Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 7:14:13 GMT
Girlfriend, you're working me! Good thing I took my vitamins this morning. There's no money allocated. The Dickey Amendment caused an unintended freezing of research (per its author, the late Jay Dickey), and funds were reallocated elsewhere within the CDC. This is why Senate Dems are trying to negotiate with the GOP to include the repeal of the amendment for the next spending bill. From the Washington Post article: "Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”When the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. I was curious about the quote. So I tracked it down. It is attributed to one P.W. O’Carroll as noted below. Also note the part that he was misquoted. “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.”
No I did not track down the article but neither do I have any reason to doubt his claim that he was misquoted.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 9:18:47 GMT
From the Washington Post article: "Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”When the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. I was curious about the quote. So I tracked it down. It is attributed to one P.W. O’Carroll as noted below. Also note the part that he was misquoted. “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.”
No I did not track down the article but neither do I have any reason to doubt his claim that he was misquoted. Highlights from Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research BudgetAs I said, when the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” (or something to that effect) vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 5, 2018 11:00:53 GMT
I never get over being amazed at the sheer tone-deafness so frequently displayed by elected officials. This is remarkably stupid, and I hope that it bites these officials in the ass. That’s the only way that they’ll realize their error.
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 5, 2018 11:12:00 GMT
I was curious about the quote. So I tracked it down. It is attributed to one P.W. O’Carroll as noted below. Also note the part that he was misquoted. “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths. We’re doing the most we can do, given the political realities.” (P.W. O’Carroll, Acting Section Head of Division of Injury Control, CDC, quoted in Marsha F. Goldsmith, “Epidemiologists Aim at New Target: Health Risk of Handgun Proliferation,” Journal of the American Medical Association vol. 261 no. 5, February 3, 1989, pp. 675-76.) Dr. O’Carroll later said he had been misquoted.”
No I did not track down the article but neither do I have any reason to doubt his claim that he was misquoted. Highlights from Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research BudgetAs I said, when the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” (or something to that effect) vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. Similarly, when the NRA blocks every gun control initiative for 20 years, we need to pay attention to their role in shooting incidents. Actions and political contributions speak louder than words.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 5, 2018 13:20:55 GMT
Highlights from Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research BudgetAs I said, when the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” (or something to that effect) vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. Similarly, when the NRA blocks every gun control initiative for 20 years, we need to pay attention to their role in shooting incidents. Actions and political contributions speak louder than words. Yes, and considering that many just ignore the fact that using guns kills—regardless of political affiliation...well then there no hope on that front. An 8 year old shot a 4 year old sister this weekend—multiple times, but I’m sure that he was mentally ill, his parents law abiding citizens, legal gun owners, and all that Jazz...
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 17:50:30 GMT
Highlights from Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research BudgetAs I said, when the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” (or something to that effect) vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. Washington Post
Rolling Stone1. If you want to win an argument with a liberal you do not use a right wing rag like the Federalist as your source. 2. If you are going to use their excerpts/quotes from their article to support their “point” you may want to read the entire quote before you run with it. O’Carroll has said he was misquoted. That brings us to Mark Rosenberg and the quote above. I dug up and linked the two articles associated with the “quote”. Washington Post - “Sick People With Guns” 1994 and Rolling Stone - “Gunning for Guns” 1993. When you read the articles in their entirety what Rosenberg says makes absolute sense and there is nothing to suggest banning guns for the masses. A rational person would have a hard time disagreeing with what he said. As far as the Kellerman study goes, it’s been a favorite target of the NRA including their gun advocate doctors for years. The interesting thing about the Kellerman Study is they can’t scientifically disprove anything in the study in spite of dragging in their doctor surrogates. So they use misinformation to try and make their points and unfortunately too many buy into this misinformation as we are seeing on this board. So your hypothesis is all wet because it’s based on misinformation spread by the NRA. They don’t want any studies done on gun violence because they are afraid/know what the results will be. The one thing that has become clear and noted in non NRA supported rags is the need for more studies. And the only way for any type of Federal funding for these studies is if the Democrats take control of Congress. Because the Repunlicans will continue to give nothing lip service so they don’t anger the NRA by actually doing something.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 20:06:00 GMT
