DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on September 26, 2007, 11:09:30 AM
-
The Soros Threat To Democracy
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday, September 24, 2007 4:20 PM PT
Democracy: George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.
George Soros & MoveOn.org: Exclusive Series
How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?
That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.
That may have meant that Hansen had media flacks help him get on the evening news to push his agenda and lawyers pressuring officials to let him spout his supposedly "censored" spiel for weeks in the name of advancing the global warming agenda.
Hansen even succeeded, with public pressure from his nightly news performances, in forcing NASA to change its media policies to his advantage. Had Hansen's OSI-funding been known, the public might have viewed the whole production differently. The outcome could have been different.
That's not the only case. Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer?
Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases.
So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.
Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.
Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ? for the terrorists.
OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.
They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?
It's all part of the $74 million OSI spent on "U.S. Programs" in 2006 to "shape policy." Who knows what revelations 2007's report will bring around events now in the news?
OSI isn't the only secretive organization that Soros funds. OSI partners with the Tides Foundation, which funnels cash from wealthy donors who may not want it known that their cash goes to fringe groups engaged in "direct action" ? also known as eco-terrorism.
On the political front, Soros has a great influence in a secretive organization called "Democracy Alliance" whose idea of democracy seems to be government controlled solely of Democrats.
"As with everything about the Democracy Alliance, the strangest aspect of this entire process was the incessant secrecy. Among the alliance's stated values was a commitment to political transparency ? as long as it didn't apply to the alliance," wrote Matt Bai, describing how the alliance was formed in 2005, in his book "The Argument: Billionaires, Bloggers and the Battle to Remake Democratic Politics."
Soros' "shaping public policies," as OSI calls it, is not illegal. But it's a problem for democracy because it drives issues with cash and then only lets the public know about it after it's old news.
That means the public makes decisions about issues without understanding the special agendas of groups behind them.
Without more transparency, it amounts to political manipulation. This leads to cynicism. As word of these short-term covert ops gets out, the public grows to distrust what it hears and tunes out.
The irony here is that Soros claims to be an advocate of an "open society." His OSI does just the legal minimum to disclose its activities. The public shouldn't have to wait until an annual report is out before the light is flipped on about the Open Society's political action.
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=275526219598836
-
Have you ever read any of Soros' books?
They read like L. Ron Hubbard on crack.
-
Sounds like good capitalism to me.
Pedaling influence is nothing new. Why is it different for Soros to do it?
-
Organizations Funded Directly by George Soros and his Open Society Institute
By Discover The Networks
July 2007
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Organizations%20Funded%20Directly5.htm (http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/Articles/Organizations%20Funded%20Directly5.htm)
Organizations that, in recent years, have received direct funding and assistance from George Soros and his Open Society Institute (OSI) include the following. (Comprehensive profiles of each are available in the "Groups" section of DiscoverTheNetworks.org):
Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as "extremists."
America Coming Together: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to coordinate and organize pro-Democrat voter-mobilization programs.
America Votes: Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters.
American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board.
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: This Washington, DC-based think tank seeks to move American jurisprudence to the left by recruiting, indoctrinating, and mobilizing young law students, helping them acquire positions of power. It also provides leftist Democrats with a bully pulpit from which to denounce their political adversaries.
American Family Voices: This group creates and coordinates media campaigns charging Republicans with wrongdoing.
American Friends Service Committee: This group views the United States as the principal cause of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America's unilateral disarmament, the dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty, and the repeal of the Patriot Act.
American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.
American Library Association: This group has been an outspoken critic of the Bush administration's War on Terror -- most particularly, Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which it calls "a present danger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights of library users."
The American Prospect, Inc.: This corporation trains and mentors young leftwing journalists, and organizes strategy meetings for leftist leaders.
Amnesty International: This organization directs a grossly disproportionate share of its criticism for human rights violations at the United States and Israel.
Arab American Institute Foundation: The Arab American Institute denounces the purportedly widespread civil liberties violations directed against Arab Americans in the post-9/11 period, and characterizes Israel as a brutal oppressor of the Palestinian people.
Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now: This group conducts voter mobilization drives on behalf of leftist Democrats. These initiatives have been notoriously marred by fraud and corruption.
Bill of Rights Defense Committee: This group provides a detailed blueprint for activists interested in getting their local towns, cities, and even college campuses to publicly declare their opposition to the Patriot Act, and to designate themselves "Civil Liberties Safe Zones." The organization also came to the defense of self-described radical attorney Lynne Stewart, who was convicted in 2005 of providing material support for terrorism.
Brennan Center for Justice: This think tank/legal activist group generates scholarly studies, mounts media campaigns, files amicus briefs, gives pro bono support to activists, and litigates test cases in pursuit of radical "change."
Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.
Campaign for America's Future: This group supports tax hikes, socialized medicine, and a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs.
Campus Progress: A project of the Soros-bankrolled Center for American Progress, this group seeks to "strengthen progressive voices on college and university campuses, counter the growing influence of right-wing groups on campus, and empower new generations of progressive leaders."
Catholics for a Free Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women's right to abortion-on-demand.
Center for American Progress: This leftist think tank is headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, works closely with Hillary Clinton, and employs numerous former Clinton administration staffers. It is committed to "developing a long-term vision of a progressive America" and "providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals."
Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist "political issue campaigns." Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing "attention to major national issues related to poverty," the Center bases its training programs on the techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.
Center for Constitutional Rights: This pro-Castro organization is a core member of the open borders lobby, has opposed virtually all post-9/11 anti-terrorism measures by the U.S. government, and alleges that American injustice provokes acts of international terrorism.
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: Reasoning from the premise that tax cuts generally help only the wealthy, this organization advocates greater tax expenditures on social welfare programs for low earners.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: This group litigates and brings ethics charges against "government officials who sacrifice the common good to special interests" and "betray the public trust." Almost all of its targets are Republicans.
Coalition for an International Criminal Court: This group seeks to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures to those of an international court.
Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Defenders of Wildlife opposes oil exploration in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It condemns logging, ranching, mining, and even the use of recreational motorized vehicles as activities that are destructive to the environment.
Democracy Alliance: This self-described "liberal organization" aims to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups. Soros is a major donor to this group.
Democracy 21: This group is a staunch supporter of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.
Democratic Party: Soros' funding activities are devoted largely to helping the Democratic Party solidify its power base. In a November 2003 interview, Soros stated that defeating President Bush in 2004 "is the central focus of my life" ... "a matter of life and death." He pledged to raise $75 million to defeat Bush, and personally donated nearly a third of that amount to anti-Bush organizations. "America under Bush," he said, "is a danger to the world, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is." Claiming that "the Republican party has been captured by a bunch of extremists," Soros accuses the Bush administration of following a "supremacist ideology" in whose rhetoric he claims to hear echoes of "Nazi slogans."
Earthjustice: This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses, and the use of motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.
EMILY's List: This political network raises money for Democratic female political candidates who support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
Feminist Majority: Characterizing the United States as an inherently sexist nation, this group focuses on "advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women's advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists to encourage future leadership for the feminist movement in the United States."
Free Press: This "media reform" organization has worked closely with many notable leftists and such organizations as Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, Global Exchange, Code Pink, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Revolutionary Communist Party, Mother Jones magazine, and Pacifica Radio.
Funding Exchange: Dedicated to the concept of philanthropy as a vehicle for social change, this organization pairs leftist donors and foundations with likeminded groups and activists who are dedicated to bringing about their own version of "progressive" change and social justice. Many of these grantees assume that American society is rife with racism, discrimination, exploitation, and inequity and needs to be overhauled via sustained education, activism, and social agitation.
Gamaliel Foundation: Modeling its tactics on those of the radical Sixties activist Saul Alinsky, this group takes a strong stand against current homeland security measures and immigration restrictions.
Human Rights First: This group supports open borders and the rights of illegal aliens; charges that the Patriot Act severely erodes Americans' civil liberties; has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of terror suspect Jose Padilla; and deplores the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities.
Human Rights Watch: This group directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at the United States and Israel. It opposes the death penalty in all cases, and supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.
Immigrant Legal Resource Center: This group claims to have helped gain amnesty for some three million illegal aliens in the U.S., and in the 1980s was part of the sanctuary movement which sought to grant asylum to refugees from the failed Communist states of Central America.
Independent Media Institute: This group provides leftist organizations with "strategic communications consulting, training, coaching, networking opportunities and concrete tools" to help them "achieve their social justice goals."
Institute for Policy Studies: This think tank has long supported Communist and anti-American causes around the world. Viewing capitalism as a breeding ground for "unrestrained greed," IPS seeks to provide a corrective to "unrestrained markets and individualism." Professing an unquestioning faith in the righteousness of the United Nations, it aims to bring American foreign policy under UN control.
Institute for Women's Policy Research: This group views the U.S. as a nation rife with discrimination against women, and publishes research to draw attention to this alleged state of affairs. It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, stating that "access to abortion is essential to the economic well-being of women and girls."
International Crisis Group: One of this organization's leading figures is its Mideast Director, Robert Malley, who was a President Bill Clinton's Special Assistant for Arab-Israeli Affairs. His analysis of the Mideast conflict is markedly pro-Palestinian.
Joint Victory Campaign 2004: Founded by George Soros and Harold Ickes, this group was a major fundraising entity for Democrats during the 2004 election cycle. It collected contributions (including large amounts from Soros personally) and disbursed them to two other groups, America Coming Together and the Media Fund, which also worked on behalf of Democrats.
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law: This group views America as an unremittingly racist nation; uses the courts to mandate race-based affirmative action preferences in business and academia; has filed briefs against the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to limit the wholesale granting of green cards and to identify potential terrorists; condemns the Patriot Act; and calls on Americans to "recognize the contribution" of illegal aliens.
