[Winstonm]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32605529/ns/us...ashington_post/

Eric Holder just announced a limited investigation into CIA wrongdoing. It strikes me a beyond coincidental that this article happened to come out the next day - via the Washington Post.

[Lobowolf]

Struck me as a bit coincidental that "Look to the future" ended up with this backward-looking investigation right when Obamacare started to glitch.

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Aug 29 2009, 10:14 PM, said:

Struck me as a bit coincidental that "Look to the future" ended up with this backward-looking investigation right when Obamacare started to glitch.

You are truly impressive. Looking for "well they did that but the other side did that" whenever possible.
I think it's truly obvious that the timing of the WP article is no coincidence, this has nothing to do with Winston-style conspiracy theories. Do you really think the anonymous sources in the article don't have an agenda?

The decision by Holder was a pretty obvious one, and one that doesn't help Obama with anyone. I think Ambinder's take sounds pretty much on target to me: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/th...ut_politics.php .

But probably you didn't really mean what you wrote anyway. You were just raising this to score some rhetorical points, of which I hereby I award you 3.78. Satisfied?

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Aug 29 2009, 10:37 PM, said:

You are truly impressive. Looking for "well they did that but the other side did that" whenever possible.

I think it's truly obvious that the timing of the WP article is no coincidence, this has nothing to do with Winston-style conspiracy theories. Do you really think the anonymous sources in the article don't have an agenda?

The decision by Holder was a pretty obvious one, and one that doesn't help Obama with anyone. I think Ambinder's take sounds pretty much on target to me: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/08/th...ut_politics.php .

But probably you didn't really mean what you wrote anyway. You were just raising this to score some rhetorical points, of which I hereby I award you 3.78. Satisfied?

Quote

You are truly impressive. Looking for "well they did that but the other side did that" whenever possible.

"whenever possible" is pretty much always.

Quote

I think it's truly obvious that the timing of the WP article is no coincidence, this has nothing to do with Winston-style conspiracy theories. Do you really think the anonymous sources in the article don't have an agenda?

I agree that it's not a coincidence, and I agree that they have an agenda (although the investigation does refresh the sell-by date on the newsworthiness).

Quote

and one that doesn't help Obama with anyone.

Strongly disagree. It refocuses attention on things the previous administration did wrong in light of an economy that's still struggling (which isn't to suggest at all that anything wrong with the economy is Obama's fault, but the party and the president in power catch the brunt of it when the economy is bad), and in light of the bumps in the road the healthcare reform may be hitting. And to the extent that there's negative fallout, it's not Obama's doing, it's Holder's.

Quote

But probably you didn't really mean what you wrote anyway.

Actually, I did on this one.

Of course, I realize that any efforts I make to play Devil's Advocate are completely superfluous; I've been assured that the forum here is essentially moderate and represents a societal cross-section. It's a cross-section where 11 1/2 times as many people supported Obama vs. McCain in my BBF poll, vs. the, what, 7% more who supported him at the polls, but why quibble?

[cherdanno]

Lobowolf, on Aug 29 2009, 11:36 PM, said:

Quote

But probably you didn't really mean what you wrote anyway.

Actually, I did on this one.

Of course, I realize that any efforts I make to play Devil's Advocate are completely superfluous; I've been assured that the forum here is essentially moderate and represents a societal cross-section. It's a cross-section where 11 1/2 times as many people supported Obama vs. McCain in my BBF poll, vs. the, what, 7% more who supported him at the polls, but why quibble?

Well, your effort at playing devil's advocate is really a waste in this case. Winston's implied claim is that the WP is getting played here by its anonymous sources. Even if you think the Holder decision, and its timing (I still completely disagree - Obama got a lot of criticism from both sides on this decision, and no that doesn't mean that the Independents appreciate it) is convenient for the Obama adminstration, what does this have to do with the question whether a news outlet might have been played by its anonymous sources?

It seems like your reflex when you seen any criticism is to find out whether the criticized person belongs to R or to D, and then bring up s.th. else done by someone belonging to D or R, respectively, that is also worth criticizing. Even when the original poster wasn't even trying to blame Rs or Ds. Even when that something else has nothing to do with the original post. Yes that is kind of superfluous, and a waste of posts (compared to other posts by you that I almost always find worth reading).

[Lobowolf]

cherdanno, on Aug 30 2009, 12:11 AM, said:

Well, your effort at playing devil's advocate is really a waste in this case. Winston's implied claim is that the WP is getting played here by its anonymous sources.

I actually thought that the implication was that the WP was complicit (which strikes me as more likely; they've been around the block enough to be aware of the significance of the timing).

[Winstonm]

To help settle the debate, my implied claim has nothing to do with the WP other than they are reporters/editors and part of the beltway press that does not investigate claims whispered to them and confuses stenography with the act of news reporting.

Knowing they would publish anything fed to them from their anonymous sources, the timing of this article is suspect - and thus making me doubt the truthfulness of the claims within the article.

How convenient that anonymous sources say torture works just as Holder opens an investigation into CIA torture.

What I am implying is that the CIA is not above planting a false story in a U.S. newspaper.

Edit: There is also this little tidbit from Stars and Stripes:

Quote

U.S. public affairs officials in Afghanistan acknowledged to Stars and Stripes that any reporter seeking to embed with U.S. forces is subject to a background profile by The Rendon Group, which gained notoriety in the run-up to the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq for its work helping to create the Iraqi National Congress. That opposition group, reportedly funded by the CIA, furnished much of the false information about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction used by the Bush administration to justify the invasion.

http://www.stripes.c...4&article=64348

[Winstonm]

Glen Greenwald noticed this odd timing and "newsworthiness' of this article, as well:

Quote

The Post article today is one of the most astoundingly vapid and misleading efforts yet to justify torture -- a true museum exhibit for the transformation of American journalism into little more than mindless amplifiers for those in power.  It simultaneously touts facts as new revelations that have, in fact, long been claimed (that KSM provided valuable intelligence), while deceitfully implying facts that are without any evidence whatsoever (that he did so because he was tortured).  Dick Cheney couldn't have said it better himself.  It's so strange how often that's true of The Liberal Media.

[mike777]

"What I am implying is that the CIA is not above planting a false story in a U.S. newspaper."


If this is the only point of this thread, i think 100% of us agree.

I would add I bet the CIA plants false stores in non usa newspapers.


Sidenote:
1) CIA operations over the decades have been horrible/insane in the sense they do not work. Immoral is another issue.
2) CIA reports have been horrible over the decades...in the sense useless, morality is another issue...

[Winstonm]

Quote

If this is the only point of this thread, i think 100% of us agree.

The discussion I've tried to start many times (I guess nobody is interested) is how does this change in the dynamics of news and reporting change us and what we believe, should we be alarmed, and if so what can or should we do about it.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Aug 30 2009, 09:46 PM, said:

Quote

If this is the only point of this thread, i think 100% of us agree.

The discussion I've tried to start many times (I guess nobody is interested) is how does this change in the dynamics of news and reporting change us and what we believe, should we be alarmed, and if so what can or should we do about it.

IMO, zero....


"how does this change in the dynamics of news and reporting change us and what we believe, should we be alarmed, and if so what can or should we do abo"


I would guess for Winston the answer is zero or less than zero but just imo.