Secret Prison Denials from Weldon Supporters
One of my recent Internet searches on the Sestak-Weldon race located a crazy right-wing blog/site called "Accuracy in Media" with conspiracy theories about Sestak, Clinton, left-wing inspired one-world-goverments, etc. I think the use of the word accuracy is meant to be ironic.
The Editor of the site is Rush Limbaugh style ranter named Cliff Kincaid (at least he's not Anonymous). Anyway, just two days ago, on Sept 4th, he wrote a piece called "Back to Secret Prisons" in which he ridicules the idea of secret prisons and makes some irrelevent distinction between secret prisons and secret detention facilities.
He boasts of how he debunked the Dana Priest story:
The word "column" is linked to his earlier debunking attempt: Secret Evidence for Secret Prisons? which ends with:
You bet your ass it deserves a Pulitzer!
Of course, this is funny because, today, George Bush publicly acknowledged the existence of those secret facilities. From today's Washington Post:
Back on May 22nd, another wrong-winger on Kincaid's site, Wes Vernon, authored a paranoid fantasy about Weldon, Able Danger, Hillary Clinton, Sestak
Mr. Vernon tries to equate the two articles by Priest, attacks the prison article, and by implication tries to cast doubt on any writings against Weldon. Notice the use of "we do know", which is his way of pretending that the case for bias against Weldon is even stronger.
See, that's their tactic. When the facts are against them, attack the reporters and accuse them of being part of some conspiracy. Then act like the existence of a conspiracy is a bigger truth than what the reporters exposed. Deny and distract. Rinse and repeat.
Unfortunately, for Weldon, Santorum and their pal Bush, the reporters are finally waking up and uncovering the truth:
Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions, condoned tortured, circumvented the Constitution and used the 9/11 victims as political props to undermine the very freedoms he claims to protect. His avid partners in this have been Curt Weldon and Rick Santorum with their voices and their votes.
It is time for our voices and our votes.
The Editor of the site is Rush Limbaugh style ranter named Cliff Kincaid (at least he's not Anonymous). Anyway, just two days ago, on Sept 4th, he wrote a piece called "Back to Secret Prisons" in which he ridicules the idea of secret prisons and makes some irrelevent distinction between secret prisons and secret detention facilities.
He boasts of how he debunked the Dana Priest story:
We assume, of course, that the U.N. is referring to the Dana Priest story in the Post about the "secret prisons." But we have torn that article to pieces in several columns.
The word "column" is linked to his earlier debunking attempt: Secret Evidence for Secret Prisons? which ends with:
But the basic truth is that the Priest article on "secret prisons," which was published on November 2, 2005, still cannot be confirmed, even after a comprehensive investigation.
It looks like the position of the Post will have to be that evidence for the existence of the secret prisons will just have to remain secret—if it exists at all.
Does this kind of coverage deserve a Pulitzer Prize?
You bet your ass it deserves a Pulitzer!
Of course, this is funny because, today, George Bush publicly acknowledged the existence of those secret facilities. From today's Washington Post:
President Bush today announced the transfer to the Guantanamo Bay naval base of 14 al-Qaeda terrorist suspects previously held by the CIA in a secret detention program..
In defending the CIA detention program, Bush explicitly confirmed its existence publicly for the first time since the covert prison system was revealed by The Washington Post in November 2005.
Back on May 22nd, another wrong-winger on Kincaid's site, Wes Vernon, authored a paranoid fantasy about Weldon, Able Danger, Hillary Clinton, Sestak
If politics motivated McCarthy, could politics have motivated Dana Priest? Priest is the Post reporter who wrote the Pulitzer Prize-winning story on "secret CIA prisons" in Europe but refuses to say whether McCarthy was one of her sources. The Priest story, based completely on anonymous sources, has not been confirmed. [diano: Um, confirmed by President now!]
We do know that Priest authored a vicious attack on Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), a major critic of the intelligence community who supported CIA director Porter Goss's effort to reform the agency and fire leakers to the press.
As we noted in our August-B, 2005 AIM Report, Priest authored the attack on Weldon without contacting the congressman and the paper refused to print a letter to the editor from Weldon rebutting the Priest article.
Mr. Vernon tries to equate the two articles by Priest, attacks the prison article, and by implication tries to cast doubt on any writings against Weldon. Notice the use of "we do know", which is his way of pretending that the case for bias against Weldon is even stronger.
See, that's their tactic. When the facts are against them, attack the reporters and accuse them of being part of some conspiracy. Then act like the existence of a conspiracy is a bigger truth than what the reporters exposed. Deny and distract. Rinse and repeat.