League of United Latin American Citizens: This group views America as a nation plagued by "an alarming increase in xenophobia and anti-Hispanic sentiment"; favors racial preferences; supports the legalization of illegal Hispanic aliens; opposes military surveillance of U.S. borders; opposes making English America's official language; favors open borders; and rejects anti-terrorism legislation like the Patriot Act.
League of Women Voters Education Fund: The League supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; supports "motor-voter" registration, which allows anyone with a driver's license to become a voter, regardless of citizenship status; and supports tax hikes and socialized medicine.
Lynne Stewart Defense Committee: IRS records indicate that Soros's Open Society Institute made a September 2002 grant of $20,000 to this organization. Stewart was the criminal-defense attorney who was later convicted for abetting her client, the "blind sheik" Omar Abdel Rahman, in terrorist activities connected with his Islamic Group.
MADRE: This international women's organization deems America the world's foremost violator of human rights. As such, it seeks to "communicat[e] the real-life impact of U.S. policies on women and families confronting violence, poverty and repression around the world," and to "demand alternatives to destructive U.S. policies." It also advocates unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
Malcolm X Grassroots Movement: This group views the U.S. as a nation replete with racism and discrimination against blacks; seeks to establish an independent black nation in the southeastern United States; and demands reparations for slavery.
Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition: This group calls for the expansion of civil rights and liberties for illegal aliens; laments that illegal aliens in America are commonly subjected to "worker exploitation"; supports tuition-assistance programs for illegal aliens attending college; and characterizes the Patriot Act as a "very troubling" assault on civil liberties.
Media Fund: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to conceptualize, produce, and place political ads on television, radio, print, and the Internet.
Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund: This group advocates open borders, free college tuition for illegal aliens, lowered educational standards to accommodate Hispanics, and voting rights for criminals. In MALDEF's view, supporters of making English the official language of the United States are "motivated by racism and anti-immigrant sentiments," while advocates of sanctions against employers reliant on illegal labor seek to discriminate against "brown-skinned people."
Meyer, Suozzi, English and Klein, PC: This influential defender of Big Labor is headed by Democrat operative Harold Ickes.
Midwest Academy: This entity trains radical activists in the tactics of direct action, targeting, confrontation, and intimidation.
Migration Policy Institute: This group seeks to create "a North America with gradually disappearing border controls ... with permanent migration remaining at moderate levels."
Military Families Speak Out: This group ascribes the U.S. invasion of Iraq to American imperialism and lust for oil.
MoveOn.org: This Web-based organization supports Democratic political candidates through fundraising, advertising, and get-out-the-vote drives.
Ms. Foundation for Women: This group laments what it views as the widespread and enduring flaws of American society: racism, sexism, homophobia, and the violation of civil rights and liberties. It focuses its philanthropy on groups that promote affirmative action for women, unfettered access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, amnesty for illegal aliens, and big government generally.
NARAL Pro-Choice America: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand, and works to elect pro-abortion Democrats.
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund: The NAACP supports racial preferences in employment and education, as well as the racial gerrymandering of voting districts. Underpinning its support for race preferences is the fervent belief that white racism in the United States remains an intractable, largely undiminished, phenomenon.
The Nation Institute: This nonprofit entity sponsors leftist conferences, fellowships, awards for radical activists, and journalism internships.
National Abortion Federation: This group opposes any restrictions on abortion at either the state or federal levels, and champions the introduction of unrestricted abortion into developing regions of the world.
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy: This group depicts the United States as a nation in need of dramatic structural change financed by philanthropic organizations. It overwhelmingly promotes grant-makers and grantees with leftist agendas, while criticizing their conservative counterparts.
National Council for Research on Women: This group supports big government, high taxes, military spending cuts, increased social welfare spending, and the unrestricted right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
National Council of La Raza: This group lobbies for racial preferences, bilingual education, stricter hate-crime laws, mass immigration, and amnesty for illegal aliens.
National Council of Women's Organizations: This group views the United States as a nation rife with injustice against girls and women. It advocates high levels of spending for social welfare programs, and supports race and gender preferences for minorities and women in business and academia.
National Immigration Forum: Opposing the enforcement of present immigration laws, this organization urges the American government to "legalize" en masse all illegal aliens currently in the United States who have no criminal records, and to dramatically increase the number of visas available for those wishing to migrate to the U.S. The Forum is particularly committed to opening the borders to unskilled, low-income workers, and immediately making them eligible for welfare and social service programs.
National Immigration Law Center: This group seeks to win unrestricted access to government-funded social welfare programs for illegal aliens.
National Lawyers Guild: This group promotes open borders; seeks to weaken America's intelligence-gathering agencies; condemns the Patriot Act as an assault on civil liberties; rejects capitalism as an unviable economic system; has rushed to the defense of convicted terrorists and their abettors; and generally opposes all U.S. foreign policy positions, just as it did during the Cold War when it sided with the Soviets.
National Organization for Women: This group advocates the unfettered right to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; seeks to "eradicate racism, sexism and homophobia" from American society; attacks Christianity and traditional religious values; and supports gender-based preferences for women.
National Priorities Project: This group supports government-mandated redistribution of wealth -- through higher taxes and greater expenditures on social welfare programs. NPP exhorts the government to redirect a significant portion of its military funding toward public education, universal health insurance, environmentalist projects, and welfare programs.
National Security Archive Fund: This group collects and publishes declassified documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act to a degree that compromises American national security and the safety of intelligence agents.
National Women's Law Center: This group supports taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; lobbies against conservative judicial appointees; advocates increased welfare spending to help low-income mothers; and favors higher taxes for the purpose of generating more funds for such government programs as Medicaid, food stamps, welfare, foster care, health care, child-support enforcement, and student loans.
Natural Resources Defense Council: One of the most influential environmentalist lobbying groups in the United States, the Council claims a membership of one million people.
Pacifica Foundation: This entity owns and operates Pacifica Radio, awash from its birth with the socialist-Marxist rhetoric of class warfare and hatred for capitalism.
Peace and Security Funders Group: This is an association of more than 50 foundations that give money to leftist anti-war and environmentalist causes. Its members tend to depict America as the world's chief source of international conflict, environmental destruction, and economic inequalities.
People for the American Way: This group opposes the Patriot Act, anti-terrorism measures generally, and the allegedly growing influence of the "religious right."
Physicians for Human Rights: This group is selectively and disproportionately critical of the United States and Israel in its condemnations of human rights violations.
Physicians for Social Responsibility: This is an anti-U.S.-military organization that also embraces the tenets of radical environmentalism.
Planned Parenthood: This group is the largest abortion provider in the United States and advocates taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
Ploughshares Fund: This public grantmaking foundation opposes America's development of a missile defense system, and contributes to many organizations that are highly critical of U.S. foreign policies and military ventures.
Prison Moratorium Project: This initiative was created in 1995 for the express purpose of working for the elimination of all prisons in the United States and the release of all inmates. Reasoning from the premise that incarceration is never an appropriate means of dealing with crime, it deems American society's inherent inequities the root of all criminal behavior.
Project Vote: This is the voter-mobilization arm of the Soros-funded ACORN. A persistent pattern of lawlessness and corruption has followed ACORN/Project Vote activities over the years.
Proteus Fund: This foundation directs its philanthropy toward a number of radical leftwing organizations.
Public Citizen Foundation: Public Citizen seeks increased government intervention and litigation against corporations -- a practice founded on the notion that American corporations, like the capitalist system of which they are a part, are inherently inclined toward corruption.
Sentencing Project: Asserting that prison-sentencing patterns are racially discriminatory, this initiative advocates voting rights for felons.
Sojourners: This evangelical Christian ministry preaches radical leftwing politics. During the 1980s it championed Communist revolution in Central America and chastised U.S. policy-makers for their tendency "to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts." More recently, Sojourners has taken up the cause of environmental activism, opposed welfare reform as a "mean-spirited Republican agenda," and mounted a defense of affirmative action.
Thunder Road Group: This political consultancy, in whose creation Soros had a hand, coordinates strategy for the Media Fund, America Coming Together, and America Votes.
Tides Foundation and Tides Center: Tides is a major funder of the radical Left.
Urban Institute: This research organization favors socialized medicine, expansion of the federal welfare bureaucracy, and tax hikes for higher income-earners.
USAction Education Fund: USAction lists its priorities as: "fighting the right wing agenda"; "building grassroots political power"; winning "social, racial and economic justice for all"; supporting a system of taxpayer-funded socialized medicine; reversing "reckless tax cuts for millionaires and corporations" which shield the "wealthy" from paying their "fair share"; advocating for "pro-consumer and environmental regulation of corporate abuse"; "strengthening progressive voices on local, state and national issues"; and working to "register, educate and get out the vote ... [to] help progressives get elected at all levels of government."
YWCA World Office, Switzerland: The YWCA opposes abstinence education; supports universal access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand; and opposes school vouchers.
-
OK
I've read the above and I don't see anything "threatening to democracy."
I especially like: "Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters."
We better throw him in jail now!! ;)
-
So, at least now we shouldn't see any criticism from the left regarding the "pedaling of influence" from the likes of the NRA, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Glad we got that cleared up 8)
-
Meanwhile, OSI cash backed terrorist-friendly court rulings, too.
Do people know last year's Supreme Court ruling abolishing special military commissions for terrorists at Guantanamo was a Soros project? OSI gave support to Georgetown lawyers in 2006 to win Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ? for the terrorists.
OSI also gave cash to other radicals who pressured the Transportation Security Administration to scrap a program called "Secure Flight," which matched flight passenger lists with terrorist names. It gave more cash to other left-wing lawyers who persuaded a Texas judge to block cell phone tracking of terrorists.
They trumpeted this as a victory for civil liberties. Feel safer?
