News MSNBC poll on impeachment disturbing

[Futobingoro]

Well, it appears that Joseph Wilson was sent to Niger knowing only about the documents that would later be shown to be forgeries:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's.

Source

Those definitely fit the description of the forged documents.

Wilson did not know, however, that the CIA was also interested in the separate subject of the 1999 Iraqi delegation to Niger. In Niger, Wilson collected information virtually eliminating the possibility of a uranium transaction. He therefore returned to the US thinking that he had debunked the only significant intelligence on Niger, writing that the reports were "unequivocally wrong" and that the documents had been forged. The CIA, however, simultaneously viewed Wilson's report as a reinforcement of the existence of the 1999 delegation. Had Wilson known about the CIA's interest in the 1999 delegation, he likely would have still doubted the forgeries, but he would have recognized the validity of the claim that Iraq was "seeking" uranium in Niger.

Fast forward to the 2003 State of the Union, where Bush spoke the "16 words," claiming that British intelligence had learned that Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Wilson, in his op-ed:

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

It is my opinion, which I feel is well-founded, that Wilson thought that Bush was referring to the forged documents, and that Wilson understandably went public to correct this "wrong."

It is debatable whether Iraq's seeking of uranium was relevant enough to include in the speech, especially because no negotiations ever moved forward. The fact remains, however, that Bush was not lying.

And regarding the conjecture that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" as an interest in uranium, I think that it is probably credible, as Mayaki would have the diplomatic background and experience as prime minister to make that interpretation. Additionally, the Butler review noted that uranium constitutes "almost three-quarters of Niger's exports." Depending on the rainfall in a given year, the balance is comprised of livestock, cowpeas, onions and cotton (source). There are also undeveloped mineral deposits.

 

[edward]

Futobingoro

You contend that you think you know what Wilson was thinking about! Give me a break.

The administration had been told by sources other than Wilson that there was no yellow cake involvement with Niger. Bush lied or was intentionally misinformed by his advisers. There is no gray area here.

Regardless the statements made by Bush did convince millions of Americans that there was a "Grave and Gathering Danger".

 

[Astronuc]

Around the time that the president was beginning to make a case for war, something for which had been in planning for about 3 years, Rice made the following statement, which made headlines around the world.

"The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/10/wbr.smoking.gun/
It was all about WMD nuclear, or chem, or bio.

Meanwhile, Cheney's office was leaking stories to the media, e.g. Judith Miller at the NYTimes, and then later, Cheney would let people like Tim Russert bring it up so that it would look like Cheney was confirming someone else's information. Now that is deliberately deceptive.

The inspectors there were finding nothing. And later, leading up to the war, Scott Ritter and others were saying that there was nothing to find. Then David Kay and various military officers were saying they couldn't find anything because there was nothing to find, which supported what was being said before the war.

If the president had been honest, he would have had to concede that he and other lack no certain or verifiable data (not that they were interested), but the he felt strongly that the US needed to remove Saddam Hussein.

But then the Bush admin totally blew it when they put political hacks and inexperience and unqualified people to lead the recovery. Cheney was undermining the political side, and Rumsfeld was undermining the military.

And then Bush had the gall to tell the US public that he (and his administration) were doing all they could do for the troops, when in fact, the troops did not have proper body armour or armoured Humvies - for two more years even!

http://www.johnmccrory.com/wrote.asp?this=49

The decisions, policies and intelligence behind the Iraq War
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/news/special_packages/iraq/intelligence/7132720.htm

Bill Moyers presented "Buying the War" on PBS this evening. He outlines how the White House fabricated the case for war, how Congress (controlled by Republicans) failed to due its duty and check the president, and how the media assisted the White House (particularly Dick Cheney) in deceiving the public. One news organization, Knight Ridder was reporting that the case for war was faulty. Apparently few in the main stream were paying attention.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/blog/knight_ridder/
Knight Ridder (now McClatchy) reporters Jonathan Landay and Warren Strobel, who between them have over 40 years experience reporting on foreign affairs and national security.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/biosandterms.html

 

[mormonator_rm]

If all of the accusations against Bush from the Left are indeed true, then he should not only be impeached, but also tried for war crimes afterward; I have full confidence that an international war crimes tribunal will not only find him guilty on all counts, but will sentence him to a long imprisonment (only since the death sentence does not seem to be popular among other nations...). How about that idea?

