On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 23:50:28 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 13:43:44 -0500, John H wrote:

Joe, below is the original letter sent to the Post:

****************************
Today's Washington Post has an article entitled "Hussein's Capture Not
Likely to Harm Al Qaeda," written by Dana Priest, a Washington Post
Staff Writer. The article is not long, maybe 20 column inches, but was
interesting because of the sources she cites. Some are reproduced
below:

"The prevailing view among many U.S. intelligence agencies and
terrorism experts is..."

"Some terrorism experts...view..."

"The more common view...is..."

"Two officials said..."

"...intelligence sources were reporting..."

"...one official said..."

"...is based on the judgement (sic) from many in the intelligence
community..."

"...senior Bush administration officials..."

"...members of congress..."

"...said a counterterrorism intelligence analyst."

"A defense official with access..."

"Another senior administration (sic) ..."

"Some experts believe..."

"But most others said they believe..."

Is Dana reporting something here, or is she making up a story to fit
her agenda? She did, in fact, use actual names a few times, one of
whom is an advisor to Senator Kerry.

Is this supposed to be credible?

John L. Herring
Alexandria, VA
************************************************** *********
In case you're interested. This is proof the Washington Post isn't
totally, 100%, biased!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jan2.html


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

The thesis of her article is: "But the prevailing view among many U.S.
intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture,
and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible
short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that
most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad."

I do not disagree with that statement, nor do I think any reasonable
person would. Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama. It's like saying, "The resignation
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have little short
term impact on the conduct of Iraqi operations by US forces."

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

There may be a possibility that many of the sources used spoke "not
for attribution." There may also be a possibility that many of her
"sources" were fictitious.

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

Completely understandable, if the statement was made. However, when a
journalist must use a non-attributable source every one and a half
inches in her story, a reader should start wondering about the
credibility of the journalist. A named source is at least putting
his/her own credibilitly on the line when making a statement. The
named source can be contacted to see if he/she actually made the
statement. There is a big difference between 'someone' and 'almost
everyone'!

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

There is nothing in the article I find 'non-credible'. I find it
easier to believe that the statements from the named sources were
actually made. In fact, if the entire story had consisted of only the
last four paragraphs, I would have had no comment.

But it's always a treat to see one's name in print, isn't it!

And we knew you back when...

Joe Parsons


John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:10:37 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

The thesis of her article is: "But the prevailing view among many U.S.
intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture,
and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible
short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that
most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad."

I do not disagree with that statement, nor do I think any reasonable
person would.

And yet, if we are to believe statements made by the administration, Saddam's
capture *will* have an effect on the operations of Al Qaeeda, since there is
supposedly some connection between the two.

Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama.

*Any* statement can be made; defending the statement successfully is another
matter, however.

It's like saying, "The resignation
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have little short
term impact on the conduct of Iraqi operations by US forces."

Is it your belief that an extranational terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, has
the same sort of organization and depth as our military?

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

There may be a possibility that many of the sources used spoke "not
for attribution." There may also be a possibility that many of her
"sources" were fictitious.

If that is, in fact, your belief, then you are saying that the story itself is
fraudulent. Are you?

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

Completely understandable, if the statement was made. However, when a
journalist must use a non-attributable source every one and a half
inches in her story, a reader should start wondering about the
credibility of the journalist. A named source is at least putting
his/her own credibilitly on the line when making a statement. The
named source can be contacted to see if he/she actually made the
statement. There is a big difference between 'someone' and 'almost
everyone'!

When a source speaks not-for-attribution, the journalist is ethically bound not
to name the source. If we can stipulate that the unnamed sources in the story
did, in fact, make those statements and that they were the only sources of that
information, are you saying that the reporter should have suppressed that
information?

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

There is nothing in the article I find 'non-credible'. I find it
easier to believe that the statements from the named sources were
actually made. In fact, if the entire story had consisted of only the
last four paragraphs, I would have had no comment.

Oh, I understand the thrust of your letter to the Post; but I'm wondering
whether you believe that the information from the several unnamed sources was
fabricated, or that it should have been suppressed, if true.

Joe Parsons

Here's a less-than anonymous government official also stating that Saddam
Hussein was not linked to the 9-11 attack on the US. Better watch this guy,
though. If he dares to disagree with the general spin being put out by the
right wing radio spinmeisters, he could be on the list of people accused of
treason or terrorism before long. :-)


Bush says no evidence that Saddam Hussein involved in Sept. 11 attacks

By TERENCE HUNT



President Bush said Wednesday there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein was
involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 _ disputing a notion held
by a majority of Americans. (AP /Charles Dharapak)


WASHINGTON (AP) - President George W. Bush said Wednesday there was no evidence
that deposed Iraqi president Saddam Hussein was involved in the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - disputing an impression that critics say the
administration tried to foster to justify the war against Iraq.

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties," the president
said. But he also said: "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved
with September the 11th."

The president's comment was the administration's firmest assertion that there
is no proven link between Saddam and Sept. 11. It came after Vice- President
Dick Cheney on Sunday clouded the issue by saying, "It's not surprising people
make that connection" between Saddam and the attacks.

Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press, also repeated an allegation - doubted by many
in the intelligence community - that Mohamed Atta, the lead Sept. 11 attacker,
met a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Prague five months before Sept. 11.


