BS: Fair and Balanced

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 01:59 AM

Ya, what's different? They didn't care about the US electorate when they started the last war either. No suprize here. As far as I can see we the people are good for cannon fodder & corporate slavery as far as they're concerned & we can go to hell if we don't like it!

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 01:02 AM

Thanks, Don.


On the subject of the current administration waging war against Iran, this guy is saying that the Bush administration really doesn't care how the US electorate will feel about such a war, because they want the war as a pretext for setting up a military form of government (dictatorship) here in the US. Interesting interview. (It should automatically scroll down to the right place - it's the interview with Francis Boyle)...

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?p=394177#394177

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Oct 07 - 12:22 AM

Fine.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:54 PM

The fact is, Don, there isn't a single thing they report on that I can't get more accurately and better from other sources. I much prefer to use those other sources than to waste my time on people who I can't trust to tell me the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:34 PM

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 11:32 PM

This one's good...

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18596.htm


Have you heard about this, LH?

http://www.canadians.org/action/2007/05-Oct-07.html

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 10:53 PM

Fascinating, watching myself being dissected here!

I would prefer that folks actually read what I posted, not rely on what people say I posted. I am not, as accused, insisting that anyone agree with what I've said. I do, on the other hand, insist on being able to say what I have said (for which, again, please read what I said, not what some say I have said). Clear?

Contrary to accusations, I have not tried to muzzle anyone here. I am totally in favor of free discourse, in the interest of promoting what Thomas Jefferson said was essential to the preservation of freedom and democracy:    an informed electorate. And no matter who wishes I would just stuff a sock in it, sorry, but I cannot—I will not—oblige you.

Regarding NPR's and PBS's alleged bias, all I suggest is that people who are displeased with the usual news coverage but have never or rarely listened to these two news services, give them a listen and see for themselves how they compare with what else is out there. I never at any point said they are perfect. But I don't think they deserve the bum rap some folks here are trying to give them by lumping them together with Fox News Service.

I might also suggest that one pay attention and be aware of what is coming from NPR/PBS and what is coming from their local NPR/PBS affiliate. This can make a substantial difference, and one should not blame the network for what may actually be an editorial bias of the local station. Or vice versa.

Living where I do, I have a wealth of broadcast news outlets. I have the regular Big Three (ABC,NBC, CBS), the cable news channels such as CNN, MSNBC (Keith Olbermann), ESPN (were I so inclined), CNBC, and, of course Fox News Service. CSPAN and CSPAN-2 are also available (where you can watch the sausage being made), and I can also get CBC on cable. There are two PBS affiliates in my area. They offer some of the same programming, but they also offer different network feeds, and each station has its own programs. There are also three NPR affiliates available here. There, too, they duplicate each other to a degree, but they also select different programs offered, including feeds from Public Radio International and other available services, plus they each offer locally produced programs. I also get CBC radio.

And then, of course, through my broadband computer connection, I can listen to streaming audio (and read on-line newspapers) from all over the world, which I often do. Most interesting to compare the similarities and differences in what is being offered, both here and abroad!

But with all of this richness of available information, one must—one MUST—(as I have said several times on this thread) listen with one's brain in gear!

The same with material that one reads, be it books, documents, newsletters, et al, and certainly no less with what one encounters on internet websites, blogs, and such.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:48 PM

By the way, LH , I've read your Scott Ritter article. It was definitely worthwhile, but doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know--we have to stay vigilant lest Bush show any signs of this "higher father" garbage. But I think he's rational enough to realize what a disaster his "voices" got him--and the world--into last time. And, realizing the--very good--chances for impeachment and conviction--he won't be trying that again.

But obviously we can assume nothing.

The only thing I think is clear about this time is there is no way Congress will give him a figleaf of justification. So the impeachment chances increase dramatically.

