Our Pathetic Press

[Griff]

Tom Foleys ugly Instant Messages continue to be the big story.

Did anyone notice that Bob Woodward's book slammed the Bush administration's hard work ignoring Tenet's July warnings of an impending Al Queda attack? Woodward, Rice, and Tenet dirtbags all but isn't this story a little more important?

[Pangloss62]

but isn't this story a little more important?

One basic fact we cannot ignore is that what we call "the press" is emeshed in the for-profit world of capitalism. I have NEVER expected any for-profit organization to provide information without the taint of "the bottom line" influencing the end product. Many times it's nothing but propaganda. That whole Katie Couric thing showed how ludicrous the situation really is; her reading the news was more important than the news she read.

Now, I know gun-owners (among others) here think I'm a jerk, as well as a "knee-jerk" reactionary, and that's OK. But I pride myself on being well-informed, and that means avoiding commercial news outlets.

I will watch and listen to:
BBC
CSPAN
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.)
Jim Lehrer News Hour

I do read the NYT with a critical eye; regardless of percieved bias, their writing and investigative journalism remain a benchmark for the genre. I also listen to Radio Havana for a dose of their decidedly political propaganda.

Oh, and I can't forget the Church of the SubGenius.

[Spexxvet]

No Daily Show or Howard Stern?

[Pangloss62]

Oh goodness! Certainly Daily Show and Colbert Report. Religiously, albeit I watch the repeats at 8 EST.

Stern is not my style, but he can be perceptive when he's not just trying to be titilating.

Jon Stewart is amazing. It's telling that Bob Novak refuses to either watch or be a guest on his show. Smart politicos will go on his show.

[Undertoad]

"Somebody criticized the Bush administration" is not really news.

There was actually an entire Senate Intelligence Report documenting the failures leading up to 9/11.

[Griff]

I believe these particular high level warnings didn't make the report. The narrative has been that the information didn't clear the bureaucratic filters not that explicit warnings were ignored.

[Undertoad]

Still not news. Worthy of the Sunday talk shows, absolutely, because there you can air the competing points of view, introduce conjecture, argue about the importance, etc. The story is not "Bush whiffed on early warning" yet, it's still "Woodward alleges new narrative".

[wolf]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

But I pride myself on being well-informed, and that means avoiding commercial news outlets.

I will watch and listen to:
BBC
CSPAN
ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.)
Jim Lehrer News Hour

I do read the NYT

All of which are commercial, or worse, government controlled, news outlets.

Big difference, I see.

[Pangloss62]

All of which are commercial, or worse, government controlled, news outlets.

How are the BBC, CSPAN, The Australian Broadcasting Corporation, and PBS "commercial?" And in regards to PBS, it's our Government (and certain politicos therein) that are its biggest critics. PBS gets an appropriation from Congress, but it's not "run" by the Government.

Both the BBC and PBS are frequent critics of their respective governments; I would say that is one of their more important roles.

Should I watch FOX? CNN? Forget that shit.

I like the Swiss Daily which provides news reports from all over the world. There's naturally a bunch of Swiss news stuff on the site, too, but that's all on a sidebar which you don't need to click unless your really fascinated with what's going on in Basel or something:
http://www.swissdaily.com/

[headsplice]

Originally Posted by wolf

All of which are commercial, or worse, government controlled, news outlets.

Big difference, I see.

There's a difference between federally funded and government controlled. You're smarter than that, or so I thought.
What other outlets would you suggest? The internet, certainly, but that wasn't a part of the discussion at hand.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I also listen to Radio Havana for a dose of their decidedly political propaganda.

6.000 Mhz if I remember. Have not listened to them or Radio China for a while. Winter will make better reception.

Meanwhile, the well published excerpt from Woodward's book: From the Washington Post of 1 Oct 2006:

Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice
On July 10, 2001, two months before the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, then-CIA Director George J. Tenet met with his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, at CIA headquarters to review the latest on Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda terrorist organization. Black laid out the case, consisting of communications intercepts and other top-secret intelligence showing the increasing likelihood that al-Qaeda would soon attack the United States. It was a mass of fragments and dots that nonetheless made a compelling case, so compelling to Tenet that he decided he and Black should go to the White House immediately.

