Does the term "Wingnut" Fit the Mindset, Is Their Disinformation Ruining The Country? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 08-02-2007, 06:07 PM

<b>Update...I was not permitted to add a 4 question Poll as I posted this Thread, because there is an automated, "5 minute window" to type in all Poll questions and post a new thread with a Poll.....</b>

<center><img src="http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/2007_images/20070730_votemap.png" width=660 height=500></center><p>

A question for conservatives, and a two question poll for conservatives and innocent bystanders....

If you "are what you read".... if you're thinking follows the information sources that you choose to enlighten you, with all due respect, if you regurlarly read the "reporting" and punditry of conservative media, does it make you a "wing nut", and is it reasonable, given the anecdotal evidence in this post, for the rest of us to regard you as "batshit crazy", resulting in the political leadership that you still support, ruining the country?

Quote:

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003851.php
Lott: Get Out of D.C. While You Still Can
By Spencer Ackerman - August 2, 2007, 5:41 PM

There's irresponsibility. There's demagoguery. And then there's Trent Lott.

It turns out the Capitol Police have bolstered security around the U.S. Capitol after a recent al-Qaeda communique threatened an attack on Washington. Lott, according to <a href="http://www.rollcall.com/issues/1_1/breakingnews/19681-1.html">Roll Call (sub.req.)</a>, responded with characteristic gravitas. In light of the heightened threat, Congress can either amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or all of us can run screaming into the inferno.

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott (R-Miss.) ominously advised Thursday that Congress needed to pass changes to terrorist surveillance laws before leaving for the August recess and warned that otherwise “the disaster could be on our doorstep.”

Further demonstrating his counterterrorism sagacity, when asked if people should leave Washington, D.C., during the month of August, Lott replied that "I think it would be good to leave town in August, and it would probably be good to stay out until September the 12th." By contrast, a former Capitol Hill chief had the temerity to note that, according to U.S. intelligence analysis he'd been privvy to, "Americans tend to be much more oriented toward anniversaries and the jihadists seem to be less so. I've seen over the years where we concentrate on dates and the analysts say, 'Don’t get wrapped up in dates because our terrorist jihadist enemies bide their time.'"

From Brett Bozell III's CNSnoooze:

Quote:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.a...20070802a.html
GOP Faces 'Looming Disaster Among Young Voters'
By Matt Purple
CNSNews.com Correspondent
August 02, 2007

....The youth vote's apparent indifference to Republicans was clear in recent elections. In 2004, youth turnout spiked: 56 percent of them backed John Kerry. In 2006, 60 percent of youth voted for Democrats.

"Our generation is at risk of being lost forever," said Charlie Smith, chairman of the College Republican National Committee, at the conference. "After years of scandalous behavior in our nation's capital and suffering under what the liberal media has termed an 'unwinnable' war led by Republicans, our generation has moved away from the center-right and towards the liberal-left."
......

Nine years ago, in 1998, a 26 years old TNR editor, Stephen Glass, was found to have committed "numerous cases of journalistic fraud:

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Glass

Stephen Glass completed his law degree at Georgetown University Law Center after being fired by TNR. In 2003, he began appearing on television to promote his "biographical novel" The Fabulist.....

Of course, TNR fired Mr. Glass. Using that incident, and motivated by it's ideology related to the Iraq war, the entire conservative "media", seemed to react in unison to this recent journalism by a US soldier serving in Iraq, and published by TNR:

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...700037_pf.html
Army Private Discloses He Is New Republic's Baghdad Diarist

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 27, 2007; C07

The <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/New+Republic+Inc.?tid=informline">New Republic's</a> anonymous "<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Baghdad?tid=informline">Baghdad</a> Diarist" identified himself yesterday as Scott Thomas Beauchamp, an Army private in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline">Iraq</a>, and disputed as "maddening" accusations that he had invented his accounts of cruelty by American soldiers.

The magazine's editor, Franklin Foer, disclosed in an interview that Beauchamp is married to a New Republic staffer, and that is "part of the reason why we found him to be a credible writer." Foer also said Beauchamp "has put himself in significant jeopardy" and "lost his lifeline to the rest of the world" because military officials have taken away his laptop, cellphone and e-mail privileges.

As both the military and the magazine investigate Beauchamp's allegations, a personal blog surfaced in which Beauchamp said last year that each morning he feels "retarded for joining the army," "a little more liberal than the day before" and "a tool for global corporations."

In a <a href="http://www.tnr.com/blog/the_plank?pid=128957">statement</a> posted on the New Republic's Web site, Beauchamp said his columns for the magazine, written under the name <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Scott+Thomas?tid=informline">Scott Thomas</a>, were "one soldier's view of events in Iraq" and "never intended as a reflection of the entire <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/U.S.+Armed+Forces?tid=informline">U.S. military</a>."

"It's been maddening, to say the least," he added, "to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name."

Beauchamp did not provide any documentation for his three published columns. He is married to a reporter-researcher at the New Republic, Elspeth Reeve.

Beauchamp's writing was challenged by <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/The+Weekly+Standard+Magazine?tid=informline">the Weekly Standard</a> and conservative bloggers after he wrote vividly, and profanely, of soldiers mocking a woman disfigured by an injury, getting their kicks by running over dogs with Bradley Fighting Vehicles and playing with Iraqi children's skulls taken from a mass grave.

Foer said the magazine is attempting to confirm every detail. "We are trying to be as deliberate and meticulous as we possibly can," he said. "We're not going to be rushed into making any sort of snap judgment."

Beauchamp is a member of Alpha Company in the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/1st+Infantry+Division?tid=informline">Army 1st Infantry Division's</a> 2nd Brigade Combat Team, serving at Forward Operating Base Falcon in Baghdad. He said he did not use his full name "because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal."

