Skip to main content

Why George Bush is Insane

By Harold Pinter

The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together. It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17452.htm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

I would luve for GWB & all in Washington DC on the Hill, to take the same test as the ones at our Nuclear Pamts have to take before being hired, the 500 quesstions test , one or two are "Did you love your mother ? " -- "Can you tell the Truth ? " -- " Do you hear voices ? " hmmmmmmmm may not be many of the leaches left to suck us down deeper.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
The Article is A hem, "News" because it is a report of a speech by H. Pinter, who is newsworthy.
quote:
The article is taken from an address given by Harold Pinter on receiving an honorary degree at the University of Turin © Harold Pinter 2002

The Assassinated Press



Who is H. Pinter and why is a report of his opinion "newsworthy" ? So, his opinion is political, but a report of his opinion is news. Who decides whose opinion is news and whose opinion is politics ? I personally don't care where he posts links since I don't click on them anyway, but since the TD went to the trouble of making a political forum separate from news, maybe their intention was for people to actually use it. To say this is news is a stretch. I think it is just a way to get his point of view across to more people. JMO
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
It's not news, it's just stupid. Information Clearing House is about as close to actual news as your supermarket tabloid.



YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! Information Clearing GIVES you NEWS you will not find on CNN,FOX,AND THE other Right Wing news media.



"America is a quarter of a billion people totally misinformed and disinformed by their government. This is tragic but our media is -- I wouldn't even
say corrupt -- it's just beyond telling us anything that the government doesn't want us to know." Gore Vidal
Last edited by Jan55
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
The Article is A hem, "News" because it is a report of a speech by H. Pinter, who is newsworthy.
quote:
The article is taken from an address given by Harold Pinter on receiving an honorary degree at the University of Turin © Harold Pinter 2002

The Assassinated Press



Who is H. Pinter and why is a report of his opinion "newsworthy" ? So, his opinion is political, but a report of his opinion is news. Who decides whose opinion is news and whose opinion is politics ? I personally don't care where he posts links since I don't click on them anyway, but since the TD went to the trouble of making a political forum separate from news, maybe their intention was for people to actually use it. To say this is news is a stretch. I think it is just a way to get his point of view across to more people. JMO


Here is a report of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize acceptance. He is definitely newsworthy. http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1661516,00.html
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
YOU ARE DEAD WRONG! Information Clearing GIVES you NEWS you will not find on CNN,FOX,AND THE other Right Wing news media.


We've already proved that this is an unreliable source. If you are taking this site as actual news, you're brainwashing yourself.
I disagree, and will demonstrate.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L31152341.htm
Linked from Information Clearing House.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070330/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqsaudidiplomacy
Linked from Information Clearing House.
http://www.pakistantimes.net/2007/03/31/top15.htm
Linked from Information Clearing House.

That is not unreliable news.

It may be picked and chosen, but it's not unreliable.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
That is the ICH home page. Have fun browsing their links.

Who is "we?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
When Reuters becomes unreliable I will be the first to bring it up.

Being uninformed is bad, NashBama. Being Misinformed is worse.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
The Article is A hem, "News" because it is a report of a speech by H. Pinter, who is newsworthy.
quote:
The article is taken from an address given by Harold Pinter on receiving an honorary degree at the University of Turin © Harold Pinter 2002

The Assassinated Press



Who is H. Pinter and why is a report of his opinion "newsworthy" ? So, his opinion is political, but a report of his opinion is news. Who decides whose opinion is news and whose opinion is politics ? I personally don't care where he posts links since I don't click on them anyway, but since the TD went to the trouble of making a political forum separate from news, maybe their intention was for people to actually use it. To say this is news is a stretch. I think it is just a way to get his point of view across to more people. JMO


Here is a report of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize acceptance. He is definitely newsworthy. http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1661516,00.html


So, how does winning a Nobel prize change a persons' opinion into news.
His receiving this honorary degree may be news, albeit old, but this is a report of an opinion about GWBs' sanity. Do you think this post was to inform people about H. Pinters honorary degree, or to disparage Bush ? Therein lies the difference between news and politics.
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by midknightrider:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
The Article is A hem, "News" because it is a report of a speech by H. Pinter, who is newsworthy.
quote:
The article is taken from an address given by Harold Pinter on receiving an honorary degree at the University of Turin © Harold Pinter 2002

The Assassinated Press



Who is H. Pinter and why is a report of his opinion "newsworthy" ? So, his opinion is political, but a report of his opinion is news. Who decides whose opinion is news and whose opinion is politics ? I personally don't care where he posts links since I don't click on them anyway, but since the TD went to the trouble of making a political forum separate from news, maybe their intention was for people to actually use it. To say this is news is a stretch. I think it is just a way to get his point of view across to more people. JMO


Here is a report of Harold Pinter's Nobel Prize acceptance. He is definitely newsworthy. http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,1661516,00.html


So, how does winning a Nobel prize change a persons' opinion into news.
His receiving this honorary degree may be news, albeit old, but this is a report of an opinion about GWBs' sanity. Do you think this post was to inform people about H. Pinters honorary degree, or to disparage Bush ? Therein lies the difference between news and politics.


