Hillary Clinton --- Is this true?

[Kendra17]

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N42/haiti2.42w.html

Admittedly, this article doesn't tell all the details I included in my post. . .but look at the controversy it's alluding to. Can you see that the information I provided would go hand in hand with what you're reading in this story?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by bsears
Respectfully Kendra, that statement comes awfully close to saying that the people who support Kerry ( and take a look at the polls, you are talking about half the country ) do so because they are not as well informed as you. Surely you can admit that your beliefs are based on your interpretations of what you read, and what you select to read, and that others might not have the same interpretation?

No one is arguing your absolute right to believe what you believe. Nor should you look down on people who disagree, and dismiss their beliefs just because they are not in sync with yours. ( and I would interject that I truly believe you are not aware that this is the impession your posts are giving out, and that is why you have people's backs up ) And if you are trying to persuade others to your way of thinking, you have to back up what you say.

Okay, but not every book is online, so I can't put a link to it. However, look at this letter from Tom F. Driver Member, Haiti Task Force, Witness for Peace to the NYT.

Obviously this is his opinion, too. .. so you can dismiss it. However, he is also an eyewitness observer. Because it's his observation, and there are no other sources, will you dismiss this, too?

So far, we can't link National Review articles, Weekly Standard Articles, Drudge report, or anything published by Regnery.

Don't you see that there might be information that is proof on a site that isn't considered liberal? It doesn't make it less accurate. I can see not linking talk show hosts. . .yes, but National Review? What about the Brookings Institution? The Financial Times??? These are institutions that have never ONCE been accused of falsifying information. And, there are some publications-notably William F. Buckley's memoir--that are published by Regnery that are WORTH reading. They offer an alternative, but not falsities.
http://www.williambowles.info/haiti-news/archives/carter_280795.html

Much of the press is reluctant to print hypercritical pieces--even though they are fully sourced and very scholarly. You may not LIKE the messenger, but this doesn't mean it's FALSE.

If you will only accept proof from certain sites--then it's impossible to discuss. I'm assuming Freepers is very extreme. . .so I won't look there, but these other sites and mentioned institutions are not.

If you dismiss everything that we consider to be proof before reading it. . .just by the virtue of who is printing it--how can one actually discuss anything and cite proofs?

 

[Kendra17]

posted twice, I thought it didn't go through.

 

[Kendra17]

Hmmm, although this is printed on a site that I'd normally NOT use, since it's obvious in it's conservative bias (but, the last site I used that printed that letter from tom driver was obvious in it's fringe-liberal bias,too--so consider me at least fair in reporting sources I'm finding).

however, this was written by Frank J. Gaffney Jr. who held senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department. He is currently the president of the Center for Security Policy.

It's on a conservative site though. http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/cubacarter.html
this talks about everything I wrote, and more--Cuba, too!

Here's Gaffney again: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/frankjgaffneyjr/printfg20020514.shtml

Again, townhall is obviously biased, but the NYT isn't dying to print this. it doesn't mean it's not true.

Edited to add: http://www.nationalreview.com/impromptus/impromptus050302.asp

Sure, these people are biased, that's known. . .but, they were NEVER accused of LYING.

 

[Samsara]

Oh yeah! Any site that sells "W" Ketchup is REAL reputable! You might as well site the shrubs re-election site for all of your "facts."

Biased, you say? I'm thinking thats the understatement of the month!

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Samsara
Oh yeah! Any site that sells "W" Ketchup is REAL reputable! You might as well site the shrubs re-election site for all of your "facts."

Biased, you say? I'm thinking thats the understatement of the month!

Are you saying that you never frequent sites that have commentary by Michael Moore or link you to anti-bush bumperstickers?

Frank Gaffney is well-respected. So is National Review. They have never been accused of being dishonest or disreputible as has the New York Times this past year. Also, even the Washington Post apologized for their mishandling of stories prior to our military action in Iraq.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...C/20040813/MEDIA13/TPInternational/TopStories

If you discount everything relevant, there ought to be no discussion on either side==just "we're pro=Kerry, so there." or "we're pro-Bush, so there".

The content of the articles I linked are worthy of reading. the book I mentioned is worthy of reading, and casts Carter in a positive light while regarding his failures honestly. The New Republic is notably "left", yet I still gave you the article that talked about Carter's disgusting behavior.

 

[Samsara]

Sorry, your sources are nothing more than biased, politically motivated efforts to advance the shrubs re-election.