I'm not sure I feel safer, but I'm pretty sure I'm getting a severely biased account of this supposed threat to democracy. I'm no fan of George Soros. He is, imo, usually a part of the problem not the solution, but this sort of let's-all-hate-George-Soros rhetoric doesn't impress me much.
-
So, at least now we shouldn't see any criticism from the left regarding the "pedaling of influence" from the likes of the NRA, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Glad we got that cleared up 8)
Note that I never said I liked it from either the right or left.
I said:
Sounds like good capitalism to me.
Pedaling influence is nothing new. Why is it different for Soros to do it?
-
I especially like: "Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters."
We better throw him in jail now!! ;)
I seem to remember reading during the last election cycle that groups who did "get out the vote" campaigns that targeted Republican voters were somehow akin to criminals.
Actually, wasn't there just something here last week criticizing groups that targeted Amish in Ohio?
-
I don't think I wrote them, did I?
It is a capitalist democracy free-for-all. Hell, buy up as many voters as you can ;)
-
>>So, at least now we shouldn't see any criticism from the left regarding the "pedaling of influence" from the likes of the NRA, Rupert Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, etc. Glad we got that cleared up.<<
Don't look for any logic or honesty when dealing with the left.
If Soros was a Republican and involved in this many political organizations the left would be screaming about a dark conspiracy to take over the government for Soros and his cabal to make money.
Also, don't forget that Soros was a Nazi collaborator and sold his Jewish brothers and sisters out to the Nazis. So KKK members and Nazi collaborators are fine with the left as long as they love abortion and hate Bush. Again, logic and honesty simply do not apply.
-
Also, don't forget that Soros was a Nazi collaborator and sold his Jewish brothers and sisters out to the Nazis. So KKK members and Nazi collaborators are fine with the left as long as they love abortion and hate Bush. Again, logic and honesty simply do not apply.
Soros was a 13 year-old kid when Fascism overtook Hungary. He delivered messages to Jewish lawyers who were being deported from Hungary. He had no idea what the hell was going on. I don't like the fact that our democracy is basically for sale, but calling Soros a "Nazi collaborator" is really below the belt.
What amazes me is that more of you don't like the guy. He is without a doubt one of the most remarkable geniuses that has ever lived in respect to currency speculation and global finance. The man knows more about investments than the entire Wall Street Journal staff. He is a walking encyclopedia of economics and has built an empire on capitalism.
I'm rather amazed he doesn't have statues built in his honor on Wall Street. He turned decades of assumed respectability in Tory (Conservative Party) economic prowess into crap in a single day 16 September 1992, when he gamed Norman Lamont's overconfidence in the Pound and its constraints under the ERM.
He did it again in the Asian Tiger Financial Crisis of 1997.
He supported Charter 77 and Poland's Solidarity movement, not with words, but with massive funding. Here is a former citizen trapped behind the Iron Curtain who escaped and became mega-wealthy through his knowledge of finance, arbitrage, and currency exchange.
You can't possibly be more capitalist than George Soros.
And yet, you all passionately hate the man.
Amazing.
-
I take this collection of art5icles as proof that there is a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
So what is the rights equivelent?
-
So what is the rights equivelent?
=============================
In no particular order:
National Association of Manufacturers.
Richard Mellon Scaife
The Hunt Brothers
The Cato Institute
Clearchannel
Fox "News"
Various "Right to Work" foundations.
The Heritage Foundation
The Olin Foundation
Pepperdine University
The John Birch Society
and a lot of others.
Together they could buy George Soros several times over, but they prefer keeping their money to most political causes, being as they already own most of what is worth owning.
-
>>Soros was a 13 year-old kid when Fascism overtook Hungary. He delivered messages to Jewish lawyers who were being deported from Hungary. He had no idea what the hell was going on.<<
You're either stupid or a liar.
I'll go with liar.
Soros admits what he did you twit. Read one of his books.
-
>>Soros was a 13 year-old kid when Fascism overtook Hungary. He delivered messages to Jewish lawyers who were being deported from Hungary. He had no idea what the hell was going on.<<
You're either stupid or a liar.
I'll go with liar.
Soros admitts what he did you twit. Read one of his books.
*yawn*
The daily Rich 2 minute hate. What was life like beforehand?
He was 13 when Fascism took over Hungary.
Now, why do you hate this guy so much? He represents everything you love. He's the king of capitalism.
-
Nice try, but you're still a lying twit.
:D
-
Nice try, but you're still a lying twit.
:D
I love you like a brother Rich, my fellow Catholic.
-
How nice!
(He's lying again)
<chuckle>
-
Soros admits what he did you twit. Read one of his books.
Do you have a quote you'd like to share? The information I can find says Soros didn't know the true intent of the messages. If you have contrary information, please show it. I'd like to see it.
-
So what is the rights equivelent?
=============================
In no particular order:
National Association of Manufacturers.
Richard Mellon Scaife
The Hunt Brothers
The Cato Institute
Clearchannel
Fox "News"
Various "Right to Work" foundations.
The Heritage Foundation
The Olin Foundation
Pepperdine University
The John Birch Society
and a lot of others.
Together they could buy George Soros several times over, but they prefer keeping their money to most political causes, being as they already own most of what is worth owning.
Perhaps they arn't as intrested in polical power as Soros is .
I don't agree with your list either, particularly the John Birch Society, they would never endorse a Republican now would they.
-
<<Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.>>
This is truly hilarious. The Brookings Institution's Director of Research is none other than Kenneth Pollack, who is constantly cited by sirs as a source for his ridiculous "Bush didn't lie us into war" diatribes. Also home of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, founded by billionaire Zionist Haim Saban.
Actually, Soros is a righteous dude and I wish him and his projects great success. Whoever points out Soros as a wealthy threat to democracy has to really put on blinders because as XO pointed out, the monied interests behind the extreme right-wing fascist elements in your country truly dwarf Soros' contributions to the so-called "left." I am very encouraged by the fact that the Wall Street Journal has to roll out a "hate-Soros" campaign now, because it means Soros must be really getting to them.
-
<<Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush's tax cuts in 2003.>>
This is truly hilarious. The Brookings Institution's Director of Research is none other than Kenneth Pollack, who is constantly cited by sirs as a source for his ridiculous "Bush didn't lie us into war" diatribes.
Oh, you mean the same fella who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go? The same fella that knows more about ours and the globe's intelligence gathering capabilities & their assessements, than Tee knows about meritless hyperbolic accusations?. Gotcha
Actually, Soros is a righteous dude and I wish him and his projects great success.
LOL, but of course you do.
-
Whoever points out Soros as a wealthy threat to democracy has to really put on blinders because as XO pointed out, the monied interests behind the extreme right-wing fascist elements in your country truly dwarf Soros' contributions to the so-called "left."
As a single contributor is there anyone right or left that equalls Sorous?
If one must compile several right wing funding sorces to equal Sorous , then why must Sorous be considered alone ? There are plenty of fat cats who like Democrats.
-
<<Oh, you mean the same fella [Ken Pollack] who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>
Hate to break this to you, moron, but I mean the same fella whose book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq was an influential part of the pro-invasion hysteria that the war machine cranked into overtime to build some public support for their designs on Iraq.
<<Gotcha>>
Note to readers: "Gotcha" in sirs' unique lexicon, seems to be conserv-speak for Holy fucking shit I put my foot in my mouth so deep this time that it's coming out of my ass.
-
Perhaps they arn't as intrested in polical power as Soros is .
I don't agree with your list either, particularly the John Birch Society, they would never endorse a Republican now would they.
===============================================================================
The Birchers seem to support Ron Paul, according to their website. But they were never a particularly influential bunch. I don't think they have liked any candidate since Barry Goldwater. Perhaps they liked Reagan before he borrowed and borrowed and borrowed some more.
The others already OWN the damn country. Soros is spending money to acquire power that he doesn't have yet.
Why don't you make a list, if you don't like mine?
-
<<Oh, you mean the same fella [Ken Pollack] who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>
Hate to break this to you, moron, but I mean the same fella whose book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq was an influential part of the pro-invasion hysteria that the war machine cranked into overtime to build some public support for their designs on Iraq.
Minus of course the consistent criticism he has publically presented since the invasion. Your problem is, his expertise and intimate understanding on intellgence, trumps your asanine illogical diatribes that Bush lied us into war. Thus despite the fact he agrees with you that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq, and that Bush spent too much time focused on the intel that supported invasion, to you he's basically a moron, a collaborator, a Bush toadie, because he dares not come to the same meritless hyperbolic conclusions, you have made clear that you came to from the get go, and nothing was going to change that.....not even facts to the contrary
-
Quote from sirs on Pollack (exact words, from this thread):
<<Oh, you mean the same fella who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>
Quote from sirs on Pollack, back-tracking (exact words, from this thread):
<< . . . the consistent criticism he has publically presented since the invasion. >>
Since Pollack supported the invasion, his criticism is hardly that Bush is a war-mongering criminal in flagrant contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Charter of the United Nations. It's kinda like the "criticism" of Hitler, as voiced by some of his generals - - not that he's a criminal fascist who caused unimaginable human pain and suffering, but that he's losing the war.
Common sense tells us that if Pollack was, and remains, a staunch supporter of the idea of invading Iraq, and is furthermore the author of an important and influential book recommending the invasion, he is not about to attack the invasion now as based on lies. And in fact, even in the excerpt that you yourself posted, Pollack admits Hersh's reports of pressure being exerted on intelligence analysts by the Bush administration to find evidence to justify the coming invasion.
-
Quote from sirs on Pollack (exact words, from this thread):
<<Oh, you mean the same fella who's been a staunch critic of the war and this administration, ever since the get go?>>
Quote from sirs on Pollack, back-tracking (exact words, from this thread):
<< . . . the consistent criticism he has publically presented since the invasion. >>
Since Pollack supported the invasion, his criticism is hardly that Bush is a war-mongering criminal in flagrant contravention of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Charter of the United Nations.
