Bush-Cheney propaganda, fresh from Iraq!

[Desmostylus]

@Jackmannii

The linked article doesn’t make clear exactly what sort of information/press service the British have, but says this: “The U.S. team stands in deep contrast to the British team that works alongside it, almost all of whom are civil or foreign service employees, not political appointees. Many of the British in Iraq display regional knowledge or language skills that most of the Americans lack.”

This statement refers to the CPA in general, but the implication is that news releases are handled by less politicized staff. So it’s legitimate to ask just how the British staff is handling public relations.

I get the impression that they don’t do news releases at all. They’re just doing the administrative/logistical stuff. I don’t really know, because, you know, they don’t seem to be sending out press releases and doing the media stuff. I could be completely wrong here, though.

@Jackmannii

As to the “British” not being impressed with “what’s going on”, it’s hard to tell from the unnamed source(s) in the link just what the beef is.

A plain, straightforward reading of the paragraph would suggest that this is the beef: “events are orchestrated and information controlled with the American political agenda uppermost in mind”.

[El_Kabong]

Right, and now I’ve read part of the article, it appears the OP has not in fact truncated his quotes; don’t think he should have used elllipses on the last two paras since they are reproduced in their entirety, but that’s not a mortal sin.

I think the bolding is a bit much, though. Oh, well, carry on.

[Desmostylus]

@El_Kabong

Well, just… get… High.

Shame on you. Advocate of drug use.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Uncle:

• And I find it ironic that I’m called to task for the use of truncated quotes, yet it appears that rjung’s use of them is acceptable. It is to laugh - all this irony, it is.*

?

Uh, well, I mean…you’re complaining that he’s using truncated quotes. This means that you’re against the use of truncated quotes, yes? Or, maybe I missed the point: you’re demonstrating how truncated quotes can be misleading? But in that case, your post only supports rjung’s argument, because it misleads with its truncificity?

Anyway, rjung has found an article he wants to share; he links to it, quotes from it, and highlights the section he thinks is important. He can’t quote the whole thing, so of course the quote is truncated – all quotes are, in that sense. One finds mitigating information in practically every news article I quote, as well, but I don’t generally start off the discussion by quoting that particular section….

Oh well, never mind. It’s just a quibble, really.
Desmo:

*Originally Posted by El_Kabong

Well, just… get… High.*

Shame on you. Advocate of drug use. ;)*

You’ve been snacking again, haven’t you, sir.

[Desmostylus]

@Mr. Svinlesha

You’ve been snacking again, haven’t you, sir.

I’ve been eating Bushies non-stop for days. Can’t seem to get enough. I think there’s no substance to them.

[Mr.Svinlesha]

Desmo:

I suspected as much.

They induce hallucinations, you know.

[ElvisL1ves]

**Unc **, which is it? That you don’t recognize a difference between shortening for readability and actual alteration of meaning or that you don’t want to admit having done it? I’ll omit commenting upon your interest in pulling down my pants.

elucidator, you owe me two bucks. Send it to the Kerry campaign in Unc’s name. Thanksgiving is too late; that’s after Election Day.

[UncleBeer]

Right, and now I’ve read part of the article, it appears the OP has not in fact truncated his quotes; don’t think he should have used elllipses on the last two paras since they are reproduced in their entirety, but that’s not a mortal sin.

You are correct; I’m sorry for my poor phrasing. rjung has not truncated his quotes. He’s merely being selective and biased. At first ignoring, and then even refusing to believe, quotes that contradict his preconceived, preferred, and biased notions.

Well, just observing here, but I don’t get how the OP truncating his quotes
makes it perfectly OK for you to truncate yours. High road and all that.

It doesn’t, of course and were this a legitimate debate in GD, rather than a rant in the Pit, I think I would have used a different approach. I was merely trying to draw attention to mitigating items in that news report that no one from the liberal gang of Bush-haters would have given a second thought, or maybe even a first thought, to. I chose to do by using the same tactics as the OP used to draw attention to the damning items - selective quotes. So, while it’s a poor tactic for me to use, it’s an equally poor tactic for rjung.

Ironic, ain’t it?

[elucidator]

Ah, the good old “I was only demonstrating the falsity of the tactic used by the other guy” defense! Haven’t seen that in a while. Beats the “Chewbacca defense”, gotta say that for it.

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

And Elvis…when, oh when, will you cease to misrepresent and mischaracterize my posts! I clearly stated that I had two bucks, and they were of the opinion, seperately and collectively, that Unc would make good. They were wrong. Probably victims of Cognitive Dissonance, the number one threat to the Republic!..

