From: Digestifier To: Subject: Dead-Flames Digest #628 Dead-Flames Digest #628, Volume #48 Fri, 21 Oct 05 09:00:02 PDT Contents: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) ("Ray") Re: What is a good "B" rated movie? ("Everybody's Gonna Be Happy") Re: Clapton/Trucks Tour? ("Cosmic Bob") ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: "Ray" Subject: Re: White House Indictment vigil(NDC) Date: 21 Oct 2005 08:39:14 -0700 Carlisle wrote: > Ray wrote: > > Carlisle wrote: > > > Ray wrote: > > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > Ray wrote: > > > > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > > > Carlisle wrote: > > > > > > > > Ray wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id= =3D110007424 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Good link. Regardless of your political perspective, the Wa= ll Street > > > > > > > > Journal is a great newspaper. The Weekend & Personal Journa= ls are worth > > > > > > > > their weight in gold. Even the pro-business Opinion section= offers > > > > > > > > differing and informative perspectives. I learned alot abou= t economics > > > > > > > > from Robert Bartley himself. The WSJ makes a good counterba= lance to > > > > > > > > most city papers. Although, it will probably dwarf most oth= er news in > > > > > > > > the quality, intelligence and content departments. Food for= thought > > > > > > > > anyway!! > > > > > > > > > > > > The WSJ's regular coverage is generally great - a high quality = paper. > > > > > > Their newspaper editorials are ridiculously conservatively bias= ed > > > > > > however - to the point that they are often either willfully dis= tort the > > > > > > truth or they don't know what they are talking about. Or, as t= he New > > > > > > Republic amusingly put it, WSJ editorials are so extreme that t= hey have > > > > > > "the occasional capacity to rise above the routine moral callou= sness of > > > > > > hack conservative punditry and attain a level of exquisite depr= avity > > > > > > normally reserved for villains in James Bond movies." But agai= n their > > > > > > general, non-editorial coverage is first-rate. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll let you in on another secret for good material- > > > > > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/ > > > > > > > NR is against the drug war and is not as pro-business as the = WSJ. > > > > > > > However, the magazine has a deep regard for the Roman Catholic > > > > > > > traditions a la the Buckley family. Still it's very entertain= ing, > > > > > > > erudite and suprisingly unorthodox in politics. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry - can't go with you there. The National Review is a righ= t-wing > > > > > > rag that routinely grossly distorts the truth, knowingly, becau= se they > > > > > > don't know what they are talking about, and/or because they are= so > > > > > > blinded by their ideology that they don't even realize how dist= orted > > > > > > their coverage is. It's like reading a collection of WSJ edito= rials. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > > > > > You're obviously a very learned man, Ray. But to call NR a rag ma= y be > > > > > taking it a bit too far...You just don't happen to agree with mos= t of > > > > > what they are saying. > > > > > > > > No, the National Review is a rag. And it's not because I don't usu= ally > > > > agree with what they are saying, or just because they've declared R= ush > > > > Limbaugh to be the 'leader' of the conservative cause. It's becaus= e, > > > > like Limbaugh, much of what they say is flat-out wrong or deceptive= - > > > > they are not a reliable source of information. Here's an example: > > > > > > > > The National Review, in their ongoing effort to smear White House > > > > critic Joe Wilson, ran a 2004 article accusing Wilson of lying in h= is > > > > now-famous 2003 NYTimes article questioning the Administration's > > > > rational for going to war. Per the National Review: > > > > > > > > "But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV - he of the Hermes ties and > > > > Jaguar convertibles - has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's > > > > bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it i= s he > > > > who has been telling lies." > > > > > > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp > > > > > > > > This declaration is itself a gross distorion - the "bipartisan Sena= te > > > > intelligence committee report" concluded no such thing. Only the > > > > Republicans on the committee declared as much - the Democrats on the > > > > committee refused to endorse that conclusion. > > > > > > > > The NR article continues: > > > > > > > > "In particular he [Wilson] said that President Bush was lying when,= in > > > > his 2003 > > > > State of the Union address, he pronounced these words: "The British > > > > government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought signific= ant > > > > quantities of uranium from Africa." > > > > > > > > This too is false: in his 2003 NYTimes op-ed piece Wilson did not s= ay > > > > that Bush was lying when he used those "16 words" in his 2003 SOTU > > > > address. > > > > > > > > The National Review is lying, and it's such a flagrant lie that eve= n I > > > > am amazed at their audacity and blatent disregard for the truth her= e - > > > > especially given the irony that this