Reply
Thu 7 Dec, 2006 06:23 pm
Not one war that we have ever been involved in was the report of casualties & wounded reported fully. During WWII there was an
"Office of censorship", it was set up to squash the news that was unfavorable or aid the enemy because of the reports. There was also interception of correspondence of Americans & foreign gov't. It isn't right but Bush isn't the first one to do that. None of this stuff that is happening now that some claim to be unconstitutional is new.
Re: Bipartisan panel says Bush admin underreports Iraq viole
That may be the Iraq Surrender Panel's opinion but I take heart that the media more than makes up for any official underreporting by
overreporting the crap out of every casualty that may come along, whether the U.S. caused it or not.
LoneStarMadam wrote:Not one war that we have ever been involved in was the report of casualties & wounded reported fully. During WWII there was an
"Office of censorship", it was set up to squash the news that was unfavorable or aid the enemy because of the reports. There was also interception of correspondence of Americans & foreign gov't. It isn't right but Bush isn't the first one to do that. None of this stuff that is happening now that some claim to be unconstitutional is new.
True. FDR invoked strict media censorship during WWII.
Right! That' it!
<slaps forehead>
I already suspected that the Iraq War and World War II had a lot in common!
So, what else is comparable, MC and LSM?
The criteria for attacks being reported are interesting:
"The standard for recording attacks acts as a filter to keep events out of reports and databases." It said, for example, that a murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack, and a roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count, either. Also, if the source of a sectarian attack is not determined, that assault is not added to the database of violence incidents.
"Good policy is difficult to make when information is systematically collected in a way that minimizes its discrepancy with policy goals," the report said.
old europe wrote:Right! That' it!
<slaps>
I already suspected that the Iraq War and World War II had a lot in common!
So, what else is comparable, MC and LSM?
Are you saying that FDR didn't order censorship of news, or that correspondecnce wasn't intercepted? What?
I'm questioning the parallels between World War II and the invasion of Iraq.
You're saying there are parallels. Would you be so kind as to point out what paralles there are, besides the interception of communication?
old europe wrote:I'm questioning the parallels between World War II and the invasion of Iraq.
You're saying there are parallels. Would you be so kind as to point out what paralles there are, besides the interception of communication?
Nooo, you're trying to backslap the fact that the
under-reporting is new. There's noting in my post that paralles WWII with this war, other than what has been SOP. Even in the Civil War there were subversions of the Constitution.I suppose now you'll say that I'm
paralleing the CW with this one. Maybe you shouldn't try putting words or spin into a factual statement.
Excusing it because it's been done in the past is a fallacious argument. Justify it on its own merits, but don't appeal to tradition.
DrewDad wrote:Excusing it because it's been done in the past is a fallacious argument. Justify it on its own merits, but don't appeal to tradition.
Who's justifying it? I said,
It isn't right but it's not new
Are you trying to make believe that it is new?
LoneStarMadam wrote:Nooo, you're trying to backslap the fact that the under-reporting is new.
Oh, okay. So your only statement was that under-reporting is nothing new. Well, I can agree with that. Remember "Comical Ali"? He was quite good at under-reporting, too.
Now, my question would be: why does the Bush administration do that? Why did the Saddam regime do that? Because things are considerably worse than they want their population to know?
It's like talking to children...
"He did it first."
Where were these people's parents to inform them at the tender age of 5 that it isn't OK just because someone else did it first.
bush ate a bowl of ****......
well.... so did FDR..... and Saddam ate
2..... and Bill Clinton got a blow job......
Yep. Apparently, if someone else has done the same thing before, it becomes somehow justifiable....
Seems a lot of you can't read through your liberal bias glasses. No one has excused or justified anything but that hasn't stopped you from ejaculating all over the thread with the same old crap.
Merely commenting that it is nothing new in no way tries to justify anything. Parados is right, it IS like talking to children.
old europe wrote:Yep. Apparently, if someone else has done the same thing before, it becomes somehow justifiable....
if that someone is the captain of your team :wink:
McGentrix wrote:Seems a lot of you can't read through your liberal bias glasses. No one has excused or justified anything but that hasn't stopped you from ejaculating all over the thread with the same old crap.
Merely commenting that it is nothing new in no way tries to justify anything. Parados is right, it IS like talking to children.
Ejaculate and crap come from different places... forget what Mark Foley told you....
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:McGentrix wrote:Seems a lot of you can't read through your liberal bias glasses. No one has excused or justified anything but that hasn't stopped you from ejaculating all over the thread with the same old crap.
Merely commenting that it is nothing new in no way tries to justify anything. Parados is right, it IS like talking to children.
Ejaculate and crap come from different places... forget what Mark Foley told you....
The dictionary can be your friend Bear.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace