Clodia, agreed, probably fake, but I clicked on the link and read. Was struck by the statement,
there could be little doubt about the urgent and complicated task Mr. Kerry faced: to convince the nation's voters that he could match Mr. Bush's credentials as a wartime president
What credentials?
Posted by Gurlll at July 29, 2004 10:33 PM
It's satire. We thought you'd get that from the url not being nytimes.com.
On the serious side, it was reported in The New Republic, a while back, that there was pressure from the Bush Administration for the Pakistan goverment to capture 'high value targets'(HVT) in time for the November election and even for an announcement of a capture while the Democratic convention was taking place.
It IS fake ya dorks! The URL reads: 'newyorktimesfaux'
Posted by kitt at July 30, 2004 12:06 AM
Could this be it?
[From The Detroit Free Press]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan has arrested Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Al Qaeda suspect wanted by the United States in the dual 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the interior minister said Friday.
Good thought experiment -- if Osama is captured, first of all, that's a triple-deck banner.
Now, if he's caught outside of a week before the election, there may be a lot of exhaling going on, and an tidal inclination to fix our economic house (and if so, no advantage Bush). If captured within 72 hours of Nov. 2, Bush wins. That'd be no mean feat, of course, since not even the Pakistanis control their own tribal lands.
Posted by jon at July 30, 2004 12:32 AM
"It IS fake ya dorks! The URL reads: 'newyorktimesfaux'"
Kitt the very first post pointed this out. Duh...
Posted by at July 30, 2004 07:27 AM
They could capture Osama anytime they want. He is a panelist on the McLaughlin Group, after all.
Pat: Gay marriage, promiscuity, illegal immigration, godlessness, liberalism... these things are destroying this country.
Osama: Patrick, for an infidel you have many good ideas.
It's not a matter of somehow capturing Osama aroudn election time. It's a matter of holding him till then. He's probably sitting in some remote Pakistani holding cell as we speak.
Posted by BUSH AWOL at July 30, 2004 09:15 AM
from (_____) : "Kitt the very first post pointed this out. Duh...
Well! At least I have a name....Duh....
......otherwise, good point.
Posted by Kitt at July 30, 2004 09:30 AM
Boy, if we can imagine new terrible things that Bush might possibly do, we can hate him even more!!!
Boy, you guys sound like the LaRouche wackos, or the right-wing looneys who thought Eisenhower was a communist.
Posted by Demohypocrates at July 30, 2004 09:45 AM
Demo, do you think The New Republic is run by wackos?
One of the authors of the article was on Democracy Now today, and he stated that the capture of the guy who was wanted for the embassy bombings shouldn't have been announced for a long time, because now all the terrorists he's been associated with know that they've been comprimised.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 30, 2004 10:36 AM
You have piqued my curiousity DA
Posted by Demohypocrates at July 30, 2004 11:57 AM
Dark - No matter that OBL's capture would be a huge win for our side, you folks are pulling that it not happen.
Wow.
Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at July 30, 2004 08:20 PM
Actually, I got the impression Da was referring to the possibility of the Bush admin. loosing a chance to catch that bastard because they released information for political gain. Not saying it's true, but that would be a disgrace, I'm sure you would garee.
Posted by kdog at July 30, 2004 10:20 PM
Thanks, kdog. The comments below are an expansion on your suggested subject.
Nice try, card remora, but the subject is the capture of enemy terrorists and the mal-Administration's reliance on news of the same for political purposes, not whether I would like OBL to still be on the loose for political purposes.
If OBL were caught alive, the morale boost from the news of his capture would outweigh the operational problems generated by his associates changing their methods and tactics that would certainly happen after his perp walk was disseminated world-wide on CNN, Al-Jazeera(sp?), etc. Even Kerry losing the Presidency would be a small price to pay, IMHO.
