so much anger...

[Soldier]

There's polite, and there's banal. Sometimes things just need to be said, and bluntness gets the emphasis across.

[Inquartata]

well, it would be nice to avoid the "highhanded insults and accusations" in general, but being polite about them wouldn't hurt.

-m

Alas, sometimes it CAN hurt. Delay being the deadliest form of denial, there are times when long tedious sessions of debate, where neither side is likely to budge from its position and everyone knows it, can be counterproductive or even dangerous. For instance, how long have peace talk been going on between the US and North Korea and the allies of each? Fifty odd years? And they have accomplished what? The placement of enough North Korean artillery to obliterate Seoul and the development of nuclear weapons by that creepy Beloved Leader fellow. Maybe some blunt talk 15 or 20 years ago could have broken that log-jam. Maybe not. But it could scarcely have been more ineffectual than all that "diplomacy", I think.

Look, I'm not saying that the Bush Administration has not misplayed its hands before, or even that it mighn't be doing so now. People make mistakes. Even the best and brightest screw up, so how could Bush avoid doing so? I am just saying that if you're really such a staunch defender of "diplomacy" then perhaps you ought to have been joining me in tsk-tsking ad hominem characterizations such as "unmitigated arrogance" and their effects on loading a question instead of supporting them with rolling-eye gremlins. Surely that's the more diplomatic way, no?

[Tireur]

Forgive me if I go back a little.

From the PIPA "report":

Perceptions of World Public Opinion Appear Highly Influential

College Park, MD: According to a new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).

Despite statements by Richard Clarke, David Kay, Hans Blix and others, few Americans perceive most experts as saying the contrary.


Perhaps PIPA was listening to npr and missed this which was upheld by the 2nd circuit:


Baghdad liable for September 11: judge
By Patricia Hurtado in New York
May 9 2003


A United States federal judge has ruled that Iraq provided material support to Osama bin Laden and his terrorist group al-Qaeda for the September 11, 2001, attack and is liable to pay $US104 million ($163 million) in damages to two victims' families.

The ruling, by Manhattan District Judge Harold Baer, is the first court decision stemming from the September 11 terrorist attacks.

The families of George Eric Smith, 38, and Timothy Soulas, 35, filed separate lawsuits based on the theory that Iraq had helped bin Laden carry out the attack.

Similar suits have been filed relating to the attacks, but this was the first to reach the damages phase.

In March Judge Baer was the first judge to hold a hearing to determine damages after making a default judgement in January against the Taliban, the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, al-Qaeda, bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and the Republic of Iraq.

He made the finding after public announcements regarding the lawsuits in newspapers in Afghanistan and Iraq failed to draw any response from any defendants.

During the two-day hearing lawyers for the two families presented evidence that established a "conclusive link" between Saddam's Iraq and bin Laden's terrorist army.

The evidence included slides and declassified interviews with Iraqi military leaders who defected. They told a television news program that Saddam had a jet parked in a remote area of Iraq that, they claimed, was used to train hijackers. Evidence also featured the testimony of a former CIA director, James Woolsey.

"I conclude that the plaintiffs have shown, albeit barely, by evidence satisfactory to the court that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaeda," Judge Baer wrote.

He ruled that Mr Smith, who worked on the 97th floor of the World Trade Centre's south tower, presumably died while descending the stairs as the second hijacked aircraft hit the tower.

Mr Soulas, who worked in the north tower, survived the impact of the first aircraft's crash, Judge Baer wrote. Minutes later Mr Soulas phoned a client and told him that the exits were blocked and they were "doomed".

The plaintiffs' lawyer, James Beasley, has said he is seeking Iraqi and bin Laden assets seized by the US Government.

[Tireur]

And since epeemike puts so much faith in polls:


By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - After three months and millions of dollars in negative ads, Americans describing Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) in one word no longer choose "honest." The word remains the most cited for President Bush (news - web sites) even as "incompetent" has gained ground.



