SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (184106)3/25/2006 8:27:35 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 281500
 
The lefties love them.



To: steve harris who wrote (184106)3/25/2006 10:58:14 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Help a Commie and this is what you get
..................................................

Peacenik Commies have Bad Manners
...........................................................

British Army's top general attacks Kember for failing to thank SAS rescue team

The London Times March 25, 2006
By Nick Meo, Michael Evans and Daniel McGrory

NORMAN KEMBER, the freed peace activist, will arrive back in Britain today amid growing controversy over his failure publicly to thank the military forces who rescued him.

Neither Professor Kember nor the Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) organisation for whom he worked have acknowledged the work of the soldiers who rescued him and two Canadian hostages on Thursday, or of the teams of military and intelligence officials who spent months trying to track them down.





General Sir Mike Jackson, the head of the British Army, expressed the unhappiness of the military last night when he told Channel 4 News that he was “saddened that there doesn’t seem to have been a note of gratitude for the soldiers who risked their lives to save those lives”.

Before flying out of Baghdad on an RAF aircraft yesterday, Professor Kember and his two fellow hostages released a brief statement that said nothing about the rescue force. It read simply: “We are deeply grateful for all those who prayed for our release. We don’t have words to describe our feelings, our joy and gratitude. Our heads are swirling; when we are ready, we will speak to the media.”

It was the third set of comments Professor Kember had relayed to the media that failed to mention his rescuers. A lengthy statement released by CPT after the hostages’ rescue on Thursday not only failed to thank their rescuers, but called on coalition forces to withdraw from Iraq.

The only oblique acknowledgement came from Professor Kember’s wife, Pat. In a statement released through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office last night, she thanked “all those who have helped secure his release”. But she, too, made no mention of the British-led unit that freed her husband in western Baghdad. She praised “government agencies and my family liaison officers”, but did not directly refer to the soldiers who stormed the kidnappers’ hideout in darkness.

CPT has always made it clear that its members did not want force to be used to rescue them if they were kidnapped or held hostage.

But, in the event, the coalition devoted huge resources to securing their release. The SAS, special forces from the US and Canada and military intelligence officers spent months trying to locate them.

A force consisting of SAS troopers backed up by about 50 paratroops and Marines spearheaded the task force that rescued them. US and Iraqi troops were also involved in the mission. Relaxed and rested after his 36-hour stay at the fortified British Embassy in Baghdad, Professor Kember was flown out of the green zone by military helicopter yesterday to begin his journey home. He then boarded an RAF military transport at Baghdad airport for the short flight to neighbouring Kuwait. From there he was being flown home.

Maxine Nash, of CPT in Baghdad, said that the organisation had not paid for his flight back to Britain. She said: “He elected to go through the Embassy, they arranged it. We did offer to pay for commercial flights for everyone but that can be difficult because it means driving through dangerous areas.”

She admitted that the pacifist hostages had mixed feelings about being rescued by the military. She said: “Our mandate is violence reduction so this was a tough call. Before they were kidnapped both Tom and Jim had said they didn’t want to be rescued.” Ms Nash said that the group was now considering leaving Baghdad. “After what has happened we’re going to spend some time thinking about what to do.”

Last night British diplomats in Iraq tried to sidestep the row over the apparently ungracious behaviour of the peace activists. Diplomatic sources let it be known that the three men did agree to face further questioning yesterday from intelligence agents trying to hunt down the group who held them for 118 days.

An intelligence source said: “They gave what help they could. They recognise that there are other hostages, including Westerners, still in captivity who we believe were taken by the same group.”

The source added that Professor Kember had “privately expressed his thanks to his rescuers” though he did not meet them. The activists explained that they could not be of much help with descriptions of their captors as the group kept their faces covered.

The three men revealed how, shortly before the SAS burst their way into their prison before dawn on Wednesday, their captors suddenly moved them to a downstairs room.