Absolutely -- and apparently someone agrees with you (and the others) this thread has been moved to the POLITICS section where it should have been all along. Thanks for your comment --Keep posting!!!
quote:
It may be picked and chosen, but it's not unreliable.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
That is the ICH home page. Have fun browsing their links.


The very first link on that page is a "story" claiming that 655,000+ civilians have been killed in Iraq since the US invaded. Information Clearing House claims this story came from the Washington Post, yet an archive search of the story's title produces no results. See for yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/3cg2ap

As for the "we" comment, when pba blindly posted this story to start with, other people proved that the 655,000+ number is mathematically impossible. Go back and find the post on your own and see for yourself.

You are right about being misinformed. I suggest you make sure you have your facts straight and quit wasting time with biased sites so you don't embarrass yourself further.
quote:
Originally posted by Bamafnatk:
I would luve for GWB & all in Washington DC on the Hill, to take the same test as the ones at our Nuclear Pamts have to take before being hired, the 500 quesstions test , one or two are "Did you love your mother ? " -- "Can you tell the Truth ? " -- " Do you hear voices ? " hmmmmmmmm may not be many of the leaches left to suck us down deeper.


Would that be the MMPI (Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory)?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
It may be picked and chosen, but it's not unreliable.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/
That is the ICH home page. Have fun browsing their links.


The very first link on that page is a "story" claiming that 655,000+ civilians have been killed in Iraq since the US invaded. Information Clearing House claims this story came from the Washington Post, yet an archive search of the story's title produces no results. See for yourself.

http://tinyurl.com/3cg2ap

As for the "we" comment, when pba blindly posted this story to start with, other people proved that the 655,000+ number is mathematically impossible. Go back and find the post on your own and see for yourself.

You are right about being misinformed. I suggest you make sure you have your facts straight and quit wasting time with biased sites so you don't embarrass yourself further.

I don't want to be accused of calling you a liar, but this is the article I got by clicking on the 655 000 dead link at ICH. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15266.htm
I find it difficult to understand how you would argue the figure is incorrect, when British Military and Government officials have publicly stated that the study was rigorous, done to normal scientific standards, and that they could not argue with it.
In the Interest of full disclosure, I personally interviewed the person who directed the Lancet Mortality Study. His name is Les Roberts. I also provided the interview to Information Clearing House. And Subsequent to that interview, a second study, by the same team was completed and reported. I also provided that information to ICH. The number they are publishing appeared the day after I sent them the updated figures.
I have contacted Stardust Radio in an effort to get an archive copy of the Interview. I do Not have it myself, and it is no longer available on the Stardust Radio Website.
My older Brother holds a PhD granted by Johns Hopkins University. I have a great deal of faith and confidence in their faculty.
If the article was real, it would have turned up in the archive search. It did not, therefore it is a fake.

The 650,000 number is also a lie. Here's proof as provided by mkirk a while back.

http://www.brookings.edu/fp/saban/iraq/index20061221.pdf

Quoted data from the Janaury 2007 Brookings Institution report. The weblink goes to a .pdf document including this information...plus loads more. This seemed to be relevant for the posting and the US is not killing all the Iraqi civilians as has already been pointed out.

IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED BY US TROOPS
2005 Average of 7 per week
January 2006 4 per week
August 2006 1 per week
NOTE ON IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED BY US TROOPS: The military has recently announced that an average of one Iraqi civilian per day was killed in “escalation of force” incidents alone in 2005. Josh White, Charles Lane and Julie Tate, “Homicide Charges Rare in Iraq War; Few Troops Tried for Killing Civilians,” Washington Post, August 28, 2006.


