[jbartone]

Didn't find a thread about this,

War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html

[spacefreak]

Perle didn't claim the "war was illegal". That conclusion was made by the author of the article and other anti-war buffs based on carefully selected statements and phrases mentioned by Perle in a speech. Pay special attention to the breaks in quotes and the "..." parts.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

French intransigence, he added, meant there had been "no practical mechanism consistent with the rules of the UN for dealing with Saddam Hussein".

I have no problems with Perle or anyone coming to a such a conclusion, but I do take issue with people reformatting words and phrases in a speech for the sole purpose of forming conclusion they (the critics) want to hear.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Spacefreak is right. Who can tell from that article what he actually said? Where his words are quoted, they are quoted incompletely with elipses (Dowdification), or they are paraphrased by people who are clearly hostile to him. That's just not good journalism.

This is the same paper that claimed that Wolfowitz said the war was all about oil. It had to retract that article. People should have learned by now that you have to read British papers according to their slant. I wouldn't trust the Telegraph to report Ken Livingstone's words accurately. Likewise, the Guardian can't be trusted to report Richard Pearl's words correctly.

Oh, and the Defense Policy Board is independent of the Pentagon. That's the point of its existence. Whatever Pearl said, it was not the Pentagon that said it. It was just Pearl in his individual capacity.

[christ]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
People should have learned by now that you have to read British papers according to their slant.

I'm curious as to why the word 'British' was inserted into this piece of otherwise worthy editorialising.

This is fairly typical of the tricks that lawyers and journalists use to tilt the tone of an article, in this case to imply that only British papers have bias, when it is, of course, true of all media organs, British or otherwise.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by christ:
I'm curious as to why the word 'British' was inserted into this piece of otherwise worthy editorialising.

This is fairly typical of the tricks that lawyers and journalists use to tilt the tone of an article, in this case to imply that only British papers have bias, when it is, of course, true of all media organs, British or otherwise.

Simey is just up to his old yet boring 'creative writing'. Not worth a second of my life

If this is how he works as a lawyer then he's a pretty bad lawyer. Emotional poop like he's writing here can be left to the uneducated masses.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by christ:
I'm curious as to why the word 'British' was inserted into this piece of otherwise worthy editorialising.

This is fairly typical of the tricks that lawyers and journalists use to tilt the tone of an article, in this case to imply that only British papers have bias, when it is, of course, true of all media organs, British or otherwise.

I agree. All news outlets have bias. However, British newspapers are a somewhat special case in that the bias is more overt than is the case in, say, the US. In the UK, you have the luxury of multiple, directly competing national newspapers, each with a clearly defined editorial position that is reflected in all of their news coverage. As you well know, people can therefore pick their news to suit their preferences -- including ideological preferences. People who read the Guardian therefore tend to have a very different political position than, say, people who buy the Telegraph.

In contrast, most cities in the US only have one newspaper and in the US there isn't really a quality national newspaper (USA Today does not count, nor does the New York Times, it is stil a NY paper). Therefore, most US newspapers feel the need to at least attempt some neutrality. Personally, I think they mostly fail miserably at being neutral. Whether you are talking about the New York Times or the Washington Times, it is usually possible to find their bias. But in theory at least, the bias is confined to the editorial page. The news is supposed to be "objective."

The problem seems to come when Americans read British papers thinking that they are like American papers. That is why I made the comment I made. Personally, I prefer the British approach because I think it is more honest. I think perhaps with the advent of internet access to newspapers throughout the US, it is becoming possible for Americans to sample different points of view the same way Britons can do. Of course, there is also a danger to that. If you get all your news from an overtly slanted source (such as the Telegraph, or the Guadian), then you are going to end up with a pretty warped view of things.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by christ:
I'm curious as to why the word 'British' was inserted into this piece of otherwise worthy editorialising.

This is fairly typical of the tricks that lawyers and journalists use to tilt the tone of an article, in this case to imply that only British papers have bias, when it is, of course, true of all media organs, British or otherwise.

"worthy"? So it's reputable to take quotes out of context and alter them to say what you want? There's no "tilting" envolved here, just blatant trickery bordering on libel.

Example:

"I wish I'd killed the lights before my wife got home."

after their hack job would turn into...

"I wish I'd killed... my wife (when she) got home."

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Simey is just up to his old yet boring 'creative writing'. Not worth a second of my life

If this is how he works as a lawyer then he's a pretty bad lawyer. Emotional poop like he's writing here can be left to the uneducated masses.

And you seem to be up to your nasty personal attack tricks again.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And you seem to be up to your nasty personal attack tricks again.