Actually it means, like the vast majority of other rationally minded folks, the intel told him, as well as it did Bush, as well as the UN, as well as did to Clinton & Co, as well as France, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc., that Saddam did have his stockpiles, was a threat not just to the region, but to long term peaceful stability. Bush simply did something about it
So unless you can show me a quote of Pollack's that demonstrates his "support of the invasion", vs what he's on record as saying that inspectors should have been given far more time, and that invasion was not the proper course of action at this time, this again would be another Tee attempt at reinterpreting current reality, to fit Tee's template of what has to be, vs what is
-
<<Actually it means, like the vast majority of other rationally minded folks, the intel told him, as well as it did Bush, as well as the UN, as well as did to Clinton & Co, as well as France, Germany, Russia, etc., etc., etc., that Saddam did have his stockpiles, was a threat not just to the region, but to long term peaceful stability. Bush simply did something about it>>
Hilarious. What it means in fact is that whatever Clinton was told, believed or failed to believe, he was not convinced of any need to invade Iraq and rejected Cheney and the Zionists' urgings to do so. Bush, Cheney et al. OTOH found a phony excuse for doing what Clinton was too smart to get involved in. How this PROVES anything about what intelligence Bush received that he didn't have made to order is something you will have to demonstrate. Nobody else has been able to do so to date.
<<So unless you can show me a quote of Pollack's that demonstrates his "support of the invasion", vs what he's on record as saying that inspectors should have been given far more time, and that invasion was not the proper course of action at this time, this again would be another Tee attempt at reinterpreting current reality, to fit Tee's template of what has to be, vs what is>>
I just quoted you the TITLE of his fucking book, what more would you want? Any reference to the book on the internet (and there are dozens of them) says that it argued IN FAVOUR OF the invasion. Would you really expect a book titled The Case for the Invasion of Iraq to argue AGAINST it? In view of the title and the unanimous internet description of the book as favouring an invasion of Iraq, that's enough for me. I'm not gonna buy the fucking book. You're such a big fan of the guy, why don't YOU buy the fucking book and let us all know if, despite the title, despite the unanimous internet description of it as pro-invasion, somehow it turns out to be AGAINST the invasion. Only in your crazy world, sirs. Only in your crazy world. But keep on dreaming. Sure beats reality. Maybe you can dream up a book by Pollack that was against the invasion before the invasion began.
-
This can't be made any more simpler Tee. The title of a book, in no way demonstrates his "support for invasion" His WORDS do so. Now, put your money where your mouth is................................or is this yet another in an endless ocean of unsubstantiated accusations, many of them bald faced lies?
Here, I'll even start it for you.... Look you pompous fascist war loving Bush kissing nazi, right here in *insert link*, Pollack clearly says (Note, that's doesn't mean implies, or suggests, or any other loophole of irrational rationalization on your part, he actually claims support for invastion with this quote) "________________________________________________"
Ball in your court
-
Follow up "?" for Tee.......have you even read this book of Pollack's you claim is Pollack's support for invasion??
-
Look you pompous fascist war-loving Bush-kissing Nazi, it says right here in Wikipedia's article on Kenneth Pollack that:
<<The second [book of Pollack's] The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq details the history of United States actions against Iraq since the Persian Gulf War. He discusses the need to invade Iraq, and the possible ways of going about it. Pollack argued that Saddam Hussein was simply too volatile and aggressive in his policies to be trusted not to begin another conflict in a volatile region. Many have criticized his support for the Invasion of Iraq, including war reporter Robert Fisk.>>
Thank you for your helpful suggestions on how to begin my post. They were very much appreciated.
Trusting this meets with your satisfaction. Sorry I did not feel up to buying my own copy of this A-hole's book just to back up my allegations, but I believe Wikipedia when it says that Pollack wrote a book titled The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq, and I believe Wikipedia when it says that the book discussed the need to invade Iraq and how to do it, and I believe Wikipedia when it says that Robert Fisk (a reporter who I happen to respect and trust) and others have criticized Pollack's support for the invasion of Iraq. I further believe that if a book is wholly or partially titled, The Case for Invading Iraq, then in all likelihood it will in fact advocate the invasion of Iraq; further that if Robert Fisk criticized Pollack for supporting the invasion of Iraq, then in all likelihood, Pollack did support it.
That's more or less all the evidence that I have in support of my allegation that, far from being a staunch opponent of the war "from the get-go," as you have so fatuously asserted, Pollack in fact was a strong and prominent supporter of the war. I would like to say that I am quite satisfied with this evidence that Pollack was in fact a supporter of the war.
Now OTOH you may feel that the evidence that I have relied upon in coming to conclusion that Pollack supported the war is just not good enough. So, although I have done you the courtesy of setting out my reasons in excruciating detail, I fully expect that you will not be convinced by them, due to reasons which I do not care to speculate upon. Alas, my dear sir, I do not give a shit one way or the other whether you accept this reasoning or not. I will say that I have not read any of Pollack's books, nor do I intend to. The man is obviously full-time paid agent of Zionist propaganda, works in a Zionist-founded institution and answers to a Zionist boss and a Zionist founder.
As to the content of his books, not having read them, I express no opinion. As to whether or not his second book supports the war on Iraq, not having read the book, but having read Wikipedia's brief account of it, I rely on Wikipedia and I believe that it does.
-
The term Fisking, or to Fisk, is blogosphere slang describing detailed point-by-point criticism that highlights errors, disputes the analysis of presented facts, or highlights other problems in a statement, article, or essay.[1]
Eric S. Raymond, in the Jargon File, defined the term as:
A point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or (especially) news story. A really stylish fisking is witty, logical, sarcastic and ruthlessly factual; flaming or handwaving is considered poor form. Named after Robert Fisk, a British journalist who was a frequent (and deserving) early target of such treatment.[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking
-
I'm a supporter of Eric S. Raymond, in a way, having purchased and enjoyed very much his New Hacker's Dictionary. Wonderful and fascinating work.
Wikipedia, in its article on Fisk, also mentions "fisking" and devotes a section of the main article to criticism of Fisk's reporting. As far as I can tell, it is the usual mudslinging that any reporter can expect if he is not singing from the Zionist hymnal and is more of a testament to his integrity and refusal to sell out than to any reportorial deficiencies. Here is the Wikipedia summary of the criticisms levelled against Fisk: (no quote marks hereafter, since everything that follows is a direct quote from wikipedia)
Fisk's reporting and commentary style has made him the object of criticism, to the extent that some bloggers[19][20][21] have coined the blogosphere term fisking ("a point-by-point refutation of a blog entry or a news story"). [22][23][24][25] Robert Fisk has been bitterly criticised by the Irish opinion columnist Eoghan Harris. Harris has written, "I think he does us a favour by being so forthright. For my money his analysis of Middle East politics is a first cousin to believing that aliens take away people in Flying Saucers".[2]
In an essay titled, "Why does John Malkovich want to kill me?", Fisk states that he and other journalists who criticize U.S. and Israeli policy in the Middle East will have to deal with hate mail and death threats. In that essay, he refers to actor John Malkovich's remark in May 2002 at the Cambridge Union Society, when asked who he would like to fight to the death, that he would rather just shoot Fisk.[26]
Guardian columnist Simon Hoggart (also a former Northern Ireland reporter), has leveled criticism at Fisk for being, "dreadfully pessimistic" since 9/11, because of his predictions that "the (actions of the) West (in response to 9/11) was about to bring total disaster upon its own head". Hoggart also cites claims brought forward in commentary submitted by Fisk over the years, specifically that "a group of British soldiers lost in the desert" meant that Desert Storm would fail, and that the bombing campaign during the Kosovo crisis would "only make things worse" . While acknowledging "his brilliant and vivid reporting", Hoggart stated in 2001 that Fisk's pessimism reveals judgement that is, "not just mistaken, but reliably mistaken".[27]
Ethan Bronner, in a New York Times review of Fisk's book, The Great War for Civilisation argues that Fisk is "most passionate and least informed about Israel," pursues his agenda "nearly to the exclusion of the pursuit of straight journalism" and allows his points to be "warped by his perspective."[28]. Sean Gannon, in an article for Frontpage agrees writing that Fisk's worldview is "shaped almost entirely by the highly-partisan historical and political perspectives Osama bin Laden described as 'neutral'... For Fisk the real axis of evil comprises, not the terror-sponsoring, WMD-seeking dictatorships of the world, but the ?Likudist? establishment in Jerusalem, Washington?s neo-Conservative cabals and the ?international Zionist lobby." [3]
Israeli historian Efraim Karsh, in a Commentary Magazine book review, commented on what he saw as Fisk's carelessness with facts:
? It is difficult to turn a page of The Great War for Civilisation without encountering some basic error. Jesus was born in Bethlehem, not, as Fisk has it, in Jerusalem. The Caliph Ali, the Prophet Mohammed?s cousin and son-in-law, was murdered in the year 661, not in the 8th century. Emir Abdallah became king of Transjordan in 1946, not 1921. The Iraqi monarchy was overthrown in 1958, not 1962; Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the mufti of Jerusalem, was appointed by the British authorities, not elected; Ayatollah Khomeini transferred his exile from Turkey to the holy Shiite city of Najaf not during Saddam Hussein?s rule but fourteen years before Saddam seized power. Security Council resolution 242 was passed in November 1967, not 1968; Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1979, not 1977, and was assassinated in October 1981, not 1979. Yitzhak Rabin was Minister of Defence, not prime minister, during the first Palestinian intifada, and al-Qaeda was established not in 1998 but a decade earlier. And so on and so forth.[29] ?
