RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 Tactic No 1, when the message cannot be challenged, destroy the messenger. You guys may not like who delivered the message but the basic facts are not in dispute.
SilverNRed Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Tactic No 1, when the message cannot be challenged, destroy the messenger. You guys may not like who delivered the message but the basic facts are not in dispute. 512112[/snapback] I would say all of the facts behind this story are very much in dispute at this point.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 I would say all of the facts behind this story are very much in dispute at this point. 512136[/snapback] And which facts would those be? As far as I know, the only facts presented in this thread are a follows: 1. A UK Newpaper is reporting that Bush proposed bombing Al Jaazeera and Tony Blair talked him out of the idea. (No Dispute posible, the story was published) 2. Another story in a different publication says that the Official Secrets Act might be used to prosecute the leakers of the document that supposedly details who said what when. (Again no dispute possible, the story was published) 3. A third story, in a third publication goes further and says that the leakers have been charged under the Offical Secrets Act. (Again nothing to dispute, the story was published) 4. I never said any of the things reported in those storie were true or false. I simply pointed out that the stories existed and waited for the responses. As usual you guys didn't let me down.
SilverNRed Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 4. I never said any of the things reported in those storie were true or false. I simply pointed out that the stories existed and waited for the responses. 512171[/snapback] All I care about with regard to the reports is if they're true or false. How on earth is that the fourth thing you mention? And based on who is doing the reporting, there's a pretty good chance the story is either incorrect or hopelessly overblown. As usual you guys didn't let me down. As usual.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Tactic No 1, when the message cannot be challenged, destroy the messenger. You guys may not like who delivered the message but the basic facts are not in dispute. 512112[/snapback] Are you certain of that? Hypothetical and anecdotal: Most of the time, higher level decision makers do not have the necessary detailed experise or information to adequately dissect a situation - whether it be eliminating Iowa, or how to man a new office responsible for paper clip procurement. Staff action officers (and their supporting staff) who have day to day responsibility are tasked to analyze a "situation" along with the desired effects of a potential outcome. A series of courses of action are developed, usually never more than 4 or 5, as anything past that usually ends up as a variation of one of the others. Effects based planning, cause and effect. Potential results, both pro and con. One or two are usually pretty well throw aways, but are included as they both WILL address the issue, and provide a comparison to other, generally more reasonable and tenable courses of action. These are briefed to whatever decision making committee is carged with picking. Usually, this is done in Powerpoint, with hard copy of the brief and what amounts to note pages and information packets to each participant for reference. When working with allies, it's normal to provide those allies with the same package, and even include them in the briefing/decision process. When all is said and done, a particular course may be chosen, might be modified, or all might be rejected for one reason or another and everyone goes back to the well. But, everyone goes back to the well better informed for the next go around. Could it be possible, if there is ANYTHING to this at all, that somebody leaked the info package/briefing slides that could have included "Blow the SOB Up" as a designed throw away option (to give perspective)? And, once a left wing sensationalist tabloid gets their hands on it, embellishment takes over? Perhaps the concern within the British government is not trying to "cover up" nefarious intentions of the governments in question, but the fact that a sensitive and classified decision briefing was compromised? This also periferally relates to "Sharing Information with Congress".
RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 Are you certain of that? Hypothetical and anecdotal: Most of the time, higher level decision makers do not have the necessary detailed experise or information to adequately dissect a situation - whether it be eliminating Iowa, or how to man a new office responsible for paper clip procurement. Staff action officers (and their supporting staff) who have day to day responsibility are tasked to analyze a "situation" along with the desired effects of a potential outcome. A series of courses of action are developed, usually never more than 4 or 5, as anything past that usually ends up as a variation of one of the others. Effects based planning, cause and effect. Potential results, both pro and con. One or two are usually pretty well throw aways, but are included as they both WILL address the issue, and provide a comparison to other, generally more reasonable and tenable courses of action. These are briefed to whatever decision making committee is carged with picking. Usually, this is done in Powerpoint, with hard copy of the brief and what amounts to note pages and information packets to each participant for reference. When working with allies, it's normal to provide those allies with the same package, and even include them in the briefing/decision process. When all is said and done, a particular course may be chosen, might be modified, or all might be rejected for one reason or another and everyone goes back to the well. But, everyone goes back to the well better informed for the next go around. Could it be possible, if there is ANYTHING to this at all, that somebody leaked the info package/briefing slides that could have included "Blow the SOB Up" as a designed throw away option (to give perspective)? And, once a left wing sensationalist tabloid gets their hands on it, embellishment takes over? Perhaps the concern within the British government is not trying to "cover up" nefarious intentions of the governments in question, but the fact that a sensitive and classified decision briefing was compromised? This also periferally relates to "Sharing Information with Congress". 512318[/snapback] Blah, blah, blah, Yeah BiB, I've sat through plenty of "Brainstorming Sessions" too. A pile of crap gets thrown at the wall one handful at a time until 4 or 5 handfulls stick. Yep, you're right about that. But I'll bet large amounts of currancy that Bush and Blair don't consider those sessions worthwhile uses of their time. They discuss the results of those sessions. I doubt that throwaway ideas are included in the recomendations passed up to the "Decision Makers." But as I stated earlier, the only "Facts" that I know to be true are the facts that these stories are out there... But, You guys go ahead and keep setting up those strawmen so you can knock them down. As Usual!
