http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070523/ap_ ... mney_abc_2

Romney: ABC story puts lives at risk

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney criticized ABC News on Wednesday for its report about CIA plans in Iran, saying it could potentially jeopardize national security and endanger lives.

ABC News rejected Romney's analysis, and said it had given the CIA a chance to make the case that its report put people at risk, but the agency didn't respond.

The network led its top-rated "World News" on Tuesday with Brian Ross' report saying that President Bush had directed the CIA to carry out secret operations against Iran both inside and outside that country. The network said the campaign was "non-lethal," and involved propaganda broadcasts, the planting of newspaper articles and the manipulation of Iran's currency and banking transactions.

Romney, during a campaign appearance in Tulsa, Okla., said he was shocked that ABC News would broadcast the report.

"The reporting has the potential of jeopardizing our national security," the former Massachusetts governor said. "Stated quite plainly, it has the potential of affecting human life. We may never know."

He said he did not support censorship, but that "the media has a responsibility to police itself."

ABC News' Web site was flooded with 1,683 comments within a day of the broadcast, with one poster urging ABC to "keep your big mouths shut."

ABC News President David Westin said the network has changed or withheld stories in the past if the CIA convincingly says it could put lives or operations in jeopardy. The CIA was contacted six days ago about Ross' story, and chose not to say anything about it, he said.

The report didn't specify timing or any specific operations, Westin said. CIA activity in Iran has been reported before, he said, including within that country. What made Tuesday's story new was Bush formally signing documents authorizing the operations, he said.

"The facts don't bear out the accusations (from Romney)," Westin said. "I even think that any brief look at the facts says that. This is not a complicated one."

Romney had called him early Tuesday to give him a heads-up that he was making the accusations, Westin said.

actually, isn't there a media censorship thread? if so, merge away.

This could not have come at a worse time, really.

I actually think it is better suited to this thread...

http://forums.theskyiscrape.com/vie ... hp?t=65930

I proffer a merge, do you accept?

The media is allowed to report whatever it feels is news. The real issue is, what kind of bullshit security does top s3cret information have now-a-days that this stuff is so easily leaked?

Iran has the pwoer to hurt us worse than we could hurt them. We could wipe them off the map, and thus send them to Paradise, they could suicide bomb our schools and malls into a state of fear so strong we would stay in our houses all day.

That doesn't even approach rational thought. Lemme see if I can follow your logic:

Iran is more powerful than the United States because, though we might bomb them ye merrily into oblivion (in the lord our God's divine and blessed mercy), they could send martyrs into Banana Republic? Listen, if all I have to do is start a war with Iran to get rid of the GAP, I'm in.

You sir get a gold star.

Obviously, you missed the point. Which is worse, instant annihilation, or a contant state of fear?

Dont be douche bag. I meant, im my opinion, that living in a state of perpetual fear of death everytime we take our kids and leave the house is worse for us than them being bombed into islamic martyrdom is for them. Does the threat of Israeli airstrikes stop the Palestinians from launching mortors into Israel? And no attack on Iran would be religous in motivation, that's BS. Economically motivated maybe, but not some kind of crusade.

No, I completely understand his viewpoint, but it is irrational. It is also completely irrational to believe that terrorist networks have the funding, abilities, or desire necessary to maintain a constant threat abroad (specifically in the U.S.). It's a matter of logistics and economics, realize how difficult it is for the United States to maintain its military presence in the middle east.

For the sake of argument lets assume that every U.S. casualty in Iraq can be attributed to terrorist activities. We know that Iraq in general (and Baghdad specifically) is the center of anti-U.S. terrorist activities at present, what can we determine?



Looks like the death toll is fluctuating quite frequently while troop strength does not. We must also accept that it is much easier for these terrorists to operate in the Arab World than to integrate into a foreign body. To be sure, many terrorists would love to attack U.S. civilians, and some will attempt it, but most of the time it is empty rhetoric. Hate groups in general, terrorists, neo-nazis, the KKK, all operate in similar fashion. All spew rhetoric but only a determined minority actually act.