A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released Wednesday shows a wide range of word choices by those questioned for the national survey. The poll did not attach comparable values to the words offered in response to the question, "What one word best describes your impression" of Bush or Kerry.

In the center's February survey, 18 percent chose "honest" to describe Kerry, but no one used that word in the May survey. The words "good," "hopeful" and "okay" totaled nearly 21 percent of the responses for Kerry in the new poll.

For Bush, "honest" was the choice of 11 percent in the earlier poll and 9 percent in the latest survey.

The president, described by 4 percent as "incompetent" in February, was tagged with that word by 8 percent in May. He was judged "honest," good" or "leader" by 26 percent in the new poll.

On the negative side, according to the new poll, Kerry was referred to as "liar," "dishonest" or "idiot" by 12 percent. Nearly 10 percent used either "idiot," "stupid" or "liar" to describe Bush. The differences in word choices show many people have a less favorable view of both candidates, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

"They're using fewer positive words to describe Kerry," Kohut said. "The criticisms of Bush are less often about being dishonest ... now more people are mentioning incompetence."

The Pew poll found Bush's overall job approval at 44 percent.
The Pew poll of 1,800 adults was taken May 3-9 and has a margin of error of plus of minus 2.5 percentage points. The margin for registered voters is slightly higher.
___

[epeemike81]

And since epeemike puts so much faith in polls:


By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - After three months and millions of dollars in negative ads, Americans describing Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites) in one word no longer choose "honest." The word remains the most cited for President Bush (news - web sites) even as "incompetent" has gained ground.



A poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press released Wednesday shows a wide range of word choices by those questioned for the national survey. The poll did not attach comparable values to the words offered in response to the question, "What one word best describes your impression" of Bush or Kerry.

In the center's February survey, 18 percent chose "honest" to describe Kerry, but no one used that word in the May survey. The words "good," "hopeful" and "okay" totaled nearly 21 percent of the responses for Kerry in the new poll.

For Bush, "honest" was the choice of 11 percent in the earlier poll and 9 percent in the latest survey.

The president, described by 4 percent as "incompetent" in February, was tagged with that word by 8 percent in May. He was judged "honest," good" or "leader" by 26 percent in the new poll.

On the negative side, according to the new poll, Kerry was referred to as "liar," "dishonest" or "idiot" by 12 percent. Nearly 10 percent used either "idiot," "stupid" or "liar" to describe Bush. The differences in word choices show many people have a less favorable view of both candidates, said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center.

"They're using fewer positive words to describe Kerry," Kohut said. "The criticisms of Bush are less often about being dishonest ... now more people are mentioning incompetence."

The Pew poll found Bush's overall job approval at 44 percent.
The Pew poll of 1,800 adults was taken May 3-9 and has a margin of error of plus of minus 2.5 percentage points. The margin for registered voters is slightly higher.
___

well, you've shown (yet again) the power of repetitive advertising. say somebody's a liar enough times, people will start to believe it.

-m

[Tireur]

So, when a poll supports your view, it's valid, when it doesn't, it's a sign of repetitive lies?

Like the evidence of Iraqi ties to Al-Qaida.......and references to Bush ans stupid and incompetent?

[epeemike81]

So, when a poll supports your view, it's valid, when it doesn't, it's a sign of repetitive lies?

Like the evidence of Iraqi ties to Al-Qaida.......and references to Bush ans stupid and incompetent?

It is BOTH valid AND evidence of repetitive lies. it is valid in that it accurately portrays (unfortunately) the belief of American citizens. It is evidence of repetitive lies because the method of changing public opinion was, as the article you cited said, "three months and millions of dollars in negative ads." Those negative adds were INCREDIBLY misleading, as I've already addressed on another thread.

-m

[Tireur]

It is evidence of repetitive lies because the method of changing public opinion was, as the article you cited said, "three months and millions of dollars in negative ads." Those negative adds were INCREDIBLY misleading, as I've already addressed on another thread.-m

I don't think it described the ads as being one-sided, of course that's a bit of editorial comment itself.

