George Bush, Mike Nifong and Me.

[RandFan]

Ok, I'm struggling here trying to maintain my cognitive dissonance and failing miserably.

I'm truly outraged that Mike Nifong used the power of his office to obfuscate and push through a prosecution that should never have seen the light of day given that at best the evidence was contradictory and at worst there was no evidence.

So what of Iraq and the actions of Bush before the Iraq war given the evidence at the time?

What can I say? I understand the outrage that many have had toward GWB and I do not think it simply motivated by personal political reasons. More now than ever. As to myself I clearly was motivated in my desire to see Saddam dealt with and what I saw as a silly charade of the UN trying to enforce their orders for Saddam to disarm as impotent.

I was wrong.

[PogoPedant]

Links? Background? Who's Mike Nifong and what has he done?

[LibraryLady]

RandFan is referring to this. (http://www.wilmingtonstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070414/NEWS/704140354/-1/State)

[RandFan]

Links? Background? Who's Mike Nifong and what has he done? My bad. Sorry.

Overview. (http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/31200/a_legal_overview_of_the_duke_lacrosse.html)

Comprehensive forum and information. All things Duke Lacrosse Hoax. (http://liestoppers.blogspot.com/)

In short, 3 Duke Lacrosse players were accused of raping a stripper at an ill conceived party at a house rented by the captains of the Duke Lacrosse team. Ostensibly the house was rented for the purpose of drinking and partying.

Mike Nifong was the prosecutor who without evidence railroaded these 3 players in spite of a complete lack of evidence, an emotionally troubled accuser who told a different story every time she retold her story and alibis of the accused that demonstrated that at least 2 of them could not have even been there at the time of the alleged rape.

It's a very scary thing that one man can railroad innocent people. Had the accused not been able to afford attorneys and had Ed Bradley not cast serious doubt about the case on 60 Minutes these men may very well have gone to jail.

I started out believing they were guilty BTW.

[PogoPedant]

Thanks. At least it seems like the prosecutor is facing some sort of music, though.

[Katana]

When can we expect Al Sharpton to apologize to the lacrosse players?

[Daylight]

When can we expect Al Sharpton to apologize to the lacrosse players?

A very good point.

[fuelair]

A very good point.
To which the answer (and I will be happy if either he or his partner in crime, J. Jackson prove me wrong within, say, the next year) is "never".

[WildCat]

When can we expect Al Sharpton to apologize to the lacrosse players?
He'll bundle it with the apology for the guys he slandered in the Tawana Brawley affair.

[SezMe]

Consider what would have happened if the strippers were white and the guys had been black....and poor. We'd never hear of the case in the media and the guys would disappear into the prison system for decades.

[Katana]

Consider what would have happened if the strippers were white and the guys had been black....and poor. We'd never hear of the case in the media and the guys would disappear into the prison system for decades.


Perhaps.

Or you wouldn't have had a prosecutor whose actions were more motivated by appeasing the vocal mob than doing his job, leaving him with what he really had - not enough evidence to go forward.

I admit that that's a twisted "upside" to suggest.

[steverino]

Does anyone know how Nifong got an Asian name? I wikied, but no clue, other than that "Lee" was his dad's middle name. He doesn't look at all Asian to me.:confused:

[Ziggurat]

So what of Iraq and the actions of Bush before the Iraq war given the evidence at the time?

Which actions in particular? This is far too nebulous a question. In fact, I think it points rather directly to a major difference between them: the accusations against Bush generally ARE nebulous and vague (he "lied" about Iraqi WMD's), while the charges against Nifong are quite specific and unambiguously damning. The man conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense, in direct violation of his legal obligations, and he made the decision to do that on his own and tried to keep that action secret from everyone, including the judge.

[RandFan]

Which actions in particular? This is far too nebulous a question. In fact, I think it points rather directly to a major difference between them: the accusations against Bush generally ARE nebulous and vague (he "lied" about Iraqi WMD's), while the charges against Nifong are quite specific and unambiguously damning. The man conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense, in direct violation of his legal obligations, and he made the decision to do that on his own and tried to keep that action secret from everyone, including the judge.Fair question.

I think that the evidence that Saddam did not have WMD and that while it took 13 years the UN efforts and Hans Blix were effective. The American people supported the invasion because of Iraqi WMD. I think like Nifong Bush chose to view the evidence in a way that suited him.

[Ziggurat]

Fair question.