Maj. Kirk Luedeke, a spokesman for the base, said by e-mail: "We are conducting a formal investigation into the allegations made by Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp in the New Republic, so given that situation, I am unable to comment on the matter until the investigation is complete."

In his blog, called Sir Real Scott Thomas, Beauchamp quoted <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dick+Cheney?tid=informline">Vice President Cheney</a> as explaining in 1991, when he was defense secretary, why the United States ended the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Persian+Gulf?tid=informline">Persian Gulf</a> War without taking Baghdad. Beauchamp added that "we laugh harder at CSPAN than comedy central. Silly republicans."

Beauchamp, who was based in <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Germany?tid=informline">Germany</a> when the blog entries were posted in 2006, described his career this way: "I shoot, move, communicate, and kill . . . the deaths that I inflict secure the riches of the empire."

As conservative bloggers yesterday continued to challenge the veracity of Beauchamp's accounts, Foer said: "It is really unfortunate that someone like Scott, who was really only trying to tell his particular story, has become a pawn in the debate over the war and the Weekly Standard's efforts to press an ideological agenda."

Weekly Standard writer Michael Goldfarb responded: "The piece struck me as implausible, and what we did is to raise questions that are completely legitimate. There's nothing ideological about raising these questions when people make claims and don't back up the charges."

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700037_Comments.html">View all comments</a> that have been posted about this article.

Quote:

http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=...ditorial080207
<img src="http://www.tnr.com/images/tnr_book_logo.jpg">
A Statement on Scott Thomas Beauchamp
by the Editors
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 08.02.07

Scott Thomas Beauchamp is a U.S. Army private serving in Iraq. He came to THE NEW REPUBLIC's attention through Elspeth Reeve, a TNR reporter-researcher, whom he later married. Over the course of the war, we have tried to provide our readers with a sense of Iraq as it is seen by the troops. Usually, these stories have been written by journalists who have traveled to Iraq and interviewed soldiers there, but last January Beauchamp sent us a first-person vignette that seemed a powerful contribution to the genre. It told the story of a young Iraqi boy who befriended American troops and subsequently had his tongue cut out by insurgents. Conservatives and liberals alike praised this essay.

We granted Beauchamp a pseudonym so that he could write honestly and candidly about his emotions and experiences, even as he continued to serve in the armed forces and participate in combat operations. Over the next six months, he published two other short personal accounts in our pages. Beauchamp's latest, a Diarist headlined "Shock Troops," was about the morally and emotionally distorting effects of war. The piece was a startling confession of shame about some disturbing conduct, both his own and that of his fellow soldiers.

All of Beauchamp's essays were fact-checked before publication. We checked the plausibility of details with experts, contacted a corroborating witness, and pressed the author for further details. But publishing a first-person essay from a war zone requires a measure of faith in the writer. Given what we knew of Beauchamp, personally and professionally, we credited his report. After questions were raised about the veracity of his essay, TNR extensively re-reported Beauchamp's account.

In this process, TNR contacted dozens of people. Editors and staffers spoke numerous times with Beauchamp. We also spoke with current and former soldiers, forensic experts, and other journalists who have covered the war extensively. And we sought assistance from Army Public Affairs officers. Most important, we spoke with five other members of Beauchamp's company, and all corroborated Beauchamp's anecdotes, which they witnessed or, in the case of one solider, heard about contemporaneously. (All of the soldiers we interviewed who had first-hand knowledge of the episodes requested anonymity.)

Beauchamp's essay consisted of three discrete anecdotes. In the first, Beauchamp recounted how he and a fellow soldier mocked a disfigured woman seated near them in a dining hall. Three soldiers with whom TNR has spoken have said they repeatedly saw the same facially disfigured woman. One was the soldier specifically mentioned in the Diarist. He told us: "We were really poking fun at her; it was just me and Scott, the day that I made that comment. We were pretty loud. She was sitting at the table behind me. We were at the end of the table. I believe that there were a few people a few feet to the right."

The recollections of these three soldiers differ from Beauchamp's on one significant detail (the only fact in the piece that we have determined to be inaccurate): They say the conversation occurred at Camp Buehring, in Kuwait, prior to the unit's arrival in Iraq. When presented with this important discrepancy, Beauchamp acknowledged his error. We sincerely regret this mistake.

In the second anecdote, soldiers in Beauchamp's unit discovered what they believed were children's bones. Publicly, the military has sought to refute this claim on the grounds that no such discovery was officially reported. But one military official told TNR that bones were commonly found in the area around Beauchamp's combat outpost. (This is consistent with the report of a children's cemetery near Beauchamp's combat outpost reported on The Weekly Standard website.)

More important, two witnesses have corroborated Beauchamp's account. One wrote in an e-mail: "I can wholeheartedly verify the finding of the bones; U.S. troops (in my unit) discovered human remains in the manner described in 'Shock Troopers.' [sic] ... [We] did not report it; there was no need to. The bodies weren't freshly killed and thus the crime hadn't been committed while we were in control of the sector of operations." On the phone, this soldier later told us that he had witnessed another soldier wearing the skull fragment just as Beauchamp recounted: "It fit like a yarmulke," he said. A forensic anthropologist confirmed to us that it is possible for tufts of hair to be attached to a long-buried fragment of a human skull, as described in the piece.