The pro-Israel Boston-based media watchdog CAMERA has criticised Fisk on a number of occasions for things he has written or said. In one case, they criticised Fisk for quoting an Israeli journalist to the effect that "[Israeli PM Menachem] Begin described [the Palestinians] in a speech in the Knesset as 'beasts walking on two legs'." According to CAMERA, Begin was not speaking about Palestinians in general but only about terrorists who harm Israeli children.[4][5]
CAMERA also accused Fisk of asserting that journalistic objectivity is "no longer relevant" to the Middle East and that instead journalists are "morally bound ... to show eloquent compassion to the victims."[30][31]
-
Fisk is to biased journalism as Benedict Arnold is to traitors.
-
Fisk writes from a POV but he does not invent facts, to my knowledge, and the historical errors in his book are more an indictment of his publishers and editors than they are of the man himself. I considered the source of the criticism, an Israeli professor of history. Historians can always pick holes in books by reporters, that's why publishers and editors employ fact-checkers. In this case, it appears the fact-checkers left a lot to be desired but OTOH the errors were mostly insignificant and inconsequential.
The criticism reported by Wikipedia was pretty non-impressive, mostly (from the one Gentile cited) undocumented allegations of undue pessimism, wrong predictions of outcomes (two examples given, neither impressive) and from the rest of the critics, the standard boilerplate routine slanders reserved by AIPAC and its propaganda mill for anyone who publicly deviates from the pro-Israel line on the Middle East.
It's just mindless parrotting to pick up on the Zionist allegations of bias and stick them on Fisk. He's a good honest reporter who tells it like it is and the Zionists absolutely hate him for it.
-
lol
that's pretty weak mikey.
Did you type that with a straight face?
-
Look you pompous fascist war-loving Bush-kissing Nazi, it says right here in Wikipedia's article on Kenneth Pollack that:
<<The second [book of Pollack's] The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq details the history of United States actions against Iraq since the Persian Gulf War. He discusses the need to invade Iraq, and the possible ways of going about it. Pollack argued that Saddam Hussein was simply too volatile and aggressive in his policies to be trusted not to begin another conflict in a volatile region.Many have criticized his support for the Invasion of Iraq, including war reporter Robert Fisk.>>
Thank you for your helpful suggestions on how to begin my post. They were very much appreciated. Trusting this meets with your satisfaction.
No, since it neither presents a claim or quote of Pollack, simply reinforces what most every other rationally minded person believed at the time, that Saddam was a threat to the region. Quoting Wikipedia quoting a reporter by the name of Fisk, is not quoting Pollack, especially when the same source Wikipedia, also demonstrates the obvious problems Fisk has with "objective" reporting, as highlighted by Bt. Your follow-up attempt to try and rationalize Fisk's shortcomings, when presented, was beyond comical.
I'd suggest trying again, but realize you'd present the exact same factless accusation you started with. I think Pollack had a term for that...."creative ommissions" Your repetition in this endeavor is indeed appreciated
-
ol
that's pretty weak mikey.
Did you type that with a straight face?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the contrary, BT, it is your response to my post that is "pretty weak." Hell, it's more than "pretty weak," it is totally devoid of substance. May I take it then that you really have nothing to say in response? In which case, it would have been more honest to say so in the first place. Robert Fisk is a reporter who has lived in the Middle East for decades and is intimately familiar with it. His reporting has broken free of the pro-Israel straitjacket that the US MSM insist their reporters wear. Predictably and for that reason only he was subjected to the usual character assassination and professional smears of the Zionist propaganda mill. The tactics are familiar, one or two token Gentiles are induced to attack the guy (Simon Hoggart, the only heavyweight, possessing no special Middle East credentials but an otherwise decent reputation, can only fault him for "excessive pessimism" and mostly undocumented wrong predictions) and the other token gentile (apparently, judging from the name only) makes the absolutely meaningless slur that Fisk's analysis of the Middle East is akin to tales of alien abductions. Well, Fisk has worked for some pretty well-respected papers in his day, and I don't recall any of them taking alien abduction stories seriously. It'll take more than the opinion of someone named Eoghan Harris, whoever the hell he is, to convince me that there's anything at all weird in any of Fisk's stories.
As for Ethan Bronner's NYT attack, it's the usual hodgepodge of AIPAC-Zionist lies and whining, Fisk hates Israel, hates America, loves bin Laden, is twisted, is blatantly biased, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseam. THIS from the paper of Judith Miller, no less. That was the only bit of humour in the entire diatribe.
And of course the factual errors in Fisk's book, discovered by the eagle eye of the Israeli professor of history, Karsh. This happened in the 8th Century, not the 7th Century, that was in 1972, not 1968, the diplomat's name was Greenberg, not Goldberg, all nit-picking over inconsequential details, which may have been Fisk's error, a typo, a typesetting error or even (God forbid!) Professor Karsh's error, but in any event nothing which would invalidate Fisk's underlying view of the Middle East and nothing that some half-decent fact-checking (the editor's and/or publisher's responsibility) wouldn't have cleaned up.
You're a sloppy thinker, BT. You fall for the standard Zionist BS without thinking, without analyzing. They're smart enough not to zap the guy with single points. They accumulate a LOT of points, from various sources (ideally with the least number of Jewish-sounding names among them) and then put them into an article that creates the impression that the guy Fisk is under attack from LOTS of sources with LOTS of different grounds. Therefore if only half that stuff is true, he's a very biased reporter. Where there's smoke there's fire. And you and millions like you, unfortunately, are just too fucking dumb to see through it. You buy it wholesale, by the yard. Never stopping to think, hey, this is all pretty much small beer; these criticisms are mostly just vague unsupported allegations of bias from people who must have no axe to grind, because they've got Irish names (never asking, HOW did this article come to be written, did anyone SUGGEST it to the writer, did anyone offer to pay for it and pay well for it?) You are woefully ignorant, not only of AIPAC but of other major Zionist propaganda mills, and the money they have to rev up a PR campaign that includes widespread smearing of anyone perceived to be anti-Israel and to have access to the public or collective mind. You're EXACTLY the kind of dolt that these campaigns are aimed at, and you're living proof of the fact that they work.
-
<<Quoting Wikipedia quoting a reporter by the name of Fisk, is not quoting Pollack, especially when the same source Wikipedia, also demonstrates the obvious problems Fisk has with "objective" reporting, as highlighted by Bt. Your follow-up attempt to try and rationalize Fisk's shortcomings, when presented, was beyond comical.
<<I'd suggest trying again, but realize you'd present the exact same factless accusation you started with. I think Pollack had a term for that...."creative ommissions" Your repetition in this endeavor is indeed appreciated>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious, especially the part about creative omissions. Here's a creative omission that I really appreciated, and it comes from one of this group's greatest sources of creative omissions, who I believe you will recognize:
The evidence that supported my statement that Pollack supported the war in Iraq (and that simultaneously disproves your egregious lie that he opposed it from the get-go) consisted of several points:
1. the title of his book, as reported by Wikipedia
2. that Pollack was attacked by some people other than Fisk for his support of the war, as reported by Wikipedia
3. that Pollack was attacked by Fisk for supporting the war, as reported by Wikipedia.
I found it hilarious that someone who has suddenly become an outspoken foe of creative omissions would attack my evidence that Pollack did not oppose the war from the get-go by dealing with only one piece of the evidence (Fisk's alleged attack,) creatively omitting to deal with the other two reasons, each of which is solid and viable in its own right. Now THAT is creative omission.
And now I am going to be perfectly fair with you, sirs. I will admit that Wikipedia can be wrong. Yes, everything that I said about Pollack supporting the war initially comes from Wikipedia (well, almost everything - - plenty of other web sources support that he wrote the book The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq and that it was published before the invasion of Iraq. But I am going to admit to you that EVERYTHING I read about Pollack on the web could be wrong. Everything I found on the web could be a huge pack of lies about Pollack. Yes, that is all possible.
But now I am going to tell you something else, sirs, something about common sense, about living in the real world, not in a paranoid fantasy. My common sense and experience in the real world tells me that it's far more likely that what I read on the web about Pollack initially supporting the war is true than that it's false. So, I choose to accept what I read. I believe that what I found on the web and produced in this thread is evidence that Pollack did not oppose the war from the get-go but, rather, supported it enthusiastically and publicly.
So, my evidence is good enough for me. I believe it's good enough for any other member of this group. I believe it's good enough for any sane and normal individual. And I believe it should be good enough for you.
Choose to accept it or choose to reject it, sirs, it's really all the same to me. I produced it, I stand by it, and if you are too fucking stupid or stubborn to accept it, I think you have a serious problem but it's really none of my fucking business and I don't really give a shit. Or, go out and find some evidence of your own to contradict me. Buy the A-hole's book if you like. Read it and see if Wikipedia's wrong, or if the criticism it reported is wrong. Maybe the guy really DID oppose the war in his book. But I'm not gonna speculate on that, I don't have the book, you don't have the book, and all I have to go on is what I found on the web. And EVERYTHING I found on the web says that you are full of shit, that Pollack did NOT oppose the war from the get-go, that he in fact supported it and wrote a book in support of it.
-
On the contrary, BT, it is your response to my post that is "pretty weak."
And yet being BT'd is not a common term in Blogdom. Being Fisked is.
Perhaps Robert Fisk needs a better PR firm.
-
<<And yet being BT'd is not a common term in Blogdom. Being Fisked is.>>
No disrespect, but much more to the point, JUDITH MILLER is not being Judith Millered in Blogdom. Fisk is being fisked.
<<Perhaps Robert Fisk needs a better PR firm. >>
Yeah, maybe he should ask AIPAC if they will fund him some equal-opportunity PR, just to level out the playing field. How do you think AIPAC will respond?
---------------------------------
I also neglected to point out something else - - Eric S. Raymond is not only the author of the esteemed New Hacker's Dictionary, he is also the guy who writes a lot of Wikipedia's tech stuff. Undoubtedly he is the author of the tech jargon section of Wikipedia. He's very influential in the spread of the jargon and he's not exactly a neutral arbiter. As his website indicates, he's very partisan, very pro-Israel and makes no secret of it.