They were tied up and bound together. The hostages heard their captives leaving. British officials insisted that there had been no deal to free the trio.

They said that interrogators told the gang member they arrested this week that he must reveal the location of the hostages or face 30 years in jail.

RESCUE FIGURES

The hunt for Norman Kember and his fellow hostages involved

250 men from the Task Force Black US/British/Australian counter-kidnap unit

100 men from Task Force Maroon, the Paras and Royal Marines backing special forces

15 men in helicopter crews

AND tens of thousands of pounds spent on helicopter and transport aircraft flights

















To: steve harris who wrote (184106)3/25/2006 11:23:40 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 281500
 
AP's Bush 'Straw Man' Story: News Analysis Or Unlabeled Opinion?

By Joe Strupp March 22, 2006 EDITOR AND PUBLISHER

NEW YORK Did a recent Associated Press story examining President George Bush's alleged tendency to use a "straw man" approach in his speeches cross the line from news to biased opinion? Or was it just a long-overdue, in-depth review of the president's public speaking approach?

The viewpoint, as often happens in Washington, depends on whose blog you are reading, and what you consider opinion and analysis. Still, the article by reporter Jennifer Loven sparked an interesting debate on the blogosphere, and in some newsrooms, over how such an examination of a public figure can cross the line from reporting to opining. Since the piece was not labeled a column, or even analysis, it raised some eyebrows as it veered into a sharp attack on Bush's use of such tactics.

The article has drawn reactions ranging from a supportive mass e-mailing from MoveOn.org to criticism by the conservative Powerline blog and American Federalist Journal. But an AP spokesman says editors want more of these types of wire stories.

The story, posted by AP last weekend, cited the president's habit of using phrases such as "some say" or "some believe" when introducing a viewpoint that challenges his own. One example Loven noted was Bush saying "some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day." She also cited his recent statement that "some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."

Loven then contends that "hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions." But she notes that Bush, in presenting opposing views in such a "straw man" way, sets himself up well to fire back, often appearing in defense of his viewpoint or as an underdog.

"The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents," Loven writes about the "some" to which he refers. "In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position." She adds that "he typically then says he 'strongly disagrees' -- conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making."

Loven then quotes others she describes as "experts in political speech" who supported her point that Bush's approach was misleading.

The article, however, offers no comment from Bush supporters or anyone on the president's staff, or gives any indication they were sought for comment. It also does not explore whether such straw-man tactics are common in political figures past or present, including Democrats; although one expert does say "all politicians try to get away with it to a certain extent."

Loven, based in Washington, D.C., could not be reached for comment Wednesday as she was out of town, while AP Washington bureau chief Sandy Johnson did not return a request for comment.

AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said the piece was "a good way to explain to readers what rhetorical devices people, in this case the president, use to make their point." She also did not believe the article should have been labeled opinion or needed to include any White House comment. "This was not a piece that was critical, it was explanatory," Carroll said.

In a statement, AP spokesman Jack Stokes wrote: "Jennifer Loven's story was one of an ongoing series of fact-checking stories that dig beyond the rhetoric. Editors tell us they want more of these stories." But Stokes did not comment on what kind of reaction the piece had sparked from readers or editors.

On Monday, Washington Post blogger Dan Froomkin called Loven's piece "a bold departure for Associated Press," adding that Bush's straw-man arguments are "extensive and generally unchallenged." MoveOn.org's Media Action sent an e-mail to media outlets urging support for Loven, claiming "some reporters take notes on what President Bush says and don't bother to research what is and isn't true. But the AP took a bold step this week and engaged in exactly the sort of strong watchdog journalism MoveOn Media Action members have been calling for."

Moveon also set up a Web page where readers could find an e-mail address to write to AP and send their support for Loven's piece.

Reaction also came from Loven's critics, such as Powerlineblog.org, the Minnesota-based site that has chronicled Loven going back to her coverage of the 2004 presidential election. Among its complaints is Loven's alleged conflict as the wife of Roger Ballentine, an environmental consultant who has worked in the Clinton Administration and has written for liberal outlets such as New Democrats Online.