I think that the evidence that Saddam did not have WMD

That's the CIA's job, not Bush's. And the CIA was consistent in this position for many years, including under the Clinton administration, and the democrats believed the CIA too. Was Bush wrong to believe the CIA? Maybe. But believing that the CIA did their job correctly is hardly equivalent to demanding that a forensics lab NOT do their job, which is what Nifong did.

and that while it took 13 years the UN efforts and Hans Blix were effective.

Effective at what? Obtaining compliance with UN resolutions? Not at all. Preventing Saddam from rearming? Yes, though we can only be certain of that in hindsight, and there was reason to distrust Blix's capabilities in that regard. The inspections were designed to verify disarmament, which they never did because noncompliance made that impossible - they were never intended to discover secret programs, and they never did (Saddam's nuclear crash program went unknown for years untill a defector revealed it). UN inspections have never uncovered a secret WMD program, ever, so the fact that they couldn't this time was absence of proof, not proof of absence.

The American people supported the invasion because of Iraqi WMD.

This is actually still a very vague claim. Did they support the invasion because they thought he had current stockpiles? Did they support the invasion because they though he might teach terrorists how to make and use WMD's? Did they support the invasion because they thought nothing short of that could prevent eventual rearmament? It's probably a mix of those things (I leaned heavily towards the last one myself), but only the first one appears like it shouldn't have been a factor in anyone's decision.

I think like Nifong Bush chose to view the evidence in a way that suited him.

That's fine, but that wasn't the only problem, and it wasn't even the worst problem. Pressing ahead with a prosecution of likely innocent people is one thing, and that's the sort of mistake you can get when you view evidence the wrong way. But hiding facts he had a legal obligation to reveal to the defense? That's far beyond just interpreting evidence the wrong way. That is obvious and flagrant misconduct, REGARDLESS of how he interpreted any evidence. And for that, you've presented no real parallel to Bush.

[RandFan]

That's the CIA's job, not Bush's. And the CIA was consistent in this position for many years, including under the Clinton administration, and the democrats believed the CIA too. Was Bush wrong to believe the CIA? Maybe. But believing that the CIA did their job correctly is hardly equivalent to demanding that a forensics lab NOT do their job, which is what Nifong did.

Effective at what? Obtaining compliance with UN resolutions? Not at all. Preventing Saddam from rearming? Yes, though we can only be certain of that in hindsight, and there was reason to distrust Blix's capabilities in that regard. The inspections were designed to verify disarmament, which they never did because noncompliance made that impossible - they were never intended to discover secret programs, and they never did (Saddam's nuclear crash program went unknown for years untill a defector revealed it). UN inspections have never uncovered a secret WMD program, ever, so the fact that they couldn't this time was absence of proof, not proof of absence.

This is actually still a very vague claim. Did they support the invasion because they thought he had current stockpiles? Did they support the invasion because they though he might teach terrorists how to make and use WMD's? Did they support the invasion because they thought nothing short of that could prevent eventual rearmament? It's probably a mix of those things (I leaned heavily towards the last one myself), but only the first one appears like it shouldn't have been a factor in anyone's decision.

That's fine, but that wasn't the only problem, and it wasn't even the worst problem. Pressing ahead with a prosecution of likely innocent people is one thing, and that's the sort of mistake you can get when you view evidence the wrong way. But hiding facts he had a legal obligation to reveal to the defense? That's far beyond just interpreting evidence the wrong way. That is obvious and flagrant misconduct, REGARDLESS of how he interpreted any evidence. And for that, you've presented no real parallel to Bush. You have some points but I don't agree with everything you've written zig but I'm not interested in a debate and I'm happy to let your position stand without rebuttal from me.

I have for years defended Bush on this forum though to be honest I have criticized him also but the truth is that I see him the way many of his critics do. However I stand by my assessment. If you think me vague that's fine. I'm only offering my honest opinion. One that I have thrashed out in my brain since before Katrina. I don't think it would be fair to label me anti-Bush. Not that you are trying to do that but I will simply say that my opinion is not borne of political enmity toward Bush.

Thanks,

RandFan

[Roadtoad]

Interesting editorial on this issue here. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122007/news/columnists/let_the_liar_be_named__shamed_columnists_john_podh oretz.htm)

[Beerina]

To which the answer (and I will be happy if either he or his partner in crime, J. Jackson prove me wrong within, say, the next year) is "never".

Quite literally. Plumpton has already stated he will not apologize for it.

[Beerina]

Perhaps.

Or you wouldn't have had a prosecutor whose actions were more motivated by appeasing the vocal mob than doing his job, leaving him with what he really had - not enough evidence to go forward.

