Bush Administration Tries to Hide the Truth (Again)

They can ride with Sean Penn and get all the nasty footage they want.

Then they can clearly blame it on Bush... and/or whichever Republican is highest on the food chain.

[pankwindu]

It was much more than an inocuous request, according to Brian Williams. Weapons aimed at media members armed only with notepads.

The good news is that it appears word is getting out not to deny the press.

[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here.

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
Your ability to unquestioningly accept the proffered party line may serve you well in the military, but it ill suits an informed citizen.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then get informed, and try again. I have little doubt that these deaths will fall on the actions of the local government -- if Bush was trying to be political he should request pictures.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
It was much more than an inocuous request, according to Brian Williams. Weapons aimed at media members armed only with notepads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, the fight needs people with better reading skills -- or those that don't stoop to misrepresentation in an attempt to win a point.

First, I never used the word "inocuos"; I never judged the validity or strength of the request in any way.

Second, reading the report it was one out-of-town police officer with one "weapon". Notice the distinct lack of a plural. Also, it was likely a pistol that was aimed but it makes better "news" if Mr. Williams characterizes it as "the muzzle of her weapon"; which is of course a likely accurate description but easily invokes an entirely different sense of the occurance and is not an effect overlooked by a person who works with words for a living ( a journalist, not me ).

Third, this incident has no relation to the FEMA representative making the request. This is a different occurance in a different place at a different time. So using it to imply the weapon was aimed at the media members while the request was being made is typical, expected, misleading and detrimental to the real fight.

You complain that the Bush administration is covering the truth then you color and misrepresent the truth to attack -- you see why this gets no one anywhere?

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is not "exemplary", it is fairly common. It is perhaps an example. Nitwork done....

Ah, here there is mention of keeping the reporters out; this is a representation of the actual paragrah and a half. I looked elsewhere via reference of this article and there did seem to be a period where media were being turned away. However, it is unclear that the Bush administration made such an order. Do you believe every order acted upon by the National Guard comes directly from the Bush Administration? So we do have evidence of an order, but no evidence it came from Bush himself or the Bush administration.

I do notice that you neglected to include the follow-on notes that this stance has been changed --

"I talked to Bob a few minutes ago. And he said that there seemed to be a sea change in the treatment of reporters trying to get access to the city from yesterday to today. Today he reported that he and his colleagues were able to get through without any problem."

Directly from your the other misleading individual in this conversation.

See his second link.

So the massive governmental cover-up was for 1 day of restricting media entrance. It is good to question why, perhaps looking for the answer to why they choose to limit access? It certainly did not succeed in preventing the people from knowing that New Orleans was in terrible shape, that thousands have died and thousand upon thousands more are hungry.

Personally, I am very thankful to the media for managing to get their vans there with all their equipment and people so they can broadcast; I mean what would they do with a disater to get viewership. Any reports of a single reporter stocking their van with food and water to deliver?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is not "exemplary", it is fairly common. It is perhaps an example. Nitwork done....


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. This is what you lead with? This you believed was such an error on my part that you felt comfortable with this smarmy, juvenile display?

Please.

Next time, please do yourself a favor and check a reference before you embarass yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Ah, here there is mention of keeping the reporters out; this is a representation of the actual paragrah and a half. I looked elsewhere via reference of this article and there did seem to be a period where media were being turned away. However, it is unclear that the Bush administration made such an order. Do you believe every order acted upon by the National Guard comes directly from the Bush Administration? So we do have evidence of an order, but no evidence it came from Bush himself or the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the military by itself decided to do this, with no civilian input whatsoever? Is that your theory? Ok. Any evidence to back that up?


[ QUOTE ]
I do notice that you neglected to include the follow-on notes that this stance has been changed --

"I talked to Bob a few minutes ago. And he said that there seemed to be a sea change in the treatment of reporters trying to get access to the city from yesterday to today. Today he reported that he and his colleagues were able to get through without any problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this available when I posted this morning and this afternoon? Why, no. Thank you for noticing.

