No reasonable eprson would agree that you, or anyone else here, has access to "everything" the government knows and does.
I have to say that I find it more reasonable than the suggestion that Team Bush has secret info up its sleeve that it can't release, something that you have suggested on many occasions, even suggesting that large quantities of WMD *have* been found but the find has been kept secret, amongst other things.
It all falls apart when the CIA or IENA (or whoever) comes out and flat out contradicts the "secret evidence" (that Bush & co. haven't even claimed exist for the most part), but that you feel would *have* to exist to justify their actions (and there you are correct).
Since these are the channels that the US government draws on for info what "secret sources" are providing this "secret info"?
And why couldn't they just be honest about having above-top-secret info that they can't share anyway? Is there any case when poorly constructed lies are preferable to silence when you've got an ace in the hole?
I'm thinking you've been sucked into the hollywood rinky-dink. If you don't like giant's links you could dig up some history books on espionage. They are absolutely fascinating in a "truth is stranger than fiction" way and the utterly mundane life of spies and secret agents is quite informative.
Yup. I wouldn't be surprised if she were sacrificed. What's amazing to me is that there's this amazing shuffling of blame going on: it's Tenet! No, it's a speechwriter! No, it's Hadley! No, it's Rice!
I have to say that I find it more reasonable than the suggestion that Team Bush has secret info up its sleeve that it can't release, something that you have suggested on many occasions, even suggesting that large quantities of WMD *have* been found but the find has been kept secret, amongst other things.
It all falls apart when the CIA or IENA (or whoever) comes out and flat out contradicts the "secret evidence" (that Bush & co. haven't even claimed exist for the most part), but that you feel would *have* to exist to justify their actions (and there you are correct).
Since these are the channels that the US government draws on for info what "secret sources" are providing this "secret info"?
And why couldn't they just be honest about having above-top-secret info that they can't share anyway? Is there any case when poorly constructed lies are preferable to silence when you've got an ace in the hole?
I'm thinking you've been sucked into the hollywood rinky-dink. If you don't like giant's links you could dig up some history books on espionage. They are absolutely fascinating in a "truth is stranger than fiction" way and the utterly mundane life of spies and secret agents is quite informative.
It's not a question of "liking" anything.
It is not reasonable to assume that giant or any layperson can find out what the upper eschelons of the government know. This isn't about hollywood, this about common sense and historical fact. Both of these tell us the government can and does restrict information, hide secret military and intelligence projects, and lie about its capabilities.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply, utterly naive. There are things that were done post-WWII that we only became aware of as a layperson population during the 1990's. I reference one of my favorite ones, The Verona Project. The US had cracked the Soviet Cable Code. We couldn't reveal it. Not even Truman knew at the time. This particular example, which is now declassified, showed among other things that Joe McCarthy was right about nearly every Communist he accused, including The Rosenbergs. At the time (and today) McCarthy was villified and persecuted by the Left. This very secret project shows that many suspected spies were...wait for it....SPIES! That's one example of the kind of thing our government does.
We do not and cannot know "everything" the government knows. Not only that, but we don't want to and shouldn't in many cases. While I watch news a lot, I trust pretty much NONE of it. I friend of mine who was in the military once said: "Everything you see on the news happened at least 6 months ago".
Please. Be reasonable here. It amazes me that true liberals, who often pride themselves on being anti-government/establishment and come off as skeptical of ANY power, would then turn around and somehow come to the conclusion that they know it all.
But, none of us knows about every piece of intelligence the government has...
No reasonable eprson would agree that you, or anyone else here, has access to "everything" the government knows and does.
It's like you live in a spy movie.
Here's a question: how in the world would you know considering you obviously have never ever spend any time actually studying information collection and intelligence production?
It's so still so confounding how you still continue to make assertions about something that you obviously know NOTHING about.
I've already told you where you could start to learn about this. The fact that you outright refuse to learn about somthing and continue to comment on it is rediculous.
In addition to what I've already said on this, we already know that in the Iraq war case we do have all of the information. The Office of Special Plans was specifically set up to study existing materials and make a case for war. THe human sources they used were the INC which everyone knew (and knows even more now) is full of shit. What the INC stated was also open information, but the OSP packaged it to give it mistique.
Even rumsfeld (who has already admitted that the OSP only used previously available information) during the build up rested his argument on 'things we don't know we don't know.' The argument given to the intel community has nothing to do with 'secret' or 'new' information, it rested solely on the idea that there was information that we 'don't know'.
