Monday, April 24, 2006

Administration accusations are not the same as guilt

If one circumstance could be identified as the most destructive for our country right now, it might be that so many people have purposely ignored this most basic and fundamental principle: just because the Bush administration accuses someone of being guilty of something does not mean that they are actually guilty.

After witnessing a weekend in which countless Bush followers fitted Mary McCarthy for her noose, it turns out, according to Newsweek, that she vehemently denies the charges, and not even the administration claims that she was the principal source for Dana Priest's story about the administration's secret Eastern European torture gulags:

A former CIA officer who was sacked last week after allegedly confessing to leaking secrets has denied she was the source of a controversial Washington Post story about alleged CIA secret detention operations in Eastern Europe, a friend of the operative told NEWSWEEK.

The fired official, Mary O. McCarthy, “categorically denies being the source of the leak,” one of McCarthy’s friends and former colleagues, Rand Beers, said Monday after speaking to McCarthy. . . .

A counter-terrorism official acknowledged to NEWSWEEK today that in firing McCarthy, the CIA was not necessarily accusing her of being the principal, original, or sole leaker of any particular story. Intelligence officials privately acknowledge that key news stories about secret agency prison and “rendition” operations have been based, at least in part, upon information available from unclassified sources.

While acknowledging that information about the CIA operations was indeed available from unclassified sources, intelligence officials maintain that revelations like those made in the Post story about Eastern Europe could not have been put together without input from people who had access to classified information. These informants could confirm the stories and add detail to them.

But the fact that McCarthy evidently is denying leaking the CIA prison story to the Post—and that other key information for stories revealing CIA detention and rendition operations originated with unclassified sources—does raise questions about how far the Bush administration will be able to press its crackdown on suspected leakers.

Priest's original story itself made clear said that her reporting was based upon "current and former U.S. intelligence officials and foreign sources."

In response to several posts over the weekend I wrote regarding the administration's complete denial of due process, its use of torture, its detention of individuals in secret gulags, etc., virtually every Bush defender here said -- as they always do -- that none of this matters because it's only being done to enemy combatants and guilty terrorists, who have no rights. What they actually mean is that it's being done only to people who the Bush administration claims are enemy combatants and terrorists, but to them, that's the same thing. Once George Bush decrees someone's guilt, it is final, and they are stripped of any and every right -- whether a U.S. citizen or foreign national, whether on U.S. soil or abroad. That is the country we have become.

If you say to a Bush follower - "we shouldn't be imprisoning people without trials and charges" or "we shouldn't be torturing people in secret gulags" or "the government shouldn't be eavesdropping on people without warrants" -- their answer will always be the same: these are very bad people to whom these things are being done -- they are "enemy combatants" -- and so none of it matters. In their mind, an accusation from the administration is tantamount to proof of guilt, a claim from George Bush of someone's status as a Terrorist equal to a conviction in a court of law. We place blind faith in our government and need no safeguards because what the Leader says is true and what he does is right. The minute he labels someone an "enemy combatant" -- without any review of any kind -- that person relinquishes all legal rights and anything is fair game.

Not only was Mary McCarthy branded a traitor all weekend -- complete with angry protests that she was not yet imprisoned -- but anyone associated with her was all but branded a traitor as well. They don't need to wait for evidence or know any facts. The administration has branded her An Enemy, so now it's time for the punishment. That is just a microcosm of the same distorted, indescribably undemocratic and plainly un-American dynamic that hss guided most of the radical policies of this administration for the last five years.

UPDATE: C&L has more on this story, including the way in which McCarthy's guilt and those of her associates was casually tossed about on television this wekeend.

87 comments:

  1. Anonymous7:44 PM

    You seem to forget, the smirking chimp misspoke the other day. He did not mean to refer to himself as the DECIDER, he meant to say he was the DICTATOR!!!!!!!

    Just like the roman empire, he has the right to proclaim people guilty and have them killed on the spot.

    Well, at least locked up for a long, long time....

    She should just consider herself lucky that the chimperor does not proclaim she is an "enemy combatant" - she could be hauled out of the US for rendition and torture...

    ReplyDelete
  2. just because the Bush administration accuses someone of being guilty of something does not mean that they are actually guilty.

    Interestingly enough, that does not seem to apply to President Bush when liberals are accusing him of breaking the law (e.g. the wire tapping issue).

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous7:49 PM

    That's what I tried to tell Nixon, but I could only get to Ford.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous7:52 PM

    Oh Jason, no you di'in't.

    What part of

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    do you not understand?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Interestingly enough, that does not seem to apply to President Bush when liberals are accusing him of breaking the law (e.g. the wire tapping issue).

    Really? Do you know of anyone who thinks that the President should be imprisoned without a trial, charges being brought, or even access to a lawyer?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous8:29 PM

    Max Renn here.

    Jason is a vacuuous troll. No film at 11:00 pm.

    Enjoy your afternoons, etc., based on timezone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Its amazing how many people miss the point. It isn't about whether wiretapping terrorist suspects is a good idea, or what limits should be placed on interrogation techniques. Its a question of who is protecting ME from arbitrary survellance and/or imprisonment. And at the moment the answer is nobody and that's unnacceptable.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous8:46 PM

    Jason said...
    Interestingly enough, that does not seem to apply to President Bush when liberals are accusing him of breaking the law (e.g. the wire tapping issue).


    In this instance, Bush has admitted to do exactly that, proudly, I might add, and expressed his intent to go right on doing it. Now, he may not be guilty. If I were his attorney I might try to have him found not competent to stand trial, non compus mentis, or not guilty by reason of insanity. I think we should have the Sheriff execute a writ de idiota inquirendo.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous8:49 PM

    i had to run some errands and stepped away for awhile and it looks like most of the right-wingers still thrashing around over your earlier post haven't seen this discouraging bit of news.

    I'd intended my first post on the other thread to be to Bart and his repeated demands that we quit dodging the question of what should be done to McCarthy for her crimes against the govt. I figured the best way to respond is to say I'm willing to wait to see what the truth is regarding the revelations about the gulags. Their vehemence made me forget to wonder what she has to say about this first. Lesson being, don't start paying too much attention to these guys or your brain starts to rot.

    Glenn, your earlier post seems to have had the same effect a sharp poke with a stick has on a hornets nest.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous8:56 PM

    Ah, the first line of defense, try and get the confession thrown out. We are now supposed to believe Rand Beers? He is probably under investigation himself. What is it with these Kerry flunkies running to the defense of McCarthy? I'd say it only adds to the consipracy. Larry Johnson, you've got to be kidding me.

    Liberals at Newsweek running interference for this traitor, how cute.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous8:59 PM

    If I may go slightly OT moment, at least we haven't got it this bad, not yet. But make no mistake, this is where we are heading. This is the ugly side of the privatized playland that some people on the right would like to take this country, and the world.


    Disgrace

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous9:02 PM

    Even on NPR they do not even bother to use the word 'alledged' discussing her. The fact that she was a Dem supporter seems to get alot of play( but the millions given the phone jamming suspect and his white house ties -never mentioned). As usual anyone who dissents is a traitor and this smells.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous9:08 PM

    Anonymous said... (did you forget your nym, Jason?)
    Ah, the first line of defense, try and get the confession thrown out. We are now supposed to believe Rand Beers? He is probably under investigation himself. What is it with these Kerry flunkies running to the defense of McCarthy? I'd say it only adds to the consipracy. Larry Johnson, you've got to be kidding me.

    Liberals at Newsweek running interference for this traitor, how cute.

    8:56 PM


    I agree with anonymous jason. How do all these traitorous flunkies get into the Marine corps?


    Rand Beers
    AKA Robert Rand Beers

    Born: c. 1942


    Gender: Male
    Ethnicity: White
    Sexual orientation: Straight
    Occupation: Government

    Nationality: United States
    Executive summary: Kerry foreign policy advisor

    Military service: USMC (1964–68)

    Rand Beers had a public service career spanning 25 years -- all the way back to the Reagan administration, where he was assigned to take over the terrorism and narcotics desk at the National Security Council following Oliver North. In October 1998, President Bill Clinton appointed Beers Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotic and Law Enforcement Affairs.

