Last month, The New York Times ran a front-page story outlining the dire social and economic prospects for young black men. According to a number of recent academic studies, black men, despite the obvious successes of a few, are falling further and further behind, locked in place as a permanent underclass. "Especially in the country's inner cities, the studies show, finishing high school is the exception, legal work is scarcer than ever, and prison is almost routine, with incarceration rates climbing for blacks even as urban crime rates have declined," the article said.
I waited for somebody to call a press conference. I waited for Jesse and Al to take to the streets demanding public policies that would bring black men into the mainstream. I looked for responses from the usual suspects -- the NAACP, the Urban League and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I heard nothing.
Politics, Everyday, All day... morning, noon and night....
-
joel the ornery
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 3:28 pm
- Burning Since: 1998
- Location: i'm the snarky one in your worst fucking nightmares
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Well, the same thing was mentioned only in a different way in another article I read about the 50% drop in the US violent crime rate since the 1990s and in particular the 75% drop in teen crime. This was attributed to educational and other cultural barriers to the black population being lowered as time goes by. They have become more successful and more educated as a group and are generally migrating out of the poor city neighborhoods and into the suburbs. The groups replacing them in the cities are recent hispanic and asian immigrants. These groups have historically had fewer cultural barriers to success and their children are assimillating quickly and dispersing across the country as they go to school and find jobs.
The way things traditionally happen in this country is waves of immigrants settle in the large cities because those are the only places in the country they know of and there are people that come from the same place there so they have some familiar culture surrounding them. As their children are educated and find jobs, the second generation begins to disperse across the country. By the time the third generation comes along, the first generation is usually in decline in their original cities of settlement. Post WWII European jewish immigrants are an example. Their population in New York City peaked in the 1960's as the second generation was growing up. Their population in New York today is half what it was then as the population disperses and the community assimilates.
The black US population never assimilated because of serious cultural blocks placed in their path. Often denied access to good schools and promotion to higher positions in industry, they remained in the poorer areas until there was an explosion of frustration and change was demanded. This is not unlike the situation found today in Europe where large numbers of North African immigrants are kept culturally separate from the rest of the population and while offered government programs and low cost housing, they are unable to truly assimilate into the economy at all levels due to cultural barriers and their dispersal across all areas of the country is limited.
One area that was a major help in assimilating groups into our culture has been the military. An integrated military was one of the first real opportunities groups have to advance. Benefits to even the lowest enlisted ranks such as access to college courses and degree studies while serving in positions requiring advanced technical training provides the bootstraps that many use to pull themselves into a better socio-economic condition. A minority candidate might be offered a position at a military academy and earn an engineering degree. Their children grow up in integrated housing with the children of others with advanced degrees. They in turn are likely to go to college and obtain good jobs in industry while their parents eventually retire with a military pension in addition to social security and so the children have more resources to continue to advance and educate their children in turn and so on.
Today's asian and latin arrivals are having a much easier time of integrating at the second generation than the black populations did. There is less frustration, less crime, these families have a high priortity on education, tend to have both parents in the household to a greater degree than the previous population did and so language becomes the primary barrier to assimilation. Bi-lingual education programs tend to keep the community separate by allowing them to advance further without a native command of the language but at the same time at some point it caps their advancement potential. Many employers have on their own initiated programs to improve the language skills and again, the military is proving to be an important path in giving members of those communities a way up into the middle and upper middle classes.
At the same time, as Joel mentioned, it has been noticed that there is a certain core of the black population, almost exclusively male, that has not advanced, although the number is dropping, it is significant. How to reach these individuals and get them assimillated has been a challenge. It is a political issue because incarceration rates have been a political issue and the incarceration rate among this particular demographic is the highest of any other (again, it is dropping in this demographic but very slowly). The good news is that that population seems to be shrinking as an overall fraction of the whole as the yonger generations are having much less trouble finding educational and employment opportunities. The "problem" group seems to be a group that became completely disillusioned and has totally given up on themselves. Many apparently see criminal activity as their only path to material success. They are still members of our society and it is a tragic story and I wish I knew what we could do to change it.
The way things traditionally happen in this country is waves of immigrants settle in the large cities because those are the only places in the country they know of and there are people that come from the same place there so they have some familiar culture surrounding them. As their children are educated and find jobs, the second generation begins to disperse across the country. By the time the third generation comes along, the first generation is usually in decline in their original cities of settlement. Post WWII European jewish immigrants are an example. Their population in New York City peaked in the 1960's as the second generation was growing up. Their population in New York today is half what it was then as the population disperses and the community assimilates.
The black US population never assimilated because of serious cultural blocks placed in their path. Often denied access to good schools and promotion to higher positions in industry, they remained in the poorer areas until there was an explosion of frustration and change was demanded. This is not unlike the situation found today in Europe where large numbers of North African immigrants are kept culturally separate from the rest of the population and while offered government programs and low cost housing, they are unable to truly assimilate into the economy at all levels due to cultural barriers and their dispersal across all areas of the country is limited.
One area that was a major help in assimilating groups into our culture has been the military. An integrated military was one of the first real opportunities groups have to advance. Benefits to even the lowest enlisted ranks such as access to college courses and degree studies while serving in positions requiring advanced technical training provides the bootstraps that many use to pull themselves into a better socio-economic condition. A minority candidate might be offered a position at a military academy and earn an engineering degree. Their children grow up in integrated housing with the children of others with advanced degrees. They in turn are likely to go to college and obtain good jobs in industry while their parents eventually retire with a military pension in addition to social security and so the children have more resources to continue to advance and educate their children in turn and so on.
Today's asian and latin arrivals are having a much easier time of integrating at the second generation than the black populations did. There is less frustration, less crime, these families have a high priortity on education, tend to have both parents in the household to a greater degree than the previous population did and so language becomes the primary barrier to assimilation. Bi-lingual education programs tend to keep the community separate by allowing them to advance further without a native command of the language but at the same time at some point it caps their advancement potential. Many employers have on their own initiated programs to improve the language skills and again, the military is proving to be an important path in giving members of those communities a way up into the middle and upper middle classes.