-
Ah again the AIPAC boogeyman.
It's always the jews fault.
And yet Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and an early fisker is not Jewish nor a pro zionist hawk. Go figure.
-
<<It's always the jews fault.>>
No, that's stupid. AIPAC got to be the biggest or second biggest lobby in the country, but they're wasting all their money. Don't get anything in return for all the dough they spend. Shows ya how stupid they are. Just a bunch of marks asking to be fleeced. All their money wasted in pointless endeavours and not a single favourable word in the media for their efforts. Almost have to feel sorry for the poor dumb schmucks, dontcha?
<<And yet Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit and an early fisker is not Jewish nor a pro zionist hawk. >>
No, he's not. How did that happen? Hmmm.. [scratching head in bewilderment]
<<Go figure.>>
Oh no I can't, BT. It's way too complex for me. I'd blow my brains out on that one. I'll have to leave it to the innaleckshualls.
-
It's way too complex for me.
I can relate.
Who pays for you to post opinions. Who pullls your strings?
i ask because it is my understanding that it is nigh impossible for individuals to post their opinions without being beholden to the oligarch of choice.
-
<<Quoting Wikipedia quoting a reporter by the name of Fisk, is not quoting Pollack, especially when the same source Wikipedia, also demonstrates the obvious problems Fisk has with "objective" reporting, as highlighted by Bt. Your follow-up attempt to try and rationalize Fisk's shortcomings, when presented, was beyond comical.
<<I'd suggest trying again, but realize you'd present the exact same factless accusation you started with. I think Pollack had a term for that...."creative ommissions" Your repetition in this endeavor is indeed appreciated>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hilarious, ..........
......is the fact that not only can you provide ANYTHING resembling a quote of Pollack's that would validate your mindless accusation that he supported invasion, but the continued jester-like somersaults in irrational rationalizations supporting the biased reporting of Fisk.
Yes, you have been very entertaining as of late, trying to climb out of your latest factless hole
-
<<I can relate.
<<Who pays for you to post opinions. Who pullls your strings?
<<i ask because it is my understanding that it is nigh impossible for individuals to post their opinions without being beholden to the oligarch of choice.>>
Ask the question when my opinions start to reach the level of distribution and mass audience of Fisk and his Zionist adversaries. Any schmuck can post anything where his opinions don't reach past the eyes and ears of a dozen powerless schmucks like himself, all venting for one another's benefit. When you start reaching broader levels of distribution, where money is required for mass dissemination, it's a whole nuther story. sirs has a better chance of being heard in the MSM than I do. Except that he's superfluous, they already have enough "useful idiots." God, but you can be so naive in your questions sometimes.
-
<<Hilarious......is the fact that not only can you [not] provide ANYTHING resembling a quote of Pollack's that would validate your mindless accusation that he supported invasion . . . >>
Uh, if I may remind you, sirs, the TITLE of his own book, which I provided in my every post on the subject, IS a quote of Pollack and it directly validates the accusation that he supported the invasion. Other evidence as well was provided in the form of Wikipedia reports of others criticizing Pollack for supporting the war. It's good enough for me, and probably good enough for every other member of this group. That it's not good enough for you proves only what I've said all along about you, that you are just a fucking idiot whose opinion is not worth further discussion.
Where is it written that the only evidence supporting Pollack's support of the invasion has to be a quote from the man himself? There is plenty of evidence to support the fact that Hitler was an anti-Semite or that the Pope is Catholic. The necessity of producing actual quotes from the individuals concerned is ludicrous. Anyone suggesting that the case could not be proven without such direct quotes would be dismissed as a fucking idiot, as I so dismiss you.
<<but the continued jester-like somersaults in irrational rationalizations supporting the biased reporting of Fisk.>>
Fisk has been slandered and smeared by a powerful propaganda operation aimed at intimidating and silencing MSM criticism of Israel in the North American MSM and universities, and has so far weathered the storm pretty well. MSM audiences in print and TV at least are steadily going down, and the canned nature of their reporting and obvious pro-administration, pro-Israel slants may be a good part of the reason why. People know when they are being conned, which is where guys like Fisk come in. I think, slowly but surely, more people are starting to realize the extent of the pro-Zionist agenda of American MSM. Smear jobs of the kind mounted against Fisk, Juan Cole and others are starting to backfire.
<<Yes, you have been very entertaining as of late, trying to climb out of your latest factless hole>>
The so-called factless hole is the one you dug yourself with your ludicrous lie that Pollack opposed the invasion from the get-go, a whopper of laughably obscene proportions. Your attempts to dig your way out of it by flatly denying whatever evidence of Pollack's support of the invasion is produced, from sources such as Wikipedia and the title of his own book, without producing a shred of your own evidence to support his so-called opposition to the war, is beyond ludicrous, it is simply pathetic. Since Pollack was introduced into this topic by you, either in this thread or another, with the statement that he opposed the war from the get-go, it is of course YOU who are obligated to produce proof that he was in fact what you say he was, an opponent of the war from the get-go. THAT is the hole you dug yourself into, and from which you must dig yourself out. But of course you CAN'T dig yourself out, since, like 99% of what you post here, it too is a lie.
-
<<Hilarious......is the fact that not only can you [not] provide ANYTHING resembling a quote of Pollack's that would validate your mindless accusation that he supported invasion . . . >>
Uh, if I may remind you, sirs, the TITLE of his own book, which I provided in my every post on the subject, IS a quote of Pollack and it directly validates the accusation that he supported the invasion.
And as most rationally minded people are aware of, the title of a book is not a defacto position of the author, especially when
a) there's on record quotes, numerous times, espousing the opposite
b) you have NO quote of his that supports your accusation
c) all you can do is repeat the title of the book in "every post on the subject". Kinda like repeating Abu Graib or Salon as the defacto facts of an accusation, that under even the simplest of scrutiny, falls apart like wet bread
Not to mention the mind numbing cart wheels of rationalization regarding Fisk, as your supposed smoking gun of what Pollack really thinks. Kinda like you reading the mind of Fisk, reading the mind of Pollack. Perhaps we can slip Kevin Bacon in there somewhere
Other evidence as well was provided in the form of Wikipedia ......
Such as those criticizing Fisk for his LESS than objective ability at reporting stories.
The fact that I'm sure you've tried to find some quote of Pollack's that would substantiate your accusation, and best you could do was finding a citing wikipedia citing Fisk, more than helps debunk your illogical & completely irrational template yet again. Again, we thank you
-
<<And as most rationally minded people are aware of, the title of a book is not a defacto position of the author, especially when
a) there's on record quotes, numerous times, espousing the opposite
b) you have NO quote of his that supports your accusation
c) all you can do is repeat the title of the book in "every post on the subject". Kinda like repeating Abu Graib or Salon as the defacto facts of an accusation, that under even the simplest of scrutiny, falls apart like wet bread>>
I guess then at this point we have three pieces of evidence that at least points prima facie (in the absence of countervailing evidence) to Pollack supporting the war, some criticism of their adequacy (which may or may not be valid, but fails to disprove any of them) and ZERO ZIP NADA from you in support of your original contention that Pollack opposed the war from the get-go.
That looks like this: three pieces of evidence tending to show Pollack's support of the war but not conclusively demonstrating it, and ZERO ZIP NADA pieces of evidence to the contrary. In other words, a score of three-zip, in favour of Tee against sirs. Where I come from, 3-0 is a WIN. Which makes you a LOSER. All the more so since you introduced Pollack into the equation with the statement that he opposed the war from the get-go. LAUGHABLE. Because you have not produced a single shred of proof of that proposition. Of course not. How can you? It's a lie.
<<The fact that I'm sure you've tried to find some quote of Pollack's that would substantiate your accusation, and best you could do was finding a citing wikipedia citing Fisk, more than helps debunk your illogical & completely irrational template yet again. >>
Actually, you've got that turned around 180 degrees as you usually do. Since YOU were the one who introduced Pollack into this thread with the absurd lie that he was an opponent of the war from the get-go, YOU are the one who should have been trying to find some quote of Pollack's that would help YOU, and you seem to have failed utterly to do so. The evidence that I found that Pollack in fact supported the war is just the icing on the cake.
<< Again, we thank you>>
Unless you're a total masochist, sirs, or (much more likely) a complete idiot, there is really no need to thank me. All I did was once again demonstrate how you lie, and lie, and lie and lie. Nothing much to thank me for, really, is there?
-
Ask the question when my opinions start to reach the level of distribution and mass audience of Fisk and his Zionist adversaries. Any schmuck can post anything where his opinions don't reach past the eyes and ears of a dozen powerless schmucks like himself, all venting for one another's benefit.
Everybody starts out small.
Kos didn't start out with a million readers on day one. Neither did Glenn Reynolds.
Your whole libel that bloggers are in the pockets of AIPAC or the influence group du jour does not withstand scrutiny.
And these are the folks fisking Fisk.
-
<<Your whole libel that bloggers are in the pockets of AIPAC or the influence group du jour does not withstand scrutiny.>>
That wasn't my whole libel. Wasn't even part of my libel. MY comments were directed at four specific individuals, all of whom have access to the MSM for the airing of their views. The primary sources libelling Fisk are Zionist propagandists, and MSM figures in all likelihood put up to it by Zionist PR.
The bloggers who take it up from there are more or less just dumb, ignorant schmucks taken in by the smear campaign because they don't have the built-in BS detectors to see it for what it all too obviously is - - people like you or sirs, for example.
<<And these are the folks fisking Fisk. >>
These guys - - the ones who bought the smear campaign's BS - - are not paid off by anyone. They're just "dumb schmucks" or as Rich would say, "useful idiots" - - they spread BS for free which others were paid handsomely to make up.