    Beers was assigned to counterterrorism in the George W. Bush White House. He lasted seven months before resigning unexpectedly, which apparently worried his bosses:


    The source said that the concern by the administration about low morale in the intelligence community led national security adviser Condoleezza Rice to ask Beers twice during an exit interview whether the resignation was a protest against the war with Iraq. The source said that although Beers insisted it was not, the tone of the interview concerned Rice enough that she felt she had to ask the question twice.
    Then, two months after resigning from government, Beers joined the John Kerry campaign as a foreign policy advisor.

    Taught a foreign policy class at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government with Richard A. Clarke in 2004.

    Wife: Bonnie Beers (school administrator, 2 children)
    Son: Benjamin (b. 1975)


    University: BA History, Dartmouth College (1964)
    University: MA History, University of Michigan (1970)


    U.S. National Security Council 2002-03


    FILMOGRAPHY AS ACTOR
    Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War (3-Nov-2004) Himself
    Uncovered: The War on Iraq (20-Aug-2004) Himself


    I wasn't aware there were any liberals at Dartmouth college in the 60s. If the knucklewalker had a brain, he'd know that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AJ Strata, whose high altitudes in the strata-sphere have apparently prohibited him from getting sufficient oxygen to keep his brain functioning properly, totally dismisses this Newsweek article as “wrong.”

    His proof? Well, it’s actually his own speculation that “Could be McCarthy is part of other high profile leaks, and some we don’t know about.”

    Yup, could be. Does he have any proof? Nope. Any evidence? Nope. But it could be, he says. Maybe we don’t know about something. Yup, could be.

    Then he offers up more “proof” : “This sounds like disinformation to me.”

    So, if oxygen-deprived AJ thinks it sounds like “disinformation” well, then, by gosh, that’s good enough for him – and countless right-wing bloggers will quote him as “proof” of Newsweek’s “disinformation.” And so it goes.

    He then delivers even more “proof”: “The article then goes on to quote Larry Johnson. Nuff said there.”

    Now you see, Larry Johnson, who worked under McCarthy in the CIA has been critical of Bush’s policies. So, “Nuf said there” – this means that AJ doesn’t have to refute what Johnson said, just pointing out that a critic of Bush is quoted is enough to refute Newsweek’s article.

    Oh, but he’s not done yet. His brilliant mind makes an association:
    “One name I keep finding at the bottom of all these interesting articles in the post is Lucy Shackelford. Her names pops up with Pincus and Priest and Milbank all the time.”

    Well, there you have it. One of the authors (Lucy) has written an article with Dana Priest in the past, or at least contributed to it. So that shows her bias, her past treasonous behavior, her total lack of credibility on anything she ever writes.

    Does he provide any proof where Lucy’s been wrong? Well no. Contributing to an article written by Dana Priest is all the guilt by association that ol’ AJ needs to discredit her.

    He doesn’t even need to say where she’s wrong. It’s all the “proof” he needs.

    So, in the Bush-worshipping blogosphere this is considered a knock-down of Newsweek’s article. Sheesh.

    About all I can say after that is, to quote AJ, “Nuf said there.”

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous9:09 PM

    isn't this what happens in the old cowboy movies?

    in the old american south for sure.

    a bunch of self-righteous cowboys

    or

    whiteboys

    hear a rumor that somebody rustled hisslef some cattle

    or

    acted sexually toward a white woman.

    fired up by leaders using the language of vigilante justice and enjoying the emotional high of leading a mob they control,

    the mob strings up the self-evident criminal.

    some time later,

    it turns out that the rumors were not accurate,

    the hangee didn't steal any cattle

    or

    interact sexually with a white woman.

    but it's too late now to do anything about it.

    the guy is dead

    and

    folks have better things to do.

    everybody just shrugs their shoulders and says

    "pity"

    or maybe,

    "he probably deserved it anyway".


    commercial radio/tv political personalities

    like limbaugh, neil bortz, o'reilly, et al,

    and some of the right wing weblogs

    are the mob leaders of our times.


    with this important difference:

    their public description of events are not spontaneous.

    those commercial speeches are the result of a carefully manufactured propaganda effort.

    a propaganda effort manufactured by the white house and the republican national committee.



    any body want to bet against the proposition that the mary mccarthy "charges" showed up on friday in time for the sunday talk shows for the explicit purpose of countering (drowning out with other noise)

    the appearance of former cia agent drumheller on 60 minutes?

    ReplyDelete
  16. They don't need to wait for evidence or know any facts.

    Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs

    "BLITZER: This is what you said almost three years ago about Karl Rove. You said, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."

    You still want to see him frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs?

    WILSON: I think that's appropriate, but as I said a long time ago, I'd be happy to take the handcuffs off, just have him frog- marched out of the White House. I cannot understand how the president of the United States would keep on his senior staff somebody who was so cavalier with the national security of my country."
    Remember that or the indictment of Scooter Libby and Tom Delay?
    Hypocrite.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous9:19 PM

    orionATL said...

    What he said and I have to agree with him. And this used to be very effective with the MSMighty Wurlitzer cranked up and the peanut gallery of the right blogosphere echoing the bullshit. It used to resonate, until Bush hit those low approval ratings.

    32% and dropping like a hooker's knickers.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anonymous9:24 PM

    Some right-wing troll wrote:
    "Interestingly enough, that does not seem to apply to President Bush when liberals are accusing him of breaking the law (e.g. the wire tapping issue). "

    The Administration has effing *confessed* to breaking the law on wiretapping. That's not a double standard: I'm perfectly happy to lock up in Guantanamo anyone who has made a *public uncoerced confession*, as the administration did.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Anonymous9:26 PM

    I wasn't aware there were any liberals at Dartmouth college in the 60s. If the knucklewalker had a brain, he'd know that.

    Jeebus! If you've only seen Animal House once, you know there were no liberals at Dartmouth in the 60s. That was Dartmouth college and the movie was "based on Chris Miller's real fraternity at Dartmouth," Alpha Delta. There were no liberals there. Just party animals and dorks. Right wing dorks are a helluva lot dumber than the right wing party animals.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anonymous9:40 PM

    Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs

    Karl has made alot of enemies. Many of them in his own party. When that day comes, there will be people on both side of the political divide doing the schadenfreude shuffle.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous10:41 PM

    Actually, accused by a Republican seems to be enough. Interesting to look back on all the ways the Clinton scandals built the tools that would be needed to build the Bush Empire of Lies.

    The creation of an air of moral invincibility through tarring one's political enemies with lies and innuendos, and never, never admitting you are wrong has worked well for the Elephant.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous11:00 PM

    Fred Bieling said...
    To arms...


    My thoughts exactly. And man the ramparts. Great tag line, Fred. It's schweet.

    "I'm not liberal, I'm paying attention."

    Rock on, bro.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anonymous11:01 PM

    "We place blind faith in our government and need no safeguards because what the Leader says is true and what he does is right."

    I wonder if people grasp the primitive narcissism behind such not-thinking: My Daddy Is The Bestest.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous11:46 PM

    AFAIK, all they have on McCarthy is that she failed a polygraph. Aldrich Ames passed two of those.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anonymous12:14 AM

    funny how the right-wingers were so quick to remind us that Scooter Libby is "innocent until proven guilty"....

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anonymous12:15 AM

    With what I am hearing from "half a brain" and the other RWT hosts. I believe we are only days away from announcement of discovery of a VAST LEFT WING CONSPIRACY.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous12:18 AM

    As others have pointed out, and I'm seeing more and more evidence of every day, it seems to be about clinging to a belief in inherent American moral superiority.

    If we do it, it's not wrong. Now define "we" to conveniently exclude anyone who dissents, and there you have the phenomenon in a nutshell.