I admit that that's a twisted "upside" to suggest.

And cases where white women lie out their ass about being raped by black men tend to revolve around wealthy black men, and hence they'd have fine lawyers, too.

[hgc]

Interesting editorial on this issue here. (http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122007/news/columnists/let_the_liar_be_named__shamed_columnists_john_podh oretz.htm)


Standard fare from John Podhoretz. Was an op-ed column written for the purpose of repeating her name 10 times necessary? What purpose does it serve, other than to call the shock troops to a harrassment campaign against an obviously troubled individual? He should take note from the recently exonerated young men, who have studiously avoided attacking her and an have no intention of making her the target of lawsuits. Really pathetic.

[shecky]

As usual, Ziggurat is dreaming.

Don't trust authority. That hippie-ish bumper sticker slogan should be heeded far more often. Humans lie and screw up all the time. Being in a position of authority doesn't change that fact.

[Ziggurat]

As usual, Ziggurat is dreaming.

About what? Do you have an actual argument here, or are you just making sure the world knows you disagree with me?

Don't trust authority.

Unless it's Hans Blix.

[ConspiRaider]

Consider what would have happened if the strippers were white and the guys had been black....and poor. We'd never hear of the case in the media and the guys would disappear into the prison system for decades.
Absolutely, SezMe. Bullseye. The white guys in this case will do the talk show circuit, write books and so forth. If it was black guys? SuperMax. 3 hots and a cot, ad nauseum. They would cease to exist.

On the case: Not only am I happy it was exposed for the fraud it was, but even happier that it was Ed Bradley who did such an exemplary job going after it on 60 Minutes. Gonna continue to miss that guy Ed.

[ConspiRaider]

Which actions in particular? This is far too nebulous a question. In fact, I think it points rather directly to a major difference between them: the accusations against Bush generally ARE nebulous and vague (he "lied" about Iraqi WMD's), while the charges against Nifong are quite specific and unambiguously damning. The man conspired to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence from the defense, in direct violation of his legal obligations, and he made the decision to do that on his own and tried to keep that action secret from everyone, including the judge.
You're a hard case, right Zig? At this point in time - how can you possibly, seriously suggest that the "accusations against Bush generally ARE nebulous and vague"?

Get with the program. STOP supporting Stupid-Boy. There were excuses to do this in the past. Not good excuses, mind. But they existed. No longer.

Hey - Stupid-Boy has now racked up more than 3,300 U.S. troops killed in Iraq. No end in sight. And you are still trying to wring excuses out of the greenhouse-gas-laden air for this dribbling idiot?

Quit watching Fox "News". Get yourself educated. Think, for chrissakes!

[Ziggurat]

You're a hard case, right Zig? At this point in time - how can you possibly, seriously suggest that the "accusations against Bush generally ARE nebulous and vague"?

Because that's exactly the sort of accusation being thrown around in this thread.

Get with the program.

Whose program? Yours?

STOP supporting Stupid-Boy. There were excuses to do this in the past. Not good excuses, mind. But they existed. No longer.

And what support, exactly, do you think I'm providing?

Hey - Stupid-Boy has now racked up more than 3,300 U.S. troops killed in Iraq. No end in sight.

And FDR racked up 400,000 American deaths. And Lincoln racked up over 850,000 American deaths. Yet Lincoln is widely (and I believe correctly) considered one of our greatest presidents. The numbers you posted alone don't make your argument for you. This is exactly the sort of nebulous and vague accusation against Bush that I meant.

Quit watching Fox "News". Get yourself educated. Think, for chrissakes!

I don't watch Fox News, and your presumption that I must reveals your own ignorance, not mine. That I do not think like you does not indicate I do not think.

[Daylight]

Zig

Why do you keep defending the Bush Administration? What good things have they done for the average American? Not trying to put you down. You obviously see some good that is worth defending. Could you share what it is?

[Ziggurat]

Zig

Why do you keep defending the Bush Administration? What good things have they done for the average American? Not trying to put you down. You obviously see some good that is worth defending. Could you share what it is?

I most certainly haven't defended them on everything. I can find plenty to criticise about them. But I keep "defending" the Bush administration regarding Iraq because I think much of the criticism is simply wrong, and I believe the decision to invade was correct. There are legitimate grounds on which to oppose the war. But if someone can't recognize that there are also legitimate reasons to support it, then they're apt to consider any argument opposing it to be valid (witness the above argument regarding American deaths), and that's simply not the case.