ESTIMATES OF IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED BY VIOLENCE:
These numbers do not include Iraqi civilians killed during major combat operations March 19, 2003-April 30, 2003.
Iraq Index Estimate using IBC Data – May 2003 – December 31, 2005, not including crime: 19,500
Iraq Index Estimate using IBC Data – May 2003 – December 31, 2005, including crime: 42,100
Iraq Index Estimate using UN Data – January 2006 – October 2006: 28,000
Iraq Index Cumulative Estimate using IBC and UN Data – May 2003 – October 31, 2006: 70,100
Iraq Body Count Cumulative Total Through 1 December 2006: 49,000 – 54,400

NOTE ON “IRAQI CIVILIANS KILLED” TABLES:
Information for May 2003-December 2005 is based upon data from Iraq Body Count. We do not include entries recorded at the morgue (to avoid double-counting) or those which clearly involve the death of Iraqi police, police recruits, or Iraq Civil Defense Forces (in an attempt to index only civilians killed by acts of war. IBC itself removes military personnel.) The data shown in the chart are 1.75 times our IBC-based numbers, reflecting the fact that estimates for civilian casualties from the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior were 75 percent higher than those of our Iraq Body Count-based estimate over the aggregate May 2003 – December 2005 period.12 During this time, we separately studied the crime rate in Iraq, and on that basis estimated 23,000 murders throughout the country. Starting in 2006, we have found it is no longer practical to differentiate between acts of war and crime. Our estimates since January 2006 are based upon the numbers published in the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, “Human Rights Report: 1 May–30 June, 2006” and subsequent reports. This data combines the Iraq Ministry of Health’s tally of deaths counted at hospitals with the Baghdad Medico-Legal Institute’s tally of deaths counted at morgues. As a point of comparison between the two charts, we have found that the numbers we present for 2006
based on the UN (which include crime) are approximately twice what the estimates would be using the our methodology for the IBC data (not including crime) for the same time period.

False articles and fabricated numbers is hardly a credible news source.
quote:
Originally posted by that smart chick:
The only credible news story that I have found on the aforementioned study was at Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219638,00.html

I love the way they arrived at their numbers:
For Burnham's study, researchers gathered data from a sample of 1,849 Iraqi households with a total of 12,801 residents from late May to early July. That sample was used to extrapolate the total figure. The estimate deals with deaths up to July.

The methodology is the same as if you took the number of deaths in Lauderdale County and multiplied them by 3363 to arrive at the total number of deaths in the United States. I'm sure you'd find the numbers to be amazingly accurate...


excellent observation SC.
Do what now? An article doesn't exist because it didn't show up in a search result? Nash, it's on the Washington Post's website! They must use a poorly-written archive search program, because the evidence of it existing is right there, in front of your eyes. Whether you agree with it or not, the article exists.

Oh, and...

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/11435...as+Reached+655%2C000
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Looks like it is. I did my searches on the title of the article which should have produced a result. I guess the Post needs a new search engine.


The funny thing is they advertise their search engine as "new," but in reality all it does is take a LONG time to search through "new" articles (within two weeks, I think). Everything else is searchable through the Archives search. Their website is poorly written. Nothing should take that long.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Maybe the problem is with their search engine, because I didn't find it and I ran a few searches on it. Regardless, the number is not accurate and Information Clearing House is not a site to be taken as actual news.
You are wasting time NashBama, I am wasting time tracking down work I did personally two years ago.
Her is a link to the Lancet, the First Study that covered 18 months of the war. http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf
This is Wikipedia, complete with "criticism" and "responses to criticism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lancet_surveys_of_mortalit...003_invasion_of_Iraq

I am sure you were unaware of my personal history with this study, so I am not going to take your calling it "fake" personally. I have been cooperating with ICH for years. I have been cooperating with Salon.com for years, I personally believe myself to be honest.
If you can find as thorough a study as the Johns Hopkins study that has a substantially different figure, I will look into it.
MEANTIME, stop acting like you are informed as to the legitimacy of media sources. All of them make mistakes, and some of them go out of their way to distort facts. ICH falls soemwhere between the two. It is a biased resource. They look for the News You Don't Look for. The meticulously source every piece they publish. If you have a problem connecting with their links, bypass their link. You can Copy and Paste. You can Google the headlines. I know it can be done, that's how I do it.

added comment: The two studies in question have been done, and Published. NO ONE HAS PUBLISHED A PEER REVIEWED STUDY THAT IN ANY WAY CONTRADICTS THE DATA FROM THE JOHNS HOPKINS STUDY, AND NashBama, you are not the only person who would like to discredit it.

You surely recall Dan Rather's early retirement when he was tricked by a Republican Party Operative into presenting forged documents.

It would be the same with the Roberts Mortality Study if the Neo Conservatives could come up with any proof that the study is flawed. If you think that William Kristol and Rupert Murdock do not have the resources to do a parallel study you're crazier than the megalomaniacs in the White House
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
It is a biased resource.