And the Iraq-Al-Qaida connection is an upheld court finding. But your study says anyone who thinks there is evidence of it suffers from a misperception.

[epeemike81]

I don't think it described the ads as being one-sided, of course that's a bit of editorial comment itself.

And the Iraq-Al-Qaida connection is an upheld court finding. But your study says anyone who thinks there is evidence of it suffers from a misperception.

really, have you seen any negative adds on the kerry side? I haven't yet. I'm sure he'll get to the point of attacking bush, but he hasn't yet.
he's been concentrating on TRYING to get the public to pay attention to his ACTUAL views.

As for the court finding, i'd like to see the evidence (as, I'm sure, would the intelligence community which has consistently maintained that there is NO such connection). As you yourself have pointed out (and I have agreed with), what any given court does isn't necessarily a good indication of what they SHOULD do.

-m

[Tireur]

As for the court finding, i'd like to see the evidence (as, I'm sure, would the intelligence community which has consistently maintained that there is NO such connection). As you yourself have pointed out (and I have agreed with), what any given court does isn't necessarily a good indication of what they SHOULD do.-m

Should make no difference to you. You consider the PIPA "study" to be "evidence" The court said it met the standard, albeit barely and it was upheld by a higher court.

I think most people would consider it at least to be evidence of a connection, conclusive proof or not.

The PIPA study you cite said there was a misperception that evidence of a connection had been found.

I guess you're gonna overrule the higher court now.

[Tireur]

really, have you seen any negative adds on the kerry side? I haven't yet. -m

I really can't say, because I don't watch political ads.


This is from spinsanity.com, which takes both sides to task:

Despite campaign denials, Dem ads positively negative

In what may go down as one of the sillier statements of the 2004 campaign season, Kerry recently claimed that he has run only positive advertisements in his campaign for president.

In a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors last Friday, he stated: "I never ran one negative advertisement against my opponents in the primaries. And I haven't run negative advertisements yet. My advertisements in this race are positive."

Regardless of what one considers negative, however, Kerry stands on very shaky ground in his claim that his "advertisements in this race are positive." A Kerry ad that began running early this month, for instance, started off with the announcer stating, "While jobs are leaving our country in record numbers, George Bush says sending jobs overseas 'makes sense' for America" and "His top economic advisors say, 'Moving American jobs to low-cost countries' is a plus for the U.S." Another began with the line, "Once again, George Bush is misleading America."

And in an ad that ran during the Democratic primary race in February, Kerry said of Bush, "Three million jobs lost.... that is an astonishing failure." (As we showed earlier this month, the 3 million jobs figure was also incorrect, as total net job loss was actually 2.2 million at the time.)

Kerry's spokeswoman, Stephanie Cutter, tried to weasel out of her candidate's obviously false statement by telling reporters Kerry was referring to his primary advertisements and that his general elections ads have been "issue-specific."

But while Kerry did mention his primary opponents, he went on to make the much broader statement that his ads in "this race" have been "positive." The senator and his campaign should stop insulting the intelligence of the American people.

Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan are the editors of Spinsanity (www.spinsanity.org) and the authors of the forthcoming book "All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media and the Truth." They can be reached at feedback@spinsanity.org. Copyright © 2004 by Ben Fritz, Bryan Keefer and Brendan Nyhan.

[epeemike81]

Should make no difference to you. You consider the PIPA "study" to be "evidence" The court said it met the standard, albeit barely and it was upheld by a higher court.

the study is transparent (as are the courts, but I haven't seen any transcripts from the trial yet). they list the questions they asked, and the manner in which they surveyed. Since I SAW that the questions weren't push polling, and that the methods weren't systematically biased, yes, I take it as evidence. I would not take it as evidence without knowing how the study had been conducted, or at least would have given it FAR less weight. without hearing the evidence that the court did, I take their finding as evidence, but not very compelling.

I think most people would consider it at least to be evidence of a connection, conclusive proof or not.

sure it's evidence, just not very good evidence.

