i know people, jeez......the tvs that watch you command you to understand its no big deal

5/12/2005 1:46:53 AM

Quote :

"Oh horrors. The government paid somene to write some articles for outdoors type people about a 70 year old government program to conserve the outdoors. HORROR!!!!!!!! http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/"

That makes 3 media payoffs that we know about. If you factor in the prepackaged news stories the WH fed the media, and the Gannon/Guckert plant in the press corps...

5/12/2005 7:29:49 AM

Quote :

"I'm just curious as to where exactly the line should be drawn."

Well, I think the line should be drawn so as to make sure that the public knows whether a particular assessment of the work of the government comes from the government or not. Plus government is a not a "citizen". It's perfectly ok to restrict its "freedom" as you see fit, as if it were your employee. Some "conservatives" here, I think, are losing sight of this. The government works for you. The media is used to put some chacks on the government. If people who work for you bribe those on whose opinion you rely to assess their performance, it's perfectly alright to punish them.

5/12/2005 8:22:10 AM

Quote :

"If people who work for you bribe those on whose opinion you rely to assess their performance... "

That is, indeed, the crux of the matter. Nobody cares if the government spends money to promote their policies. The problem comes when they purposely hide the fact that they are doing it, and try to fool people into believing it comes from an independent source. That makes it "covert propaganda", just like the GAO contends.

1337 b4k4 would have you think that people are against the government promoting its programs. That's simply not true. No one has a problem with the website he listed - it clearly shows at the top that it's a USDA website. The only complaint is when they purposely don't identify themselves.

The question of how the administration became so uncredible that they have to try and hide their identity to get people to believe them has yet to be addressed (see: WMD).

Abert Einstein:

Quote :

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

5/12/2005 9:09:31 AM

Quote :

"That makes 3 one of hundreds of media payoffs that we know about."

Quote :

"The question of how the administration became so uncredible that they have to try and hide their identity to get people to believe them has yet to be addressed"

Quote :

"The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration"

Again, nothing new or suprising in any of this.

No, I have no problem with the government paying a reporter to do some research into one of their programs and report on it. Journalists get paid all the time to write about various things from various people. And so far nothing that I've seen indicates anywhere that these people were forced to not reveal that the government paid them (then again, how often do you see any writer disclose who paid them for this particular article?) If the reportee chooses not to do that, it's his fault.

5/12/2005 10:00:54 AM

Quote :

"And so far nothing that I've seen indicates anywhere that these people were forced to not reveal that the government paid them (then again, how often do you see any writer disclose who paid them for this particular article?) If the reportee chooses not to do that, it's his fault."

Thank you for not addressing a single argument of your opponents.

5/12/2005 10:03:44 AM

What that reporters are being bastards and not making full disclosures? That isn't the government's problem. Tell me, what's the difference between a reporter paid by the government to publish an article, and a government employee paid by the government to publish an article? None. And since no one has a problem with the latter, what's wrong with the former?

Besides, personally I would prefer these people over the government press people. Why? Simple. Government press people are paid to say one thing and one thing only, whatever the government wants them to say. They refuse, they get fired. These reporters on the other hand, already have jobs and the government is paying them for a side project. If they don't like what the government is asking them to do, or don't feel they could write a report on that (imagine, reporters with morals) then they can refuse and be no worse for wear.

Again, until someone shows me that these people are being forced to write these articles and forced to not dislcose where their funding comes from, then it's all a non-issue.

5/12/2005 11:27:53 AM

Quote :

"Again, until someone shows me that these people are being forced [paid] to write these articles and forced [paid] not dislcose where their funding comes from, then it's all a non-issue."

Again, he never answers the question ... Why doesn't the government want to admit where the articles come from? (Of course nobody is "forcing" them not to disclose it. They're just paying them not to.)

I have a lot of problems with it, and so should anyone who cares about journalistic integrity, and the independence of the press.

Quote :

"If people who work for you bribe those on whose opinion you rely to assess their performance..."

5/12/2005 12:55:15 PM

So once again the problem is the journalists. Which is what I've been saying all along. They have a choice and the choice does not leave them worse off if they take the right choice.