Highlights from Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research BudgetAs I said, when the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” (or something to that effect) vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. Similarly, when the NRA blocks every gun control initiative for 20 years, we need to pay attention to their role in shooting incidents. Actions and political contributions speak louder than words. Before you do that, you need to look at the actual WHY anything was blocked by anyone, not the whining version of "we can't work backwards and make our study prove our agenda", but the real reasons. Only then can you come back and and attempt to CORRECTLY show how the NRA was involved in any mass shootings. Until then, simply throwing out a cliche attack on the NRA is meaningless.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 20:12:42 GMT
Highlights from Why Congress Cut The CDC’s Gun Research BudgetAs I said, when the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” (or something to that effect) vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. Washington Post
Rolling Stone1. If you want to win an argument with a liberal you do not use a right wing rag like the Federalist as your source. 2. If you are going to use their excerpts/quotes from their article to support their “point” you may want to read the entire quote before you run with it. O’Carroll has said he was misquoted. That brings us to Mark Rosenberg and the quote above. I dug up and linked the two articles associated with the “quote”. Washington Post - “Sick People With Guns” 1994 and Rolling Stone - “Gunning for Guns” 1993. When you read the articles in their entirety what Rosenberg says makes absolute sense and there is nothing to suggest banning guns for the masses. A rational person would have a hard time disagreeing with what he said. As far as the Kellerman study goes, it’s been a favorite target of the NRA including their gun advocate doctors for years. The interesting thing about the Kellerman Study is they can’t scientifically disprove anything in the study in spite of dragging in their doctor surrogates. So they use misinformation to try and make their points and unfortunately too many buy into this misinformation as we are seeing on this board. So your hypothesis is all wet because it’s based on misinformation spread by the NRA. They don’t want any studies done on gun violence because they are afraid/know what the results will be. The one thing that has become clear and noted in non NRA supported rags is the need for more studies. And the only way for any type of Federal funding for these studies is if the Democrats take control of Congress. Because the Repunlicans will continue to give nothing lip service so they don’t anger the NRA by actually doing something. Despite you not liking the sources, the fact is the CDC studies repeatedly set out to prove guns are evil and that is not proper research or science, so the CDC's funding cut and the resulting fallout is due to their own actions.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 5, 2018 20:15:49 GMT
From the Washington Post article: "Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”When the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. I already addressed your concern: " Of course no reasonable person would be supportive of the misuse of science to further a political agenda, but we cannot be paralyzed by the distortions of past studies. If it means demanding better guidelines, a more balanced peer review process, stricter supervision to ensure objectivity, etc., then so be it. But to just stand still and do nothing is not an option. "
Much as I like debating with you, we’re both just going ‘round and ‘round. It’s a Trump appointee heading the CDC now. If anyone has reason to be alarmed at possible bias, it would be the Liberals, not you. But you don’t see them with pitchforks demanding Schuchat resign, do you? The mere fact that we have agencies (Educ., EPA, Labor, Human Svcs, HUD, etc.) led by Trump appointees hostile to the missions of the very institutions they’re overseeing is difficult to swallow for Liberals, especially as they watch public protections that took decades to build get dismantled one after another. If you find it so very despicable that one agency has erred to a degree simply unforgivable to you, I suggest you try on the Liberals’ shoes for a day and tell me what that really feels like.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 20:53:20 GMT
Washington Post