 

[Futobingoro]

You contend that you think you know what Wilson was thinking about! Give me a break.

The administration had been told by sources other than Wilson that there was no yellow cake involvement with Niger. Bush lied or was intentionally misinformed by his advisers. There is no gray area here.

As is noted by the Butler Review, http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html and even Joseph Wilson himself, the Iraqi delegation's 1999 visit is a fact, and the purpose of that visit is almost a fact (the Butler Review used indirect, yet sound, analysis to determine the likely meaning of "expanding commercial relations").

Simply put, Wilson misinterpreted Bush's 16 words, writing of his Niger trip in his op-ed: "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place." Wilson disproved a claim that Bush had never made.

And as I said before, it is debatable whether the Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger was relevant enough to mention in the State of the Union, due to the fact that nothing ever came of the encounter, but George Bush was not lying when he said that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa.

 

[edward]

Futobingoro

Man I am really amazed that you want to continue defending Bush on the Sixteen words. The 1999 incident had been disproved by the time Bush made the statement. BTW Wilson was in Niger in 1999. Think about it, if the amounts claimed were true, France would have had to allow Iraq to take one third of the yellow cake that they (France) were buying from Niger. Not likely.

For that matter at this point it doesn't even matter what Wilson thought or wrote either. Wilson only proclaimed that there was no deal for Iraq to buy yellow cake from Niger at the time he was there. This merely substantiated that the Italian documents which were declared to be forgeries by the IAEA, were bogus.

Monday 17 April 2006

Sixteen days before President Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address in which he said that the US learned from British intelligence that Iraq had attempted to acquire uranium from Africa - an explosive claim that helped pave the way to war - the State Department told the CIA that the intelligence the uranium claims were based upon were forgeries, according to a newly declassified State Department memo.

The revelation of the warning from the closely guarded State Department memo is the first piece of hard evidence and the strongest to date that the Bush administration manipulated and ignored intelligence information in their zeal to win public support for invading Iraq.

The memo says: "On January 12, 2003," the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) "expressed concerns to the CIA that the documents pertaining to the Iraq-Niger deal were forgeries."

Moreover, the memo says that the State Department's doubts about the veracity of the uranium claims may have been expressed to the intelligence community even earlier.

Those concerns, according to the memo, are the reason that former Secretary of State Colin Powell refused to cite the uranium claims when he appeared before the United Nations in February 5, 2003 - one week after Bush's State of the Union address - to try to win support for a possible strike against Iraq.

http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/59/19157

The entire memo.

http://www.truthout.org/imgs.art_01/fordmemo.pdf

 

[Futobingoro]

The 1999 Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger is fact and exists separately from the forgeries.

Joseph Wilson proved that the documents showing a uranium sale were forgeries.

Show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

 

[Art]

The 1999 Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger is fact and exists separately from the forgeries.

Joseph Wilson proved that the documents showing a uranium sale were forgeries.

Show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

Futo you are probably the last person on the planet who seems to believe Bush did not fabricate and falsely misrepresent evidence to justify making war on Iraq.
So be it you are entitled to hold your mistaken opinion based on your reading of Wilson's mind. Personally I will not be wasting any more time on the subject.

 

[Futobingoro]

Futo you are probably the last person on the planet who seems to believe Bush did not fabricate and falsely misrepresent evidence to justify making war on Iraq.

So expressing doubts about a common yellowcake narrative makes me somebody who thinks all of Bush's Iraq WMD claims were valid? If I were a cynic I would say that you are trying to label me so you can distance yourself from the subject.

My challenge remains: show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

 

[turbo]

As is noted by the Butler Review, http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_16_words_on_iraq_uranium.html and even Joseph Wilson himself, the Iraqi delegation's 1999 visit is a fact, and the purpose of that visit is almost a fact (the Butler Review used indirect, yet sound, analysis to determine the likely meaning of "expanding commercial relations").

This is not at all the case. At the time of the visit, Iraq was under UN sanctions and was desperately in need of cash. It takes energy to refine uranium, and Iraq had great reserves of portable energy (oil) that could feed the generating plants powering Niger's uranium industry. In return, Niger could help relieve Iraq's cash-flow problem. Iraq was getting some help from France and Russia, but under the UN sanctions, the oil revenues had to be earmarked for humanitarian purposes. If Iraq could sell oil to a country that was not cooperative with the sanctions, they would have some cash-flow free of restrictions.

