|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by aceventura3
.....we spend billions subsidizing inefficient oil alternatives, and we are not producing any oil domestically.
I know that generally on TFP, members want to put all of the blame on Bush but it seems to me that the problem is bigger than Bush and predates his administration. It is going to get worse unless there is cooperation in Washington on this issue.
|
ace....I've posted support for the idea that the first part of the quote of you above is inaccurate....and the rest is inaccurate because there is clear evidence that the Bush administration has constantly been at work destabalizing the security in the middle east, and not what you claim.
Ace, Iran is not a threat to US National Security....our own intelligence agencies issued a report last November, that the Bush administration stifled and contested for a year before it was released....with the president claiming the opposite of what the NIE said.....since Bush knew that the assessment of US intelligence was that Iran had ceeased it's nuclear weapons development program in 2003.
Iran is perhaps a threat to Israel's security, but would Iran ever launch a "first strike" on Israel, even if it did develop a nuclear warhead capable of being delivered via a missle, since Israel is host to the third most holy place in Islam?
Do you think this constant "dictation" from "unidentified US officials" to Michael Gordon of the NY Times, and other cooperative corporate media shills, by the Bush administration....serves to lessen tensions in the ME, ace, or to increase them? Do you think this constant belligerence influences petroleum prices to go down?
Quote:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...33#post2481933
Just read Michael Gordon's June 20 article, posted near the bottom of the next quote box......
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/07/09/hoyt/
Monday July 9, 2007 06:50 EDT
The ongoing journalistic scandal at the New York Times
....And most significantly of all, Hoyt's criticisms are grounded not in a technical violation of some petty rule or failure to adhere to some debatable journalistic custom, but rather, involve the worst journalistic sin of all: namely, a failure to treat government claims with skepticism and a willingness mindlessly to recite such claims without scrutiny. If a newspaper simply prints government claims without skepticism, what remote value does it have other than as a propaganda amplifier? None. And yet, as Hoyt's column potently demonstrates, that is exactly what the NYT is doing in Iraq -- yet again......
... Just consider the record of Michael Gordon -- who, I want to stress, is not personally the problem but merely the most vivid manifestation of the ills of American political journalism. Based exclusively upon what has appeared in the Times itself -- thus excluding all external criticisms of his reporting -- this is Gordon's record of shame over the last four years:
* A May 26, 2004 NYT Editors' Note http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/in...&ex=1184126400 identifies several articles written or co-written by Gordon about the Bush administration's pro-war Iraq claims and says about that reporting "that it was not as rigorous as it should have been"; that the war-fueling case "was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged"; and the reporting was flawed because "Administration officials were allowed to hold forth at length" with virtually no challenge or dissent.
* On January 28, 2007, NYT Public Editor Byron Calame reports http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/op...erland&emc=rss that "Times editors have carefully made clear their disapproval of the expression of a personal opinion about Iraq on national television by the paper's chief military correspondent, Michael Gordon," in which Gordon expressed clear support for President Bush's "surge" plan. The Times Washington Bureau Chief, Philip Taubman, said that Gordon "stepped over the line" by admitting that he supported escalation in Iraq.
* On February 27, 2007, Calame gently though clearly criticized http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=2 an article by Gordon written about the Bush administration's "saber-rattling about Iranian intervention in Iraq" (and other articles on the same topic) on the ground that (a) Gordon's article violated the paper's rules on the use of anonymous government sources; (b) the reported government claims about Iran "needed some qualification" about whether they were based on evidence or inference; (c) readers "deserved a clearer sense" of whether such a belief about the Iranian leadership's involvement in Iraqi insurgent attacks is shared by a consensus of intelligence officials (which, as even the President subsequently admitted, http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/...ipt/index.html it was not); and, most incriminatingly (given its obvious similarity to Gordon's pre-war failures), (d) "editors didn't make sure all conflicting views were always clearly reported" and the "story also should have noted . . . that the president's view on this point differed from the intelligence assessment given readers of [Gordon's] Feb. 10 article."