Rolling Stone 1. If you want to win an argument with a liberal you do not use a right wing rag like the Federalist as your source. 2. If you are going to use their excerpts/quotes from their article to support their “point” you may want to read the entire quote before you run with it. B O’Carroll has said he was misquoted. That brings us to Mark Rosenberg and the quote above. I dug up and linked the two articles associated with the “quote”. Washington Post - “Sick People With Guns” 1994 and Rolling Stone - “Gunning for Guns” 1993. When you read the articles in their entirety what Rosenberg says makes absolute sense and there is nothing to suggest banning guns for the masses. A rational person would have a hard time disagreeing with what he said. As far as the Kellerman study goes, it’s been a favorite target of the NRA including their gun advocate doctors for years. The interesting thing about the Kellerman Study is they can’t scientifically disprove anything in the study in spite of dragging in their doctor surrogates. So they use misinformation to try and make their points and unfortunately too many buy into this misinformation as we are seeing on this board. So your hypothesis is all wet because it’s based on misinformation spread by the NRA. They don’t want any studies done on gun violence because they are afraid/know what the results will be. The one thing that has become clear and noted in non NRA supported rags is the need for more studies. And the only way for any type of Federal funding for these studies is if the Democrats take control of Congress. Because the Repunlicans will continue to give nothing lip service so they don’t anger the NRA by actually doing something. Despite you not liking the sources, the fact is the CDC studies repeatedly set out to prove guns are evil and that is not proper research or science, so the CDC's funding cut and the resulting fallout is due to their own actions. You are wrong. This isn’t even a case of differing opinions it’s just you are flat out wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 21:07:19 GMT
From the Washington Post article: "Soon the funding was restored, but designated elsewhere, and wording was inserted into the CDC’s appropriations bill that, “None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control.”When the head of research says “We’re going to systematically build a case that owning firearms causes deaths.” vs. honestly studying the issue and his successors similarly echo the sentiment, we need to pay attention to the CDC's own role in having their funding cut and the resulting fallout. I already addressed your concern: " Of course no reasonable person would be supportive of the misuse of science to further a political agenda, but we cannot be paralyzed by the distortions of past studies. If it means demanding better guidelines, a more balanced peer review process, stricter supervision to ensure objectivity, etc., then so be it. But to just stand still and do nothing is not an option. "
Much as I like debating with you, we’re both just going ‘round and ‘round. It’s a Trump appointee heading the CDC now. If anyone has reason to be alarmed at possible bias, it would be the Liberals, not you. But you don’t see them with pitchforks demanding Schuchat resign, do you? The mere fact that we have agencies (Educ., EPA, Labor, Human Svcs, HUD, etc.) led by Trump appointees hostile to the missions of the very institutions they’re overseeing is difficult to swallow for Liberals, especially as they watch public protections that took decades to build get dismantled one after another. If you find it so very despicable that one agency has erred to a degree simply unforgivable to you, I suggest you try on the Liberals’ shoes for a day and tell me what that really feels like. Right, and that's what happened, better guidelines were required, then the CDC decided that meant they had to "stand still and do nothing". Maybe, because she hasn't done anything to object to and they see no need to grab their pitchforks and make resignation demands. Been there, done that. Just one instance, we saw Obama scrub years of terrorist research that was meant to keep Americans safe, for political correctness (as told by the whistle blowers at Homeland Security). In other words, it happens to both sides. Constantly. So, no one side holds the moral ground, both sides know well, what it feels like. I've enjoyed discussing with you too, but if you're done, I can accept that.
|
|
|
Post by thundergal on Mar 5, 2018 21:12:03 GMT
In a world with guns, gun deaths occur.
In a world without guns, there would be no gun deaths.
Therefore, guns are deadly.
I don't know...it seems like 2+2=4 to me.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 5, 2018 22:02:10 GMT
Been there, done that. Just one instance, we saw Obama scrub years of terrorist research that was meant to keep Americans safe, for political correctness (as told by the whistle blowers at Homeland Security). In other words, it happens to both sides. Constantly. So, no one side holds the moral ground, both sides know well, what it feels like. Are you talking about Haney who was blessed by the Holy Spirit and claims Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? Alrighty. I’m off to do some work so I’ll gab with you on some other thread.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 0:18:26 GMT
Been there, done that. Just one instance, we saw Obama scrub years of terrorist research that was meant to keep Americans safe, for political correctness (as told by the whistle blowers at Homeland Security). In other words, it happens to both sides. Constantly. So, no one side holds the moral ground, both sides know well, what it feels like. Are you talking about Haney who was blessed by the Holy Spirit and claims Obama is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood? Alrighty. I’m off to do some work so I’ll gab with you on some other thread. Not just Haney, but others. But, it's not like we haven't seen that kind of thing before in this administration, anyway. Which was the entire point of what we're discussing. I could give lots of examples. Remember this: "More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials." And BTW, I've heard a lot of really weak dismissals here, but when did it become acceptable to dismiss facts we don't like by attacking someone's faith in God?
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 6, 2018 0:31:59 GMT
@mytnice said: “We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't?”
