What is this?
I am all for journalism,,news reports and such and fully expect a respectable major news corporation to have some
kind of standards.
But this piece from CNN that I found on AT&T/Bellsouth is a real piece of moonfruit cake
in my opinion that borders on psychoganda.
And to top it off,,it's anonymous.Can you believe that? An anonymous
CNN report.
If any one knows who authored this,,could you please let me know?
Well,,anyway,,I'm going to treat it like a post in a discussion forum just to illustrate what I am talking about.
~So let's cut to the chase on the new National Intelligence Estimate: Does it show America is safer today than it was
on September 10, 2001 -- or not?
Getting a straight answer is not easy, especially with so many acronyms flying around
-- this is an NIE from the DNI (director of national intelligence) that took into account intelligence analysis from the CIA
(Central Intelligence Agency) and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and ... well, you get the idea. ~
I have to say,,if you don't want to use acronyms,,then don't.Spell it all out if you don't like all the acronyms
flying around,,but don't make an issue out of using them.
Remember the question now,,'Does it,,the NIE,, (Natl Intell
Est)show America (USA) is safer today than it was on Sept.10,01,,or not?'
The short answer has to be,,yes,since we all have no doubt as to the threat.The very nature of such an event leads
to a higher state of awareness afterwards.
The very fact that there is such (an NIE) to be a topic of discussion
related to such occuring again is proof incontrivertable.
Whether the report (NIE) states such an obvious fact in
plain words or not.
If you apply reasonable logic to the matter,that is.
~Then there's the reaction from the White House, which is downright confusing. On the one hand, the White House does
not dispute the findings of the report, which declares: "The United States currently is in a heightened threat environment,"
especially from al Qaeda.
But on the other hand, White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend asserts President Bush's claim that al Qaeda
"is on the run" is still applicable. ~
Okay,,an easy to comprehend analogy,,'The psychopathic murderer is on the loose,so be alert,,but he is hiding
from us and laying low while planning his next moves.'
Duh.
~On one hand, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says just days before this report he has a "gut feeling" there
could be a summer terrorist attack in America. But on the other hand, Townsend reiterates Chertoff's claim that there's "no
specific, credible threat" against the United States right now. ~
Two people,,one says he has a 'feeling' the other says he has no facts regarding a specific event.
I
feel the psychopathic murderer may attack again,,but there is no specific info regarding another attack at this time.
See,,what's the beef?
~Adding further confusion, this report re-ignites the ferocious debate over whether the war in Iraq took the president's
eye off the broader war on terror, a point I pressed hard today in an on-camera White House briefing with Townsend. ~
Talking about confusion,,who are you?You drop Townsends name,,but yours ain't on this article.
And what
re-ignition?It hasn't stopped yet so how can it reignite?
~(She and I have previously joked good-naturally off-camera about another back-and-forth we had in December 2006, when
I asked her to admit that not catching Osama bin Laden is a major failure and she countered that capturing him is merely a
"success that hasn't happened yet." Jon Stewart on "Comedy Central" had a field day with that exchange that even White House
officials found amusing). ~
Oh,,and this just sounds like Cujo off Insider dishing about who he's been schmoozing with lately.
And
what's so funny about referring to 'a success that hasn't happened yet'? Don't you have that in any endeavor?
Getting
this article of yours I read published wasn't a success until it happened,,was it?
How petty and juvenile this seems.And
from a CNN correspondent at that.sheesh!
~Today I pushed Townsend on the NIE's conclusion that al Qaeda "will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities"
it's gained in Iraq to attempt to launch a terror attack on U.S. soil. ~
Isn't that what they were doing pre-10/01,just not in Iraq?Seeking to leverage whatever contacts and capabilities
it could to attempt to attack on U.S. soil? ( oooh,,you used an acronym )
~I reminded Townsend of a Senate Intelligence Committee report this spring showing the president was warned before the
war that launching an attack against Iraq could help al Qaeda, which had little power in Baghdad then, gain influence down
the road. ~
I am sure he was also warned that to do nothing would result in a similar scenario of us being attacked.He
was probally also likewise warned that to engage them in Iraq would help protect many of the Iraqi civilians from being ruthlessly
slaughtered and have an oppresive set of laws forced on them at sword,gun and bomb point.
~"Now you have a report suggesting maybe it has gained influence in the war in the Iraq," I asked. "Isn't that something
the president ignored?" ~
Ignored is a rather 'antagonistic way' to put it,isn't it?Especially since,even in your question you concede it's
only 'suggesting it'?Could you have been more diplomatic and asked if,,'he had considered the implications of A.Q. gaining
such influence"?