Here's what John Judis, one of the authors of the "July Surprise" article had to say about the subject:
"Well, the latest development pretty much confirms what we wrote in the article, which is that there was pressure to have, for Pakistan to produce a high-value target during the last 10 days of July and to announce that arrest. What our source said to us was it would be best if the arrest or killing of any high-value target were announced on 26, 27 or 28 of July which is the first three days of the convention. So it was announced on the fourth day. The question is why then? Already, there's some questions that I have seen raised from intelligence officials here because you have two, basically two possibilities. One is that they held the guy for several days before making the announcement on Thursday. So why, after having captured him on Sunday did they announce it then? But you have an even more interesting question raised of why they announced it at all.Because when you have somebody who's been in hiding since 1998, they have an enormous amount of information and contacts. By announcing this guy's arrest, what you do is you warn off everybody who's been associated with him from the last five or six years. You tell them that they better get their act together or they are going to be found. So, there's some, really a lot of questions of why they announced this thing when they did."(Emphasis mine)
That's what I'm talking about. By not keeping the arrest under wraps for strategic reasons, this arrest may not help the war on Al-Qaeda as much as it seems on first glance.
et al - I have no idea if Pakistan was/is pressured, and neither do you, or the writer.
I have no idea if the annoucement was made before all of the strategic value of whatever information he may have had was utilized. And neither do you or the writer.
One thing I do know. If this bad guy has been paying attention at all, then the first thing he said was, "Read me my rights and I want a lawyer. And no nonsense about dogs. I know better."
You should understand. You can't condemn bad treatment, have the government pledge to not hurt a hair on their heads,and then expect the terrorists to be frightened enough when they are captured to provide any useful information. It just works that way.
Posted by Poker Player (aka) at July 31, 2004 07:50 AM
I have no idea if Pakistan was/is pressured, and neither do you, or the writer.
Yes, let's ignore the fact that what they wrote about came true. Just put your hands over your ears and go hmmmm
Got any links for your assertion, btw?
As for getting off topic about the treatment of prisoners, I'm sorry to say that I'm pragmatic about it.
I'm against torturing them because torture is ineffective.
Ever hear of "The Stockholm Syndrome?"
"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" applies to the intelligence game, as in many other facets of life.
I welcome your responses, as the next one will probably become even more off topic and irrelevant than your last one.
If you were paid to post here by the DNC, I would write them a check towards your upkeep.
At ease, soldier, you've done enough for your country today.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 31, 2004 10:11 AM
Dark - Glad to know you are now an expert on questioning captured terrorists. Maybe you can zip down to Gitmo and give them a hand.
As for "coming true," so what? You still don't know. And you will not. Speculation married to paranoia makes an interesting mixture.
BTW - Can you tell us one more time about GHWB flying to Paris to insure the embassy folks didn't get released until after the election. That is one of my favorite fairy tales.
Let us face the music and sing.
"Anything Bush does is wrong. That is our lovely song. Kerry may flip, but he's always so hip. Anything Bush does is wrong. That is our lovely song."
"At ease, soldier, you've done enough for your country today."
Yes, dear Dark. Once upon a time I did my share. I forget. Did you serve?
Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at July 31, 2004 02:22 PM
PPJ - Is selling weapons and hardware to our sworn enemies the Iranians one of your"favorite fairy tales"too ? Only treasonous if democrats did it - right?
Posted by jondee at July 31, 2004 02:49 PM
Glad to know you are now an expert on questioning captured terrorists
I do know what an Air Force Intelligence officer told me about interrigation techniques, and how they don't put pressure on the suspect in order to get him to cooperate.
Was he an "America-hating liberal"?
The techniques work on anyone, whether or not they are terrorists, Americans, etc.
As for "coming true," so what? You still don't know. And you will not. Speculation married to paranoia makes an interesting mixture.
The article wasn't speculation, it was based on research and interviews with those in the Pakistan goverment.(This is the second time I've had to tell you this. Do you think I'm lying? Do you have any reasons or links to demonstrate that the authors made their story up out of whole cloth, ala Jayson Blair?) It actually didn't predict that the capture of the guy behind the 1998 bombings would happen, but it stated that the aWol malAdminstration was putting pressure on the Pakis to come up with a HVT and that it wanted the release to be announced at specific times or events. If you read the article in question(I posted a link above, btw) you would know that your characterization of the article as a mixture of speculation and paranoia is totally wrong.
I suggest that if you wish to appear rational, you should acquaint yourself with the subject at hand, instead of blindly typing what you wish to be true.
