RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
Those Darn, Pesky Revisionist Historians...(9 posts)
|Those Darn, Pesky Revisionist Historians...||bboc|
Aug 21, 2003 1:46 PM
Damn those revisionist historians. As Take Back the Media has pointed out, the White House is madly, retroactively changing the headlines on press releases sent out the day of President Bush's aircraft carrier landing. The original White House release was titled, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." But now the release reads "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." http://www.takebackthemedia.com/images/wprevised3.gif
Seems as if the Department of State hasn't caught up with the switcheroo yet. http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/rm/20203.htm
But the Department of Defense has.
At first glance, this kind of trickery might not seem terribly newsworthy. But, given the White House's continual obfuscation and secrecy and the mushrooming fiasco in Iraq, its actually worth a great deal of scrutiny. It's one of those events that so effectively illuminates much larger revisionist trends.
August 21, 2003 | 4:44PM"
|If I believed that Bush had actually read Orwell's 1984. . .(nm)||czardonic|
Aug 21, 2003 1:50 PM
|Funny, No excuses from the Right.||bboc|
Aug 22, 2003 6:43 AM
|It must hard thing to defend behavior like this.|
|Trivial and not worth commenting on NM||Live Steam|
Aug 22, 2003 6:55 AM
|More like unexcusable. (nm)||bboc|
Aug 22, 2003 7:11 AM
|Should I be like some of the rabid liberals that attack me ...||Live Steam|
Aug 22, 2003 12:17 PM
|and call you on "unexcusable"? The generally accepted term is "inexcusable". I only bring this to your attention because you would probably slam Bush for the same faux pau. This is a trivial matter. Who are the keepers of history, the White House staff or the remainder of society who read and write it in books, magazines and newspapers? These press releases are PR and have always been such. You are quibbling over minor words like "major combat operations" vs "combat operations". I guess we are back to it all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.|
|You got me on my mispelling||bboc|
Aug 22, 2003 12:51 PM
|but you're above that, right? I might have slammed Bush for a similar mistake (most Bushisms are much worse than a spelling mistake, I at least got the meaning right), but I'm not the President of the United States, and therefore not subject the the high standards of the office.
Bush specifically coined the phrase "Revisionist Historians" to brush off any number of accusations, and therefore it is all the more telling when his office gets caught red handed in a blatent attempt to revise history.
|Besides, "unexcusable" is a recognized alternate spelling. . .||czardonic|
Aug 22, 2003 1:23 PM
|. . .at least to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=unexcusable
Then again, attacking the messenger is a recognized alternate defense of Bush and his lousy leadership.
|Give Bush a break||Jack9|
Aug 23, 2003 10:02 PM
|Give Bush a break, that carrier landing was the closest he has ever been to Vietnam while in uniform. No one, dub included, ever thought he would ever be that close.|| |