Soros

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.

[BT]

biased, inaccurate and incompetent

Last i heard, being able to pick up on the above is a universal trait.

[Michael Tee]

<<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]

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

[Lanya]

<<....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

[sirs]

<<....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

[Amianthus]

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?

[sirs]

D'OH....Tee caught in lie #........."?"........I've lost count.  #43 perhaps?     

[Michael Tee]

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.

[Amianthus]

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.

[Michael Tee]

<<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.