Quote :

"Why doesn't the government want to admit where the articles come from?"

Perhaps it's entirely possible that maybe possibly the government would like to have some endorsements from people who aren't just paid to say exactly what the whitehouse tells them to?

Again, each of these reports talks about how the government paid them to reasearch and write articles about the programs. So they were paid to take a look at the program and if you like it write about it. Maybe because no one seems to be doing it at all and no one reads government issued statements anyway? So you pay some people to go out and do some research and if they like it they promote it. But nothing indicates that they have been forced to say they like it.

Have any of these authors published something they didn't believe? Have they looked into the program they were asked to research and said to themselve "My god what a fucking piece of shit" and then published an article on the greatness of said program?

5/12/2005 1:05:10 PM

Quote :

"So once again the problem is the journalists."

No. When you have an employee who bribes the supervisor, the employee is the problem, seeing as how he's the only thing under your control.

5/12/2005 1:12:10 PM

ummmm, it would only be a bribe if the gov't said "WRITE THIS, FAGGOT! HERE'S YOUR MONEY!" at best, the gov't could say "we paid this guy for his time to research the material." unless you've got some evience to prove the former, then 1337 b4k4's original point stands

5/12/2005 1:31:50 PM

No, his point doesn't stand. (OMFG, [new]!!1) Government is your employee. They do NOT have a presumption of innosence. I don't want any bullshit from my employees, be it real or perceived.

P.S. Apparently you don't know shit about bribes (which isn't a bad thing, really). Every time I need some document in Russia the next day and not the next millenium, which is what it would be had I followed all their rules, I never yell, I just ask: "Hmmm, are you sure there isn't a way to speed things up? I'm sure there must be a law or something. And no, thank you, my pants are too heavy at it is to carry around yet another receipt in the pocket."

[Edited on May 12, 2005 at 2:03 PM. Reason : ..]

5/12/2005 1:51:16 PM

i like how you basicallty said "NUH HUH!! HERE's WHY!" and then just regurgitated the same point that I discounted earlier. good work~!

5/12/2005 2:00:32 PM

You didn't discount anything.

5/12/2005 2:04:09 PM

What the news article said:

Quote :

"The Department of Agriculture gave freelancer Dave Smith $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] programs," ... Smith's articles appeared in "Outdoor Oklahoma" and "Washington-Oregon Game & Fish" -- neither of which identified the writer as being government-paid."

(emphisis mine)

How 1337 b4k4 interpreted it:

Quote :

"Perhaps it's entirely possible that maybe possibly the government would like to have some endorsements from people who aren't just paid to say exactly what the whitehouse tells them to?"

What aaronburro got out of it:

Quote :

"the gov't could say "we paid this guy for his time to research the material." unless you've got some evience to prove the former, then 1337 b4k4's original point stands."

(In other words, the point falls down.)

5/12/2005 2:21:06 PM

When somebody pays you to do a report, rarely do they want you to expose negative information about themselves. In and of itself, the government releasing news feeds about irrelevant happenings isn't very important. However, what some fail to understand is that this establishes precedent which in this country is very important with regards to court rulings down the road and public opinion.

Already this thread is filled with comments of the vein "so what else is new" showing absolute apathy towards a situation that is little more then US government propoganda. I point this out because those people are die hard supporters of this administration and this government and yet even they cannot, with any shred of reason, argue that the US Government does not try to cheat and manipulate the US population.

With this in mind, tell me exactly how its "ok" to feed "news" reports to TV stations and not tell the people their source?

5/12/2005 2:25:00 PM

Quote :

"What the news article said: "

Quote :

""The Department of Agriculture gave freelancer Dave Smith $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] programs," ... Smith's articles appeared in "Outdoor Oklahoma" and "Washington-Oregon Game & Fish" -- neither of which identified the writer as being government-paid.""

Hence my interpretation. Not much different from say NVIDIA paying a company to run tests and write reviews on their cards.

Quote :

"When somebody pays you to do a report, rarely do they want you to expose negative information about themselves. "

Of course not, hence me asking if there's any proof that these articles were forced? If not, then it doesn't matter whether the government paid him to do the research, the opinions are just as valid.