I happen to subscribe to The New Republic, and in all honesty, I accepted the article as reasonable reporting, without expecting the kind of event it said that the Admin. wanted to happen this week did in fact take place, only a day later than the dates mentioned in the article.
If you go to the nearest library that has a TNR subscription, you will find that the article was in print before the Demo Convention, let alone the news of the HVT capture. You don't have to take my word for it, you can let reality be your guide(if you dare).
Anyway, I can use my secret psychic powers to predict that the card remora
will not read the article, will continue to mis-characterize what the authors wrote, and will continue to drag another red herring non-germaine to the discussion at hand(as he did when he posted about prisoner treatment and the "October Surprise-GWHB link") in order to cloud the issue further.
Did you serve?
Whether I did or not doesn't have any relationship to the truth or falsity of what I write.
I was referring to your current enlistment in the 102nd Keyboard posters brigade, and the tactics you employ which undermind the side you purport to be on.
Thanks for playing, you're helping Kerry as much as a 1000$ donation to his campaign would.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 31, 2004 03:46 PM
jondee - You are rambling and dithering. Got a charge or point? I'm all eyes.
Dark - "I do know what an Air Force Intelligence officer told me about interrigation techniques, and how they don't put pressure on the suspect in order to get him to cooperate.
Was he an "America-hating liberal"?"
I don't know what he was, who he was, or if he knew what he was talking about. Having gone through EE training, I can tell you that being kept in the unknown as to what will happen is one of the most effective techniques. We have now removed one of those techniques.
As to how the authors did their story, I don't know. Neither do you. Where their sources accurate? Did their sources have an internal axe to grind? You don't know. I don't know. I doubt the authors know.
The spec and paranoia comment was meant for you, not the authors.
"Whether I did or not doesn't have any relationship to the truth or falsity of what I write."
That's what Kerry said when it suited his purpose.
But my point was not to the accuracy, or lack of, your comments, but to the snide remark you made. And the facts are, I served. You didn't. Thus you will never know or understand the military except by what you read or what you are told.
Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at July 31, 2004 06:55 PM
As to how the authors did their story, I don't know.
If you read the story, you'd know more about that then you do now.
If you mean that you don't know how they communicated with their sources, who said what, etc., well, duh! That's true about most stories in the media. And your point is?
Neither do you.
I know what they wrote, and we could discuss it if you could bring yourself to read it as well.
Were their sources accurate?(Ed)
Seeing as the circumstances of the announcement of the capture of the HVT
matches what they wrote(not 100%, admittedly, but somewhere between 89-90%, IMHO), it would seem so.
Did their sources have an internal axe to grind? You don't know. I don't know.I doubt the authors know.
True enough as to the first three points, but can you cite anything specific to justify your last point?(Past performance,a history of writing stories later proven to be false, etc.)
The story was multi-sourced(see below and in the article), and the authors are experienced political reporters,so it's likely that they did what they could to keep any ax-grinding to a minimum.
Here's an excerpt from the article that demonstrates the points I've made so far:
"A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston."
Do you believe that it's only a coincidence that what they wrote about has just about taken place?(That's why I gave it a less than 100% accuracy rating)
Furthermore, there is a good reason that the sources aren't identified:
(These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)
Finally, I've been reading TNR for a number of years, and I've come to expect that the writers are accurate in what they write about, especially those who wrote this particular column.
Since you can't make the same claim, oh, well. But as my old genetics teacher used to say, I would bet you garbage to doornails that 99.44% of TNR readers would agree with me on this point.
If you refuse to read the story, no one can make you do so, and you increase the difficulty in having a rational discussion, since your objections to it aren't based in any particulars located in the story in question(or particulars about any of the authors), but instead are of an almost Humean nature, which could be applied to any story in the media where the sources aren't on record.
"Carry on, my wayward son......."
The spec and paranoia comment was meant for you, not the authors
I ignored your snarky remark the first time, but then you wrote the following:
But my point was not to the accuracy, or lack of, your comments, but to the snide remark you made.
It seems that the following is true:
You can be snarky and snide to everyone you disagree with, but to turn it on you is an act of
lèse-majesté.