Might that be an emotional 'gut reaction' showing out as possible bias against Bush?
As in,,a pointed question designed to garner only negative inferences?
~"But you are assuming this a zero sum game, which is what I don't understand," Townsend said. "The fact is we were harassing
them in Afghanistan, we are harassing them in Iraq, we are harassing them in other ways non-military around the world, and
the answer is every time you poke the hornets' nest they are bound to come back and push back on you, that doesn't suggest
to me that we shouldn't be doing it." ~
Okay,,okay,,the analogy was a lame one,,I admit.I ain't defending the guy,,I'm critisizing the articles obvious
bias.
Personally,,I believe a much more appropiate analogy would have went more like this:
'Every time you 'quash'
one hornet (cell) you have less to fill the hive.Either you eleiminate enough of them away from the hive that they have none
to work and refill the hive and it dies.Or once it's weakend through attrition by you killing as many as you can untill you
find it and destroy it you won't have the loose ones still around to deal with starting a new hive.
Untill it's done,,you
and others may suffer attacks,,but that is only more reason to increase the effort.'
Now,,as to him saying,,"But
you are assuming this a zero sum game, which is what I don't understand,",,I agree,,why is the author doing so?
What is the authors motivation or 'agenda' if you will,,that results in his or her bias?
~It's interesting Townsend used the phrase "hornets' nest," a configuration that critics have used to attack the war.
~
What's interesting is why you would say it's interesting 'critics' use it.Would you prefer 'locust swarm'?
~Another argument now under attack is the President's claim that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror," when
this report and others suggest that Pakistan is a safe haven for al Qaeda. ~
Well,,is the fight going on there without opposition?
No,,Mushareff is opposing them there,,isn't he?
Besides,as we all know,,there was one reason to go to Iraq,,and a different reason to have stayed like we have.Unless
you have been under 'a rock',,or in a spider hole,,or maybe too far up a moonfruit tree to pay attention to reality.
~When my colleague Kelly O'Donnell of NBC News pressed that point today with White House spokesman Tony Snow, asking
why the U.S. military won't go into Pakistan, she got a most intriguing answer. ~
What a moronic question for an alledged professional journalist to ask,seriously.
Wouldn't it have shown more
journalistic integrity to ask something more along the line of:
"Have you discussed coperative action with the government
of Pakistan in order to facilitate the 'rooting out' of the 'hornets nest' somewhere in those rugged,cave filled mountains?"
Wouldn't it have?But,,nooooope.Had to go for the antagonistic digs,,like a 'gossip rag columnist'.
~"When you talk about the U.S. going in there, you don't blithely go into another nation and conduct operations," Snow
said.
"Well, the president went into a sovereign nation in 2003," O'Donnell noted, in what seemed like an "aha!" moment.
"Well, he went into a sovereign nation that was in fact -- he also had with him the support of 17 U.N. resolutions, including
Resolution 1441," Snow responded.
That exchange shows how the fight over the war in Iraq has twisted the White House into rhetorical knots. ~
NO,,as you did put it,,it 'seemed' like an aha moment.But what it actually shows to a reasonably sane,modestly
intelligent human being,,is that the 'reporters' aren't 'reporting',,they are snidely attacking through antagonistic lines
of questioning apparently designed to try to make the White House look as moronic as the reporters do when they ask moronic
questions,,the answers to which,,byw,,aren't new or news.
~On the question I posed at the top of this piece, Snow asserted al Qaeda is weaker than it was on September 11, 2001,
because of defensive steps the United States has taken since then. "Weaker than it was a month ago," he added about al Qaeda.
~
And I thought you said,,~Getting a straight answer is not easy,~
I guess that was a fib since the answer sure
seemed pretty darn straight,concise,precise,,on the spot,on target and you could even say a 'slam dunk' if you wanted to.
Didn't
it?
~While nobody knows with absolute certainty whether al Qaeda is "stronger" than it was in the past, the point is that
this new report shows the terror organization is "strong" yet again. ~
Could one take the lack of certainty as a 'warning' that to leave them alone is a mistake?Could the idea of them
being stong again be warning enough to certain factions to quit opposing appropiate action against this 'locust swarm' threatening
all Western cultures and anything non Muslim with terror,death,destruction and Sharia Law?
In other words,,what
do you want?If the Bush admin left Iraq,,the same folks telling him to do just that would castigate him for leaving the civilians
at the mercy of murderous psychopaths,,remember what happened after we left Vietnam?