This is what your arguments rests on as well. Unfortunately for you, the Iraq war put the final nail in the coffin of 'closed intelligence' fantasy. Sure there is some secret information, but in a world were 95% of the information used for intelligence production is open source and readily available, that secret intelligence is rarely relevant in all but the most localized of cases (so-and-so said such-and-such to so-and-so) and can be easily deduced from the open info.
And that 95% is growing every day. The information revolution has brought that info to the fingertips of everyone with access to the internet and a good library. This is fact. The internet allows anyone to have access to global news sources, which has always been the PRIMARY source of information in the production of intel. Now, individuals can type something that can be read by millions. A typical person on the ground in Iraq can write somthing that reaches millions, which has never, ever been possible before.
Go pick up any of the reference books on the transformation of intelligence and they will tell you this.
Anyway, if you ever studied intelligence production you would know what everyone always says: The key to intelligence is the analysis. The collection is the easy part (except types of military intel). The hard part is making sense of what's out there.
And that 95% is growing every day. The information revolution has brought that info to the fingertips of everyone with access to the internet and a good library. This is fact. The internet allows anyone to have access to global news sources, which has always been the PRIMARY source of information in the production of intel. Now, individuals can type something that can be read by millions. A typical person on the ground in Iraq can write somthing that reaches millions, which has never, ever been possible before.
Hey Giant, you've got me wondering. Has blogging had any effect on information gathering/analysis? I ask because blogs have so profoundly affected the way search engines like google do their thing, and they've allowed all kinds of people who might not otherwise publish information online to do so.
Hey Giant, you've got me wondering. Has blogging had any effect on information gathering/analysis? I ask because blogs have so profoundly affected the way search engines like google do their thing, and they've allowed all kinds of people who might not otherwise publish information online to do so.
I'm not sure the extent, but it certainly seems so, doesn't it? There are many people that post their links to stories and documents of the day, and a reader can easily bookmark a few of these blogs and daily get more information in a day than he/she can read in a week.
One other thing that it has clearly done is allow journalists and amateur journalists the ability to write in a more personal and immediate manner. I think Josh Marshall is the most interesting and analytic ones ( www.talkingpointsmemo.com ).
There also the other tier to internet info, like www.yellowtimes.com, which is almost a sort of news source, and is able to publish using GNU/GPL software . These tend to have a political slant, but are a little more formal than just a blog.
More advanced than that are all of the many alternative news sources that have cropped up solely on the internet. That's probably the most truely amazing development in journalism esspecially post-9/11.
But above all, IMHO, is www.cooperativeresearch.org . Clearly in a league of it's own. Really it's just a collection of every piece of information regarding 9.11 or the Iraq war. Reading through the timeline or one of the outlines is a real eye-opener. Smaller or forgotten stories make a lot more sense when put into context. Really, cooperativeresearch.org is the ultimate information depository for anyone looking to find out the details of 9.11 or the Iraq war.
And I think the other huge thing that the internet gives is instant access to government and UN documents, as well as the strategy papers written by policy makers (PNAC being probably the best and most important example right now). Previously, access to documents like those from PNAC was extremely limited, and as a result 99% of americans would just have to guess about an administration's intentions and knew very, very little as to what the driving philosophy consited of.
www.fas.org is also very important in this regard. Stephen Aftergood of FAS is easily the most important person in freeing info (are you listening SDW?) and his secrecy news is very interesting. www.fas.org also has good analytic run-downs of everything military on the globe.
There are also services like www.stratfor.com and www.intelligenceonline.com that do exactly what the CIA does, though they are pay only. Stratfor was a little overly hawkish in the lead-up to war, however, and I felt it started to taint the critical analysis. Regardless, it was BY FAR the best source for immediate info on what exactly was happening during the war, and their regional analyses are extremely good.
Unfortunately, not everything is on the internet, and some of the most important documents can only be found at the library. Foreign Affairs is considered the 'industry journal', but if you don't have a subscription (which is actually pretty cheap) then the articles have to be purchased seperately from their website. A good university will have a few different electronic sources for journals like this, so for those in a big library it's almost like it's on the internet.
Why the pass for Condi? This from Hadley's White House Q & A ...
Hadley: The memorandum describes some weakness in the evidence, the fact that the effort was not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already had a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. The memorandum also stated that the CIA had been telling Congress that the Africa story was one of two issues where we differed with the British intelligence. This memorandum was received by the Situation Room here in the White House, and it was sent to both Dr. Rice and myself.
...