[Tmy]

When can we expect Al Sharpton to apologize to the lacrosse players?


I dont remember anyone apologizing to Kobe Bryant when his rape charges were dropped.

[steverino]

Zig
What good things have they done for the average American? Not trying to put you down. You obviously see some good that is worth defending. Could you share what it is?

No 9/11 sized attack on American soil since 9/11. Chicago's Sears Tower received threats. Last I checked, it is still standing. Thank Mayor Daley if you want, but he needed fed help to maintain Chicago's greatest erection.

[EBU]

I dont remember anyone apologizing to Kobe Bryant when his rape charges were dropped.

One difference: Along with the rape charges being dropped, I think there was a settlement between Kobe Bryant and the accuser. I don't believe there was a settlement between the Duke students and their accuser.

Another difference: the charges against Bryant were dropped when the accuser declined to testify, not because the prosecutor decided that Bryant was innocent, as was the case for the Duke students.

[Daylight]

never mind

[SezMe]

Daylight, that's a pretty heavy derail. Take it up in a new thread?

[Daylight]

Daylight, that's a pretty heavy derail. Take it up in a new thread?

You're right, but the title does include this.

[Ziggurat]

removed to prevent further derail: will PM daylight.

[davefoc]

On the Nifong thing and the article linked to by Roadtoad:

Assuming that the facts are roughly what they appear to be in this case I think Nifong deserves the preponderance of blame here.

Many people who are living on the edge routinely lie. Normally the harm these people do is mitigated by the fact that they just aren't credible. Routine interviews by DA's and police identify these people and their accusations are treated skeptically until corroborating evidence can be found. In this case, the testimony of a questionable witness seems to have been used as the basis for a prosecution without corroborating evidence and then in the face of positive exculpatory evidence that the accuser was lying the DA still continued forward.

There are many people living on the edge that might involve themselves in a get rich quick scheme involving false accusations. The problem here was the DA became a co conspirator with one of these people and in so doing he damaged not only the lives of the falsely accused men but he damaged the life of the accuser who in a normal situation would have just made some wild charges that would have not gone anywhere once there was a failure to find corroborative evidence.

As to the routine Zig defense of Bushco about it being the CIA's fault:

I think George Tenant might not agree with him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500653_pf.htm

As to Randfan's change of mind:
Randfan has had roughly the same change of mind that I have.

I continue to believe that there were some legitimate arguments for war even without the WMD. But even before the war, without a WMD justification, on balance I thought a preemptive war was not justified. Part of Zig's argument is that most people thought that Hussein had WMD and therefore blame shouldn't be apportioned to the Bush administration for acting on what was the common consensus. I think Zig's analysis here is just wrong, but like RandFan I'm tired of discussing this and will let whatever Zig wants to say about this stand without further comment from me.

The next part of the equation, the running of the occupation, muddies the waters still further about whether the war was justified in the first place. It appears that Bushco has been dominated by incompetence and corruption in ways that I think most people would not have predicted. It still might be argued that the disaster that this war has become might have been greatly reduced given something along the lines of routine integrity and competence by the Bush administration.

But, I think, in the end RandFan pretty much summed it up for me. I was wrong.

[Ziggurat]

As to the routine Zig defense of Bushco about it being the CIA's fault:

I think George Tenant might not agree with him:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500653_pf.htm


Your link doesn't work, so I can't tell what you're refering to. But Tenant was the guy who said the WMD case against Saddam was a "slam dunk". Has he changed his tune? And if so, why would we interpret that as anything other than him trying to cover his own backside?

[davefoc]

new and improved link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500653_pf.html

[Ziggurat]

new and improved link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/15/AR2007041500653_pf.html

That's quite short on details. "The White House definitely won't be overjoyed, we're hearing" is pretty much the extent of what Al Kalem has to say. It's not clear that whatever Tenet has to say will actually change anything.

[ConspiRaider]

Your link doesn't work, so I can't tell what you're refering to. But Tenant was the guy who said the WMD case against Saddam was a "slam dunk". Has he changed his tune? And if so, why would we interpret that as anything other than him trying to cover his own backside?
How can you POSSIBLY be taken seriously on your views concerning U.S. Federal politics, when:

1. Not being an American, you are viewing American politics from the outside looking in, through a frosted window.

2. You don't even know that the guy's name is Tenet - NOT Tenant! Doh!

[Ziggurat]

How can you POSSIBLY be taken seriously on your views concerning U.S. Federal politics, when:

1. Not being an American, you are viewing American politics from the outside looking in, through a frosted window.

Why do you conclude that I am not an American?