Quote :

"However, what some fail to understand is that this establishes precedent which in this country is very important with regards to court rulings down the road and public opinion."

What you fail to understand is that this isn't establishing any precident, it's been long established long before Bush.

Quote :

" I point this out because those people are die hard supporters of this administration and this government and yet even they cannot, with any shred of reason, argue that the US Government does not try to cheat and manipulate the US population."

Of course the government tried to cheat and manipulate the population. That's why you're supposed to take everything with a grain of salt and why this doesn't phase me at all.

Quote :

"With this in mind, tell me exactly how its "ok" to feed "news" reports to TV stations and not tell the people their source?"

The problem is, it isn't the government that's feeding these reports to the media. The government is paying someone to do research and publish articles. Those people are then making the concious choice to not disclose their funding.

It would be one thing if government employees were sitting arround in rooms making press releases and pumping them directly into the news wires as if they were just published by the AP, but they're not.

5/12/2005 3:17:44 PM

Quote :

"However, what some fail to understand is that this establishes precedent which in this country is very important with regards to court rulings down the road and public opinion."

OMFG SLIPPER SLOPE!!!! OMFG LOGICAL FALLACY!!! OMFGT!!!!

5/12/2005 3:55:29 PM

Quote :

"The Department of Agriculture gave freelancer Dave Smith $9,375 in 2003 to "research and write articles for hunting and fishing magazines describing the benefits of NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service] programs," ... Smith's articles appeared in "Outdoor Oklahoma" and "Washington-Oregon Game & Fish" -- neither of which identified the writer as being government-paid."

Selective perception?

Eric Clapton:

Quote :

"It's not what you play, it's what you leave out"

[Edited on May 12, 2005 at 3:58 PM. Reason : *~<]BO]

5/12/2005 3:56:55 PM

Allow me to write an article describing the benefits of NRCS:

"The NRCS is a 70 year old government program. It's bennefits include absolutely nothing."


It's not selective perception, it's knowing what was asked for and knowing that these reporters had a choice and they chose to write for the government and they chose to not disclose their source of funding.

5/12/2005 6:45:47 PM

Point proven ... Maybe the headline should read, "Government hires sleezy journalists in order to keep identity secret."

5/12/2005 6:56:41 PM

Quote :

""See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.""

---George Bush

Quote :

"you repeat a lie hundred times and it becomes the truth."

---Joseph Goebbels

5/25/2005 6:38:51 PM

oh boy! another nazi reference!

5/25/2005 9:57:11 PM

^I know...the parallels are frightening.

5/25/2005 10:02:38 PM

I swear, if I cared enough, I could draw at least ten parallels between ghandi and hitler, or mother teresa and hitler.

5/25/2005 10:17:33 PM

Quote :

""...Effective propaganda must limit its points of a few and these points must be repeated until even the last member of the audience understands what is meant by them." "

-- Adolf Hitler, 1930

5/26/2005 12:09:45 AM

Quote :

" I swear, if I cared enough, I could draw at least ten parallels between ghandi and hitler, or mother teresa and hitler."

5/26/2005 12:14:37 AM

Quote :

" "I asked them the other day, would it be okay if I cut a 30-minute tape, a piece of propaganda, no questions, just here -- here it is, here's 30 minutes of me talking. Please run it, not only across your airwaves but run it internationally, if you don't mind. I've got something to say about the conflict and our fight against evil. They said, no, they're not going to do that. If I'm going to get on the news, they've got to ask me questions." "

-- press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Nov. 13, 2001

5/26/2005 12:22:23 AM

SO NOW YOU WANT US TO BE LIKE THE RUSSIANS?

5/26/2005 12:25:16 AM

^^ IOW, russia's media has more balls and morals than the US media. Go figure.