At the same time, as Joel mentioned, it has been noticed that there is a certain core of the black population, almost exclusively male, that has not advanced, although the number is dropping, it is significant. How to reach these individuals and get them assimillated has been a challenge. It is a political issue because incarceration rates have been a political issue and the incarceration rate among this particular demographic is the highest of any other (again, it is dropping in this demographic but very slowly). The good news is that that population seems to be shrinking as an overall fraction of the whole as the yonger generations are having much less trouble finding educational and employment opportunities. The "problem" group seems to be a group that became completely disillusioned and has totally given up on themselves. Many apparently see criminal activity as their only path to material success. They are still members of our society and it is a tragic story and I wish I knew what we could do to change it.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
for once (perhaps more than once) I can agree with you wholeheartedly on that one.joel the ornery wrote:the DNC is doing well enough ensuring their failure, they don't need Junior's assistance.cowboyangel wrote:don't take it seriously...it's a plot to insure democrat failure in 08
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believe is false."- William Casey, CIA Director 1981
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
GUEST WORKERS AND MIGRANT LABOR
As the baby boom entered into the workforce in droves during the 1960's and 1970's, unemployment became a huge issue (as anyone who remembers the double-digit unemployment rates, inflation rates, and interest rates of the 1970's knows) . Many laws and department regulations were enacted in order to try to control the flow of working age immigrants so as to prevent the unemployment numbers from being any worse than they already were. Our laws and regulations and to a large extent attitudes today reflect that demographic reality. The United States economy today is on the verge of a major change and our laws and regulations need to change in order to accomodate that reality.
The United States is going to, over the next 15 years, lose 30% of it's workforce due to retirement provided things such as retirement regulations remain as they are now. The unemployment figures released today show a national unemployment rate of 4.7%. Anyone that has an understanding of economics knows that this is about the minumum sustainable unemployment rate. When the rate drops much below 5% the supply of labor is such that employers wishing to expand need to raise wages to attract already employed people away from a lower paid job. This increases wages in general and results in inflation. Goods and services provided with that more expensive labor now cost more. The cost of living goes up and so the increased wage is absorbed by increased living expense and the cycle is repeated spiriling wages and prices up with no real benefit to the worker. In other words, once the employment rate drops below 4.5% or so the economy goes into a wage-based inflation cycle because the demand for labor is outstripping the available supply.
The next generation now in schools across this country is not going to face the same employment difficulties the baby boom generation did. They will be entering the job market at a time when the overall labor supply is shrinking due to the retirement of the boomers, a generation bigger than the upcoming generation, and the boomers will be injecting a large amount of money into the service economy as they change from net savers to net spenders. In other words, all that IRA and 401K money is going to be injected into the economy in the form of demand for goods and services. We are faced with a choice. We can either allow the economy to shrink or we can import labor. Shrinking the economy is a non-starter for several reasons but the main one is that many of those retirees (most in fact) will be receiving checks from the government every month and earnings taxes are the major source of those funds. Shrinking the economy, while reducing the demand for labor, does not reduce the demand for earnings taxes to pay retirement benefits.
We have a large pool of undocumented workers in this country who are providing vital labor services. Wage taxes are not collected from many of these workers. Creating a guest worker program brings a significant "under the table" economy above board and injects more money into the retirement benefit system. We need a program that makes it easy for someone already here to legitimize their employment and rightly pay their share into the social welfare system. In return, the undicumented migrant is no longer undocumented. They have no fear of reporting crimes or of obtaining a drivers license under threat of deportation if discovered. Not only do they become a part of the financial system, but they become more integrated at all levels of society and a burden is lifted from them and from the economy. It is a win-win situation.
The aging of the boomers is a one-two event. The first shoe to drop will be the exit of the boomers from the workforce and the change from employment based income to savings and benefit based income. At this point we need continued expanding economy to generate the wage taxes to keep the benefits flowing as promised. The second shoe to drop will be as the boomers die. It is at this point that the economy can be safely allowed to shrink. As the boomers pass on, demands on the social welfare system will begin to ease and surpluses in Social Security will likely re-emerge. Barring some catastrophy, the grandchildren of the kids now in school are set to enjoy a very favorable econimic condition where employment is stable and demands on social welfare systems are manageable. Our government never anticipated the magnitude or even the existance of the baby boom when Social Security was created during the Great Depression. They would have never anticipated the drop in fertility rates in generations following the boomers either. We are entering a situation of rising exit from the labor force combined with a decreased entry into it. We NEED additional workers to inject into the economy NOW in order to meet the demand that the boomers place on the system. There is no simple way to create a new baby boom and even if we could, it would be too late. The boomers would be already retired by the time such a boom hit the workforce.
While many might favor a guest worker program for social or political reasons, there is a clear economic need for them. It is the guest worker that could possibly be the key to keeping our Social Security system solvent during the boomer retirement years.
Our laws need to change to reflect the changing reality we are facing starting now and lasting for the next 20 to 30 years. One beauty of our sytem of government is that we have mechanisms to adapt to changing conditions by changing the laws and regulations to reflect the current reality. Let's do so before we have geezers rioting in the streets.
As the baby boom entered into the workforce in droves during the 1960's and 1970's, unemployment became a huge issue (as anyone who remembers the double-digit unemployment rates, inflation rates, and interest rates of the 1970's knows) . Many laws and department regulations were enacted in order to try to control the flow of working age immigrants so as to prevent the unemployment numbers from being any worse than they already were. Our laws and regulations and to a large extent attitudes today reflect that demographic reality. The United States economy today is on the verge of a major change and our laws and regulations need to change in order to accomodate that reality.
The United States is going to, over the next 15 years, lose 30% of it's workforce due to retirement provided things such as retirement regulations remain as they are now. The unemployment figures released today show a national unemployment rate of 4.7%. Anyone that has an understanding of economics knows that this is about the minumum sustainable unemployment rate. When the rate drops much below 5% the supply of labor is such that employers wishing to expand need to raise wages to attract already employed people away from a lower paid job. This increases wages in general and results in inflation. Goods and services provided with that more expensive labor now cost more. The cost of living goes up and so the increased wage is absorbed by increased living expense and the cycle is repeated spiriling wages and prices up with no real benefit to the worker. In other words, once the employment rate drops below 4.5% or so the economy goes into a wage-based inflation cycle because the demand for labor is outstripping the available supply.
The next generation now in schools across this country is not going to face the same employment difficulties the baby boom generation did. They will be entering the job market at a time when the overall labor supply is shrinking due to the retirement of the boomers, a generation bigger than the upcoming generation, and the boomers will be injecting a large amount of money into the service economy as they change from net savers to net spenders. In other words, all that IRA and 401K money is going to be injected into the economy in the form of demand for goods and services. We are faced with a choice. We can either allow the economy to shrink or we can import labor. Shrinking the economy is a non-starter for several reasons but the main one is that many of those retirees (most in fact) will be receiving checks from the government every month and earnings taxes are the major source of those funds. Shrinking the economy, while reducing the demand for labor, does not reduce the demand for earnings taxes to pay retirement benefits.