~And almost six years after the president declared he'd get bin Laden, dead or alive, he is apparently still at large.
~
Unapprehended does not totally equate to 'at large'.He is hiding,,I personally think he's dead or incapacitated
by illness or addiction to the point of being a nonissue except as a morale booster for the deluded acolytes of his.
But,,so
what?
I find it truly fascinating that with possible promising results from the 'recent surge the author ends on that
point.
Of course,,to me that is just an indication of what the Bush obsessives will focus on next when,,or if,,any
undeniable progress is made in Iraq.
Like this one did,,they'll all start yelling,,"But you haven't caught Bin Laden,,the
war on terroism is lost and it's all Bushs fault.Bush bad!"
But I have to reiterate,,I find it really,really disgraceful that an alledgedly respectable news corporation allows
this kind of stuff to go out,,with out a name on it at that,,is evidence of someone showing something besides a modicum of
journalistic integrity or reasonablely unbiased reporting.
Yeah,,true.That's just,,In My Honest smelly Opinion,,of course.
So let's cut to the chase on the new National Intelligence Estimate: Does it show America is safer today than it was
on September 10, 2001 -- or not?
Getting a straight answer is not easy, especially with so many acronyms flying around
-- this is an NIE from the DNI (director of national intelligence) that took into account intelligence analysis from the CIA
(Central Intelligence Agency) and the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) and ... well, you get the idea.
Then there's the reaction from the White House, which is downright confusing. On the one hand, the White House does not
dispute the findings of the report, which declares: "The United States currently is in a heightened threat environment," especially
from al Qaeda.
But on the other hand, White House Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend asserts President Bush's claim that al Qaeda
"is on the run" is still applicable.
On one hand, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff says just days before this report he has a "gut feeling" there
could be a summer terrorist attack in America. But on the other hand, Townsend reiterates Chertoff's claim that there's "no
specific, credible threat" against the United States right now.
Adding further confusion, this report re-ignites the ferocious debate over whether the war in Iraq took the president's
eye off the broader war on terror, a point I pressed hard today in an on-camera White House briefing with Townsend.
(She and I have previously joked good-naturally off-camera about another back-and-forth we had in December 2006, when
I asked her to admit that not catching Osama bin Laden is a major failure and she countered that capturing him is merely a
"success that hasn't happened yet." Jon Stewart on "Comedy Central" had a field day with that exchange that even White House
officials found amusing).
Today I pushed Townsend on the NIE's conclusion that al Qaeda "will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities"
it's gained in Iraq to attempt to launch a terror attack on U.S. soil.
I reminded Townsend of a Senate Intelligence Committee report this spring showing the president was warned before the
war that launching an attack against Iraq could help al Qaeda, which had little power in Baghdad then, gain influence down
the road.
"Now you have a report suggesting maybe it has gained influence in the war in the Iraq," I asked. "Isn't that something
the president ignored?"
"But you are assuming this a zero sum game, which is what I don't understand," Townsend said. "The fact is we were harassing
them in Afghanistan, we are harassing them in Iraq, we are harassing them in other ways non-military around the world, and
the answer is every time you poke the hornets' nest they are bound to come back and push back on you, that doesn't suggest
to me that we shouldn't be doing it."
It's interesting Townsend used the phrase "hornets' nest," a configuration that critics have used to attack the war.
Another argument now under attack is the President's claim that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror," when
this report and others suggest that Pakistan is a safe haven for al Qaeda.
When my colleague Kelly O'Donnell of NBC News pressed that point today with White House spokesman Tony Snow, asking why
the U.S. military won't go into Pakistan, she got a most intriguing answer.
"When you talk about the U.S. going in there, you don't blithely go into another nation and conduct operations," Snow
said.
"Well, the president went into a sovereign nation in 2003," O'Donnell noted, in what seemed like an "aha!" moment.
"Well, he went into a sovereign nation that was in fact -- he also had with him the support of 17 U.N. resolutions, including
Resolution 1441," Snow responded.
That exchange shows how the fight over the war in Iraq has twisted the White House into rhetorical knots.
On the question I posed at the top of this piece, Snow asserted al Qaeda is weaker than it was on September 11, 2001,
because of defensive steps the United States has taken since then. "Weaker than it was a month ago," he added about al Qaeda.
While nobody knows with absolute certainty whether al Qaeda is "stronger" than it was in the past, the point is that
this new report shows the terror organization is "strong" yet again.
And almost six years after the president declared he'd get bin Laden, dead or alive, he is apparently still at large.
© 2007 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