Question: So within the White House, the first time that the CIA concerns about the quality of the British intelligence went up to the level above your level, up to Dr. Rice, would have been with memo number two?
Hadley: I'm hesitating because, again, given you don't know what you don't, given what we put together at this point in time, that's the evidence we had. That's old --
Question: But as of memo number two, certainly Dr. Rice was aware of the concerns, the CIA --
Hadley: What we know is, again, a copy of the memo comes to the Situation Room, it's sent to Dr. Rice, it's sent -- and that's it. You know, I can't tell you she read it. I can't even tell you she received it. But in some sense, it doesn't matter. Memo sent, we're on notice.
Steve Hadley
White House Q&A
July 22nd, 2003
We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles--maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the Agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.
Condi Rice
Meet the Press
June 8th, 2003
Speaks for itself doesn't it?
Why the pass?
When will the buck stop at the top with the president, er, Mr Cheney?
Hey Giant, you've got me wondering. Has blogging had any effect on information gathering/analysis? I ask because blogs have so profoundly affected the way search engines like google do their thing, and they've allowed all kinds of people who might not otherwise publish information online to do so.
Funny. I have planned a paper on excatly this subject in a media course I have been taking. Do you have some references on it?
It is not reasonable to assume that giant or any layperson can find out what the upper eschelons of the government know. This isn't about hollywood, this about common sense and historical fact. Both of these tell us the government can and does restrict information, hide secret military and intelligence projects, and lie about its capabilities.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply, utterly naive. There are things that were done post-WWII that we only became aware of as a layperson population during the 1990's. I reference one of my favorite ones, The Verona Project. The US had cracked the Soviet Cable Code. We couldn't reveal it. Not even Truman knew at the time. This particular example, which is now declassified, showed among other things that Joe McCarthy was right about nearly every Communist he accused, including The Rosenbergs. At the time (and today) McCarthy was villified and persecuted by the Left. This very secret project shows that many suspected spies were...wait for it....SPIES! That's one example of the kind of thing our government does.
We do not and cannot know "everything" the government knows. Not only that, but we don't want to and shouldn't in many cases. While I watch news a lot, I trust pretty much NONE of it. I friend of mine who was in the military once said: "Everything you see on the news happened at least 6 months ago".
You must be a flame happy troll, or your signature matches this statement.
Joseph McCarthy was just about as close to Cotton Mather as we've gotten in modern times. He needlessly ruined many people's lives with his black listing. Also it's been proven since that most of the people he accused had little or no connection to the communist party.
Apparently he's been reading too much of Coulter's book. There is somehow this movement, which she belongs to, that attempts to re-legitimize that dark period of american politics.
Ann Coulter is the hate-ful spiteful-$%%^$%^$^%$%^$ i can't even finish the rest ....
But hey her plan seems to be working.
1) say outrageous things that don't even live in the same zip code of truth
2) put it in book form for the rush-hannity-twit crowd
3) profit!!
(if you want to read the most hilarious comeback to ann c. you need to do a search on her on salon where a writer responed to a piece by her on her dating woes. flat out burn.)
Well if he was right about nearly every one, I'm glad he didn't go overboard with the publicity or anything.
It was actually the....*cough*...other side of the aisle that made it into a circus.
jimmac: You should really read Ann Coulter's book "Treason". You'd cringe at her references to liberals, but in the book she claims that nearly everything we think we know about McCarthy is a lie. I was totally with you on this until reading some of the chapters. They're eye-opening in the least.
BTW, McCarthy didn't blacklist anyone. He actually resisted disclosing names. It turns out that he was correct about a great many high-ranking government officials being communists, and Soviet Agents! The Democratic Party actually mocked McCarthy for NOT disclosing the names in a timely manner.
But you won't listen, because to liberals, McCarthyism is the ultimate example of Republican fascism. Without it, liberals would be vulnerable to actual attacks on their patriotism. Imagine...
giant:
You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!
Apparently he's been reading too much of Coulter's book. There is somehow this movement, which she belongs to, that attempts to re-legitimize that dark period of american politics.
Funny, because there's also a movement to rewrite history so that liberals look like they defended the nation anytime in the last 50 years.
Keyboard:
Quote:
Ann Coulter is the hate-ful spiteful-$%%^$%^$^%$%^$ i can't even finish the rest ....
But hey her plan seems to be working.
1) say outrageous things that don't even live in the same zip code of truth
2) put it in book form for the rush-hannity-twit crowd
3) profit!!
(if you want to read the most hilarious comeback to ann c. you need to do a search on her on salon where a writer responed to a piece by her on her dating woes. flat out burn.)