Can you truly not see the difference between overworked, underfunded, and possibly over-legislated public agencies perhaps making mistakes, and a vastly wealthy lobbying group that deliberately uses its nearly limitless funds to bribe politicians to undercut their constituents’ wishes in order to block ANY regulation of the admittedly-quite-deadly product they sell?
Unbelievable. Or head in sand. Your choice.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Mar 6, 2018 0:36:45 GMT
@mytnice said: “Remember this: ‘More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials.’”
Well, what do you expect when the president is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?! /s
(And for the love of God! ATTRIBUTION!! Please do not quote without linking back to the source.)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 1:02:55 GMT
@mytnice said: “We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't?” Can you truly not see the difference between overworked, underfunded, and possibly over-legislated public agencies perhaps making mistakes, and a vastly wealthy lobbying group that deliberately uses its nearly limitless funds to bribe politicians to undercut their constituents’ wishes in order to block ANY regulation of the admittedly-quite-deadly product they sell? Unbelievable. Or head in sand. Your choice. Can you truly not see the difference between excuse, another excuse, and still another excuse and justification public agencies dismissal by extreme downplaying of actions by group you don't have a problem with even though they had over 40 chances to prevent this, and a vilifying label group that more vilifying descriptions to and still more vilifying descriptions to demonizing of actions in order to block demonizing description of something millions of others agree with but you don't regulation of the incorrect description of their purpose in order to vilify protecting the 2nd amendment.
Fixed that for you. Yes, you are unbelievable.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 1:06:56 GMT
@mytnice said: “Remember this: ‘More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials.’” Well, what do you expect when the president is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?! /s (And for the love of God! ATTRIBUTION!! Please do not quote without linking back to the source.) For the love of God! That needs no attribution, since it was reported on by everyone including Left leaning sources. The only reason you're ever calling for attribution is so what I say can be dismissed based on the source. I've seen and experienced way too many times, so that's based on reality and experience. In this instance it won't work for you because as I said, it was reported by EVERYONE.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 1:11:58 GMT
link“ Remember this:"More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials."
Really @gia LuPeaA you really do need to get the rest of the story. What our intelligence community can be and has been is sloppy. This goes way back before 9/11. NY Times 2/1/2017... From the article... WASHINGTON — An internal Pentagon investigation found that senior officials at United States Central Command did not deliberately skew intelligence assessments about the war against the Islamic State, despite a widespread view among analysts within the command that reports were manipulated to present a distorted view of the military campaign’s progress. The results of the investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general, released on Wednesday morning, largely exonerated the two men who led Central Command’s intelligence analysis in 2014 and 2015, Maj. Gen. Steven Grove and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman. Dozens of analysts at the command, known as Centcom, had anonymously accused the men of altering intelligence conclusions to paint a rosy picture of the campaign’s military successes and the capability of Iraqi troops fighting Islamic State militants. The inspector general’s investigation disputed those claims. “ We did not find that anyone intentionally attempted to distort intelligence,” the report concluded. “Nor did we find a systematic distortion of intelligence.”
At the same time, the 190-page report sketched a portrait of a sometimes dysfunctional intelligence headquarters at Centcom, the sprawling military command in Tampa, Fla., in charge of all American military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. It also cited several examples of changes to intelligence reports that led many analysts to believe that their bosses were manipulating the conclusions. In one instance, when Iraqi forces dropped their weapons and retreated in the face of an Islamic State attack, the word “flee” was deleted and replaced with “leave.” Another intelligence report, the inspector general found, initially said that Iraqi troops had “lost control of” an Iraqi city. The final version of the report said that the troops had “ceded the severely damaged city center and repositioned troops in nearby neighborhoods.” These few examples became known and widely discussed, and we believe they contributed to the belief that certain words were removed from products to distort the meaning,” the report said. “However, we did not uncover, nor did witnesses provide, any examples of editing” that altered the facts being presented. The inspector general’s investigation stemmed from complaints by a group of Centcom analysts, some with decades of experience working on Middle East issues, who believed that their reports were being manipulated. In September 2015, The New York Times identified Gregory Hooker, the top Iraq analyst at Centcom, as one of the leaders of the group. The complaints were taken seriously, partly because of Mr. Hooker’s credibility within the military intelligence community. Mr. Hooker has studied Iraq for two decades, and in 2005, he publicly criticized President George W. Bush’s administration for pushing “amateurish and unrealistic” plans during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
|
|
|
Post by papercrafteradvocate on Mar 6, 2018 1:21:44 GMT
In other words lucyg, no. No she doesn’t see it! Lol
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 1:29:16 GMT
link“ Remember this:"More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials."