Ghost of BiB Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Blah, blah, blah, Yeah BiB, I've sat through plenty of "Brainstorming Sessions" too. A pile of crap gets thrown at the wall one handful at a time until 4 or 5 handfulls stick. Yep, you're right about that. But I'll bet large amounts of currancy that Bush and Blair don't consider those sessions worthwhile uses of their time. They discuss the results of those sessions. I doubt that throwaway ideas are included in the recomendations passed up to the "Decision Makers." But as I stated earlier, the only "Facts" that I know to be true are the facts that these stories are out there... But, You guys go ahead and keep setting up those strawmen so you can knock them down. As Usual! 512361[/snapback] And, AS USUAL you are: 1. Missing the point of the possibility of the briefing materials getting into the wrong hands, irregardless of who actually reads them at whatever level. The point of the process is to remove the minutia, and give the policy people some clearer information. 2. They are called "Decision Briefs" precisely for a reason. They are towards the end of a process and it is not an impossibility for senior level people to have at hand almost a graphical representation of a particualr set of actions vs. effects. I have dealt with a lot of "Most Dangerous" vs. "Most Likely". "Most Dangerous" may have a very low probablility of occurring, but it's irresponsible not to bring those scenarios to the attention of the higher ups. Remember 9/11? Wasn't very likely, but...
X. Benedict Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Page 3... Bat Boy to meet with space aliens to discuss chicken franchise. 511953[/snapback] Finally, a headline with some credibility.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 And, AS USUAL you are: 1. Missing the point of the possibility of the briefing materials getting into the wrong hands, irregardless of who actually reads them at whatever level. The point of the process is to remove the minutia, and give the policy people some clearer information. 2. They are called "Decision Briefs" precisely for a reason. They are towards the end of a process and it is not an impossibility for senior level people to have at hand almost a graphical representation of a particualr set of actions vs. effects. I have dealt with a lot of "Most Dangerous" vs. "Most Likely". "Most Dangerous" may have a very low probablility of occurring, but it's irresponsible not to bring those scenarios to the attention of the higher ups. Remember 9/11? Wasn't very likely, but... 512379[/snapback] Yep, as usual, you've changed the perameters of the discussion to highlight something you inserted after the fact so that you can twist it in the wind and use it to obfuscate the original point. The newspaper articles reference a discussion between Bush and Blair. They don't mention any of the other horsehocky you've thrown up as a smokescreen. NO DECISION BRIEFS, NO POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS, NO GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS, NO STAFF MEETINGS, NO ANY OF THAT BUEROCRATIC COVERUP GARBAGE. What was leaked (apparently) were the staff notes of a conversation between Bush and Blair. Period. End of story. (Edited to add a quote from the origainal UK Mirror story, "...the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation..." which is the only description I know of, of what exactly was leaked) And the prosecution of the leaker under the Official Secrets Act is (in my mind) the only thing that gives this story any real credibility. That and the fact that some talking points on how to defend Bush in this case have apparently been distributed.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Yep, as usual, you've changed the perameters of the discussion to highlight something you inserted after the fact so that you can twist it in the wind and use it to obfuscate the original point. The newspaper articles reference a discussion between Bush and Blair. They don't mention any of the other horsehocky you've thrown up as a smokescreen. NO DECISION BRIEFS, NO POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS, NO GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS, NO STAFF MEETINGS, NO ANY OF THAT BUEROCRATIC COVERUP GARBAGE. What was leaked (apparently) were the staff notes of a conversation between Bush and Blair. Period. End of story. (Edited to add a quote from the origainal UK Mirror story, "...the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation..." which is the only description I know of, of what exactly was leaked) And the prosecution of the leaker under the Official Secrets Act is (in my mind) the only thing that gives this story any real credibility. That and the fact that some talking points on how to defend Bush in this case have apparently been distributed. 512403[/snapback] And, AS USUAL, the nuances of subtleties and the ability to see a bigger picture escape you. Google up the relationships between the US and Quatar. That should, in practical terms adequately answer how ridiculous this is. As we are talking "opinions" here, my opinion is that if anything was actually discussed of that vein, it was done tongue in cheek. It may be gallows humor, but I've personally heard crazier ideas. Actually thought up a few. I was trying to describe what might have led up to such a conversation, had one ever actually taken place. May have, might not. But, it's pretty clear the Blair has his own troubles, and there are plenty in British Government with their own axes to grind.