[ QUOTE ]
Directly from your the other misleading individual in this conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
So the massive governmental cover-up was for 1 day of restricting media entrance. It is good to question why, perhaps looking for the answer to why they choose to limit access? It certainly did not succeed in preventing the people from knowing that New Orleans was in terrible shape, that thousands have died and thousand upon thousands more are hungry.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, thanks to word getting out the administration changed its stance. Sounds good to me. Are you still defending a policy your ideological allies have abandoned?

[pankwindu]

You are correct, my link is not related to the OP's incident. The OP's link was meant as an example, and mine was another example of a pattern of behavior among local police, National Guard, and FEMA officials. There were numerous scattered stories about this yesterday, not just these two links.

I interpreted the pattern of behavior to mean there was a coordinated order from above to keep out the media. I didn't specficially blame it on the Bush administration, but I plead guilty by association given the subject of the thread.

I also provided additional anecdotal evidence of the opposite pattern of behavior. I interpreted this to mean that either clear orders have been issued to let the media perform their jobs, or there was no anti-media order in the first place. Either way, I consider the issue resolved with the correct outcome.

I apologize for not being clear the first time around.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Where, in this article, do you see any mention of keeping the reporters out altogether?

[/ QUOTE ]

The article was exemplary. Keeping reporters out has been reported elsewhere, including here.

[/ QUOTE ]

The article is not "exemplary", it is fairly common. It is perhaps an example. Nitwork done....


[/ QUOTE ]

You must be joking. This is what you lead with? This you believed was such an error on my part that you felt comfortable with this smarmy, juvenile display?

Please.

Next time, please do yourself a favor and check a reference before you embarass yourself.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny I did check that exact reference. 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 ]
Ah, here there is mention of keeping the reporters out; this is a representation of the actual paragrah and a half. I looked elsewhere via reference of this article and there did seem to be a period where media were being turned away. However, it is unclear that the Bush administration made such an order. Do you believe every order acted upon by the National Guard comes directly from the Bush Administration? So we do have evidence of an order, but no evidence it came from Bush himself or the Bush administration.

[/ QUOTE ]

So the military by itself decided to do this, with no civilian input whatsoever? Is that your theory? Ok. Any evidence to back that up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um. I am not following you here. 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. 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.

This way of operating does no good to the cause of showing the government for what it is. Instead it demeans your cause. Fight with facts, not assumptions or misrepresentations.


[ QUOTE ]
I do notice that you neglected to include the follow-on notes that this stance has been changed --

"I talked to Bob a few minutes ago. And he said that there seemed to be a sea change in the treatment of reporters trying to get access to the city from yesterday to today. Today he reported that he and his colleagues were able to get through without any problem."

[/ QUOTE ]

Was this available when I posted this morning and this afternoon? Why, no. Thank you for noticing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the post with the link was posted 30 minutes before your second post indicating the cover-up was happening.

[ QUOTE ]
Directly from your the other misleading individual in this conversation.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

I was refering to fink.


[ QUOTE ]
So the massive governmental cover-up was for 1 day of restricting media entrance. It is good to question why, perhaps looking for the answer to why they choose to limit access? It certainly did not succeed in preventing the people from knowing that New Orleans was in terrible shape, that thousands have died and thousand upon thousands more are hungry.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, thanks to word getting out the administration changed its stance. Sounds good to me. Are you still defending a policy your ideological allies have abandoned?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, misrepresentation. This is why you can never be taken seriously. I never defended the stance, do you see anywhere I defended the stance? I questioned whether the stance came from the Bush administration -- a legitimate question. I questioned whether was a reason given for the stance, again legitimate and leads to actual understanding. If there was no reason given, or the reason does not stand up to scrutiny THEN we have something to fire with. Right now such posts as yours are just hysterical.

And one last final misrepresentation -- You have no idea who my idealogical allies are; but you of course attempt to paint me with the brush you feel most damages me. The people I least want as allies are those such as yourself -- you damage the cause because you don't operate by knowledge, facts, or reaons. Instead you fight by misrepresentation, straw-manning, hysteria, insinuation, and assumption.

Both of the major parties in our government use these same tactics to keep their power. And all posts like yours do is feed it. Analyze, find the truth -- attack with that and we can make a change. Remain hysterical and they remain in control.

[vulturesrow]

[ 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.