tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post423232285973954415..comments2023-10-20T21:46:49.945+08:00Comments on Philippine Commentary: Either PDI Is Lying Or Four Anonymous Sources Violated Senate RulesDeany Bocobohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comBlogger112125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-16332994784906002282007-10-31T12:09:00.000+08:002007-10-31T12:09:00.000+08:00manuelWhat I see in you is a "journalist" who want...manuel<BR/>What I see in you is a "journalist" who wants to "justify all actions of press people whether they are right or wrong. And put in the hands of the spectators (readers and viewers) your fate. Oh no, pdi won't get out of business because they are very good at concocting scoops and gossips that people would want to ask for more. <BR/><BR/>How do you know if I really am a "consistent" subscriber of Mainstream Media in the Philippines. Am i under your surveillance? If there's someone who's barking at the wrong tree, it's you. <BR/><BR/>Now do i want to discredit "private media?" Is that how you make hasty generalizations. What we are talking about is a specific case that happened in pdi and now you're accusing me of discrediting private media? You really are a journalist - master of spins and all.<BR/><BR/>Yes, the consumer can police media but it does not end there. How about the (national press club) and the (kapisanan ng mga brodkaster ng pilipinas), do you mean to say you won't toe the line of these agencies simply because you want "the public" to police you even if you committed grave abuse with your power to write or broadcast for that matter? i am wowed by your way of thinking.<BR/><BR/>Would you mind sticking to the issue on pdi and whether they broke senate rules or simply lied? <BR/><BR/>Do you honestly think that private media is not as dirty even more dirty than government-run media entities? (that would be a big bad wolf laugh for me). <BR/><BR/>But of course, you will close ranks with your colleagues. It's expected.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985398626351885608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-43727916677911494682007-10-31T09:37:00.000+08:002007-10-31T09:37:00.000+08:00There is no government secret so sacrosanct that I...<B>There is no government secret so sacrosanct that I, as a stockholder of Phils. Inc, do not have the right to know about.<BR/><BR/>If any of my gov't institutions wants to keep a secret from me then that's their lookout not mine. I uphold the right of owners to look over the shoulder of their hired help.</B><BR/><BR/>I must say, this seems to be a strong vote for the priority of "the public's right to know" over all other private and public interests. But one cannot really take it too literally, unless you really mean that you, as a private citizen, stockholder and hopefully tax paying citizen, have the unlimited right to find out about such information.<BR/><BR/>You do not have a right to know "everything" about the government and its tenants in the sense for example that the government is obliged to publicize every law it passes that it expects citizens to obey. You have a right to know such information in a very common and unambiguous sense.<BR/><BR/>You only have a right to find out. And even this is an overrated entitlement, if you look hard at it MB. Because though you have a right to find out, you may not use illegal means, for example, by wiretapping all our govt officials, or stalking someone you suspect of, gasp, graft and corruption. <BR/><BR/>When you say the public has a right to pry into whatever the government does, again, this cannot literallty be true. You have no right to pry into military secrets, diplomatic secrets and other national security secrets, unless of course you want to go to jail for violating any number of strict laws.<BR/><BR/>I think you might have an erroneous conception of the legitimate domain of the right of the public to know. <BR/><BR/>The problem is MB, when we say, don't we have the right to know about wrong doing in our own govt? I am forced to sympathize with the sentiment, the problem in real life I think is that we cannot judge before we get the information whether some wrong doing is involved or not. <BR/><BR/>If the public had such a right, so would the government, eh?<BR/><BR/>Sounds like a recipe for a totalitarian state.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-48437201040568759382007-10-31T08:23:00.000+08:002007-10-31T08:23:00.000+08:00DJB,Morally consistent to me would be to bitch abo...DJB,<BR/><BR/>Morally consistent to me would be to bitch about a waste of tax money on NBN and not buy Manila Standard unless it's the only material avaiable for wiping my ass.<BR/><BR/>As to damaging the Senate institution etc....<BR/><BR/>I think we will have a basic disagreement on this issue because I believe the public has the right to pry into whatever the government does. Because it owns the government.<BR/><BR/>There is no government secret so sacrosanct that I, as a stockholder of Phils. Inc, do not have the right to know about. <BR/><BR/>If any of my gov't institutions wants to keep a secret from me then that's their lookout not mine. I uphold the right of owners to look over the shoulder of their hired help.