5/26/2005 2:02:38 AM

Quote :

"Reese Schonfeld, Co-founder of CNN, Says "The Public Does Not Have a Right to Know" Last week on May 16th, during an appearance on The Big Story with John Gibson, CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld made some very scary statements about the roles of the media and the Pentagon in time of war. The two men were discussing the Newsweek Koran story. Here's my transcript of part of that interview: GIBSON: You're saying that editors should, and in fact, do make calculations about whether people are going to live or die because of the revelations they're about to make and that this was one in which editors should have foreseen just what happened. SCHONFELD: Sure. What, what difference ... Absolutely. Everyone knows or should know, if they know anything about the Arab world or the Muslim world, how holy the bible is - their Koran - is to them and how inflammatory a statement that we had desecrated it, flushed it down the toilet or whatever would be in that world and someone should have said: Well, what real difference does it make if we report that or don't report that. And should never have reported it. But if you were even gonna consider reporting it, well, I don't, I don't even - I wouldn't even consider reporting it. I would have sat there in the chair and said "No, this doesn't go in the story." Period. GIBSON: OK, but would you have - by that same reasoning would you have not reported Abu Ghraib if somebody had brought you those pictures. SCHONFELD: Abu Ghraib is the greatest foul up of all time. Those pictures were on the internet. The problem is not that we were - we - I only wish the Pentagon could have been able to deny that story, to be able to li - that's the right of the Pentagon to lie, when it is in the country's best interest to lie, you do lie. And when I made that statement in my book, an undersecretary - well - at Defense told me I don't have it quite right, the - uh - Rumsfeld, the Secretary can never lie but any, anybody under him can, that you have to do it when it's in the public, in the government interest. GIBSON: Alright, then how does Newsweek retract 17 deaths? SCHONFELD (laughs and throws up his hands): I - There's no way. You know. That's, that's not a question. There's no answer. GIBSON (overtalks last 6 words): Obviously, they don't so there's really no answer. So there's really no way for Newsweek to make up this? SCHONFELD: Even if the story was 100% right they would still have to retract 17 deaths 'cause it shouldn't have been published. It was in nobody's interest. It wasn't in American interest. It wasn't in the interests of anyone and I can't understand still sitting here. This whole idea - the public has a right to know - the public does not have a right to know. The editor has a right to publish - that's what the First Amendment is about. The guy who owns the paper, the editor, says what goes in and what doesn't and he doesn't have to tell everything he knows and, God forbid, that he ever should. GIBSON: And you wouldn't have run this? SCHONFELD: Never. "

5/26/2005 12:23:47 PM

Quote :

"U.S. Blocked Release of CAFTA Reports AP - Wed Jun 29, 9:13 AM ET WASHINGTON - The Labor Department kept secret for more than a year government studies that supported Democratic opponents of the Bush administration's new Central American trade deal, internal documents show. The studies, paid for by the department, concluded that several countries the administration wants to be granted free-trade status have poor working conditions and fail to protect workers' rights. The agency dismissed the conclusions as inaccurate and biased, according to documents reviewed by The Associated Press."

http://thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=329668

6/29/2005 6:07:31 PM

Quote :

" EVENDALE, Ohio - A joint venture between General Electric Co. and Rolls-Royce has won a $2.47 billion contract to develop an engine for the military‘s next-generation stealth jet fighter. GE was named the majority partner in a 60-40 joint venture with British engine-maker Rolls-Royce. The deal was announced late Monday by the Department of Defense under a Navy program that is administering development of the Lockheed Martin F-35, known as the Joint Strike Fighter. The United States and foreign air forces will select either the Pratt & Whitney engine or the GE/Rolls engine as they order individual batches of F-35s. "This is going to be the mainstay of our military engine business going forward," said GE‘s Jean Lydon-Rodgers, program director of the new F136 engine, which would be installed in the F-35 plane. GE Aircraft Engines is expected to earn $13.3 billion in revenue this year, with about $3.8 billion, or 28.6 percent, coming from military contracts. Shares of General Electric Co. rose 12 cents, or 0.35 percent, to $34.09 in after-hours trading on the New York Stock Exchange . Its shares have traded between $32.31 and $37.75 over the past 52 weeks. "

GE owns NBC and MSNBC.

War is Peace. I hear it on the news.