Additionally, a "constant state of fear" is a bullshit idiomatic phrase, it means nothing. It is not tangible and cannot be quantified in the same manner that we can calculate casualties. What can you cite, polls? "This group feels afraid". Nonsense.

Finally, lets just apply the law of diminishing returns. Should we be attacked more often we would become more capable of dealing with the threat. Look at Israel, it is the only western style nation that lives in what you could call "a constant state of fear" and yet their lives have adapted to the routine.

1) The fact that whether we are in a state of fear is immeasurable and intangible does not mean that we cannot be or are not in a state of fear.

2) "Logistics and economics" may suggest that terrorists cannot maintain any kind of sustainable front against the US, but that doesn't stop people from being in a constant state of fear. As irrational as their fears may be, people are still afraid that they might be taken victim in an attack, no matter how sporadic they may be. In essence, it isn't the attack itself that causes fear, but the perception that there could be another attack. And they don't have to contantly attack people to keep that perception alive; they just have to have a successful one on American soil once or twice a decade. Now I personally don't fear terrorists and concientiously recognize that it is incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be the victim of terrorism, but judging by the existance of the Patriot Act and the fact that this is still an issue, a large portion of Americans don't feel that way.

Take away my gold star and explain how it's rational to compare the death toll of trained US military personal in a war zone to what 'a determined minority' could do at a couple of college football games on any given Sunday. If you were to look at civilian deaths in Iraq, that might be a more valid comparison.

It's not about the number of dead, it's about the reaction of the nation as result of the attacks and I'm sorry if you don't see that. Look what 9/11 did to the state of mind, not to mention the economy, of this nation. As horrifying a spectacle as that day was, it could be argued that resulting actions of our governments were equally as bad. The PARTIOT act, a legal travesty, would have been laughed out of Congress had it not been for 9/11. Same with the Iraq War. I don’t blame the 9/11 perps for these things, I blame our nation’s reactions to 9/11 for them. And I do believe that should a series of Oklahoma City like attacks occur against schools or malls or sporting events we would legislate our way into this ‘perpetual state of fear’ you think is so impossible. It can’t be quantified because it’s group think. Quantification has nothing to do with it and I suspect should polls come out showing people being afraid after an attack, the polls themselves would make more people suddenly be afraid.

And the US is so resource-rich, economics and logistics has little to do with it. We have to transport troops with hundreds of millions of dollars in equipment and support personal across the earth because Iraq lacks the support infrastructure to handle our troops. They would need a credit card, an internet connection, some fertilizer, and a u-haul. Don’t you remember the DC sniper? Or the Virginia Tech killer? How much economic/logistical support do you think those guys were relying on versus what Hamas could whip up in a few hours?

Israel deals with it’s Islamic terror problem with conscription and human rights violations against minorities in it’s citizenry. Hardly a solution that would work in the US. Jewish Israeli’s also have a shared nation identity and religion, something the US cannot rely on. Israel is a good example for my initial argument though, think about their recent war in Lebanon. Israel killed lots of civilians with massive military power and bombing as a result of what? The kidnapping of two soldiers. I understand that is a simplification of the history of the conflict, but essentially they went to war over the lives of two soldiers. How would our government, and more importantly our national mindset, react to slaughter of several hundred school kids? That is where the real terror would lie and where their greatest chance for victory is, to turn our nation into something we despise. Hell, they are half way there.

The examples you give aren't even middle eastern, much less Iranian. Your original assertion was that Iran has the power to strike us, in our schools and in our malls, and they have no desire to do so.

and he compares the kidnapping of two soldiers to the kiling of hundres of school kids.

I'm glad that there were no other candidates who held press conferences to address this, as Romney's only served to further cement his reputation as a grandstanding jackass in my opinion.

Actually, I was talking about the government's responce, not the terrorist act or the victims.