Perhaps you should read the book before commenting on it. You won't though, so you can keep your ridiculous world-view intact. Go ahead though: Keep shouting "McCarthyism" every time your patriotism is questioned. It's an easy answer.
As far as the twit crowd: It's interesting that you can just dismiss so many millions as idiots. Sean Hannity has 13 million listeners a day. So does Rush Limbaugh. But you WILL dismiss them, because liberals love to feel smug and self-important. It's never enough to disagree, you have to put down the opinions of others and for that matter...the people that hold the opinions in the first place. We're back to it again: Anyone enlightened and educated must agree with the liberal line of thought. Once again, we see the TRUE fascists: Those on the Left. Opinions are vaild as long as they are liberal ones. Freedom of speech is fine as long as it's not something you don't want to hear.
It was actually the....*cough*...other side of the aisle that made it into a circus.
jimmac: You should really read Ann Coulter's book "Treason". You'd cringe at her references to liberals, but in the book she claims that nearly everything we think we know about McCarthy is a lie. I was totally with you on this until reading some of the chapters. They're eye-opening in the least.
BTW, McCarthy didn't blacklist anyone. He actually resisted disclosing names. It turns out that he was correct about a great many high-ranking government officials being communists, and Soviet Agents! The Democratic Party actually mocked McCarthy for NOT disclosing the names in a timely manner.
But you won't listen, because to liberals, McCarthyism is the ultimate example of Republican fascism. Without it, liberals would be vulnerable to actual attacks on their patriotism. Imagine...
SDW, listen to me here. I'm begging you. Ann Coulter is NOT an historian. Not all historians are liberals. Not all liberals are commies. Not all liberals hate America. Some of us love it so much that we'll stick by when it seems to have gone insane.
Please. PLEASE read some reviews of Coulter's book by ACTUAL HISTORIANS. Lots of McCarthy experts are pissed as hell at what she's done, which has been to misrepresent the respectable work of reputable historians.
PLEASE. Seriously. I know Coulter's exciting and everything, but please, please, PLEASE read around before you formulate an opinion about her theories. Remember: her premise is that there's been an effective liberal conspiracy aimed at defaming the McCarthy name. Also keep in mind that her theories hold that democrats are largely dumb. How could dumb people mastermind a 50-year conspiracy??
Isn't it odd that NO ONE, really, has mounted this kind of defense of him until now, when the mantra of PATRIOTISM could be trotted out like a parade of missiles in Moscow in the 80s?
If you want to have a bit of fun, read Howard Zinn's _A People's history of the United States_ as a counterbalance. They're both loons, as far as I'm concerned.
It was actually the....*cough*...other side of the aisle that made it into a circus.
jimmac: You should really read Ann Coulter's book "Treason". You'd cringe at her references to liberals, but in the book she claims that nearly everything we think we know about McCarthy is a lie. I was totally with you on this until reading some of the chapters. They're eye-opening in the least.
BTW, McCarthy didn't blacklist anyone. He actually resisted disclosing names. It turns out that he was correct about a great many high-ranking government officials being communists, and Soviet Agents! The Democratic Party actually mocked McCarthy for NOT disclosing the names in a timely manner.
But you won't listen, because to liberals, McCarthyism is the ultimate example of Republican fascism. Without it, liberals would be vulnerable to actual attacks on their patriotism. Imagine...
giant:
You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!
There is no defense for what McCarthy was. I don't care what some fanatic has made up to sell her books. Looks like she was able to unload her crap on some suckers though. However some people find something that they want to hear easier to believe.
Comments
Originally posted by SDW2001
No reasonable eprson would agree that you, or anyone else here, has access to "everything" the government knows and does.
I have to say that I find it more reasonable than the suggestion that Team Bush has secret info up its sleeve that it can't release, something that you have suggested on many occasions, even suggesting that large quantities of WMD *have* been found but the find has been kept secret, amongst other things.
It all falls apart when the CIA or IENA (or whoever) comes out and flat out contradicts the "secret evidence" (that Bush & co. haven't even claimed exist for the most part), but that you feel would *have* to exist to justify their actions (and there you are correct).
Since these are the channels that the US government draws on for info what "secret sources" are providing this "secret info"?
And why couldn't they just be honest about having above-top-secret info that they can't share anyway? Is there any case when poorly constructed lies are preferable to silence when you've got an ace in the hole?