9/22/2005 12:17:15 AM

lets not ignore the fact that a british company is going to be building our engines

9/22/2005 12:26:33 AM

Quote :

"At Phillips Andover Academy, north of Boston, Bush gave himself a telling nickname: Bush Tweed, after the political operative, Boss Tweed."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/29/a_lifetime_of_risk_taking_shapes_bush146s_leadership?pg=full

9/22/2005 9:12:43 AM

Quote :

"GAO: Education's illegal 'covert propaganda' Friday, September 30, 2005; Posted: 6:08 p.m. EDT (22:08 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Education Department engaged in illegal "covert propaganda" when it paid columnist Armstrong Williams to promote Bush administration policies and when it produced a video that seemed to be a news story, congressional investigators concluded Friday. The Government Accountability Office said the public relations efforts violated the government's "publicity or propaganda prohibition" because the department did not clearly disclose its role to the public. The department was ordered to report the violations to Congress and the president."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/30/gao.propaganda.ap/

10/12/2005 12:26:09 PM

we're sorry we supported you mr. president. it was wrong.

you're right it was wrong. i'm fining you one dollar.

10/12/2005 12:30:29 PM

Quote :

"President Bush Teleconference With U.S. Troops Was Choreographed to Match His Goals for Iraq War President Bush waves goodbye as he finishes speaking via video teleconference to American troops from the 42nd Infantry Division on duty in Tikrit, Iraq, at the White House in Washington, Thursday, Oct. 13, 2005. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite) By DEB RIECHMANN Associated Press Writer The Associated PressThe Associated Press WASHINGTON Oct 13, 2005 — It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution. "This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you." Barber said the president was interested in three topics: the overall security situation in Iraq, security preparations for the weekend vote and efforts to train Iraqi troops. Top Stories * Podcast: The AfterNote * The Note: Take It on Faith * Poll: Bush Presidency Judged Unsuccessful As she spoke in Washington, a live shot of 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division and one Iraqi soldier was beamed into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building from Tikrit the birthplace of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. "I'm going to ask somebody to grab those two water bottles against the wall and move them out of the camera shot for me," Barber said. A brief rehearsal ensued. "OK, so let's just walk through this," Barber said. "Captain Kennedy, you answer the first question and you hand the mike to whom?" "Captain Smith," Kennedy said. "Captain. Smith? You take the mike and you hand it to whom?" she asked. "

I wonder when our soldiers will tire of being props for this moron.

[Edited on October 14, 2005 at 12:52 AM. Reason : http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=1210978]

10/14/2005 12:51:45 AM

Quote :

" Military reverses plan to add Ed Schultz show to Armed Forces Radio RAW STORY The United States' military's Armed Forces Radio has reversed a decision to add The Ed Schultz show to their lineup abroad, RAW STORY has learned. Schultz was told Sept. 29 he would be added to the military's programming today. That decision was reversed this morning. His producers are currently seeking answers from the military. On his program Friday, Schultz attacked Alison Barber, an Armed Forces official, over President Bush's staged conversation with U.S. troops in Iraq. Barber is an Assistant Secretary of Defense. Advertisement Armed Forces Radio provides programming to American troops wherever they are stationed abroad. The network carries newscasts from a variety of outlets, including NPR and the Associated Press, along with commentary from Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Laura, among others. MORE FROM THINKPROGRESS: "Barber told [producer] James Holm that the Ed Shultz show would not start on AFR today because her boss, Pentagon spokesman Larry DiRita, was out of the country and couldn’t approve it. Barber also said she was going out of the country soon for a week-and-a-half. Holm asked Barber if the show would begin when DiRita and Barber returned. Barber said she couldn’t guarantee that. "Here’s the really interesting part. Barber told Holm she heard Ed announced that he would begin on AFR during his show Friday. Shultz’s show Friday began with audio outtakes of Barber sounding foolish as she rehearsed the troops “Q&A session” with Bush.""