We have a large pool of undocumented workers in this country who are providing vital labor services. Wage taxes are not collected from many of these workers. Creating a guest worker program brings a significant "under the table" economy above board and injects more money into the retirement benefit system. We need a program that makes it easy for someone already here to legitimize their employment and rightly pay their share into the social welfare system. In return, the undicumented migrant is no longer undocumented. They have no fear of reporting crimes or of obtaining a drivers license under threat of deportation if discovered. Not only do they become a part of the financial system, but they become more integrated at all levels of society and a burden is lifted from them and from the economy. It is a win-win situation.
The aging of the boomers is a one-two event. The first shoe to drop will be the exit of the boomers from the workforce and the change from employment based income to savings and benefit based income. At this point we need continued expanding economy to generate the wage taxes to keep the benefits flowing as promised. The second shoe to drop will be as the boomers die. It is at this point that the economy can be safely allowed to shrink. As the boomers pass on, demands on the social welfare system will begin to ease and surpluses in Social Security will likely re-emerge. Barring some catastrophy, the grandchildren of the kids now in school are set to enjoy a very favorable econimic condition where employment is stable and demands on social welfare systems are manageable. Our government never anticipated the magnitude or even the existance of the baby boom when Social Security was created during the Great Depression. They would have never anticipated the drop in fertility rates in generations following the boomers either. We are entering a situation of rising exit from the labor force combined with a decreased entry into it. We NEED additional workers to inject into the economy NOW in order to meet the demand that the boomers place on the system. There is no simple way to create a new baby boom and even if we could, it would be too late. The boomers would be already retired by the time such a boom hit the workforce.
While many might favor a guest worker program for social or political reasons, there is a clear economic need for them. It is the guest worker that could possibly be the key to keeping our Social Security system solvent during the boomer retirement years.
Our laws need to change to reflect the changing reality we are facing starting now and lasting for the next 20 to 30 years. One beauty of our sytem of government is that we have mechanisms to adapt to changing conditions by changing the laws and regulations to reflect the current reality. Let's do so before we have geezers rioting in the streets.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
cowboyangel
- Posts: 6986
- Joined: Fri May 14, 2004 10:32 pm
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Why not? It would open up opportunities to more than just agricultural and other pure manual labor jobs they are performing now. The potential there is great when the demand for labor begins to outstrip supply. Many labor unions are already complaining of a lack of workers applying for apprenticeships in the trades. A legal guest worker could enter such a program being not only a legal taxpayer, but dues paying union member too working in a good trade such as electrical or carpentry making union scale wages.cowboyangel wrote:I wanna be a migrant worker doing guest labor...
Your comment struck me as being based on a stereotype of the kind of labor they are currently forced into doing because they aren't documented. Allow them legal status and more doors open to them. As I said, the fear of additional laborers is going to disappear when the boomers start to retire in droves and the attitudes and stereotypes will hopefully retire with them.
ADDED:
Actually, let me shine another light on things. The pool of cheap undocumented labor competes for higher paid legal labor and is in part responsible for the decline in the influence of union labor in some industries. If it is easier to become a legal worker, there is no longer any incentive to take below-market wages, or better, the market wage rises from what is now basically an extortion wage to a real market wage. The undocumented worker must pretty much take what they can get. If documented, they can demand a market wage because the range of available employers expands from only those willing to hire undocumented workers to every employer in the workforce.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Figures neither of you have answered wtf blacks not getting jobs and the crime rates in the areas they live has anything to do with the politics of today.
The politics of today is the lying of Bush to the public.
Why is it that conservative types or and those that voted for Bush tend to bring up irrelevant topics when Bush, Cheney and the likes make huge fuck-ups instead of saying to themselves, "hey, this is kinda fucked up. We should do something to fix this Bush thing."?
Posting the topic that you did Joel was about the most lame thing you have ever done in this thread.
What up wit dat?
Geek went right along with it.
Don’t you guys feel the least bit of shame? Apparently not.
Do you guys really want to get into a black white politics discussion?
weak.
The politics of today is the lying of Bush to the public.
Why is it that conservative types or and those that voted for Bush tend to bring up irrelevant topics when Bush, Cheney and the likes make huge fuck-ups instead of saying to themselves, "hey, this is kinda fucked up. We should do something to fix this Bush thing."?
Posting the topic that you did Joel was about the most lame thing you have ever done in this thread.
What up wit dat?
Geek went right along with it.
Don’t you guys feel the least bit of shame? Apparently not.
Do you guys really want to get into a black white politics discussion?
weak.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
I was looking at it as one of many groups in our history that has started out segregated and assimilated. It wasn't ment as a white/black issue but I can understand based on past cultural biases how someone might leap there ... more of a limbic response than a thought out response.
To deny that there were cultural obstacles placed in the path of advancement of America's black community for several generations is to have your head in the sand. The point was that once work started on removing these barriers (and there is still much work to be done, those cultural barriers are still very much alive in many regions of the country), there has been measurable success in the advancement and general assimilation of that community into the overall economy. That is except for a certain number that appear to have lost any hope and nothing seems to be helping that particular group. The results now are begining to resemble the patterns of other minority groups that have cycled through the same situation. Starting in poor crime ridden inner city tenements and moving up and out over the generations. The Irish and Italian immigrant communities are more well known examples.
I am disagreeing with the interpretation of the study that Joel posted. The facts are that more and more of black america is moving to middle class suburbs and finding better jobs. But there *is* a certain portion of the community, a portion that happens to be almost exclusively male, that seems to have given up hope and has been lost. They aren't included in jobless stats because they aren't looking for work. The conclusion that Joel pointed to seems to be that black males aren't succeeding. I disagree. SOME black males aren't succeeding but the younger ones ARE and that is one of the reasons for a 75% drop in teen crime in the US. Whereas at one point in time, teenage offenders were black in numbers way out of porportion with their percentage of the population, that is no longer the case. Not only is crime in general down, but crimes committed by black Americans is down. So the real stats are: black americans in general are becoming more successful.
The stats I have seen go directly against the conclusion that the prospects for "young black men" are dire. It is an older group that seem to be having a harder time of it. More and more "young black men" are being born in more affluent circumstances with more opportunities available to them than 20 years ago.