YMMV

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:38 PM

Here's another good one...

http://www.esquire.com/features/iranbriefing1107

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:16 PM

LH--

All of a sudden it's a "petty verbal victory". So sorry it offends you to be asked for evidence of a cherished belief around here. That only makes it clear that you have no evidence. But maybe somebody else does.

It's only a quest for "victory" in your mind. Not every question is a contest--though it may be for you. That attitude shows more about you than about anybody else.

I know it may be hard for you to grasp, but sometimes people actually would like to learn something about a world issue--in fact I would--and as I've said, I don't claim to have all the facts. I've learned a lot on Mudcat--including from you.

So perhaps you could just let it go and see if somebody else has more evidence than you.


Frank--

I would agree there are many who see shades of gray--but Don's observation is valid for some Mudcatters. Obviously not you--as anybody who reads your posts can see.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 08:05 PM

You are being selective about which part of that sentence I quoted you are willing to address, Ron. And I don't blame you, I'm sure you know as well as I do that the sentence, taken as a whole, is a negative value judgment about people who disagree with him on this subject.

If Don was willing to allow others to form and have their own opinions on this subject, he wouldn't be making comments that serve no other purpose than to ridicule those who don't share his opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 07:57 PM

Check this one out, LH...

http://www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=28769

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stringsinger
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:55 PM

Don says:

"As far as I am concerned, NPR and PBS are about the only truly "fair and balanced" news sources this country has........... They at least try to be honest journalists, which is more than can be said for most of the "info-tainment" programs that pass for news these days."

Don, there has been a distinct turn to the Right on NPR and PBS. They no longer reflect
a balanced programming. It is true they offer Bill Moyers and Now but that's about it.
Who knows who is trying to be an honest journalist or trying to cover their ass to keep their job?

From: Ron Davies - PM
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:23 PM

" What arguments does anybody have, aside from the contention that Bush is mentally unstable, that he will attack?"

One is from his own admission that he wants presidential "capital" from Iraq. Iraq is not going well so Iran may be his next acquisition. Also, he doesn't answer or respond to the law at this point. He will be out of office soon so he may try to make his mark.

There are plenty of reasons that Halliburton, Blackwater, Carlysle and other military
corporations can make more money with a protracted Mid-East war. Bush has already ignored the protestations of the American public on Iraq. What makes you think he will consider them regarding Iran? He is beholden to his cronies.

You say:
"It seems to be a common phenomenon on Mudcat--either we're with you 100% or we're part of the enemy."

I think that this dismisses many members of Mudcat who see shades of gray in the issues.
I don't think that this statement is true.

Carol says:
"I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced."

NPR and PBS may have some decent journalists but they are in the minority at this point.
There is pressure on these stations politically to suppress all the facts about current issues that have unpopular views. These are not the best news sources today for information.
A cross-referencing of blogs, periodicals, books, etc. is the best approach. Faux-News
is a complete travesty and it has weakened the ability of the American public to make informed decisions, hence you have an apologetic NPR and PBS.

Don says: "You think NPR and/or PBS "lied" to you about the Camp David negotiations"

I think that it might be possible that journalists were pressured into accepting information that may not be true. Whether this is lying or not is a matter of opinion. Dan Rather was pressured by CBS and is now engaged in a lawsuit maintaining that his reportage on Bush's AWOL stance was correct. Why is it not possible that PBS and NPR are subject to the same
political pressures?

We don't have the necessary unbiased information about the politics of the Mid-East because there is a news blackout on such matters by the mainstream media. AIPAC
has their spin which gets regularly reported and has been given too much weight. We don't know the true facts about Arafat but there is information available out there that
is not so biased. Dar Jamahl has unembedded reportage. There are other sources as well.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:48 PM

Ask Scott Ritter that question, Ron. I'm sure he's better informed than me or Carol, and he appears to believer there's a very serious risk of Mr Bush attacking Iran and using nukes, and he gives reasons. He must base his rationale on something.