    Y'know, if we people of the United States were inherently morally superior, we'd be having a lot fewer of these discussions... :)

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Glenn:

    Your Dem press breathlessly reported the subject matter of McCarthy's admissions to the CIA before she was fired. This was the basis for all of the hullabaloo here and elsewhere over the past couple days Were the MSM lying...again? This is possible.

    Since that story broke, a variety of McCarthy's friends, colleagues and Dem politicians have rushed to the press to defend or excuse her actions.

    Now, yet another friend claims that McCarthy “categorically denies being the source of the leak.”

    A criminal lawyer has also popped up denying the leak story.

    This is all pure hearsay, of course, because McCarthy hasn't said anything in public one way or another. Smart woman.

    Denials mean nothing. Once a perp is lawyered up, she stays quiet and third parties and attorneys deny everything for public consumption.

    However, let's take this hearsay as a fact for the sake of argument. Denying being "the source" is not the same as denying being "a source" or denying that she confirmed information which the reporter obtained from other sources. Both of these are also arguably illegal disclosures of classified information.

    When an enemy intelligence agent questions one of our captured soldiers, they are often just confirming information which they have received from other captured soldiers or other sources. Our soldiers are trained not to confirm or deny anything for the enemy because that is the same as providing the information in the first instance.

    McCarthy is a trained intelligence agent and she well knows these rules of operational security.

    However, this is all speculation based on the usual array of interested and anonymous sources.

    All the press and leftwingnut speculation concerning the Plame investigation turned out to be completely wrong. Maybe the righties were jumping the gun here based on yet more fabrications from the MSM.

    All we know is that she has been fired for violating CIA security rules. Let's see if Justice gets an indictment for some crime involving disclosure of classified material.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Glenn:

    In addition, McCarthy's friend, Beers, is a Dem operative and Kerry campaign advisor. This is hardly what I call an objective source.

    The spin machine is up an running.

    ReplyDelete
  31. The HWSNBN who claims to be a lawyer sez:

    Denials mean nothing. Once a perp is lawyered up, she stays quiet and third parties and attorneys deny everything for public consumption.

    You misspelled "the accused".

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  32. HWSNBN:

    Denying being "the source" is not the same as denying being "a source" or denying that she confirmed information which the reporter obtained from other sources. Both of these are also arguably illegal disclosures of classified information.

    Stickj to the subject. We're talking McCarthy, not Libby, Rove, Hadley, or Cheney.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  33. HWSNBN sez:

    All the press and leftwingnut speculation concerning the Plame investigation turned out to be completely wrong.

    O, I wouldn't go that far. There were at least some that said that Dubya at least knew about it, but you may be right that no one came right out and said that Dubya ordered the smear.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous2:30 AM

    bart: 12:32 post.

    Good observations, with the one exception of what arne pointed out. You should have written "accused" instead of "perp" to maintain the objectivity of the rest of your post.

    I am sure you would agree with that.

    As for Beers, we don't know the facts there either, but I am inclined at this point not to trust a word he says.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Sadly it seems there are 'two kinds of people': those who believe that every human is always entitled to humane treatment and the same human rights as everyone else; and those people who think that humane treatment and human rights are really only for 'their segment' of our species or of sentience.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Anonymous2:45 AM

    Maybe the leaker in chief was behind the leak but they needed a scapegoat to cover previous statements of getting tough with leakers. Renditions legal or illegal have more effect if they can be verified and so the Adminstration was sending a message to the ???????? that it was being done and it could happen to you.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Anonymous2:51 AM

    "It's extremely difficult to believe that what happened at GuantĂĄnamo and Bagram and Abu Ghraib is all coincidental," said retired Brig. Gen. Jim Cullen, who served as the chief judge (IMA) of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. "We need a much more extensive investigation into what went wrong and who at the top was responsible. With Rumsfeld continuing at the top that's not possible."

    Cullen, who currently practices law in New York, has provided counsel in a lawsuit against Rumsfeld on behalf of prisoners abused in U.S. custody, and is one of 22 high-level retired military leaders who have urged the Bush administration to ban torture unequivocally.

    "Personally, I don't believe the torture memos originated with Rumsfeld, but with Vice President Cheney and his top aides," Cullen said. "But Rumsfeld was quite willing to carry out those policies with enthusiasm. They were offensive to military culture -- a departure from the rule of law at the very core of military discipline. When you compromise that discipline and permit wrongdoing in the field, you have lost control of your forces, and you have compromised the mission."

    ReplyDelete
  38. As someone else pointed out here, let's see Dear Leader W start issuing his blather UNDER OATH, shouldn't be hard if he's as on the level with his accusations & pleadings as he claims

    "UNDER OATH"

    Two words that every W sheeple knows is the downfall of their hissy-fit throwing Connecticiut Cowboy

    No more of W's faith-based intelligence at face value alone, I want him under oath before I'll ever listen to his claims in the least-No free ride for his critics, no free ride for him

    If W's got nothing to hide about any of his pre-war claims regarding Iraq and warrantless spying on purely domestic communications, then having him do this UNDER OATH should be no big deal in the least

    And save the vitriol W lovers, unless you can show, logically, how purely political operations as outing Valerie Plame made this country safer from a WsMD attack as a result, and how outing the CIA cover operation of Brewster Jennings made it easier to recruit foreign operatives & double agents needed to track the transfer of WsMD to rogue regimes, groups & individuals, then you're just wasting everyones time

    Thankfully, W's pulling all this vile power-grabbing strategy at the time he's least likely to get widespread agreement with such dictatotrial fantasies on such blatant display

    Kind of hard to be taken seriously as a leader when your own party and former allies can't distance themselves quick enough from the wannabe dictator in question

    And that widespread outrage over W's looking the other way concerning the Oil industry's outright gas-pump rape of the consumer sure isn't making him look any more presidential or effective in the least

    Just the image I'm sure W wants heading into the next Hurricane season, what with how magnificent his staying on vacation for 3 days after Katrina struck & people died ended up looking in hindisght

    Why anyone thinks Usama bin Laden's multimillionaire brother in arms, President Jr, is worth any adoration in the least-ESPECIALLY as it relates to Homeland Security via warrantless spying on purely domestic communications-is a mystery I just can't logicially comprehend

    ReplyDelete
  39. I think that there is one thing that everyone (Bush followers and not) need to keep in mind regarding the Bush administration:

    The only thing seperating "us" from "them" is the President's prerogative.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Anonymous3:31 AM

    Specifically, Wang said she was motivated by Falungong claims that hundreds of its practitioners detained in China were being "dissected alive" and their organs sold on the international transplant market.

    "I acted in a way consistent with the American spirit. I also acted to protect the dignity of America and human kind," she said.


    Trade with China? No, not for me.

    Do I believe the Chinese Government would do this type of thing? Yes, absolutely.

    That's what happens when "free trade" isn't imbued with the proper philosophy behind the doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism.

    Dissecting live human beings to sell their organs on the international organ market is just another way to rake in the dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Anonymous3:42 AM

    By the way, for those without much prior knowledge about this whole Falang Gong issue:

    China outlawed the Falungong in 1999, branding it an "evil cult".

    Why? What's the charge? Why are they "evil"?

    The movement believes that illnesses are manifestations of bad deeds from previous lives which can be healed by practising meditation and breathing exercises.

    Oh. This makes total sense. Because they are like Jehova's Witnesses and Christian Scientists and won't see doctors when they become ill, it's okay to arrest, torture and dissect them alive.

    This is the Chinese Government in all its totalitarian glory for you.

    In fact, most of those organs probably never even hit the "international transplant market". No doubt they are harvested for the benefit of the Party Members and their families, and maybe a few buddies in places like Dubai and Mafialand, er, I mean Russia.

    You know. It's the People's Republic of China. Just what some of our Leftist friends think we should have here. Big Governments always act on behalf of the "people."

    What? They don't?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Anonymous3:53 AM

    bart said...
    Glenn:

    Your Dem press breathlessly reported the subject matter of McCarthy's admissions to the CIA before she was fired. This was the basis for all of the hullabaloo here and elsewhere over the past couple days Were the MSM lying...again? This is possible.