Really @gia LuPeaA you really do need to get the rest of the story. What our intelligence community can be and has been is sloppy. This goes way back before 9/11. NY Times 2/1/2017... From the article... WASHINGTON — An internal Pentagon investigation found that senior officials at United States Central Command did not deliberately skew intelligence assessments about the war against the Islamic State, despite a widespread view among analysts within the command that reports were manipulated to present a distorted view of the military campaign’s progress. The results of the investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general, released on Wednesday morning, largely exonerated the two men who led Central Command’s intelligence analysis in 2014 and 2015, Maj. Gen. Steven Grove and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman. Dozens of analysts at the command, known as Centcom, had anonymously accused the men of altering intelligence conclusions to paint a rosy picture of the campaign’s military successes and the capability of Iraqi troops fighting Islamic State militants. The inspector general’s investigation disputed those claims. “ We did not find that anyone intentionally attempted to distort intelligence,” the report concluded. “Nor did we find a systematic distortion of intelligence.”
At the same time, the 190-page report sketched a portrait of a sometimes dysfunctional intelligence headquarters at Centcom, the sprawling military command in Tampa, Fla., in charge of all American military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. It also cited several examples of changes to intelligence reports that led many analysts to believe that their bosses were manipulating the conclusions. In one instance, when Iraqi forces dropped their weapons and retreated in the face of an Islamic State attack, the word “flee” was deleted and replaced with “leave.” Another intelligence report, the inspector general found, initially said that Iraqi troops had “lost control of” an Iraqi city. The final version of the report said that the troops had “ceded the severely damaged city center and repositioned troops in nearby neighborhoods.” These few examples became known and widely discussed, and we believe they contributed to the belief that certain words were removed from products to distort the meaning,” the report said. “However, we did not uncover, nor did witnesses provide, any examples of editing” that altered the facts being presented. The inspector general’s investigation stemmed from complaints by a group of Centcom analysts, some with decades of experience working on Middle East issues, who believed that their reports were being manipulated. In September 2015, The New York Times identified Gregory Hooker, the top Iraq analyst at Centcom, as one of the leaders of the group. The complaints were taken seriously, partly because of Mr. Hooker’s credibility within the military intelligence community. Mr. Hooker has studied Iraq for two decades, and in 2005, he publicly criticized President George W. Bush’s administration for pushing “amateurish and unrealistic” plans during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That's great! The example given was still a perfectly good example to show: "In other words, it happens to both sides. Constantly. So, no one side holds the moral ground, both sides know well, what it feels like."
|
|
|
Post by mollycoddle on Mar 6, 2018 1:31:38 GMT
@mytnice said: “We're in total agreement here. I was speaking solely of the demonization here of ONLY one group. Where are the threads demonizing those who had so many opportunities to stop this and didn't?” Can you truly not see the difference between overworked, underfunded, and possibly over-legislated public agencies perhaps making mistakes, and a vastly wealthy lobbying group that deliberately uses its nearly limitless funds to bribe politicians to undercut their constituents’ wishes in order to block ANY regulation of the admittedly-quite-deadly product they sell? Unbelievable. Or head in sand. Your choice. It’s pointless, Lucy. Plus, you’ll hate yourself in the morning.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 6, 2018 3:13:24 GMT
And BTW, I've heard a lot of really weak dismissals here, but when did it become acceptable to dismiss facts we don't like by attacking someone's faith in God? (Ok, I'm back because I just need to reply to this.) Gia, Haney is the one who said he'd been blessed by the Holy Spirit and Obama belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those are HIS words, not mine. I am not attacking him because he is a Christian. I am criticizing him and his conspiracy theories about Obama (and Bush, too), AND for using his religion to sanctify and validate his lies. Do you see the difference? If you’re going to be upset with somebody, you ought to be upset with Haney, unless you think the use of religion should be a valid shield for a misdeed. And yes, it’s a lie. Obama isn’t a Muslim, much less a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is a Christian. (And pre-empting you here - please don’t bring up Art Moore, Haney’s birther-supporting co-author, as corroboration because this thread has long ceased to become about Georgia and I’m sure there are readers here already annoyed by our exchanges.) For the sake of the readers’ sanity, let’s just you and I agree that we do not see eye to eye on this issue and leave it at that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 3:23:59 GMT