* Hoyt's column yesterday identifies a series of articles about Iraq, many written or co-written by Gordon, which "slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq," and further criticized the articles because "in using the language of the administration," these articles presented a misleading picture of Iraq.
Does anyone at the NYT really need help seeing the clear pattern here? What more does Gordon need to do in order to show how journalistically irresponsible he is, how either incapable or unwilling he is to treat Bush administration claims about the war with skepticism and do anything other than serve as an obedient vessel for pro-war government claims?
This is a disgraceful record that continuously exhibits the same journalistic sins and the same exceedingly transparent pro-war, pro-Bush bias, not just bias that Gordon harbors personally but bias which time and again permeates his "reporting." And again, this is the record as established by the Times itself. There are countless other instances where Gordon does this that do not make it into the pages of his newspaper, but which are nonetheless egregious.
And yet, the Editors of the NYT continue not only to make Gordon their featured star reporter when it comes both to Iraq and related stories about Iran, but also to approve of the same defective, corrupt journalistic methods that are his hallmark. The deficiencies in his reporting are not complex or hidden. They are all right there out in the open, easy to see. All one has to do is read Gordon's articles and it is immediately apparent that, time and again, they do nothing other than recite highly questionable and highly inflammatory claims from the military and the Bush administration, and he conveys them with no meaningful question, challenge, dissent, or qualification.
And he does this not once, but over and over. This is exactly what the NYT claims to be so ashamed of its having done prior to the war, and yet it so plainly continues to do it, four years later -- in the form of the same reporter and likely the same editors. After all, as Hoyt's column demonstrate, it is not just Gordon who is guilty of these failures. If bloggers can see it, and Hoyt sees it, isn't it safe to assume that the editors who approve of these articles see it, too? How can they not? ....
|
http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t...avx0qT3nZkbstg
June 20, 2008
U.S. Says Israeli Exercise Seemed Directed at Iran
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON — Israel carried out a major military exercise earlier this month that American officials say appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Several American officials said the Israeli exercise appeared to be an effort to develop the military’s capacity to carry out long-range strikes and to demonstrate the seriousness with which Israel views Iran’s nuclear program.
More than 100 Israeli F-16 and F-15 fighters participated in the maneuvers, which were carried out over the eastern Mediterranean and over Greece during the first week of June, American officials said.
The exercise also included Israeli helicopters that could be used to rescue downed pilots. The helicopters and refueling tankers flew more than 900 miles, which is about the same distance between Israel and Iran’s uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, American officials said.
Israeli officials declined to discuss the details of the exercise. A spokesman for the Israeli military would say only that the country’s air force “regularly trains for various missions in order to confront and meet the challenges posed by the threats facing Israel.”
But the scope of the Israeli exercise virtually guaranteed that it would be noticed by American and other foreign intelligence agencies. A senior Pentagon official who has been briefed on the exercise, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the political delicacy of the matter, said the exercise appeared to serve multiple purposes.
One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.
A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”
Several American officials said they did not believe that the Israeli government had concluded that it must attack Iran and did not think that such a strike was imminent. ....
....Israeli officials have told their American counterparts that Mr. Mofaz’s statement does not represent official policy. But American officials were also told that Israel had prepared plans for striking nuclear targets in Iran and could carry them out if needed.......
....“They are clearly nervous about this and have their air defense on guard,” a Bush administration official said of the Iranians.......
....Pentagon officials said that Israel’s air forces usually conducted a major early summer training exercise, often flying over the Mediterranean or training ranges in Turkey where they practice bombing runs and aerial refueling. But the exercise this month involved a larger number of aircraft than had been previously observed, and included a lengthy combat rescue mission......