I'm thinking you've been sucked into the hollywood rinky-dink. If you don't like giant's links you could dig up some history books on espionage. They are absolutely fascinating in a "truth is stranger than fiction" way and the utterly mundane life of spies and secret agents is quite informative.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
condi next?
Yup. I wouldn't be surprised if she were sacrificed. What's amazing to me is that there's this amazing shuffling of blame going on: it's Tenet! No, it's a speechwriter! No, it's Hadley! No, it's Rice!
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I have to say that I find it more reasonable than the suggestion that Team Bush has secret info up its sleeve that it can't release, something that you have suggested on many occasions, even suggesting that large quantities of WMD *have* been found but the find has been kept secret, amongst other things.
It all falls apart when the CIA or IENA (or whoever) comes out and flat out contradicts the "secret evidence" (that Bush & co. haven't even claimed exist for the most part), but that you feel would *have* to exist to justify their actions (and there you are correct).
Since these are the channels that the US government draws on for info what "secret sources" are providing this "secret info"?
And why couldn't they just be honest about having above-top-secret info that they can't share anyway? Is there any case when poorly constructed lies are preferable to silence when you've got an ace in the hole?
I'm thinking you've been sucked into the hollywood rinky-dink. If you don't like giant's links you could dig up some history books on espionage. They are absolutely fascinating in a "truth is stranger than fiction" way and the utterly mundane life of spies and secret agents is quite informative.
It's not a question of "liking" anything.
It is not reasonable to assume that giant or any layperson can find out what the upper eschelons of the government know. This isn't about hollywood, this about common sense and historical fact. Both of these tell us the government can and does restrict information, hide secret military and intelligence projects, and lie about its capabilities.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply, utterly naive. There are things that were done post-WWII that we only became aware of as a layperson population during the 1990's. I reference one of my favorite ones, The Verona Project. The US had cracked the Soviet Cable Code. We couldn't reveal it. Not even Truman knew at the time. This particular example, which is now declassified, showed among other things that Joe McCarthy was right about nearly every Communist he accused, including The Rosenbergs. At the time (and today) McCarthy was villified and persecuted by the Left. This very secret project shows that many suspected spies were...wait for it....SPIES! That's one example of the kind of thing our government does.
We do not and cannot know "everything" the government knows. Not only that, but we don't want to and shouldn't in many cases. While I watch news a lot, I trust pretty much NONE of it. I friend of mine who was in the military once said: "Everything you see on the news happened at least 6 months ago".
Please. Be reasonable here. It amazes me that true liberals, who often pride themselves on being anti-government/establishment and come off as skeptical of ANY power, would then turn around and somehow come to the conclusion that they know it all.
Originally posted by SDW2001
But, none of us knows about every piece of intelligence the government has...
No reasonable eprson would agree that you, or anyone else here, has access to "everything" the government knows and does.
It's like you live in a spy movie.
Here's a question: how in the world would you know considering you obviously have never ever spend any time actually studying information collection and intelligence production?
It's so still so confounding how you still continue to make assertions about something that you obviously know NOTHING about.
I've already told you where you could start to learn about this. The fact that you outright refuse to learn about somthing and continue to comment on it is rediculous.
Originally posted by SDW2001
We do not and cannot know "everything" the government knows. Not only that, but we don't want to and shouldn't in many cases.
Found this while looking for info on verona:
http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/077564.htm
The book, written by a Senator, recounts all the stupid things the US Government has done in the name of "secrecy".
As for McCarthy, I'm having trouble tracking down a reliable source for the facts you're claiming. Any help you can offer is appreciated.
I did find this though:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...AC0894DB404482
edit: It appears to be caled the Venona project, not the Verona project.
Even rumsfeld (who has already admitted that the OSP only used previously available information) during the build up rested his argument on 'things we don't know we don't know.' The argument given to the intel community has nothing to do with 'secret' or 'new' information, it rested solely on the idea that there was information that we 'don't know'.
This is what your arguments rests on as well. Unfortunately for you, the Iraq war put the final nail in the coffin of 'closed intelligence' fantasy. Sure there is some secret information, but in a world were 95% of the information used for intelligence production is open source and readily available, that secret intelligence is rarely relevant in all but the most localized of cases (so-and-so said such-and-such to so-and-so) and can be easily deduced from the open info.
And that 95% is growing every day. The information revolution has brought that info to the fingertips of everyone with access to the internet and a good library. This is fact. The internet allows anyone to have access to global news sources, which has always been the PRIMARY source of information in the production of intel. Now, individuals can type something that can be read by millions. A typical person on the ground in Iraq can write somthing that reaches millions, which has never, ever been possible before.