I have been able to find several different versions of this story with each paper apparently publishing different parts of it but the San Jose Mercury News had the whole thing and I am unable to find it in their archives. Pieces of it here:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14043364.htm
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/my ... 086069.htm
It was a Knight-Ridder story but the Mercury News version was much longer than any of the versions I can currently find on the net and had more information.
To deny that there were cultural obstacles placed in the path of advancement of America's black community for several generations is to have your head in the sand. The point was that once work started on removing these barriers (and there is still much work to be done, those cultural barriers are still very much alive in many regions of the country), there has been measurable success in the advancement and general assimilation of that community into the overall economy. That is except for a certain number that appear to have lost any hope and nothing seems to be helping that particular group. The results now are begining to resemble the patterns of other minority groups that have cycled through the same situation. Starting in poor crime ridden inner city tenements and moving up and out over the generations. The Irish and Italian immigrant communities are more well known examples.
I am disagreeing with the interpretation of the study that Joel posted. The facts are that more and more of black america is moving to middle class suburbs and finding better jobs. But there *is* a certain portion of the community, a portion that happens to be almost exclusively male, that seems to have given up hope and has been lost. They aren't included in jobless stats because they aren't looking for work. The conclusion that Joel pointed to seems to be that black males aren't succeeding. I disagree. SOME black males aren't succeeding but the younger ones ARE and that is one of the reasons for a 75% drop in teen crime in the US. Whereas at one point in time, teenage offenders were black in numbers way out of porportion with their percentage of the population, that is no longer the case. Not only is crime in general down, but crimes committed by black Americans is down. So the real stats are: black americans in general are becoming more successful.
The stats I have seen go directly against the conclusion that the prospects for "young black men" are dire. It is an older group that seem to be having a harder time of it. More and more "young black men" are being born in more affluent circumstances with more opportunities available to them than 20 years ago.
I have been able to find several different versions of this story with each paper apparently publishing different parts of it but the San Jose Mercury News had the whole thing and I am unable to find it in their archives. Pieces of it here:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/14043364.htm
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/my ... 086069.htm
It was a Knight-Ridder story but the Mercury News version was much longer than any of the versions I can currently find on the net and had more information.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
I just responded to it, I didn't start it. But I am curious as to why you would consider something too lame to talk about. In my mind, NOT being able to talk honestly about a lot of things can perpetuate problems. So Joel points to a doom and gloom article and I counter with something that says maybe it isn't so doomy and gloomy after all. What is lame about success, a less violent and more affluent society? And I don't think anything said was a black/white issue, that is your stuff coming through there. America is a collection of lots of different groups that have gotten here at different times in different ways and all have their own different story. I was pointing out where one that had a particularly tough time of it now seems to be able to make progress now that cultural barriers are coming down. What the heck is wrong with that?
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
You are absolutely right. We all should be able to discuss lame topics anytime we feel to do so.geekster wrote:But I am curious as to why you would consider something too lame to talk about.
Topics like immigration, poor whites in Middle America....things like that right?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
This is "Open Discussion" and on top of that it's a political thread. So what's wrong with discussing any issue in here that's political? I don't see any reason why all of the topics mentioned should be off the table for discussion.DVD Burner wrote:You are absolutely right. We all should be able to discuss lame topics anytime we feel to do so.geekster wrote:But I am curious as to why you would consider something too lame to talk about.
Topics like immigration, poor whites in Middle America....things like that right?
:P
In fact anything that will help improve the socio-economic status of everyone warrants discussion....the old saying a rising tide floats all boats is what I'm thinking about. So regardless of race...if it can improve someone's life for the better then by all means discuss, debate, and generate ideas. It benefits us all to do so.
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
Kinetic IV
- Posts: 2977
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 7:34 pm
- Location: Kyiv, Ukraine as of 10/27/06
I know...boy do I! But sometimes it's just gotta be done.DVD Burner wrote:ooooo kay!
Now yall know how it gets in here when people start reading some truths they dont want to read.
:lol:
K-IV
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
~~~~
Thank you for over 7 years of eplaya memories. I have asked Emily Sparkle to delete my account and I am gone. Goodbye and Goodluck to all of you! I will miss you!
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Sure. If you want to.
My point still stands, though, that I think the article Joel linked to reaches an incorrect conclusion and extrapolates the condition of a segment of an American demographic to that entire demographic. But the article Joel linked to is an opinion piece, not a news piece. My opinion was based on a news piece backed up by expert opinion quoted in the article.
But I actually missed the point of his posting ... his reason for posting it is in here:
ADDED: I didn't read the entire thing and got stuck on the original NYT article thing because I thought that article was not based in fact and was, in what is now the fashion of what passes for "journlism" these days, an article designed to further a political agenda rather than to inform the public. And BOTH sides of the aisle are just as guilty when it comes to doing that. I practically have to read the foreign media to get an less biased picture of what is going on in my own country. But that's a whole other topic.
My point still stands, though, that I think the article Joel linked to reaches an incorrect conclusion and extrapolates the condition of a segment of an American demographic to that entire demographic. But the article Joel linked to is an opinion piece, not a news piece. My opinion was based on a news piece backed up by expert opinion quoted in the article.
But I actually missed the point of his posting ... his reason for posting it is in here:
What Ms. Tucker is saying was that when the NYT published a story saying that blacks were not in the mainstream, there was no outcry, but when a member of Congress has an altercation that makes the TV nightly news, suddenly there appear all these people stumbling over themselves in their haste to get in front of the cameras.I waited for somebody to call a press conference. I waited for Jesse and Al to take to the streets demanding public policies that would bring black men into the mainstream. I looked for responses from the usual suspects -- the NAACP, the Urban League and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. I heard nothing.
But a misunderstanding between a minor member of Congress and a Capitol Hill police officer has apparently become a full-blown crisis, demanding the attention of self-appointed black leaders. So maybe I'm wrong about all of this. Perhaps I just need to adjust my perspective.
ADDED: I didn't read the entire thing and got stuck on the original NYT article thing because I thought that article was not based in fact and was, in what is now the fashion of what passes for "journlism" these days, an article designed to further a political agenda rather than to inform the public. And BOTH sides of the aisle are just as guilty when it comes to doing that. I practically have to read the foreign media to get an less biased picture of what is going on in my own country. But that's a whole other topic.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Just a reminder since congress doesnt remember and the average American is too stupid to know any of this:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... cleii.html
Article II
Section 4 of "The Declaration of Independence" and the " Constitution of the United States.". The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
the NIE was released BEFORE it was declassified. These guys BROKE THE LAW.