Unfortunately, for Weldon, Santorum and their pal Bush, the reporters are finally waking up and uncovering the truth:
Bush has violated the Geneva Conventions, condoned tortured, circumvented the Constitution and used the 9/11 victims as political props to undermine the very freedoms he claims to protect. His avid partners in this have been Curt Weldon and Rick Santorum with their voices and their votes.
It is time for our voices and our votes.
posted by David Diano at 9:59 PM
3 Comments:
I wa snot aware of much of this--Thanks for bringing it to light. The Weldonites and Bushies (I guess they are the same) should all be run out of town for this atrocity and dragging our country down with this stuff. No wonder things in Iraq and the ME get no better. We tell these folks we are offering a different better way of life, but under the cover of secrecy and our national security, only offer them more of the same. How can we hope to sell them on our form of government when uncivilized acts such as these occur while we claim to be liberating them from oppressors. This is all very disturbing.
To make this a little clearer, it should be noted that the "vicious attack" of which Washington Post reporter Dana Priest is accused was actually an article that completely debunked Weldon's latest be-scared-of-the-terrorists book, "Countdown to Terror."
Priest's excellent reporting showed that Weldon based his entire book on info he got from a known Middle East liar, a guy by the name of Fereidoun Mahdavi, who Curt mysteriously calls "Ali" in his cloak-and-dagger farce.
You can read this article online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/08/AR2005060802341.html
As for the line that "Priest authored the attack on Weldon without contacting the congressman," there's this directly from the article:
"Weldon, who according to his book publicist was not available to give a comment yesterday..."
By the way, the book was widely read as trying to goad America into invading Iran. Just one more reason to get Curt out of the mix of defense contractors, the Armed Services Committee and national intelligence.
Denial is not just a river in Egypt.
After reading the blatherings at the [choke]Accuracy[choke] in Media site, I actually contacted the Editor, Cliff Kincaid.
I asked if he would print a retraction or apology for his earlier critiques of Dana Priest and the Washington Post's reporting of the CIA secret prisons, now that Bush has finally acknowledged the existence of the program.
The response I got was: " Can you cite me where in his speech he confirmed the "secret prisons." I'm not asking for a story about he speech -- words from the speech itself. I anxiously await your response.
My response was:
From the White House's transcript of Bush's remarks:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060906-3.html
[Bush]
"In some cases, we determine that individuals we have captured pose a
significant threat, or may have intelligence that we and our allies need to have
to prevent new attacks. Many are al Qaeda operatives or Taliban fighters trying
to conceal their identities, and they withhold information that could save
American lives. In these cases, it has been necessary to move these individuals
to an environment where they can be held secretly [sic], questioned by experts,
and -- when appropriate -- prosecuted for terrorist acts."
"In addition to the terrorists held at Guantanamo, a small number of suspected
terrorist leaders and operatives captured during the war have been held and
questioned outside the United States, in a separate program operated by the
Central Intelligence Agency."
"Many specifics of this program, including where these detainees have been held
and the details of their confinement, cannot be divulged."
"Some may ask: Why are you acknowledging this program now? There are two reasons
why I'm making these limited disclosures today"
[David]
So, to sum it up: President discloses the existence of a secret program run by
the CIA that held and questioned terrorists or people that "MAY" have
intelligence information.
In subsequent exchanges, Mr. Kincaid refused to accept anything less than the President using the actual words "secret prisons". Is really such a leap to understand that in Bush's statement: "an environment where they can be held secretly" the word environment = prison?
The far-right, neo-con ideologues are so intellectually dishonest that they can't even agree to the use of plain English.
And as completely bat-sh*t insane his conspiracy rantings are, he is 10 times as eloquent as the anonymous Weldon bloggers (drones) employed by the campaign. He is equally impervious to any and all facts, regardless of the source.
Kincaid posted a column today:The Media Caught Lying Today.
I post this to shed light upon the tactics they use to twist words and substitute their own meanings:
[Kincaid's article] The word "prison" in the American context suggests something like Alcatraz, the federal penitentiary with guards and towers that was closed in 1963.
Well, according to the American Heritage Dictionary entry for prison:
1. A place for the confinement of persons in lawful detention, especially persons convicted of crimes.
2. A place or condition of confinement or forcible restraint.
3. A state of imprisonment or captivity.
Oh, wait, Kincaid has a loophole: lawful detention
Violating the Geneva Conventions and Constitution is not lawful.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home