.......“They rehearse it, rehearse it and rehearse it, so if they actually have to do it, they’re ready,” the Pentagon official said. “They’re not taking any options off the table.”
|
As can be clearly seen in Michael Gordon's June 20 article above, coming a full year after Glenn Greenwald's scathing criticism of Michael Gordon's "stenography", and of the apparent approval of his reporting by the NY Times editors who claim to condemn it but publish it anyway....there is a problem with the most prominent newspaper in the US acting as a PR outlet to distribute, verbatim, whatever the pentagon or the administration recites to it, even anonymously, without qualification or challenge, by the NY Times!
If the Times reporting is "too liberal", where do you suppose conservatives are going to get a "truer" view? Could it be to some source so far to the right that it influences the views of conservatives to the point that they are so far right, that they "fall over" the edge?
Isn't raising awareness that ALL mainstream news coverage is compromised by the corporate interests who own it, the first step of a new drive for independence of the American people, beginning with more independence in the way that they think?
The "independent" news media.... "silent" in 2003, silent for the next five years, silent, all the way to today.
|
...and, ace....do you think the Bush administration policy of treating Israel, in terms of it's seccurity, as if it were the 51st US state, has the effect of pushing already feeble democrats into a corner, politically? Do you think it is "normal" for democratic presidential candidate and political opponent, Obama, to have to declare, over and over.....that any enemy of Israel is an enemy of the US, and that he, as president, would order US troops to defend against an attack on Israel, as if it were an attack on the US?
Do you think that kind of a political climate may have led to the following, and do you think the consideration of this bill, this week, will lower tensions in the ME, and oil prices.....or raise them?
Quote:
http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2008/0...o-hconres-362/
Yesterday I posted a blog entry praising Rep. Waxman’s (D-CA-30) constituency for making the Congressman aware of their views on the current Iran situation. In an interview, the Congressman seemed to have a good grip on the thoughts of his constituency. His recent actions, however, make me question whether or not the opinions of his Iranian American constituents actually play a role in his cognition.
Rep. Waxman recently became a co-sponsor (one of about 220) of H.Con.Res. 362, made infamous for its ‘demand’ of the President to, in not so many words, create a naval blockade in the Persian Gulf. In a meeting yesterday between NIAC’s Assistant Legislative Director Patrick Disney and Rep. Waxman’s Senior Legislative Associate, it was revealed to us that the Congressman intends to remain a cosponsor of the bill. Apparently, Rep. Waxman and other cosponsors – including Reps. Ackerman and Pence who introduced the bill – don’t see it as an act of war.
Waxman’s LA echoed Ackerman and Pence’s ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, re-affirming their belief that the bill does not call for a blockade of Iran. They point to a caveat in the bill that states ‘Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.’ It’s likely that the US’s ‘prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products’ would be seen by the Iranians at the very least as an illegal act of aggression, most likely an act of war. This is because enforcing the prohibition of petroleum shipments to Iran would require imposing a naval blockade.
Other troubling elements of the bill include ‘imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran’ (note to the small number of tourists and ex-pats that travel to Iran regularly: this includes you). This plan targets ordinary Iranian people more than the Iranian government, and will empower the hardline elements of the regime. The US would lose the hearts and minds of the Iranian people, one of our greatest strategic assets and a bulwark against anti-Americanism in the region.
Furthermore, ‘prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program’ is completely illegal, as the bill provides for no exceptions, including diplomats not on the nuclear negotiating team.
This is quite disappointing, to say the least. Rep. Waxman is an ally of the Iranian American community, but it seems like – certainly on this one – he has fallen prey to the influence of the war-hawks.
The Congressman’s staffer hinted that Rep. Waxman might be making a floor speech clarifying his beliefs about the bill in the near future.
The mark-up session for the bill is scheduled for next week. Changes to the language and/or content are possible either before or during the mark-up. Time will tell the outcome. What is certain is that the story of H.Con.Res. 362 is not over yet.
|
Last edited by host; 07-07-2008 at 07:43 AM..
|