why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?
 

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5087301/

Maybe the end justifies the means, but why can't they just come to a conclusion based on "good" intel, and try and avoid including the crap just becuase it advances the cause?

Both sides do this all the time...exagerrate the facts to try and prove their point, when just being truthful (and admitting there might be two sides to an issue) would give enough evidence for their side...

" Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades, known for putting propaganda on the Internet."


So, THIS is what we've been reading here lately???
;)

Re: why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?
 

Operative word being "some"

Tom Ridge (Secretary of Homeland Security) was on Charlie Rose last night . . .he was pretty clear that the warnings came from a composite of "chatter". I would reason that it was not just some bozos fax.

The article from your link there, tries to gloss over the operative word "some of the information cited . . ." to imply Ashcroft is basing his warning solely on some crack-pot. (strawman-101)

maybe that's 'crap' you (Dr-no) refer to when you say "avoid including the crap just becuase it advances the cause" (?)

Like Ashcroft, or not, you have to admit that a guy doesn't get to that position by being a loose cannon.

Re: Re: why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?
 

no, but he does get to his position by twisting the "facts" and using them for political advantage.

My point is, why cite the stuff that is crap? Why not just say "we've got some credible and some that we don't necessarily believe"? It would seem from various things i've read that some of the agencies put more weight on certain "chatter" based more on politcal agenda than veracity of the source.

Of course then the other side monday-morning quarterbacks. Both parties suck. I'd just like someone to be honest and admit that the world isn't black and white...although that wouldn't resonate with Joe Six-pack who wants their world-view nice a easy/clean like a John Wayne western...

Re: Re: Re: why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?
 

Fair enough. . but my point is that article is CLEARLY (oops, didnt mean to yell) a twisted strawman piece designed to get people pissed-off at Ashcroft.. . clearly!

The sad thing is, the press has worked hard to polarize the population. .. .with hits like this. This article plays well with leftists looking to be fed more justification on their position of "those stupid, fuched-up republicans".

Can you tell me the article has any other purpose?
. . they're feeding "outrage" based on a really lame premise.

On the other hand, (putting on my tin foil hat), this might be a planned failing for John, thus giving the administation just cause to ask for his resignation.

So whats up with the new PM of Iraq? Ex CIA and MI6 flunky? Hmmmm...

Ed

Ashcroft scares the bejeezus out of me. He reminds me of the Nazi propagandists, complete with a Christian rationale for everything he says.

That being said, this whole election year is a sad situation for this nation. Kerry is trying to put Bush in the dumper for the fiasco in Iraq, while conveniently forgetting that he abdicated his constitutional responsibilities as a senator by voting to give Bush the go-ahead to proceed without a declaration of war. Bush, meanwhile, has got these lunatics like Ashcroft, Rummy and Cheney running the show while he's falling off his bicycle on vacation in Texas.

I really don't know who to vote for this November. I'm disheartened reading a lot of the polarized vitriole even on this bbs from folks like Flintstone and Techweenie. It's easy to attack the other side when you don't have an answer.

The trouble is, I don't think Kerry or Bush has an answer. That's why we're in such a mess. They're too busy attacking each other, and sending their respective hatchet men to do the dirty work, to figure out how to get us out of this mess.

My two cents worth. If it's worth that.

johnjr
78 SC targa

Re: Re: Re: Re: why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?
 

well...it depends. The left will use it as fodder to try and oust Ashcroft, since they already believe it. The right will use it as an example of poor hard working Ashcroft being slapped from the bully pulpit that is the "leftist" media.

It *could* open the eyes of some people in the middle who to date have believed that our intelligence organizations are on top of things. I actually believe that a significant number of Americans think that people are working in their best interest, and that the FBI, CIA, etc are not politicized. I also think that some of the intelligence community actually believe that they are doing "the right thing", and just want to badly to be right a catch something that they are willing to chase red herrings until the whole joint smells.

Then there are the just plain evil and/or stupid that use the naivete and trust of the people to advance their own agenda. ON BOTH SIDES.

I think our government is flying blind now. The war in Iraq has left us without much info coming out of the Arab world. Any info the CIA/FBI gets now (paying for it) is suspect...the Arab world doesn't care what happens to the USA as we have pissed them off with all our blunders in Iraq.

I don't think their will be any warnings for an attack....


Geoff

the media has polarized the population? you can't be serious.

kevin

Okay, kev. . .I should have worded it;

the press has worked hard to further polarize the population

my bad :rolleyes:

sure you don't mean farther?

Or maybe father?

Or maybe fatherland?

Ahhh...so now we get to the heart of the issue. I knew the nazis were involved.

Nope. . . I mean 'further"

Or maybe furer

Or maybe Fuehrer

. . .either way; the nazis were involved.;)

Re: Re: why can't they just stick to the credible stuff?
 

No, apparently you get to that position by losing an election to a dead man. :rolleyes:

I for one don't need any news articles to get me riled up over AG Asscrack, I try not to ever think about the guy. Seriously. It just ruins my enjoyment of the day. :cool:

Just a question, counting waco, ruby ridge and the elian gonzalez thing, How much higher did Janet Reno rate?

Whether a president or an AG, you got to be pretty slimy to slither your way to the top.

I would have to bone up on my knowledge of the other two, but as for the Elian Gonzales case, I was behind her handling of it all the way. That turned into a kidnapping case, plain and simple. And the whole "mother risked her life for freedom" story was a steaming pile of horse*****. She risked her child's life to chase the guy she was f*cking over to Florida. I've read up extensively on that one, if anyone needs to be cleared up on it.

My only complaint is that the DOJ let those creepy-ass people hang on to the child that long, parading him around in front of cameras, etc. What a bunch of goons. The government let them keep custody of the child in a measure of good faith and to try to calm a political storm, (they did not have to do this, the Miami people had no legal right to custody), and they welched on every deal that they made.

It was sickening watching that little kid being used as a propaganda football by the right-wing Cuban creeps in Miami, and that family in particular had zero integrity. I cheered my ass off when the INS snatched him. The whole mess should have never happened, though, but for a failed policy w/ Cuba that needs to be changed.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you see this differently, Arraine? ;) :cool:

It is funny how the left is trying to use this warning for propaganda. Is there was an attack and it was discovered that there was warnings...from anyone, including "largely discredited groups" that were not made public...there would be incredible outrage...ie another 9/11...Once again, the left tries to put the administration in the "damned if you do--damned if you don't position." I guess that is why the democratic flip-flop seems to come so naturally.

Don't forget what the "A" in "AG" stands for.