Home > Blogs > Post Content
|
|
“A LIE CAN TRAVEL HALFWAY AROUND THE WORLD BEFORE THE TRUTH PUTS ON ITS PANTS.”—WINSTON CHURCHILL. This is how it works: take a statement or assertion that confirms what you already believe and publicize it, without offering a source or any evidence to support it. Then repeat the claim as if it were factual. Here is a prime example. In case you missed it yesterday, unhinged bigot Pam Geller allowed her overriding hatred of President Obama to take her to new and scary places as she reported that the military countermanded an order from Obama to abort the mission to kill Osama bin Laden. She had, in effect, accused members of the military of treason. Geller sourced an anonymous conservative blogger who claims to be receiving reports from a "D.C. insider." This "insider" apparently enjoys unfettered access to the president and his advisors and knows intimate details of top secret national security discussions -- so naturally he/she dishes to a F-list right-winger who writes for a content farm no one has heard of. Anyway, the story spun by the "insider" and reprinted by Geller was that the military staged a "coup"(!) after the White House "scrambled to abort" the Bin Laden mission: She offered this report (source unknown): “When 48 hour go order issued, CoC was told, not requested. Administration scrambled to abort. That order was overruled. Independent military contacts have confirmed. Stories corroborate one another. This is legit. The killing of Osama Bin Laden was in fact a Coup within Obama WH.” Geller's source later posted a "clarification" from his imaginary friend "insider" trying to explain that he didn't actually accuse the military leadership of a crime punishable by death. Geller posted the clarification in an update to her original post, writing "more details here": “ was told - in these exact terms, "we overruled him." (Obama) I have since followed up and received further details on exactly what that meant, as well as the specifics of how Leon Panetta worked around the president's "persistent hesitation to act." There appears NOT to have been an outright overruling of any specific position by President Obama, simply because there was no specific position from the president to do so. President Obama was, in this case, as in all others, working as an absentee president.” Not that it really matters, since this is all the product of one frustrated blogger's sad game of journalism make-believe, but the "clarification" is actually a direct contradiction of the original allegation, which was that the White House "scrambled" to issue an "order" to abort the mission. But Geller's running with this, and so are some of her dimmer colleagues in right-wing blogosphere, who admit that the story is probably a load of crap but can't resist reprinting it because it fits the caricature of Obama they've constructed. It also contradicts the statements of the people who were actually in the room when President Obama made the decision. They made their statements publicly and stood behind them. Said John Brennan, Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, it was "one of the most gutsiest calls of any president in recent memory."
Posted By: Richard Kigel
Thursday, May 5th 2011 at 9:35AM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
|
|
|
People love their conspiracy theories.
The problem is that their beliefs are too often not supported by factual evidence.
That won't stop any true believer because such is the power of faith.
Thursday, May 5th 2011 at 9:37AM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Dear Saint Jake:
That is exactly my point! The opinions expressed in "cafes in downtown Riyadh" and by "locals in Abbottabad" and what we would call "the man in the street" are just that--opinions. No more and no less.
Everyone is entitled to his opinion. Absolutely.
But, if anyone is interested in actual facts, they need to follow a higher standard. That means the opinion needs support and corroboration from an informed source who was in a position to ascertain those facts.
HIstorians and journalists call them primary sources.
That said, I agree with you that the US government has an awful track record when it comes to credibility. During the Bush Administration, the govt outright lied time and time again. However, there were scores of independent journalists who uncovered the underlying truth of what really went on--because they used reliable sources both inside and outside government.
They key concept is reliable sources.
So if you trust a particular journalist for professioanlism, intergrity and honesty, they you will tend to give credility to their reporting.
I posted this particular article because it is one of dozens of crazy theories about this Bin Laden situation--many of them from the Right Wing of American politics. But the pattern for all these theories is amazingly similar. People have their basic sets of beliefs--and they form their opinion that conforms to their belief system.
IN forming their opinions, systematic research and facts often do not factor in.
That was my point.
So everyone can believe what they want. But if you want to persuade someone to adopt your beliefs, it is always more persuasive to have some facts to support it.
That is all I'm saying!
Thursday, May 5th 2011 at 11:56AM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
And by the way--about those photos, it is a tough call. Good arguments can be made either way.
In this case, we know from past experience with photos of dead people (remember Saddam Hussein's two sons and the phtot of Zarqawi) and with other documentary evidence (think: BIRTH CERTIFICATE) releasing them for the public did nothing to convince those true believers who wanted to cling to their opinions.
