the Yellowcake story, did he mention that the CIA said the story was bogus? Yes or no? (The answer is no.)

You know that since that time, the White House itself has come out and said that the yellowcake story is bogus. I know that the British still say its true, but the White House says its not true. The CIA says its not true. Bush was told that it wasn't true before the SOTU. I don't give a damn what the British say, if the CIA says Saddam wasn't getting yellowcake, then that's what I want to hear. Fine, tell me what the British think, its nice to know, but don't keep the facts from me, tell me what the CIA says about it too.

On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm

That is just one of many many many articles that all say the same thing.

The White House is saying that Bush shouldn't have used it in the SOTU. They are admitting it. But you are soooooo incredibly gungho to defend Bush no matter what, that you are actually still saying there was nothing wrong even though his own people are saying it was wrong!!!!

I think you are caught in a bit of a catch-22 now. The White House has officially said that Bush shouldn't have used the yellowcake story in his SOTU. So now if you stick to your argument that there was no problem with the SOTU, you are disagreeing with the official word of the Bush White House. If you agree with the White House that Bush shouldn't have used the yellowcake story, then you are agreeing with me, and have to take back the last few pages of argument. Which is it going to be?

[cogsliastro]

i cant wait to see how he discredits you boom:)

[Noleader]

I will save Swifty the time... All those 1000 news articles are from the liberal media. I know this cause I read on a good news source that the yellow cake story was all drummed up by the liberal media and Bush never admitted a damn thing.

I lost the link though, the liberals broke into the internet and deleted the website.

[Allison]

Play nice.

[Swifty_Johnson]

"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said.

I guess you missed this part from your very own link Boom. As I said before, and I'll say it again, the British claim was not based on the forged documents. IF you want to discredit the claim, you need to discredit the other source that lead to the British saying this.

Everyone knew the documents were forged, that was not news. There was nothing to discredit the other source of information. Some have alleged that the Iraqis released the forged documents as a means of covering up what they had done.

The White House backpeddeled becasue it became a lighting rod and distracted from the real issues.

Try looking at this with an open mind.

http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

and another

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.

Swifty

[Figtoria]

This is the one I think makes the most sense:


http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edpparker18051805may18,0,7940333.column?coll=orl-opinion-headlines

[Gwylenna]

Great article Figgy, good to see some well thought out non-reactionist words on this subject. Thanks for sharring it really does put things into perspective.