I did no such thing

You're projecting.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I did no such thing

You're projecting.

Bull. I'm not projecting anything. I'm just reading your words. Nasty, sour, personally insulting, devoid of constructive comment but often directed at me. Grow up.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Perle didn't claim the "war was illegal". That conclusion was made by the author of the article and other anti-war buffs based on carefully selected statements and phrases mentioned by Perle in a speech. Pay special attention to the breaks in quotes and the "..." parts.

I think he probably did say just what was quoted, that international law would technically call this an illegal war, but that the law is wrong, or at least not well-equipped to deal with such situations. Nothing wrong with saying that. It's a more honest (and accurate) argument then the argument that it really was approved, which is baloney.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Bull. I'm not projecting anything. I'm just reading your words. Nasty, sour, personally insulting, devoid of constructive comment but often directed at me. Grow up.

LOL that is YOUR opinion.

That is NOT what I meant by it. I never SAID that once.

Well you have every right to THINK that. Just like you have every right to THINK you are right.



Keep pounding that chest. It really makes you look right. I swear.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I think he probably did say just what was quoted, that international law would technically call this an illegal war, but that the law is wrong, or at least not well-equipped to deal with such situations. Nothing wrong with saying that. It's a more honest (and accurate) argument then the argument that it really was approved, which is baloney.

But the point is it is impossible to tell based on the way the article was written. If he made statements, the article should quote them fully, without the ellipses and in some kind of context. Let the man speak for himself.

What the article did was extensively quote other people who said what they thought he said. Given that those people were clearly ideologically opposed to him (CND spokespersons, and the like), their interpretations of what he said are obviously suspect.

If the tables were turned others would be as skeptical. For example, if Rush Limbaugh were being quoted on what he thought Howard Dean said at a meeting, would people wonder what Dean actually said in his own words? Would they be suspicious of an article that mostly quoted by paraphrase, and that reduced direct quotes by the use of ellipses? I think there would be just as much suspicion.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by voodoo:
LOL that is YOUR opinion.

That is NOT what I meant by it. I never SAID that once.

Well you have every right to THINK that. Just like you have every right to THINK you are right.



Keep pounding that chest. It really makes you look right. I swear.

Alright Zimphire, what have you done with voodoo?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Alright Zimphire, what have you done with voodoo?

It is much easier to have Zimphire answer bullcrap than to waste energy by doing it yourself. See there is something useful you can do with Zimph's posts

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What the article did was extensively quote other people who said what they thought he said. Given that those people were clearly ideologically opposed to him (CND spokespersons, and the like), their interpretations of what he said are obviously suspect.

That's not what is going on for the primary quotes presented in this article. The quotes are not presented as having been relayed by a third party, they are simply direct quotes.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

That doesn't say "anti-war activist Nigel Smith reported that Perle said 'I think in this case international law..." It just says Perle said it.

Yes, the ellipsis in the other quote bothers me, and I do remember the "he said the war was about oil" nonsense. But I'm willing to bet that when/if we do see a fuller text of the speech, that this article will be a pretty faithful take on what he said. If not, then I guess what they say about fooling me twice will apply.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by BRussell:
That's not what is going on for the primary quotes presented in this article. The quotes are not presented as having been relayed by a third party, they are simply direct quotes.

That doesn't say "anti-war activist Nigel Smith reported that Perle said 'I think in this case international law..." It just says Perle said it.

Yes, the ellipsis in the other quote bothers me, and I do remember the "he said the war was about oil" nonsense. But I'm willing to bet that when/if we do see a fuller text of the speech, that this article will be a pretty faithful take on what he said. If not, then I guess what they say about fooling me twice will apply.

The ellipses bother me. But there is also this passage. You don't get a full explanation of what Pearl actually said, but there is lots of space devoted to what others said he said, and what the journalist thinks he said:

Mr Perle's remarks bear little resemblance to official justifications for war, according to Rabinder Singh QC, who represented CND and also participated in Tuesday's event.

Certainly the British government, he said, "has never advanced the suggestion that it is entitled to act, or right to act, contrary to international law in relation to Iraq".

The Pentagon adviser's views, he added, underlined "a divergence of view between the British govern ment and some senior voices in American public life [who] have expressed the view that, well, if it's the case that international law doesn't permit unilateral pre-emptive action without the authority of the UN, then the defect is in international law".

Mr Perle's view is not the official one put forward by the White House. Its main argument has been . . . [and so on]

That space could have been given over to direct quotes from Pearl and a full explanation of his position. But it wasn't. It's all quotes from Singh and editorializing about Pearl's "view" which is never actually fleshed out. Had the article been linked to a full transcript, however, I wouldn't have a complaint.