If Bush, Blair, and their lap-dogs want to make more of that trip, they will have to supply some sort of documentation to support it. Despite the fact that they have two of the world's best intelligence communities at their disposal, they have produced not a shred of such evidence and in fact the CIA had discredited the yellowcake angle months before Bush's speech. Since the CIA wouldn't back him up in his lie, he said that British intelligence had "discovered" the yellowcake link, as if the US has to rely on foreign intelligence agencies to prevent the spread of WMD technology and materials. That, by the way, was the job of Valerie Plame, working in a very dangerous NOC CIA cover. Yes, when Joe Wilson told the public that the CIA and the administration had known months before that the yellowcake connection was bogus, the Bushies outed his wife and thus destroyed the career of one of our NOC operatives who was working actively to prevent the spread of WMDs. By doing so, they also put at risk other NOCs and their foreign sources who might have been identified by their associations with Plame. Operatives at the CIA are VERY unhappy with the Bush administration's cavalier attitude with their lives and careers.

My challenge remains: show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

You are moving the goalposts. Bush claimed that Iraq had attempted to procure yellowcake from Niger. He did not say that Iraq had bought the yellowcake or that they possessed it, just that they had attempted to buy it. And he had known that even that statement was a lie for months before he made it, which is why he referred to a long-discredited statement from British intelligence instead of real, current, CIA intelligence.

 

[edward]

The 1999 Iraqi delegation's visit to Niger is fact and exists separately from the forgeries.

Joseph Wilson proved that the documents showing a uranium sale were forgeries.

Show me where Bush claimed a uranium sale had taken place.

There was never a question about a sale. The Bush claims were all about, "Iraq was seeking to buy".

They cherry picked to the extreme in a desperate attempt to come up with something where nothing existed.

The false information in the sixteen words was damning evidence that Bush and Cheney were hell bent on invading Iraq, and that they misled the American people in doing so.

They should be charged with conspiracy to defraud the American people. And this crime was not a victimless crime.

 

[Futobingoro]

This is not at all the case. At the time of the visit, Iraq was under UN sanctions and was desperately in need of cash. It takes energy to refine uranium, and Iraq had great reserves of portable energy (oil) that could feed the generating plants powering Niger's uranium industry. In return, Niger could help relieve Iraq's cash-flow problem.

So Iraq went to the world's poorest country (surrounded by the oil producing states of Chad, Nigeria, Libya and Algeria) with the intention of selling oil for cash?

You are moving the goalposts. Bush claimed that Iraq had attempted to procure yellowcake from Niger. He did not say that Iraq had bought the yellowcake or that they possessed it, just that they had attempted to buy it. And he had known that even that statement was a lie for months before he made it, which is why he referred to a long-discredited statement from British intelligence instead of real, current, CIA intelligence.

I am only moving the goalposts back to where they should be. Again, the reports of the Iraqi delegation are separate from the forged documents showing a uranium deal. You are assuming that the reports of the Iraqi delegation got shot down along with the forgeries, but this is not the case.

The legal roadblocks that existed and the exposure of uranium contracts as forgeries show only that Iraq was unsuccessful in obtaining uranium, not that Iraq wasn't seeking it.

There was never a question about a sale.

...yet Joseph Wilson thought that his finding that it was "highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place," was grounds to doubt Bush's 16 words. It is highly likely that many people (Wilson included) either thought that Bush had claimed a sale had taken place (he hadn't) or that Wilson's findings shot down both the transaction documents and the reports of the delegation (they didn't).

 

[turbo]

So Iraq went to the world's poorest country (surrounded by the oil producing states of Chad, Nigeria, Libya and Algeria) with the intention of selling oil for cash?

The production of Niger's refined uranium goes to France, with which Iraq had a special relationship. Such a deal would allow France to help Iraq establish some cash-flow that would not be automatically earmarked for humanitarian uses only. The world is a complex place, and the machinations of businessmen and diplomats are no different.

I am only moving the goalposts back to where they should be. Again, the reports of the Iraqi delegation are separate from the forged documents showing a uranium deal. You are assuming that the reports of the Iraqi delegation got shot down along with the forgeries, but this is not the case.