-
That wasn't my whole libel. Wasn't even part of my libel. MY comments were directed at four specific individuals, all of whom have access to the MSM for the airing of their views. The primary sources libelling Fisk are Zionist propagandists, and MSM figures in all likelihood put up to it by Zionist PR.
The bloggers who take it up from there are more or less just dumb, ignorant schmucks taken in by the smear campaign because they don't have the built-in BS detectors to see it for what it all too obviously is - - people like you or sirs, for example.
That isn't even close to the wiki definition. Fisking is a blog phenomena. MSM has little to do with this. Fact is fisking is anti-msm.
"Fisking" in its current meaning was coined by bloggers in 2001, following a trenchant three-paragraph attack by Andrew Sullivan in response to an article written by Fisk in December 2001.[5] Though the term was not coined by Sullivan at that time, it appeared soon after on Instapundit and Sullivan's weblog. Sullivan used the term when responding to a dispatch by Fisk from Pakistan that recounted his beating at the hands of Afghan refugees.
-
I'm starting to wonder where this thing is going and what's the point. What does the precise meaning of "fisking" have to do with Fisk's reliability as a reporter of facts? Suppose the guy to be the victim of a Zionist smear campaign as I argued,originating with MSM writers or broadcasters. if the campaign were successful, bloggers would be persuaded that he was a schmuck and would blog accordingly.
If the campaign originated in the blogosphere, that also is no guarantee of its purity. The bloggers who originated the smears have to be examined for Zionist affiliation, content plausibility, etc., all the stuff you'd examine a MSM source for except who signs the paycheques, becuase the bloggers don't get one. Still does not mean they can't be bought.
Again, if the campaign were successful, other bloggers could follow suit believing the first bloggers and blog accordingly.
Doesn't mean the bloggers are paid off by anyone, in either case, but the mere fact of the "fisking" has zero value as evidence of Fisk's reliability or otherwise. He's fisked because he's a bad reporter or he's fisked because he's been wrongly smeared. The fisking itself means nothing. And I have to wonder how widespread the term would have become without Eric S. Raymond's guiding clout.
-
If the campaign originated in the blogosphere, that also is no guarantee of its purity.
No
But there is no automatic assumption that bloggers, some of whom you have run across in your years of posting on this forum, people like Brass and Plum and Henny and JayC28 have all blogged at one time or another, and i doubt any of them are a part of some vast zionist conspiracy.
Bloggers aren't much different than your or I. We post our opinions and wait for the feedback, trying our damnedest to maintain some semblance of credibility as we do so.
-
Ahh, for all to see, the art of misdirection, as personified by Tee. Well, in this thread alone we've had his hyperbolic accusations (minus any facts), cartoonish rationalizations of an obviously biased reporter, and now misdirection "don't look here, look there". In this case. Tee's accusation that Keneth Pollack supports invasion, but then demands that someone else prove he doesn't, when Pollack's own article I posted not more than 2 weeks ago references precisely that.
Sorry Tee, the way it works is when YOU make an accusation, YOU're the one that's obligated to back it up. Citing wikipedia citing some biased reporter in Fisk, is not citing Pollack. Citing Pollack supporting the invasion of Iraq is what gets you off the hook. Sure, you can convince yourself, then again you can simply just take your own word for it, and whala, proof postive....to YOU
Not some title on a book, but something on the record, something like "The end of the inspections eliminated the single best means of vetting what information intelligence agencies could gather independently about Iraq. These agencies usually shared (in some form) new information or analyses about the WMD programs with UNSCOM. If a defector claimed that biological-weapons material was stored at a given site, inspectors would look for it. If satellite imagery indicated unusual activity at a particular location, inspectors would try to confirm it.....The one action for which I cannot hold Administration officials blameless is their distortion of intelligence estimates when making the public case for going to war.....The war was not all bad. I do not believe that it was a strategic mistake, although the appalling handling of postwar planning was.....the case for war - and for war sooner rather than later - was certainly less compelling than it appeared at the time. At the very least we should recognize that the Administration's rush to war was reckless even on the basis of what we thought we knew in March of 2003"
Yea, really sounds like someone hell bent on invading Iraq ::)
-
<<But there is no automatic assumption that bloggers, some of whom you have run across in your years of posting on this forum, people like Brass and Plum and Henny and JayC28 have all blogged at one time or another, and i doubt any of them are a part of some vast zionist conspiracy.>>
Where is all this coming from? Whoever claimed that bloggers are part of a Zionist conspiracy? I thought I made it plain that it works like this - - some people are paid to write articles, others happen to do it from love of Israel, others as favours; from the POV of the PR managers, their job is to get a wave of opinion going - - in this case, trash Fisk - - and they have an unlimited budget and a lot of natural talent. One writer they know is sympathetic, they schmooze with the guy and commiserate how awful it is that those antisemitic bastards like Fisk are trashing Israel in the media and setting the stage for 1933 all over again, another guy they feed stuff to, hoping he'll write about it, another guy they have to pay to do it, another guy . . . figure it out for chrissake. There's as many ways as there are writers. Or do you want to pretend that AIPAC doesn't manage the news, they leave coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict up to the luck of the draw and hope for the best. What are you, crazy?
NO, they don't have to corrupt every single fucking blogger on the face of the earth. They start something going from a small nucleus and it takes on a life of its own. Plenty of schmucks pick up on the criticisms of Fisk - - from here, from this angle, from that angle. If they are naturally sympathetic to Israel, they get indignant: "this fucking antisemite can't even get his facts right" and they start quoting from the initial seeds planted.
I find it absolutely incredible that you seem to have no inkling of what a sophisticated PR campaign is all about, how it works, what it takes to get it started, how a good one will develop its own dynamic and become self-perpetuating after awhile. It's done in business, it's done in music, it's done in politics and yet you seem to have absolultely no familiarity whatsoever with this subject. It's easier for you to imagine all the world's bloggers being hooked into a vast Zionist conspiracy than it is for you to recognize the timeworn workings of a well-run PR campaign with big bucks behind it. Like you were born yesterday in a cotton patch. Jeeeeziz.
-
Where is all this coming from? Whoever claimed that bloggers are part of a Zionist conspiracy? I thought I made it plain that it works like this - - some people are paid to write articles, others happen to do it from love of Israel, others as favours; from the POV of the PR managers, their job is to get a wave of opinion going - - in this case, trash Fisk - - and they have an unlimited budget and a lot of natural talent. One writer they know is sympathetic, they schmooze with the guy and commiserate how awful it is that those antisemitic bastards like Fisk are trashing Israel in the media and setting the stage for 1933 all over again, another guy they feed stuff to, hoping he'll write about it, another guy they have to pay to do it, another guy . . . figure it out for chrissake. There's as many ways as there are writers. Or do you want to pretend that AIPAC doesn't manage the news, they leave coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict up to the luck of the draw and hope for the best. What are you, crazy?
But that isn't what happened. A blogger took an article by Fisk and dissected it bit by bit. Thus the term was born.
The conspiracy is born of your fevered brain.
Fisking happens in this forum all the time.
Prince does it, so does JS.
-
sirs, you have just got to stop lying. It isn't good for you and I will not let you get away with it. For example: YOU are the person who brought Pollack into this thread. When you brought Pollack into the thread, you specifically stated that he opposed the war from the get-go. That was a lie. It was YOUR lie. I challenged your lie.
As soon as I challenged your lie, you should have - - if you were an honest man instead of the liar you are - - run for documentation that Pollack did in fact - - from the get-go - - oppose the war. BUT HIS BOOK WRITTEN BEFORE THE WAR SUPPORTED AN INVASION. So naturally you could not do that. You could not prove that Pollack opposed the war from the get-go because in fact his book was inciting the people to SUPPORT an invasion of Iraq.
In fact, I went further than challenging your lie. I actually produced what evidence I could that it was a lie - - that Fisk had criticized him for supportng the war, that others had criticized him for supporting the war, and that his book was titled The Case for Invading Iraq. Not only did I challenge your lie, I went further and showed WHY I challenged it.
Now Fisk may or may not be the greatest reporter since Edward R. Murrow; probably not, but what the hell, good enough for me and a lot of other folks. Not good enough for a lot of Zionist flacks and their dupes, but that's OK too, they have a right to their opinion. The title of his book is not definitive either - - it's theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, that a man could write a book called The Case for Invading Iraq and in fact it's NOT a case for invading Iraq but a cookbook or a history of sexual perversion in 14th Century Mesopotamia or a religious tract on the salvation of levitators, but in my humble experience, living in the real world as I do and not in some fruit-bat's alternative universe, when a man writes a book titled The Case for Invading Iraq, dollars to donuts it more often than not DOES present the case for invading Iraq. Case closed. (unless you're a fucking moron)
So I feel, with considerable justification, that I have gone that extra mile. I not only challenged your ridiculous lie, I produced what evidence I had (short of actually reading the asshole's book, which I'm frankly not prepared to do - - any more than I'd have to read Mein Kampf cover-to-cover before daring to contradict Hitler or be able to state whether or not he was an anti-semite) and with the evidence I had, showed pretty conclusively how absurd it was to claim that Pollack had opposed the war from the get-go, when he actually wrote a book supporting it.
Now, what did YOU do when your Big Lie was challenged? Did you go that extra mile? Hardly. In fact you didn't even get up off your ass. Didn't produce one single shred of evidence that Pollack had in fact opposed the war from the get-go. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. In fact, absurdly, you claimed that it was MY obligation to prove that Pollack had not opposed the war from the get-go.
Get this. Although YOU introduced Pollack into the thread, WITH the claim that he had opposed the war from the get-go, suddenly it became MY obligation to prove that he didn't. Huh? Excuse me? YOU make the allegation that Pollack did oppose the war from the get-go, it becomes YOUR obligation to prove that he did when challenged.