<BR/><BR/>Having said that, I agree with you when it comes to false reports. There is no excuse for that. A media organization that lies habitually needs to be destroyed, without exception and without regards to whether it is opposition or administration.manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-90098488143046484692007-10-31T05:12:00.000+08:002007-10-31T05:12:00.000+08:00MB,I think the way to see this more equitably is t...MB,<BR/>I think the way to see this more equitably is to imagine an Inquirer that was partisan in favor of Joker instead of against him.<BR/><BR/>Sometimes, I think you make arguments that are tailor made to the specific circumstances, rather than being "morally consistent".<BR/><BR/>As I said, I doubt you'd be as sanguine in protecting "press freedom" if our dominant paper were the Manila Standard and the main broadcaster NBN. You'd be calling them govt media and attacking these tactics of PDI instead of defending them.<BR/><BR/>For me, I see the calculus quite clearly. PDI abused their privilege and damanged the Senate institution. Executive Sessions and its secrecy are the same right to information as the Press Freedom Law. The PDI abused its discretion and probably now wishes it had not done this and just took whatever information it got and waited for the senators to either confirm or deny it. <BR/><BR/>They have no license to violatge one institution's freedom in the exercise of their own.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-51635210499593466022007-10-31T01:48:00.000+08:002007-10-31T01:48:00.000+08:00yak,you stop buying that's censure and policing. y...yak,<BR/><BR/>you stop buying that's censure and policing. you switch channels that's censure. and policing. they go out of business they've been censured and policed.<BR/><BR/>you yak but you still buy and watch. That's barking without biting.<BR/><BR/>now govt media dont need you to stay in business.<BR/><BR/>so it's obvious you were purposely barking up the wrong tree because that's what you're there for - to discredit private media.<BR/><BR/>To repeat. the consumer can, and will, police and punish private media if they become liars, whether you bark or not. But govt media cannot be punished. So, granting both are guilty lying, why are you picking on media that is consumer dependent and therefore accountable and not govt media which does not have to answer to anybody except the president?<BR/><BR/>Both media are answerable. But both cannot be made answerable through the same means. You bark at govt media because that's about all you can do with them but you stop buying commercial media because that's what you can do. Bark at one and bite the other.<BR/><BR/>Only a Palace flunkie would fudge the difference. Hah.manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-65535226281050071602007-10-31T01:26:00.000+08:002007-10-31T01:26:00.000+08:00MLQ:"i mean having enough votes to authorize the s...MLQ:"i mean having enough votes to authorize the senators to reveal, in part or in whole, whether the allegations about joker acting as a palace double agent to subvert the purpose the of executive session were true or not. there, i think the palace has enough votes to make sure calling joker's bluff will never be possible."<BR/><BR/>MLQ, this is a big wager on your part re joker's bluff. I thought you'd be more risk averse or circumspect.<BR/><BR/><BR/>you also went further:"but if the senate were to vote to make public what transpired in the executive session, it would be game over for the administration senators. that they can't afford to do. and they know they can block it which is why they can bluff. elementary politics."<BR/><BR/>I can hardly wait for the next hearing. We can never can tell, can we?<BR/><BR/>Manuel,<BR/><BR/>"Sitting beside Joker at the last ZTE hearing and eager to prove the PDI story was false he said something like - I know you didn't say anything to discourage Neri from testifying. I was sitting right beside you at that executive session...<BR/><BR/>By the way, the difference between what you see on TV and what you see when you are in the thick of it is what you see is determined by the TV camera crew. You only get to see what the camera focuses on. That's an editorialized view. You miss the whole show. You don't get the atmosphere. You don't get the off camera reactions. It's like watching your favorite sport on TV instead of watching it live. Next hearing is in November. Experience it yourself if you don't want to tale my word for it."<BR/><BR/>Yes I did want to go but couldn't. The last Senate hearing I attended was in 1995, as a natural resource person; but that was very boring.<BR/><BR/>I've done as you suggested and played the MP3 file posted here. In the last three minutes, Pimentel did say that he didn't see Joker 'stop' Neri from squealing, verbally or otherwise.<BR/><BR/>Yak,<BR/><BR/>"When i bark, i don't bark at trees, i bark at journalists who cry spin when they themselves are the spinners.<BR/>Media whether private or government has to be answerable for what they write, for what they say. So do you mean to say that it's perfectly alright for private media to say what they want without being policed? Wow, isn't that journalistic anarchy? whew! You're worst than gma with that mindset of yours."<BR/><BR/>Yak, you might me the one putting words into Manuel's mouth and barking up the wrong tree. To say that the privately owned media does not need 'policing' in contrast to state-owned outlets which he says are beyond the reach of customers, is far from saying the private media can say and do anything without regard to consequences. In fact, he said the opposite. the survival of private media ultimately depends on their maintaining credibility unlike, generally, state-owned ones.