Bush Administration Tries to Hide the Truth (Again)

[pankwindu]

Looks like General Honore announced a "zero access" policy Friday to prevent media coverage. CNN filed suit on First Amendment grounds and got a temporary injunction. Final ruling to come Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/10/ka...dia/index.html

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
Looks like General Honore announced a "zero access" policy Friday to prevent media coverage. CNN filed suit on First Amendment grounds and got a temporary injunction. Final ruling to come Saturday.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/09/10/ka...dia/index.html

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, that is how one summarizes an article. You had the right guy and what happened.

I wonder if the article was edited since you read it though. The article appears to say that the ban has already been lifted by Saturday morning.

[ QUOTE ]
The word "exemplary" is ( as seen in definition one ) generally used to refer to something as not only an average example but an example that is exceptional, worthy of commendation, or in some other way exceptional and should be seen as a model for , in this case, how to write an article. The article itself is common, average, and fairly uninformative.

[/ QUOTE ]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Wow, I must say I admire your chutzpa. So you are saying that your CHECKED THE DICTIONARY, saw that the word "exemplary" has multiple meanings, and then decided to LEAD YOUR POST with a usage flame based on your view my usage was "incorrect" based on one definition, withour regard to any other definition? That is now your story?

Really? Are you sure? That's your story?

You know posts stay on here a really long time, right?

Well, it looks like vulturesrow bought it, at least.

[ QUOTE ]
The military almost always acts on short notice without civilian input. Perhaps you meant without the federal executive branch's input? In that case -- yes I entirely believe such a decision is abundantly possible without that branches input.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Abundantly possible"? Sorry, that is not what I asked. I asked whether that was your theory. In other words, what did you believe was the most likely explanation at the time?

[ QUOTE ]
But here we are walking into the area of assumptions; and that is your core problem. You have started screaming very large accusations on the basis of reading between the lines and assumptions. That is exactly what I was pointing out. Do you have any actual facts to support your case? No, assumptions are what you are operating on; assumptions built upon an already existing set of prejudices. Those prejudices would find any way of pointing the finger.

[/ QUOTE ]

Come now. Facts: multiple reports that the press was being kept out. Fact: an administration with a history of trying to "manage" the news -- see, e.g., the as-yet-unseen Abu Ghraib photos; the efforts to keep the war dead hidden, etc. Fact: an adminstration under fire for its bungling of the situation.

When I hear lots of low-volume tapping on my roof and someone comes through my door closing a wet umbrella and takes off wet shoes, I don't have to look out the window to conclude that it is raining. Do you?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military, but it ill suits an informed citizen. Faces of the dead -- to the extent they are even still recognizable -- can be blurred. And the "room on the boats" excuse is no excuse at all for keeping reporters out of the area altogether.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you actually knew anything about me, other than what you think you know based on an internet discussion forum, you would know that I hardly "unquestioningly accept the party line". If that were the case, Id still be a Democrat.

Sifmole did an exemplary job in addressing your other points, so I wont dicuss this any farther.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, your usage-happy friend did not at all address the point that the faces of the dead could be blurred. And his suggestion that the press was not really being kept out was wrong. But given that events have overtaken this issue, it is understandable that you don't wish to discuss this further. After all, it is not as if "respect for the dead" went away in 24 hours, is it?