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

["Vern Green" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

So then my estimation of it being pretty useless as far as real
information goes was spot-on. I am not doubting those events took
place, what I was complaining about was how they were taken out of
context to make it look like a series of lies by Bush.

Of course they really fail to prove there was a single lie told by
Bush. They do a pretty good job of showing some changes in attitude
about Iraq and showing a timeline of a lot of irrevelant infomration,
but they really failed to prove their point in the end.



On 9/6/06, Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Sep 2006, Vern Green wrote:
>
> > Its always interesting to go back to the beginning of a thread.
> >
> > Subject: War Timeline
> >
> > I see nothing here that says this was only a Bush war timeline, Mike's
> > subject reads that it is a timeline of the Iraq war. Misleading?
> > Certainly it is.
>
> It's the friggin' "subject," Vern -- is it supposed to give a full account
> of the content?  I don't think so.  It isn't misleading, it is incomplete,
> as it should be.  Do you think I should add warnings on my emails such as:
> "WARNING:  This web site may contain information that will tend to cast
> the President in a bad light.  To those of you who like the President
> because he promotes your religion, this may seem to be an example of media
> bias.  If you are afraid to confront uncomfortable facts, do not go to
> this website."  Would that have helped?
>
>
> > Text
> >>
> >> http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/
> >>
> >> It is interesting to go all the way back to 1990 and scroll forward
> >> from there.  I'm up to 2001 so far.
> >
> > Hmm nothing here about it being about just the lies of the Bush
> > administration, someone reading this might have gotten the idea this was
> > a timeline of the Iraq war. Which it most certainly is not.
> >
> > The only hint that this was simply an indictment of the Bush
> > administration was when you actually go to the site. The headline on the
> > page reads:
> >
> > Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003
>
> Why would it matter what someone might have thought it was if they hadn't
> seen it?  All I said about it was that it was interesting -- not that it
> was an unbiased source or that it proved something.  When you go to the
> web page and see "Lie by Lie" written all over it, either you figure out
> what it is about or you are mentally retarded -- I think that's an
> exhaustive partition of the sample space.
>
>
> > OK that says nothing about ONLY the lies of the Bush administration, in
> > fact, if you did not see the splash screen of the flash element, you
> > would not even know going in that this was only about Bush. Misleading,
> > yes, biased, certainly, but do I dare consider the possibility that by
> > not making it clear up from that it is an indictment of Bush, that there
> > is a deliberate attempt to cover up this bias?
> >
> > It seems that only when truly exposed that the defensive mechanisms fire
> > up and the attempt to limit it to Bush is applied.
>
> I don't understand the last sentence but let me say that I don't think
> anyone could be confused about that web site.  You replied right away to
> say that you had some doubts about it and I responded as follows:
>
>   Let me know what you figure out.  What I would be interested in is if
>   they exclude important information that would change how things look.  I
>   would also be very interested to know if they say anything that is not
>   true.  I have never heard anyone say that Mother Jones published
>   something that was not true, but of course their "bias" is well known.
>
> After studying it, you found nothing that was not true.  You suggested
> that some things about Clinton and Saddam were left off and I suggested
> that those things were not relevant to the Bush Administrations pattern of
> deception, which is obviously what the web site is about.  I think that is
> perfectly clear.  If they wanted to provide a timeline of the war or a
> timeline of Iraq, or Saddam, or US-Iraq interactions, they would have to
> make it much much larger than it is.
>
> 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