    For the purpose of this discussion, could you please just pick one. Is it the "Dem press" or the MSM? Then we can get more specific about what you refer to.

    In addition, McCarthy's friend, Beers, is a Dem operative and Kerry campaign advisor. This is hardly what I call an objective source.


    Rand Beers is a conservative Republican whose party left him. Like Ronald Reagan or even Zell Miller, only better.


    Rand Beers had a public service career spanning 25 years -- all the way back to the Reagan administration, where he was assigned to take over the terrorism and narcotics desk at the National Security Council following Oliver North. In October 1998, President Bill Clinton appointed Beers Assistant Secretary of State for International Narcotic and Law Enforcement Affairs.

    Beers was assigned to counterterrorism in the George W. Bush White House. He lasted seven months before resigning unexpectedly, which apparently worried his bosses

    ReplyDelete
  43. Anonymous3:53 AM

    Why do the media permit the following double standard:

    Criticisms and questioning of indicted RNC/GOP leadership, such as Tom DeLay, are brushed off with the caution that he must be held as innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law.

    Yet guilt by rhetoric is heaped upon any public figure with the faintest connection to Democrats. Mearly being one, contributing to the party (eg, as Joe Wilson did a fraction of the times he contributed to and voted Republican.)

    I'm astounded that the media persist in the outrageous implication that simple association, real or attributed, with Democrats erases demonstrable facts.

    It goes on even when news sources themselves (eg, Wolf Blitzer and Bill Schneider at CNN) ACTUALLY BELONG to far-right groups like the AEI and don't issue disclaimers when they report "neutrally" on stories or fail to moderate guests fairly.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Anonymous3:58 AM

    I've googled "Dem press". I get nothing here in America. What is it? Where is it? I'd like to read up on it. Is it sub rosa, like that "vast left wing conspiracy" you seem to be fixated on?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Anonymous4:05 AM

    Nevermind Bart. Your hastily spun argument just went to hell. Oh wait, is the WaPo part of the vast left wing conspiracy?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401601_pf.html

    she was fired ten days before she was to retire. The agency now says she didn't leak any classified information or say anything about the secret prisons.

    We don't know why she was fired now.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Anonymous4:19 AM

    EWO said... Oh. This makes total sense. Because they are like Jehova's Witnesses and Christian Scientists and won't see doctors when they become ill, it's okay to arrest, torture and dissect them alive.

    The Christian Scientists not so much but we'd all love to do that with the Jehovah's Witnesses.

    and

    Trade with China? No, not for me.

    Do I believe the Chinese Government would do this type of thing? Yes, absolutely.

    That's what happens when "free trade" isn't imbued with the proper philosophy behind the doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism.

    Dissecting live human beings to sell their organs on the international organ market is just another way to rake in the dollars.


    Thank God it was a short polemic tonite. I dread tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Anonymous8:29 AM

    Published on Saturday, April 22, 2006 by the Associated Press
    Condoleezza Rice Leaked Info to Lobbyist on Trial
    by Matthew Barakat

    ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday.

    Calls to the State Department seeking comment Friday evening were not immediately returned.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Anonymous9:11 AM

    Maybe the voices in george's head tell him who is guilty.
    Wow, what if he believes that?

    ReplyDelete
  49. Anonymous9:45 AM

    The NY Times has published an account of Mary McCarthy's self-defense that includes Rush Limbaugh as a primary source in the rebuttal of her defense.

    Since when did Rush Limbaugh become a credible expert on national security investigations, let alone one deserving of recognition in the paper of record?

    Unfortunately, this is the second time in the last month the Times has used Rush as a primary source in an article that defends Bush and the Republicans.

    The Times has officially become a joke.

    PS--my word verification was "qmire", which is nice.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Anonymous9:46 AM

    The Post is reporting that:

    "McCarthy was fired because the CIA concluded that she had undisclosed contacts with journalists, including Priest, in violation of a security agreement. That does not mean she revealed the existence of the prisons to Priest, Cobb said."

    I'm guessing that the administration is going to regret this action ... and pretty damn soon.

    They have fired up the base and fed the right-wing pundits with all that nonsense about her contributions to Kerry and made her look like a traitor .... and now she gets to keep her pension?
    And no criminal case?

    Which just makes the right-wing talking heads look like knee-jerking tools of Karl Rove yet again. The only question is how much longer it's going to take them to look in the mirror and recognize that.

    This administration looks more desperate and shrill and ridiculous by the day. Just as McCarthy did by 1954.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Anonymous10:04 AM

    From aj at 9:46AM:

    "I'm guessing that the administration is going to regret this action ... and pretty damn soon."

    That presupposes they can actually feel shame, will issue any kind of retraction or apology, or even admit they gave the wrong information to the public.

    Who here seriously thinks any of these things will happen?

    ReplyDelete
  52. Anonymous10:19 AM

    I never said they would feel shame -- they are going to feel the bite-back from the the base .. just as they did on Harriet Miers.

    You can jerk people around only so far before they start biting the hand that's feeding them the crap.

    As an aside, I would refer you to The Opinionator in the NY Times today -- more biteback on Rumsfeld and the prosecution of the war.

    Once you starting questioning the main dish (Iraq), you get a little more suspicious of what's up for dessert (McCarthy).

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous10:22 AM

    I presuppose nothing regarding any kind of apology.

    I think you misunderstood my use of the word regret -- I simply meant that they were going to wish they hadn't gone down this road.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Anonymous10:30 AM

    Bart Said: All the press and leftwingnut speculation concerning the Plame investigation turned out to be completely wrong.

    Huh? I thought it was an ongoing investigation...

    Bart lives in a wholly other universe where up is down and left is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Anonymous10:42 AM

    From aj at 10:22AM:

    "I simply meant that they were going to wish they hadn't gone down this road."

    Good points all. I must confess I've pretty much written off 'the base' Rove depends upon so heavily, but you never know. I'll be ecstatic if aj proves right about this.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Anonymous10:42 AM

    This is pretty funny. In a parallel universe kind of way. Arlen Specter has an editorial in the Post this morning wherein he laments the fact that the Supreme Court apparently doesn't respective legislative perogatives.

    In my universe, Congress has a lot more to fear from executive encroachment on and indifference to legisative power (ignoring FISA, issuing "signng statements).

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous10:53 AM

    Yankee,

    I know what you mean about writing off the base --for the longest time it has seemed that they will buy anything. But many of them are spoon-fed by the pundits and if the pundits start to turn on Rove and Rummy (as I think they have), I think you chip away at the base. Hence the slow drop to 32%.

    And there is a disconnect here that even the base should be able to read without a map.

    McCarthy is a traitor ... but not going to jail or losing the pension?

    Approximately 1/3 of the "terrorists" at Gitmo are being released (LA Times reports today) with no terrorism charges ever being filed against them?

    Things just aren't adding up .. next thing you know the base will start wondering if only terrorists are being wiretapped.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Anonymous said...

    bart said...Your Dem press breathlessly reported the subject matter of McCarthy's admissions to the CIA before she was fired. This was the basis for all of the hullabaloo here and elsewhere over the past couple days Were the MSM lying...again? This is possible.

    For the purpose of this discussion, could you please just pick one. Is it the "Dem press" or the MSM?

    Those terms are synonymous. However, I do not particularly like the misnomer "main stream media" because their viewpoints and biases are not mainstream, they are left of the majority of the nation. Thus, I try to stick with Dem or Donkey press.

    Rand Beers is a conservative Republican whose party left him. Like Ronald Reagan or even Zell Miller, only better.

    :::snicker:::

    The term you are looking for is RINO. No one who would call themselves conservative would ever work to elect John Kerry, who votes about as far left as you get in the Senate according to the lib interest groups who rate this sort of thing.

    Rand Beers had a public service career spanning 25 years -- all the way back to the Reagan administration

    So what? If he falls within the mainstream of DC bureaucrats, then Beers is left and most likely a Dem. DC has the largest concentration of Dems outside of Berkley.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Anonymous11:16 AM

    Clearly Bart had his tripple espresso this morning.

