Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (72469)	9/22/2004 12:10:18 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793840

First, Find the Forger By WILLIAM SAFIRE Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. " U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343. WASHINGTON — At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources. Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them. The perpetrator then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election. That was no mere "dirty trick"; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code. If the artifice had not been revealed by sharp-eyed bloggers, a national election could have been swung by a blatant falsehood. Who was the forger? Did others conspire with him or her to present a seeming government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas? Who was to benefit and how? CBS News belatedly apologized and agreed to appoint independent examiners. That's a start. The government and the courts have no business forcing journalists to reveal sources. But no ethic requires a journalist to protect a source who lied. Accordingly, Dan Rather went to the Texas ranch of his source and telecast Bill Burkett's admission of having falsely "thrown out the name" of someone who gave him the false evidence. Burkett now claims his real source was some hard-to-find mystery woman. What benefit did the Bush-hating Burkett gain from CBS in return for his fake documents? One plausible answer: he got coveted access to someone high up in the Kerry campaign. We learned last week that Burkett had reached Kerry's convention introducer, former Senator Max Cleland, to plead for access to higher-ups so as to launch a "counterattack." Cleland confirms getting the call and says he told him to try the D.N.C., (where Terry McAuliffe, as former prosecutor Joseph DiGenova noted on MSNBC, carefully denied a role only in the preparation of the documents). When his call to headquarters was not returned, Burkett then asked Mary Mapes, the CBS producer, to help him gain the top-level Kerry access he so highly valued. Only days before the telecast, Mapes or some other "60 Minutes" staff member delivered the goods: their "unimpeachable" source was paid off with a call from Joe Lockhart, the Clinton press aide newly hired to strip nuance out of Kerry's message. With the number supplied by CBS, Lockhart called Burkett. We don't know what was said, but the call from on high was payoff in itself. What should CBS do now? First, release Rather's interview with Burkett in its entirety; viewers are entitled to the outtakes now. Next, let Mary Mapes, at the center of all this, speak to reporters. Third, expend some Viacom resources to track down the possible original sources, including the man whose name Burkett says he "threw out" to mislead CBS. Appointing independent reviewers should not be a device to duck all others' questions; that's Kofi Annan's trick to stonewall his oil-for-food scandal. But lacking the power of a grand jury's subpoena or testimony under oath, victimized CBS cannot put real heat on the perpetrator or conspirators. We have hard evidence of crimes by low-level operatives here - from wire fraud to forgery - as well as the potential of high-level political involvement. Is no prosecutor prepared to enforce the law? Conservatives should stop slavering over Dan Rather's scalp, and liberals should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-evidence means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early 70's: from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate forgeries, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections. Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

To: LindyBill who wrote (72469)	9/22/2004 12:55:23 AM
From: Ilaine	Respond to of 793840

Barnett is cool but he's not flawless. I think the most important development in the WOT is the rapprochement between Israel and Russia after Beslan. This I call "Never Mind the Bollocks" after the seminal Sex Pistols album of the same name, the one that inaugurated Punk Rock. Cut the crap, quit blowing smoke, get down to business. The fascism bit, well, that does leave something to be desired. Bush is fit to be tied, and rightfully so, we really are not ready to take on the entire Muslim world. Unlike the Russians, we do need Middle Eastern oil. Further, it's as plain as the nose on your face that Russia, China, Israel, India, etc., are using the WOT as an excuse for excluding Muslims with otherwise legitimate issues. But that cuts both ways. Non-terrorist Muslims need to quit playing with fire. They need to renounce terrorism. Otherwise they can't complain about being burnt. Or, to use their language, if you claim to love death, don't complain when you are killed.

To: LindyBill who wrote (72469)	9/22/2004 7:26:05 AM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793840

It disturbs me to no end that many in the military see Kaplan as a serious thinker about the future, because I believe he has absolutely nothing to say about it, other than it will look almost exactly like today (so get used to it). His non-vision is disheartening in the extreme, and it speaks to a Robert Heinlein-like "Starship Troopers" future dystopia where we should all adopt a warrior spirit in order to survive. And as usual, his hyperbole masks his lack of strategic thinking ("the most thankless task of any military in the history of warfare"). Barnett (could include Friedman too) plays to the masses hopes for an end to war. We enjoy reading them because we all hope they are correct. I always enjoy seeing the bumper sticker "no more war", but I also realize it ignores human history. I think Barnett is wrong on Kaplan. Kaplan is not a war monger. He calls the present how he sees it (with great accuracy) and keeps his analysis of the future within reasonable historical boundaries. On the other hand, Barnett's dovish conclusions are only figments of his personal hopes and wishes. They are rooted neither in fact nor historical perspective. If Barnett is entitled to his opinion, so is Kaplan. They are both guessing...and so is Friedman. uw