Scoring an imagined petty verbal victory (in your own mind, I mean) over anyone else on this forum by saying "prove it to me" means nothing, Ron. It means less than nothing. It's superfluous. Like I said before, it doesn't win you a gold star, and it has no effect on the world at large either.

We are simply some ordinary people talking, and we all have a right to our own opinions here.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:29 PM

Carol

"To cut oneself off..." is not a requirement that anybody believe what the speaker says--just an appeal for looking at various sources of information.   Sounds reasonable to me. Hell, I'll read anything--and try to sift out the likely facts. In my opinion you need to read sources you know you probably don't agree with---the WSJ editorials fill that niche admirably for me--and see where the holes in logic are.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:23 PM

Well, I've given some good reasons why Bush, being despicable but rational, will not attack Iran. What arguments does anybody have, aside from the contention that Bush is mentally unstable, that he will attack? Since so many are convinced he will, there must be some evidence somewhere--or at least a plausible argument that he will.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:17 PM

Here's another good one from Scott Ritter, LH...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XQan1qo8T4

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 06:04 PM

"Fair and balanced" is no longer possible in this country... Boss Hog has mastered the ***divide and conquer*** trick and what is left is a terribly polorized and militarized nation with winners and loosers and not too many in between...

Our country is not only with others but with itself...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:41 PM

All the evidence you require will be revealed, Ron...just wait and see. Bush is not going to be in office forever. Sometime between now and when he leaves is when your questions will be answered. He'll either attack Iran...proving that he is completely out of touch with reality...or he won't.

Till then our respective opinions are merely what they are. Opinions. This isn't a competition to win a gold star on Mudcat Cafe for having the most ironclad opinion of the lot...though I keep seeing people acting as though that were the case! ;-)

We would all sincerely like to see more evidence to support our opinions. There's a lot of information out there, but it's very difficult to determine how reliable any of it is, so we each do the best we can with sifting through it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:39 PM

Speaking of those who don't agree with him about the public news outlets...

To cut oneself off from a source of information like that is. . . .

Well, you fill in the appropriate adjective.


A gratuitously insulting comment, that serves only one purpose - to ridicule those who don't agree with him.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:39 PM

In fact, Carol, from my reading of the thread, it seems Don agrees with me that it's unclear who if anybody is to blame for the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian talks. There seems to be evidence on both sides--maybe even more than 2 points of view.

So it's an open question. Neither he nor I am trying to insist on any particular belief.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:33 PM

Wrong. Don never stated you had to believe what he believes. If you think he did, let's have chapter and verse.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:31 PM

As I've said before, I believe Bush is a worthless bum, an eternal embarrassment to the US--and a virtual war criminal for the Iraq war----but rational enough not to want to be impeached and convicted due to the aftermath of an invasion of Iran.

And I'm still waiting for--any-- evidence---as distinguished from the gut feelings of various Mudcatters--that my take on it is wrong.

I'd sincerely like to see some evidence--I don't claim to have all possible information on this.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:27 PM

but since your mind is set in stone on this issue, you think everybody with any sense must agree with you 100%

Ron, I suggest you take the time to learn how to read. I will repost this for the third time...

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't watch them, nor that you should agree with me. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. You have voiced your opinion on the subject. I am voicing mine.

It is your buddy Don who is insisting that I agree with him, and not the other way around. I am happy to allow others to hold their own opinions, but Don is not, and neither are you.

I have no problem with Don believing what they say at the public news outlets, or even with him believing that the public news outlets are fair and balanced. What he believes or doesn't is his own business. But, as I said before (another post of mine you seem not to be able to read), I don't share his opinions, and that is my right. Don believes I do not have that right and that I must agree with his assessment about those news outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:19 PM

If Bush and Cheney were genuinely rational people, Ron, I can think of all kinds of good, practical reasons why they would not attack Iran.

Trouble is, I don't think they are genuinely rational. I think they are delusional.