The last section of the Diarist described soldiers using Bradley Fighting Vehicles to kill dogs. On this topic, one soldier who witnessed the incident described by Beauchamp, wrote in an e-mail: "How you do this (I've seen it done more than once) is, when you approach the dog in question, suddenly lurch the Bradley on the opposite side of the road the dog is on. The rear-end of the vehicle will then swing TOWARD the animal, scaring it into running out into the road. If it works, the dog is running into the center of the road as the driver swings his yoke back around the other way, and the dog becomes a chalk outline." TNR contacted the manufacturer of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle System, where a spokesman confirmed that the vehicle is as maneuverable as Beauchamp described. Instructors who train soldiers to drive Bradleys told us the same thing. And a veteran war correspondent described the tendency of stray Iraqi dogs to flock toward noisy military convoys.

Although we place great weight on the corroborations we have received, we wished to know more. But, late last week, the Army began its own investigation, short-circuiting our efforts. Beauchamp had his cell-phone and computer taken away and is currently unable to speak to even his family. His fellow soldiers no longer feel comfortable communicating with reporters. If further substantive information comes to light, TNR will, of course, share it with you.
the Editors

<h3>Will Any of These "Journalists" be Fired? :</h3>

Quote:

http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2007/0...overage-r.html
July 26, 2007
Iraq Coverage Right-Wing Slime Machine Watch (Why Oh Why Can't We Have a Better Press Corps?)

The New Republic's back page published a diary from a pseudonymous soldier in Iraq--"Scott Thomas"--about how fighting in a war does not take you into Red Badge of Courage territory. Instead, his looking into the abyss by fighting in the war allows the abyss to look into him:

AM I A MONSTER? I have never thought of myself as a cruel person.... I once worked at a summer camp for developmentally disabled childre... helping a student with cerebral palsy perform basic tasks.... Even as I was reveling in the laughter my words had provoked, I was simultaneously horrified and ashamed at what I had just said. In a strange way, though, I found the shame comforting. I was relieved to still be shocked by my own cruelty--to still be able to recognize that the things we soldiers found funny were not, in fact, funny. Not everyone was capable of such distinctions...

This is, of course, what every veteran who has seen combat will say--if you can get them drunk enough. The person I know of who has put it best is science-fiction/fantasy writer David Drake, a good chunk of whose work is best classified as horror and is really about his experiences as an interrogator in the 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, the "Blackhorse," when it went through the Cambodian market town of Snuol:

I [now] had much more vivid horrors than Lovecraft's nameless ickinesses to write about.... I wrote about troopers doing their jobs the best they could with tanks that broke down, guns that jammed--and no clue about the Big Picture.... I kept the tone unemotional: I didn't tell the reader that something was horrible, because nobod told me.... [T]hose stories... were different. They didn't fit either of the available molds: "Soldiers are spotless heroes," or... "Soldiers are evil monsters"... [...] The... stories were written with a flat aspect, describing cruelty and horror with the detachment of a soldier who's shut down his emotional responses completely in a war zone... as soldiers always do, because otherwise they wouldn't be able to survive. Showing soldiers behaving and thinking as they really do in war was... extremely disquieting to the civilians who were editing magazines...

When the New Republic published Scott Thomas, the right-wing slime machine swung into action:

<a href="http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/07/scott-thomas-fr.html">BLACKFIVE</a>: So how does absolute horse shit like this make it into what should be a respectable magazine? Well first you will notice that this was the New Republic, not National Review, and while this mag has plenty of fabulist issues they are emblematic of the chattering classes as a whole. While the left makes noises that they think mean they support the troops, they don't really, and they do believe the dregs of society theory of military recruiting...

<a href="http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2007/07/mnf-iraq-responds-to-scott-thomas-tales.html">Gateway Pundit</a>: The Weekly Standard Blog has been leading the charge to find the truth behind the disgusting anti-military hit pieces at The New Republic. Today, Multi-National Force Iraq responded to the horrific allegations of war crimes at the liberal magazine. It is more evidence that the writer who goes by the name "Scott Thomas" at The New Republic is slandering the troops in Iraq: "Sir, Our Soldiers our held to the highest standards in all regards to include Standards of Conduct and Rules of War. There has been no operational reporting of the misconduct of Soldiers as reported in the article...

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/20/AR2007072002180.html">Howard Kurtz, Washington Post</a>: Some of the anecdotes in the soldier's July 13 "Baghdad Diarist" column read like perfect little melodramas.... The magazine's editors recognize that his friends might be covering for him, according to someone with knowledge of the inquiry.... Scott Johnson, a lawyer who blogs at Power Line, wrote that such anecdotes sounded "highly improbable."... Michael Yon, a respected military blogger who spent time with the unit this year, wrote: "That story about American soldiers at FOB Falcon sounds like complete garbage." Other bloggers said military personnel always wear uniforms and could not possibly be confused with contractors...

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/fact_or_fiction_1.asp">Michael Goldfarb, Weekly Standard</a>: no such woman was at FOB Falcon in the past 14 months...it'd be good if we could push that back even further, but now one has to wonder how long "Scott Thomas" has been in Iraq that no one has seen or heard of this woman at FOB Falcon over the last 14 months at least...

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/scott_thomas_speculation_conti.asp">Michael Goldfarb, Weekly Standard</a>: There is a lot of speculation surrounding the identity of the New Republic's mysterious, pseudonymous "Scott Thomas", aka the Baghdad Diarist. A semiotics-based analysis by John Barnes has poured fuel on the fire with the conclusion that "Thomas" fits the profile of a creative writing program graduate...

