2
   

How dangerous is the Bush administration?

Forums: Politics, George W Bush
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
blatham
 
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 07:08 am
Read the following piece from the London Review of Books. Then mail it off to your friends and anyone else who you think ought to read it. It is an extraordinary indictment.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n01/print/wein01_.html
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 10,192 • Replies: 188
No top replies

 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 07:34 am
Re: How dangerous is the Bush administration?
blatham wrote:
It is an extraordinary indictment.



A)More of the usual.
B)No, it is not extraordinary.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 07:45 am
Re: How dangerous is the Bush administration?
blatham wrote:
Read the following piece from the London Review of Books. Then mail it off to your friends and anyone else who you think ought to read it. It is an extraordinary indictment.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n01/print/wein01_.html

If I wanted to create a false impression that someone good had done something bad, I think I might also make 100 accusations instead of three or four that could be debated. Like the author of that piece, I would make unsubstantiated claims, never citing a verifiable source for anything. I would also bemoan things that were regrettable side effects of justified actions.

On the other hand, if I really had a case for my opinion, I would instead make a small enough number of charges that debate could show the truth or falsehood of my assertions, and do so in my own words, citing sources when appropriate.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:07 am
It is impossible to discern whether any, all, or none of the things said in this article has any veracity. In fact, the way it was written would have done credit to a supermarket checkout counter tabloid.

Quote:


Take this point, and let's for a minute assume that this questionaire was truly given to prisoners in Iraq. What were the responses? How creditable were the responses?


I could probably postulate that some of what was written in this article was true. But there is no way of knowing that by the way that the article was written. I consider it an extremely poor piece of journalism, all innuendo, and very little substance.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:10 am
Sorry boys, but that piece wasn't intended for you or any of the others here who would find excuse for this administration if it got photographed fukking a sheep (unless, of course, that sheep was of the same gender).

It is intended for everyone else to read, then forward as broadly as possible.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:13 am
Thanks for posting that, Blatham. Yes, an extraordinary indictment.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:15 am
blatham- If I saw a picture of the administration fukking sheep (and knew
that the picture had not been doctored) I would believe it faster than this article.

Now Blatham, I think that there has been a lot of wrong headedness concerning what has been going on in Iraq. I think that the administration has made some major league boo-boos. But the author of this piece is doing a disservice by writing a piece like this.

As someone said, a few charges, with backup material, would have proved much more effective in presenting this person's case!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:19 am
Quote:
I consider it an extremely poor piece of journalism, all innuendo, and very little substance.


It isn't journalism. It isn't innuendo (better look it up). What it is actually is something identical to a Bush speech or a Rumsfeld press briefing. Though more honest with detail. Print it out, arbitrarily pick ten paragraphs, then research the facts or claims.
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:22 am
blatham wrote:
Sorry boys, but that piece wasn't intended for you or any of the others here who would find excuse for this administration if it got photographed fukking a sheep (unless, of course, that sheep was of the same gender).

It is intended for everyone else to read, then forward as broadly as possible.



In that case why bother posting it Blatham? If you do not care to have widespread views and opinions, perhaps you'd be better served to just place it in your own personal e-mails and/or shoot it over to persons at A2K via private message. You post it here and in plain sight, you will get responses and they will not all fall into lock-step with your views.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:29 am
Sturgis wrote:
blatham wrote:
Sorry boys, but that piece wasn't intended for you or any of the others here who would find excuse for this administration if it got photographed fukking a sheep (unless, of course, that sheep was of the same gender).

It is intended for everyone else to read, then forward as broadly as possible.



In that case why bother posting it Blatham? If you do not care to have widespread views and opinions, perhaps you'd be better served to just place it in your own personal e-mails and/or shoot it over to persons at A2K via private message. You post it here and in plain sight, you will get responses and they will not all fall into lock-step with your views.


I'm not interested in agreement of lack of it. Obviously, people will go on to read it (or not, as the case with you) then say something here. That's fine. Those who read it, find it compelling, then send it on to others on their email lists...that's the idea.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:29 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
But the author of this piece is doing a disservice by writing a piece like this.

As someone said, a few charges, with backup material, would have proved much more effective in presenting this person's case![/color][/b]


It's an essay, Phoenix, not a report. And it's published in the (according to a quote by Alan Bennett) " iveliest, the most serious and also the most radical literary magazine we have".

The title of the essay is "What I heard about Iraq in 2005".

Weinstein's "What I heard about in 2004" from last became a theater play - the world premiere of What I Heard About Iraq (A Cry For 5 Voices) was some time ago in Hollywood's Fountain Theatre.

Last year's article has been published (and sold quite good) as a book as well.

No, I know, this doesn't give any more creditability. But it took some years until you, Phoenix, at least thought about the possibilty that there might be a small chance that really no WMD's were in Iraq. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:32 am
yes but innuendo is very useful and practical. it turns war heros into traitors, draft dodgers into patriots, starts wars and wins elections to name just a few. :wink:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:32 am
Good man, walter! Rule by poets, I say.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:34 am
Walter- You have no idea just about when I realized that there were no WMDs in Iraq. It was quite a while ago. I still believe that it is important that we stay in Iraq, but for different reasons than WMDs.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:40 am
I can't find a single thing on the list that is patently untrue. Most of the items on the list have I have not only heard but I have seen posted before on A2K.

Lots of things are said without much comment such as...
Quote:


Quote:
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:43 am
Yup. It's anecdotal, built on a wonderful rhetorical structure. And the writer has the smarts (and the refreshing integrity) to understand that what he says has to have a presence in the public record.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:46 am
ps to phoenix

My 'guys' post a page back was to sturgis and brandon. Your post just landed in the middle.
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:46 am
I can't understand what the problem is, either. It seems to be about the form in which the information is presented, rather than the content. Most of the information presented in this piece isn't new to me at all.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:51 am
The problem, msolga, is that the public record is commonly not accessed by sturgis and brandon. They draw their information from sources which "filter" (to use Bush's own, and very accurate term) information.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sun 1 Jan, 2006 08:54 am
blatham wrote:
ps to phoenix

My 'guys' post a page back was to sturgis and brandon. Your post just landed in the middle.


I always seem to land **splat** in the middle of somewhere! Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How dangerous is the Bush administration?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.64 seconds on 12/23/2024 at 09:17:27
▲ ▼