Aside from providing such "no-name" sources as "Warriors for Truth" you also suggest that something printed on an obviously pro-shrub website could possibly be "fair and unbiased." Yeah, where have we all heard that one before?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Samsara
Sorry, your sources are nothing more than biased, politically motivated efforts to advance the shrubs re-election.

Aside from providing such "no-name" sources as "Warriors for Truth" you also suggest that something printed on an obviously pro-shrub website could possibly be "fair and unbiased." Yeah, where have we all heard that one before?

Some of what I posted was from the mid-90s, samsara.
Also, Douglas Brinkley's book is not something the campaign of W. recommends on their reading list.
New Republic said the same thing in the article I gave you, which isn't on their site because it's from 1995.
Frank Gaffney is a conservative. So what. His support of Bush is irrelevent in this manner. Clinton hates Carter, too, for the reasons I gave you. Clinton supports Kerry, despite his distrust and dislike for Carter.

Forget the site, for a minute. Why would someone who LIKES Carter print an article like this? they wouldn't. . .which, is why you can't read it on a liberal site. However, they are facts that mirror what I wrote in an earlier post.

Even the letter from the observer at the Haiti elections was on a very liberal==even fringe site. This doesn't mean the letter isn't valid. The man who wrote the letter helped with elections! The group that assisted is LIBERAL. SO, that particular liberal noted Carter's behavior, too.

Frank Gaffney, Jr. and National Review are both admired for their integrity and honesty. You won't find any articles accusing them of false reporting. You will find that at the NYT and other "mainstream" papers. Do I dismiss everything the NYT prints because of that? How would a discussion happen if I dismissed everything the NYT or Washington Post wrote?

Look at the content, and check it out yourself if you must. . . look at the New Republic article at your library. . .I gave the date and name of the article. The article mirrors everything about Carter again. He did the same thing in Bosnia that he did with Cuba, Haiti, N. Korea, and Iraq (first war).

If you're telling me that the New Republic article and the Washington Post article are both false, too, then you aren't willing to be proven wrong. There is no shame in having incomplete information--that is what these discussions are supposed to do. . . give us new information. They are not supposed to be back and forths about "I like Bush, I like Kerry" They are supposed to provide new information.

And, furthermore, admitting that Carter is disliked and did some disreputable things doesn't diminish Kerry at all. Maybe Kerry knows this, and won't call on him to assist in foreign policy, if Kerry wins.

Carter isn't as well-liked as you believed. And, these are the reasons why. If you don't accept the truth, it doesn't change that, in fact, I've only told you truths.

I'm no fan of Clinton, obviously, but I agree with him for the reasons he dislikes Carter.

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by Samsara
Sorry, your sources are nothing more than biased, politically motivated efforts to advance the shrubs re-election.

Aside from providing such "no-name" sources as "Warriors for Truth" you also suggest that something printed on an obviously pro-shrub website could possibly be "fair and unbiased." Yeah, where have we all heard that one before?

Frank J. Gaffney Jr. held Senior positions in the Reagan Defense Department. He is currently the president of the Center for Security Policy. That's not a no-name source, Samsara.

 

[Kendra17]

I finally found the lance morrow article. . .don't know why i couldn't find it earlier. . .
look at this:
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/04/time/carter.html

Originally in Time Magazine, but online at CNN. go figure, are these sites permissible or do now these sites fall in the not-acceptable category?

He disagrees, of course, with Brinkley's more positive assertions regarding Carter, but mentions some of the stuff I'm talking about, too.

And this: by the director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard Newspapers. http://www.casperstartribune.net/ar.../columns/d8bae0758e5c003587256ede0080334e.prt

 

[BedKnobbery2]

The point is, Kendra, that you've asserted repeatedly that Carter is (I'm paraphrasing here) a no-good louse, and that this is common knowledge; and yet, by your own admission, you've had significant difficulty finding sources to back up your statements, and also by your own admission, the bulk of those sources are from significantly biased sites, in whose self-interest it is to denounce and decry any person in the Democrat party who has garnered any amount of respect in this world.

Is is *just* as easy to cite obviously biased sources denouncing and decrying the activities of those on the right. *Most* (admittedly, not all) of the people here who may agree with the overall conclusion on those particular sites refrain from posting information from them because we are aware of the bias, and realize that they therefore cannot be counted as a definitively reliable source. Those sites--and those you are overly fond of quoting yourself--are intended to preach to the choir, as it were. They aren't *really* trying to be hard, unbiased, news sources--they are there to bolster the beliefs of those who enjoy visiting and reading them.

