« Quote of the Day | Main | We Must Be Driving the Loony Left Crazy... »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c42969e200d8349a00df69e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Fresh from the Joseph Goebbels School of Journalism:

Comments

For those who can't wait:

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,389789,00.html

Amazing that a little magazine is able to profile the operations of a putatively secret organization. Guess it's easier when you are ideologically driven and don't let facts get in the way.
It occurs that America should have skipped D-day and let the Russians have France and western Germany. They Russians would have known what to do with them and the two countries would now know the true face of Marxism.

The irony is that the CIA is so unpopular among Republicans that many are talking about abolishing it and "starting over", without its leftie bureaucrats who use well-timed leaks to attack Bush. This is the CIA's primary skill nowadays.

The idea of the CIA as some powerful weapon that Bush can use against the world is sheer fantasy...

CIA make a good work. Check it out:

www.cia.gov

But often they had a lot of wrong missions. I think the point for Germany is atm not CIA operations. The point is that our members of government had knew it and allowed this.

In add, who of the western sphere knows marxism and the real life in socialism? Don't write about thinks, which you don't understand!

@Frank K: "Don't write about things, which you don't understand..."

Why not? Journalists do it all the time, and moreover, people believe them. As PacRim Jim said, how is Spiegel all of a sudden qualified to write about the CIA? I feel therefore completely at liberty to write about anything, anytime. And maybe I will. ;-)

@Foobarista: Agree completely. Someone needs to clean house in that place. I'm not certain which government the CIA works for, but it is certainly not the present elected one in the US.

http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/0,1518,389676,00.html

A refreshing break from the Iraqi-desaster mantra.
I feel that Spiegel Online has lately begun to provide at least some different perspectives.

In the light of the Washington Post article and this rather positive survey, fig-leaf Henryk Broder is no longer as lonely as he was before.

I know that the CIA article is the old rhetoric, I feel that the issue at heart is really worth a very thorough examinations.

I am not in favour of subordinating anything to winning the hearts and minds of the Muslim world, but, from a long term perspective, I believe the advantages of extracting information quickly and completely from terror suspects using torture and illegal combattant status needs to be weight very carefully against the substantial loss of credibility America experienced as a result of these measures.

While the war on terror cant be won simply be making concessions to the

"Amazing that a little magazine is able to profile the operations of a putatively secret organization."

Der Spiegel is just that good. They may not know how to translate articles correctly, but they can get into the heart of the CIA.

Will Speigel be critical of Berlin also? I would like to know, why did German officials cooperate so well with the CIA? Why also has their story kept changing? Who else knew about this? Did they really think they could get away with blaming it all on the Americans? What is Berlin's plan for dealing with extremely dangerous men who may be planning to kill thousands? Etc. etc. etc.

Can anyone else see a link to Joseph Goebbels just by looking at this cover, which translates to "Realm of shadows - The worldwide operations of the U.S. Secret Intelligence Service"? I can't.

Note from David: Smart readers of this blog can. They know about this proud tradition of SPON (check covers at end of posting).

@PacRim "... a little magazine ..."

"Der Spiegel" is the fourth largest news magazine in the world (by cirulation). Also, I'd be interested to see the list of factual mistakes you have discovered in the above-mentioned article.

@NotForSale

Welcome to the club of the not-so-smart readers :-)

@David "Smart readers of this blog can ..."

What's wrong with that interview? The Spiegel was being polite when translating the introductory paragraph and omitting the word "disaster". The U.S. American audience is ready for it. How long did it take the U.S. media before it wasn't considered anti-American or unpatriotic any more to call Vietnam a disaster? Many, many years. We'll have to be patient, and for the time being, it's better to take the gentle approach to reach the U.S. audience.

Note from David: I referred to the "covers at end of posting", not to the interview mentioned at the beginning of the posting.
Smart readers notice the difference.

NFS: How long did it take the U.S. media before it wasn't considered anti-American or unpatriotic any more to call Vietnam a disaster? Many, many years.

Bull hockey! It took about ten seconds after the first "problems" with reporting starting coming in to the news desks. Vietnam was lost in the news rooms and on Capital Hill, not in Vietnam. Maybe you don't remember "All in the Family" with Rob Reiner preaching to us that everything we believed in was "shallow" and "wrong-headed". And, yes, those sit-coms were a part of the media. They were right in there with the alleged "news" reporting.

I'm old enough to remember the news media's vile performance first hand. The same thing is happening again now. Only this time they do NOT have a monopoly, and we are not going to let them get away with it ;).