<BR/><BR/>I am not as sanguine about market forces forcing private media to be always on their best behavior.<BR/> <BR/>1. While the principle of consumer sovereignty is appealing, he or she cannot be if he or she cannot evaluate the purveyed news and opinion properly. (ex: Bulletin and Fox news). Sure, the consumer is ultimately responsible for the evaluation but there is a glaring market failure here, he invests as much into seeking the truth only up to the point where the private cost does not exceed the benefit, and truth and knowledge are public goods which redound to the benefit of society at large. This is why critics and whiners like us need to be subsidized because there are too few of us and society will be better off with more. Only a minute percentage of newspaper readers bother to point out glaring inaccuracies and biases because what's the point? Time is precious and what benefit does he get aside from the psychic satisfaction of doing a civic duty? The ones who really take issue are those whose reputations have been maligned and who can afford litigation.<BR/><BR/>2.On the supply side too, there are private mass media whose bottom line is not the financial performance of the paper or network but that of a larger business interest and media is just just a political tool (MST is just one example). (you can find books and critiques on the Philippine press with this theme). In this case, the incentive for good behavior on the part of the publisher/editors/reporters is rather weak and maybe non-existent.<BR/><BR/>Before the info explosion on the internet, the oligopolistic market structure of mass media was a great hindrance to a good competitive outcome. But now that market power is steadily being eroded and papers like PDI have had to adjust their business model.<BR/><BR/>3. About state or publicly owned media, it depends on mechanisms of accountability and institutional independence (in many cases, I find the BBC, funded by tv viewers through annual license fees, now close to &100 and the national treasury; and C-Span are more credible and informative than CNN, NBC, and ABC.vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176023725794107986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-74418280657240634552007-10-30T21:09:00.000+08:002007-10-30T21:09:00.000+08:00manuelI think my statement was very clear. But the...manuel<BR/>I think my statement was very clear. But then again, I know you would try to make your own way out of things, being a journalist that you are. <BR/><BR/>When i bark, i don't bark at trees, i bark at journalists who cry spin when they themselves are the spinners.<BR/><BR/>Media whether private or government has to be answerable for what they write, for what they say. So do you mean to say that it's perfect ly alright for private media to say what they want without being policed? Wow, isn't that journalistic anarchy? whew! You're worst than gma with that mindset of yours. <BR/><BR/>Funny thing, you want a private media that's immune from any censure whatsoever. HahUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985398626351885608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-84232551685825949752007-10-30T18:01:00.000+08:002007-10-30T18:01:00.000+08:00Yak,Oh. I see. You didn't get what I meant.Okay le...Yak,<BR/>Oh. I see. You didn't get what I meant.<BR/><BR/>Okay let memake myself cleac - you are barking up the wrong tree.<BR/><BR/> Mass commercial media has to answer to the market. They don;t need to be policed. If they are liars people will stop patronizing them.<BR/><BR/>Goverment and government supported media, on the other, need to bepoliced because they are beyond the reach of consumers.manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-6111706501611791932007-10-30T09:29:00.000+08:002007-10-30T09:29:00.000+08:00Dean,I should have added that in the runup to the...Dean,<BR/><BR/>I should have added that in the runup to the Iraq war, the US Congress also exercised its right to information, but failed to ferret out the truth, and the exaggerated intel.<BR/><BR/>By the way, if you have time, please verify what Pimentel actually said in regard to what Joker did or did not do in influencing the behavior of Neri.vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176023725794107986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-10525886381872539582007-10-30T06:36:00.000+08:002007-10-30T06:36:00.000+08:00viking, i agree with your observation that even th...viking, i agree with your observation that even the full exercise of the right to know is no guarantee of getting the correct information. What I guess is truly wrong is the idea that if we could only be allowed just a little more exercise of it, we could "get at the truth" and by making the truth come out we can get things fixed.<BR/><BR/>It is however a reaction of frustration and refusal to accept that there have to be limits to the right to know, such as in the clear limits set by the Fifth Amendment. <BR/><BR/>Recognizing limits to certain cherised Freedoms is hard for us Filipinos, long deprived of so many of the basic ones. But I think like growing up, the process is a series of compromises with reality and ideals. that we cannot have a just and fair society of men without such limits.