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

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

How can you accuratly determine if you are lied to when the only
document you are using is trying to make the point that you were lied
to?

I don't see you posting anything that might support an alternative
point of view about these supposed lies. You are spending your time
looking at people who essentially support your point of view. The
point of view that Bush Lied, People Died.

The main piece of biased falsehood these groups like to talk about is
that the only reason we went into Iraq was because of weapons of mass
destruction, when in truth, there were 20 some odd OTHER reasons Bush
gave to ousting Saddam. Look at the motherjones site and see if they
mention those. I saw no mention of the other reasons.

Did Bush lie? Honestly I don't know, you don't know, MotherJones, ABC,
CNN, nor anyone except for Bush and some of his aids knows for sure.

The point here is that you are so convinced, after reading your
propaganda, that Bush lied, that you are unwilling to look at anything
beyond the narrow focus of whether he lied or not. That is troubling
since there is little evidence that you are attempting to inform
yourself as to the truth.

One last thing, if this was a timeline of the lies of the Bush
administration in regards to Iraq, as you and the web site suggest,
then why bring up the submarine incident? That is a totally unrelated
and speculative incident that really had no place in the timeline.

On 9/6/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Spurling, Shannon wrote:
>
> > <sarcasm>Well, I don't know about any one else, but I sure don't see any
> > bias in the topic of the first timeline.</sarcasm>
>
> There isn't bias in a topic, just bias in reporting about a topic.  There
> is nothing wrong with writing a history of deception by some group of
> people.  In fact, I would love to see all the ways that Bill Clinton
> supposedly lied to us or deceived us about any topic including his sex
> life.
>
>
> > To focus on the what with out looking at the why can be very misleading.
> > That is why information left out of the first one is biased. I found the
> > second one very informative about the complete history of the topic.
>
> When considering that we, and our Congress, were lied to, we are also
> supposed to consider why we were lied to?
>
> Whatever.
>
> 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