@mytnice said: “Remember this: ‘More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials.’” Well, what do you expect when the president is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood?! /s (And for the love of God! ATTRIBUTION!! Please do not quote without linking back to the source.) For the love of God! That needs no attribution, since it was reported on by everyone including Left leaning sources. The only reason you're ever calling for attribution is so what I say can be dismissed based on the source. I've seen and experienced way too many times, so that's based on reality and experience. In this instance it won't work for you because as I said, it was reported by EVERYONE. EVERYONE reported that the the investigation found no deliberate changing of the data. It would appear that even though EVERYONE reported this you missed it. Gosh how about that.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 3:28:48 GMT
And BTW, I've heard a lot of really weak dismissals here, but when did it become acceptable to dismiss facts we don't like by attacking someone's faith in God? (Ok, I'm back because I just need to reply to this.) Gia, Haney is the one who said he'd been blessed by the Holy Spirit and Obama belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those are HIS words, not mine. I am not attacking him because he is a Christian. I am criticizing him and his conspiracy theories about Obama (and Bush, too), AND for using his religion to sanctify and validate his lies. Do you see the difference? If you’re going to be upset with somebody, you ought to be upset with Haney, unless you think the use of religion should be a valid shield for a misdeed. And yes, it’s a lie. Obama isn’t a Muslim, much less a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is a Christian. (And pre-empting you here - please don’t bring up Art Moore, Haney’s birther-supporting co-author, as corroboration because this thread has long ceased to become about Georgia and I’m sure there are readers here already annoyed by our exchanges.) For the sake of the readers’ sanity, let’s just you and I agree that we do not see eye to eye on this issue and leave it at that. I looked tried to look it up when you first brought it up and couldn't find anything on it, but now do you have a link to information about him "using his religion to sanctify and validate his lies"? "For the sake of the readers' sanity, let’s just you and I agree that we do not see eye to eye on this issue and leave it at that." I do agree that we don't see eye to eye, but at the very least, I'd just like to read about that information you posted, myself.
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 6, 2018 3:35:06 GMT
(Ok, I'm back because I just need to reply to this.) Gia, Haney is the one who said he'd been blessed by the Holy Spirit and Obama belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood. Those are HIS words, not mine. I am not attacking him because he is a Christian. I am criticizing him and his conspiracy theories about Obama (and Bush, too), AND for using his religion to sanctify and validate his lies. Do you see the difference? If you’re going to be upset with somebody, you ought to be upset with Haney, unless you think the use of religion should be a valid shield for a misdeed. And yes, it’s a lie. Obama isn’t a Muslim, much less a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. He is a Christian. (And pre-empting you here - please don’t bring up Art Moore, Haney’s birther-supporting co-author, as corroboration because this thread has long ceased to become about Georgia and I’m sure there are readers here already annoyed by our exchanges.) For the sake of the readers’ sanity, let’s just you and I agree that we do not see eye to eye on this issue and leave it at that. I looked tried to look it up when you first brought it up and couldn't find anything on it, but now do you have a link to information about him "using his religion to sanctify and validate his lies"? "For the sake of the readers' sanity, let’s just you and I agree that we do not see eye to eye on this issue and leave it at that." I do agree that we don't see eye to eye, but at the very least, I'd just like to read about that information you posted, myself. Just borrow his book from the library like I did. It’s a difficult read because they’re not good writers but it should answer all your questions.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 3:48:12 GMT
I looked tried to look it up when you first brought it up and couldn't find anything on it, but now do you have a link to information about him "using his religion to sanctify and validate his lies"? "For the sake of the readers' sanity, let’s just you and I agree that we do not see eye to eye on this issue and leave it at that." I do agree that we don't see eye to eye, but at the very least, I'd just like to read about that information you posted, myself. Just borrow his book from the library like I did. It’s a difficult read because they’re not good writers but it should answer all your questions. So there is nothing anywhere, but in his book? Got it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 3:50:26 GMT
link“ Remember this: "More than 50 intelligence analysts working out of the U.S. military’s Central Command have formally complained that their reports on ISIS and al Qaeda’s branch in Syria were being inappropriately altered by senior officials."