<a href="http://op-for.com/2007/07/scott_thomas_exposed_1.html">OPFOR</a>: Private Beauchamp has just placed himself in an unenviable 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. If his stories are true, he'll be facing the business end of the UCMJ. If false, he'll be exposed as a fraud and a liar, and will have destroyed that budding writing career that he so confidently promised. So we know he's a soldier. I never doubted that in the first place, he spoke the lingo well enough. But, as Greyhawk noted, the inquiry has really just begun. Now we have to go about fact-checking his stories, which I suspect will turn out to have been grandly embellished. So no doubt wheels are turning over in the 1/18's command staff right now. Wouldn't be surprised if Private Beauchamp was standing tall in front of the man at this very moment, under the scruntity of an aggressively curious CO who is demanding details down to the letter about each of his diary entries. Expect a press release soon. The Army is going to move quick on this, now that they have a face to the name. Either way, today is going to be a very bad day for Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp. As a final thought, I think Uncle Jimbo deserves a fair share of credit here. In this post at Blackfive, Jimbo tore into Beauchamp with the precision of a trained pyschologist, nailing him as a primadonna who brilliance is always unappreciated by the buffoons around him...

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/business/media/24mag.html?ei=5065&en=aa816a854ade1ce3&ex=1185854400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print">Loise Story, New York Times</a>: Doubts Raised on Magazine’s ‘Baghdad Diarist’...

<a href="http://powerlineblog.com/archives/018343.php">Power Line</a>: It is striking that Beauchamp's statement does not add any facts to support the veracity of "Shock troops."... Beauchamp's concern over the "character" of his "comrades in arms" being "called into question" is touching. I'd had the impression that that was the sole purpose of his articles...

<a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/more_on_scott_thomass_mysterio.asp">Michael Goldfarb, The Weekly Standard</a>: [A] soldier would sooner drive on the rim, damn the consequences, then change a tire under such conditions. And we suspect "Thomas" and his buddies, lousy soldiers that they are if they exist at all, would sooner abandon the vehicle than get their hands dirty...

<a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NjNkZjdiOWNjYzhhN2FhZmI0MDBlZWQ2NDM4ZjBhMmQ=">Jonah Goldberg, National Review</a>: Isn't this just a bit too precious? The guy writes about how his comrades mock disfigured women, slaughter dogs and wear baby skulls as hats, but he's upset that others have called his and his comrades' character into question? Someone explain that to me. In fact, much of the criticism has been that U.S. soldiers would have better characters than those described in his pieces. Sorry: No sale. Scot Thomas Beauchamp may or may not be honest, but he's by no means a victim...

Just a day after these items were reported coming from Cheney and from Bush's new JCS Chairman Appointee:

Quote:

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/news-des...g-in-iraq.html

Separately on Tuesday, Cheney told CNN's Larry King that "I firmly believe that the decisions we've made with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan have been absolutely the sound ones in terms of the overall strategy." But he conceded that he was wrong in May 2005 in when he said the insurgency was in its "last throes."

In his <a href="http://armed-services.senate.gov/statemnt/2007/July/Mullen%2007-31-07.pdf">written response</a> to committee questions released at his confirmation hearing Tuesday, Mullen went on to say that "I believe that many of these [mistakes] are still having an impact. The void left by a disbanded Iraqi Army has not yet been filled by the Iraqi Security Forces, allowing sectarian violence to continue in too many areas. I believe that pursuing a balanced strategy in Iraq, with full interagency support, and an aggressive strategic communications plan, can mitigate this impact."

As for the future, Mullen wrote that "there is no purely military solution" in Iraq. "The enormous complexity, historic differences, competing views of the future Iraq, and lack of trust in new institutions will require long-term political and social solutions," he wrote. "In the near term, political progress requires demonstrated commitment to national reconciliation in order to address: 1. de-Baathification and lack of proportional Sunni representation in the government, Army, and police; 2. Equitable distribution of oil revenue; 3. Amnesty.”

We witness these comments:

Quote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...mar-watch.html

Weimar Watch

02 Aug 2007 05:02 pm

"Democrats are showing us with their every word and grimace that what is good news for our country, what is good news for the war against Islamic terror, what is god news for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and what is good news for the cause of peace – real peace – and stability in the Middle East is bad news, really bad news, for Democrats. Many of these people with that "D" after their names would gladly sacrifice any semblance of victory in Iraq and against the scourge of Islamic fascism if it would mean maintaining and strengthening their hold on power in Washington.. and willing the presidency.

Has there ever before been a time in America where a major political party would virtually pray for our defeat in a war so that they could demonize the leader of the opposition and turn that defeat into victory for them at the polls? Well, you're seeing just that right now," - <a href="http://boortz.com/nuze/200708/08022007.html#iraq">Neal Boortz</a>, fresh from a meeting with the Decider.

Quote:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-on-petra.html

McCain On Petraeus

02 Aug 2007 05:39 pm

A reader catches a Freudian slip from <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/08/the-surge-as-a-.html">the McCain blogger conference call</a>:

Is this correct?

UPDATE I (2:46 p.m.): The senator clarified his thoughts on Iraq a bit later in the call..."What Petraeus is going to say is not that we can start to withdraw," Mr. McCain said.

Its only August 2nd...how does McCain know what Petraeus is going to say come September? Has the Congressional testimony already been typed by Karl Rove's staff and delivered to McCain? Does Petraeus have his copy, yet? Will he be allowed to edit it?

I have no idea. But I suspect Petraeus has been told what to say. He takes orders. That's his job.

Quote:

http://ezraklein.typepad.com/blog/20...e-ghost-o.html
<b>Ask the ghost of Gen. Stilwell</b>

(Posted by John.)

We don't need to be psychics to figure where <a href="http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2007/07/ap_petraeusmaliki_070727/">this leads</a>: faced with the choice of backing Petraeus, or backing the nominal Iraqi PM, the US Govt. will find some cushy job for Petraeus to retire to.

The number of times the US government has found itself committed to defending a client regime with only a feudal sense of governance, unable to make broad national compromises necessary for it's own survival, really defies comprehension. Similarly, the number of times intelligent, well-meaning American officers have gone up against intransigent puppet regimes and lost is beyond counting.