"Loven has written some astonishingly biased 'news' articles attacking President Bush," Powerlineblog.com claimed this week. It then called the straw-man piece "a new low" that "masquerades as a straight news article, but reads like a DNC press release." It ends by saying "there must be someone at AP who wants the organization to be taken seriously as a news source. If that's true, sacking Jennifer Loven would be a good first step."

Carroll said Loven's marriage should not come in to play as any kind of conflict. "If she was covering something and her spouse was directly involved, that would be a problem," Carroll said.

At American Federalist Journal, which Powerlineblog.com credits with finding the Loven piece for them, bloggers called the Loven analysis "a partisan hit piece" and "a prime example of egregious bias." The Web site also set up its own page seeking comment on Loven's work, but from critics. As of today, the page had received two comments.
________________________________________
Joe Strupp (jstrupp@editorandpublisher.com) is a senior editor at E&P.



To: steve harris who wrote (184106)3/25/2006 12:14:51 PM
From: paret  Respond to of 281500
 
ASSOCIATED PRESS REEKS---PRESENTS RAW BIAS as "news"
.............................................................

......................................................
Bush Using Straw-Man Arguments in Speeches
Mar 18 2006

breitbart.com

By JENNIFER LOVEN Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON

"Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," President Bush said recently.
Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."
"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."
Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.
When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" _ conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.
Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic.
Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio. Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion.
"It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."
Bush has caricatured the other side for years, trying to tilt legislative debates in his favor or score election-season points with voters.
Not long after taking office in 2001, Bush pushed for a new education testing law and began portraying skeptics as opposed to holding schools accountable.
The chief opposition, however, had nothing to do with the merits of measuring performance, but rather the cost and intrusiveness of the proposal.
Campaigning for Republican candidates in the 2002 midterm elections, the president sought to use the congressional debate over a new Homeland Security Department against Democrats.
He told at least two audiences that some senators opposing him were "not interested in the security of the American people." In reality, Democrats balked not at creating the department, which Bush himself first opposed, but at letting agency workers go without the usual civil service protections.
Running for re-election against Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush frequently used some version of this line to paint his Democratic opponent as weaker in the fight against terrorism: "My opponent and others believe this matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement."
The assertion was called a mischaracterization of Kerry's views even by a Republican, Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Straw men have made more frequent appearances in recent months, often on national security _ once Bush's strong suit with the public but at the center of some of his difficulties today. Under fire for a domestic eavesdropping program, a ports-management deal and the rising violence in Iraq, Bush now sees his approval ratings hovering around the lowest of his presidency.
Said Jamieson, "You would expect people to do that as they feel more threatened."
Last fall, the rhetorical tool became popular with Bush when the debate heated up over when troops would return from Iraq. "Some say perhaps we ought to just pull out of Iraq," he told GOP supporters in October, echoing similar lines from other speeches. "That is foolhardy policy."
Yet even the speediest plan, as advocated by only a few Democrats, suggested not an immediate drawdown, but one over six months. Most Democrats were not even arguing for a specific troop withdrawal timetable.
Recently defending his decision to allow the National Security Agency to monitor without subpoenas the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorist ties, Bush has suggested that those who question the program underestimate the terrorist threat.
"There's some in America who say, 'Well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack,'" Bush said during a January visit to the NSA.
The president has relied on straw men, too, on the topics of taxes and trade, issues he hopes will work against Democrats in this fall's congressional elections.
Usually without targeting Democrats specifically, Bush has suggested they are big-spenders who want to raise taxes, because most oppose extending some of his earlier tax cuts, and protectionists who do not want to open global markets to American goods, when most oppose free- trade deals that lack protections for labor and the environment.
"Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world," he said this month in India, talking about the migration of U.S. jobs overseas. "I strongly disagree."