article of theirs is an attemp= t at > > > > character assassination where they are trying to impugn someone els= e as > > > > a liar. > > > > > > > > But hey, all's fair in love and politics, right? ### > > > > > > > > Disgusting. The National Review is indeed a rag. > > > > > > > > > Some people would claim that OpinionJournal.com > > > > > is too biased conservative, but you've used them for quotes to fu= rther > > > > > your arguments. > > > > > > > > OpinionJournal.com is not the same thing as WJS editorials - > > > > OpinionJournal.com has a much wider range of voices than just the > > > > notoriously right-wing WSJ editors. > > > > > > > > > You may get some good material from NR sometime. I'm > > > > > not being factitious. Check this out-- > > > > > http://www.nationalreview.com/12feb96/drug.html > > > > > > > > *Sometimes* - sure. Even a clock is right twice a day, as they say. > > > > But in general they are unreliable as a source of information. > > > > > > > > Ray > > > > > > OK Professor, you site an example where NR stumbled. > > > > I could cite several more too - the National Review 'stumbles' (read: > > lies) on a regular basis. And my what a coincidence that the NR > > routinely 'stumbles' in such a way as to advance what is generally a > > right-wing agenda. > > So site some more. ;> Sure - I'll cite another citation. National Review contributing editor Donald Luskin is obsessed with New York Times Op-Ed writer Paul Krugman, whom Luskin routinely describes as "America's most dangerous liberal." Luskin is so obsessed with Krugman that he has a National Review column called "Krugman Truth Squad", wherein he regularly purports to "expose" Krugman's "lies." It's ironic however that a column devoted to purportedly exposing lies has, well, lies. For example, consider this "Krugman Truth Squad" column: http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/truthsquad072103.asp wherein Luskin, in an attempt to demonstrate a Krugman "lie", declares that Bush's "16-words" in his State of the Union Address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." is "indisputably true." And yet, Luskin provides no proof to back up this assertion. To the contrary, one of the links *he provides* in support of this assertion weighs in with a contrary view: "As far as we know, the evidence on which the British relied isn't certain enough to use a word as conclusive as 'learned.'" Which is to say, here we have a National Review contributing editor who cites a source that doesn't say what he says that it does, in order to advance his (and the National Review's) right-wing political agenda. Moreover the National Review published this misrepresentation --and to date has not corrected it -- even though a very simple and quick check of the source material (the link is right there in the article) demonstrates this to be gross misrepresentation. See a pattern yet? [ BTW: The other National Review article that I have cited similarly declares without substantiation that "We now know for certain that" Bush's 16-words in his 2003 SOTU Address were "entirely accurate." This declaration, too, is not "entirely accurate". ] The National Review is a rag. Want me to cite more? > Yes they do have an agenda. So does the NYT, The New Republic and > Rolling Stone. And your point is... ? > > Wilson's Op-Ed could have been published anywhere - that > > wouldn't have made any difference about the FACT -- *not* opinion -- > > that the National Review repeatedly lied when attacking said article. > > Lied?? I'm pissed! As you should be - being lied to on a regular basis sucks. > I'm gonna investigate this one. Go for it. To help you, here are all of the original source materials: * The National Review article is here: http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp * Joe Wilson's New York Times Op-Ed that the National Review article misrepresents is appended at the bottom of this post.[1] Note that, contrary to what National Review declared, Wilson did not state in that article that Bush was lying when, in his 2003 State of the Union address, he stated "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Instead, in this article Wilson raised the possibility that Bush was lying, but nonetheless made it clear that there may have been valid reasons for why Bush said what he did. * The Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq is here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-int= ell_toc.htm Note that the criticsm of Wilson is under "Additional Views of Chairman Pat Roberts joined by Senator Christopher S. Bond, Senator Orrin G. Hatch": http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-int= ell_pat-roberts.htm Which is to say, this part is only authored and authorized by the Republicans on the Committee, not the entire *bipartisan* committee. And thus the National Review's assertion: "But now Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV ... has been thoroughly discredited. Last week's bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report concluded that it is he who has been telling lies." is itself a lie. Moreover: The link the National Review provides in that article as its purported "source" for the this lie: http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf comes up with *zero* results on a search for Wilson. Which is to say, the link itself is also a lie. Feeling lied to yet? > > > It's not like