July 28, 2007

Does the conservative reaction to the articles written by "Scott Thomas", preclude any process for our soldiers to publicly comment about what war does to them? Isn't the "process" that Scott Thomas is being put through, very similar to the one that John Kerry, in publicly representing the "Winter Soldiers", was put through by conservatives, in the '70's and again, in 2004?
Finally, in 2006, despite the 30 plus years of shrill fingerpointing and namecalling from the right, Kerry seems to have been vindicated:

Quote:

<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=111031"> Support our troops....</a>
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...95&postcount=8
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines
Civilian Killings Went Unpunished
Declassified papers show U.S. atrocities went far beyond My Lai.
By Nick Turse and Deborah Nelson
Special to The Times

August 6, 2006.....

dksuddeth · 08-02-2007, 06:11 PM

let me get this straight...

because I read all different kinds of media, both conservative and liberal, and make my own decision that leads to what some consider 'conservative' ideas, that i'm batshit crazy and am out to ruin the country?

host · 08-02-2007, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

let me get this straight...

because I read all different kinds of media, both conservative and liberal, and make my own decision that leads to what some consider 'conservative' ideas, that i'm batshit crazy and am out to ruin the country?

You seem to share my approach to information gathering, and you certainly have a strong distrust of the current US government, or any US government...and you don't seem to avoid posting linked supporting references for your opinions, so, I don't think that you are crazier or more responsible for supporting policies that have a ruinous effect on the country, than I am.

I'm posting about the "one note" "on message" media "machine" that sucks in "the party faithful" on one end, and spits out the 28 percent who still subscribe, and facilitate, this "madness". (read the Trent Lott quote early in the thread OP", and read my posts on the "Ground Hog Day" thread)

dksuddeth · 08-02-2007, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You seem to share my approach to information gathering, and you certainly have a strong distrust of the current US government, or any US government...and you don't seem to avoid posting linked supporting references for your opinions, so, I don't think that you are crazier or more responsible for supporting policies that have a ruinous effect on the country, than I am.

I'm posting about the "one note" "on message" media "machine" that sucks in "the party faithful" on one end, and spits out the 28 percent who still subscribe, and facilitate, this "madness". (read the Trent Lott quote early in the thread OP", and read my posts on the "Ground Hog Day" thread)

ok, we're on the same page then.

host · 08-03-2007, 03:48 PM

...again...are they wingnuts...ruining the country? Last night, the statement of DNI McConnell, praised the democrats in a statement displayed below. McConnell, as his essay posted on the Ground Hog Day thread, clearly shows, is not above writing a clearly misleading op-ed on FISA's history of modernization over the past dozen years....

yet today, the decider clearly ignores McConnell's statement, just 12 hours old. Would you trust Bush, Gonzales, or McConnell with warrantless surveillance of anyone? Have they been honest and forthright in seeking this unprecedented new authority? What do their statements and actions, since 2001, make those who support them, seem like to you....informed, well reasoning, apolitical, or???

Quote:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0070803-9.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
August 3, 2007

President Bush Meets with Counterterrorism Team
J. Edgar Hoover FBI Building
Washington, D.C.

......The Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell, has provided the Congress with a narrow and targeted piece of legislation that will close the gaps in intelligence. In other words, he's working on the Hill and he's told members this is what we need to do our job to protect the American people. It's the bare minimum the DNI said he needs to do his job. When Congress sends me their version, when Congress listens to all the data and facts and they send me a version of how to close those gaps, I'll ask one question, and I'm going to ask the DNI: Does this legislation give you what you need to prevent an attack on the country? Is this what you need to do your job, Mr. DNI? That's the question I'm going to ask. And if the answer is yes, I'll sign the bill. And if the answer is no, I'm going to veto the bill.

And so far the Democrats in Congress have not drafted a bill I can sign. We've worked hard and in good faith with the Democrats to find a solution, but we are not going to put our national security at risk. Time is short. I'm going to ask Congress to stay in session until they pass a bill that will give our intelligence community the tools they need to protect the United States.

Thank you for your time. ....

Quote:

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2007/08/w...-fisa-fix.html
Friday, August 03, 2007

More Tales from the "Unitary" Executive (or, What's Going On with the FISA Fix/Mess?)

Marty Lederman

Very hard to keep up, things are moving so fast. To the best of my very imperfect knowledge, here's the state of play:

Last night, Director of National Intelligence McConnell distributed this Statement, describing what he thought was necessary in an urgent FISA amendment. I found it cryptic, to say the least, but each point in it apparently corresponds to some facet of the negotiations that have been ongoing.

<center><img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1186145040dni-fisa_Page_1.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/files/1186145047dni-fisa_Page_2.jpg"></center>

This morning, the Democrats on the Intelligence Committees and the Democratic leadership agreed to legislation that would satisfy McConnell's requirements. Here is <a href="http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/FISA2007.democratic.fix.pdf">the bill</a>. I very roughly describe its principal components below. It is strongly opposed by the communications privacy community (DCT, CNSS, ACLU, etc.) as being too conciliatory, and as going well beyond authorization to exclude purely foreign-to-foreign communications from FISA, i.e., far beyond what is necessary to address the problem that the Administration has described.

DNI McConnell took the negotiated legislation back to the White House . . . and the White House rejected it as insufficient.

So the Republicans are not on board.

The Democratic leadership is trying to pass the bill today. Its prospects in the House are uncertain, because it will be opposed from both the left and (mainly) the right.

If it passes both chambers, the President will likely veto the bill . . . that his own Director of National Intelligence negotiated.