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 And, AS USUAL, the nuances of subtleties and the ability to see a bigger picture escape you. Google up the relationships between the US and Quatar. That should, in practical terms adequately answer how ridiculous this is. As we are talking "opinions" here, my opinion is that if anything was actually discussed of that vein, it was done tongue in cheek. It may be gallows humor, but I've personally heard crazier ideas. Actually thought up a few. I was trying to describe what might have led up to such a conversation, had one ever actually taken place. May have, might not. But, it's pretty clear the Blair has his own troubles, and there are plenty in British Government with their own axes to grind. 512454[/snapback] Yep, and As Usual you've changed your argument in mid-stream once again. Just three posts ago you were saying, and I quote: "1. Missing the point of the possibility of the briefing materials getting into the wrong hands, irregardless of who actually reads them at whatever level. The point of the process is to remove the minutia, and give the policy people some clearer information." Which Implies something quite different than what you are currently trying to pass off as your position. Oh and let not forget this classic, from a few post before that: "Could it be possible, if there is ANYTHING to this at all, that somebody leaked the info package/briefing slides that could have included "Blow the SOB Up" as a designed throw away option (to give perspective)? And, once a left wing sensationalist tabloid gets their hands on it, embellishment takes over? Perhaps the concern within the British government is not trying to "cover up" nefarious intentions of the governments in question, but the fact that a sensitive and classified decision briefing was compromised? This also periferally relates to "Sharing Information with Congress"." You can argue all of the exculpatory suppositions you want, (or all of the ones that show up on your daily briefing sheet) but you really do expose yourself when you try to argue the validity of two different suppositions at the same time. OBTW It could very well have been a "tongue in cheek" comment. But it's still a really stupid comment. Now are you going to try telling me I'm wrong about that also?
Ghost of BiB Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Yep, and As Usual you've changed your argument in mid-stream once again. Just three posts ago you were saying, and I quote: "1. Missing the point of the possibility of the briefing materials getting into the wrong hands, irregardless of who actually reads them at whatever level. The point of the process is to remove the minutia, and give the policy people some clearer information." Which Implies something quite different than what you are currently trying to pass off as your position. Oh and let not forget this classic, from a few post before that: "Could it be possible, if there is ANYTHING to this at all, that somebody leaked the info package/briefing slides that could have included "Blow the SOB Up" as a designed throw away option (to give perspective)? And, once a left wing sensationalist tabloid gets their hands on it, embellishment takes over? Perhaps the concern within the British government is not trying to "cover up" nefarious intentions of the governments in question, but the fact that a sensitive and classified decision briefing was compromised? This also periferally relates to "Sharing Information with Congress"." You can argue all of the exculpatory suppositions you want, (or all of the ones that show up on your daily briefing sheet) but you really do expose yourself when you try to argue the validity of two different suppositions at the same time. OBTW It could very well have been a "tongue in cheek" comment. But it's still a really stupid comment. Now are you going to try telling me I'm wrong about that also? 512470[/snapback] And, AS USUAL, it escapes you that in every supposed or real gaffe (or success, for that matter) there are usually lots of moving parts from various quarters. People with an agenda can create "the Perfect Storm" anytime they want to, if they are willing to take the time and effort to put things together and omit what hurts the cause. That's what appears to be the key rule in smear politics, which is infinitely easier than trying to come up with solutions or a platform. Yeah, while we're at it I'll say you're wrong about that also. If it was behind closed doors and not meant for public consumption, but perhaps meant to break up the tension of discussing a very important counter-information campaign, I don't view it as stupid. You ever cynically laugh at certain stuff at your job? Or are you 100% deadly serious 100% of the time? If so, I bet you are a true joy to have a couple of beers and shoot pool with. What's also amusing to me, is that you think I'm a Republican Party hack.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 If so, I bet you are a true joy to have a couple of beers and shoot pool with. What's also amusing to me, is that you think I'm a Republican Party hack. 512480[/snapback] I don't drink beer but I've run a few tables in my time. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck, despite any and all claims to be a swan. P.S. If the conversation is being recorded in any way shape or form it isn't private and off the record, so that "Joke" becomes, by default, stupid and irresponsible. You know that but your defend the party at all costs reflex will never let you admit it. Publicly and on the record, that is. But over a few cold drinks while shooting pool you might change your mind.
