The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
by Christopher Hitchens


It helps discredit free media in Iraq at a time when that profession is very new and very hazardous (and one of the unarguable moral gains of the original intervention). In a situation already dominated by rumor and conspiracy-mongering, and in a country rife with death squads, it exposes every honest Iraqi reporter to the charge that he or she is an agent of a foreign power. Who at the Pentagon could possibly have needed to have this explained to them?


It comes on the heels of a credible report about a threat, from President George W. Bush, to bomb the Qatari headquarters of Al Jazeera. The British government, from whose inner circle the relevant memo has been leaked, might have taken credit—in that Tony Blair appears to have dissuaded Bush from this course of criminal insanity—but instead has threatened to use the Official Secrets Act against the newspaper that published it, thus somewhat strengthening the supposition that the story is true. Since certain people and places associated with Al Jazeera have been hit in the past, it appears more plausible than ever in retrospect that some deliberate "targeting" may have been involved.


It follows the deaths, at the hands of American soldiers, of several Iraqi journalists in "friendly fire." I wrote about this for Slate in July and pointed out that a British general had warned American commanders that these tactics might be quite an easy way of losing the war.


It is not just a matter of lying to the Iraqis and to neighboring countries, bad as that would be. The feedback must also have been intended to deceive the American taxpayers whose money was used for the fraud in the first place.

. . .

It is, anyway, not so much a matter of fooling people as of insulting them. The prostitute journalist is a familiar and well-understood figure in the Middle East, and Saddam Hussein's regime made lavish use of the buyability of the regional press. Now we, too, have hired that clapped-out old floozy, Miss Rosie Scenario, and sent her whoring through the streets. If there was one single thing that gave a certain grandeur to the change of regime in Baghdad, it was the reopening of the free press (with the Communist Party's paper the first one back on the streets just after the statue fell) and the profusion of satellite dishes, radio stations, and TV programs. There were some crass exceptions—Paul Bremer's decision to close Muqtada Sadr's paper being one of the stupidest and most calamitous decisions—but in general it was something to be proud of. Now any fool is entitled to say that a free Iraqi paper is a mouthpiece, and any killer is licensed to allege that a free Iraqi reporter is a mercenary. A fine day's work. Someone should be fired for it.

http://www.slate.com/id/2131566/

we should blow up al jazeera. this is all going to go back burner soon.

Our allies the Russian, you remember, the guys you though we needed to listen to about Iraq, well it seems they are selling a billion dollars worth of missiles to Iran. The UN has concluded that Iran will have the atomic bomb in a matter of months and its President has set forth a goal of eliminating Israel. By Spring Israel will hav eblown up large chunks of Iran.

By the way, didn't I havve a bet with SHP or one of you that there would not be an invasion of Syria by last Spring- someone owes this board support money.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
It is not just a matter of lying to the Iraqis and to neighboring countries, bad as that would be. The feedback must also have been intended to deceive the American taxpayers whose money was used for the fraud in the first place.

The one thing that I can't quite get a handle on - and it's a determinative thing, in my mind - were we paying to publish untruths, or truths?

Makes a difference to me. If we were simply trying to get some page space for articles and info that accurately set out something that we thought the readers should know, I see no problem. If, however, we were trying to slip inaccurate info out there under the guise of an independent article. then Hitch is correct, in my mind.

The general in charge of this effort today gave a press conference in which he very strongly denied there were any untruths, inaccuracies, or even slants - that he simply wanted the info out there and it wasn't getting reported. As part of convincing the Iraqis of the progress of the efforts, that would seem to be a primary and acceptable means.

So, I think we need more info.

[Captain]

Originally posted by bilmore
The one thing that I can't quite get a handle on - and it's a determinative thing, in my mind - were we paying to publish untruths, or truths?

Makes a difference to me. If we were simply trying to get some page space for articles and info that accurately set out something that we thought the readers should know, I see no problem. If, however, we were trying to slip inaccurate info out there under the guise of an independent article. then Hitch is correct, in my mind.

The general in charge of this effort today gave a press conference in which he very strongly denied there were any untruths, inaccuracies, or even slants - that he simply wanted the info out there and it wasn't getting reported. As part of convincing the Iraqis of the progress of the efforts, that would seem to be a primary and acceptable means.

So, I think we need more info.

I thought that, at Spanky's suggestion, we were firing all the press secretaries as a waste of dollars and an inappropriate use of government. I personally want to fire them across the board, which means in Iraq, too, and whether they are on the payroll of the President, the Minority Leader, or the Army.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
It really isn't a defeatist book. Or a sky is falling book. It is about learning from what people before us did which led to their eventual demise (and in some cases, their eventual success, which is related obviously to his earlier book, Guns, Germs and Steel). I don't know why trying to learn things from prior societies would be looked upon as a negative thing. It actually contains some really hopeful examples of ways that, for example, big oil conglomerates have done things to improve local environemnts AND their long-term bottom lines.

So you wouldn't want us to learn about Hitler because it is just a story of how bad people can be and there is nothing really to learn other than human nature?

Yes, I said it. Hitler. What does Sebby win?



(I'm pretty sure that the rule doesn't hold if you aren't actually comparing someone to Hitler, but if this loses me the argument, so be it.)

My response was a bit more emotional than it was well thought out. Shocking, no?