[SimeyTheLimey]

For voodoo:



Problem solved.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
For voodoo:



Problem solved.

Sure sign of someone that is losing a argument. Pound your chest some more.

[Lerkfish]

Overused conservative fallacious misdirections of a topic:

1. The source is biased, therefore everything it says is invalid
2. y'all are bush haters, therefore no points you make are valid
3. If you criticize Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld, etc. therefore you're a saddam sympathizer
4. If you are against this war, you must be inconsistent because you werent against every war every waged and therefore this war is valid.
5. If you support a person's right to protest, you're a leftist pinko commie and therefore nothing you say is valid.
6. If you support a person's right to dissent, the blood of the Iraqi people is on your hands.
7. If you criticize Bush policy, you're attacking me personally, and deserve to suffer all the retribution insults I sling at you.
8. If you think both sides are at fault in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you're against Israel.
9. By strict legal definition, there is no injustice as long as its done by the Bush administration. If you disagree, I'll bore you to tears for eight pages of combative irrelevant legalistic nomenclature and semantics until you finally give up.
10. I'll arbitrarily assign a "smackdown" for no apparent reason and declare myself the winner in the argument, therefore you lost.
11. I'll demand you back up your opinion with countless links, but refuse to accept any of them (see #1)
12. I'll refuse to back up my opinion with any links and demand you do my research. If you won't do it, therefore I'm right.

[voodoo]

"9. By strict legal definition, there is no injustice as long as its done by the Bush administration. If you disagree, I'll bore you to tears for eight pages of combative irrelevant legalistic nomenclature and semantics until you finally give up."

&

"10. I'll arbitrarily assign a "smackdown" for no apparent reason and declare myself the winner in the argument, therefore you lost."

[fireside]

lerkfish wins.

ps: hows your neck?

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
"worthy"? So it's reputable to take quotes out of context and alter them to say what you want? There's no "tilting" envolved here, just blatant trickery bordering on libel.

Example:

"I wish I'd killed the lights before my wife got home."

after their hack job would turn into...

"I wish I'd killed... my wife (when she) got home."

Yes, that article is a hack job. wake up when something credible is written.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by fireside:
lerkfish wins.

ps: hows your neck?

completely off topic: healing well. still wearing neck brace.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by voodoo:

It is much easier to have Zimphire answer bullcrap than to waste energy by doing it yourself. See there is something useful you can do with Zimph's posts

Ah the irony.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Overused conservative fallacious misdirections of a topic:

1. The source is biased, therefore everything it says is invalid
2. y'all are bush haters, therefore no points you make are valid
3. If you criticize Bush, Ashcroft, or Rumsfeld, etc. therefore you're a saddam sympathizer
4. If you are against this war, you must be inconsistent because you werent against every war every waged and therefore this war is valid.
5. If you support a person's right to protest, you're a leftist pinko commie and therefore nothing you say is valid.
6. If you support a person's right to dissent, the blood of the Iraqi people is on your hands.
7. If you criticize Bush policy, you're attacking me personally, and deserve to suffer all the retribution insults I sling at you.
8. If you think both sides are at fault in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, you're against Israel.
9. By strict legal definition, there is no injustice as long as its done by the Bush administration. If you disagree, I'll bore you to tears for eight pages of combative irrelevant legalistic nomenclature and semantics until you finally give up.
10. I'll arbitrarily assign a "smackdown" for no apparent reason and declare myself the winner in the argument, therefore you lost.
11. I'll demand you back up your opinion with countless links, but refuse to accept any of them (see #1)
12. I'll refuse to back up my opinion with any links and demand you do my research. If you won't do it, therefore I'm right.

And the exact same tactics are used by the left.

But they are usually louder and more annoying.

[mcsjgs]

The Iraq war was about two things:

Get rid of Sadam (cleanup from Bush 41 and Cheney blunder in first Gulf War -- so far, so good)

Cronyism. (no plan in Iraq except shovel money at political allies of Bush/Cheney without any competitive bidding under the guise of security)

Not about oil unless the instability in the oil markets serves to benefit Bush/Cheney oil cronies, which it does. Meanwhile we all pay the tax of artificially high gas prices. Which oil company bonuses are then recycled back into the '04 political campaigns.

Did the war have a fig leaf of legality? Sure, nebulous UN resolutions (and who really gives a darn about these?) and PR lies/blather about WMD to raise FUD.