Ghost of BiB Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 I don't drink beer but I've run a few tables in my time. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck, despite any and all claims to be a swan. P.S. If the conversation is being recorded in any way shape or form it isn't private and off the record, so that "Joke" becomes, by default, stupid and irresponsible. You know that but your defend the party at all costs reflex will never let you admit it. Publicly and on the record, that is. But over a few cold drinks while shooting pool you might change your mind. 512490[/snapback] Prick. You having fun yet? I really don't drink much beer either, used to, but it seems like it's gotten bloating in my old age. When I shoot pool, I'll give in some, though. I used to do some table running too, but I'm a shadow of my former pool shooting self. I'll skip the Bud or Miller for a nice Belgian, and have less. Geeze, two world leaders having a private conversation, with no expectation of privacy. Your perfect world? OK, I'll invoke the dreaded "Bill Clause". You don't think there were some interesting conversations in the Clinton White House? Maybe someone should have rushed out to the press with "transcripts" of some Bill and Tony moments. You must have missed the part about defending the party. I don't do that. I sit in the middle of this quagmire mostly concerned with defending me, and secondly, you/us. Politicians are down there somewhere below cats and penguins. The reality is that the Bush Defense Department is light years above the Clinton Defense Department in terms of national interest. So, BTW is their philosophy about trying to protect America. They may be flawed in execution, but the principles are sound. Protecting America is very much an economics and geo-political thing. Hard to get away from the true Democrat influences, though. Oh, BTW...Hitler.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 Prick. You having fun yet? I really don't drink much beer either, used to, but it seems like it's gotten bloating in my old age. When I shoot pool, I'll give in some, though. I used to do some table running too, but I'm a shadow of my former pool shooting self. I'll skip the Bud or Miller for a nice Belgian, and have less. Geeze, two world leaders having a private conversation, with no expectation of privacy. Your perfect world? OK, I'll invoke the dreaded "Bill Clause". You don't think there were some interesting conversations in the Clinton White House? Maybe someone should have rushed out to the press with "transcripts" of some Bill and Tony moments. You must have missed the part about defending the party. I don't do that. I sit in the middle of this quagmire mostly concerned with defending me, and secondly, you/us. Politicians are down there somewhere below cats and penguins. The reality is that the Bush Defense Department is light years above the Clinton Defense Department in terms of national interest. So, BTW is their philosophy about trying to protect America. They may be flawed in execution, but the principles are sound. Protecting America is very much an economics and geo-political thing. Hard to get away from the true Democrat influences, though. Oh, BTW...Hitler. 512537[/snapback] Just can't resist throwing in the talking points, can you? Yep, there prolly were some doozies about floozies in the conversations between Tony and Bill but because nobody has leaked them Yet (I'm sure Unka Karl has people searching the vaults) any and all speculation is moot at this point. And y'know what, I think my current employer is better than my previous employer too... But I'm kinda disapointed that protecting the american public is only second on your list of priorities, I figgered you for a Captain America, I may die BUT the liberals I give my life to protect will remember me with honor, type. oh BTW, Stalin was worse... far worse... BUT CONTAINED!
Ghost of BiB Posted November 25, 2005 Posted November 25, 2005 Just can't resist throwing in the talking points, can you? Yep, there prolly were some doozies about floozies in the conversations between Tony and Bill but because nobody has leaked them Yet (I'm sure Unka Karl has people searching the vaults) any and all speculation is moot at this point. And y'know what, I think my current employer is better than my previous employer too... But I'm kinda disapointed that protecting the american public is only second on your list of priorities, I figgered you for a Captain America, I may die BUT the liberals I give my life to protect will remember me with honor, type. oh BTW, Stalin was worse... far worse... BUT CONTAINED! 512586[/snapback] Hey, you libs take your own chances.
RI Bills Fan Posted November 25, 2005 Author Posted November 25, 2005 Hey, you libs take your own chances. 512591[/snapback] Nope, those days are over, I'm strictly REMF now. That's why I'm willing pay higher taxes and support guys like you.
RkFast Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Whats more dangerous, RI...questioning a source's credibility, or taking what a source prints as Gospel?
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Whats more dangerous, RI...questioning a source's credibility, or taking what a source prints as Gospel? 514232[/snapback] Duh. Neither. You question it if it's Fox, but take it as gospel if its the Daily Mirror. And conveniently neglect the fact that both are owned by that trash-monger Rupert Murdoch.
chicot Posted November 28, 2005 Posted November 28, 2005 Duh. Neither. You question it if it's Fox, but take it as gospel if its the Daily Mirror. And conveniently neglect the fact that both are owned by that trash-monger Rupert Murdoch. 514236[/snapback] ? You're probably thinking of the Sun. The Daily Mirror is owned by Mirror Group, which I'm pretty certain has no connection to Murdoch.
Recommended Posts