Quite a way to run the greatest democracy in the world, eh? Keep in mind that FISA was crafted after three years of intensive and comprehensive -- and public -- hearings, debates, and negotiations. This bill? Not so much. And it shows in the finished product. What's that old adage about legislation and sausage? We need some meat inspectors here . . .

The <a href="http://gulcfac.typepad.com/georgetown_university_law/files/FISA2007.democratic.fix.pdf">Democratic bill</a> would do the following:

1. New section 105A would address the foreign-to-foreign issue: "Notwithstanding any other provision of [FISA], a court order is not required for the acquisition of the contents of any communication between persons that are not located within the United States for the purpose of collecting foreign intelligence information, without respect to whether the communication passes through the United States or the surveillance device is located within the United States."

2. Section 105B would allow the Attorney General to apply to the FISA court for an order authorizing electronic surveillance for up to one year "directed at persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States." The court would grant such an order if satisfied, inter alia, that methods described by the Attorney General are "reasonably designed to determine whether the persons are outside the United States; that "a significant purpose of the electronic surveillance is to obtain foreign intelligence information"; and that certain minimization procedures are sufficient.

3. "At or before the end of the period of time for which electronic surveillance is approved by an order or an extension under this section, the judge may assess compliance with the minimization procedures by reviewing the circumstances under which information concerning United States persons was acquired, retained, or disseminated." [No mention of what she should do then.]

4. [This apparently is potentially the most important section -- it's certainly the most inscrutable.] "The Attorney General shall establish guidelines that are reasonably designed to ensure that an application is filed under section 104, if otherwise required by this Act, when the Attorney General seeks to initiate electronic surveillance, or continue electronic surveillance that began under this section, of a United States person." If anyone understands what this means . . .

5. The Act would sunset after 120 days.

dksuddeth · 08-03-2007, 04:43 PM

if you ask me (and this will probably be labeled tin foil hattery) both parties leadership and special interests have the 'north american union' agenda, so whether you want to consider 'the people' who follow the party ideology as wingnuts is really irrelevant, at least in so far as it ruining the country. Our country is on the road to ruin simply because a majority of people 'trust' their parties motives.

reconmike · 08-03-2007, 06:34 PM

Nice map you have there Host, is that the areas of the country with the highest concentration of welfare recipient's? Because if it is not, I bet you could superimpose your map over the welfare map and they would be dead on. What does that tell you there Host, with your dems are smarter that repubs?

And so now you are also getting into name calling of Republicans? Cause if the mods allow this I have a whole bunch at the ready for the Dems.

host · 08-03-2007, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

Nice map you have there Host, is that the areas of the country with the highest concentration of welfare recipient's? Because if it is not, I bet you could superimpose your map over the welfare map and they would be dead on. What does that tell you there Host, with your dems are smarter that repubs?

And so now you are also getting into name calling of Republicans? Cause if the mods allow this I have a whole bunch at the ready for the Dems.

reconmike, Bill Clinton elimnated "welfare" as a significant problem , according to this article from 12 months ago:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...rm-cover_x.htm

.....on the red vs. blue voters map in the thread OP, you can see the red concentration in the west central part of the US. That spot has the most concentrated population in that region. It is the extremely republican voting area called Utah. What do you think the stats in the usatoday article do for your "welfare" comments.....the ones that show a dramatic reduction in the numbers of welfare recipients since the Bill Clinton led, 1996 reforms.... with the exception of...... Utah?

Quote:

State Aug. 1996 families Dec. 2005 families Pct. change

Guam 2,243 ........................3,072 ..................37.0%

Ind. 51,437 ................. 48,213 ......... -6.3%

Kan. 23,790 ................. 17,400 ......... -26.9%

Tenn. 97,187 .............. .....69,361 ................... -28.6%

Ariz. 62,404 ....................... 41,943 ...................-32.8%

Utah 14,221......................... 8,151 ....................-42.7%

Mass. 84,700 ....................... 47,950 ...................-43.4%

Calif. 880,378...........................453,819 .................-48.5%

Mich. 169,997 ...................... 81,882 ...................-51.8%

Minn. 57,741 ....................... 27,589 ...................-52.2%

N.J. 101,704 ....................... 42,198 ...................-58.5%

N.Y. 418,338 ....................... 139,220 ............... -66.7%

Ill. 220,297 ....................... 38,129 ............-82.7%

reconmike, why are you concerned enough to post about "welfare" spending that provides a vital safety net of last resort for families with children, and not concerned about the welfare that the elite insiders receive, especially since it was described so eloquently by the most decorated US Marine in history, and in 1929, the youngest USMC Major General. Smedley Butler:

Quote:

http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/ar...risaracket.htm
CHAPTER TWO

WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?

....It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying "for some time" methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn't suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure........

Quote:

http://www.mises.org/web/2024
War Collectivism in World War I

By Murray N. Rothbard[1]

[This essay available in PDF]

More than any other single period, World War I was the critical watershed for the American business system. It was a "war collectivism," a totally planned economy run largely by big-business interests through the instrumentality of the central government, which served as the model, the precedent, and the inspiration for state corporate capitalism for the remainder of the twentieth century.

That inspiration and precedent emerged not only in the United States, but also in the war economies of the major combatants of World War I. War collectivism showed the big-business interests of the Western world that it was possible to shift radically from the previous, largely free-market, capitalism to a new order marked by strong government, and extensive and pervasive government intervention and planning, <h3>for the purpose of providing a network of subsidies and monopolistic privileges to business, and especially to large business, interests......</h3>

Why isn't supporting or giving a pass to parasitic scum like those named below.....an actual sign of "fringe" politics?