I walk thru a bookstore every day at lunch and see more and more of these “we are so fucked” or “someone is lying to you” or “these are the cancers you’ll be getting and they’re caused by Exxon and big pharma” books that I got a visceral reaction from reading a blurb about Collapse. I just so want it to be 1999 again. I think I have Clinton withdrawal... I mean, I am libertarian by nature, so I should be kinda psyched about some of what Bush has been doing... But I can’t help feeling down. The Oped pages are all bad, and the books aren’t about being a billionaire at 40 anymore; they’re telling me how to avoid getting leukemia from Splenda or how social security will be bankrupt in 2020. Sometimes it feels like society’s in a Hobbesian meltdown. No fun.

So I guess my point is, I don’t want to read about collapses anymore. I’d like to see a little more Irrational Exuberance around.

Is there a way to treat cynicism?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Is there a way to treat cynicism?

Strippers and blow. Duh.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
My response was a bit more emotional than it was well thought out. Shocking, no?

I walk thru a bookstore every day at lunch and see more and more of these “we are so fucked” or “someone is lying to you” or “these are the cancers you’ll be getting and they’re caused by Exxon and big pharma” books that I got a visceral reaction from reading a blurb about Collapse. I just so want it to be 1999 again. I think I have Clinton withdrawal... I mean, I am libertarian by nature, so I should be kinda psyched about some of what Bush has been doing... But I can’t help feeling down. The Oped pages are all bad, and the books aren’t about being a billionaire at 40 anymore; they’re telling me how to avoid getting leukemia from Splenda or how social security will be bankrupt in 2020. Sometimes it feels like society’s in a Hobbesian meltdown. No fun.

So I guess my point is, I don’t want to read about collapses anymore. I’d like to see a little more Irrational Exuberance around.

Is there a way to treat cynicism?

I have some shares of a tech stock I'd like to sell you. I'm willing to part with them for 1999 prices. A bargain!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
by Christopher Hitchens


It helps discredit free media in Iraq at a time when that profession is very new and very hazardous (and one of the unarguable moral gains of the original intervention). In a situation already dominated by rumor and conspiracy-mongering, and in a country rife with death squads, it exposes every honest Iraqi reporter to the charge that he or she is an agent of a foreign power.
http://www.slate.com/id/2131566/

This article misses the point. There is no question that if the information gets out it will have a negative effect. However, if the information had never gotten out then it would have been OK. If the story was leaked by the enemy then the Pentagon screwed up. But if an American reporter found this information and released it, that is no different from an an American reporter releasing the location of American soldiers. Whoever leaked this story is giving aid and confort to the enemy and insuring that more American soldiers get killed.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I have some shares of a tech stock I'd like to sell you. I'm willing to part with them for 1999 prices. A bargain!

Oh, I'm just comforted that I bought Gary Winnick a few plasma televisions for his guest home's gazebo/spa. I know how tough it can be trudging to the main home to get a manicure.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Spanky
This article misses the point. There is no question that if the information gets out it will have a negative effect. However, if the information had never gotten out then it would have been OK. If the story was leaked by the enemy then the Pentagon screwed up. But if an American reporter found this information and released it, that is no different from an an American reporter releasing the location of American soldiers. Whoever leaked this story is giving aid and confort to the enemy and insuring that more American soldiers get killed.

Comfort to the enemy? I know its a term of art, but has it been used since Franz Ferdinand's assassination?

[Replaced_Texan]

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan

did you just out your baltassoc sock?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
did you just out your baltassoc sock?

So you're saying she uses that sock when she wants to dumb herself down- like how i would use my GGG sock?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
This article misses the point. There is no question that if the information gets out it will have a negative effect. However, if the information had never gotten out then it would have been OK. If the story was leaked by the enemy then the Pentagon screwed up. But if an American reporter found this information and released it, that is no different from an an American reporter releasing the location of American soldiers. Whoever leaked this story is giving aid and confort to the enemy and insuring that more American soldiers get killed.

Our Constitution protects the right of every journalist - nay, every citizen - to work against his government. Ellsworth made this clear.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Comfort to the enemy? I know its a term of art, but has it been used since Franz Ferdinand's assassination?

Spanky, here's the proof for my last post.

It's a passe' concept.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
This article misses the point. There is no question that if the information gets out it will have a negative effect. However, if the information had never gotten out then it would have been OK. If the story was leaked by the enemy then the Pentagon screwed up. But if an American reporter found this information and released it, that is no different from an an American reporter releasing the location of American soldiers. Whoever leaked this story is giving aid and confort to the enemy and insuring that more American soldiers get killed.

You know, you claim to have a conscience, and to be guided by a moral code. But, if one reads your posts, it becomes clear that on the political front you have no scruples at all. The only issue for you is whether or not something will help us win.

If you conclude that something will help us win, then it's okay, no mater how dishonest, nefarious, or violative of basic principles of moral or social decency. If you conclude something is likely to reduce the chance of our winning, or to harm our effort, then you are absolutist in your conviction that it is is wrong, and those behind the action you declare wrong are to be punished and destroyed.

I started this post thinking I was going to accuse you of being terribly Machiavellian. But I changed my mind midway through. You aren't merely a would-be Prince. You are a Pretender to God's throne. Where do you get your chutzpah?