    At 10:55AM:

    "So what? If he falls within the mainstream of DC bureaucrats, then Beers is left and most likely a Dem. DC has the largest concentration of Dems outside of Berkley."

    You're getting even less coherent than usual, friend. Suddenly every professional civil servant living or working in DC are all leftists and Donkeys? The media isn't 'mainstream', despite the mindlessly even-handed approach its taken to the Bush Administration and its many screw-ups? Senator Kerry's voting record is somewhere to the left of Lenin?

    We'll overlook the small fact you aren't backing any of this up with single citation as proof, as its rather evident there isn't any to be had.

    I think you've had a bit too much caffine this morning. May I suggest a nap to sleep off the edge before you try responding?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Anonymous said...

    Nevermind Bart. Your hastily spun argument just went to hell. Oh wait, is the WaPo part of the vast left wing conspiracy?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/24/AR2006042401601_pf.html

    she was fired ten days before she was to retire. The agency now says she didn't leak any classified information or say anything about the secret prisons.

    We don't know why she was fired now.


    I will assume that you cannot read for content rather than you are outright lying.

    Your article attributes the following statements to the CIA:

    In a statement last Friday, the agency said it had fired one of its officers for having unauthorized conversations with journalists in which the person "knowingly and willfully shared classified intelligence." Intelligence officials subsequently acknowledged that the official was McCarthy and said that Priest is among the journalists with whom she acknowledged sharing information.

    Nowhere in the CIA statement last week was McCarthy accused of leaking information on the prisons, although some news accounts suggested that the CIA had made that claim.


    And nowhere does this statement deny that fact. Unless the Dem media is lying again, I assume that they will stick with their anonymous CIA sources concerning what McCarthy admitted to.

    Where Cobb's account and the CIA's account differed yesterday is on whether McCarthy discussed any classified information with journalists. Intelligence sources said that the inspector general's office was generally aware of a secret prison program but that McCarthy did not have access to specifics, such as prison locations.

    Wow, what a surprise. The defense lawyers is making a case for his client and not reporting the facts as the CIA alleges them.

    Priest won the Pulitzer Prize this month for a series of articles she wrote last year about the intelligence community, including the revelation of the existence of CIA-run prisons in East European countries. The Post withheld the names of the countries at the Bush administration's request, and it attributed the information to current and former intelligence officials from three continents.

    Given that McCarthy leaked to Priest for this article on the prisons, the lawyer is full of crap if he is claiming that this was not the subject matter of the leak.

    This sounds like McCarthy was disclosing general rather than specific information about the prisons to the WP. Sorry, but this could also be a felony crime.

    Let's take a look at the WP spin attempting to legalize McCarthy's disclosure and their's of top secret information.

    Several national security law experts said yesterday that, looking at what has been publicly disclosed so far, prosecutors would have a difficult time building a criminal case against McCarthy. Any information obtained during polygraph examinations is essentially useless to prosecutors, since generally it is inadmissible in criminal courts.

    The prosecution would rest on the admissions and disclosures McCarthy allegedly made before and after the polygraphs.

    In addition, federal espionage laws do not outlaw all disclosures of classified information, at least not specifically. Instead, a collection of separate statutes prohibits unauthorized disclosures of certain categories of information -- such as intercepted communications or codes -- and violations often hinge on important details that are still unclear in the CIA prisons case.

    This is a pipe dream. At minimum, the disclosure would fall under the broad provisions of the Espionage Act and very likely multiple other statutes. Unlike the Plame case, McCarthy does not have a colorable argument that she was ignorant of the classification.

    Thomas S. Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, a nongovernmental research institute at George Washington University, said he does not think the Post article includes the kind of operational details that a prosecutor would need to build a case. "It's the fact of the thing that they're trying to keep secret, not to protect sources and methods, but to hide something controversial," he said. "That seems like a hard prosecution to me."

    Show me the element in the statutes requiring means and methods or excepting "controversial" information.

    Kate Martin, executive director of the Center for National Security Studies, said that "even if the espionage statutes were read to apply to leaks of information, we would say the First Amendment prohibits criminalizing leaks of information which reveal wrongful or illegal activities by the government."

    There is no First Amendment right to reveal classified information to the enemy. There is no illegal activity being classified here. Thus, the First Amendment has no application at all in this area for McCarthy or the press. The press has lost all of their cases making this claim.

    ReplyDelete
  61. yankeependragon said...

    Look at the voting patterns of all the government employees in DC, Maryland and the immediate suburbs in VA. These areas are about as blue as it gets.

    Why is this a surprise to you? The Dems are the party of government. They are the natural representatives of the employees of government.

    As for the press, every single survey of their personal opinions and voting patterns places them well within the ideology of the coastal Dem elites and far to the left of the rest of the nation.

    That doesn't mean that the 10% or so of the press that actually track conservative in their views do not have a voice. Fox News, the WT and a couple other sources are reliably Elephant leaning. However, don't even bother denying the obvious bias of the rest.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Anonymous11:25 AM

    From Bart at 11:17AM:

    "Given that McCarthy leaked to Priest for this article on the prisons, the lawyer is full of crap if he is claiming that this was not the subject matter of the leak."

    I see, so the categorical denial that Ms. McCarthy herself was a source (not even *the* source) on the existence of these black sites - whose number, size, capacity, and geographical location (beyond 'Eastern Europe') have *not* been revealed in any news story - is to be automatically discarded, eh?

    We're you the one who not two days ago conceded this case is still forming and the Presumption of Innocence is still in force in this country?

    Or did all that go out the window when you realized how badly you've been played by your idol?

    ReplyDelete
  63. ewo:

    Do I believe the Chinese Government would do this type of thing? Yes, absolutely.

    That's what happens when "free trade" isn't imbued with the proper philosophy behind the doctrine of laissez-faire capitalism.

    Dissecting live human beings to sell their organs on the international organ market is just another way to rake in the dollars.


    I wouldn't take Falun Gong assertions about this without a big block of salt.

    There isn't enough money to be made in this (compared to real Chinese exports) to be more than a drop in the bucket, and certainly not enough to make it worth whilke as a rational policy given the opprobium that would arise should such a thing be made public. And that's not counting the pure evil that you have to posit in anyone who would even thing of such a thing.

    I will agree that the Falun Gong are repressed in China. One can argue as to whether the Chinese are justified in their apprehensions about this cult; such repression certainly wouldn't be allowed here in the United States with its plethora of cults, and even militias, left to run around. But China has a different culture and different history.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  64. It sounds like Priest had multiple leakers in the CIA. If McCarthy was not the main leaker, then the CIA and Justice may be squeezing her to disclose the other leakers in exchange for immunity or a lesser charge.

    Justice has a great deal of leverage on McCarthy. McCarthy just lost her government salary and her government retirement benefits. If Justice pushed this, McCarthy could easily be disbarred and lose her brand new law license - not to mention face prison.

    It is very likely that McCarthy could be singing like a bird seeing a spring dawn.

    That would be fine by me. I don't give a damn whether she escapes prison if we can shut down this torrent of politically motivated disclosures of classified information to the enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Anonymous11:35 AM

    For the mindless base.

    "A counter-terrorism official acknowledged to NEWSWEEK today that in firing McCarthy, the CIA was not necessarily accusing her of being the principal, original, or sole leaker of any particular story. Intelligence officials privately acknowledge that key news stories about secret agency prison and "rendition" operations have been based, at least in part, upon information available from unclassified sources.

    British freelance journalist Stephen Grey, who published the first detailed revelations of the CIA's secret airline system for transporting terrorist detainees in the London Sunday Times in late 2004, affirmed to NEWSWEEK over the weekend that "almost all" of the information that he assembled regarding the CIA operations came from "unclassified sources." Several news organizations, including NEWSWEEK and The New York Times, reported stories about the CIA's secret transport and detention operations based on airplane flight plan information which originally was assembled by Grey. Other foreign journalists put together early reports about CIA "rendition" operations - in which terror suspects allegedly were transferred by undercover CIA teams to a foreign countries where they were wanted for questioning - by using public record data bases to trace the ownership and history of suspicious private airplanes that were observed at foreign airstrips around the times that local terror suspects allegedly disappeared. Administration critics have described these renditions as the outsourcing of torture."

