View Single Post
Old 01-12-2007, 02:23 PM   #60
Neil Mick
Dojo: Aikido of Santa Cruz
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 225
Re: Where Is The Respect?


Take a look at the thread-title: it's called "Where is the Respect?" For this reason, I am assuming that the topic is a tone of respect, within forum-threads.

In the few times I bother to read your posts, you have taken time out to insult me on everything from my veracity, to my mental-state. And so, I put you on ignore. Your response, of course, has been to troll my posts, doggedly using your usual tactics of smear, mislabeling, and personal assaults.

And, as you know, I have several times offered you the opportunity to clear the bad-books by PM'ing me, and agreeing to conduct a polite discussion, free of personal assault.

My inbox remains empty, and (going by your last, successful attempt to shut down a thread) you persist in similar attacks. But, here we are in a thread entitled "respect," and so I will remove the ignore feature, for now, to address you directly.

Frankly, Mike: your sources are laughable. Newsmax and Frontpagemagazine are hardly the heights of journalistic endeavors. More to the point, the few times you DO link a source, it is either based upon a whole lot of misinformation, often repeated (as a lie repeated many times, becomes the truth); or simply a hit-piece that spends the bulk of its pixils attacking the character of a person, without exploring whether or not the veracity, of the author.

Much, in the same way, as you do, here.

I believe I understand why you do this: on some level, you know that most of your arguments would not hold up under a reasonable debate mindful of courtesy, and so you go for the low-blow. I've seen it before, many times: and I am sure that I'll have the misfortune of seeing it again, after you tire of this immaturity, and move on to better things.

But, just for our reading audience (as, I am positive that showing you your error will prove NOTHING to could it? You're still stuck back in 2003, beliebing that wmd's exist, when most of the world...Bush included...has moved on) , I am going to show you how easy it is to dismantle your weak little strawmen.

Mike Sigman wrote:
Very simple and it's on the record. When confronted with the truth, Wilson said, "I misspoke", knowing that if he continued the lie he'd be in jail
Yes, and if you'd bothered to read out the full transcript when he said that he "misspoke," he was hardly admitting to lying. Your assumption that he was covering himself is simply assumption.

BLITZER: So when the committee says that you told them you had misspoken, what did you misspeak?

WILSON: Well, actually, what I misspoke was, when I misspoke to the committee, when I spoke to the staff -- this interview took place 15 months after The Washington Post article appeared. I did not have a chance to review the article. They did not show me the article.

They threw it out there, and the question I took as being a rather generic question: Could you have misspoken? Yes, I am male, I'm over 50. By definition, I can misspeak. I have gone back since and taken a look at this particular article. It refers to an unidentified former government official. If it is referring to me, it is a misattribution, of facts that were already in the public domain and had been so since March.
Of course, lies and law-breaking mean little if a the liberal media is reporting on a fellow liberal,
Again, another oft-repeated lie. "Liberal media?" Where were the "Liberal" media, in 2003, when we were treated to a parade of military on the mainstream news? Almost no anti-war ppl were interviewed.

The studies showing just how "liberal" the mainstream media is (not) are easy to find. But, never mind, you know it all,'re sharp, and know when ppl are lying.... uh huh.

so this part was dropped almost immediately and not given the day-to-day coverage that would have happened if a Republican had done it.
Or, perhaps, it has no basis in fact, and was merely a canard for the bloggers and pundits to jump on, and to be echoed by the online Bush-faithful choir.

Still... it's on the record, even in the Washington Post.
I am really laughing at this statement here, Mike. Isn't the Washington Post part of the "liberal media?" So which is it? The mainstream, Liberal media covered up this little "charade" of Wilson's, or it's easy to find, and all on record? You can't have it both ways.

But, OK, let's just be objective media-watchdogs for a second, and do Mike's job for him. Let's go find the source and see if he's right.

Plame's Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
I've read through this article twice, Mike: and nowhere does it state that Wilson lied to protect himself from going to jail. Also, as we all know from Judith Miller's shoddy work at the NYT, one has to take these kinds of hit-articles with a grain of salt. Judith Miller, for her part, parroted whatever Achmed Chalabi wanted her to hear; who parroted what info he received from the Pentagon, as a justification to go to war; whereupon the Pentagon THEN offered up Miller's articles as justification of their own conclusions. In short, an echo-chamber was set up.

But, of course, you don't really care about hearing all sides of a discussion, do you? You'd rather listen to the sweet sound of damage-control--the cacophonous noise of a horde of pundits throwing mud in the face of investigators in the hopes that the stink of outing Valerie Plame will fade in the minds of the readers (the fact that Joe Wilson joined the Kerry team during an election year had NOTHING to do with it, either, I'm sure).

A good media-watchdog listens to all quarters, and so let's hear it,straight from the dog's mouth:

Joe Wilson wrote:
Second conclusion: "Rather that speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."

This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.
On March 7, 2003 the Director General of the IAEA reported to the United Nations Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic". His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.

My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the President's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "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.)"

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.
The text of the "additional comments" also asserts that "during Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."
So, let's construct a simple timeline, to show the turn of events:

1. Joe Wilson appears before a Committee filled with Republican loyalists. Not liking Wilson's findings, they question how he could know the reports were faked.

2. Not having seen the documents but having interviewed just about everyone who could have possibly been involved with the matter, Wilson makes the simple statement that the empirical facts speak for themselves.

3. Susan Schmidt writes her hitpiece; not having read it, Wilson is questioned about it, on CNN. Wilson says yeah, I'm 50 and's possible I misspoke.

4. Rather than face the plain and obvious fact that the President knowingly lied about the yellowcake fiasco and the illegal outing a CIA operative as a personal vendetta, the Rightwing paparazzi go on the offensive as a form of damage-control.

5. Rather than see all sides of a debate, Mikey parrots what facts he likes, and ignores the rest.

Mike S wrote:
Once again, Neil tries to slip a lie past the readers.
And here's the difference btw you and me, Mike. You like to suggest that I'm a liar, deranged, et al. I don't need to stoop so low, to make my point.

I figure that you do such a good job hanging yourself, with your own disrespect (I've even had ppl who normally disagree with me, PM me and grouse about your sliming tactics).

Oh, of course... let's drop what Wilson is on record of saying in front of the Select Senate Intelligence Committee.... it's a trifle embarrassing because so many Dem's hold up Wilson as a hero.
No, not at all. As I did above, let's see what Wilson had to say. But, let's hear the WHOLE truth, not some half-truth, desperate attempt at spindoctoring.

And now, we'll be treated to a healthy round of more spin, with a healthy side of invective. I hope not...I just took this opportunity to show how EASY it is to deconstruct your strawmen.

P.S. I am hoping that you take this opportunity to obey forum guidelines and employ etiquette in your posts. Enough of the personal attacks. I really couldn't care less what you say about my favorite writers, leaders, et public figures are fair game...but personal slurs only bring the debate down.

If you persist, I can, of course, put you on ignore (which I will), but henceforth I am taking a zero-tolerance to the slurs, and I will duly note them to Jun.

Mike (of course, I know Neil doesn't read these things, because he says so, if you believe him)
For now, the ignore is off. The next step is up to you.
  Reply With Quote