Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] War timeline

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

OK well I read through it.

It is all about an indictment about the Bush administration as
expected. While I cannot speak to the truth of all of these matters,
there is nothing here that on the surface says that it is false.

There are mentions of speculation, namely in regards to civilians that
were supposedly at the controls of the submarine that struck the
Japanese boat. There has been no evidence that this was the case, but
to make a point, they included it here.

Of course, they fail to even mention any of the attacks Clinton
performed against Iraq, nor do they provide any of the quotes about
Saddam and his drive to acquire weapons during his administration. Any
real and fair timeline of the events leading up to the war in Iraq
cannot dismiss those items.

Those items are the essence of what I expected to see when I first saw
this timeline. It has a singular purpose and that is to try and
degrade the Bush administration. It is well researched and likely many
of the statements here are true, even if they are taken out of context
as I am sure some are.



On 8/31/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Vern Green wrote:
>
> >> I think you should always be skeptical.  What sort of title could be
> >> used to turn off your skepticism and cause you to simply believe
> >> everything you are reading?  Would it be "Bush didn't lie"?  Or maybe
> >> "Hey, some say he lied and some say he didn't.  You decide"?
> >
> > Not at all, something like "Timeline of events concerning Iraq?"
> > Probably not as polarizing but would be less judgemental in the title.
>
> But that title wouldn't tell you what the article was about.  The article
> was not a timeline of events concerning Iraq, it was a list of events that
> demonstrate a pattern of deception on the part of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz,
> etc.  It's all well-documented.  If something is left off, great, tell us
> about it.  The interesting thing is seeing some of the stuff that happened
> years ago but people aren't thinking about it now.  We forget things and
> this article reminds us of what we've forgotten.  This is the article:
>
> http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
>
>
> > I guess it all comes down to intent though, what is the intent of this
> > timeline? To prove Bush lied? If that is the writers intent, then I
> > would be surprised there is fair shake.
>
> If you would read about it first, and write about it second, you might be
> able to answer some of your own questions.  Why do you have to try to
> figure out ahead of time if you might think the article doesn't give "a
> fair shake?"  Just read it.  Really, at this point it is becoming
> ridiculous that you are going on and on with speculations about what this
> article might do but you can't even take a few minutes to read the damned
> thing and then tell us what you found out.
>
>
> > Anyway, enough talk about that it might be, the best thing is to get
> > into it and see what it is, which I will do when I get off work.
>
> OK.  I guess we agree on one thing anyway.  Obviously, I wrote the stuff
> above before I read the final sentence.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> discussion mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion


--
Thanks
F Vernon Green

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion