88 members of Congress call on Bush about secret memo

[s1m0n]

Mr. Clinton was (as Mr. Bush is) the President of the US, and while you might not approve of the person, one should respect the office that he holds.

This is a uniquely american perspective; the people of most other nations of which I am familiar treat their leaders with genial condescension rising to rough familiarity. None would buy into the "respect the office" argument, which seems to us bizaare.

Respect is something earned, not held by right.

And IMO, president Bush has earned the contempt appropriate to other criminals.

~~

A number of contritutors to this thread seem to think that when someone says something hard about their president, that THEY have been flamed, and so respond in kind.

That is a fallacy. Ad hominem is a direct personal attack. If you're not a party to the debate, you cannot be flamed.

Weekenders' rant was a thinly disguised ad hominem directed at Jack, presumably because the poster was capable of no response which actually addressed the issue up for debate.

I don't share all of jack's POV, but I do note that he is almost alone on this site in consistently supporting his arguments with evidence drawn from the record. I'm not certain that all his sources are impeccable, but it's evidence and it's on the table.

In response, he gets little but condescension, bluster and scoldings, none of which convince me that he's in the wrong.

~~

An old piece of lawyer's advice goes:

"If you're strong on the law and weak on the facts, pound on the law.
If you're weak on the law and strong on the facts, pound on the facts.
If you're weak on the facts and weak on the law, pound on the table."

I've seen a lot of table (and chest) pounding going on, but I haven't seen much argument or evidence.

~~

Pity. Because jgilder's arguments sure are debatable, if anyone was actually interested in doing so. His provocative positions leave a LOT of space for counter-argument on his flanks; there's tons of room for refutation.

[NicoMoreno]

It is as if you aren't interested in a discussion at all! All you want is to say: "Look, I'm right, you're wrong and here's proof."

Pay attention now: I am not disputing anything you have posted. I am NOT saying you are wrong. I am saying that I find the manner in which you present the information very, very irritating.

My comments are usually following an unfounded attack or outright dismissal of what I present. If you can be like Gandi when that happens to you -- fair play, but I'm not that saintly. If someone attacks me like that I respond. If you review the threads you'll see that my initial contributions are very factual and polite before the thugs start ganging up on me. This thread doesn't have as many because the topic is keeping most at bay, but in past threads you can easily see what I'm talking about.

I have yet to read any of your opinions so I have no idea what your positions are, but my experience so far has been that the criticism is coming from people who disagree with me for the most part. People that agree have demonstrated great sympathy for me, (both publicly and privately,) in dealing with all of the personal assaults I endure from simply stating my positions.

You have yet to read my opinions because they aren't important. And Jerry quite plainly stated that he agrees with you. So I don't get this "great sympathy" you speak of.

Look, I have read most of your initial posts. I usually read them and don't bother going on. So I am quite honestly NOT talking about you "defending" yourself.

Allow me to give you an opportunity to see what I am talking about:

When someone disagrees with you or says something you don't agree with you don't question the argument, but rather the motive for the argument. For example

but my experience so far has been that the criticism is coming from people who disagree with me for the most part.

You (without having a clue -- purposefully, on my part -- about my "politics") have set it up so that you can dismiss this as "another conservative attack".

You categorize disagreements in negative terms
For example

My comments are usually following an unfounded attack or outright dismissal of what I present.

You couch your point of view in "either-or" terms.
For example
"Either you admit I am right, or you are wrong"
(not a direct quote, because where this type of thing has happened is on another thread and I don't feel like finding it)

Now, I have to admit, this last is subtle. It is not (as far as I know) ever stated so boldly, but it is how your arguments come across.

I imagine that you are going to now provide some excuse or reason why what I have posted is no longer (or never was) applicable. This is another of your tactics. (see "the conservatives aren't interested in truth" comment and subsequent definition of it as a joke) But, if I were you, I'd look back at your comments with a critical eye and maybe think about these points.

Let me say this again in other words: What you are posting could be completely wrong or absolutely correct, but it is HOW you are posting that is causing many to become annoyed with, frustrated at, or simply dismissive of you.

For the last time, I am not interested in debating your facts, points or topics. Merely your manner in presenting them.

[jGilder]

Let me say this again in other words: What you are posting could be completely wrong or absolutely correct, but it is HOW you are posting that is causing many to become annoyed with, frustrated at, or simply dismissive of you.

Blaming me for defending myself is like blaming the guy who was just walking down the street minding his own business for being robbed. I don't buy it... sorry. I have reviewed my threads quite thoroughly ever since this first came up in this forum. The pattern is consistent; after presenting my opinions, evidence, and or documentation, I am attacked without substantiation by people who simply don't like what I'm saying. My sources are dismissed as not credible, but the argument for it has usually been based on something hypocritical and without anything factual to back it up. Attacks have been accompanied with insult and in some cases even name-calling. I don't hold myself responsible for these assaults. I would be more responsive to these so-called critiques if it was more balanced. With the exception of Bloomfield (on another thread) I have yet to see anyone like you criticize my attackers for their behavior as well. This one-sided critique is highly suspect in my opinion. Simon is the only one to present a realistic overview of the issue.

Now, this thread is supposed to be about something far more important than my discussion style, so can we please move on? Thank you.

[NicoMoreno]

Blaming me for defending myself is like blaming the guy who was just walking down the street minding his own business for being robbed. I don't buy it... sorry.

I'm not blaming you for defending yourself.

Go reread my post.

I have yet to see anyone like you criticize my attackers for their behavior as well. This one-sided critique is highly suspect in my opinion.

You're right, I didn't critisize them. I could, and I believe Jerry has (more or less, not in any detail)

HOWEVER whether or not they are right or wrong or whether they are doing it or not, has absolutely NO bearing on you and your behaviour!

It's exactly the same as a kid on the playground saying "He was throwing mud, so I did to." It is a lame excuse and is not worthy of you Mr. Gilder.

I suppose I could and should take on all of you at once. I would if I had the energy or the time, but I don't so I am working on one person at a time. Suspect it all you want. (Your calling it suspect, BTW is another perfect example of my first point above, ie questioning the motive instead of the argument.)

Goodnight

[jGilder]

I'm not blaming you for defending yourself.

And then you say:

Let me say this again in other words: What you are posting could be completely wrong or absolutely correct, but it is HOW you are posting that is causing many to become annoyed with, frustrated at, or simply dismissive of you.

In other words -- I'm responsible somehow for the bad behavior and attacks from others. This is why I don't trust your motives in criticizing me.

To carry my previous allegory a step further -- to criticize me without addressing the unfounded attacks against me first is like the police criticizing the victim in a mugging before going after the attacker. The officer would have a hard time holding the victim's attention if the attacker is seen walking away in the background as the officer is offering his advice.

So if you're sincere in wanting to "help" me, start with the source of the problem first, then come back and I'll be more receptive.

[Lorenzo]

Never fall for the temptation to turn your thread into all about who, how, and when, rather than what. Don't follow the lead. It's my theory they only do this for lack of substance, or to derail the subject, or for retaliation from an inferiority complex, or because they can't handle being wrong in public. And I say that w/o taking sides here. Some people do that regularly, and are pretty practiced at it.

Keep pounding the evidence until it sinks in. Producing the full document, or a scan of the document is the only thing that will silence the breakfast crowd.

[jGilder]

Never fall for the temptation to turn your thread into all about who, how, and when, rather than what. Don't follow the lead. It's my theory they only do this for lack of substance, or to derail the subject, or for retaliation from an inferiority complex, or because they can't handle being wrong in public. And I say that w/o taking sides here. Some people do that regularly, and are pretty practiced at it.

Absolutely! This is exactly why I'm suspicious of the "advice." I would have preferred we stick to the subject rather than turning it into a debate about discussion style.

Keep pounding the evidence until it sinks in. Producing the full document, or a scan of the document is the only thing that will silence the breakfast crowd.

I've been monitoring the progress of this story, I think it's still possible it might see the light of day on corporate media. I'm sure they're doing everything they can to keep the story from surfacing. Once it does, (if it does,) just watch how the right-wing echo chamber handles it. We'll witness some world-class unsubstantiated dismissal I'm sure. If it doesn't surface it will be yet another example of how corporate media practices censorship by omission.

[Lorenzo]

The media is a little shy after the Dan Rather document thingy. I seriously doubt if any media source wants to be last reporting the details. They have to be sure of the document, they have to have the actual document for analysis, by their experts, before putting all their weight on it. After it passes the "at risk" test, they'll jump all over it, and few words of explanation or convincing will be needed.

[jGilder]

They have to be sure of the document, they have to have the actual document for analysis, by their experts, before putting all their weight on it.

But I would think the story about the letter from Congress demanding an explanation would be a story in itself with or without the forensics. The story about the tearing down of Saddam’s statue was widely broadcast -- and it was faked. The US military admitted to it a year later but they never reported that. If they were so concerned about the authenticity of something then where were they during that whole episode? I was hearing about how it was faked within a day or so, but not in the US mainstream media. I still think they’re holding the story down hoping it goes away. But with over 90 congress people now signing that letter -- it will be hard to do.

[NicoMoreno]

I'm not blaming you for defending yourself.

And then you say:

Let me say this again in other words: What you are posting could be completely wrong or absolutely correct, but it is HOW you are posting that is causing many to become annoyed with, frustrated at, or simply dismissive of you.

In other words -- I'm responsible somehow for the bad behavior and attacks from others. This is why I don't trust your motives in criticizing me.

To carry my previous allegory a step further -- to criticize me without addressing the unfounded attacks against me first is like the police criticizing the victim in a mugging before going after the attacker. The officer would have a hard time holding the victim's attention if the attacker is seen walking away in the background as the officer is offering his advice.

So if you're sincere in wanting to "help" me, start with the source of the problem first, then come back and I'll be more receptive.

Good point. Allow me to clarify:

It is not your posts in which you defend yourself to which I am referring.

Sorry for the confusion.

Anyway, you are right. I shouldn't be derailing your post with a discussion about your style of presenting information.

If you care to discuss this, please PM me. Otherwise, I'll assume you aren't interested and will stop bothering you.

Thanks

[jGilder]

Well... debating critiques aside, I'd like to get back to subject if I may.

This story has just hit the Cable TV news today for the first time that I've noticed. It's interesting to see how corporate media will handle this story. Here's how they present it:

Blair memo — At first glance, a newly revealed secret memo from a secret British government meeting in the summer of 2002, contains explosive revelations.  At the very least, it suggests that the Bush administration saw the Iraq war as inevitable.  But that, because the justification for such a war was thin, the pre-war intelligence was deliberately molded to fit U.S. military plans.  Yet the memo itself — obtained and first printed earlier this month by the London Sunday Times — is not without its share of caveats.  Firstly, it is not a transcript, but rather a summary of the meeting between Tony Blair and his top intelligence officials on July 23, 2002. It characterizes what alleged statements by the cited attendees, and thus reflects their opinions of American intentions at that time.   The British government hasn't confirmed its contents.  But it is not disputing the document's authenticity either.  Both Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush have repeatedly denied making the decision to go to war in early 2002.  But according to the memo, the then head of British Intelligence had a different impression based on his meetings with Washington officials.

Countdown to 'Countdown'
MSNBC
May 16, 2005

The story also showed up in our local paper a few days ago and has received a few letters to the editor as well

New light on Bush's war plans By July '02, U.S. set on invasion, British intelligence reported
San Francisco Chronicle
May 13, 2005

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

[Denny]

CNN:

yesterday:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/05/15/ ... index.html

today:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/16/iraq.memo/index.html

[jGilder]

That's very interesting, but predictable. But not surprising -- McCain is a Republican after all.

"Was there a massive intelligence failure? Absolutely. But to somehow suppose that if we had not attacked Saddam Hussein, that everything would have been fine in Iraq, I think defies the history of Saddam Hussein and his attempts to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. Even his own generals thought that he had weapons of mass destruction.” - Sen. John McCain

They claim this, but Iraq's weapons chief had told them long ago what happened to Saddam's WMDs. President Bush and leading officials in both the UK and US had claimed that (1) Iraq has not disarmed; (2) inspections cannot disarm it; but they also stated that defectors such as Kamel are the most reliable source of information on Iraq's weapons. Yet Kamel told them the WMDs were destroyed in an interview with UNSCOM.

The interview with Hussein Kamel

"I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed" - Gen. Hussein Kamel, the former director of Iraq's Military Industrialization Corporation, in charge of Iraq's weapons program

The Bush Administration knew there were no weapons, but as evidenced in the memo desired a pretext for invasion. Bush's desire to invade early on was corroborated by Paul O'Neill, former U.S. treasury secretary, and Richard Clarke, a former National Security Council official.

In the second CNN report they talked about the White House Press Conference where Bush's press secretary discussed and dismissed the memo story.

However, McClellan also said he had not seen the "specific memo," only reports of what it contained. - CNN

Right, like he and the whole Administration haven't seen the memo. You know they've been studying this very carefully. The lies just keep on coming.

[rasp]

all media and all politicians, they tell the public what ever they can get away with just to make themselves rich, in one form or another. therefore all politicians lie as do all media. to what ever fits the agenda of the moment. tis a given fact. so what is the point in using the media as proof of anything. there is no point.

ever notice how happy they are when they report a murder in which a gun was used. that gets a lot of press all over the country, but see how much less a spoon murder gets, heck it hardly makes it out of the city.

the media know the power they have and that reporting an event will produce more news for them to report via the copycat'ers. they like the power they have and just sit back and laugh when the stories they report are taken at face value. example the lastest news week deal, though news week should have said they got the information from a document that was destroyed or that all famous secret source.

-------------------------------------------------------------

battles, debates and meetings never go anywhere with the use of a shotgun. all that does is make a lot of noise and make tons of holes. the best bet is to start on one small point then another. forget using the media as a source.

[jGilder]

so what is the point in using the media as proof of anything. there is no point.

The point is just that -- they lied. That needs to get out, we need to explain that to people who were fooled into voting for Bush. People believe what they hear in corporate media and then vote accordingly, even though Bush has lied and created a catastrophe.

the media know the power they have and that reporting an event will produce more news for them to report via the copycat'ers. they like the power they have and just sit back and laugh when the stories they report are taken at face value. example the lastest news week deal, though news week should have said they got the information from a document that was destroyed or that all famous secret source.

The problem is, just like it was with Bush's military documents, even though the documents were unsubstantiated -- the story was still true. The report in Newsweek wasn't the first anyone had heard of that, and Dan Rather wasn't reporting anything we didn't already know either. But corporate media understands the power it has, and it's being used against us.

battles, debates and meetings never go anywhere with the use of a shotgun. all that does is make a lot of noise and make tons of holes. the best bet is to start on one small point then another. forget using the media as a source.

The media is supposed to be our "free press." Vital in any democracy, it's where we get our information. In this day and age you have to be very careful about what media source you tap. We have lost our "free press" in the US. You have to look beyond corporate mainstream media to find out what's going on. The purpose of following this particular story is to observe the spin they will apply to this potentially very damaging story.