    ReplyDelete
  66. yankeependragon said...

    From Bart at 11:17AM: "Given that McCarthy leaked to Priest for this article on the prisons, the lawyer is full of crap if he is claiming that this was not the subject matter of the leak."

    I see, so the categorical denial that Ms. McCarthy herself was a source (not even *the* source) on the existence of these black sites - whose number, size, capacity, and geographical location (beyond 'Eastern Europe') have *not* been revealed in any news story - is to be automatically discarded, eh?


    McCarthy has not denied anything. Her lawyer and a Kerry operative have made these denials, which the WP admits are at odds with what the CIA is saying.

    We're you the one who not two days ago conceded this case is still forming and the Presumption of Innocence is still in force in this country?

    I have not changed this view. I conceded that the Dem media may have fabricated these alleged admissions by McCarthy.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Anonymous11:37 AM

    Somebody tell Bart that McCarthy won't be losing her pension (see today's Washington Post).

    Then let him ask why.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Anonymous11:42 AM

    From Bart at 11:25AM:

    "Look at the voting patterns of all the government employees in DC, Maryland and the immediate suburbs in VA. These areas are about as blue as it gets."

    "As for the press, every single survey of their personal opinions and voting patterns places them well within the ideology of the coastal Dem elites and far to the left of the rest of the nation."

    Again, I see no link or reference to which 'surveys' or election results you are referring to. Lots of hyperbole, true, but all of classic right-wing boilerplate and none of it even remotely convincing, if only because it reduces DC professionals and journalists nationwide to the sort of autonoma we often see the Republicans and their supporters behaving like.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Anonymous12:01 PM

    From Bart at 11:17AM:

    "Given that McCarthy leaked to Priest for this article on the prisons, the lawyer is full of crap if he is claiming that this was not the subject matter of the leak."

    My response:

    "I see, so the categorical denial that Ms. McCarthy herself was a source (not even *the* source) on the existence of these black sites - whose number, size, capacity, and geographical location (beyond 'Eastern Europe') have *not* been revealed in any news story - is to be automatically discarded, eh?"

    Bart's response at 11:36AM:

    "McCarthy has not denied anything. Her lawyer and a Kerry operative have made these denials, which the WP admits are at odds with what the CIA is saying."


    First, I didn't say Ms. McCarthy herself issued any denials. Merely that categorical denials have been made stating she isn't the original or even a secondary source on the black sites story. Read the comments with *both* eyes and *both* hemispheres of your brain, will you?

    Second, you state with such absolute certainty what the subject matter was Ms McCarthy and Ms Priest were discussing *must* have been, one has to wonder why you yourself have not be deposed to testify. Unless of course you're just *assuming* the black sites were the crux of their conversations, in which case it would behove you to stop right there before you embarrass yourself further.

    Bart closes with:

    "I conceded that the Dem media may have fabricated these alleged admissions by McCarthy."

    Or they simply reported what was being reported to them by a White House operative or three, the CIA, and any number of second- and third-hand sources. Given how the Beltway media works, that's a bit more credible than presupposing it just makes stuff up to embarrass or undercut the White House (especially when they're doing such a marvellous job of it all on their own!).

    ReplyDelete
  70. HWSNBN emits some verbal efflux:

    If Justice pushed this, McCarthy could easily be disbarred and lose her brand new law license - not to mention face prison.

    Ummm, if lawyers telling lies is enough for disbarment, soumeone ought ot contact the Colorado bar....

    It is very likely that McCarthy could be singing like a bird seeing a spring dawn.

    Not so fast. Priorities, priorities. First we have to indict and convict Wilson and Plame for divulging state secrets and treason.

    Cheers,

    ReplyDelete
  71. yankeependragon said...
    From Bart at 11:25AM:

    Bart: "Look at the voting patterns of all the government employees in DC, Maryland and the immediate suburbs in VA. These areas are about as blue as it gets."

    "As for the press, every single survey of their personal opinions and voting patterns places them well within the ideology of the coastal Dem elites and far to the left of the rest of the nation."

    Again, I see no link or reference to which 'surveys' or election results you are referring to. Lots of hyperbole, true, but all of classic right-wing boilerplate and none of it even remotely convincing, if only because it reduces DC professionals and journalists nationwide to the sort of autonoma we often see the Republicans and their supporters behaving like.


    From the liberal Pew Research Center...

    http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_survey_prc.asp

    Google the DC election results yourself. You won't find many Elephants being elected.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Paul Rosenberg said...

    Bart said...As for the press, every single survey of their personal opinions and voting patterns places them well within the ideology of the coastal Dem elites and far to the left of the rest of the nation.

    That doesn't mean that the 10% or so of the press that actually track conservative in their views do not have a voice. Fox News, the WT and a couple other sources are reliably Elephant leaning. However, don't even bother denying the obvious bias of the rest.

    But I did bother, Bart. I even provided links to articles on studies that had actual numbers to refute your claims.


    You did not provide a single study of the press reporters. Rather, you noted three studies which found that conservatives somewhat outnumber liberals among guests on interviews and talking head shows.

    This is no big surprise. The Elephants are the majority party, hold nearly all the levers of power, and are the decision makers.

    That does not refute my statements above.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Anonymous6:13 PM

    From Bart at 2:41PM:

    http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_survey

    This is a very, very large report, but I'll grant a cursory reading of the journalist surveys section agrees with Bart's contention journalists tend to self-identify themselves as liberal.

    The more relevant question however isn't what journalists identify themselves as, but rather is there a notable bias in how news is provided. For Bart and company, the answer is of course self-evident.

    For the rest of us, who prefer to view evidence *then* come to a conclusion, its more complicated and less-straightforward. I'll have to come back to this at another time.

    As for the DC area's voting patterns, perhaps the GOP should consider fielding some decent candidates and attempt to amend its policies so they're more palatable to the area's population. How hard should *that* be?

    ReplyDelete
  74. yankeependragon:

    I too will leave the many examples of press bias for another blog on the subject...

    The original point is that I am more than justified in identifying a Dem press when it overwhelmingly votes for Dems and is ideologically well within the Dem left wing.

    Whether you believe that this Dem press is biased toward the Dems or is actually objective, it is highly unlikely that they are Elephants in disguise putting out disinformation concerning McCarthy's confessions.

    You could fill a column on most weeks with the lies, fabrications and mistakes of the NYT (and mags like the Weekly Standard do). However, those lies, fabrications and mistakes nearly always come at the expense of the Elephants. They are unlikely to be putting out disinformation concerning McCarthy's confessions to assist a Rovian conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Anonymous7:51 PM

    From Bart at 7:34PM:

    "The original point is that I am more than justified in identifying a Dem press when it overwhelmingly votes for Dems and is ideologically well within the Dem left wing."

    Actually, you aren't justified in identifying anything of the sort.

    Let's be clear: while its true this report asserts journalists often self-identify as 'liberals', I have yet to examine the full methodology involved.

    Its an enormous stretch to claim such self-identification is an automatic determinant of either party affiliation nor voting pattern. For such assertions to be even remotely credible you'd have to reduce key human behavior to little more than Pavlovian responses.

    Sorry, Bart. You can disagree with press coverage all you want, but you'll have to come up with a better reason than that's simply full of 'Dems'.

    Oh, and incidentially, I agree the NYT has tended lately slant their coverage of current affairs more than a tad...into a more 'pro-Bush' angle. Just look at this weekend's coverage of the McCarthy/Black Sites story.

    ReplyDelete
  76. On the evening news, the CIA public affairs officer just slammed the assertions of McCarthy's attorney and the Kerry operative that she did not leak classified information.

    The officer flat out said that the unnamed intelligence agent who was fired admitted to discussing classified information with reporters (plural).

    It would interesting to know who the unnamed CIA sources the WP was using to spin their source McCarthy's criminal culpability.

