Cfk Interviewed By The New Yorker "bad Information..."

[sesamosinsal]

But since it implicated the current regime, they must be a tabloid.

I never said that nothing they have published is accurate, but please, don't compare them to Newsweek. It is a tabloid. If that upsets you, then we can compare them to Clarín in Argentina, which, by God's grace, is still considered a newspaper. However, writing false stories about political figures having secret bank accounts that they do not or accusing the president of their own country of having a relationship with the FARC -- and not having evidence for either claim -- is not just libelous, but irresponsible and bad journalism. There are tons of examples of this shoddy journalism with Veja and many other outlets, both left and right. The only reason I brought up Veja is because their dubiously sourced information was cited by the New Yorker journalist, with no attribution.

 

[ajoknoblauch]

But since it implicated the current regime, they must be a tabloid.

They don't support the project, either.

 

[camberiu]

I never said that nothing they have published is accurate, but please, don't compare them to Newsweek. It is a tabloid.

Does not upset me at all. But by your criteria, all American and European press should be labeled tabloid too. I am still waiting for the WMDs that both the new York times and the BBC claimed to have evidence for in Iraq. Or the anchorman that was in a helicopter while being attacked by rpgs in Afghanistan.
And Dilma does have relationship with the Farc. The Foro de Sao Paulo, which Dilma is publicly part off had many Farc members. That is no secret or surprise.

 

[sesamosinsal]

Does not upset me at all. But by your criteria, all American and European press should be labeled tabloid too. I am still waiting for the WMDs that both the new York times and the BBC claimed to have evidence for in Iraq. Or the anchorman that was in a helicopter while being attacked by rpgs in Afghanistan.
And Dilma does have relationship with the Farc. The Foro de Sao Paulo, which Dilma is publicly part off had many Farc members. That is no secret or surprise.

The issue of WMDs is completely different because the U.S. government was the source. There is a difference between citing Colin Powell, Dick Cheney and others in the Bush Administration, rather than anonymous sources and forged/questionable documents. Where the U.S. media went wrong is reporting those claims and not questioning the so-called facts behind them.

As far as Dilma, Lula, the PT and the FARC, I think most agree that there have been meetings, but there has never been any proof of a relationship, by which I refer to an economically beneficial one.. (I don't follow Brazilian politics as closely as I follow Argentine politics. So, if there are developments, feel free to enlighten me.) Even the US Embassy in Brasilia reported this about the allegations that Lula financed his campaign with FARC money, referring to the Veja story as a potential "political plant" and not "wholly fabricated."

To keep this in perspective, I am arguing this from a journalistic point of view.

 

[Rich One]

It's because of the translation, I think. She's also so used to preaching in front of an audience. You can see this throughout the interview when she appears to be speaking to people off camera, rather than the interviewer.

The interview at the end - specifically the part on Nisman - was painful. She spoke rather vaguely on such a serious issue. This was abundantly clear through the journalist's line of questioning -- I think he asked her three times what she thought happened to Nisman, and she just rambled on and on about how she doesn't believe in coincidence and yadda, yadda, yadda.

It's unfortunate because she forces anyone watching that interview to read between the lines and make assumptions about what she's saying. This is rather odd because she got angry at the media for making incorrect assumptions about her position in this case, i.e. do you believe it was a suicide or not? In her position, clarity is everything, and I don't understand what she gets out of being so ambiguous about what she thinks happened to him.

That said, I don't believe she or her government had anything to do with his death, and I've stated why many times on this forum.

Well Who's done it ? 24 hours before he was to denounce CFK??

 

[sesamosinsal]

Well Who's done it ? 24 hours before he was to denounce CFK??

To review, Nisman's criminal complaint, in a nutshell, is this: Argentina would drop the Red Alerts and the AMIA case (blame it on 'fachos locales') in exchange for political and economic relations with Iran.

The only problem is that there isn't a single shred of evidence for any of it. Mainly, there is no evidence to prove that the Argentine government ever sought to drop the Red Alerts. There are numerous letters to prove this, one which was sent to INTERPOL before the signing of the MOU between Iran and Argentina, as well as a letter from the Secretary General of INTERPOL at the time, which was sent the very same week that Nisman accused the government of maneuvering to drop the red alerts.

Without proof that the Argentine government ever tried to circumvent the authority of Judge Canicoba Corral to drop the red notices, his criminal complaint is not credible.

CFK knew that Nisman's accusations were nonsense. She had nothing to gain by killing him as his case was destroyed on Thursday or Friday of the week that he announced it publicly, and certainly on Sunday morning when an interview with INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald Noble was published in Página12.

No one seems to know who would have benefited from his death, but she (and many others) seems to believe that it benefited elements of the intelligence community... Stiuso, the CIA, Mossad... She rambled on about it, without ever giving a definitive opinion.

 

[Rich One]

To review, Nisman's criminal complaint, in a nutshell, is this: Argentina would drop the Red Alerts and the AMIA case (blame it on 'fachos locales') in exchange for political and economic relations with Iran.

The only problem is that there isn't a single shred of evidence for any of it. Mainly, there is no evidence to prove that the Argentine government ever sought to drop the Red Alerts. There are numerous letters to prove this, one which was sent to INTERPOL before the signing of the MOU between Iran and Argentina, as well as a letter from the Secretary General of INTERPOL at the time, which was sent the very same week that Nisman accused the government of maneuvering to drop the red alerts.

Without proof that the Argentine government ever tried to circumvent the authority of Judge Canicoba Corral to drop the red notices, his criminal complaint is not credible.

CFK knew that Nisman's accusations were nonsense. She had nothing to gain by killing him as his case was destroyed on Thursday or Friday of the week that he announced it publicly, and certainly on Sunday morning when an interview with INTERPOL Secretary General Ronald Noble was published in Página12.

No one seems to know who would have benefited from his death, but she (and many others) seems to believe that it benefited elements of the intelligence community... Stiuso, the CIA, Mossad... She rambled on about it, without ever giving a definitive opinion.

In spite of all these valuable arguments ....Can you argue the point Why he would commit suicide hours before he was going to culminate his lifetime project. in front of Congress... .

A letter from someone for me is No proof...unless I see someone state it on Video...that can also be edited...??

 

[sesamosinsal]

In spite of all these arguments ....Can you argue the point Why he would commit suicide hours before he was going to culminate his lifetime project. in front of Congress...

In my opinion, he didn't commit suicide.

But if he did commit suicide, the likely motive was the Ronald Noble interview in Página12 the morning of his death. http://www.pagina12....2015-01-18.html

Lo que dice el fiscal Nisman es falso. Ningún integrante del gobierno argentino trató nunca de que bajáramos los alertas rojos contra los funcionarios iraníes.” De esta manera categórica, el ex secretario general y hombre fuerte de Interpol, el norteamericano Ronald Noble, contestó a Página/12 la pregunta sobre la relación entre el gobierno de Cristina Fernández de Kirchner y los alertas rojos de los acusados en la causa AMIA.

 

[Rich One]

In my opinion, he didn't commit suicide.

But if he did commit suicide, the likely motive was the Ronald Noble interview in Página12 the morning of his death. http://www.pagina12....2015-01-18.html

PAgina 12.... B) no comment

 

[sesamosinsal]

PAgina 12.... B) no comment

I can understand your reservations, but the article is a Q&A. Read it next time before you comment.