"We've never been able to develop any more of that yet, either in terms of
confirming it or discrediting it," Cheney said Sunday. However, other U.S.
authorities have said information gathered on Atta's movement show he was on
the U.S. East Coast when that meeting supposedly took place.


Critics of the administration have pointed to statements like Cheney's as
evidence that the administration was exaggerating al-Qaida's prewar links with
Saddam to help justify the U.S.-led war against Iraq.

A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 per cent of Americans believed the Iraqi
leader probably was personally involved. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said
Tuesday: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe that I
could say that."

The administration has argued that Saddam's government had close links to
al-Qaida, the terrorist network led by Osama bin Laden that masterminded the
Sept. 11 attacks.

On Sunday, for example, Cheney said that success in stabilizing and
democratizing Iraq would strike a major blow at the "the geographic base of the
terrorists who have had us under assault for many years, but most especially on
9-11."

Bush himself has taken to referring to Iraq as the central front in the war
against terror.

And Tuesday, in an interview on ABC's Nightline, National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice said that one of the reasons Bush went to war against Saddam
was because he posed a threat in "a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged."


Cheney on Sunday was asked whether he was surprised that more than two-thirds
of Americans in a Washington Post poll would express a belief that Iraq was
behind the attacks.

"No, I think it's not surprising that people make that connection," he replied.


Rice, asked about the same poll numbers, said: "We have never claimed that
Saddam Hussein had either direction or control of 9-11."

Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people
about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.

"No, we've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the
11th," Bush said. "What the vice-president said was is that he (Saddam) has
been involved with al-Qaida.

"And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He's the guy that ordered
the killing of a U.S. diplomat . . . There's no question that Saddam Hussein
had al-Qaida ties."

Most of the administration's public assertions have focused on the man Bush
mentioned, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior bin Laden associate who officials
have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible
attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq - an area outside
Saddam's control before the war - and organizing an attack that killed an
American aid executive in Jordan last year.

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 16:17:58 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 09:10:37 -0500, John H wrote:

[snip]

John, is it your belief that the story that prompted your letter to the editor
("No-Name Reporting") was a fabrication?

The thesis of her article is: "But the prevailing view among many U.S.
intelligence agencies and terrorism experts is that Hussein's capture,
and indeed the U.S. war in Iraq, will have little discernible
short-term impact on the web of al Qaeda-affiliated organizations that
most threaten the United States and U.S. interests abroad."

I do not disagree with that statement, nor do I think any reasonable
person would.

And yet, if we are to believe statements made by the administration, Saddam's
capture *will* have an effect on the operations of Al Qaeeda, since there is
supposedly some connection between the two.

The key words are "short term."

Furthermore, I think the same statement could be made
when and if we capture/kill Osama.

*Any* statement can be made; defending the statement successfully is another
matter, however.

It's like saying, "The resignation
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will have little short
term impact on the conduct of Iraqi operations by US forces."

Is it your belief that an extranational terrorist organization, Al Qaeda, has
the same sort of organization and depth as our military?

I have no idea how and to what depth Al Qaeda is organized.

Or do you think there might be a possibility that many of the sources used in
Dana Priest's story spoke "not for attribution?"

There may be a possibility that many of the sources used spoke "not
for attribution." There may also be a possibility that many of her
"sources" were fictitious.

If that is, in fact, your belief, then you are saying that the story itself is
fraudulent. Are you?

I have already stated my opinion regarding the thesis of her story.

It is definitely true that, journalistically speaking, being able to name every
single source is preferable--but it is not responsible journalism to refuse to
report a statement merely because someone speaks not-for-attribution.

Completely understandable, if the statement was made. However, when a
journalist must use a non-attributable source every one and a half
inches in her story, a reader should start wondering about the
credibility of the journalist. A named source is at least putting
his/her own credibilitly on the line when making a statement. The
named source can be contacted to see if he/she actually made the
statement. There is a big difference between 'someone' and 'almost
everyone'!

When a source speaks not-for-attribution, the journalist is ethically bound not
to name the source. If we can stipulate that the unnamed sources in the story
did, in fact, make those statements and that they were the only sources of that
information, are you saying that the reporter should have suppressed that
information?

I did not so stipulate. Are you stating that all journalists are
'ethically bound'? Who determines the ethics by which they are bound?
Does bias not exist in journalism?

For anyone who might be interested, the original news article ("Hussein's
Capture Not Likely to Harm Al Qaeda") is at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Dec25.html.

Apart from those sources who spoke not-for-attribution, what do you find in the
article that was non-credible? And do you find the named sources (Michael
Pillsbury, Matthew Levitt, Steven Simon and Rand Beers) to be credible because
they are named?

There is nothing in the article I find 'non-credible'. I find it
easier to believe that the statements from the named sources were
actually made. In fact, if the entire story had consisted of only the
last four paragraphs, I would have had no comment.

Oh, I understand the thrust of your letter to the Post; but I'm wondering
whether you believe that the information from the several unnamed sources was
fabricated, or that it should have been suppressed, if true.

Joe Parsons

I believe that 'unnamed' sources are much over-used by the press, and
that readers have allowed them to get away with it.

Here is a question I have been pondering:

According to many, the WMD do not exist because we haven't found them.

If the 'Bush administration source' who allegedly gave Novak the name
of a CIA undercover operative is not found, will that mean that said
source did not exist?
John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!