And as to your assertion that, gosh shucks, you're just a thoughtful gal who looks at the facts objectively and decides your politics based on them....well, I strongly recommend that you revisit that assertion, and perhaps look deeper for a little more self-awareness. Certainly, most of us here like to believe that about ourselves. But the fact of the matter is many, if not most--heck, if not all--of us who like posting and debating on political threads have already firmly chosen our sides. We may not always agree 100% about everything our parties represent, but we each believe it enough--no matter WHAT side we're on--to feel the need to defend the positions our parties represent, whether or not we've truly given a completely unbiased analysis of all the facts in the matter. We believe--again, no matter WHAT side we're on--that our side is the side that is correct on the bulk of the issues, so we're more willing to believe our party's stances on other issues we may not be as knowledgeable about.

I know I'm not alone in understanding that different people can look at the same facts about the same issues and come to different conclusions. What generally gets my ire up, and leads me to participate in threads such as this is when someone from the "other side" asserts that obviously, their POV is the only proper and correct POV to hold. It's the audacity and the pigheadness that gets to me--moreso than the actual opinion itself. And, I'll also admit, it leads me often to sarcasm or a similarly pigheaded response (if only to get that person's ire up as well).

Anyway, my point in all of this is really to explain why certain sources are just, frankly, not worth citing......as I said, although they may speak to you as to the "obvious" truth they hold, try to keep in mind that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO--speak to the truth that you already believe. And there is value in that, to be sure. Those types of sites--on both sides of the fence, again--give us all a Rah-Rah happy feeling about how "right" we are. But generally, that's their only value. THAT is why people object to their use as a "reliable source".

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Not that I see anything of substance there, but do you happen to have a link to all this garbage?

Translation...

I don't care what you say but I'd like to read the source material anyway so I can call it BS with full authority.

 

[bsears]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Translation...

I don't care what you say but I'd like to read the source material anyway so I can call it BS with full authority.

That was incredibly rude and uncalled for.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by bsears
That was incredibly rude and uncalled for.

Really?

Nearly every time someone (on the right) posts links to sources the left calls them names "Sludge Report" , etc. It happens quite a bit. I was just taking PG's ask for the source (with including the dig) to it's logically end.

Didn't mean to rude. Just truthful.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by Elwood Blues
Translation...

I don't care what you say but I'd like to read the source material anyway so I can call it BS with full authority.

Thanks, but unless you can read my mind, the only bs is what's being dished out by you.

Nearly every time someone (on the right) posts links to sources the left calls them names "Sludge Report" , etc. It happens quite a bit. I was just taking PG's ask for the source (with including the dig) to it's logically end.

Good heavens! Do you mean to tell me now, that along with not being able to voice my opinion on who I want for President ( I've been informed that I'm attacking Bush because of my avatar and countdown clock), it's now a no no to make fun of ridiculous sites like the sludge report?

I suppose you would respect "facts" that I dig up from sites such as the democraticunderground? As long as you keep it fair on both sides, no problem. Just let me know because there's a wealth of information on that site we can chat about.

Since when is it out of line to ask someone to prove what they're saying? Which, btw, she didn't.

 

[bsears]

Perhaps because the left has had its tail whipped in the past for using biased sources and now avoids it? For example, if I need a source I look for a recognized one that is viewed by most as unbiased. If I used something like moveon.com or org or whatever it is, I know I would be in for more grief that I can tolerate. I have seen new posters use dubious sources, and get called on it, and apologize and agree not to use that source again.

So, you are probably right John when you say that you see the left complain about sources often. But do you think the fact that you do not see the reverse is because republicans are too nice to dispute the dubious sites, or that they are simply not used as often?

 

[Kendra17]

Originally posted by BedKnobbery2
The point is, Kendra, that you've asserted repeatedly that Carter is (I'm paraphrasing here) a no-good louse, and that this is common knowledge; and yet, by your own admission, you've had significant difficulty finding sources to back up your statements, and also by your own admission, the bulk of those sources are from significantly biased sites, in whose self-interest it is to denounce and decry any person in the Democrat party who has garnered any amount of respect in this world.

Is is *just* as easy to cite obviously biased sources denouncing and decrying the activities of those on the right. *Most* (admittedly, not all) of the people here who may agree with the overall conclusion on those particular sites refrain from posting information from them because we are aware of the bias, and realize that they therefore cannot be counted as a definitively reliable source. Those sites--and those you are overly fond of quoting yourself--are intended to preach to the choir, as it were. They aren't *really* trying to be hard, unbiased, news sources--they are there to bolster the beliefs of those who enjoy visiting and reading them.

And as to your assertion that, gosh shucks, you're just a thoughtful gal who looks at the facts objectively and decides your politics based on them....well, I strongly recommend that you revisit that assertion, and perhaps look deeper for a little more self-awareness. Certainly, most of us here like to believe that about ourselves. But the fact of the matter is many, if not most--heck, if not all--of us who like posting and debating on political threads have already firmly chosen our sides. We may not always agree 100% about everything our parties represent, but we each believe it enough--no matter WHAT side we're on--to feel the need to defend the positions our parties represent, whether or not we've truly given a completely unbiased analysis of all the facts in the matter. We believe--again, no matter WHAT side we're on--that our side is the side that is correct on the bulk of the issues, so we're more willing to believe our party's stances on other issues we may not be as knowledgeable about.

I know I'm not alone in understanding that different people can look at the same facts about the same issues and come to different conclusions. What generally gets my ire up, and leads me to participate in threads such as this is when someone from the "other side" asserts that obviously, their POV is the only proper and correct POV to hold. It's the audacity and the pigheadness that gets to me--moreso than the actual opinion itself. And, I'll also admit, it leads me often to sarcasm or a similarly pigheaded response (if only to get that person's ire up as well).

Anyway, my point in all of this is really to explain why certain sources are just, frankly, not worth citing......as I said, although they may speak to you as to the "obvious" truth they hold, try to keep in mind that THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO DO--speak to the truth that you already believe. And there is value in that, to be sure. Those types of sites--on both sides of the fence, again--give us all a Rah-Rah happy feeling about how "right" we are. But generally, that's their only value. THAT is why people object to their use as a "reliable source".

So you are now dismissing Scripps Howard News, Lance Morrow, Douglas Brinkley (who not only wrote the Carter book, but wrote Kerry's flattering Tour of Duty Book, too), the Washington Post, The New Republic, National Review, Frank Gaffney, Jr., etc., etc.????


So you are now dismissing Scripps Howard News, Lance Morrow, Douglas Brinkley (who not only wrote the Carter book, but wrote Kerry's flattering Tour of Duty Book, too), the Washington Post, The New Republic, National Review, Frank Gaffney, Jr., etc., etc.???? I've provided a ton of quality links and proofs! :

You just cannot admit you are wrong. . .ever! I had to look up the sources because this is information I just KNOW. . .However, I immediately gave you Douglas Brinkley's book. Then, I gave you even more information. You can't admit you've lost an argument. . . . .ever! Which, by the way, isn't a great trait.

Not that I see anything of substance there, but do you happen to have a link to all this garbage?

Elwood, you are completely correct. . .when she said that, I knew they'd dismiss the sources immediately.

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl
Thanks, but unless you can read my mind, the only bs is what's being dished out by you.

If you say so.

Good heavens! Do you mean to tell me now, that along with not being able to voice my opinion on who I want for President ( I've been informed that I'm attacking Bush because of my avatar and countdown clock), it's now a no no to make fun of ridiculous sites like the sludge report?

Who's trying to stop you from voicing your opinion?

And the DR wasn't the only site I was referring to.

I suppose you would respect "facts" that I dig up from sites such as the democraticunderground? As long as you keep it fair on both sides, no problem. Just let me know because there's a wealth of information on that site we can chat about.

If the data was verifible, I don't care where it comes from.

Since when is it out of line to ask someone to prove what they're saying? Which, btw, she didn't.

It's not out of line to ask, it's the way you asked it. Before she even responded with the source, you appeared to be ready to slam it without reading it.

 

[bsears]

Kendra while your sources were very interesting to read, they did little to persuade me that Clinton hated Carter or that Carter is the person you tried to paint him as. Someone else's opinion or interpretation of events is hardly proof of anything. I do not understand why anyone would think it did. If you want to prove Clinton hated someone, you have to have someone say they actually heard him say that. To take a sequence of events and assume that one hates the other because of them is simply speculation.

I could go around saying I had read the exchanges between you and peachgirl and claim you hated each other....would that be proof that you did?

 

[peachgirl]

Perhaps because the left has had its tail whipped in the past for using biased sources and now avoids it? For example, if I need a source I look for a recognized one that is viewed by most as unbiased.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I never use sources that are extremely liberal. It's not because I've had my "tail whipped", but because I don't think it's effective. While I might agree with some of them, they have a bias and are just as unreliable as the extremists on the right.

If I have something I need to prove with sources, I actually try and find the information on the most conservative sites I can just so that the veracity can't be questioned.


Sorry, I know you didn't ask me the question, but I rarely let that slow me down.