I will spend no more time debating this point. It is a fact that Bush claimed that Iraq had tried to get yellowcake from Niger months after the CIA told him that was untrue. Don't you think that the Bushies made the CIA scramble long and hard to uncover ANY evidence to support the yellowcake story? The fact that they told Bush that the story was untrue months before his speech and still have uncovered no evidence to support the story should be a clear indication that 1) the story was a lie from the beginning or 2) the CIA is incompetent. The CIA has plenty of leeway, and they could have bribed any number of participants in that Iraq/Niger meeting to get Bush's story confirmed. Where is the confirmation? If you think that a diplomat from Niger would not tumble for a few million dollars to back up Bush's case, you have a higher opinion of the honest of governmental officials than most of us.

 

[Futobingoro]

1999

February – Wissam al-Zahawie, Iraq’s ambassador to the Vatican, leaves for Niger, according to documents given to the French by Rocco Martino, an agent from Italian military intelligence.¹ Unclear if this is the delegation referenced in Wilson’s findings, or if there was another, separate delegation.

2000

July 6 – Date on document purported to show a uranium transaction between Niger and Iraq (later shown to be a forgery). Document supplied by Rocco Martino.

2002

February – Joseph Wilson is sent to Niger to investigate reports of a uranium sale by Niger to Iraq. Returns having concluded that no sale took place, but noted that an Iraqi delegation visited in June of 1999 speaking of “expanding commercial relations,” which prime minister Mayaki had interpreted as an interest in uranium sales.

2003

January 28 – George Bush delivers his State of the Union address, including the “16 words” in which he claimed that the British government had learned that Saddam Hussein had recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa

July 6 – Date of Joseph Wilson’s NY Times op-ed “What I Didn't Find in Africa,” in which he claimed that his findings in Niger contradicted the claims made by George Bush in January.

[1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20060527...curity/issues/iraq/justify/2004/0802niger.htm

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tenet denies "slam-dunk" case!

Tenet talks about how one comment, which he made in passing, has haunted him. The comment: "It's a slam-dunk case."

Tenet says he was referring to making a public case that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Tenet says he was not saying that the Iraqi leader had those weapons.

..."It's the most despicable thing that ever happened to me," Tenet says. "You don't do this. You don't throw somebody overboard just because it's a deflection."[continued]

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/entertainment_tv_tvblog/2007/04/george_tenet_to.html

He claims that this was leaked in such a way so as to be misleading and to sound like he said something that he didn't.

You can watch the interview here
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/25/60minutes/main2728375.shtml?source=mostpop_story

heh, note also that he denies using torture, but he refuses to respond to the issue of waterboarding. As Obama noted, this all goes to the definition of torture. Anyone can move the lines and claim no foul.

 

[denverdoc]

I caught the Bill Moyer's documentary last nite, what a great look back! We can argue/pick nits Futo, but if you can sit thru that and tell me this wasn't a propoganda effort of the greatest magnitude with eerie reminiscences of fascism where govt, press and industry work in concert to whip up blood fever. Appalling failure on the part of the press. At least Knight-Ridder was paying attention among the bigger outlets...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I caught the Bill Moyer's documentary last nite, what a great look back! We can argue/pick nits Futo, but if you can sit thru that and tell me this wasn't a propoganda effort of the greatest magnitude with eerie reminiscences of fascism where govt, press and industry work in concert to whip up blood fever. Appalling failure on the part of the press. At least Knight-Ridder was paying attention among the bigger outlets...

That is a new series. Glad to see Moyers back.

You can watch it here.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

 

[Astronuc]

I caught the Bill Moyer's documentary last nite, what a great look back! We can argue/pick nits Futo, but if you can sit thru that and tell me this wasn't a propoganda effort of the greatest magnitude with eerie reminiscences of fascism where govt, press and industry work in concert to whip up blood fever. Appalling failure on the part of the press. At least Knight-Ridder was paying attention among the bigger outlets...

Moyers mentioned the "smoking gun - mushroom cloud" phrase, which Condi mentioned first, and Bush repeated later.

According to various sources, it was authored by Michael Gerson:

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0914-28.htm
by Jeff Cohen

Few media marching bands have beat the Iraq war drums more frantically and with more influence than the editorial pages of the Washington Post. On Monday, the Post announced the hiring of another drummer boy, one who played a key propaganda role inside the Bush White House.