We'll have to wait and see. I keep hoping that they will not be able to get all the necessary ducks in a row in time to do it before the next election. Got my fingers crossed.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 05:05 PM

Don Firth is exactly right, Carol. You provide some good information, but since your mind is set in stone on this issue, you think everybody with any sense must agree with you 100%.   I'm with Don--and Ebbie--and probably others. It's nowhere near as cut and dried as you think. That was evident just from the range of sources Don provided--which he never claimed to be an exhaustive list.

It seems to be a common phenomenon on Mudcat--either we're with you 100% or we're part of the enemy.

Recent case in point:   I have made it clear that I believe Bush is the worst president ever in the history of the US, and that, for starting an unnecessary war under false pretenses, and by means of a despicable propaganda campaign, he belongs in the circle of Hell where the Austrian corporal resides.

But because I did not subscribe to the part of the catechism which states that Bush is self-destructive enough to invade Iran when the likelihood is this would cause his impeachment and conviction, I'm "delusional".

But these individuals for some reason take umbrage at being labelled as "on the Looney Left". Gee, can't understand it--they can dish it out, but have a bit of problem taking it. I wonder why that is.


And when asked for actual evidence that contradicted my reasons why Bush will not invade Iran, they had none.

Not complaining--it's actually sadly amusing.

Attitudes like the "delusional" --and yours--make it a miracle that Kerry did as well as he did. The vast majority of Mudcatters are anti-Bush. But the "100% or nothing" attitude which Don notes is definitely a fact--and tends to drive people away from your position.

You guys are truly expert at "friendly fire".

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 03:45 PM

By the way, the tactics I've just described are exactly the same tactics that FOX news uses on people who articulate different opinions than the ones they deem acceptable.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 07 - 03:44 PM

I guess it all boils down to one thing... some people cannot accept other people forming and holding their own opinions. They want to be able to dictate what opinions others are allowed to hold. And if they don't get their way, they will attempt to bully and taunt the others into submission, and if they don't succeed on their own, they'll get their buddies to come along and help them bully and taunt the others into submission, as we can see right here in this thread.

We seem to have passed the bullying stage, and we're into the taunts now, I see.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 11:33 PM

"It's my party and you'll sing what I want you to...."--or isn't that the way it goes?

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 08:47 PM

Boy, that card is really spinning!! (In-joke)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:44 PM

HOWEVER -

I have just as much right to post my opinions in any thread as he has. I have as much right to challenge his posts as he has to challenge mine. The fact that I have told him that he should expect to be challenged in this thread is perfectly within my rights. The fact that I have told him that I will not challenge him if he starts a thread of his own on the subject, I think, shows a hell of a lot more grace than he has been willing to show toward me in any context.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:34 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 21 Oct 07 - 05:58 PM

I'm not telling you that you shouldn't watch them, nor that you should agree with me. You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine. You have voiced your opinion on the subject. I am voicing mine.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:29 PM

Stilly River Sage...

You are the one who needs to get over yourself. You think you can throw your weight around and bully people who see things differently than you.

The fact is that my first response to Don was simply to say that I don't share his opinion about the public news outlets.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC - PM
Date: 20 Oct 07 - 04:39 PM

I don't share your opinion about NPR and PBS, Don (and the bias I see in those networks, I wouldn't at all describe as 'liberal'), but when we have networks like FOX to use as our point of comparison, I can understand how a lot of people would see them as fair and balanced.

But that wasn't enough for him. Because he, like you, will accept nothing less than full compliance with whatever you think you are entitled to do to others to bully them into accepting your views.

I am not going to be steam rollered by either your or him.

I tried to politely express my disagreement with his viewpoint. I also told him he is entitled to his viewpoint. But like you, he will not accept polite disagreement. He and you both need to impose your opinions on others.

Sorry, STILLY RIVER SAGE, but I'm having no part of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 07:08 PM

Instead of all this back and forth personal sniping to prove who is the "wrong" person here on this thread and why...why not just read this instead? It makes a nice alternative to Fox.

article by Scott Ritter about Bush admin's Iranian policy...