Any questions?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution ... cleii.html
Article II
Section 4 of "The Declaration of Independence" and the " Constitution of the United States.". The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
the NIE was released BEFORE it was declassified. These guys BROKE THE LAW.
Any questions?
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Just a statement of fact ... the POTUS can not "leak" classified information. It is simply impossible. The authority to classify and declassify information lies with the executive branch. All authority to classify or declassify information derives from the POTUS. The President can "declassify" information on the fly, as Johnson did when he exposed the SR-71 program. If a president authorizes information for release, no matter what channel it might take, it is officially "declassified". For OTHERS who might be delegated by the President to declassify material, certain procedures surrounding that activity must be followed as set forth in agency and department regulations that come with delegating that authority down the chain from the President. But the President has final authority and may classify or declassify any information at any time. That's just how it is.
The recent reporting on the issue is yet another example of the press deliberately misleading the people. It is just plain impossible for the President to leak classified information because it becomes unclassified the instant he authorizes its "leakage".
The recent reporting on the issue is yet another example of the press deliberately misleading the people. It is just plain impossible for the President to leak classified information because it becomes unclassified the instant he authorizes its "leakage".
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
That rule has been in existance for as long as there has been classified information. Kennedy once accidently released codewords that were used to identify certain types of intelligence information by allowing himself to be photographed holding uncovered documents that were facing the camera and carried the classification and codewords. But quite a lot of the information that is put out about world events is classified before it is released. Kennedy "declassified" pictures of missile bases on Cuba and put them on TV for the American people during the missile crises. Just about every piece of information inside the government carries some level of classification even if it is "for official use only" if that information exists noplace else but within the government.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
We are not talking about accidents. We are talking about a President, vice president and so on deliberately passing on classified information to be published to discredit an ambassador who proved a sitting president lied at a "state of the union address" why America should go to war.
I don’t see where he has any protection there.
But thanks for the intelligent argument.
I don’t see where he has any protection there.
But thanks for the intelligent argument.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Actually, no. What we are talking about is speculation some spin and a little distortion.
It is common practice when heading into a major event or when engaged in a major event to release information that comes from "Senior Whitehouse Officials" without an attached name. The idea being that as events unfold, you begin to release information that explains what you are doing and why. In this case, several liberties are taken with the truth.
Here is what I got from one article:
Okay, I will buy that word for word. That is standard government procedure and is always done in situations like this.
I will even take out the part between the hyphens and believe THAT word for word:
The problem is this part:
So, this apparently has nothing to do with the Plame case that Libby is under indictment for, it simply says that during that time the President had authorized Libby to release certain information to a set of journalists. It is pretty common for any President to release tightly held information to a group of favorites. It has always been that way. In otherwords, there is really nothing to the story. There's no meat to it. This will get a lot of play for about a week if there are no major stories and then it will fade away. If something major happens, it will get dropped right on the floor. It isn't really news reporting, it is massaging public opinion to get them on a particular political track. That has also been done for many years. If you don't believe me, read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography sometime where he talks about how he did it with his papers. You have to take things with a grain of salt or REALLY pay attention to it because in most cases in this country the people publishing this stuff have a political agenda and the stories are going to slant in that direction. There are left leaning sources and right leaning sources and damned few hard news, facts only sources.
This is worth reading:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501f ... nside.html
ADDED: And that "misleading, exaggerated, or wrong" is exactly why the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tennet (a Clinton appointee that Bush kept), lost his job. His head rolled, but we don't hear much about that.
It is common practice when heading into a major event or when engaged in a major event to release information that comes from "Senior Whitehouse Officials" without an attached name. The idea being that as events unfold, you begin to release information that explains what you are doing and why. In this case, several liberties are taken with the truth.
Here is what I got from one article:
Okay, so what is all the fuss about? Read further:Nothing in the papers indicate Bush or Cheney told Libby to reveal the name of CIA analyst Valerie Plame, nor do they suggest that either the president or vice president did anything illegal.
Okay, this is the meat of the story. Now, lets take this apart:Knight Ridder reports that the court documents provided the hardest evidence to date that the president and vice-president were "engaged in a campaign to disclose selected snippets of highly classified intelligence – much of it misleading, exaggerated or wrong – to a few trusted journalists in an effort to bolster their case for war."
Knight Ridder reports that the court documents provided the hardest evidence to date that the president and vice-president were "engaged in a campaign to disclose selected snippets of highly classified intelligence
Okay, I will buy that word for word. That is standard government procedure and is always done in situations like this.
I will even take out the part between the hyphens and believe THAT word for word:
Okay, I will buy THAT entire statement word for word. Again, that is standard operating procedure. Clinton did the same thing when he blew up a Sudan factory and killed some camels in Afghanistan.the president and vice-president were "engaged in a campaign to disclose selected snippets of highly classified intelligence to a few trusted journalists in an effort to bolster their case for war."
The problem is this part:
This is a very fine job with words, because while true, it is misleading and designed to mislead the reader down a path of the political agenda of the writer. To be ACCURATE it would say:– much of it misleading, exaggerated or wrong –
Many of Saddam's own generals believed he still had WMD and were surprised none were used during out invasion. Russian intelligence, German intelligence, and British intelligence believed he had them. AT THE TIME, I don't believe they thought the information was misleading, esaggerated or wrong. It turned out to be that way but what the writer is doing here is performing a little time warp with the reader. They are taking what is known now and doing a context shift and placing today's understanding into yesterday's existance to make everything look different than it was.the president and vice-president were "engaged in a campaign to disclose selected snippets of highly classified intelligence – much of it proving in hindsight to be misleading, exaggerated or wrong – to a few trusted journalists in an effort to bolster their case for war."
So, this apparently has nothing to do with the Plame case that Libby is under indictment for, it simply says that during that time the President had authorized Libby to release certain information to a set of journalists. It is pretty common for any President to release tightly held information to a group of favorites. It has always been that way. In otherwords, there is really nothing to the story. There's no meat to it. This will get a lot of play for about a week if there are no major stories and then it will fade away. If something major happens, it will get dropped right on the floor. It isn't really news reporting, it is massaging public opinion to get them on a particular political track. That has also been done for many years. If you don't believe me, read Benjamin Franklin's autobiography sometime where he talks about how he did it with his papers. You have to take things with a grain of salt or REALLY pay attention to it because in most cases in this country the people publishing this stuff have a political agenda and the stories are going to slant in that direction. There are left leaning sources and right leaning sources and damned few hard news, facts only sources.