In fact, the documentary evidence raised more questions.
The Obama administration concluded that they would gain nothing by releasing the photos--people would still accuse them of faking it--and they are so inflammatory that they would make more people angrier at us than they already are.
Considering all that, I think sitting on them is a smart idea.
If you trust Presdient Obama, his word that "Osama bin Laden will no longer walk the earth" should settle it.
If you don't trust him, then it is highly probable that you won't trust any evidence the government has to offer.
Here is the definitive proof that he is, in fact, dead.
According to the NY Times yesterday, Federal Prosecutors filed court papers to dismiss all charges against Osama Bin Laden stemming from his indictment in 1998.
They would NEVER NEVER do that if there was any hint that he was still alive and could possibly be brought to justice.
So that means, case closed.
Thursday, May 5th 2011 at 12:07PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Saint Jake:
Not only WEstern governments--India and Afghanaistan are hard on the case. And according to today's NY Times, the govt of Pakistan--and the Pakistan public--is more upset about the humiliating incompetence of their own military and the fact that Bin Laden has been hiding there for years--despite what they have been saying--that they are launching their own internal investigation of their military and intelligence failures.
Here is some text from today's news:
PAKISTAN ARMY UNDER SCRUTINY AFTER U.S. RAID: CRDILBILITY QUESTIONED BY PUBLIC AND ALLIES, N.Y.TIMES, May 5, 2011
That American helicopters could fly into Pakistan, carrying a team to kill the world’s most wanted terrorist and then fly out undetected has produced a stunned silence from the military and its intelligence service that some interpret as embarrassment, even humiliation.
There is no doubt that the raid has provoked a crisis of confidence for what was long seen as the one institution that held together a nation dangerously beset by militancy and chronically weak civilian governments.
The aftermath has left Pakistanis to challenge their leadership, and the United States to further question an already frequently distrusted partner.
By Wednesday, members of Parliament, newspaper editorials and Pakistan’s raucous political talk shows were calling for an explanation and challenging the military and intelligence establishment, institutions previously immune to public reproach.
Some were calling for an independent inquiry, focused less on the fact that the world’s most wanted terrorist was discovered in their midst than on whether the military could defend Pakistan’s borders and its nuclear arsenal from being snatched or attacked by the United States or India.
“If these people are found to be incompetent, heads should roll,” said Zafar Hilaly, a prominent newspaper columnist.
The Afghan government escalated its criticism of Pakistan on Wednesday, publicly questioning for the first time how the Pakistanis could ensure the security of their nuclear arms if they did not even know that Osama bin Laden, the world’s most wanted terrorist, had been hiding in a compound in a Pakistani military town less than an hour from their capital.
Pakistani paramilitary troops patrolled in South Waziristan, along the border with Afghanistan, last summer. Afghans say the insurgency's roots are in Pakistan.
In comments at a weekly news conference, Gen. Zahir Azimi, a spokesman for the Afghan Defense Ministry, echoed points made this week by others in the country, including President Hamid Karzai, but in starker terms. The general specifically criticized Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence, which has claimed that it was unaware that Bin Laden had been living for years in the military garrison town of Abbottabad, where American commandos killed him in a raid early Monday.
“If the Pakistani intelligence agency does not know about a home located 10 meters or 100 meters away from its national military academy, where for the last six years the biggest terrorist is living, how can this country take care of its strategic weapons?” General Azimi said.
“How could they be satisfied that their strategic weapons are not in danger?” he asked.
Thursday, May 5th 2011 at 1:12PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Interesting conversation.
Thursday, May 5th 2011 at 3:16PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Irma:
Did you ever hear RAchel talk about her interactions with condi from her STamford days? Rachel was a student there when Condi was Provost. I heard her speaking about her experiences on her old Air America radio show.
Interesting observations. Apparently, they have a history.
Friday, May 6th 2011 at 9:50AM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Irma:
Here is Rachel's story--as I recall it. I am paraphrasing--and there is no print version so I have to reconstruct what I remember.
Rachel was an undergrad at Stanford when Condi was Provost. Rachel was involved in some sort of protest--I don't recall the issue. One of the student leaders was an Native American woman--and as Rachel described her, she had natural red hair.
During the negotiations with Dr. Rice, the Native American student leader, who was apparently well known and well respected by the students--but unknown to Dr. Rice, spoke eloquently about the opppression of miniorities.
AAccording to Rachel, this made Condi extremely infuriated and defensive. She blasted the student leader for arrogance--something like "who are you to lecture me about opporession of minorities", apparently thinking that this woman was of white European descent--which she wasn't.
Of course, the students were offended by her outburst--because the woman she was talking to was a member of an oppressed minority--and apparently, she never apologized or acknowledged her mistake.
What uis striking about that is how her inability to admit a mistake seems to be a character flaw because it contributed to the diasatrous war in Iraq.
That is what I remember of RAchel Maddow and Condi Rice.
Friday, May 6th 2011 at 3:23PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Irma:
THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!! THANK YOU!!!
Friday, May 6th 2011 at 10:19PM
Richard Kigel
|
|
|
Irma:
Again, many thinks for your kind words about my book ON THE WINGS OF THE WIND--which I KNOW you have read.
And I bet Saint Jake would appreciate it as well.
Saturday, May 7th 2011 at 6:13PM
Richard Kigel
|
 |
Lets see, I believe it is our American congress are the ones to declare war...and to pay for war...
BUT THIS CAN'T BE TRUE BECAUSE BUSH DID NOT PAY FOR THE WAR...AND H. CLINTON DID NOT EVEN READ TEHPAPERS BEFORE VOTING TO GO TO WAR...HELL SHE HAD NO CHILDREN TO GO OFF TO WAR AND HELL LOOK AT ALL OF THE $$MILLIONS SHE AND HER FAMILY MADE OFF OF TOSE DEATHS IN AFRICA...OH, BUT AGAIN WE HERE IN AMERICA DIDN'T EVENKNOW AFRICA EXISTED UNTIL WE GOT AN ILLEGAL PRESIDENT THAT WAS BORN IN KENYA...NOW HOW MANY YEARS HAVE THEY BEEN AT WAY...BIG OIL BEEN MAKING THE LANDS IN AFRIC AUNFIT TO GROW FOOD...BUT THEN VERY FEW OF US KNOW ABOUT OIL RICH NIGERA THAT AHD TALKED TO RACHEL AN AFRICAN THAT SHYS HOW THEY ALWAYS WENT TO BED HUNGRY DIDPITE WORKING ALL DAY IN THE FIELDS IN GROWING FOOD TO BE SENT TO ENGLAND...NOW WHAT IS THIS ABOUT BINLADENTAHT GOT US TO SENDF $20 BILLION TO IRAQ A WEEK FOR HIS HAVING BLOWN UP TWO BUILDINGS IN NEW YORK AFTER BEING TAUGHT BY OUR MEDIA HOW TO DO IT RIGHT THE NEXT TIME AND NOT TRY TO BRING IT DOWN FROM THE BOTTOM BUT THE TOP...
AS WE CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT THE TERRORIST TRAINING IN THEMIDLE-EAST WHEN ALL OF THIS TRAINING TOOK PART IN AMERICA WIT OUR GOVERNMENT KNOWING ABOUT IT LIKE THEY KNEW ABOUT WIKILEAKS...BUT WHO CARES...WE ARE LIMITED ONLY TO POINTING THEFINGNGERS OF BLAME ADN COMPLAINIG...
AND, BELIEVEING THAT SINCE IA M THE ONLYONE WHO EVER TALK ABOUT DONT GET CRRIED AWAY WOTH PERSONAL EMOTIONS AM TO BELIEVE THIS WAS DIRECTED AT RICH...
IF ANYTHING THIS DOUBTS OF THE DEATHOF BINLADENIS A WONDERFUL THING...BUT WHO IS INTERESTED INFACTS OVER PERSONAL EMOTIONS OF PUTTING OTHERS DOWN AS A LIFE STYLE...CANYOU SAY I RESPECT ALL RELIGIONS BECAUSE I RESPECT ALL PEOPLE AND THEIR RIGHTS TO BE THE BEST PERSON THEY CAN BE...
HELL NO AND JAKE THAT WAS ALL DIRECTED AT YOU...I DON'T RUN AND HIDE BEHIND A LIE TO GET MY POINT ACROSS. LOV YA...(SMILE) BE A MAN AND COME ON MY BLOGS SO YOU WILLNOTHAVE TO SENAK ON RICH'S BLOG NOW THAT YOU ALLOW TIS WHITE MAN TO BE A PART OF THIS SITE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (NUP)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...and, no I am not praising Rich with the words I speak...I am talking about his book ON THE WINGS OF THE WIND...have you read it yet...if not, not to worry, I have not read his book on Abe Lincoln yet.(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@jake, if you notice I brought up Critical thinking...which would never even have any use to have words like rehtoric in its world...simply because in Critical Thinking...