The Post editorial pages were an echo chamber for pre-war distortions and paranoid fantasies originated by the White House Iraq Group (WHIG). So it’s grotesquely fitting that the Post would hire as an op-ed columnist, Michael Gerson, Bush’s top speechwriter who – as a key wordsmith within WHIG – helped originate the flights of rhetorical fancy that so dazzled the Post’s laptop warriors. Gerson spun the deceit; the Post peddled it. Now they’ll operate under the same roof.

In explaining why the Post was adding yet another pro-war voice to its op-ed page, hawkish editorial page editor Fred Hiatt described Gerson as being “a different kind of conservative from the other conservatives on our page.” Thanks, Fred, for all the diversity.

In their new book “Hubris,” Michael Isikoff and David Corn write that it was Gerson who –

* inserted references to the yellowcake-from-Niger tale into various Bush speeches, including the 2003 State of the Union.

* helped prepare Secretary of State Colin Powell’s dishonest and bellicose speech to the U.N.

* conceived Team Bush’s trademark paranoid “soundbite” warning of a potential Iraq nuclear program: “The first sign of a smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.”

According to “Hubris,” the “mushroom cloud” line was intended for a Bush speech, but was too good to hold. It was first deployed in September 2002 by anonymous White House aides in a New York Times front-page scare story (by Judith Miller and Michael Gordon) warning that Iraq had “stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons.” On CNN that day, Condoleezza Rice declared: “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” And Gerson’s line became a standard and manipulative war cry from then on.

Speechwriter Gerson should be right at home at the Washington Post. From September 2002 through February 2003, the Post editorialized 26 times in favor of the Iraq war. As Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman have documented, its op-ed page was also dominated by hawks screaming for war. War skeptics were denounced as “fools” and “liars” and worse – and the skeptics were not given space to respond.

But the truth is that the skeptics were right, were telling the truth, and the “liars” were denouncing the skeptics!

Frank Rich:Iraq Is the Ultimate Aphrodisiac

PRESIDENT BUSH has skipped the funerals of the troops he sent to Iraq. He took his sweet time to get to Katrina-devastated New Orleans. But last week he raced to Virginia Tech with an alacrity not seen since he hustled from Crawford to Washington to sign a bill interfering in Terri Schiavo’s end-of-life medical care. Mr. Bush assumes the role of mourner in chief on a selective basis, and, as usual with the decider, the decisive factor is politics. Let Walter Reed erupt in scandal, and he’ll take six weeks to show his face — and on a Friday at that, to hide the story in the Saturday papers. The heinous slaughter in Blacksburg, Va., by contrast, was a rare opportunity for him to ostentatiously feel the pain of families whose suffering cannot be blamed on the administration.

But he couldn’t inspire the kind of public acclaim that followed his post-9/11 visit to ground zero or the political comeback that buoyed his predecessor after Oklahoma City. The cancer on the Bush White House, Iraq, is now spreading too fast. The president had barely returned to Washington when the empty hope of the “surge” was hideously mocked by a one-day Baghdad civilian death toll more than five times that of Blacksburg’s. McClatchy (Knight Ridder)Newspapers reported that the death rate for American troops over the past six months was at its all-time high for this war.

"If the Bush administration had been wrong only about the Niger purchase, it would have indicated carelessness. But the references to nuclear weapons, taken as a whole, indicate dissatisfaction with the truth of the matter and a disregard for inconvenient facts."

http://why-war.com/news/2003/08/14/thebushd.html
Peter D. Zimmerman | Washington Post | August 14, 2003

And now -

Ex-C.I.A. Chief, in Book, Assails Cheney on Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/27/washington/27intel.html
By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.

The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.

“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.

Not that Bush et al were interested in any debate. They had already decided to go to war, and just needed to convince the US public that it was a good idea - hence the propaganda campaign.

 

[turbo]

That is a new series. Glad to see Moyers back.

You can watch it here.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

Thank you for that link, Ivan. I had wanted to watch that show, then forgot about it. I didn't dream that PBS would invest in the bandwidth to put the whole show on streaming video. I highly recommend the show to anybody who believes that our press is liberal or who thinks that the press has been unnecessarily critical of the administration (the Faux News party line).

 

[edward]

I was just thinking, the people who really need to watch this probably will not.

