How low the US administration can be?

[allhailIndia]

Why have the stock, when my pocket money can buy the company??;-)

Anybody think of having a fund raiser for Ken Lay, You know so that he gets his private jet back, his various properties. Poor man seems to have lost everything

 

[Greadius]

Sheesh, obviously Kurtz didn't read my post. I hate to agree with AoA but the NY Times IS left wing news. That is why I read it. Of course, that is American left wing, which I suppose is pretty conservative to some.

Originally posted by allhailIndia
Thank God we do not have a Presidential system of elections where it might have a been a choice of 2 thugs. Instead ,we can now make choice between 1000 thugs in the 500 parliamentary seats

Ahh, but you don't have the pleasures of divided government. There is nothing better than the government coming to a roaring halt because Congress & the President can't agree

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Greadius
Sheesh, obviously Kurtz didn't read my post. I hate to agree with AoA but the NY Times IS left wing news. That is why I read it. Of course, that is American left wing, which I suppose is pretty conservative to some.

I will still disagree with both you and AoA. I will rate the Times as right-leaning moderate; not as conservatve as most but once again, certainly not left-wing.

 

[jkharvey]

I think I may smell a socialist here (Kurtz).

Here are a couple headlines from the NY times which I think may help this argument. The first is from several months ago.

Conservatives turn to flogging as proper punishment.

Here is another one from several weeks ago.

Most Americans tie Bush to Enron.

The second one had to do with a pole the times had conducted. The question they asked was which party had the strongest ties with Kenneth Lay. The numbers were approximately as follows 20% GOP, 40% both equally 15% Dem. and 25% don't know/care.

These two seem to be quick smear attempts at conservatives. If anyone can find some evidence of the Times trying to smear Dems (Jackasses) let me know...

 

[allhailIndia]

60% of the Americans polled did not think that all their politicians were crooked!! What a joke
Which nut conducted the survey and where??

 

[Flatlander Fox]

That we all argued over incessantly.

The raise the fist scandal...

Typical trolling...

Don't believe everything you read kiddies...

And for those of you who aren't kiddies, maybe you should take your anti-paranoia pills.

I generally go with the hometown guys on calls like this.

Any other New Yorkers defending this particular rag?

P.S.: India, I think that gallup poll was done on the floor of the Senate.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by jkharvey
I think I may smell a socialist here (Kurtz).

Here are a couple headlines from the NY times which I think may help this argument. The first is from several months ago.

Conservatives turn to flogging as proper punishment.

Here is another one from several weeks ago.

Most Americans tie Bush to Enron.

The second one had to do with a pole the times had conducted. The question they asked was which party had the strongest ties with Kenneth Lay. The numbers were approximately as follows 20% GOP, 40% both equally 15% Dem. and 25% don't know/care.

These two seem to be quick smear attempts at conservatives. If anyone can find some evidence of the Times trying to smear Dems (Jackasses) let me know...

"Most Americans tie Bush to Enron" is an objective statement regarding the results of the poll. It just says that most Americans tied the Bus administration with the Enron scandal. The Times itself is not making any inferences.

BTW no I am not a Socialist; left-wing, yes, but certainly not Socialist.

But this thread is not about any of this. The fact remains, the Pentagon wants to spread false US Propaganda to get everyone on our side. Truly, that is despicable.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by ApocalypseKurtz
I will still disagree with both you and AoA. I will rate the Times as right-leaning moderate; not as conservatve as most but once again, certainly not left-wing.

Don't mean to belittle your opinion Kurtz, but the Times is almost Radical in it's hatred of all things Republican.
No way on this Earth can they EVER be called right-leaning, moderate, or conservative in ANY way.

I'm not a giant fan of Dubya, I find a lot of the things that happen nowadays troubling (like the supression of freedom in the so-called "Patriot" plan), but when I see a silly smear like this Times piece, all I can do is laugh.

I always feel that Democrats are better at domestic issues and Rebulicans are better at Defense and Foreign policy, neither are consistant with the economy, so I hope for a balence, because when you have one party controlling the congress and the presidency (Like the Carter years, or Bush senior) the country goes to hell.

We need the balence.

 

[knowltok2]

No it isn't an objective statement. For one thing the results are about the GOP, not Bush. The poll does not ask, and therefore doesn't say whether people think bush has strong ties to Enron. He may, and the people may think so, but that is not supported by the poll. They are simply trying to sell newspapers to their readers by printing a headline that will grab more attention and cater to their readership.

 

[ApocalypseKurtz]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Don't mean to belittle your opinion Kurtz, but the Times is almost Radical in it's hatred of all things Republican.
No way on this Earth can they EVER be called right-leaning, moderate, or conservative in ANY way.

I'm not a giant fan of Dubya, I find a lot of the things that happen nowadays troubling (like the supression of freedom in the so-called "Patriot" plan), but when I see a silly smear like this Times piece, all I can do is laugh.

I always feel that Democrats are better at domestic issues and Rebulicans are better at Defense and Foreign policy, neither are consistant with the economy, so I hope for a balence, because when you have one party controlling the congress and the presidency (Like the Carter years, or Bush senior) the country goes to hell.

We need the balence.

fair enough

 

[VoodooAce]

hhhmmm.....do I smell a few fascists here?

Why does everyone keep calling this story crap or a smear piece?

The department does exist, no? Of course it does, I've seen it on numerous other sources.....other than that bastion of communism, the NY Times

What's the problem here? The bastion of fascism in America, Fox News mentions the unnamed source in their FIRST FREAKIN' PARAGRAPH.

