August 27, 2007

YEAGLEY GETS HIS FACTS WRONG — AGAIN

from the Bad Eagle journal

Yeagley’s so-called “scholarship” or the so-called scholarly “mask” he attempts to brandish, do not entitle him to any specialized skills or knowledge of course. They are simply a facade in which to entice his onlookers. Like slowing by a roadside accident, intelligent folks sometimes slow to gaze at the tragedy, and briefly ponder how such a reality exists.

Yeagley is a tragedy, of course, a man with an obvious need to find fulfillment in himself, to discover a purpose in life, but searching without a good compass. Finding a life purpose by designing a prejudicial blog does not seem logical, pragmatic nor prudent, though it exists nonetheless for Yeagley (in a negative way).

It seems Yeagley has made himself a blogger’s hustle out of cutting down nonwhites and women, though we may never know the reason his misfortune occurred save the well known ‘abusive father/affectionate mother’ syndrome producing in Yeagley some type of malformed judgment capacity.

But speculation aside, let’s look again at some of his recent conclusions and how they stand up to the facts. It seems that Yeagley has not improved at all in his fact gathering abilities, which probably factor into the poor compass he uses to make decisions.

ON THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS

Yeagley — “If you don't think America has free press, then I don't know how to talk to you. If you don't see that liberals dominate it, in all forms of media, then again, I don't know what to say... Mass media is hardly behind Republicans or conservatives or Christians. To say that tells me you are brain-washed Lefty. A ‘useful idiot’ ...But, I confess, I'm naive, and trusting, and generally open minded” (8-26-07).
EXAMINING YEAGLEY’S CLAIM
Examining the "Liberal Media" Claim — The conservative critique of the news media rests on two general propositions: (1) journalists' views are to the left of the public, and (2) journalists frame news content in a way that accentuates these left perspectives... The findings include:
• On select issues from corporate power and trade to Social Security and Medicare to health care and taxes, journalists are actually more conservative than the general public.
• Journalists are mostly centrist in their political orientation.
• The minority of journalists who do not identify with the "center" are more likely to identify with the "right" when it comes to economic issues and to identify with the "left" when it comes to social issues.
• Journalists report that "business-oriented news outlets" and "major daily newspapers" provide the highest quality coverage of economic policy issues, while "broadcast network TV news" and "cable news services" provide the worst.
The 14 news organizations that received more than 10 surveys each were:
1. ABC News /ABC Radio
2. Associated Press /AP Broadcast News
3. Bloomberg News
4. CNN
5. Knight-Ridder Newspapers/Tribune Information Services
6. Los Angeles Times
7. NBC News
8. New York Times
9. Reuters America, Inc.
10. Time
11. USA Today/USA Weekend
12. Wall Street Journal
13. Washington Post
14. Washington Times
BLAME THE VICTIM
Yeagley — “Tillman was killed because he was going to have a meeting with the nothing, Noam Comsky... Tillman was a hot dog, loose cannon and war is a nasty, unpredictable business. Blame the Islamo-Fascists for his death, since it is their fault” (8-26-07).
EXAMINING YEAGLEY’S CLAIM
Army medical examiners concluded Pat Tillman was shot three times in the head from just 10 yards away, no evidence of “friendly fire” damage at scene, Army attorneys congratulated each other on cover-up, Wesley Clark concludes “orders came from the very top” to murder pro-football star because he was about to become an anti-war political icon:

• He was shot three times in the forehead at close range with an American M-16.
• No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene — no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.
• “The medical evidence did not match up with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
• He was shot in the head AFTER he was shot in the chest, legs and hand.
• The doctors — whose names were blacked out — said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
• The Pentagon still has his diary that he kept with him in Afghanistan, where he was killed, and they won’t release it to his family.
ON BUSH’S WAR
Yeagley — “His stated plan is to create an exemplary democracy in the Middle East...by demonstrating the superior way of freedom. It is for the world, for history, that he undertook such a plan... I think Bush is mistaken on the globalist ideology...but, it doesn't include Iraq and the management of global Islamic murderism. You have to understand. We're all the small people, the little people” (8-26-07).
EXAMINING YEAGLEY’S CLAIM
Spanish Judge Calls for Architects of Iraq Invasion to Be Tried for War Crimes
One of Spain’s leading judges on war crimes and terrorism-related cases, Baltasar Garzon, ranks the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq among “the most sordid and unjustifiable episodes in recent human history.” The judge criticizes US President George W. Bush and his allies, including British and Spanish Prime Ministers Tony Blair and Jose Maria Aznar, who supported the attack “despite having doubts and biased information.” Garzon’s condemnation of the leaders reflects growing disenchantment worldwide with the Iraq catastrophe. (March 27, 2007)
The Courts Are Starting To Accept That the War against Iraq Is A Crime
A British domestic court has ruled that the damage caused to military planes and equipment by two anti-war protestors was not illegal because the defendants sought “to prevent specific war crimes from being committed” in Iraq, where the planes and munitions would ultimately end up. Furthermore, in a German court an army major has successfully argued that the US and the UK did not legally invade Iraq, therefore he broke no laws in refusing to obey a military order. The author concludes that such decisions set a precedent for the recognition of the Iraq war as an act of aggression, and therefore a war crime – of which the British government should be very wary. (October 17, 2006)
Bush and Saddam Should Both Stand Trial, Says Nuremberg Prosecutor
A prosecutor of Nazi war crimes at Nuremberg, Benjamin Ferenccz, believes US President George W. Bush’s aggressive war in Iraq constitutes a “supreme international crime” capable of prosecution in an international court. Claiming that the atrocities of the Iraq war were “highly predictable," Ferenccz points to the UN Charter, which unequivocally states that no nation can use armed force without UN Security Council permission. He convincingly argues that, due to his invasion of Iraq and the subsequent acts of the US military, Bush should face charges for war crimes along with Saddam Hussein. (August 25, 2006)
NO END IN SIGHT
Chicago Sun-Times — “Remember the scene in ‘A Clockwork Orange’ where Alex has his eyes clamped open and is forced to watch a movie? I imagine a similar experience for the architects of our catastrophe in Iraq. I would like them to see ‘No End in Sight,’ the story of how we were led into that war, and more than 3,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of other lives were destroyed.

They might find the film of particular interest because they would know so many of the people appearing in it. This is not a documentary filled with anti-war activists or sitting ducks for Michael Moore. Most of the people in the film were important to the Bush administration. They had top government or military jobs, they had responsibility in Iraq or Washington, they implemented policy, they filed reports, they labored faithfully in service of U.S. foreign policy and then they left the government. Some jumped, some were pushed. They all feel disillusioned about the war and the way the White House refused to listen to them about it.

The subjects in this film now feel that American policy in Iraq was flawed from the start, that obvious measures were not taken, that sane advice was disregarded, that lies were told and believed, and that advice from people on the ground was overruled by a cabal of neo-con goofballs who seemed to form a wall around the president.

The president and his inner circle knew, just knew, for example, that Saddam had or would have weapons of mass destruction, that he was in league with al-Qaida and bin Laden, and that in some way, it was all hooked up with Sept. 11. Not all of the advice in the world could penetrate their obsession, and they fired the bearers of bad news.

It is significant, for example, that a Defense Intelligence Agency team received orders to find links between al-Qaida and Hussein. That there were none was ignored. Key adviser Paul Wolfowitz's immediate reaction to Sept. 11 was ‘war on Iraq.’ ...A National Intelligence report commissioned in 2004 advised against the war. Bush, who apparently did not read it, dismissed it as guesswork...

Although Bush and the war continue to sink in the polls, I know from some readers that they still support both. That is their right. And if they are so sure they are right, let more young men and women die or be maimed. I doubt if they will be willing to see this film, which further documents an administration playing its private war games. No, I am distinctly not comparing anyone to Hitler, but I cannot help being reminded of the stories of him in his Berlin bunker, moving nonexistent troops on a map, and issuing orders to dead generals” (Roger Ebert, 8-10-2007).
Watch the Trailer:

No comments: