RE: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,169056,00.html The genuine alarm is about what passes for credible news or information in an era when literally anyone with access to the Internet can start an email rumor and anyone with basic webpage development skills or who has a friend with minimal skills can start up a web site. Old wisdom is "consider the source." "off the Internet" does not constitute a credible source. Unless, of course, you really believe that John Kerry stood next to Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally.
[The genuine alarm is about what passes for credible news or information in an era when literally anyone with access to the Internet can start an email rumor and anyone with basic webpage development skills or who has a friend with minimal skills can start up a web site. Old wisdom is "consider the source." "off the Internet" does not constitute a credible source. Unless, of course, you really believe that John Kerry stood next to Jane Fonda at an anti-war rally. [/QUOTE]
Great point BWF. And Barack Obama is a muslim trained at a madrasa! This lie is believed by 40% of the electorite too.
It is strange however, that two TOP AF Commanders(one General) resigned the other day, which is the case when commanders disagree with presidential policy... if ya know what I mean? Maybe it WAS because of the Nuclear screw-ups a few months ago... but then again, maybe it wasn't so cut and dried.
I wouldn't be too quick to dismiss the "Idea" of a strike on IRAN before the summer is out, at which time these two people [b]could[/] likely confirm that this is why they resigned.
I had a point of disagreement on one part of the article:
quote:
What seems to make the source so reliable, in Cohen's estimation, is that he or she is "echoing other reports that have surfaced in the media in the United States recently."
Hence, what the source told Cohen seems reliable because it sounds like the noise the rest of the echo chamber is making. That's the new journalistic litmus test for veracity all right, but Cohen's the first writer I've heard come right out and admit it.
I'm not an Intel guy, but aren't multiple confirmations of unlikely reports SUPPOSED to increase confidence in them?
Of course, that assumes: 1. that the multiple reports are not coordinated attempts at feeding misinformation - as these may very well be. And... 2. that contrary reports are given appropriate weight, which clearly wasn't the case in Cohen's story.
The rest of the article makes the point very well.
Originally posted by BobApril: Of course, that assumes: 1. that the multiple reports are not coordinated attempts at feeding misinformation - as these may very well be. And... 2. that contrary reports are given appropriate weight, which clearly wasn't the case in Cohen's story.
The rest of the article makes the point very well.
I believe this is the heart of the matter, especially when reviewing the intelligence failure (pun intended) in the build-up to Iraq 2. Two major points of PBS's The Dark Side were the very points you cite. For example... where (if I remember right) an American agent gets intel from an Italian source, then gets corroboration from a British source not knowing that the Brit had heard it from the same Italian source. Or regarding adventures in "yellow cake"... a document used as a clue for the suspected purchase turns out to be a fraud. And if you remember right, there were stories about American Military staff planting stories in Iraqi media. So in the spirit of "just because you're paranoid doens't mean they're not out to get you"... who was behind the fraudulent document to begin with? As to contrary reports not being given appropriate weight... does the name Joe Wilson sound familiar? So I think we have reason to be suspicious. Also, consider the consequences of our previous lack of skepticism.
