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 : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: manalagi who wrote (20933)	6/9/2005 1:02:02 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 362641

The White House spin doctor is in By ROBERT SELTZER GUEST COLUMNIST Seattle Post-Intelligencer Wednesday, June 8, 2005 seattlepi.nwsource.com As the crow flies, the distance between solid journalism and sloppy journalism is staggering -- a chasm the Bush administration is happy to point out. Enter Scott McClellan. Who better to lecture the media on truth, on sound reporting practices? After all, as White House press secretary, he deals with the truth every day; he may not always convey the truth, but he deals with it. In a world of fun-house mirrors, which is what the Oval Office has become, his job is to distort the images, bend them and shape them for public consumption. So there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? OK, if Saddam Hussein was no threat to the United States, he could have become a threat, and a pre-emptive strike against a potential enemy is better than a holding pattern against a nonexistent enemy ... right? If that sounds confusing, welcome to the world of fun-house mirrors, where WMD are weapons of mass deception. Given that background, McClellan is the right man to lecture the media on their failings. The press secretary singled out Newsweek for its recent item, since retracted, about interrogators flushing a Quran down a toilet at Guantanamo Bay. He said the report sparked a riot that killed 16 in Afghanistan -- a tragedy, he noted in the pious tones of a confessor, for which the magazine must repent. "The report had real consequences," McClellan said during a news briefing after the Newsweek episode. "People have lost their lives." McClellan failed to mention that Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, dismissed the link between the article and the violence. He was not alone. A Middle Eastern official supported that view last week. "Those demonstrations were, in reality, not related to the Newsweek story," Afghan President Hamid Karzai, visiting the president in Washington, told reporters. "They were more against the (upcoming parliamentary) elections in Afghanistan; they were more against the progress in Afghanistan." Michael Isikoff, the Newsweek reporter responsible for the item, showed genuine remorse over the violence in Afghanistan. "It was terrible what happened," he said on "The Charlie Rose Show." "Even if it was just a little bit that we contributed to the violence that went on over there, that was awful, terrible." On the home front, other journalists thought the damage was "terrible," too. Recently, some newspapers began developing guidelines to reduce the use of anonymous sources -- sources often encouraged by the very administration that criticized their use in Newsweek. The papers included The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. Like the politicians they cover, media organizations are flawed, sometimes frustratingly so. But they are aware of the benefits they provide -- and the damage they inflict. And, in the wake of the Newsweek fiasco, they seem determined to increase the benefits and reduce the damage. Can we say the same about the administration? Should it be so self-righteous about the virtues of untainted journalism when it hires hacks such as Armstrong Williams to give us propaganda disguised as news? Should it be so pious about the flow of information when it tries to strong-arm the Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio about the programs they air? The media are not above learning lessons. The day they reach that point, we will all be in trouble -- politicians and voters alike, but those lessons should not be provided by someone like McClellan, whose role is to shape the truth, not present it, pure and unvarnished. Robert Seltzer writes for the San Antonio Express-News; rseltzer@express-news.net.

To: manalagi who wrote (20933)	6/9/2005 1:44:48 PM
From: SiouxPal	Respond to of 362641

Democrats say have votes to delay Bolton vote By Vicki Allen Tue Jun 7, 6:33 PM ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats back from a weeklong recess said on Tuesday they were holding firm against allowing a vote to confirm John Bolton as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations until the Bush administration turns over more information on him. "I think the support is just as strong as it was," Richard Durbin of Illinois, the Senate minority whip, said after a meeting of Democratic senators. In the Senate's last act before leaving for its Memorial Day break, Democrats mustered enough support to block a final vote on Bolton, who they said tried to misuse U.S. intelligence and intimidated or tried to remove intelligence analysts who did not conform to his hard-line views. Democrats demand the administration turn over more classified material on Bolton, but the White House has refused and accused Democrats of using partisan delaying tactics. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said he expected to proceed with Bolton's nomination "very soon," but could not say "with certainty" when that would be. He has accused Democrats of using a procedural hurdle called a filibuster to block the confirmation vote. "I would hope that the Bolton situation is not a standoff," said Senate Minority leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat. "I hope the president recognizes that he has an obligation" to provide the material, he said. Republicans who hold a 55-45 majority in the Senate, need to pick up two more Democrats to vote to end the debate on Bolton and go to the confirmation vote. A simple majority was needed to confirm him, which Republicans expected to get. One of the Democrats the White House is trying to enlist, Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, said he was sticking with his colleagues' demands for the information. "I remain undecided on how I would vote on the Bolton nomination itself but I do think this is a point of principle for the Senate and the public's right to know," he said. Lieberman and Ben Nelson of Nebraska were the only Democrats considering supporting Bolton for confirmation. George Voinovich of Ohio and John Thune of South Dakota were the only Republicans who said they intended to vote against him. Democrats insist the administration turn over e-mails and other internal communications leading up to testimony Bolton gave Congress on Syria's weapons. They also want some access to classified National Security Agency intercepts sought by Bolton that contain the names of Americans. "This is now beyond Mr. Bolton. It's about whether the Senate should have a right to certain information pertaining to a nominee," said Sen. Christopher Dodd (news, bio, voting record), a Connecticut Democrat. Dodd offered a compromise in which the administration would confirm whether certain names were on the NSA intercepts Bolton asked to see. Democrats said they were trying to determine whether Bolton requested the classified intercepts to exact retribution on his opponents. Dodd said the administration rejected the offer.