This is worth reading:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060501f ... nside.html
ADDED: And that "misleading, exaggerated, or wrong" is exactly why the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tennet (a Clinton appointee that Bush kept), lost his job. His head rolled, but we don't hear much about that.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Execellent Geek but I can put it all together better than that with actual facts and dates, which is what I am doing right now.
In the mean time, I ran across this which is an awesome read, The author may be questionable as far as credibillity but they do make a great point.:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604070012
Media left unanswered questions about NIE disclosure
Summary: Many in the media have simply asserted as fact that President Bush's alleged authorization of the release of key judgments of a classified National Intelligence Estimate is legal, without any discussion of the implications or consequences of such a position. Media Matters has prepared a list of questions arising from the revelation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's claim that Bush did just that -- questions that the simple assertion of the legality of the president's alleged actions doesn't begin to answer.
On April 5, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald filed court documents alleging that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, testified that Cheney told Libby in July 2003 that President Bush had authorized Libby to disclose the key judgments of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Fitzgerald, Libby further testified that "he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments" to a July 8, 2003, meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller and that Libby "understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that this disclosure was intended to rebut former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had charged that the Bush administration distorted intelligence about Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons program in making the case for war.
In 2005, Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements in connection with the Bush administration's alleged disclosure that Wilson's wife -- Valerie Plame -- was a CIA operative.
Immediately following The New York Sun's publication of an April 6 article breaking the story about Libby's testimony, many in the media have simply asserted as fact that what Bush is alleged to have done is legal, without any discussion of the implications or consequences of such a position. Media Matters for America has prepared a partial list of questions arising from the revelation of Libby's claims -- questions that the simple assertion of the legality of the president's alleged actions doesn't begin to answer.
1. Is there a process that the president must go through in order to have national security information declassified? If so, was that process followed? For example, are there any documents that the president must sign or officials that must be contacted before information can be made public? Must the president coordinate with or inform the agency that produced the information?
Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush all signed executive orders pertaining to the declassification of national security information. At least one legal analyst -- Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New Jersey state judge -- has argued that Bush "would be violating his own order" if he declassified parts of the NIE without following certain procedures.
From the April 6 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON (host): All right. So, then, what does this story mean, that President Bush revealed classified information? He is the president. Can he unilaterally declassify something and release it?
NAPOLITANO: Yes. He can unilaterally declassify what he has ordered to be classified. He has to go through certain steps in order to do that. He can't say, "Hey, Dick, tell Lew he can tell this to Judy." He has got to sign certain documents. It's got to go through a procedure, a procedure set up by President Clinton and reinforced by President Bush. The president does not commit a crime if he says, "Hey, Dick, tell Lew he can talk to Judy." He would be violating his own order.
2. If there is no process that the president must follow, what is to prevent him from authorizing the disclosure of classified information to undermine administration critics or political opponents? What would have prevented the president from authorizing members of his administration to disclose Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative?
3. According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that Cheney "advised him that the President had authorized defendant [Libby] to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE." In doing so, did Bush "declassify" the NIE's key judgments or did he authorize only that its contents be disclosed? If the latter, does he have the legal authority to do that?
4. Libby approached David Addington, then-counsel to the vice president and Cheney's current chief of staff, who, Libby testified, "opined that presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document." Given that Libby was uncertain enough about the president's authority that he sought an opinion from Addington, why are the media treating as open and shut the question of whether Bush's authorization of the leak constituted declassification consistent with his authority to declassify information?
5. When the president declassifies national security information, doesn't the public have the right to know that such declassification has occurred? If the information has been declassified, shouldn't the public have access to the information itself? Should the president inform other government officials -- for example, the director of central intelligence or the national security adviser -- that the information has been declassified?
According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that at the time he disclosed the key judgments of the NIE to Miller, Libby "understood that only three people -- the President, the Vice President and defendant [Libby] -- knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified." According to Fitzgerald, Libby "testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials -- including Cabinet level officials -- were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE."
6. If the president's authorization of the disclosure of the NIE's key judgments constituted "declassification," why did White House press secretary Scott McClellan say at a July 18, 2003, press conference -- 10 days after Libby met with Miller -- that the information in the NIE "was just, as of today, officially declassified"?
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) raised this issue in an April 6 letter to Bush, noting that "on July 18, 2003, some time after Mr. Libby leaked this classified information to reporters, your Administration formally declassified portions of the NIE for public release, suggesting that the information had not been declassified until that time."
7. Libby testified that his July 8 meeting with Miller was "the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the president's authorization that it be disclosed." Are there any other examples where documents were declassified and given to a reporter solely on the president's authorization? Are there any other examples of declassified national security information being revealed only to a reporter?
8. On the April 6 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, former solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger III described Bush's apparent authorization of Libby's disclosure as an "abuse of the classification process" while asserting that "the president has raw constitutional authority to do it." If what the president authorized does indeed amount to a legal course of declassification, do legal and national security experts believe the law should be altered so that this is no longer the case?
—J.S.
In the mean time, I ran across this which is an awesome read, The author may be questionable as far as credibillity but they do make a great point.:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604070012
Media left unanswered questions about NIE disclosure
Summary: Many in the media have simply asserted as fact that President Bush's alleged authorization of the release of key judgments of a classified National Intelligence Estimate is legal, without any discussion of the implications or consequences of such a position. Media Matters has prepared a list of questions arising from the revelation of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's claim that Bush did just that -- questions that the simple assertion of the legality of the president's alleged actions doesn't begin to answer.
On April 5, special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald filed court documents alleging that I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, testified that Cheney told Libby in July 2003 that President Bush had authorized Libby to disclose the key judgments of a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE). According to Fitzgerald, Libby further testified that "he brought a brief abstract of the NIE's key judgments" to a July 8, 2003, meeting with New York Times reporter Judith Miller and that Libby "understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that this disclosure was intended to rebut former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had charged that the Bush administration distorted intelligence about Iraq's supposed nuclear weapons program in making the case for war.
In 2005, Libby was indicted for obstruction of justice, perjury, and false statements in connection with the Bush administration's alleged disclosure that Wilson's wife -- Valerie Plame -- was a CIA operative.
Immediately following The New York Sun's publication of an April 6 article breaking the story about Libby's testimony, many in the media have simply asserted as fact that what Bush is alleged to have done is legal, without any discussion of the implications or consequences of such a position. Media Matters for America has prepared a partial list of questions arising from the revelation of Libby's claims -- questions that the simple assertion of the legality of the president's alleged actions doesn't begin to answer.