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-2030232872936132282007-10-30T02:39:00.000+08:002007-10-30T02:39:00.000+08:00CVJ, DJB,The full exercise of the 'right to know' ...CVJ, DJB,<BR/><BR/>The full exercise of the 'right to know' doesn't guarantee access to the correct information, and even if the info disseminated were correct, access to media and interest in subjects is uneven. Let me just say that 'right to know' is a necessary condition for democracy, whether that right is used by the press or a branch of government.<BR/><BR/>The mainstream press which depend on advertising and not circulation for survival,and which tries to minimize costs of gathering information for the benefit of the bottom line, has many limitations. Most reports we read are simply of the template 'source A said this while Source B said this,' In other words, solid and investigative reports which are based on documents and a multiplicity of sources (including experts) are rare. There is also limited specialist training in newspaper staffs, who, in the main are generalists.<BR/>In the case of Bush and the Iraq war various reputable media watchdogs have already concluded that the US press had been intimidated by the prevailing atmosphere where anyone who questioned the premises of the White House were painted with the scarlet letter U (unpatriotic). The fear-mongering had so succeeded that months after the final reports of the task force looking for WMD in Iraq had been submitted, more than half of Amercians still believed that WMD were found.vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176023725794107986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-59177613542615249772007-10-30T00:10:00.000+08:002007-10-30T00:10:00.000+08:00Hi CVJ,The senate executive session is about secre...Hi CVJ,<BR/><BR/>The senate executive session is about secrecy, unashamedly so, as proclaimed in the rules. Ironically, it is precisely the secret and confidential nature of such sessions that make them a remarkable MEANS of getting transparency in govt, because the senate in executive session can get information from executive officials about things like national security, diplomatic secrets, and whistleblower information, while assuring their witnesses their identities and what transpired remain confidential. but if they cannot maintain the security of the senate executivee session, then it cannot get the information.<BR/><BR/>thanks, you just showed me another way of looking at what PDI did. They seriously damaged the ability of the senate to get transparency in govt by hampering its ability to hold executive sessions.Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-85222725893258484622007-10-30T00:08:00.000+08:002007-10-30T00:08:00.000+08:00manuelToting Bunye - former reporter of dzmt and d...manuel<BR/><BR/>Toting Bunye - former reporter of dzmt and daily star (from the media industry)<BR/><BR/>Cerge Remonde - radio reporter/commentor (from the media industry)<BR/><BR/>Ricardo Saludo - business editor, commentater, asst. managing editor (from the media industry)<BR/><BR/>better check on your facts next time. hah!Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985398626351885608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-1543993248100207992007-10-29T23:50:00.000+08:002007-10-29T23:50:00.000+08:00yak. "Tell me if i am wrong."You are wrongyak.<BR/><BR/> "Tell me if i am wrong."<BR/><BR/>You are wrongmanuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-59552524895426626952007-10-29T19:04:00.000+08:002007-10-29T19:04:00.000+08:00"The idea that priority be given to the public's r..."The idea that priority be given to the public's right to know, in my opinion is wrong.<BR/><BR/>I have a one word proof: ERAP" - DJB<BR/><BR/>I would've said 'BUSH'. However, whether it's Erap or Bush, the fact that the public made a mistake in the use of available information does not invalidate the democratic process or the value of transparency. After all, it's the 'slam dunk' and 'yellow cake' intelligence fabrications of the Neocon cabal that got the US into trouble in Iraq. As i recall, the latter was done in the name of National Security where more transparency would've helped.cvjhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00327799000000108953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-81401049958671405502007-10-29T12:57:00.000+08:002007-10-29T12:57:00.000+08:00The syllogism in the title is air tight. It doesn'...The syllogism in the title is air tight. It doesn't matter which we believe: whether PDI is lying or telling the truth. the consequences of either premise cannot be escaped. We certainly have no way of deciding whether PDI is lying or not, only the logical conclusion that follows from either premise.<BR/><BR/>Choose!Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-54557992623895420552007-10-29T11:50:00.000+08:002007-10-29T11:50:00.000+08:00manuelThe keywords there are, as I quote you, "lea...manuel<BR/>The keywords there are, as I quote you, "lead me to believe you are more interested in destroying the credibility of reports damaging to the administration than in seeing the free flow of information." Actually, I want gma out the soonest possible time but I don't want especially the media to use "illegal sources" to pin "illegal activities." I will repeat the issue: Either pdi lied or four senators broke the rules. Do I need to be redundant on that?<BR/><BR/>As I have said, i do not discriminate. I stick to the issue and that's it. Now give me an example of media outlets under the behest of the administration and a report which you think are based on canard and lies and we'll discuss about them. <BR/><BR/>What you want to portray is a media that would be immune from all the laws of the land as long as they report something (whether the truth or a lie). mind you, you media people are not sons and daughters of greaters gods and we, ordinary citizens sons and daughters of lesser gods. We are after all on the same footing under the law and the constitution. Don't invent your own privileges under the banner of "we want the public to know." hah! and you tell me from what industry did some of the spin doctors in malacanang come from? isn't it from the very industry you are in? media? Tell me if i am wrong.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985398626351885608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-76058676652936177602007-10-29T04:36:00.000+08:002007-10-29T04:36:00.000+08:00I think the fulfillment of the public's right to k...I think the fulfillment of the public's right to know is way over-rated as "the surest and best defense of the state". <BR/><BR/>Of course we want an open society, marked by a vigorous and free press. <BR/><BR/>Erap however is walking testimony against giving "the right to know" such an overblown importance.<BR/><BR/>It is a kind of journalistic jingoism. In the hands of the PDI and as defense of their worst decisions, it is a rationalization that the Erap phenomenon stunningly disproves.<BR/><BR/>"The public's right to know uber alles" is really a populist slogan <BR/>that actually means, "the PDI's right to tell tall tales."<BR/><BR/>Much like "Erap para sa mahirap." <BR/><BR/>The big question really is, what should take priority over the public's right to know?<BR/><BR/>Clearly it is a social good of the highest order, this right of the public to know. <BR/><BR/>But there are many social goods and ideals. The order of their priority is important for us all to agree upon because that is the only way we can decide what the rational and beneficial position ought to be <B>when these goods and ideals come into conflict,</B> as they do in the present controversy. <BR/><BR/>I have taken the position that indeed the security of the senate takes precedence over the PDI's right to use anonymous sources since these actions supposedly in pursuit of the truth has compromised the ability of the Senate to do its job. <BR/><BR/>In this case, in fact, the public's right to know is being served not just by PDI, but by the Senate as well.<BR/><BR/>The Senate's executive session, it cannot be denied was also in pursuit of the public's right to know. But identifying the PDI's right to tell its stories with the public's right to know is not really accurate, is it?Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-49584933279855546092007-10-29T04:15:00.000+08:002007-10-29T04:15:00.000+08:00Ok let me refocus the discussion back to the topic...Ok let me refocus the discussion back to the topic at hand by quoting from MLQ3's comment above:<BR/><I>in the end your assumption is the security of the state above all; my assumption is the public's right to know above all, because it is that openness that is the surest and best defense of the state as something beyond the capacity of someone like joker to subvert.</I><BR/><BR/>The idea that priority be given to the public's right to know, in my opinion is wrong.<BR/><BR/>I have a one word proof: <B>ERAP</B><BR/><BR/>Just think guys. Is there any more thoroughly exposed and journalistically debunked phenomenon than Joseph Estrada. The public knows virtually everything there really is to know about Erap as a public personality and even as a private person, at least with respect to their having to do something about it?<BR/><BR/>Yet there he is, stronger than he ever was, after the public's right to know has been feted and fed by the media -- a veritable buffet of having the right to know gorged and sated.<BR/><BR/>What is wrong with this picture?Deany Bocobohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01443168826029321831noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-772635484393089572007-10-29T02:06:00.000+08:002007-10-29T02:06:00.000+08:00Yak,I'm not defending PDI. I have nothing to do wi...Yak,<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm not defending PDI. I have nothing to do with them. I have a weekly column in Business Mirror.<BR/><BR/>Reread your comments:12;07 AM, 2:44PM, and 9:46PM.<BR/><BR/>Those comments lead me to believe you are more interested in destroying the credibility of reports damaging to the administration than in seeing the free flow of information. <BR/><BR/>That's the reason why I asked if you entertain the same kind of suspicion and skepticism about the quality of reports coming from state run and pro administration outlets. <BR/><BR/>Suppose, instead of writing a story based on leaks from anonymous sources, a reporter sneaks into the executive session and reports what he saw, would that be acceptable to you? Do you think a reporter would be abusing his freedom and duty to inform the public if he witnessed a crime committed in that executive session?manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-20541336268863767902007-10-29T01:53:00.000+08:002007-10-29T01:53:00.000+08:00The discussion to this thread was both interesting...The discussion to this thread was both interesting and exemplary, until so sorry to say it segued to this:<BR/><BR/><I>"and djb, i find it odd you argue for law and so forth when you support dubya's war on terror, and its apparatus including rendition and gitmo and so on. i'll take your agonizing over the law at face value when you stop blathering on about the neocon jihad."