Oh, and that little piece that you just quoted in your last post - - cute that you didn't provide attribution or date. A LOT of people backed off the project after it went sour and became critics, Pollack obviously being one of them, one of many. Criticizing the war long after it's become obvious what a fucked up idea the whole thing was is NOT "opposing the war from the get-go." It's just covering one's own ass.
Pollack is as I've previously pointed out a paid Zionist hack. He works under a Zionist boss in a Zionist institution financed by a Zionist billionaire and his credibility is actually lower than zero. You quoted him in support of the proposition that Bush did not lie the country into war. You couldn't have found a sleazier, more dishonest, more discredited individual to exonerate Bush if you had combed the cells of the local prison. Pollack has very good reason to calm the waters and to dispel the illusion that the war was the product of lies, because when that seeps out, people naturally want to know WHOSE lies, and where those lies came from and who promoted them and who benefited from them, and these questions are not good for friendly relations between the U.S.A. and Israel. Best NOT to leave any impression that the war was the result of a Big Lie. Best leave it to "faulty intelligence." And Pollack - - despite his frantic attempts to cover his ass and deny any part in promoting the failed war - - is still loyal to the Cause. He'll say whatever he has to say to squelch the perception that Bush or anyone else "lied the U.S.A. into the war."
-
<<But that isn't what happened. A blogger took an article by Fisk and dissected it bit by bit. Thus the term was born.
<<The conspiracy is born of your fevered brain.
<<Fisking happens in this forum all the time.
<<Prince does it, so does JS. >>
We're obviously talking at cross-purposes here. There seem to be two issues, (1) what is fisking and how did it originate? and (2) is Robert Fisk a reliable reporter and specifically is he reliable on the issue of whether or not Ken Pollack originally supported the war in Iraq?
As far as I'm concerned, the first is a non-issue. Mainly it's a question of lexicography, origins and derivations of words in the language. I don't give a rat's ass what fisking is or what it means. I don't think it's germane to any of the political issues being discussed in this thread.
OTOH, as far as Fisk's reliability goes, I defend it. He may or may not have been fisked. If a blogger fisked him, that only proves that the blogger disagreed with him. Without going through the actual fisking one issue at a time, and considering Fisk's response, there's no telling who's right, Fisk or the fisker. When I read the Wiki article on Fisk, it mentioned four main sources of criticism. It was obvious to me that Fisk was receiving standard treatment for any reporter who fails to toe the Israeli line in the English or North American media. I did a quick review of the criticism and found it to be vague, insubstantial and/or nit-picking.
That Fisk was fisked, I did not pay a whole lot of attention to. Obviously, anyone can fisk anyone, with or without being right. The specific criticisms uncovered during the fisking need to be evaluated in order to determine it they hit their mark or not. However, I did attribute the fisking to the Zionist smear campaign. It's a totally inconsequential matter, because the criticism stands or falls on its own, regardless of cause or origin. But it did seem to me that a guy like Fisk would be subject to multiple fiskings, and this would be due in large part to the success of the smear campaign.
It's not important that Fisk was or was not fisked. What IS important is that this man was targeted by the Zionist propaganda mill for destruction and that criticism of him, while not automatically invalid, must be taken very skeptically and examined very carefully for that reason.
-
What IS important is that this man was targeted by the Zionist propaganda mill for destruction and that criticism of him, while not automatically invalid, must be taken very skeptically and examined very carefully for that reason.
You haven't proven that. You just assume that that is the dark force behind it.
-
<<You haven't proven that. [that Fisk was targeted for character assassination by the Zionist propaganda apparatus] You just assume that that is the dark force behind it.>>
That's right, he challenges the prevailing Israeli mythology in the media regularly and effectively and then (like everyone else who takes on the Zionists, from Juan Cole to Noam Chomsky) gets slammed by various commentators as biased, inaccurate and incompetent, but it's foolish to assume the Zionists are behind it. It's probably the professors of Greek philosophy. Or maybe the beekeepers.
-
biased, inaccurate and incompetent
Last i heard, being able to pick up on the above is a universal trait.
-
<<Last i heard, being able to pick up on the above is a universal trait.>>
I think what we're talking about is the ability to find it where it doesn't exist. Or find a smidgen of it and multiply it ten thousandfold. Being able to do that is not a universal trait, it's a valuable talent, and it's rewarded accordingly.
-
sirs, you have just got to stop lying.
I didn't realize you had a mirror in front of your computer screen. Or maybe it's simply the refelection in the monitor. Not to bore anyone further, I'm sure you'll let us know the moment you actually have a validating quote by Pollack that validates to rationally minded people, the notion that he actually supported Invasion of Iraq. Until then, your verbal contortions and lingustic somersaults are duely noted
-
<<....validating quote by Pollack that validates to rationally minded people, the notion that he actually supported Invasion of Iraq. >>
Took Google 2 seconds.
Of course, you'll probably quibble now with "rationally minded" or "invasion" or some way out. Oh well.
Next Stop Baghdad?
Kenneth M. Pollack
From Foreign Affairs, March/April 2002
QUOTE:
After the more immediate danger posed by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network has been dealt with, the Bush administration should indeed turn its attention to Baghdad. What it should do at that point, however, is pursue the one strategy that offers a way out of the impasse. The United States should invade Iraq, eliminate the present regime, and pave the way for a successor prepared to abide by its international commitments and live in peace with its neighbors.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20020301faessay7970/kenneth-m-pollack/next-stop-baghdad.html
-
<<....validating quote by Pollack that validates to rationally minded people, the notion that he actually supported Invasion of Iraq. >>
Of course, you'll probably quibble now with "rationally minded" or "invasion" or some way out.
Why would I? You did in apparently 2 seconds what Tee couldn't do for days
-
sirs, you have just got to stop lying. It isn't good for you and I will not let you get away with it. For example: YOU are the person who brought Pollack into this thread. When you brought Pollack into the thread, you specifically stated that he opposed the war from the get-go. That was a lie. It was YOUR lie. I challenged your lie.
Actually, on Page 2 of the thread, Mikey is the one who introduces Pollack into this thread. Unless you're claiming that Sirs is posting using your account?
-
D'OH....Tee caught in lie #........."?"........I've lost count. #43 perhaps? ;)
-
Ami: <<Actually, on Page 2 of the thread, Mikey is the one who introduces Pollack into this thread. Unless you're claiming that Sirs is posting using your account?>>
Page 2 of this thread, huh? I guess you mean my Reply #21 on: September 29, 2007, 08:56:34 AM , wherein I said:
<< . . . This [Rich's inclusion of The Brookings Institution as one of Soros' nefarious projects]is truly hilarious. The Brookings Institution's Director of Research is none other than Kenneth Pollack, who is constantly cited by sirs as a source for his ridiculous "Bush didn't lie us into war" diatribes. >>
While you're technically correct in that I had introduced Pollack into this thread, it was sirs who introduced Pollack into the general on-going discussion about Bush having lied the country into war or not. A discussion which spilled over into this thread but had actually begun earlier in another thread For those with military background.
Sirs' Reply #23 on: September 23, 2007, 08:02:30 PM in that thread introduces Pollack into the discussion:
<<[We can know what foreign intelligence really thought by looking at what's] been reported by folks who actually have intimate knowledge of such, like Kevin [sirs obviously means Kenneth] Pollack [link] who was part of Clinton's National Security Council & initiate [sirs probably means intimate] with intel related deciphering. [The link leads to a magazine article by Pollack in which he mentions his book, Threatening Storm.]>>
Sirs was actually bringing Pollack into our discussions of whether or not Bush lied the country into war (with a link to his article) as early as September 23, SIX DAYS PRIOR to what Ami refers to as my bringing Pollack into this thread. Now technically, if you want to consider each thread as an isolated, hermetically sealed discussion bearing absolutely no relationship to any other thread or its contents, Ami is technically correct. Or would have been, had I not, even in this thread, referred back to sirs' prior use of Pollack as a source (see highlighting, above.) There is thus no possible dispute that it was sirs who first introduced Pollack as a source into the general discussion of the issue, if not into that part of it that continued on in this particular thread. Even as I was referencing Pollack in this thread, I was careful to acknowledge sirs as the person who had introduced him into the discussion.
The fact then remains, it was sirs who introduced Pollack into the discussion, sirs who portrayed him as an opponent of the invasion from the get-go (notwithstanding his having authored a book supporting the invasion before it even took place) and sirs who is still, despite his friend's valiant efforts to save his ass, a liar and a bullshitter.
-
Perhaps Mikey should construct his statements with more care. He specifically stated "For example: YOU are the person who brought Pollack into this thread." Now he wants to go back and revise that to include other threads: "A discussion which spilled over into this thread but had actually begun earlier in another thread For those with military background."
And to tell the truth, if we're gonna bring every thread ever written into question, no one will be able to research it - BT has changed forum software several times, so older posts no longer exist.
-
<<Perhaps Mikey should construct his statements with more care. He specifically stated "For example: YOU are the person who brought Pollack into this thread." >>
You are correct. I should have phrased it more carefully. As a matter of fact, I had lost sight of the fact that sirs had introduced Pollack into the discussion in another thread.
<<Now he wants to go back and revise that to include other threads: "A discussion which spilled over into this thread but had actually begun earlier in another thread For those with military background.">>
Yes, when I make a mistake, I want to correct it. You seem surprised. I am not sirs. I don't intend to ride my mistakes into the grave.
<<And to tell the truth, if we're gonna bring every thread ever written into question, no one will be able to research it - BT has changed forum software several times, so older posts no longer exist.>>
Getting a little hysterical, aren't we? A little carried away? There was less than a week's difference between the two threads. Moreover, even in this thread, I had referenced back explicitly to sirs' having introduced Pollack into the discussion.