Re: "What went wrong with US Intelligence" on NPR now... -- MIDRANGE-NONTECH

On Thursday 20 September 2001 06:33 am, Draper, Dale wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:       Chris Rehm [SMTP:javadisciple@earthlink.net]
> > Sent:       Wednesday, September 19, 2001 4:49 PM
> > To: midrange-nontech@midrange.com
> > Subject:    Re: "What went wrong with US Intelligence" on NPR now...
> >
> > On Wednesday 19 September 2001 01:49 pm, Draper, Dale wrote:
>       >> Hmmm Chris, now who's jumping to conclusions?
>       >
>       >I'm sorry, what conclusion did I jump to?
>
>       You're right, I was being polite. Your portrayal of NPR merely
> showed lack of knowledge of the subject. And a knee jerk reaction to the
> media in general, which being a media basher myself, I understand. But in
> this case was off base.

Well, I certainly must not know as much about it as you do. I listened to NPR
for several years but that doesn't qualify me as an expert. I suppose your
insult above is just to cover the fact that you couldn't find a "conclusion I
jumped to." I was insulting with that question, I thought you'd really have
an answer. How could I know your statement was just to insult?

>       >> Or do you think any crititique is unjustified? If so, state why
>
> please.
>
>       >No, I don't think that any critique is unjustified.
>
>       SNIP, then goes on to belittle any such critiques, essentially
> saying they are unjustified.
>
>       Which answer is it please?

Again, Dale, I don't think that "any critique" is unjustified. But I would
have to be a fool to think that public discussion of an agency or agencies
like these would be valid. The point is, Dale, that such a critique will need
to be done by people who actually know what is going on. Those people will
not be able to come on the radio and disclose information that would further
jeapordize operations. So, I'd have to be an idiot to think some public show
(radio, TV, whatever) was going to actually give me a breakdown of what
happened.

For instance, suppose an Israeli operative had actually found out exactly
what was going on and reported it but his superiors knew that if they
disclosed the full information to the US that this would mean the identity of
their operative would be disclosed so they put Israel's security ahead of
ours and disclosed what they could, would they now come forward and disclose
this on NPR? If an American operative was close to the source of this but
couldn't get away from his job in Afghanistan or whatever, would it be wise
to make that information public?

So in that light, it become obvious (to me) that shows for the public
discussion of secret organizations are not really for the purpose of
disclosing the whole truth, but simply to allow some people to project
viewpoints.

> > > > > On National Public Radio they have a program entitled "What went
> >
> > wrong
> >
> > > > > with US Intelligence" THEIR title not mine and they have had some
>       >
>       >That doesn't sound so "even handed and calm" to me.
>
>       So, how should they have phrased this perfectly valid topic to suit
> your ear? Of course, in this case, calling it by any other name would be
> obscuring the issue with language. As something did go wrong, or to put it
> in another way, it could have, should have, gone much, much better. And
> that is a topic worthy of discussion.

Well, in light of the fact that they cannot possibly hope to be able to cover
the topic they pretend to be covering, maybe it should be changed to "One
More Show About The September 11 Bombing So We Can Use This Tragedy To Keep
Our Ratings Up A Little Longer"?

--
Chris Rehm
javadisciple@earthlink.net

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart...
...Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other
commandment greater than these. Mark 12:30-31