Diverted necessary resources from war against real terrorists who are trying to kill us. Used for political purposes in '04 race by Bush. (see "run on the war in '04" - Rove)

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
And the exact same tactics are used by the left.

But they are usually louder and more annoying.

hmmmm.....so many rejoinders, not enough time. Irony is alive and well.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by mcsjgs:
The Iraq war was about two things:

Get rid of Sadam (cleanup from Bush 41 and Cheney blunder in first Gulf War -- so far, so good)

Er if there was a blunder it was Clinton NOT following through.

[Troll]

I think what you have here is a Bush regime that has confused leadership with taking action. They have an idea that not taking action is weakness. So they DO things, like invade Iraq and they don't ask whether it's legal. They might well try to justify their decision to appease people like me that believe in international law, but they never have regard to the law when they're planning their action. That's essentially what Perle is saying in the other thread and it's what I heard from every other defendant accused of a crime that I ever defended: "Sure what I did is illegal but it the law is wrong and I did what was right." Bush and his cronies ignore the fact that the laws have developed over decades and that the collective experience of the globe in creating conditions that allow us all to live peacefully.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
hmmmm.....so many rejoinders, not enough time. Irony is alive and well.

What you complained about is happening on BOTH sides.

The left is not exempt.

Irony indeed.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
What you complained about is happening on BOTH sides.

The left is not exempt.

Irony indeed.

you miss my point. for zimphire to complain about someone else being annoying...there's the irony.

sorry I had to spell it out for you.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you miss my point. for zimphire to complain about someone else being annoying...there's the irony.

sorry I had to spell it out for you.

You're on a roll Lerkfish.

Zimphire you can take my postings in this thread as a compliment. Your posts aren't completely useless

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Simey is just up to his old yet boring 'creative writing'. Not worth a second of my life

If this is how he works as a lawyer then he's a pretty bad lawyer. Emotional poop like he's writing here can be left to the uneducated masses.

your abuse has been reported.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
your abuse has been reported.

I didn't abuse anyone

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
your abuse has been reported.

funny Ayatollah!

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by voodoo:
I didn't abuse anyone

you are not the judge of that. neither am I. But your nasty, out of line, abusive comments will at least have a chance to be judged, and hopefully your insecurity-based lash-outs will not be allowed to injure others.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
you are not the judge of that. neither am I. But your nasty, out of line, abusive comments will at least have a chance to be judged, and hopefully your insecurity-based lash-outs will not be allowed to injure others.

Considering the plaintiff in this case - I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on that one.

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Considering the plaintiff in this case - I wouldn't exactly hold my breath on that one.

my loving relationship with voodoo has little to do with his guilt or innocence (continuing your court metaphor) in this matter.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
my loving relationship with voodoo has little to do with his guilt or innocence (continuing your court metaphor) in this matter.

going out on a limb here, but I imagine the comment was directed to your penchant for being frequently banned, not your love/hate relationship with voodoo.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
my loving relationship with voodoo has little to do with his guilt or innocence (continuing your court metaphor) in this matter.

Look, we don't HAVE a relationship. Get over me already.

PS. Why can't you just stay banned Scott_H?

Unlike Zimphire's posts I can't find a single useful thing to do with your posts.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you miss my point. for zimphire to complain about someone else being annoying...there's the irony.

sorry I had to spell it out for you.

No, the only people who find me annoying are the ones that don't like hearing the truth posted back at them.

They usually come back to me with personal jabs like you just did.

Good job.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
No, the only people who find me annoying are the ones that don't like hearing the truth posted back at them.

They usually come back to me with personal jabs like you just did.

Good job.

kid: waaaaaaah!
teacher: what's wrong, billy?
kid: waaaah! Jeffrey called me annoying!
teacher: why did he call you annoying?
kid: waaah! because I called other kids annoying and then he said it was ironic.
waaaaaaah!

[The Ayatollah]

Originally posted by voodoo:
Look, we don't HAVE a relationship. Get over me already.

PS. Why can't you just stay banned Scott_H?

Unlike Zimphire's posts I can't find a single useful thing to do with your posts.

I am not scott_h. I have made that clear in the past.

Have a nice day, voodoo.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by The Ayatollah:
I am not scott_h. I have made that clear in the past.

Have a nice day, voodoo.

Whatever you say scotty

[nonhuman]

I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing

It seems pretty clear to me. He's saying either that the war was illegal, or that it wasn't the right thing to do. Since the other quote, doctored or not, seems to imply that he thought the war was the right thing to do then he must be saying that it was illegal. The only other possibility is that in a part of the statement that wasn't quoted he contradictd himself in which case he didn't say anything.