[RTFirefly]

Billmon has a bunch of quotes here about the fluff-from-CPA business:

Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.
The source said al-Sadr’s followers controlled the governor’s office, police stations and the Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Muslim’s holiest shrines.

CNN
Sources: Al-Sadr supporters take over Najaf
April 6, 2004
I know if you just report on those few places, it does look chaotic. But if you travel around the country, what you find is a bustling economy, people opening businesses right and left, unemployment has dropped.
Paul Bremer
CNN Interview
April 6, 2004

Follow my link to get to the CNN links.

[UncleBeer]

@ElvisL1ves

I’ll omit commenting upon your interest in pulling down my pants.

Move along. Nothing to see here.

[UncleBeer]

@ElvisL1ves

**Unc **, which is it? That you don’t recognize a difference between shortening for readability and actual alteration of meaning or that you don’t want to admit having done it?

Neither. Again you miss the point, but that seems to be your forte . . . nay, your raison d’être.

Do you not see the difference between shortening a quotation for readability (something I’ve already admitted that rjung is not technically guilty of) and the omission of, as well as the refusal to believe, portions of an article that contradict one’s ideology? This is the very epitome of partisanship. One presents an article with the contention that it supports his view, while studiously ignoring that large portions of it contradict it.

It is also to be lamented that so many of the quotes which do indeed support rjung’s outlook are anonymous. And this is questioned by none of your ilk; unattributed quotes are apparently acceptable evidence and sound journalism to y’all. I’ll remember that; I just hope you’re never on my jury.

[Jackmannii]

@Desmostylus

I get the impression that they don’t do news releases at all. They’re just doing the administrative/logistical stuff. I don’t really know, because, you know, they don’t seem to be sending out press releases and doing the media stuff. I could be completely wrong here, though.

Sonovagun, the Brits do seem to be “doing the media stuff”. Hard to tell how much of this “good news” effort is based in Iraq - but again, you’d be hard pressed to discover from this site that there was much going awry over there.

A plain, straightforward reading of the paragraph would suggest that this is the beef: “events are orchestrated and information controlled with the American political agenda uppermost in mind”.

Yeah, but what events, what information, what meanies doing the “control”, and what British official(s) are peeved? One functionary who’s in a snit at Tony Blair and wants to make him look bad? The whole diplomatic mission? Who can tell?

Curiously, a couple of interesting snippets from the original link, concerning CPA contractor Gordon Robison (who says the press office is politicized), have gone unremarked upon. According to the link:

“Robison, a journalist who said his political affiliation is a private matter…”

How come it’s “private”? After all, we’ve heard about the “packing” of the press office by Bush loyalists (a total of 11 Administration insiders out of 58 civilian employees, or 21 people with G.O.P. “ties” in all). And it’s curious that Robison sounded off after the termination of his job with a contractor who was replaced by another firm. Maybe a wee grudge is involved?

Psychedelic-sounding though it may be, I’ll have to agree with wring here…there’s so much to pit Bush about, why bother with this silliness? A government press office mainly emphasizing positive news about a government project???

Why…why…egad!

[ElvisL1ves]

Unc: Snort. The thing you profess to deplore in your most recent self-defense is exactly the thing you yourself were doing. You still do not get it. As elucidator astutely observes, "Ah, the good old “I was only demonstrating the falsity of the tactic used by the other guy” defense! Haven’t seen that in a while. " Remember who that refers to, do you?

jackmanii, I understood the rant to be targeted not toward Bush but toward those foolish enough to accept what he says at face value, and irresponsible enough to castigate those who question it.

[UncleBeer]

The thing you profess to deplore in your most recent self-defense is exactly the thing you yourself were doing.

Oh no, I get it all right you dim-witted house ape. Re-read the fucking post I made a short while ago and quoted below. Should be convincing to even the most lithium-deficient moron that I fucking get it. I got it from the start and acknowledge that I’m using the very same tactic that I’m deploring. It’s nice to see you acknowledge tho’ that A indeed equals A and that the tactics of the OP are deplorable. Now what part of “irony” do you not understand?

It doesn’t, of course [excuse me from using a tactic identical to the OP] and were this a legitimate debate in GD, rather than a rant in the Pit, I think I would have used a different approach. I was merely trying to draw attention to mitigating items in that news report that no one from the liberal gang of Bush-haters would have given a second thought, or maybe even a first thought, to. I chose to do by using the same tactics as the OP used to draw attention to the damning items - selective quotes. So, while it’s a poor tactic for me to use, it’s an equally poor tactic for rjung.

Goddamn, you are always this obstinately stupid? Now go pull up your pants.