@LC Mamapajamas

I wasn't putting any blame on the U.S. media. The problem is that if they talked turkey, they would ask for a bombardement with would-be patriotic rhetoric. Remember what happened to Congressman Murtha - a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. When he spoke truth in November, they openly called him a coward. Naturally, all other countries (except Britain) don't share this "funny" notion of having to be patriotic or to support your troops. The non U.S. media can be frank. Unless you have a somewhat autistic view of the events, you should not be surprised to see that the rest of the world is putting up so much resistance at way the Bush administration is operating in Iraq: in a disquieting blend of arrogance, incompetence and resistance to advice. I'm not putting any blame on the U.S. troops, the best-trained and best-equipped army in the world. It's always a management problem. Many of those initially in favor of the invasion (including me) are slowly but gradually overtaken by a creeping horror in view of the way things are evolving in Iraq. There were two ways to invade Iraq: You could do it right and you could mess it up. Once Murtha recognized that the Bush administration took every chance to mess it up, what options did he have? Let things spin further out of control? Or pull the emergency break?

I apologize - my morning is hectic and I haven't read the thread but I think you all need to see this.

The EU's knickers are in a twist for what? They agreed to those flights.
The EU not only knew about it - they agreed to it

Quote:
BRUSSELS -- A previously unpublished document shows that the European Union secretly agreed in 2003 to let the United States use transit facilities on European soil to transport "criminals."
The revelation supports U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's strong suggestion last week that so-called "rendition" flights were undertaken with the approval of other governments, despite denials by European officials.

The article goes on to note:

The original document was first obtained by Statewatch, a private group monitoring civil liberties in the European Union.

I haven't had time to really look through it, but I found their homepage.

Statewatch

Gotta run - back later

This "Empire of Shadows" looks more like Hollywood flick than like Goebbels politics.

The simplest explanation for the shadows that run ahead the CIA in the American imagination is that these are the expectations America wants the world to have about its supranational intelligence activities. One first has to bring another unrelated entity into the argument, namely independence, to get to the conclusion that the American imagination of the CIA might not be an alarming attempt to plow its way through the world cultures, but instead a mostly harmless one to anesthetise itself against the not all too comfortable emotions that this painful agency is causing.

Der Spiegel has fallen into Occam's Trap and mistook the parsimony principle as an absolute truth. Which is an understandable flaw, because when a sane man tries to understand an organization that works on the base of the need-to-know principle, Occams razor is one of his strongest weapons against inductive fallacies - strong enough to cut off any notion of independence. But that Der Spiegel then sells the German imagination of the American imagination as news is just ridiculous.

"When he spoke truth in November" - NFS said

WOW - so when Murtha speaks ( a person you never heard of before this event I am sure ) he speaks truth eh

and you recognize it as truth because....it matches your opinion

Yet when Joe Lieberman speaks - you don't listen do you
and yet you have probably heard of Joe Lieberman haven't you?

Guess he don't "speak truth" :)

@NotforSale

"Remember what happened to Congressman Murtha - a decorated Vietnam combat veteran. When he spoke truth in November, they openly called him a coward."

No, they said he was wrong in his assessment, but everyone fell over themselves praising his service. Regarding your "truth", it doesn't stack up against the facts, nor does Murtha's.

"The non U.S. media can be frank."

And deceitful. No one will call them on their lies or ommissions. Lock-step all together now.

"Many of those initially in favor of the invasion (including me).."

Can you prove that statement, Moby, or just another lie to prop up your arguement?

The first attack on Murtha came by congresswoman Schmidt who addressed Murtha (against the rules) with a "Marines don't run". Her words had to be struck off the records.

I guess they found out by then that this strategy would backfire.

Whether Murtha speaks the "truth" or is right in his assessment is a matter of debate. The sham vote on "immediate withdrawal" (something that Murtha had never called for) was a political travesty.

@ NFS: I wasn't putting any blame on the U.S. media

I certainly AM putting blame on the US media. The Vietnam war was lost in the news rooms in the US and in Congress after the alleged "news" got out to the general public. We won every battle we engaged in Vietnam, and the alleged "news" media misreported it all. And they're trying to do it all over again, perhaps trying to bring back the "glory days" of their youth. It isn't working this time because they no longer have a monopoly on the news.

@Querdenker: Whether Murtha speaks the "truth" or is right in his assessment is a matter of debate. The sham vote on "immediate withdrawal" (something that Murtha had never called for) was a political travesty.

No, it wasn't. He was calling for troop withdrawals within 6 months. That means withdrawal procedures begin TODAY. It isn't easy to move 20,000 troops around.

Furthermore, that is what Bush has had planned all along... troop withdrawals as Iraqis begin to take over missions. We're almost there. Murtha knows that. This entire "withdrawal" thing was a STUNT by the Democrats so that when troop withdrawals DO begin... as planned all along by Bush... they can snatch credit for it. There was no other purpose for Murtha's comments. THAT was the stunt... the Republicans called them out on it.

@Querdenker: The first attack on Murtha came by congresswoman Schmidt who addressed Murtha (against the rules) with a "Marines don't run". Her words had to be struck off the records.

Congresswoman Schmidt was reading an e-mail she received from a Marine in Iraq.

I stood up and cheered when I heard about it.

@LC Mamapajamas

"Congresswoman Schmidt was reading an e-mail she received from a Marine in Iraq."

Sorry, but that's not what she did.

What she said was this (emphasis mine)

"SCHMIDT: A few minutes ago, I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, Ohio representative from the 88th District in the House of Representatives. He asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do. Danny and the rest of America and the world want the assurance --

HOUSE SPEAKER PRO TEM MIKE SIMPSON (R-ID): Gentlemen!

SCHMIDT: -- from this body that we will --

SIMPSON: The House will --

SCHMIDT: -- see this through --

That this was a message (or email) from a marine serving in Iraq was an invention of Rush Limbaugh. By all accounts, Colonel Danny Bubp never served in Iraq (at least he doesn't mention such a trivial fact in his biography of 2004 when he was elected. The colonel has since denied that he ever connected Murtha with that message, that Schmidt clearly directed at Murtha, a highly decorated marine, in a personal address.

Another correction about the "immediate withdrawal".
Murtha called for

immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces.
To create a quick reaction force in the region.
To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines.
To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq

He did not advocate a cut and run strategy. The resolution that the Republicans submitted for vote was indeede a "cut and run" proposal without any of the provisions Murtha had called for.

The good thing about the Murtha proposal is that it forces the Bush administration to be a bit more precise about its own plan. I don't say Murtha is right. But after reading the PDF about the Bush Iraq strategy I'm not convinced either.

For nearly 3 years the best troops in the world have sought in vain to bring stability to Iraq. What makes you think that hastily trained Iraqi forces with unclear loyalties would fare better? What will they do? They can fight more, kill more.

But the insurgency, the terror is not going away just because Iraqi forces do the fighting.

Sorry for comment 42, but I was personally addressed.

(And I'm dealing with people in California right now who have never heard of Central European Time)

"He did not advocate a cut and run strategy."

Of course he did. "Immediate" means exactly that. And that is also how the New York Times, Washington Post, Al Jazeera and the rest of the MSM reported it.

"But after reading the PDF about the Bush Iraq strategy I'm not convinced either."

Which parts specifically have left you unconvinced?

I didn't know that Spiegel was accusing the Canadian military of kidnapping, torture and being part of the CIA. If you look at the Spiegel cover inside the letter "c", at the bottom it shows soldiers and their prisoners coming out of an aircraft. This same picture was a big deal up here in Canada a four years ago. Those soldiers are members of Canadian JTF2 operating in Afghanistan.

Here's a link to verify:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1127234936056_73/?hub=CTVNewsAt11

Does this change the story? Maybe not but it makes Spiegel's photo editor look stupid to me.

@Querendecker: from a marine serving in Iraq was an invention of Rush Limbaugh.

Hmmm... that's curious, since I haven't listened to Rush since one day when I called in sick in October. I'll take your word about Rush saying it first, though.

The good thing about the Murtha proposal is that it forces the Bush administration to be a bit more precise about its own plan. I don't say Murtha is right. But after reading the PDF about the Bush Iraq strategy I'm not convinced either.

And the bad thing about it is that if you and I know it, so does the enemy.

I'm not in the least bit interested in letting head-cutting subhumans know what we're going to do.

Further, Bush has said FROM DAY ONE that we will pull out as the Iraqi troops and police are able to take over. There is NO WAY you can put that on a hard schedule.

directed at Murtha, a highly decorated marine

There it is again. The left hates the military until one of them comes down on their side.

Now let me say this, as a veteran and the daughter of a long line of Marines, and standing on my own merits:

The fact that Murtha is a veteran does not keep him from being a traitorous idiot. Yeah... "highly decorated" military man, but then so was Benedict Arnold. He might well have been a hero in the past, but his words sound sweet to the terrorists, and that alone would have gotten him shot not long ago. Sedition. Aiding and comfort to the enemy.

Furthermore, AS a veteran, she should KNOW how his words are being used against us in Iraq. The fact that he goes on sublimely impervious to this says to me that if he is not downright traitorous, he's hopelessly senile... IF he believes what he is saying.

However, I do NOT believe that he believes what he is saying. It's already out that this was yet another scheme cooked up by Murtha and Pelosi and Dean to try to embarass the president one more time. The majority called them down on it.

As a military man, he SHOULD know that it is the pit of stupidity to give up ground when your side is winning. And are we winning? Yes. Since you swallow the crap the alleged "news" media feeds you, you don't know that. But I get my news from people who are ACTUALLY THERE ON THE GROUND. Iraqis and military. Word is that Iraqis are turning against the insurgents en masse.

Watch out for Thursday's election. They're going to go out and vote in droves again. THEY are a lot more confident of their future than Murtha or you.

I wonder why that is?


The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31