Your own words. I was taught in school that a biased source is not reliable. True sources should be objective. Therefore, ICH is not worth reading because of it's bias and as a contributor, you have admitted to this.
There is something you did not learn in school. EVERY REPORT IS BIASED.
ICH is not looking for the feel good, "We Built a School" story. They are looking for the "The School you built has a leaky roof" story. That is their bias.

YOU are correct, they don't report JUSTIFICATION for the war. They report the Damage and destruction of the war.

BUSH, on the other hand reports none of that. He will arrest you if you try to photograph a plane loaded with Coffins. He is repressing the material ICH publishes.

YOU ARE MORE BIASED THAN ICH. You are biased in favor of a war on Islam. It's totally clear by your comments.

YOUR bias is what points out the ICH bias. BETWEEN YOU, WITH VIRTUALLY NO FACTS, AND ICH, WHICH SEEKS FACTS, I WILL TRUST ICH.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
It is a biased resource.


Your own words. I was taught in school that a biased source is not reliable. True sources should be objective. Therefore, ICH is not worth reading because of it's bias and as a contributor, you have admitted to this.
There is something you did not learn in school. EVERY REPORT IS BIASED.
ICH is not looking for the feel good, "We Built a School" story. They are looking for the "The School you built has a leaky roof" story. That is their bias.

YOU are correct, they don't report JUSTIFICATION for the war. They report the Damage and destruction of the war.

BUSH, on the other hand reports none of that. He will arrest you if you try to photograph a plane loaded with Coffins. He is repressing the material ICH publishes.

YOU ARE MORE BIASED THAN ICH. You are biased in favor of a war on Islam. It's totally clear by your comments.

YOUR bias is what points out the ICH bias. BETWEEN YOU, WITH VIRTUALLY NO FACTS, AND ICH, WHICH SEEKS FACTS, I WILL TRUST ICH.


The problem with ICH is that their bias leads them to report only stories that forward their agenda of war and the US are bad. They will NEVER report any information that shows ANY of the good things the American GI does.
quote:
There is something you did not learn in school. EVERY REPORT IS BIASED.
ICH is not looking for the feel good, "We Built a School" story. They are looking for the "The School you built has a leaky roof" story. That is their bias.

YOU are correct, they don't report JUSTIFICATION for the war. They report the Damage and destruction of the war.

BUSH, on the other hand reports none of that. He will arrest you if you try to photograph a plane loaded with Coffins. He is repressing the material ICH publishes.

YOU ARE MORE BIASED THAN ICH. You are biased in favor of a war on Islam. It's totally clear by your comments.

YOUR bias is what points out the ICH bias. BETWEEN YOU, WITH VIRTUALLY NO FACTS, AND ICH, WHICH SEEKS FACTS, I WILL TRUST ICH.


First of all, I have never said anything about a war on Islam, you're a liar. Yes, I said it and if you want proof go back and look through my past posts. I have never once mentioned that I favor war in Islam. I'm in favor of defending our country from terrorism. Most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorist happen to be muslims. We are not at war with a religion, we are at war with people who want to destroy us.

Second, I know that every reporter has biases. Real reporters do their best to be objective. ICH strives to be biased. In your own words ICH looks only at the negative view of the war. They try to portray our country in the worst light possible. They have nothing positive to say about the men and women who are serving our country, they take every chance they get to slander them. You said it yourself, they are biased. They are not out to report the truth, just parts of it mixed with falsehoods as a transparent attempt to back up their beliefs. Brain dead people like you and pba fall for it like Jim Jones' cult members and blindly accept anything they print without questioning their facts our sources.

Whether it's from the right or from the left, it's all biased. The truth is somewhere in the middle. As long as you read and contribute to leftist unAmerican sites like ICH instead of thinking for yourself, you are nothing more than a brain dead follower of someone elses' agenda.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
There is something you did not learn in school. EVERY REPORT IS BIASED.
ICH is not looking for the feel good, "We Built a School" story. They are looking for the "The School you built has a leaky roof" story. That is their bias.

YOU are correct, they don't report JUSTIFICATION for the war. They report the Damage and destruction of the war.

BUSH, on the other hand reports none of that. He will arrest you if you try to photograph a plane loaded with Coffins. He is repressing the material ICH publishes.

YOU ARE MORE BIASED THAN ICH. You are biased in favor of a war on Islam. It's totally clear by your comments.

YOUR bias is what points out the ICH bias. BETWEEN YOU, WITH VIRTUALLY NO FACTS, AND ICH, WHICH SEEKS FACTS, I WILL TRUST ICH.