THERE AE NO 'RIGHTS' / 'WRONGS' ONLY SHARING KNOWLEDGE WHICH IS DEFINANTLY NOT THE SAME AE LEARNING/ TEACHING...
Just a little more about how personal emotions becomes a blockade to actual peace on earth goodwill towards mankind. "I" dialogue and never try to tell others how to live their lives in order to be the best people they can be by way of my values.(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
(writing this while listening to our president's speech)
Thanks Rich, because we must never let up on the biggest oppessor going PREJUDICE AS IN IGNORANCE...
We will be actually be able to take more and more steps toward peace on eart h goodwill towards mankind...b way of wisdom taht says chattel slavery is something we survived not someting to cause division and excuses to hate, fear as in differnet is deficient...
Condi altoughrepersenting athority, power, ect. is still no less than the bully at school that we had to put down for saying my sisters and brothers wer not black because they had red sandy hair and gray eyes...
and, Rich, I remember these words coming in on a talk radio program when Venissa Willims won Miss America...the caller said she could not be Black because she ahs gray eyes...the host of the program said to her, I have green eyes and I am Black...but we still have a lot of work to do and thanks for theachers like you promoting critical thinking at the grade school levels and how to promote it by thewritten world inyour writting class..
lov ya and alwyas proud tocall you my 'brother' in spirit as the NDB to the Christian makes this even more better. lol(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@Rich, no I missed this one. Please, give me an over vieew on this.
Actually I fell out iwthCondi back when she began defending bush and Iraq by saying what would have happened if the chattel slaves had protested against th ecivil war!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (NUP)
"I" am so glad the right-wingers must stick to their 'talking points' so faithfully until they must over look the "what ever you say can be used against you in a court of law"!!!!!! ALONG WITH "NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAWS OF OUR LAND" (SMILE)
@AMERICA(NS) WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL ATTORNEY, LAW PROFESSOR AND PRESIDENT AS LEADER OF OUR NATION........EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!...
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
...HO, YES AND JAKE WHILE I AM ALL WOUND UP LETS tell you about my friend Rachel taht was born in oil rich nigera africa...she had one of those Black males you so often deny exist taht went to colleg to become an engineer, but while there changed his mind and became a physic professor instead....(nup / smile)
@rich thanks and I leave you now, must go watch the republican debate on fox as soon as rachle's program goes off...last word today with teh stuff taht turned condi Rice into a black sarah palin by lawrence was too die for tonight. (rotfl) (smile)rich Condi threatened to walk off his program's interview and he and rachel discussed condi after wards...a must see...(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@rICH, GREAT, GREAT BLOG...and it also describes...
P-R-E-J-U-D-I-C-E...
aN ADVERSE JUDGMENT or opinion formed beforhand or without knowledge or examination of the facts....preconceived preference or ideas; bias.
EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!!!EDUCATE!! (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
@Jake,"I" chant(pray) that you will take time to watch the rachel Maddow probram@msnbc for 5-4-11. You may be able to farther understand how it is always better to look at more thanone source, resorce and allow history to be ones guide...
emotions also are tied to our first law of nature which is survival therefore when I am always saying don't get over ruled by personal emotions as one who is responsible for my own actions "I" would never , ever try to get anyone to not self protect ones self while trying to be the best person they cn be...
I DON'T BELIEVE IN RIGHT /WRONG ONLY BALANCE. (SMILE)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
|
|
E-M-O-T-I-O-N (source,The American Heritge Dictionaly)...
A complex and usually strong subjective response...
@Jake, when one don't leave out my whole comments, logic in order to replace it with their own EMOTIONAL/ SUBJECTIVE T-R-U-T-H-S, ONE WOULD NEVER LEAVE OUT WHO "i" ALWAYS USE THESE LITTLE SAYING TO HELP SHOW HOW I RESPECT THEIR TRUTHS BECAUSE "I" AM NEVER ABOUT RIGHT/ WRONG, SAINTS/ SINNERS...
I say things like I don't like pinapple but I have no right to be against those wh o dolike pinapple...even when some try to convince me I believe in a buddhist god...I never say they should not do this..."I" just stick with don't try to domy thinking or live my life for me, but then I still say this is on them not me...(smile)
Thursday, April 10th 2014 at 6:47PM
ROBINSON IRMA
|
Blogs Home
|
|
|