Facinating.
And the facts are, I served.
That is a fact.
You didn't
Unless you have my life history in front of you, you don't know that for an absolute fact.
Unless you could include some personal data about me in your next post to show that you know my personal history, what you say you know about me is only speculation, which you seem to thrive on when it suits your purposes.
The old chestnut, "You don't know what it's like until you've been there" would mean, for example that John Keegan, a respected military historian in England, couldn't be relied upon, as he never served in a combat position, and thus has no first-hand knowledge of the subject of which he has written many fine articles and books.
If carried to its' logical conclusion, men couldn't practice OB/GYN, no woman could have a urology practice than included treating men, and no psychiatrist could treat anyone with a significant mental disorder unless they've had a personal bout with it themselves.
Oh, thanks for making this a reality:
Anyway, I can use my secret psychic powers to predict that the card remora
will not read the article, will continue to mis-characterize what the authors wrote, and will continue to drag another red herring non-germaine to the discussion at hand(as he did when he posted about prisoner treatment and the "October Surprise-GWHB link") in order to cloud the issue further.
Just saying.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 31, 2004 09:18 PM
HAHA, although i saw the 'if,' when i went to the site it scared the shit out of me. i thought bin laden really was captured and nobody told me. wow, that was crazy.
Posted by josh at July 31, 2004 10:27 PM
PPJ -"Rambling and dithering"- Sounds almost pleasant - kind of like a Cole Porter song. But how is a short two sentences apropos to a cushy,covert relationship with an enemy of the U.S rambling and dithering other than that you wont adress the implications?
Posted by jondee at July 31, 2004 11:02 PM
Post a comment
HTML Tags:
<b>Bold</b> = Bold
<i>Italics</i> = Italics
<a href="http://www.url.com">linked text</a> = Linked text
looks fake....just go to the main address....
Posted by clodia at July 29, 2004 10:26 PMyup, it sure looks like a fake.
Posted by mwb at July 29, 2004 10:31 PMClodia, agreed, probably fake, but I clicked on the link and read. Was struck by the statement,
What credentials? Posted by Gurlll at July 29, 2004 10:33 PMIt's satire. We thought you'd get that from the url not being nytimes.com.
Posted by TalkLeft at July 29, 2004 10:36 PMWOT
Posted by Che's Lounge at July 29, 2004 10:57 PMOn the serious side, it was reported in The New Republic, a while back, that there was pressure from the Bush Administration for the Pakistan goverment to capture 'high value targets'(HVT) in time for the November election and even for an announcement of a capture while the Democratic convention was taking place.
The article can be found here.
An interesting coincidence,eh?
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 29, 2004 11:44 PMIt IS fake ya dorks! The URL reads: 'newyorktimesfaux'
Posted by kitt at July 30, 2004 12:06 AMCould this be it?
Posted by BZ at July 30, 2004 12:24 AM[From The Detroit Free Press]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan -- Pakistan has arrested Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian Al Qaeda suspect wanted by the United States in the dual 1998 bombings at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the interior minister said Friday.
Good thought experiment -- if Osama is captured, first of all, that's a triple-deck banner.
Now, if he's caught outside of a week before the election, there may be a lot of exhaling going on, and an tidal inclination to fix our economic house (and if so, no advantage Bush). If captured within 72 hours of Nov. 2, Bush wins. That'd be no mean feat, of course, since not even the Pakistanis control their own tribal lands.
Posted by jon at July 30, 2004 12:32 AM"It IS fake ya dorks! The URL reads: 'newyorktimesfaux'"
Kitt the very first post pointed this out. Duh...
Posted by at July 30, 2004 07:27 AMThey could capture Osama anytime they want. He is a panelist on the McLaughlin Group, after all.
Pat: Gay marriage, promiscuity, illegal immigration, godlessness, liberalism... these things are destroying this country.
Osama: Patrick, for an infidel you have many good ideas.
Posted by David at July 30, 2004 07:59 AMIt's not a matter of somehow capturing Osama aroudn election time. It's a matter of holding him till then. He's probably sitting in some remote Pakistani holding cell as we speak.
