On Sep 18, 2004, at 10:40 AM, Gautam Mukunda wrote:
--- Warren Ockrassa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Almost as extraordinary as the care with which the American media is not permitted to show imaged of flag-draped coffins leaving military transports.
They didn't show them in the Second World War. Or in Korea, actually.
True, but in the 20th Century the practice became more common over time, not less so, and that makes the current lack -- utter lack -- of coverage fairly telling. Recall this is the same administration that deliberately cordons off any possible protesters into "free speech zones" so Bush doesn't have to see them.
It seems to me that the deliberate blind spots are abundant. It makes me suspicious. Do you think it's unreasonable of me to be suspicious of an administration that admittedly used underhanded techniques (like the Dems did) to try to get itself installed in DC, and then dropped such a wall of noncommunication about itself that virtually everything it does appears to be furtive dealings-in-the-dark? I mean, the way they behave *invites* suspicion.
Evidence is absolutely required here before anyone can draw any solid conclusions, but since Nixon absolutely no one should have as much faith in the honesty of the US government as you seem to hold.
It's about believing that someone other than me has integrity, actually. That's the real difference.
I believe lots of people other than myself have integrity; however, as has been pointed out and documented more times than should ever be necessary to mention, Bush II is demonstrably an administration that is very low on credibility. From Ashcroft gutting Constitutional freedoms to Rumsfeld and the AG scandal to Cheney and Halliburton to missing WMDs to fudged Nat Guard records, the history of Bush II is littered with ample cause to question the credibility of every key player.
Abu Ghraib wasn't broken by intrepid investigative reporters. It was broken because individual soldiers had the integrity to report that something was going on, and it moved up the chain. There was no coverup. That's integrity.
There was no coverup? There was a total lack of mention of *anything* going on in AG at *all*. What is that if not a coverup? As you say it took *insiders* to break the story -- certainly the military was carefully keeping news of its adventures there from the media.
Perhaps you have a differing definition of coverup. To me the term means "Not telling what you're doing, particularly if you know it's shameful."
In order to believe this story, I'd have to believe that thousands of American soldiers were willing to cover up such an event, lying to the families of the killed and wounded.
I have said, several times now, that I agree a coverup is unlikely here. I will say it again. I will put it in a separate line to m,ake sure that it cannot be missed.
I doubt that anything seriously like what was reported actually happened.
Let me repeat that in case it was overlooked the first time.
I doubt that anything seriously like what was reported actually happened.
I don't see how it easily could be obscured from view. But I will not deny the possibility, because frankly I don't trust Bush. If exactly the same circumstances were taking place 8 years ago under Clinton, I would reach the same conclusions. Because *government cannot be trusted* when it becomes secretive, and Bush II has been secretive since the day W was installed.
I don't have to believe that Donald Rumsfeld is honest to believe that in all the thousands of people who would have to be involved there is the same sort of honesty that I would hope that I bring to the situation. Why do _you_ believe that it's plausible that all of those people would be willing to commit such deceptions?
OK, Gautam, I have said in EVERY POST on this topic that I DOUBT it. I suggest you look over the thread and show me where I say otherwise, where I say that I "...believe that it's plausible that all of those people would be willing to commit such deceptions" -- that, or retract the above and argue with what I am actually saying rather than declarations you have falsely implied I have made.
Please argue against the things I have actually said, rather than your own imaginings of what I have declared. You are scoring rhetorical points only against yourself, and you are undermining your credibility with every false sally you make.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" Excerpt at http://www.nightwares.com/books/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