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...ce#post2246346

.....Blackwater Becomes a Player

Erik Prince, 37, Blackwater's ambitious founder and sole owner, could have taken over his father's billion-dollar auto-parts empire. But he was attracted to the battlefield from a young age. He enrolled in the Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md., and although he finished college at a school closer to home, he eventually became a naval officer and was attached to the élite Navy seal Team 8 based in Norfolk, Va. He served in Haiti, Bosnia and the Middle East. In 1995, when his father died, Prince left the Navy and returned to Michigan. He and his sisters sold the company, and Prince took his share and founded Blackwater USA.

Before 9/11, Blackwater mostly trained swat teams and other specialized law-enforcement officers at its 6,000-acre campus on the edge of the Great Dismal Swamp in North Carolina. With the war on terrorism, however, a new niche business developed. The State Department did not have the internal resources or Marines to protect all of its diplomats and overseas embassies, but Blackwater had access to a deep roster of former special-forces soldiers who, it argued, could do the job. It wasn't long before Prince was offering a broad range of services, from protection by bodyguards to aerial surveillance, for the State Department, the Pentagon and U.S. intelligence agencies. In 2003, Blackwater landed its first truly high-profile contract: guarding Ambassador L. Paul Bremer in Iraq, at the cost of $21 million in 11 months. Since June 2004, Blackwater has been paid more than $320 million out of a $1 billion, five-year State Department budget for the Worldwide Personal Protective Service, which protects U.S. officials and some foreign officials in conflict zones.

Prince's political connections may well have helped his company win these crucial contracts from the Bush Administration. He was a White House intern under George W. Bush's father. His family have long been G.O.P donors; his sister Betsy Prince DeVos chaired the Michigan Republican Party from 1996 to 2000 and from 2003 to 2005. And Blackwater has hired U.S. national-security vets onto its executive staff. Among them: Cofer Black, the onetime head of counterterrorism at the cia, and Joseph Schmitz, a former Pentagon inspector general whose duties included investigating contractual agreements with firms like Blackwater.

The Pentagon didn't plan for the contractors going so heavily into the war theater, says Lawrence Korb, Department of Defense manpower chief under President Ronald Reagan. "When they went into Iraq, the assumption was they had won," he says. "They did know there was going to be continuing fighting. This thing grew far beyond where anybody thought it would."....

.......The highest-paid independent contractors are known as tier-1 personnel. These are the former U.S. special-forces soldiers. On Helvenston's tour in Iraq, he was making about $600 a day. He was on a 60-day rotation and stood to make some $36,000 in two months.

http://archive.southcoasttoday.com/d...rld-nation.htm
<h2>Bush uncle benefits from war spending</h2>
By WALTER F. ROCHE JR. , Los Angeles Times

Date of Publication: March 22, 2006 .....

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=9433
US: Neil Bush's Business Dealings
by Thomas Catan and Stephen Fidler, Financial Times
December 12th, 2003

....Today, Neil Bush's business partners have a new venture, in keeping with the times. <h3>New Bridge Strategies was set up this year to help companies secure contracts in Iraq following the war</h3>. Mr Howland is chairman and chief executive of the company, while <h3>Mr Daniel</h3> is a member of the advisory board.

The company briefly hit the headlines this autumn because of the impressive roster of Republican heavyweights on its board, most of whom are linked to one or other of the Bush administrations or to the family itself. The company's website has not been shy about advertising its contacts in both the Middle East and Washington.

"The opportunities evolving in Iraq today are of such an unprecedented nature and scope that no other existing firm has the necessary skills and experience to be effective both in Washington DC., and on the ground in Iraq," it said. That phrasing has since been changed.

The list of directors and advisory board members is indeed impressive. Joe Allbaugh, the chairman of the company, was head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) until March 2003 and before that, chief of staff for George W. Bush while he was Texas governor. As national manager for the Bush-Cheney election campaign in 2000, he was one side of the "Iron Triangle" of aides credited with propelling him into the presidency.

Ed Rogers, the company's vice-chairman and director, was a top aide to George H. W. Bush while he was in the White House. Lanny Griffith, another director, also worked in Mr Bush senior's government and on his election campaigns. Haley Barbour, a former chairman of the Republican National Committee who was elected last month as governor of Mississippi, was on the board of Milestone Merchant Partners, a Washington-based private equity fund affiliated with New Bridge, according to the New Bridge website.

A spokesman for Mr Barbour, who is also close to the Bush family, said he resigned from that position in February.

All three are partners at Barbour, Griffith & Rogers, a Republican lobbying firm in Washington, DC. The firm shares an office with New Bridge at 1275 Pennsylvannia Avenue, on the 10th floor.....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer
The Relatively Charmed Life Of Neil Bush
Despite Silverado and Voodoo, Fortune Still Smiles on the President's Brother

By Peter Carlson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, December 28, 2003; Page D01

Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush...

... Meanwhile, back home in Texas, Bush serves as co-chairman of a company called Crest Investment. Crest, he revealed in the deposition, pays him $60,000 a year to provide "miscellaneous consulting services."

"Such as?" Brown asked.

"Such as answering phone calls when <h3>Jamal Daniel</h3>, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice," Bush replied.

Ah, it's nice to be Neil Bush, who seems to be living the lifestyle immortalized in those famous Dire Straits lyrics: "Money for nothin' and chicks for free." ......

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/print...503/S00019.htm
Neil Bush & Crest - Another Profiteering Scheme.....

.....<h3>Crest's co-chairman, Daniel, sits on the advisory board of New Bridge Strategies, a firm set up in March 2003, just in time to cash in on the Iraq reconstruction contracts, by a group of businessmen with close ties to the Bush family, </h3> and both Bush administrations. The firm's chairman is Joe Allbaugh, who was W's campaign director in the 2000, and who was appointed Director of FEMA once Bush took office.