Posted by BUSH AWOL at July 30, 2004 09:15 AMfrom (_____) : "Kitt the very first post pointed this out. Duh...
Well! At least I have a name....Duh....
......otherwise, good point.
Posted by Kitt at July 30, 2004 09:30 AMBoy, if we can imagine new terrible things that Bush might possibly do, we can hate him even more!!!
Boy, you guys sound like the LaRouche wackos, or the right-wing looneys who thought Eisenhower was a communist.
Posted by Demohypocrates at July 30, 2004 09:45 AMDemo, do you think The New Republic is run by wackos?
One of the authors of the article was on Democracy Now today, and he stated that the capture of the guy who was wanted for the embassy bombings shouldn't have been announced for a long time, because now all the terrorists he's been associated with know that they've been comprimised.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 30, 2004 10:36 AMYou have piqued my curiousity DA
Posted by Demohypocrates at July 30, 2004 11:57 AMDark - No matter that OBL's capture would be a huge win for our side, you folks are pulling that it not happen.
Wow.
Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at July 30, 2004 08:20 PMActually, I got the impression Da was referring to the possibility of the Bush admin. loosing a chance to catch that bastard because they released information for political gain. Not saying it's true, but that would be a disgrace, I'm sure you would garee.
Posted by kdog at July 30, 2004 10:20 PMThanks, kdog. The comments below are an expansion on your suggested subject.
Nice try, card remora, but the subject is the capture of enemy terrorists and the mal-Administration's reliance on news of the same for political purposes, not whether I would like OBL to still be on the loose for political purposes.
If OBL were caught alive, the morale boost from the news of his capture would outweigh the operational problems generated by his associates changing their methods and tactics that would certainly happen after his perp walk was disseminated world-wide on CNN, Al-Jazeera(sp?), etc. Even Kerry losing the Presidency would be a small price to pay, IMHO.
Here's what John Judis, one of the authors of the "July Surprise" article had to say about the subject:
"Well, the latest development pretty much confirms what we wrote in the article, which is that there was pressure to have, for Pakistan to produce a high-value target during the last 10 days of July and to announce that arrest. What our source said to us was it would be best if the arrest or killing of any high-value target were announced on 26, 27 or 28 of July which is the first three days of the convention. So it was announced on the fourth day. The question is why then? Already, there's some questions that I have seen raised from intelligence officials here because you have two, basically two possibilities. One is that they held the guy for several days before making the announcement on Thursday. So why, after having captured him on Sunday did they announce it then? But you have an even more interesting question raised of why they announced it at all. Because when you have somebody who's been in hiding since 1998, they have an enormous amount of information and contacts. By announcing this guy's arrest, what you do is you warn off everybody who's been associated with him from the last five or six years. You tell them that they better get their act together or they are going to be found. So, there's some, really a lot of questions of why they announced this thing when they did."(Emphasis mine)
That's what I'm talking about. By not keeping the arrest under wraps for strategic reasons, this arrest may not help the war on Al-Qaeda as much as it seems on first glance.
The whole interview can be found here
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 30, 2004 10:55 PMet al - I have no idea if Pakistan was/is pressured, and neither do you, or the writer.
I have no idea if the annoucement was made before all of the strategic value of whatever information he may have had was utilized. And neither do you or the writer.
One thing I do know. If this bad guy has been paying attention at all, then the first thing he said was, "Read me my rights and I want a lawyer. And no nonsense about dogs. I know better."
You should understand. You can't condemn bad treatment, have the government pledge to not hurt a hair on their heads,and then expect the terrorists to be frightened enough when they are captured to provide any useful information. It just works that way.
Posted by Poker Player (aka) at July 31, 2004 07:50 AMI have no idea if Pakistan was/is pressured, and neither do you, or the writer.
Yes, let's ignore the fact that what they wrote about came true. Just put your hands over your ears and go hmmmm
Got any links for your assertion, btw?
As for getting off topic about the treatment of prisoners, I'm sorry to say that I'm pragmatic about it.
I'm against torturing them because torture is ineffective.
Ever hear of "The Stockholm Syndrome?"
"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" applies to the intelligence game, as in many other facets of life.