</I><BR/>What happened? How did the Bush administration and its war on terror and Iraq get into the narrow confines of this discussion?<BR/><BR/>Anyway since the subject was brought out, is the apparent dichotomy of the above statements then that the Bush administration is or represents the anti-thesis to law and/or the rule of law?<BR/><BR/>Are the US and its arguably vaunted adherence to the rule of law then in such shambles that it cannot prosecute this alleged mad warmonger and his alleged lackeys with all the damning evidence liberally articulated by the critics?<BR/><BR/>I could be complicit too by extension since I count myself as part of that over 65% of citizens who favored the war on terror and Iraq during the run-up to the wars. Our numbers though have shrunk greatly. Reasons postulated? The Iraq War has become hyper-extended, messy, and many mistakes have been made in its prosecution. And those are the realities that have soured many of our admittedly fair-weather comrades.<BR/><BR/>What are the chances that Bush, especially after he leaves office, will be hauled off to the nearest court to answer for his alleged "crimes against humanity" and other malfeasance? If not good, why so? Is it because the system of justice around here is so bad that it cannot ably match this evil? Or what about maybe, just maybe, he has operated well within the law and/or rule of law, and has acted in his official capacities as earnestly and honestly as he could or as realistically possible?<BR/><BR/>Let me end with a little revelation I heard/read from some sources. The Democrats have always been as expected the staunchest critics of the Iraq war, though many in their numbers also voted for the war. But it is revealed that all the major Democratic presidential candidates this time around while favoring ending the war and withdrawing troops, nevertheless in their public pronouncements do not advocate complete withdrawal of troops from Iraq. For what reasons? I could guess, for regional security reasons? Or what about protecting US interests in the region? Anyway, doesn't this in some way validate the US getting into Iraq as a strategic geopolitical step; however smartly or dumbly it may have been accomplished?Amadeohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00040096079637569742noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-18875069837382514712007-10-29T00:29:00.000+08:002007-10-29T00:29:00.000+08:00manuelYour assumption is awfully wrong. why? simpl...manuel<BR/>Your assumption is awfully wrong. why? simply because the issue in this article of djb is precisely about the "kuryente" news of pdi. Would i talk about something that's not part of the topic?<BR/><BR/>I think that the issue is not about pro-administration or anti-administration sentiments. It's about irresponsible reporting. The mere fact that either 4 senators broke senate rules or pdi peddled lies is what is being discussed not other media outlets.<BR/><BR/>Why, are you under the payroll of pdi that you defend pdi that much? I stuck to the topic, did you?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09985398626351885608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-85898451477394556802007-10-29T00:22:00.000+08:002007-10-29T00:22:00.000+08:00Dean,The war has not turned out well. It is a disa...Dean,<BR/><BR/>The war has not turned out well. It is a disaster.<BR/><BR/>And how would restate "the war was based on lies", there was a slight misunderstanding over intelligence?<BR/><BR/>You either believe that the means don't justify the ends or the ends justify the means and you stick with it. You can't say argue it one way when it involves PDI and another way when it involves the war on terror. Moral consistency is based on principles not on ideology. <BR/><BR/>Follow Hillblogger's advise. Do your own thinking.manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-13976037886036403032007-10-29T00:13:00.000+08:002007-10-29T00:13:00.000+08:00Yak,Yes I assumed and it was a valid assumption if...Yak,<BR/><BR/>Yes I assumed and it was a valid assumption if you reread your comments. You were attacking the sort of news reports coming from anti-administration newspapers. I didn't see you criticize state-controlled or sympathetic outlets. Your case against abuse of the right to inform would be more credible if you used examples of such abuse committed by both pro and anti administration media outfits. It would have shown you were looking at both sides equally and nit just giving the evil eye to one side.manuelbuencaminohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07644763064403005323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14974164.post-14250293022676214412007-10-29T00:04:00.000+08:002007-10-29T00:04:00.000+08:00Guys,take a deep breath and don't get personal. th...Guys,<BR/>take a deep breath and don't get personal. thus far, the exchange has been civil.vikinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15176023725794107986noreply@blogger.com