Go pick up any of the reference books on the transformation of intelligence and they will tell you this.
Anyway, if you ever studied intelligence production you would know what everyone always says: The key to intelligence is the analysis. The collection is the easy part (except types of military intel). The hard part is making sense of what's out there.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Joe McCarthy was right about nearly every Communist he accused
Well if he was right about nearly every one, I'm glad he didn't go overboard with the publicity or anything.
Originally posted by giant
And that 95% is growing every day. The information revolution has brought that info to the fingertips of everyone with access to the internet and a good library. This is fact. The internet allows anyone to have access to global news sources, which has always been the PRIMARY source of information in the production of intel. Now, individuals can type something that can be read by millions. A typical person on the ground in Iraq can write somthing that reaches millions, which has never, ever been possible before.
Hey Giant, you've got me wondering. Has blogging had any effect on information gathering/analysis? I ask because blogs have so profoundly affected the way search engines like google do their thing, and they've allowed all kinds of people who might not otherwise publish information online to do so.
Just curious.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Hey Giant, you've got me wondering. Has blogging had any effect on information gathering/analysis? I ask because blogs have so profoundly affected the way search engines like google do their thing, and they've allowed all kinds of people who might not otherwise publish information online to do so.
I'm not sure the extent, but it certainly seems so, doesn't it? There are many people that post their links to stories and documents of the day, and a reader can easily bookmark a few of these blogs and daily get more information in a day than he/she can read in a week.
One other thing that it has clearly done is allow journalists and amateur journalists the ability to write in a more personal and immediate manner. I think Josh Marshall is the most interesting and analytic ones ( www.talkingpointsmemo.com ).
There also the other tier to internet info, like www.yellowtimes.com, which is almost a sort of news source, and is able to publish using GNU/GPL software
More advanced than that are all of the many alternative news sources that have cropped up solely on the internet. That's probably the most truely amazing development in journalism esspecially post-9/11.
But above all, IMHO, is www.cooperativeresearch.org . Clearly in a league of it's own. Really it's just a collection of every piece of information regarding 9.11 or the Iraq war. Reading through the timeline or one of the outlines is a real eye-opener. Smaller or forgotten stories make a lot more sense when put into context. Really, cooperativeresearch.org is the ultimate information depository for anyone looking to find out the details of 9.11 or the Iraq war.
And I think the other huge thing that the internet gives is instant access to government and UN documents, as well as the strategy papers written by policy makers (PNAC being probably the best and most important example right now). Previously, access to documents like those from PNAC was extremely limited, and as a result 99% of americans would just have to guess about an administration's intentions and knew very, very little as to what the driving philosophy consited of.
www.fas.org is also very important in this regard. Stephen Aftergood of FAS is easily the most important person in freeing info (are you listening SDW?) and his secrecy news is very interesting. www.fas.org also has good analytic run-downs of everything military on the globe.
There are also services like www.stratfor.com and www.intelligenceonline.com that do exactly what the CIA does, though they are pay only. Stratfor was a little overly hawkish in the lead-up to war, however, and I felt it started to taint the critical analysis. Regardless, it was BY FAR the best source for immediate info on what exactly was happening during the war, and their regional analyses are extremely good.
In fact, there is a whole community of online intel: http://www.oss.net/extra/document/?module_instance=1
Unfortunately, not everything is on the internet, and some of the most important documents can only be found at the library. Foreign Affairs is considered the 'industry journal', but if you don't have a subscription (which is actually pretty cheap) then the articles have to be purchased seperately from their website. A good university will have a few different electronic sources for journals like this, so for those in a big library it's almost like it's on the internet.
Why the pass for Condi? This from Hadley's White House Q & A ...
Hadley: The memorandum describes some weakness in the evidence, the fact that the effort was not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already had a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. The memorandum also stated that the CIA had been telling Congress that the Africa story was one of two issues where we differed with the British intelligence. This memorandum was received by the Situation Room here in the White House, and it was sent to both Dr. Rice and myself.
...
Question: So within the White House, the first time that the CIA concerns about the quality of the British intelligence went up to the level above your level, up to Dr. Rice, would have been with memo number two?
Hadley: I'm hesitating because, again, given you don't know what you don't, given what we put together at this point in time, that's the evidence we had. That's old --
Question: But as of memo number two, certainly Dr. Rice was aware of the concerns, the CIA --
Hadley: What we know is, again, a copy of the memo comes to the Situation Room, it's sent to Dr. Rice, it's sent -- and that's it. You know, I can't tell you she read it. I can't even tell you she received it. But in some sense, it doesn't matter. Memo sent, we're on notice.