    ReplyDelete
  77. yankeependragon:

    Pew does these polls of the press fairly regularly and it is always the same result.

    You lefties may be endangered, but you are not extinct. You dominate government employees, academy and the press and have a heavy majority in my profession - the law.

    Why exactly does this upset you?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Anonymous9:24 PM

    From Bart at 8:45PM:

    From Bart at 8:45PM:

    "You lefties may be endangered, but you are not extinct. You dominate government employees, academy and the press and have a heavy majority in my profession - the law."

    I'm a lefty? Odd. I don't recall once mentioning either a party or ideological affiliation in any of my comments here.

    "Why exactly does this upset you?"

    I'm upset? Odd. I don't recall once mentioning feeling even mildly disturbed by the liberal self-identification of journalists.

    Projecting again are we, Bart? You really should see someone for that. Its really not healthy.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Paul Rosenberg said...

    bart said...You did not provide a single study of the press reporters. Rather, you noted three studies which found that conservatives somewhat outnumber liberals among guests on interviews and talking head shows.

    This is no big surprise. The Elephants are the majority party, hold nearly all the levers of power, and are the decision makers.

    That does not refute my statements above.

    I'm terribly sorry, Bart, but having an opinion, holding certain values, or voting for a certain party does not in itself indicate professional bias.


    Please. Everyone is biased based on their values and the actions they take like voting.

    You have to actually prove that there's bias by looking at the work product. Now I know this is rather complicated, and makes your head hurt, which is why you really ought to leave it to the grownups. But the study of what's actually on TV and in the newspapers is the only realistic foundation for determining the existence of any sort of consistent bias. This goes for liberal allegations of bias (due to corporate consolidation, for example) as well conservative allegations.

    That is correct. There is a cottage industry describing the day to day bias of the Dem media.

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/

    http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

    http://newsbusters.org/

    http://www.fightthebias.com/

    This obvious bias is even the subject of academic research...

    http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

    Now, on to Bart's rationalization, to wit: This is no big surprise. The Elephants are the majority party, hold nearly all the levers of power, and are the decision makers.

    Interesting rationalization. If we accept it, then a 50-50 balanced guest list would be objective proof of a leftward bias! If you're a conservative, you've gotta love those odds!


    This is actually a reasonable point which your later CSPAN argument proves...

    As the study of C-SPAN notes, C-SPAn itself recognizes that "balance" means balance. The only problem is, they don't do what they say:

    “Balance is our No. 1 goal,” Peter Slen, Washington Journal’s executive producer and part-time host, told On the Media, adding: “We keep official stats on the Washington Journal, OK? Republicans, Democrats, conservative, liberal, moderates—we try to stay within the week nearly perfect as far as the balance goes.”


    :::heh:::

    CSPAN blocks conservative callers in order to give the much smaller minority of liberal callers an equal amount of calls. Preferences for leftists at its most bald.

    There are just two problems with this rationalization: (1) The premise. (2) The facts.

    The premise is wrong, because it sets the wrong benchmark. The purpose of the media is not to propagandize for power (the implicit assumption saying that those with more power should have more representation.)...One can quite sensibly argue that partisan balance is not an adequate standard, that when one party holds all the power, the press ought to give more voice to those out of power.


    Since when? The purpose of news reporting is to report the news, not to evenly propagandize the population or provide more propaganda for those for whom people do not vote. Those who are in power make the news. If the Dems ever come up with an original idea which goes beyond "Bush stinks," then there might be something to report about the minority party.

    But there is one position one cannot take, consistent with the origins and purpose of First Amendment press freedoms and the journalistic profession

    Have you ever read the First Amendment? Feel free to point out where the First Amendment compels private press organizations to propagandize in favor of the minority party? Funny, I never heard this argument from the left in 1992 when the Dems ran the show...

    This is pathetic whining and has nothing at all to do with the bias of the REPORTERS themselves.

    (2) And now, the facts. While most of the data came from a period of GOP control, the Sunday Talk Show Study compared Clinton's 2nd Term with Bush's first. Even under Clinton, there was "a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left."

    This reflects almost exactly the small majority of Elephant politicians in Congress and the executive at the time. There were two big stories in Clinton's second term, the completion of the Contract with America in 1997 and Clinton's impeachment in 1998. These involved both parties evenly.

    Furthermore, the NPR Study referenced an earlier, study of 1991 programming, when the Dems controlled Congress (both Houses) oppossing Bush Sr. It found that "For analysis, NPR often turned to D.C-based think tanks. Think tanks of the establishment center like the Brookings Institution (11 appearances) and conservatives think tanks like the American Enterprise Institute (eight appearances) were well-represented . Only one group that might be considered left of center (the National Security Archive, with two appearance) was among the 10 think tanks used two or more times. The leading multi-issue think tanks of the left, the Institute for Policy Studies, was never used as a source."

    Well, if you can't beat the data, move the center to the left...

    Brookings is an establishment left think tank of long standing. American Enterprise is a center right think tank. There is not a genuine conservative think tank which led the Republican realignment on that list. The conservative counterpart for a left think tank like National Security Archive would be Heritage.

    I notice there are no solid conservative think tanks on that NPR list. That is interesting since conservative think tanks far outnumber liberal think tanks and have come up with virtually every major policy initiative over the past quarter century. THAT is news and does usually get a great deal of press coverage. That press coverage is usually hostile, but news gets coverage. This is why the Dems have been trying to set up liberal think tanks. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery...

    ReplyDelete
  81. Anonymous9:36 AM

    Paul Rosenberg does an excellent job of setting the record a bit straighter about 'media bias'. The sad truth is that news does get slanted as much to the left as the right; the latter however tends to be more pronounced, damaging and eggregious than the former.

    I'd recommend the Media Matters website for the daily outrages on that score.

    Bart's points (irrelevant to the original discussion, admittedly) are well-taken, but the conclusions he draws are off the proverbial reservation. Yes, voting patterns in DC tend to be 'blue' and yes, journalists surveyed in that report to tend to self-identify as 'liberal'.

    However, drawing any broader conclusions concerning either party affiliation or 'bias' based on these points alone is intellectually lazy and disingenuinous in the extreme. By that line of thinking we can only presume the 'red' states are populated by nothing but religious and ethnic xenophobes, wonton sadists who torture and rape at a whim, and who engage in nothing but chronic graft and corruption.

    Needless to say, anyone with two eyes and a brain recognizes people are more complex than just their voting record (which by the way is NO-ONE'S business) or what convenient-if-undefined label they self-identify with.

    So, again, sorry Bart. If you want to bemoan the quality of the news, you'll have to do better than complaining its because of a perponderence of 'Dems' working there.

    Can we get back to the original subject now?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Paul:

    As I said before:But the study of what's actually on TV and in the newspapers is the only realistic foundation for determining the existence of any sort of consistent bias. This goes for liberal allegations of bias (due to corporate consolidation, for example) as well conservative allegations.

    To which Bart said:That is correct. There is a cottage industry describing the day to day bias of the Dem media.

    http://www.mediaresearch.org/

    http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

    http://newsbusters.org/

    http://www.fightthebias.com/

    Sorry, Bart. The plural of anecdote is not data.


    Of course it is. You need to get your spin straight.

    You claim that the hard left political views and Dem voting of the press only reflects a personal bias which the pressies keep to themselves. Instead, you argue that we should look at their work product.

    I agreed and just gave you a handful of the dozens of websites dedicated to exposing the hundreds of examples press leftist bias.

    One or two examples of bias could be called anecdotes. Hundreds of examples of ongoing bias is unavoidable evidence.

    (MRC often cites statement made not in the media, for example, or cites figures such as Barbara Streisand, who aren't members of the media.)

    When the media offers leftwingnut celebrities as political hard newsmakers on par with the Secretary of State, this is the most egregious example of media bias. You do not see similar coverage for conservative celebrities.

    Bart: This obvious bias is even the subject of academic research...

    http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm

    Oh, yeah, the study which identified the Rand Corporation and the Drudge Report as left-leaning, and the National Rifle Association as centrist. Right...