The PIPA study you cite said there was a misperception that evidence of a connection had been found.

I guess you're gonna overrule the higher court now.

No, the study said there was a misperception that evidence of a connection was found in Iraq when we invaded. these are not in conflict, though it is close. bottom line, though, is that I don't give the courts opinion nearly as much weight as the intelligence community, which has ALWAYS said there's no connection. if you would like to find the evidence that was presented to the court, I'll be glad to weigh it.

-m

[Tireur]

[QUOTE=Tireur]Forgive me if I go back a little.

From the PIPA "report":

Perceptions of World Public Opinion Appear Highly Influential

College Park, MD: According to a new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).


I'm sorry, I got this directly from the PIPA site and it doesn't mention, at least here, anything about evidence "found in Iraw", it does howver mention "before the war".

[Tireur]

the study is transparent (as are the courts, but I haven't seen any transcripts from the trial yet). -m

And we're not likely to either, considering the cost per page of such. Any pages of testimony likely to be found on the web at any point will no doubt be heavily edited.

It was, however, upheld by the 2nd Circuit which you seem to hold in such esteem on other cases.

[epeemike81]

[QUOTE=Tireur]

Forgive me if I go back a little.

From the PIPA "report":

Perceptions of World Public Opinion Appear Highly Influential

College Park, MD: According to a new PIPA/Knowledge Networks poll, a majority of Americans (57%) continue to believe that before the war Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda, including 20% who believe that Iraq was directly involved in the September 11 attacks. Forty-five percent believe that evidence that Iraq was supporting al Qaeda has been found. Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).


I'm sorry, I got this directly from the PIPA site and it doesn't mention, at least here, anything about evidence "found in Iraw", it does howver mention "before the war".

the subset of that data which was used was the 45% that believed evidence had been found. if you go back and read the ACTUAL study, it cites the exact phrasing of the question, which is about finding evidence in Iraq.

They went out of their way to take only those who were CLEARLY wrong. Another good example is that when asked about world public opinion, there were three options: In favor, evenly divided, and against. despite the fact that polls clearly show the world population was MASSIVELY against the invasion, they did NOT include the people who said evenly divided among those having a misconception. they only considered the most agregious of the misperceptions.

Please, read the study completely before responding. it isn't that long.

-m

[epeemike81]

And we're not likely to either, considering the cost per page of such. Any pages of testimony likely to be found on the web at any point will no doubt be heavily edited.

It was, however, upheld by the 2nd Circuit which you seem to hold in such esteem on other cases.

this is like being upheld by the bout committee. If the ref calls attack, when it was CLEARLY your riposte, you have no recourse. the appeals proccess is for a mis-application of the law, not to set aside the judgement of the jury/judge as long as it is applying the laws correctly. The other district judge was making a ruling on the laws themselves and misapplied them. this judge was making a ruling on facts specific to this case. disagreeing with the judge's ruling isn't grounds for appeal, misapplication of laws is.

-m

[Tireur]

And as far as the misconception about WMDs, the jury is still out on that one. It appears some evidence has been found, that the projects were ongoing. So....the misperception call may be premature.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

[epeemike81]

And as far as the misconception about WMDs, the jury is still out on that one. It appears some evidence has been found, that the projects were ongoing. So....the misperception call may be premature.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

Even if evidence is eventually found, it would still be a misconception to believe at the time of the poll that weapons had been found.

glad to see you're an average american, though.

-m

[Tireur]

Even if evidence is eventually found, it would still be a misconception to believe at the time of the poll that weapons had been found.-m

That's true, but, PIPA said:

Sixty percent believe that just before the war Iraq either had weapons of mass destruction (38%) or a major program for developing them (22%).

[Tireur]

bottom line, though, is that I don't give the courts opinion nearly as much weight as the intelligence community, which has ALWAYS said there's no connection.-m

Interesting, since when do left-wingers give the "intelligence community" any credit for knowing anything?