Or watch this:

Target: Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:55 PM

". . . if we were in general agreement, but we didn't agree on absolutely every detail, they tracked me all over the room, cornering me, and trying to convince me that I had to be simple-minded if I didn't agree with them—on that one point! People like this seem to consider you in the camp of the enemy unless you agree with them on everything. The result is that they wind up losing more converts to their cause than they gain."

You're doing an absolutely marvelous job of proving what I just said, Carol.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 06:17 PM

I know that NPR and PBS lie. The lies they spread harm people. Innocent people. I will not be a part of shilling for them in any thread that I have started.

If you want to start a thread singing their praises, you go right ahead, and I promise you I won't post to it.

Hoewever, I started this thread.

I knew it would reach this point, I predicted it.

Get over it, Carol. You start a thread here and it goes where it will. Unless someone is being abusive or predatory, there really isn't a way to control what is posted, and then it takes a clone to fix it. You don't own it. THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM. You want a private thread, start a moderated list somewhere else.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:46 PM

Whatever you want to call it, Don, please don't expect to be able do it in my thread and not be challenged.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:45 PM

I said I wouldn't be back, but I have one more comment to make.

I am shilling for no one.

Lady, you are quite a piece of work!!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:36 PM

Here's the deal, Don.


I know that NPR and PBS lie. The lies they spread harm people. Innocent people. I will not be a part of shilling for them in any thread that I have started.

If you want to start a thread singing their praises, you go right ahead, and I promise you I won't post to it.

Hoewever, I started this thread. And I didn't start it so you could shill for the public news outlets. I started it because I wanted to share the video that I posted a link to in the opening post. I thought it might be of some interest to some people.

You have decided to use my thread as a way to promote a news source that I feel is behaving unconscionably, and I'm telling you that I'm not going to sit by in my own thread, and not challenge it.

Go start your own thread if you want to do that. Don't make me complicit by using my thread to do it.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Stringsinger
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:32 PM

The TV news media is largely a consensus organization. They don't differ on much.

The only solution to getting reliable information is to cross-reference various sources.
There is so much info available in books, government-issued pamphlets, blogs, internet commentaries etc. that it is easy to consolidate this information and make an informed decision.

Fox News relies on ad-hominem attacks on individuals, misleading quotes and statements that can easilly be cross-referenced and obnoxious personalities as pundits.

Fox was responsible for the 911=Iraq misinformation and the huge lie that UNSCOM
inspectors were not allowed in by Hussein. They perpetrated the "yellow-cake" garbage too.

There are so many biased remarks made by Fox bobble-heads that you might want to consult your local astrologer as more reliable.

BTW, Hillary is getting support from corporations such as Anchor-Hocking. Corporate
sponsorship is being done for most of the candidates these days. That fact is easilly checked. Pelosi said that she was going to do away with lobbyist funding for campaigns.
How is that working out?

I've noticed that Bill Moyers and Keith Olbermann are not exactly household names compared to the GOP megaphone on most TV news outlets.

As to the veracity of news, can you really trust anything that this corrupt administration has to say? If so, pass the Kool-Aid.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:20 PM

Carol, I posted those links as examples of the range of information than can be found on the internet, good, bad, and indifferent—not as support for what I believe myself. I could have posted an even wider range, but as I have said, I have other things to do. One can find support for just about anything one wants if one keeps looking until one finds it—even Flat-Earthers.

I agree with most of the things you post. I thank you for posting the link at the top of this thread. And the ones for Dennis Kucinich and Naomi Wolf. Whether you like it or not, you and I are on the same side!

But—you are exhibiting the same kind of self-defeating behavior that I encountered when I attended my neighborhood Democratic Party caucus prior to the 2004 election, and continue to encounter in a percentage of people who have an active interest in politics. That is, if we were in general agreement, but we didn't agree on absolutely every detail, they tracked me all over the room, cornering me, and trying to convince me that I had to be simple-minded if I didn't agree with them—on that one point! People like this seem to consider you in the camp of the enemy unless you agree with them on everything. The result is that they wind up losing more converts to their cause than they gain.