In addition to paying him for "consulting" work, Crest has provided funding for Neil's educational software company Ignite! In fact, Daniel sometimes introduces himself as a founding backer of the company, and has persuaded the families of prominent leaders in the Middle East to invest in Ignite, according to the Dec 11, 2003 Financial Times.

.....Neil Bush, has a $60,000-a-year employment contract with a top adviser to a Washington-based consulting firm set up to help companies secure contracts in Iraq, according to the Nov 11, 2004 Financial Times.

Neil disclosed this employment during a divorce deposition on March 3, 2003. He testified that he was co-chairman of the Houston-based, Crest Investment Corporation, which invests in energy and other ventures, and said he received $15,000 every three months for a average 3 or 4 hours of work a week doing "miscellaneous consulting services." "Such as?" his ex-wife's Attorney asked, "Such as answering phone calls when Jamal Daniel, the other co-chairman, called and asked for advice," Neil answered.

<h3>Crest's co-chairman, Daniel, sits on the advisory board of New Bridge Strategies, a firm set up in March 2003, just in time to cash in on the Iraq reconstruction contracts, by a group of businessmen with close ties to the Bush family, </h3> and both Bush administrations. The firm's chairman is Joe Allbaugh, who was W's campaign director in the 2000, and who was appointed Director of FEMA once Bush took office.

In addition to paying him for "consulting" work, Crest has provided funding for Neil's educational software company Ignite! In fact, Daniel sometimes introduces himself as a founding backer of the company, and has persuaded the families of prominent leaders in the Middle East to invest in Ignite, according to the Dec 11, 2003 Financial Times.

Overall, Crest goes to great lengths to show Neil how much it values his membership on the team. For instance, when Neil got remarried in 2004, Daniel held a wedding reception at his home, and Crest arranged a 5-year rent-free cottage for Neil and his new bride in Kennebunkport, Maine, so they could spend time near Mom & Pop Bush whenever they wanted to.

Another Jackpot - Thanks To Brother W

As usual, during his deposition, Neil forgot to mention a few facts about his earnings potential with Crest. First of all, he didn't mention that he attached his signature to letters soliciting business for New Bridge in obtaining contracts in Iraq, and two, that he attached his name as a reference for an extremely lucrative proposal submitted by Crest to obtain a lease on a parcel of property located on the island of Quintana, Texas, that will result in payments of at least $2 million a year to Crest.

When W took office in 2001, he vowed to make it easier for companies to build coastline facilities to store liquefied natural gas (LNG), a cooled and condensed form of natural gas, shipped in from countries around the world.

That promise sent US companies scrambling to secure coastline property on which to build the LNG processing facilities. One company looking to enter the market was Crest. Although the firm had no experience whatsoever in LNG processing, it had a very influential asset, a co-chairman by the name of [hide= Neil Bush.]

One property of specific interest was Quintana Island, located in the Texas gulf, because it was accessible to cargo ships. The right to grant a lease to the land belonged to the Brazos River Harbor Navigation District.

If it could gain approval, the Crest LNG facility would be the first such facility in Texas, and only one of a few in the entire country.

The Harbor Commission was so enthralled with a proposal from Crest, that it offered the company an all-exclusive lease without soliciting for any other bids. The proposal was approved even though ExxonMobil owned the right to a first refusal on that part of the island, under a 1998 agreement, and even though the Commission knew that another company, Cheniere Energy, was interested in building a nearly identical facility on the exact same parcel of land.

When asked why the commission chose to grant the initial deal to Crest, Phyllis Saathoff, managing director of the Commission, said, "We worked it out and could accommodate [the Crest proposal], so we did," according to the LA Times on Oct 29, 2004.

To this day, Neil's connection to the firm is not widely known. However, Saathoff said that when Crest approached the commission with the project, it provided Neil's name as a reference.

How Did Crest Pull It Off?....

......James Smith, director of Public Citizen-Texas, a watchdog group focused on energy issues, described the Crest profiteering scheme correctly when he told the LA Times on Oct 29, 2004, that the deal appeared to be "another classic example of Bush family cronyism paying off.".....

I do not know "nice names" to describe a "closed loop" political ideology that I see is killing the country....via the destruction of it's currency through ramping the annual treasury and trade debts, as a policy decision, and by the destruction of relations with the rest of the world.....and without a currency that was stable and valuable, as recently as in 2002, and without open and amicable foreign relations, evident as recently as on 9/12/2001, when the headline of Le Monde read, <a href="http://www.ambafrance-us.org/news/statmnts/2002/remembering.asp">"We are all Americans"</a>, I see my country as "dead".....killed in less than seven years......

08-02-2007, 06:11 PM	#2 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	let me get this straight... because I read all different kinds of media, both conservative and liberal, and make my own decision that leads to what some consider 'conservative' ideas, that i'm batshit crazy and am out to ruin the country? __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-03-2007, 04:43 PM	#6 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	if you ask me (and this will probably be labeled tin foil hattery) both parties leadership and special interests have the 'north american union' agenda, so whether you want to consider 'the people' who follow the party ideology as wingnuts is really irrelevant, at least in so far as it ruining the country. Our country is on the road to ruin simply because a majority of people 'trust' their parties motives. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

08-03-2007, 06:34 PM	#7 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Nice map you have there Host, is that the areas of the country with the highest concentration of welfare recipient's? Because if it is not, I bet you could superimpose your map over the welfare map and they would be dead on. What does that tell you there Host, with your dems are smarter that repubs? And so now you are also getting into name calling of Republicans? Cause if the mods allow this I have a whole bunch at the ready for the Dems. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?