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Military_reverses_plan_to_add_Ed_1017.html

10/17/2005 3:51:42 PM

10/22/2005 9:08:44 PM

Quote :

"From the current version of the Gellman article in today's Washington Post ... On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and said Wilson's trip was a boondoggle set up by Wilson's wife, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports. From the original version now saved in the Nexis database... On July 12, the day Cheney and Libby flew together from Norfolk, the vice president instructed his aide to alert reporters of an attack launched that morning on Wilson's credibility by Fleischer, according to a well-placed source. Libby talked to Miller and Cooper. That same day, another administration official who has not been identified publicly returned a call from Walter Pincus of The Post. He "veered off the precise matter we were discussing" and told him that Wilson's trip was a "boondoggle" set up by Plame, Pincus has written in Nieman Reports."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006893.php

[Edited on October 30, 2005 at 10:48 PM. Reason : b]

10/30/2005 10:48:08 PM

^^ I never realized the pulitzer was that crappy. The edgy commentary against the pulitzer committee and nothing else is both shocking and disheartening. Some of my favorite writers have pulitzers, I must now reconsider their worth now that their awards have been questioned...

10/31/2005 7:52:37 AM

U.S. Government propaganda in the "news" isn't just for here at home...

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/politics/11propaganda.html?hp&ex=1134363600&en=6ed9a1b5468ea92a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Quote :

"Military's Information War Is Vast and Often Secretive By JEFF GERTH Published: December 11, 2005 The media center in Fayetteville, N.C., would be the envy of any global communications company. In state of the art studios, producers prepare the daily mix of music and news for the group's radio stations or spots for friendly television outlets. Writers putting out newspapers and magazines in Baghdad and Kabul converse via teleconferences. Mobile trailers with high-tech gear are parked outside, ready for the next crisis. The center is not part of a news organization, but a military operation, and those writers and producers are soldiers. The 1,200-strong psychological operations unit based at Fort Bragg turns out what its officers call "truthful messages" to support the United States government's objectives, though its commander acknowledges that those stories are one-sided and their American sponsorship is hidden. "We call our stuff information and the enemy's propaganda," said Col. Jack N. Summe, then the commander of the Fourth Psychological Operations Group, during a tour in June. Even in the Pentagon, "some public affairs professionals see us unfavorably," and inaccurately, he said, as "lying, dirty tricksters." The recent disclosures that a Pentagon contractor in Iraq paid newspapers to print "good news" articles written by American soldiers prompted an outcry in Washington, where members of Congress said the practice undermined American credibility and top military and White House officials disavowed any knowledge of it. President Bush was described by Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, as "very troubled" about the matter. The Pentagon is investigating. But the work of the contractor, the Lincoln Group, was not a rogue operation. Hoping to counter anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world, the Bush administration has been conducting an information war that is extensive, costly and often hidden, according to documents and interviews with contractors, government officials and military personnel. The campaign was begun by the White House, which set up a secret panel soon after the Sept. 11 attacks to coordinate information operations by the Pentagon, other government agencies and private contractors. In Iraq and Afghanistan, the focus of most of the activities, the military operates radio stations and newspapers, but does not disclose their American ties. Those outlets produce news material that is at times attributed to the "International Information Center," an untraceable organization. Lincoln says it planted more than 1,000 articles in the Iraqi and Arab press and placed editorials on an Iraqi Web site, Pentagon documents show."

12/13/2005 2:39:36 PM

[old]

http://brentroad.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=372014

12/13/2005 3:20:33 PM

Quote :

"Wednesday, January 04, 2006 NBC changes official transcript of Andrea Mitchell interview, deletes reference to Bush possibly wiretapping CNN's Christane Amanpour Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net? Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that Mitchell: You don't have any information, for instance, that a very prominent journalist, Christiane Amanpour, might have been eavesdropped upon? Risen: No, no I hadn't heard that. Here's what it says now: Mitchell: Do you have any information about reporters being swept up in this net? Risen: No, I don't. It's not clear to me. That's one of the questions we'll have to look into the future. Were there abuses of this program or not? I don't know the answer to that Mitchell: You are very, very tough on the CIA and the administration in general in both the war on terror and the run up to the war and the war itself Â? the post-war operation. Let's talk about the war on terror. Why do you think they missed so many signals and what do you think caused the CIA to have this sort of break down as you describe it? Risen: I think that, you know, to me, the greater break down was really on Iraq. It's very difficult to have known ahead of time about these 19 hijackers. They were, you know, probably lucky that they got through and they did something that no one really assumed anybody would ever do. And I think that made 9/11 a lot like Pearl Harbor. That even when you see all the clues in front of you that it's very difficult to put it together. "

1/6/2006 11:45:12 PM