You think NPR and/or PBS "lied" to you about the Camp David negotiations, and because of that, you try to put them into the same box as Fox News. I don't see it that way (and I do speak with some direct experience with news departments). On this matter, I think you are wrong. And you think I'm wrong. We do agree on many things. But not on this.

I believe this is one of these issues where we must agree to disagree and let it go at that.

I will not be back to this thread.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:16 PM

"exquisitely ironic", eh? Glad to oblige.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 05:09 PM

You see it as gratuitously insulting because you agree with him, Ebbie. I happen to see it as a perfectly legitmate point.

However, I find your comment to be exquisitely ironic, considering your track record when it comes to making gratuitously insulting remarks to other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:40 PM

"If this is the way you gather information, I guess I don't find it at all surprising you would not see the lies that the public news networks are feeding you." CarolC

If no one has ever told you that gratuitously insulting remarks are impolite and counterproductive, CarolC, you have been done a disservice.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 25 Oct 07 - 04:24 PM

It's all there, complete with links to the relevant reports. Other folks can look at it and decide this one for themselves.

It's hardly all there, Don.


Re: the Slate article - it begins its analysis from the assumption that Arafat walked away from the Camp David negotiations, but it provides no evidence that he did so. It only discusses the relative merits of the various "proposals" made by the Israeli negotiators, which we know from the high level negotiators whose essay I have already provided, Israel never, in fact, made. The Slate people are using smoke and mirrors.


Jude Wanniski in the Al Jazeera article is clearly lying. He is promoting the lie of the "generous offer" which we now know is was not only not generous, it was not an offer. This is not in dispute. Neither Clinton, nor the two eye witnesses to the negotiations who wrote the essay I provided (and also the one you put in your third link) support the lies Mr. Wanniski is promoting.


Your third link is to an article by the same two authors who wrote the essay I provided earlier. Those two people say that Arafat did not walk away from the Camp David peace negotiations.


If this is the way you gather information, I guess I don't find it at all surprising you would not see the lies that the public news networks are feeding you.
Had Arafat walked away from the peace process at Camp David, there would never have been a Taba round of negotiations. We know for a fact (nobody is disputing this) that there was a Taba round of negotiations. Anyone who says otherwise is simply lying, and we have more than ample proof of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 10:25 PM

Don--

Thanks for all that information on the topic. It's certainly not cut-and-dried-----and, as usual with international issues, does not lend itself to simplistic pronouncements.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:39 PM

It's all there, complete with links to the relevant reports. Other folks can look at it and decide this one for themselves. As I said, I have other things to do.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:24 PM

Oops. That is what this discussion is about. My "that's not what this discussion is about" comment should have been put at the end of my last post directed to peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:11 PM

"But when he unfolded a map that showed a Palestinian state made up of several unconnected cantons surrounded by Israeli troops, Arafat walked away."

The simple fact is, he did. Mike Shuster's report is accurate.

The NPR piece says this about Arafat:

Walked away from Camp David negotiations in 2000

He did not 'walk away' from the Camp David negotiations. He may have walked away from someone during a particular conversation, but that is hardly the same thing as walking away from the negotiations. And anyone who would use that kind of misleading wording has a hidden agenda.

But that's not the subject of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Fair and Balanced
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Oct 07 - 07:02 PM

Peace, in what way do you think the question of whether or not Arafat was corrupt or whether or not he stole any money is relevant to the question of whether or not he was the one who ended the peace process?

You always throw that one out anytime anyone mentions the name Arafat in any way other than totally demonizing him and everything he ever did. In the context of this discussion the only reason you could possibly have for doing that would be to deflect attention away from what was done by members of the Israeli government that is even worse that what you are saying Arafat did.