I couldn't sit here all night > > > and list the errors and if not downright fabrications that have come > > > out of that fine paper. > > > > Which makes zero difference in terms of my 'using' the New York Times > > here. Moreover, when the New York Times gets things wrong, unlike the > > National Review they don't routinely get things wrong to advance a > > specific left or right agenda - they get things wrong that advance both > > agendas. > > You gotta be kidding. The New York Times is an illustrious paper, sure. > But they too have their biases. I didn't say that the New York Times didn't have their biases. What I said was that they get things wrong that advance *both* agendas - not specifically the political agenda of the left or the right. > > > Yes, National Review is very biased. But still, > > > they have to fact check like everyone else or they wouldn't be > > > celebrating a rather distinguished 50th Anniversary this year. > > > > What makes you say that? Do you think that their 'leader' Rush > > Limbaugh fact checks all of the misleading crap that he's been > > shovelling out for decades too? If so, I have a bridge to sell you. > > ("Sold, for one dollar, the Brookin Bridge!") > > FYI, their "leader" is William F. Buckley Jr. By 'leader' I was referring to what I had noted in my previous post - that the National Review has declared Rush Limbaugh to be the 'leader' of the conservative movement. (Hence the quotes around 'leader' - their word, not mine.) > I'm not here to defend Rush. Thanks anyway. You missed my point. You declared that the National Review "have to fact check like everyone else or they wouldn't be celebrating a... 50th Anniversary this year." My point is that just because a media entity that purportedly provides political "information" manages to stay in business for decades that doesn't mean that said entity fact checks said information, which is what your declaration presumes. And I provided Rush Limbaugh -- the National Review's self-declared 'leader' of their political movement -- as Exhibit A to demonstrate as much. A bullshit-producing media entity doesn't need a fact checker to stay in business. It jnst needs suckers, er, customers. > > Also: if so, how do you think the National Review ended up publishing > > the lies in the essay that I cited? And moreover has never corrected > > them? Both of those assertions were and are easily demonstrated to be > > wrong - all anyone had/has to do is read the source material. > > Honestly this is the first I've heard about it. Be that is it may, if the National Review were really fact-checking their stories then they'd catch these sorts of 'errors' - especially 'errors' that can be checked by merely following the links to the purported 'sources'. For anyone who actually reads the source material instead of simply taking the National Review at their word, these 'errors' are very easy to catch. Did I mention that the National Review is a rag? > I still don't know why > this is as big of a scandle as it's turned out to be. Senior Bush Administration officials may have outed a CIA officer, and moreover may have violated federal law while doing so. That's a major deal. If it turns out that the prosecutor on the case indicts Rove and Libby - as many think will happen in the next two weeks - this will be very a very big scandle indeed. There are even indications that Cheney and perhaps even Bush were involved - while I find it much less likely that Cheney (and especially Bush) will be indicted, this is not out of the realm of possibility. And if that were to happen this will be at least as big as, if not bigger than, Watergate. Then again, the prosecutor may not have the goods to press charges against any senior Bush Administration officials, though at this point that seems unlikely. Either way, we'll know within the next two weeks. > Valerie Plame was > not a covert agent in harm's way. It was the CIA who requested the federal investigation into this outing. Do you think that they would have done so if she wasn't a covert agent? She was reportedly a covert agent specializing in weapons of mass destruction intelligence, no less. The outing of a covert CIA agent is very serious business. Especially when we are in a time of 'war' - as the Bush Administration keeps reminding us. Especially when said agent specializes 'weapons of mass destruction', and said 'war' is in large degree about making us safe from 'weapons of mass destruction'. Wouldn't you agree? FWIW, here's what George Bush Sr. has to say on the topic of outing CIA agents: "[W]e need more protection for the methods we use to gather intelligence and more protection for our sources, particularly our human sources, people that are risking their lives for their country... I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious of traitors." - Former President and CIA director George H.W. Bush, April 26, 1999, at the dedication ceremony for the George Bush Center for Intelligence > The Wilson's did not keep it a secret > that she worked for the CIA. Really. Source? Yes, I know that the National Review has declared as much several times over, and that other media outlets have echoed the National Review's assertion. I'm asking here for a *credible* source that has *substantiated* said assertion > Admittedly I'm not up in the minute > details of Joseph Wilson. I will look closer. The whole Iraq thing is > very disturbing. The Bush Administration wanted to topple the Saddam > regime and was determined to build a case for war. Can we agree here? Sure. > > It's ONE source for distorted and misleading right-wing propaganda - > > that much I'll agree with. There are indeed plenty of others. > > Name them..Name your sources! Ha. Rush Limbaugh (and the universe of Limbaugh AM talk radio clones), Ann Coulter, the WSJ editorial page, Fox News (esp. Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly), and the Weekly Standard, for starters. > > > Again, you do not agree with the general > > > philosophy that the magazine was/is based upon. And that is why you a= re > > > calling it a "rag". I'm sure you will somehow disagree... > > > > I disagree with the conduct of any purported news organization or > > enitity that routinely grossly distorts information -- to the left or > > to the right -- for political propaganda purposes. IMO the ends do not > > justify the means. YMMV. > > Well, at least I know what YMMV stands for now! Thanks for the debate. De nada. So do you agree that it is unacceptable for purported news media entities to routinely grossly distort and misrepresent information -- in any specific, consistent political direction -- for political purposes? Ray [1] ________________ July 6, 2003 What I Didn't Find in Africa By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th WASHINGTON Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat. For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as charg=E9 d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and S=E3o Tom=E9 and Pr=EDncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council. It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me. In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake - a form of lightly processed ore - by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office. After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government. In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible. The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq - and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival. I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place. Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired. (As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.) Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip. Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure. I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case. Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government. The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted. I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program - all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed. But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons. --- http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html ------------------------------ From: "Everybody's Gonna Be Happy" Subject: Re: What is a good "B" rated movie? Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 08:46:15 -0700 "ba ba booie" wrote in message news:14095-4358DB2A-316@storefull-3273.bay.webtv.net... > What is a good "B" rated movie? Any 60's or 70's Peter Fonda. In my personal top ten movies of all time: Dirty Mary Crazy Larry. Fonda himself does almost all the driving in this barely scripted driving movie, endangering the lives of everyone in the car, including an amazingly sexy Susan George (who was 19 at the time). Only the most radical driving stunts are done by stuntmen. Fonda breaks 100 on narrow country roads all over northern California as George displays her tight little ass to the camera at every opportunity. Much damage is caused as they race a maniacal Vic Morrow to the Mexican border. The Trip (coupled with Jack Nicholson in Psych Out on the DVD), and the Wild Angels are two other great ones to start with. The Trip has Fonda on LSD in Hollywood, freaking out in a very loosely scripted trip. Wild Angels is a great biker flick featuring a smokin' Nancy Sinatra. Psych Out has Nicholson joining an acid rock band in the Haight Ashbury at the height of the neighborhood's greatness. Much group sex and drug taking, filmed right there in SF, with the Seeds and the Strawberry Alarm Clock making appearances. Truly must see flicks. EGBH ------------------------------ From: "Cosmic Bob" Subject: Re: Clapton/Trucks Tour? Date: 21 Oct 2005 08:46:25 -0700 Maybe in the studio (I was not impressed with anything past 1984). But I saw him last year on his tour and he was playing great. Did the best Badge I'd ever heard out of him (and I don't really like the song that much) and a great Layla. I wish Cream would do more shows in the US, maybe five nights in Vegas! That would pull in the dough, if that's what they are looking to do. ------------------------------ ** FOR YOUR REFERENCE ** The service addresses, to which questions about the list itself and requests to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, are as follows: Internet: dead-flames-request@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames-request%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames-request You can send mail to the entire list (and rec.music.gdead) via one of these addresses: Internet: dead-flames@gdead.berkeley.edu Bitnet: dead-flames%gdead.berkeley.edu@ucbcmsa Uucp: ...!{ucbvax,uunet}!gdead.berkeley.edu!dead-flames End of Dead-Flames Digest ****************************** .