1. Is there a process that the president must go through in order to have national security information declassified? If so, was that process followed? For example, are there any documents that the president must sign or officials that must be contacted before information can be made public? Must the president coordinate with or inform the agency that produced the information?
Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush all signed executive orders pertaining to the declassification of national security information. At least one legal analyst -- Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano, a former New Jersey state judge -- has argued that Bush "would be violating his own order" if he declassified parts of the NIE without following certain procedures.
From the April 6 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON (host): All right. So, then, what does this story mean, that President Bush revealed classified information? He is the president. Can he unilaterally declassify something and release it?
NAPOLITANO: Yes. He can unilaterally declassify what he has ordered to be classified. He has to go through certain steps in order to do that. He can't say, "Hey, Dick, tell Lew he can tell this to Judy." He has got to sign certain documents. It's got to go through a procedure, a procedure set up by President Clinton and reinforced by President Bush. The president does not commit a crime if he says, "Hey, Dick, tell Lew he can talk to Judy." He would be violating his own order.
2. If there is no process that the president must follow, what is to prevent him from authorizing the disclosure of classified information to undermine administration critics or political opponents? What would have prevented the president from authorizing members of his administration to disclose Valerie Plame's identity as a CIA operative?
3. According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that Cheney "advised him that the President had authorized defendant [Libby] to disclose the relevant portions of the NIE." In doing so, did Bush "declassify" the NIE's key judgments or did he authorize only that its contents be disclosed? If the latter, does he have the legal authority to do that?
4. Libby approached David Addington, then-counsel to the vice president and Cheney's current chief of staff, who, Libby testified, "opined that presidential authorization to publicly disclose a document amounted to a declassification of the document." Given that Libby was uncertain enough about the president's authority that he sought an opinion from Addington, why are the media treating as open and shut the question of whether Bush's authorization of the leak constituted declassification consistent with his authority to declassify information?
5. When the president declassifies national security information, doesn't the public have the right to know that such declassification has occurred? If the information has been declassified, shouldn't the public have access to the information itself? Should the president inform other government officials -- for example, the director of central intelligence or the national security adviser -- that the information has been declassified?
According to Fitzgerald, Libby testified that at the time he disclosed the key judgments of the NIE to Miller, Libby "understood that only three people -- the President, the Vice President and defendant [Libby] -- knew that the key judgments of the NIE had been declassified." According to Fitzgerald, Libby "testified in the grand jury that he understood that even in the days following his conversation with Ms. Miller, other key officials -- including Cabinet level officials -- were not made aware of the earlier declassification even as those officials were pressed to carry out a declassification of the NIE."
6. If the president's authorization of the disclosure of the NIE's key judgments constituted "declassification," why did White House press secretary Scott McClellan say at a July 18, 2003, press conference -- 10 days after Libby met with Miller -- that the information in the NIE "was just, as of today, officially declassified"?
Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) raised this issue in an April 6 letter to Bush, noting that "on July 18, 2003, some time after Mr. Libby leaked this classified information to reporters, your Administration formally declassified portions of the NIE for public release, suggesting that the information had not been declassified until that time."
7. Libby testified that his July 8 meeting with Miller was "the only time he recalled in his government experience when he disclosed a document to a reporter that was effectively declassified by virtue of the president's authorization that it be disclosed." Are there any other examples where documents were declassified and given to a reporter solely on the president's authorization? Are there any other examples of declassified national security information being revealed only to a reporter?
8. On the April 6 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, former solicitor general Walter E. Dellinger III described Bush's apparent authorization of Libby's disclosure as an "abuse of the classification process" while asserting that "the president has raw constitutional authority to do it." If what the president authorized does indeed amount to a legal course of declassification, do legal and national security experts believe the law should be altered so that this is no longer the case?
—J.S.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Now, this is what I saw this morning at the press confrence and then went to look it all up. I did post some of these events here in this thread about september or so. I gotta find it but:
Today Scott called on everyone else in the first four rows of the briefing room, some of them multiple times, but he didn’t call on me. I’m a little frustrated about not getting to ask my question (was it something I said? was my last post too cruel?), but knowing that the White House hates me and/or is afraid of me is some compensation.
Nevertheless, it was a pretty interesting day. The place was jammed, and the first twenty questions dealt with Patrick Fitzgerald’s late Wednesday night bombshell revelation that, according to Lewis Libby, the president authorized Libby’s leak to Judy Miller of information from the top secret National Intelligence Estimate.
Scott explained that leaking is bad, except when done by the president, because when the president tells someone to leak classified information, the very instant that he makes the request, the information is no longer classified.
Aha, said the press, but we are holding in our hands transcripts of you saying, on July 18, 2003, that the NIE information was “just, as of today, officially declassified,” whereas the leak to Judy took place 10 days earlier, on July 8!!!
Er, um, said Scottie, why do you keep bringing up ongoing legal proceedings of which I am not allowed to speak? Besides, when I said, “officially declassified today,” I meant “distributed to the public today.” Then Scott went on to say…
My recollection is, that I was referring to the fact that, yes, it’s officially declassified today, but that doesn’t get into the issue of when everything was declassified.
Today Scott called on everyone else in the first four rows of the briefing room, some of them multiple times, but he didn’t call on me. I’m a little frustrated about not getting to ask my question (was it something I said? was my last post too cruel?), but knowing that the White House hates me and/or is afraid of me is some compensation.
Nevertheless, it was a pretty interesting day. The place was jammed, and the first twenty questions dealt with Patrick Fitzgerald’s late Wednesday night bombshell revelation that, according to Lewis Libby, the president authorized Libby’s leak to Judy Miller of information from the top secret National Intelligence Estimate.
Scott explained that leaking is bad, except when done by the president, because when the president tells someone to leak classified information, the very instant that he makes the request, the information is no longer classified.
Aha, said the press, but we are holding in our hands transcripts of you saying, on July 18, 2003, that the NIE information was “just, as of today, officially declassified,” whereas the leak to Judy took place 10 days earlier, on July 8!!!
Er, um, said Scottie, why do you keep bringing up ongoing legal proceedings of which I am not allowed to speak? Besides, when I said, “officially declassified today,” I meant “distributed to the public today.” Then Scott went on to say…
My recollection is, that I was referring to the fact that, yes, it’s officially declassified today, but that doesn’t get into the issue of when everything was declassified.