But, yeah, right, its the NY Times that you can't believe.

Cracks me up that some of you don't like the story, or don't like the negative attention it is/will net for the administration, so you just trash the source.

Well, here you go, kiddies:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,45977,00.html

Enjoy!

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by VoodooAce
Cracks me up that some of you don't like the story, or don't like the negative attention it is/will net for the administration, so you just trash the source.

You think it's more credible because Fox news ripped it off the times, and you call others naieve?

HaHaHaHa

They are just as bad from the right side as the times is from the left!

 

[SunTzu]

Ok, i just scanned through this, but am i understanding that some paper(NY TIMES?) says that the US government is creating a Propaganda office and they said out right that they're going to spread false statements?
If thats what this is or was about, then whoever believes that is pretty stupid.
Even if you think Bush is some stupid redneck he still wouldn't release a statement like that.

 

[Simon Darkshade]

I'm not going to dunk my head in this piranha tank for too long, but I will make two points.
From what I can gather, the administration could go a lot lower than creating a "propaganda office", if that is what it is. Very much so.
Previous administrations have had their screw ups, and overall, the US is far better off than a lot of the rest of the world in this respect.

Secondly, the use of "bastion of fascism" and "bastion of communism" were bandied about in regards to various forms of media. I have never seen this 'Fox News', but I would presume and hope that it is not fascist by my definition. But this reference was most probably made in sarcasm.

Anyway, I have not seen the story in question yet, nor are internal US politics my chosen forte of fortes, so I will withhold further comment for now.

 

[VoodooAce]

Lol.

My 'bastion of fascism' remark was made in response to the common tactic usedby so many to label anything that is left of center socialism/communism.

Fox News is no more fascist than the NY Times is communist and vice versa.

I'm not saying that this is the lowest of lows. I'm just fascinated by the level of denial in this thread.

Take SunTzu's post, for instance. He didn't even bother to read the story, and I doubt he really read any of the other posts. He just saw that it was A) A NY Times story andB) That it criticizes the "stupid redneck" that is the President (his words, not mine )

Then he proceeds to label as stupid anyone that believed the story. Hhhmmm.....

And then there's AofA, putting words into my mouth. All I said was fine, you don't like the NY Times as a source, how's Fox News.....

I don't know where he got the idea that since its on Fox News I think its MORE credible. What? I'm not supposed to name more than one source?

I didn't say ANYTHING about credibility. Some were refusing to acknowledge that the story is true, or attributing the remarks from the 'unnamed source' as a NY Times fabrication.

I merely showed another source. Personally, I think a number of people just don'tlike this story.

 

[eyrei]

Back on topic. I wonder if we are really not supposed to laugh at a statement like this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that a Pentagon campaign to influence global opinion will not include lies to the public, but might employ ``tactical'' deception to confuse an enemy for battlefield advantage.

 

[Richard III]

AoA, I've read some stories up here about some anti-Times crusader who takes apart every issue of the Times, points out the spots where there's errors and e-mails a bulletin every day. Something like "SmarterTimes" or "BetterTimes" or something like that?

Do you know what I'm talking about?

If so, do you know where I can find a link to the guy's operation? I'd love to set the same sort of thing up for the Toronto Star, which (needless to say) often lives up to its name.

P.S. All - I heard the OSI thing on the radio and laughed, because now I know that for the next ten years, every time a favorable story about the US appears in the media somewhere, some fool is going to write to this forum or Socialist Worker or the Utne Reader and insist it was obviously "planted by OSI, the US Government's secret propaganda organization."

And that fact makes me feel very, very tired.

R.III

 

[Richard III]

Not that I meant to imply that this hallowed forum was anything like Socialist Worker or the Utne Reader these days. Perish the thought!

 

[knowltok2]

Originally posted by eyrei
Back on topic. I wonder if we are really not supposed to laugh at a statement like this:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that a Pentagon campaign to influence global opinion will not include lies to the public, but might employ ``tactical'' deception to confuse an enemy for battlefield advantage.

I'm not sure I see the problem with this statement. If the US is about to invade country A by land, and wants said country to believe it will be by sea, leaking a few pieces of information to the press that would indicate preparations for sea invasion, what is the problem? If the US has 10 units getting ready and only tells the press about the 2 marine units, you could call that tactical deception. You could also call it a good idea. We've done it before, we'll do it again.

I suppose we could ask that our military never lie. They should probably stop breaking codes too since, "Gentlemen don't read other Gentlemen's mail." I prefer what we have, which is to me a way of saying, we'll tell you the truth, but sometimes we might try to decieve someone who will be trying to shoot at us. This is the kind of policy I would want any defense secretary to have, regardless of politics.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by knowltok2


I'm not sure I see the problem with this statement. If the US is about to invade country A by land, and wants said country to believe it will be by sea, leaking a few pieces of information to the press that would indicate preparations for sea invasion, what is the problem? If the US has 10 units getting ready and only tells the press about the 2 marine units, you could call that tactical deception. You could also call it a good idea. We've done it before, we'll do it again.

I suppose we could ask that our military never lie. They should probably stop breaking codes too since, "Gentlemen don't read other Gentlemen's mail." I prefer what we have, which is to me a way of saying, we'll tell you the truth, but sometimes we might try to decieve someone who will be trying to shoot at us. This is the kind of policy I would want any defense secretary to have, regardless of politics.

I don't have any problem with the military lying and spreading misinformation, even if it is to the American public. I just thought it was funny that Rumsfield's statement contradicted itself.