2. You don't even know that the guy's name is Tenet - NOT Tenant! Doh!

If bad spelling invalidated arguments, most of us would be in trouble. Note, though, that I copied the incorrect spelling from the davefoc post I was responding to. And in the post immediately proceeding yours, I had the correct spelling.

[ConspiRaider]

Why do you conclude that I am not an American?

If bad spelling invalidated arguments, most of us would be in trouble. Note, though, that I copied the incorrect spelling from the davefoc post I was responding to. And in the post immediately proceeding yours, I had the correct spelling.
In a post, you used the word "criticise". Americans would never spell it like that - ever. Subbing 's' for 'z' in certain words is a decidedly non-American habit.

And: Using "Tenant" instead of "Tenet" in that earlier post indicates scant familiarity with this person. You used the correct version in your later post because you looked him up (which is good). But it indicates that your analysis of American politics is more of a skimming action than one suggesting depth.

On the other hand - what do I know? I'm just a boy from Ohio, originally.

[Ziggurat]

In a post, you used the word "criticise". Americans would never spell it like that - ever. Subbing 's' for 'z' in certain words is a decidedly non-American habit.

And: Using "Tenant" instead of "Tenet" in that earlier post indicates scant familiarity with this person. You used the correct version in your later post because you looked him up (which is good). But it indicates that your analysis of American politics is more of a skimming action than one suggesting depth.

On the other hand - what do I know? I'm just a boy from Ohio, originally.

Well, that's some nice sleuthwork. Unfortunately, though, it's completely wrong. My spelling is just plain bad, but I am indeed American.

[ConspiRaider]

Well, that's some nice sleuthwork. Unfortunately, though, it's completely wrong. My spelling is just plain bad, but I am indeed American.
Oh really? Where from in America? Bad spelling is one thing. Using British Commonwealth rules for certain words is quite another. Is it even possible that American schoolchildren are now being taught to do this? And just where would that be?

Remember: This is the Internet. Anyone can say anything, with little chance for verification. For all I know - you're 14 years old. For all you know - I'm 92. Therefore, assumptions have to be made.

And if you are American and feel qualified enough to comment so much on American politics: How can you make the Tenant / Tenet mistake? It's not like this guy just popped up in the last few months or so, a new name.

Because if you still support Bush on the Iraq War at this very late stage and hope to be taken seriously at all on your inexplicable position: Then you would have to know - in depth - the major players involved in the game.

[davefoc]

ugh, I'm responsible for this tenant/tenet thing. Sorry, his name is misspelled in numerous threads here at JREF and on the internet. I just remembered seeing it misspelled numerous times and remembered that and decided I needed it to spell it differently without thinking about it much. Unfortunately I chose to spell it differently than the correct spelling.

I do however guarantee that I am an American, I give you my word of honour on that.

[Ziggurat]

Oh really? Where from in America?

California originally.

Bad spelling is one thing. Using British Commonwealth rules for certain words is quite another.

Substituting an s for a z? Well, it could be an anglicism, or it could just be bad spelling. I'm a bad speller, that much I know for certain. Perhaps I picked up a few anglicisms from my mother (who was born in Ireland), but that would be pretty irrelevant anyways.

Remember: This is the Internet. Anyone can say anything, with little chance for verification. For all I know - you're 14 years old. For all you know - I'm 92. Therefore, assumptions have to be made.

Well, no, actually they don't have to be made, because the validity of my arguments doesn't depend upon my identity.

And if you are American and feel qualified enough to comment so much on American politics: How can you make the Tenant / Tenet mistake? It's not like this guy just popped up in the last few months or so, a new name.

Like I said: terrible spelling, plus copying it from a previous poster. Funny how you haven't questioned davefoc's ability to comment on the topic.

Because if you are still support Bush on the Iraq War at this very late stage

See, if I was like you, I might point out how you screwed up your verb conjugation, and suggest it meant that you weren't a native English speaker and hence weren't qualified to comment on this topic. But that would be silly, because your argument doesn't depend upon your identity, and people make all sorts of spelling and grammar mistakes when posting online.

and hope to be taken seriously at all on your inexplicable position: Then you would have to know - in depth - the major players involved in the game.

In other words, you want to establish a different standard for two sides of an argument, and try to disqualify me rather than shoot down my argument. How... convenient for you.

[Ziggurat]

I do however guarantee that I am an American, I give you my word of honour on that.

I am American. I give you my word as a Spaniard (http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Princess-Bride,-The.html).

D'oh!