I welcome your responses, as the next one will probably become even more off topic and irrelevant than your last one.
If you were paid to post here by the DNC, I would write them a check towards your upkeep.
At ease, soldier, you've done enough for your country today.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 31, 2004 10:11 AMDark - Glad to know you are now an expert on questioning captured terrorists. Maybe you can zip down to Gitmo and give them a hand.
As for "coming true," so what? You still don't know. And you will not. Speculation married to paranoia makes an interesting mixture.
BTW - Can you tell us one more time about GHWB flying to Paris to insure the embassy folks didn't get released until after the election. That is one of my favorite fairy tales.
Let us face the music and sing.
"Anything Bush does is wrong. That is our lovely song. Kerry may flip, but he's always so hip. Anything Bush does is wrong. That is our lovely song."
"At ease, soldier, you've done enough for your country today."
Yes, dear Dark. Once upon a time I did my share. I forget. Did you serve?
Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at July 31, 2004 02:22 PMPPJ - Is selling weapons and hardware to our sworn enemies the Iranians one of your"favorite fairy tales"too ? Only treasonous if democrats did it - right?
Posted by jondee at July 31, 2004 02:49 PMGlad to know you are now an expert on questioning captured terrorists
I do know what an Air Force Intelligence officer told me about interrigation techniques, and how they don't put pressure on the suspect in order to get him to cooperate.
Was he an "America-hating liberal"?
The techniques work on anyone, whether or not they are terrorists, Americans, etc.
As for "coming true," so what? You still don't know. And you will not. Speculation married to paranoia makes an interesting mixture.
The article wasn't speculation, it was based on research and interviews with those in the Pakistan goverment.(This is the second time I've had to tell you this. Do you think I'm lying? Do you have any reasons or links to demonstrate that the authors made their story up out of whole cloth, ala Jayson Blair?) It actually didn't predict that the capture of the guy behind the 1998 bombings would happen, but it stated that the aWol malAdminstration was putting pressure on the Pakis to come up with a HVT and that it wanted the release to be announced at specific times or events. If you read the article in question(I posted a link above, btw) you would know that your characterization of the article as a mixture of speculation and paranoia is totally wrong.
I suggest that if you wish to appear rational, you should acquaint yourself with the subject at hand, instead of blindly typing what you wish to be true.
I happen to subscribe to The New Republic, and in all honesty, I accepted the article as reasonable reporting, without expecting the kind of event it said that the Admin. wanted to happen this week did in fact take place, only a day later than the dates mentioned in the article.
If you go to the nearest library that has a TNR subscription, you will find that the article was in print before the Demo Convention, let alone the news of the HVT capture. You don't have to take my word for it, you can let reality be your guide(if you dare).
Anyway, I can use my secret psychic powers to predict that the card remora
will not read the article, will continue to mis-characterize what the authors wrote, and will continue to drag another red herring non-germaine to the discussion at hand(as he did when he posted about prisoner treatment and the "October Surprise-GWHB link") in order to cloud the issue further.
Did you serve?
Whether I did or not doesn't have any relationship to the truth or falsity of what I write.
I was referring to your current enlistment in the 102nd Keyboard posters brigade, and the tactics you employ which undermind the side you purport to be on.
Thanks for playing, you're helping Kerry as much as a 1000$ donation to his campaign would.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 31, 2004 03:46 PMjondee - You are rambling and dithering. Got a charge or point? I'm all eyes.
Dark - "I do know what an Air Force Intelligence officer told me about interrigation techniques, and how they don't put pressure on the suspect in order to get him to cooperate.
Was he an "America-hating liberal"?"
I don't know what he was, who he was, or if he knew what he was talking about. Having gone through EE training, I can tell you that being kept in the unknown as to what will happen is one of the most effective techniques. We have now removed one of those techniques.
As to how the authors did their story, I don't know. Neither do you. Where their sources accurate? Did their sources have an internal axe to grind? You don't know. I don't know. I doubt the authors know.
The spec and paranoia comment was meant for you, not the authors.
"Whether I did or not doesn't have any relationship to the truth or falsity of what I write."
That's what Kerry said when it suited his purpose.
But my point was not to the accuracy, or lack of, your comments, but to the snide remark you made. And the facts are, I served. You didn't. Thus you will never know or understand the military except by what you read or what you are told.
Posted by Poker Player (aka Jim) at July 31, 2004 06:55 PMAs to how the authors did their story, I don't know.
If you read the story, you'd know more about that then you do now.
If you mean that you don't know how they communicated with their sources, who said what, etc., well, duh! That's true about most stories in the media. And your point is?
Neither do you.
I know what they wrote, and we could discuss it if you could bring yourself to read it as well.
Were their sources accurate?(Ed)
Seeing as the circumstances of the announcement of the capture of the HVT
matches what they wrote(not 100%, admittedly, but somewhere between 89-90%, IMHO), it would seem so.
Did their sources have an internal axe to grind? You don't know. I don't know.I doubt the authors know.
True enough as to the first three points, but can you cite anything specific to justify your last point?(Past performance,a history of writing stories later proven to be false, etc.)
The story was multi-sourced(see below and in the article), and the authors are experienced political reporters,so it's likely that they did what they could to keep any ax-grinding to a minimum.
Here's an excerpt from the article that demonstrates the points I've made so far:
"A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston."
Do you believe that it's only a coincidence that what they wrote about has just about taken place?(That's why I gave it a less than 100% accuracy rating)
Furthermore, there is a good reason that the sources aren't identified:
(These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)
Finally, I've been reading TNR for a number of years, and I've come to expect that the writers are accurate in what they write about, especially those who wrote this particular column.
Since you can't make the same claim, oh, well. But as my old genetics teacher used to say, I would bet you garbage to doornails that 99.44% of TNR readers would agree with me on this point.
If you refuse to read the story, no one can make you do so, and you increase the difficulty in having a rational discussion, since your objections to it aren't based in any particulars located in the story in question(or particulars about any of the authors), but instead are of an almost Humean nature, which could be applied to any story in the media where the sources aren't on record.
"Carry on, my wayward son......."
The spec and paranoia comment was meant for you, not the authors
I ignored your snarky remark the first time, but then you wrote the following:
But my point was not to the accuracy, or lack of, your comments, but to the snide remark you made.
It seems that the following is true:
You can be snarky and snide to everyone you disagree with, but to turn it on you is an act of
lèse-majesté.
Facinating.
And the facts are, I served.
That is a fact.
You didn't
Unless you have my life history in front of you, you don't know that for an absolute fact.
Unless you could include some personal data about me in your next post to show that you know my personal history, what you say you know about me is only speculation, which you seem to thrive on when it suits your purposes.
The old chestnut, "You don't know what it's like until you've been there" would mean, for example that John Keegan, a respected military historian in England, couldn't be relied upon, as he never served in a combat position, and thus has no first-hand knowledge of the subject of which he has written many fine articles and books.
If carried to its' logical conclusion, men couldn't practice OB/GYN, no woman could have a urology practice than included treating men, and no psychiatrist could treat anyone with a significant mental disorder unless they've had a personal bout with it themselves.
Oh, thanks for making this a reality:
Anyway, I can use my secret psychic powers to predict that the card remora
will not read the article, will continue to mis-characterize what the authors wrote, and will continue to drag another red herring non-germaine to the discussion at hand(as he did when he posted about prisoner treatment and the "October Surprise-GWHB link") in order to cloud the issue further.
Just saying.
Posted by Dark Avenger at July 31, 2004 09:18 PMHAHA, although i saw the 'if,' when i went to the site it scared the shit out of me. i thought bin laden really was captured and nobody told me. wow, that was crazy.
Posted by josh at July 31, 2004 10:27 PMPPJ -"Rambling and dithering"- Sounds almost pleasant - kind of like a Cole Porter song. But how is a short two sentences apropos to a cushy,covert relationship with an enemy of the U.S rambling and dithering other than that you wont adress the implications?
Posted by jondee at July 31, 2004 11:02 PM<b>Bold</b> = Bold
<i>Italics</i> = Italics
<a href="http://www.url.com">linked text</a> = Linked text
Please Only Click The "Post" Button One Time