Steve Hadley
White House Q&A
July 22nd, 2003
We did not know at the time--no one knew at the time, in our circles--maybe someone knew down in the bowels of the Agency, but no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery.
Condi Rice
Meet the Press
June 8th, 2003
Speaks for itself doesn't it?
Why the pass?
When will the buck stop at the top with the president, er, Mr Cheney?
Originally posted by midwinter
Hey Giant, you've got me wondering. Has blogging had any effect on information gathering/analysis? I ask because blogs have so profoundly affected the way search engines like google do their thing, and they've allowed all kinds of people who might not otherwise publish information online to do so.
Funny. I have planned a paper on excatly this subject in a media course I have been taking. Do you have some references on it?
Originally posted by keyboardf12
more condi-convo on talkingpointsmemo:
Why the pass?
When will the buck stop at the top with the president, er, Mr Cheney?
Heh. Marshall's been on spot through most of this (and when he's not, he admits it). His commentary on the Texas Dems was pretty stunning.
But we'll see what happens with Rice.
Originally posted by Anders
Funny. I have planned a paper on excatly this subject in a media course I have been taking. Do you have some references on it?
I'm sure I can help you dig up something. PM me or email and we can hash some things out, if you like.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It's not a question of "liking" anything.
It is not reasonable to assume that giant or any layperson can find out what the upper eschelons of the government know. This isn't about hollywood, this about common sense and historical fact. Both of these tell us the government can and does restrict information, hide secret military and intelligence projects, and lie about its capabilities.
With all due respect, anyone who thinks otherwise is simply, utterly naive. There are things that were done post-WWII that we only became aware of as a layperson population during the 1990's. I reference one of my favorite ones, The Verona Project. The US had cracked the Soviet Cable Code. We couldn't reveal it. Not even Truman knew at the time. This particular example, which is now declassified, showed among other things that Joe McCarthy was right about nearly every Communist he accused, including The Rosenbergs. At the time (and today) McCarthy was villified and persecuted by the Left. This very secret project shows that many suspected spies were...wait for it....SPIES! That's one example of the kind of thing our government does.
We do not and cannot know "everything" the government knows. Not only that, but we don't want to and shouldn't in many cases. While I watch news a lot, I trust pretty much NONE of it. I friend of mine who was in the military once said: "Everything you see on the news happened at least 6 months ago".
Please. Be reasonable here.
-------------------------------------------------------------
" Joe McCarthy was right about nearly every Communist he accused "
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wow! Now you really have gone off the deep end.
You must be a flame happy troll, or your signature matches this statement.
Joseph McCarthy was just about as close to Cotton Mather as we've gotten in modern times. He needlessly ruined many people's lives with his black listing. Also it's been proven since that most of the people he accused had little or no connection to the communist party.
It's getting impossible to take you seriously.
Wow! Just Wow!
Originally posted by jimmac
It's getting impossible to take you seriously.
Apparently he's been reading too much of Coulter's book. There is somehow this movement, which she belongs to, that attempts to re-legitimize that dark period of american politics.
But hey her plan seems to be working.
1) say outrageous things that don't even live in the same zip code of truth
2) put it in book form for the rush-hannity-twit crowd
3) profit!!
(if you want to read the most hilarious comeback to ann c. you need to do a search on her on salon where a writer responed to a piece by her on her dating woes. flat out burn.)
Originally posted by midwinter
Well if he was right about nearly every one, I'm glad he didn't go overboard with the publicity or anything.
It was actually the....*cough*...other side of the aisle that made it into a circus.
jimmac: You should really read Ann Coulter's book "Treason". You'd cringe at her references to liberals, but in the book she claims that nearly everything we think we know about McCarthy is a lie. I was totally with you on this until reading some of the chapters. They're eye-opening in the least.
BTW, McCarthy didn't blacklist anyone. He actually resisted disclosing names. It turns out that he was correct about a great many high-ranking government officials being communists, and Soviet Agents! The Democratic Party actually mocked McCarthy for NOT disclosing the names in a timely manner.
But you won't listen, because to liberals, McCarthyism is the ultimate example of Republican fascism. Without it, liberals would be vulnerable to actual attacks on their patriotism. Imagine...
giant:
You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!
Originally posted by giant
Apparently he's been reading too much of Coulter's book. There is somehow this movement, which she belongs to, that attempts to re-legitimize that dark period of american politics.