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
You know, DVD, there is several things that don't ring true in all the conspiracy theories concerning a deliberate attempt to mislead the people into Iraq:
1. BOTH parties were saying exactly the same thing about Saddam.
2. The Democrats were saying it long before Bush was elected and never stopped until after the invasion.
3. But the most important one is Colin Powell. Powell had a lot of access to a lot of people and had been in those circles for much longer than George W. Bush. Powell as Secretary of State worked very closely with the CIA. If the CIA were saying one thing and the Administration was embellishing it, Powell would know that. Powell would never had made that speach at the UN had he known what he was saying was false. He is that kind of person, he would have resigned before sending soldiers into something under deliberately false pretenses. I have a lot of respect for Powell. When it turned out that there were no WMD, he resigned and has said that he felt betrayed and I believe THAT is the real reason Tenet was fired because I believe Tenet EDIT could have done (was: did) a very evil thing. He knew Iraq could never defeat an American invasion, but he also knew that things would be very bad for the Republicans if things turned out differently than they appeared. I think he conspired to intentionally mislead the administration or he was just plain stupid. Tennat had lots of friends in the Democratic party in the intelligence committees. If he thought the administration was embellishing or fabricating intelligence he could have very easily gone to the bipartisan committees with that information. In fact it would be his duty to. So combined, the fact that the Dems were saying what they were saying before Bush was even elected in 2000, that they continued saying it after Bush was elected, they voted to authorize the invasion, they continued their rhetoric after the vote right up to the invasion, Powell was on board, and Tenet didn't go to the oversight committees tells me one of two things:
A: Tenet just plain got it wrong and everyone was getting the same incorrect information
B: Tenet KNEW it was wrong and led Bush down the garden path into a political trap.
I prefer to think it was A because if it was B, the bastard should be charged with over 2000 counts of murder.
ADDED: If Tenet were involved in a deliberate conspiracy with the President to mislead, the last thing Bush would have done is fired him. I think he was stupid or a murderer. I don't think he was in any conspiracy with a Republican administration.
CORRECTED: Spelling of Tenet in several places, probably missed some.
Additional information from the Wikipedia entry on Tenet:
1. BOTH parties were saying exactly the same thing about Saddam.
2. The Democrats were saying it long before Bush was elected and never stopped until after the invasion.
3. But the most important one is Colin Powell. Powell had a lot of access to a lot of people and had been in those circles for much longer than George W. Bush. Powell as Secretary of State worked very closely with the CIA. If the CIA were saying one thing and the Administration was embellishing it, Powell would know that. Powell would never had made that speach at the UN had he known what he was saying was false. He is that kind of person, he would have resigned before sending soldiers into something under deliberately false pretenses. I have a lot of respect for Powell. When it turned out that there were no WMD, he resigned and has said that he felt betrayed and I believe THAT is the real reason Tenet was fired because I believe Tenet EDIT could have done (was: did) a very evil thing. He knew Iraq could never defeat an American invasion, but he also knew that things would be very bad for the Republicans if things turned out differently than they appeared. I think he conspired to intentionally mislead the administration or he was just plain stupid. Tennat had lots of friends in the Democratic party in the intelligence committees. If he thought the administration was embellishing or fabricating intelligence he could have very easily gone to the bipartisan committees with that information. In fact it would be his duty to. So combined, the fact that the Dems were saying what they were saying before Bush was even elected in 2000, that they continued saying it after Bush was elected, they voted to authorize the invasion, they continued their rhetoric after the vote right up to the invasion, Powell was on board, and Tenet didn't go to the oversight committees tells me one of two things:
A: Tenet just plain got it wrong and everyone was getting the same incorrect information
B: Tenet KNEW it was wrong and led Bush down the garden path into a political trap.
I prefer to think it was A because if it was B, the bastard should be charged with over 2000 counts of murder.
ADDED: If Tenet were involved in a deliberate conspiracy with the President to mislead, the last thing Bush would have done is fired him. I think he was stupid or a murderer. I don't think he was in any conspiracy with a Republican administration.
CORRECTED: Spelling of Tenet in several places, probably missed some.
Additional information from the Wikipedia entry on Tenet:
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. Even when it is done during the administration of a party different from your own.According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002 he is said to have assured the President that the evidence against Saddam amounted to a "slam dunk case," although Tenet has refused to confirm that he said this.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Like I said, the moment the President makes a decision to release a piece of information it is, in effect, declassified as of that moment. I suppose one might quibble about when it is "officially" declassified ... when the President directs you to release it or when you actually release it ... but it doesn't mean anything. At that point I *believe* that it probably becomes officially declassified when the person directed to release it actually releases it because if someone ELSE releases it beforehand, it might be actionable. An "official" declassification by executive order only means that at that point, anyone may release it to anyone.
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
DVD Burner
- Posts: 11031
- Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2003 3:09 am
- Burning Since: 1986
- Camp Name: White Trash Camp
- Contact:
Actually to the Colin Powell thing, yes he did know and admitted as much on the BBC and Frontline. In fact I believe the quote to Tenant was, "are you sure because you will be right behind me on cam." or something to the effect.
I am looking it and the rest of your post up now.
Uuuuummmm, yeah,
BTW none of what I am posting is therory, it is fact. Please disprove what I post with quotes of what I post to sites/cites that you can find that are reputable or at least where you are getting your research from that disprove what I have posted..
(I know, you have been posting as such but…..)
I am looking it and the rest of your post up now.
Uuuuummmm, yeah,
BTW none of what I am posting is therory, it is fact. Please disprove what I post with quotes of what I post to sites/cites that you can find that are reputable or at least where you are getting your research from that disprove what I have posted..
(I know, you have been posting as such but…..)
https://www.facebook.com/NeXTCODER
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
I heard him say that it in hindsight it was the worst moment in his life. That was on some news show. I have never heard him say he absolutely knew different at the time. If you find that, let me know because a boatload of news organizations are going to want that information and it has as far as I know never been reported.Actually to the Colin Powell thing, yes he did know and admitted as much on the BBC and Frontline
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.
-
geekster
- Posts: 4865
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:53 pm
- Location: Hospice For The Terminally Breathing
- Contact:
Hey, DVD, here's some material for you from snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
I think non-political sources like snopes are better as they tend to follow up on the stuff. It is basically what Democrats were saying from 1998 to 2003
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
I think non-political sources like snopes are better as they tend to follow up on the stuff. It is basically what Democrats were saying from 1998 to 2003
Pabst Blue Ribbon - The beer that made Gerlach famous.