    It was torn to shreds as soon as it gained prominence:


    The publications to which you cited are amusing given your arguments here. You maintain that the hard left viewpoints and voting of the media should not be used as evidence of their bias. Then you cite articles which attack the conservative credentials of the men who conducted the study as evidence of their bias. Hipocrisy?

    As for your argument that some of the results of their research are wrong because they are counter intuitive, lets take a gander at that list...

    National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a 45.9, making it "conservative" -- but just barely.

    This isn't even counterintuitive. The NRA's views on personal rights to keep and bear firearms enjoy large majority support. They do not speak to any other issue.

    RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research organization (motto: "OBJECTIVE ANALYSIS. EFFECTIVE SOLUTIONS.") with strong ties to the Defense Department, scored a 60.4, making it a "liberal" group.

    To the extent that they take political positions, RAND would be an establishment liberal group like Brookings.

    Council on Foreign Relations, whose tagline is "A Nonpartisan Resource for Information and Analysis" (its current president is a former Bush administration official; its board includes prominent Democrats and Republicans from the foreign policy establishment) scored a 60.2, making it a "liberal" group.

    The Council on Foreign Relations has establishment liberal real politik views and is mostly made up of academics and veterans from Foggy Bottom.

    American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), bĂȘte noire of the right, scored a 49.8, putting it just on the "conservative" side of the ledger.

    Actually, this should upset the Conservatives more than you Libs. This really is not too surprising. ACLU is left on church/state, abortion, criminal justice and racial preferences, but conservatives like myself support virtually everything else they do. They defend a great deal of conservative free speech.

    Center for Responsive Politics, a group whose primary purpose is the maintenance of databases on political contributions, scored a 66.9, making it highly "liberal."

    They support public financing of elections, which is a liberal cause.

    Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a defense policy think tank whose board of directors is currently chaired by former Representative Dave McCurdy (D-OK), scored a 33.9, making it more "conservative" than AEI and than the National Taxpayers Union.

    Being pro military is a solid conservative virtue which you leftists abandoned back in Vietnam. Just take a look at the posts at this blog and I rest my case.

    That was easy. Is this the best you can do?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Anonymous2:25 PM

    From Bart at 11:21AM:

    "Being pro military is a solid conservative virtue which you leftists abandoned back in Vietnam. Just take a look at the posts at this blog and I rest my case."

    Actually your side of the dial has simply become 'pro-war', not pro-military, something the rest of us recognize as an inherently destructive and often worthless enterprise.

    But then most of us are reading these comments more carefully and actually thinking about these issues more clearly.

    ReplyDelete
  84. yankeependragon said...

    From Bart at 11:21AM: "Being pro military is a solid conservative virtue which you leftists abandoned back in Vietnam. Just take a look at the posts at this blog and I rest my case."

    Actually your side of the dial has simply become 'pro-war', not pro-military, something the rest of us recognize as an inherently destructive and often worthless enterprise.


    The mission of the military is to wage war. Contrary to what that weenie Kos wrote recently about what he liked about his own service, the military is not a welfare service meant to get its members in shape, allow them to travel the world and otherwise take care of all their needs.

    The military's job is to kill the enemy and break things until the enemy is eliminated or surrenders.

    Surrendering does not assist the military, instead it betrays the sacrifices these soldiers have made to win the war.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Anonymous6:58 PM

    From Bart at 5:32PM:

    "The mission of the military is to wage war. Contrary to what that weenie Kos wrote recently about what he liked about his own service, the military is not a welfare service meant to get its members in shape, allow them to travel the world and otherwise take care of all their needs.

    "The military's job is to kill the enemy and break things until the enemy is eliminated or surrenders.

    "Surrendering does not assist the military, instead it betrays the sacrifices these soldiers have made to win the war."

    Bravo, bravo. What stirring rhetoric. An overwhelming display of...whatever it was.

    Of course not a single word about *how* the current 'war' will be won, who the enemy is, how they will be recognized, or what the ultimate military objective is or where it resides.

    Just "The mission of the military is to wage war."

    I rest my case.

    ReplyDelete
  86. yankeependragon:

    Of course not a single word about *how* the current 'war' will be won, who the enemy is, how they will be recognized, or what the ultimate military objective is or where it resides

    None of those questions were posed.

    I claimed that supporting the military is a conservative virtue which the Left left behind after Vietnam.

    You responded that conservatives support war and the libs support the troops.

    I slammed the door on that inane argument by pointing out that the troops mission is to wage war and the lefty calls to surrender betray the troops, their mission and the sacrifices they made for that mission.

    Knowing that you were on the losing side of this exchange, you simply posed more questions. That does seem to be your tactic when cornered in an argument.

    As for Iraq, we have already achieved nearly all of our objectives in Iraq and the enemy has been denied his objectives.

    The enemy are Baathists Iraqi and foreign al Qaeda terrorists.

    When the Iraqi government forms in the next 2-3 weeks, our troops will begin to come home having achieved everything they were tasked to do.

    Don't look for Dems to line the streets cheering them as they return home. Expect more denigration of what they accomplished. The difference between conservatives and leftists.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Anonymous8:56 PM

    From Bart at 7:40PM:

    "You responded that conservatives support war and the libs support the troops."

    I now have great empathy with the prophet Iokannan.

    I stated the Right has simply become 'pro-war' while the rest of the world recognizes how wasteful it is.

    *Both* sides in my estimations support the troops, albeit from somewhat different angles: the 'left' wants to keep them as well-equipt as possible, see their medical needs are attended to before, during and after any deployment, and ensure their lives aren't wasted needlessly. By contrast, the 'right' simply wants to see a lot of explosions and feel-good engagements, and to not be bothered with dealing with the aftermath.

    "I slammed the door on that inane argument by pointing out that the troops mission is to wage war and the lefty calls to surrender betray the troops, their mission and the sacrifices they made for that mission."

    You *did* state the argument that the mission of the Army (and presumably the other Service branches) was to "wage war", conveniently ignoring how this immediately begs the question "wage war against who/what/where/to what end?" Far from disproving my argument, you proved it.

    'Lefty calls for surrender' are heard only in your head.

    "Knowing that you were on the losing side of this exchange, you simply posed more questions. That does seem to be your tactic when cornered in an argument."

    Its called 'thinking beyond the talking points'. I recommend you try it sometime.

    "As for Iraq, we have already achieved nearly all of our objectives in Iraq and the enemy has been denied his objectives."

    'Our objectives'? I thought we went in to ensure Iraq didn't have any banned weapons programs running? Or was it because Hussein was an imminent threat to the territorial sovereignty of the US? Or was it because it was *obvious* Hussein's fingerprints were all over 9/11?

    'His objectives'? I thought all the Iraqi people wanted was their country back. Guess we showed them, huh?

    "The enemy are Baathists Iraqi and foreign al Qaeda terrorists."

    You forgot to mention 'Islamofascists', anachists, Lefties, peaceniks, and all those godawful pinkos.

    Wait, were you *serious*? You *still* believe that's who makes up the insurgency? I hope you have something other than the Weekly Standard and freerepublic.com to fall back on.

    "When the Iraqi government forms in the next 2-3 weeks, our troops will begin to come home having achieved everything they were tasked to do."

    And of course we don't *dare* bring them home, lest that new 'government' prove too weak and ineffectual to stop the slide into anachy and chaos, or worse, actually prove capable of actual governance and get *very* unfriendly towards us for tearing Iraq down to the bedrock.

    You honestly buy that 'bringing democracy to the Middle East' dross, don't you?

    "Don't look for Dems to line the streets cheering them as they return home. Expect more denigration of what they accomplished. The difference between conservatives and leftists."

    I quite agree. The leftists recognize they served with valor and will work to make sure they receive their just due and respect. The conservatives will demean them for 'loosing' Iraq when Baghdad takes over and the country descends into full-blown civil war.

    Its called 'thinking beyond the talking points', Bart. At this point I have to wonder if you're even capable of it.

    ReplyDelete