Funny, because there's also a movement to rewrite history so that liberals look like they defended the nation anytime in the last 50 years.
Keyboard:
Ann Coulter is the hate-ful spiteful-$%%^$%^$^%$%^$ i can't even finish the rest ....
But hey her plan seems to be working.
1) say outrageous things that don't even live in the same zip code of truth
2) put it in book form for the rush-hannity-twit crowd
3) profit!!
(if you want to read the most hilarious comeback to ann c. you need to do a search on her on salon where a writer responed to a piece by her on her dating woes. flat out burn.)
Perhaps you should read the book before commenting on it. You won't though, so you can keep your ridiculous world-view intact. Go ahead though: Keep shouting "McCarthyism" every time your patriotism is questioned. It's an easy answer.
As far as the twit crowd: It's interesting that you can just dismiss so many millions as idiots. Sean Hannity has 13 million listeners a day. So does Rush Limbaugh. But you WILL dismiss them, because liberals love to feel smug and self-important. It's never enough to disagree, you have to put down the opinions of others and for that matter...the people that hold the opinions in the first place. We're back to it again: Anyone enlightened and educated must agree with the liberal line of thought. Once again, we see the TRUE fascists: Those on the Left. Opinions are vaild as long as they are liberal ones. Freedom of speech is fine as long as it's not something you don't want to hear.
Originally posted by SDW2001
It was actually the....*cough*...other side of the aisle that made it into a circus.
jimmac: You should really read Ann Coulter's book "Treason". You'd cringe at her references to liberals, but in the book she claims that nearly everything we think we know about McCarthy is a lie. I was totally with you on this until reading some of the chapters. They're eye-opening in the least.
BTW, McCarthy didn't blacklist anyone. He actually resisted disclosing names. It turns out that he was correct about a great many high-ranking government officials being communists, and Soviet Agents! The Democratic Party actually mocked McCarthy for NOT disclosing the names in a timely manner.
But you won't listen, because to liberals, McCarthyism is the ultimate example of Republican fascism. Without it, liberals would be vulnerable to actual attacks on their patriotism. Imagine...
SDW, listen to me here. I'm begging you. Ann Coulter is NOT an historian. Not all historians are liberals. Not all liberals are commies. Not all liberals hate America. Some of us love it so much that we'll stick by when it seems to have gone insane.
Please. PLEASE read some reviews of Coulter's book by ACTUAL HISTORIANS. Lots of McCarthy experts are pissed as hell at what she's done, which has been to misrepresent the respectable work of reputable historians.
PLEASE. Seriously. I know Coulter's exciting and everything, but please, please, PLEASE read around before you formulate an opinion about her theories. Remember: her premise is that there's been an effective liberal conspiracy aimed at defaming the McCarthy name. Also keep in mind that her theories hold that democrats are largely dumb. How could dumb people mastermind a 50-year conspiracy??
Isn't it odd that NO ONE, really, has mounted this kind of defense of him until now, when the mantra of PATRIOTISM could be trotted out like a parade of missiles in Moscow in the 80s?
If you want to have a bit of fun, read Howard Zinn's _A People's history of the United States_ as a counterbalance. They're both loons, as far as I'm concerned.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by SDW2001
It was actually the....*cough*...other side of the aisle that made it into a circus.
jimmac: You should really read Ann Coulter's book "Treason". You'd cringe at her references to liberals, but in the book she claims that nearly everything we think we know about McCarthy is a lie. I was totally with you on this until reading some of the chapters. They're eye-opening in the least.
BTW, McCarthy didn't blacklist anyone. He actually resisted disclosing names. It turns out that he was correct about a great many high-ranking government officials being communists, and Soviet Agents! The Democratic Party actually mocked McCarthy for NOT disclosing the names in a timely manner.
But you won't listen, because to liberals, McCarthyism is the ultimate example of Republican fascism. Without it, liberals would be vulnerable to actual attacks on their patriotism. Imagine...
giant:
You can post until your fingers fall off. I don't care. Your notion that you personally know all that our government knows is not just flawed, it's patently absurd. It is, and I do not exaggerate here, the most arrogant and illogical premise I have ever heard, anywhere... at any time. You can mock me, put me down...whatever. It won't change the basic level of absurdity in your assumption. The think that you know about every piece of intelligence, every secret military project, every war plan, every covert op, etc...it's just funny!
There is no defense for what McCarthy was. I don't care what some fanatic has made up to sell her books. Looks like she was able to unload her crap on some suckers though. However some people find something that they want to hear easier to believe.