First of all, I have never said anything about a war on Islam, you're a liar. Yes, I said it and if you want proof go back and look through my past posts. I have never once mentioned that I favor war in Islam. I'm in favor of defending our country from terrorism. Most muslims are not terrorists, but most terrorist happen to be muslims. We are not at war with a religion, we are at war with people who want to destroy us.

Second, I know that every reporter has biases. Real reporters do their best to be objective. ICH strives to be biased. In your own words ICH looks only at the negative view of the war. They try to portray our country in the worst light possible. They have nothing positive to say about the men and women who are serving our country, they take every chance they get to slander them. You said it yourself, they are biased. They are not out to report the truth, just parts of it mixed with falsehoods as a transparent attempt to back up their beliefs. Brain dead people like you and pba fall for it like Jim Jones' cult members and blindly accept anything they print without questioning their facts our sources.

Whether it's from the right or from the left, it's all biased. The truth is somewhere in the middle. As long as you read and contribute to leftist unAmerican sites like ICH instead of thinking for yourself, you are nothing more than a brain dead follower of someone elses' agenda.
I am not going to go into the War On Islam business with you, I had enough trouble trying to prove to you that you asserted Treason.

Reporters do something that most people recognize, and read over, It is called, in the business of journalism, Putting in the Hook. You do that by taking a "slant" on the story you are writing. It is not political. It is how the reporter decides to make the story interesting enough to get read, or listened to.
YOUR Charge that ICH is biased is correct. Your assertion that ICH has ANYTHING to say is not. Virtually every story on ICH comes from reporters who work for newspapars that ICH culls for material.
So Far, you have held ICH responsible for Material first published, in "The Washington Post," "The Nation of Pakistan," "The New York Times" and other newspapers. You have attacked ICH for publishing a summary of the Iraq Mortality Study, published by the Lancet, and Reported in the "Observer" of London. By accusing ICH of having an anti-war bias in its reporting, you have made a fundamental error. ICH does publish opinion. I cannot recall a single opinion piece, written by an ICH staffer that pba has posted. NOT ONE. I don't just read ICH regularly, I have contributed to their work. In Fact, the Updated Mortality figure you got started on was POSTED because I brought it to their attention. ME> PERSONALLY.
You have asserted, repeatedly, that the mortality study is flawed, and incorrect. It has been accepted by one of the world's leading Medical Journals, "The Lancet." It has been accepted by both the Government of Britain and the British Military. It was done by the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health Faculty. It has been peer reviewed for both accuracy and methodology. IT IS ACCURATE. You have not presented a shred of evidence that it is NOT accurate. You have not quoted a single parallel study that disagrees with it. There are none. It there were YOU WOULD BE QUOTING THEM.
Not only did the author of the first study defend it successfully, HE DID A SECOND, FOLLOW UP STUDY.
Keep digging, the hole you are making is not doing that study any harm, but maybe, just maybe, you will be able to find a study that comes to a different conclusion, and can withstand review.
The Brookings Institute study you present estimates the mumber of Iraqis killed by COALITION FORCES. Not the total excess mortality. If you want to compare Brookings to Johns Hopkins, you have my permission, but keep in mind that the Johns Hopkins study includes deaths due to disease, and due to sectarian violence. Brookins does not.
quote:
I am not going to go into the War On Islam business with you, I had enough trouble trying to prove to you that you asserted Treason.

Reporters do something that most people recognize, and read over, It is called, in the business of journalism, Putting in the Hook. You do that by taking a "slant" on the story you are writing. It is not political. It is how the reporter decides to make the story interesting enough to get read, or listened to.


That's all the mindless drivel I can read. You lied again. I never asserted treason. You must really be a contributor to ICH because every post you make containes blanent lies.

Second of all, I know what journalism is, it's my profession. I had to take journalism class is college and none of them taught that biased reporting is accepted, just the opposite. Taking a slant on a story IS NOT accepted practice, it's frowned upon. In the real world, a journalist who purposely tries to slant the story one way or another is an armature and quickly loses credibility. The hook is the story itself. Sites like ICH have absolutly no credibility in the real world of news, just with far left extremists like yourself.

Are you ready to stop now or are you still enjoying eating all that crow?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
It is a biased resource.


Your own words. I was taught in school that a biased source is not reliable. True sources should be objective. Therefore, ICH is not worth reading because of it's bias and as a contributor, you have admitted to this.



Oh Oh!!! Then you better NOT watch FOX news!!! Big Grin

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×