 

[denverdoc]

Someone considered it important, thankfully, and that PBS has not been completely made impotent/irrelevant.

IMO the Bill Moyers, the Knight-Ridder columsists who didn't accept all on faith, and the Amy Goodmans of the world all deserve our richest thanks for having the smarts and guts to lay it out there. Its available still, even if the access is limited vs Fox news which seems to be what's on when I go to the gym or etc. Americans are not stupid, just less informed. Got a spare twenty bucks, send it to an alternative media source. Off my soapbox.

 

[denverdoc]

I was just thinking, the people who really need to watch this probably will not.

Edward, your post came in just as I was completing mine. Thats the issue: the bugaboo of a "liberal press." Make media more independent of advertising $$, it would be a creature of great diversity and life. Used to be we had many fold more newspapers than today, and like Europe even today, brought a great diversity of viewpoint. Today the papers keep merging, even in Denver, the two "opposing" points of view, were merged, and the difference between the two is unnoticeable in content. If we have one voice we have one mind. Support any and all independent news sources!
J

 

[edward]

Someone considered it important, thankfully, and that PBS has not been completely made impotent/irrelevant.

IMO the Bill Moyers, the Knight-Ridder columsists who didn't accept all on faith, and the Amy Goodmans of the world all deserve our richest thanks for having the smarts and guts to lay it out there. Its available still, even if the access is limited vs Fox news which seems to be what's on when I go to the gym or etc. Americans are not stupid, just less informed. Got a spare twenty bucks, send it to an alternative media source. Off my soapbox.

Thanks Doc
there are also a lot of sub links on the right hand side of the main link to the Moyers program for instance:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/timeline.html

There is some interesting information for those who want to delve deeper. In the link above a click on the words "On line only" was very interesting. The links allow one to disect the entire program by time and by people involved.

 

[edward]

Edward, your post came in just as I was completing mine. Thats the issue: the bugaboo of a "liberal press." Make media more independent of advertising $$, it would be a creature of great diversity and life. Used to be we had many fold more newspapers than today, and like Europe even today, brought a great diversity of viewpoint. Today the papers keep merging, even in Denver, the two "opposing" points of view, were merged, and the difference between the two is unnoticeable in content. If we have one voice we have one mind. Support any and all independent news sources!
J

The same thing happened with the two newspapers here in Tucson. The only difference between the two is that one comes out in the morning and the other hits the stands in the afternoon. I truly miss the days of good old fashioned hard investigative journalism.

 

[Astronuc]

Moyers made the comment that newspapers are laying of journalists and simply 'buying' news from other organizations. It costs to much to retain a staff of investigative journalists. This is a very troubling trend.

 

[turbo]

Moyers made the comment that newspapers are laying of journalists and simply 'buying' news from other organizations. It costs to much to retain a staff of investigative journalists. This is a very troubling trend.

And in the Rather segment, it was pointed out that it is much faster and cheaper to bring in "experts" to shout at each other than to actually do any real reporting, which is why TV "journalism" is nose-diving in quality.

 

[Astronuc]

'pundits' rather than "experts".

I believe Moyers's program made the point that the 'experts' who made that case that 'aluminum tubes' were for high speed centrifuges were in fact 'unqualified' to make such an assessment. Typical for the Bush administration.

 

[turbo]

'pundits' rather than "experts".

I believe Moyers's program made the point that the 'experts' who made that case that 'aluminum tubes' were for high speed centrifuges were in fact 'unqualified' to make such an assessment. Typical for the Bush administration.

That's why I put "experts" in quotes. Those people assume a mantle of authority and simply re-assert the arguments of the people they're shilling for without dissecting the situation and laying out the motivations of the principals. In fact, as you point out, many of them lack the qualifications to speak intelligently on the subjects they are expounding on. The real experts (like Scott Ritter) have to look to Amy Goodman and other progressive journalists to get the time and free rein to do the kind of in-depth analysis that complex situations deserve.

 

[edward]

It wasn't just that the reporting was not investigative, it was done by people with no experience in the area and then exploited by the administration.

For instance, the Judith Miller article in the NY Times about the aluminum tubes came about because of a leak from the White House.

Then Cheney appeared on Meet the Press and quoted the Times story as if it was verifying evidence against Iraq.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/jan-june04/nytimes_05-26.html#

 

[denverdoc]

Clever bastards aren't they?