651–656 of 656 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The fact that you think NYT is “far left” is a great example of how incredibly far the overton window has shifted.
The whole democratic party has shifted drastically left in the last 10 years. If you can't recognize this, you're just deep in the echo chamber, IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Criminals don't file for workman's comp.
They don't like tripping over their own gear, either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole democratic party has shifted drastically left in the last 10 years. If you can't recognize this, you're just deep in the echo chamber, IMO.
Where did I mention the democratic party? I’m talking about the NYT. I also disagree with your statement, irrelevant as it is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The author explains it in the next sentence. > It’s the “Washington Game” of “official leaks”, disseminating propaganda without being held accountable. In general, you can spot this kind of propaganda by realizing that the anonymous source is actually promoting the government's position and so isn't actually in danger. I.E. they aren't a whistleblower, they have no reason to fear repercussions.
Wouldn't there be repercussions for discussing an ongoing investigation with a journalist?
Then there are other aspects that they would be prohibited from sharing in some legal jurisdictions, that hinge on privacy law (divulging sensitive but irrelevant details regarding the suspects alibi that they learned by interviewing the suspect) or on affecting potential jury members.
Instead they use the idea that they aren't allowed to share any information to just avoid answering questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point!
And remember how quickly Powell’s “Yellow Cake” fairytale fell apart once they resorted to sharing the docs. The docs were fake! Actual evidence can be interrogated and disproven. While anonymous, evidence-free reporting is unfalsifiable.
The "Iraq tried to buy yellowcake in Niger" claims [0] were a story pushed by the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) which was set up Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz intentionally to bypass the CIA's assessment and stovepipe unproven claims in order to cobble together a casus belli. Powell refused to have anything to do with it. Former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said it was BS. CNN reported it was BS. And on, and on.
And even at that, Bush still had to use Tony Blair's admin's name to try to inject the claim into discourse, the famous Sixteen Words in the 2003 SOTU "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Not Colin Powell. If you read between the lines of writings by Powell and others, he believed the neocons in the Bush-Cheney admin could not be deterred from taking the country to war on false premises; Powell was to that process like Robert Reich was to Clinton's NAFTA deal ("the train's going to leave the station whether you were on it or not").
Historians can decide whether Powell should have protested more strongly, e.g. resigning (as Tony Blair's Foreign Secretary Robin Cook did) and denouncing the thing, instead of playing along it at his UNGA address.
If Powell had not complied with Rumsfeld, he would have been trashed as completely as Major General Taguba for actually writing a full and truthful Abu Ghraib Report [1]).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And remember how quickly Powell’s “Yellow Cake” fairytale fell apart once they resorted to sharing the docs. The docs were fake! Actual evidence can be interrogated and disproven. While anonymous, evidence-free reporting is unfalsifiable.
It wasn't ever "Powell’s “Yellow Cake” fairytale". It was Bush-Cheney's. And the scandal is not merely that it was fake, but was publicly known to be fake in spring 2003 . The "Iraq tried to buy yellowcake in Niger" claims [0] were a story pushed by the DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency) which was set up Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz intentionally to bypass the CIA's assessment and stovepipe unproven claims in order to co…
That's even worse than I thought. But fits with Powell's history in Vietnam.