Tenet called Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, from the car and said he needed to see her right away. There was no practical way she could refuse such a request from the CIA director. ...

But Tenet had been having difficulty getting traction on an immediate bin Laden action plan, in part because Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had questioned all the National Security Agency intercepts and other intelligence. Could all this be a grand deception? Rumsfeld had asked. Perhaps it was a plan to measure U.S. reactions and defenses.

Tenet had the NSA review all the intercepts, and the agency concluded they were of genuine al-Qaeda communications. On June 30, a top-secret senior executive intelligence brief contained an article headlined "Bin Laden Threats Are Real."

Tenet hoped his abrupt request for an immediate meeting would shake Rice. He and Black, a veteran covert operator, had two main points when they met with her. First, al-Qaeda was going to attack American interests, possibly in the United States itself. Black emphasized that this amounted to a strategic warning, meaning the problem was so serious that it required an overall plan and strategy. Second, this was a major foreign policy problem that needed to be addressed immediately. They needed to take action that moment -- covert, military, whatever -- to thwart bin Laden.

The United States had human and technical sources, and all the intelligence was consistent, the two men told Rice. ...

Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice. She was polite, but they felt the brush-off. President Bush had said he didn't want to swat at flies. ...

Besides, Rice seemed focused on other administration priorities, especially the ballistic missile defense system that Bush had campaigned on. She was in a different place.

The anti-ballastic missile system which does not work, costs $billions, and unilaterally destroyed but another international treaty was more important to George Jr's administration - according to these people. Even Richard Clark's anti-terrorist group was removed from a White House that was literally still fighting a cold war - even fearing attacks from China. It further explains why Colin Powell had to defuse what could have been a war over a silly spy plane. Cold war type mentality was Rice's, et al attitude back then. Anti-ballastic missile system, due to what their political agenda insisted, defined the enemy.

Rice could have gotten through to Bush on the threat, but she just didn't get it in time, Tenet thought. He felt that he had done his job and had been very direct about the threat, but that Rice had not moved quickly. He felt she was not organized and did not push people, as he tried to do at the CIA.

Black later said, "The only thing we didn't do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head."

How bad was Iraq back in 2003. What was a 'secret' then - Americans were attacked 1000 times every month in a country that, somehow, wanted to be liberated. This was before Bremmer disbanded the army and police.

[Pangloss62]

Yes, tw, 6000 Mhz, and a very strong signal (at least here in GA). I love the delivery of that Newman guy. I like to compare Radio China International with Radio Taiwan; you can here the way they spin news to fit their view of the world and events. And those two girls on Radio Taiwan? Whooeee. Good listening. Not only do they have impeccable English, they sound really cute (probably are, too).

Closer to home:

You would think with that Woodward book and the Foley mess that there would be more of an uproar, but this admin. loves to make lemonade out of the lemmons. They find a way to use it to their advantage, and their base is entrenched; the latter don't care about anything but keeping those in charge as far to the right as possible. The Democrats really are spineless and sycophantic. H. Clinton with her "God" talk for example. And that detainee bill was a chance to take a stand, not capitualte. It's shameful.

[Pangloss62]

I like the Swiss Daily which provides news reports from all over the world.

Thanks for that link, marichiko. I'll add that to my list of news sources. I sure hope it's not too "commercial."

[wolf]

Originally Posted by headsplice

There's a difference between federally funded and government controlled. You're smarter than that, or so I thought.
What other outlets would you suggest? The internet, certainly, but that wasn't a part of the discussion at hand.

I wouldn't actually suggest any of them.

It's all spin, just a matter of how fast and which direction you prefer.

PBS is just as much of a corporate entity as any other news service. The "P" does not stand for "Pure" and certainly isn't as "Public" as you'd like to think. Hope you liked the tote bag, but your contributions aren't paying for much, if any of their ability to provide programming. Like any subscription service, it's supported by advertising ... for the purposes of PBS, the advertisers get their 10 second spot at the beginning and ends of programs, rather than interspersed through the interrupting your viewing pleasure.