>Gabriel,
>
>the glib assumptions drawn from selective sources (Bush-oil conspiracy
>theories, US army atrocities, CIA non-claims, etc.), in order to make the
>anti-war case, are the essence of propaganda.
>
>It's limited, as I said, because there is no attempt at objectivity.
>
>Objectivity would require weighing all the evidence available, showing the
>facts and arguments drawn from both sides. That is not what you've been
>doing. You've been uncritically channeling tendentious reports which
>support the anti-war position. To say that "it's easy because the whole
>world is anti-war" is not a strong argument for objectivity on your part.
>
I do have a question about this, Henry:
Are there reliable reports out there that deny, with facts, etc, the
various reports on the backgrounds of Cheney, Ashcroft, Bush, etc? I have
watched some very interesting programs on CBC, for example (although it's
the Canadian 'national' radio & TV network I can assure you that it's not
in any way radical, too far left, etc): these have reported, with what look
to be very careful reseearch, on these matters, &, given the way they have
to present arguments for both sides of any argument, have always had
someone pleading the case against such representations of said backgrounds
& how they affect what these people are doing now (both with the war, &
wars to come, & in terms of this administrations atack on the first & other
amendments of the Constitution), I end up feeling that the case being made
against the members of the Bush admin is pretty darn good.
Doug
Douglas Barbour
Department of English
University of Alberta
Edmonton Alberta Canada T6G 2E5
(h) [780] 436 3320 (b) [780] 492 0521
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
I fear this war
will be long and painful
and who
pursue
it
Lorine Niedecker
|