Really @gia LuPeaA you really do need to get the rest of the story. What our intelligence community can be and has been is sloppy. This goes way back before 9/11. NY Times 2/1/2017... From the article... WASHINGTON — An internal Pentagon investigation found that senior officials at United States Central Command did not deliberately skew intelligence assessments about the war against the Islamic State, despite a widespread view among analysts within the command that reports were manipulated to present a distorted view of the military campaign’s progress. The results of the investigation by the Defense Department’s inspector general, released on Wednesday morning, largely exonerated the two men who led Central Command’s intelligence analysis in 2014 and 2015, Maj. Gen. Steven Grove and his civilian deputy, Gregory Ryckman. Dozens of analysts at the command, known as Centcom, had anonymously accused the men of altering intelligence conclusions to paint a rosy picture of the campaign’s military successes and the capability of Iraqi troops fighting Islamic State militants. The inspector general’s investigation disputed those claims. “ We did not find that anyone intentionally attempted to distort intelligence,” the report concluded. “Nor did we find a systematic distortion of intelligence.”
At the same time, the 190-page report sketched a portrait of a sometimes dysfunctional intelligence headquarters at Centcom, the sprawling military command in Tampa, Fla., in charge of all American military operations in the Middle East and Central Asia. It also cited several examples of changes to intelligence reports that led many analysts to believe that their bosses were manipulating the conclusions. In one instance, when Iraqi forces dropped their weapons and retreated in the face of an Islamic State attack, the word “flee” was deleted and replaced with “leave.” Another intelligence report, the inspector general found, initially said that Iraqi troops had “lost control of” an Iraqi city. The final version of the report said that the troops had “ceded the severely damaged city center and repositioned troops in nearby neighborhoods.” These few examples became known and widely discussed, and we believe they contributed to the belief that certain words were removed from products to distort the meaning,” the report said. “However, we did not uncover, nor did witnesses provide, any examples of editing” that altered the facts being presented. The inspector general’s investigation stemmed from complaints by a group of Centcom analysts, some with decades of experience working on Middle East issues, who believed that their reports were being manipulated. In September 2015, The New York Times identified Gregory Hooker, the top Iraq analyst at Centcom, as one of the leaders of the group. The complaints were taken seriously, partly because of Mr. Hooker’s credibility within the military intelligence community. Mr. Hooker has studied Iraq for two decades, and in 2005, he publicly criticized President George W. Bush’s administration for pushing “amateurish and unrealistic” plans during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
That's great! The example given was still a perfectly good example to show: "In other words, it happens to both sides. Constantly. So, no one side holds the moral ground, both sides know well, what it feels like." Yes it’s great. Much to the dismay of you and others who were looking to some how make this all President Obama’s fault. Having said that you should have done a little more research before you even brought it up on this thread. If you had, you would of found there was nothing there. And no, it’s not a good example of anything. Well maybe , once again, a good example of you not doing your homework before you throw stuff out there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Sept 16, 2024 10:33:20 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 6, 2018 4:01:53 GMT
That's great! The example given was still a perfectly good example to show: "In other words, it happens to both sides. Constantly. So, no one side holds the moral ground, both sides know well, what it feels like." Yes it’s great. Much to the dismay of you and others who were looking to some how make this all President Obama’s fault. Having said that you should have done a little more research before you even brought it up on this thread. If you had, you would of found there was nothing there. And no, it’s not a good example of anything. Well maybe , once again, a good example of you not doing your homework before you throw stuff out there. Despite your objection, it IS a perfect example for what we were discussing. "In other words, it happens to both sides. Constantly. So, no one side holds the moral ground, both sides know well, what it feels like."
|
|
lizacreates
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,856
Aug 29, 2015 2:39:19 GMT
|
Post by lizacreates on Mar 6, 2018 4:27:32 GMT
LOL!
Only here in Pea Land can we go from Delta/Amazon/Georgia to the CDC to the NRA to Homeland Security to Central Command to the Muslim Brotherhood to the Pentagon!
God, I love this place!
|
|