NCclimber

There now we have a better idea of what may have occurred. Why should reasonable considerations get in the way of a good old witch hunt?

he was charged with investigating non-specific atrocities and brutality by his division. Being a team player doesn't implicate him in any My Lai coverup. Ever heard of the Guilt by Association fallacy? Irrelevant. The guy who eventually blew the whistle was not a My Lai either. But his letter specifically addressed the My Lai massacre. The letter Powell investigated made absolutely no mention of My Lai. Oh look - another fucking LIE. You just can't help yourself, can you? But there is zero evidence to support what you think. It's all just circumstancial. Therein lies the rub. Yeah, yeah, yeah. You keep on telling yourself that. No doubt, one has to connect some dots, more like leaps of faith to assert that Powell had any direct involvement in trying to coverup My Lai. It seems your saying that because he could have covered it up that proves he did so. That dog don't hunt.

Is a trade deficit bad? How so?

One key thing for me is to actually try to get the story right... to try and be objective about what actually occurred... instead of tweaking it a bit here and a bit there... to give a completely different (read - dishonest) representation of what occurred. Was Colin Powell in charge of investigating a letter claiming atrocities by US soldiers... a letter that did not address the My Lai incident and made no mention of it? Yes. Did he do a half-assed job? It certainly looks that way. Was he involved in trying to coverup the My Lai massacre? No fucking way!!! Making progress. The My Lai massacre occured in March 1968. Powell was charged by his commanding general with investigation reports of atrocities committed in his division. He reported in Dec 1968 that everything was hunky-dory (my paraphrase). He wrote "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent." The massacre did not become known to the public until March 1969 when another soldier in the division finally blew the whistle. Either (1) Major Powell was totally incompetent, or (2) he was a team player and tried to whitewash his division's sorry record. Now we KNOW he's not incompetent, and we know (from his speech to the UN about Iraq's WMDs) that he is willing to take one for his team. He investigated the claims by a soldier who was not at My Lai!!! He had no direct involvement in investigating My Lai. Being a team player doesn't implicate him in any My Lai coverup. Ever heard of the Guilt by Association fallacy?

Charity and compassion under duress, through government mandated extortion at the end of a gun kind of miss the point. Can we take it from your comment that you disagree with sections 7 and 8 of Article I of the US Constitution, as well as with Amendment XVI? Absolutely not. Contributing my fair share for the general welfare of the country as a whole is not the same as being required to fund social programs.

You know - if you ever just own up or put up, in one of these situations, I will be amazed. Seriously. It seems like your standard MO, when you get called on your statements, is to merely post something... anything... to get the monkey off your back. Smarmy.

One key thing for me is to actually try to get the story right... to try and be objective about what actually occurred... instead of tweaking it a bit here and a bit there... to give a completely different (read - dishonest) representation of what occurred. Was Colin Powell in charge of investigating a letter claiming atrocities by US soldiers... a letter that did not address the My Lai incident and made no mention of it? Yes. Did he do a half-assed job? It certainly looks that way. Was he involved in trying to coverup the My Lai massacre? No fucking way!!!

I was simply making the point that many times those of us who claim to be Christians, and against things like abortion, are the same people who oppose legislation that would benefit the poor, mainly because it might require them to get by on a little less. Charity and compassion under duress, through government mandated extortion at the end of a gun kind of miss the point.

I guess expecting you to provide a link that specifically addresses this is out of the question. Here ya go, Sunshine. Have a good read: Hersh, Seymour M. (1972). Cover-up: the Army's secret investigation of the massacre at My Lai 4. Random House. ISBN 0-394-47460-0. This is a link that specifically addresses the question? I guess none of those 168,000 links you tried to pawn off as proof just didn't measure up,... so now you're going with "Here's a book (that you might find at the library). Go research it yourself." Yeah - you've really made your case. You know.... if Colin Powell really was involved in covering up the My Lai massacre, it would be pretty easy to find a direct quote, from a credible source, on the web. I've essentially asked you for as much about ten times. You, in turn, have resorted to diversions just about every time. I have to wonder why a well respected, published scholar as yourself would stoop to such low brow tactics.

I clicked on your link. It took me to a Washington Post web page with... We are unable to locate the page you requested. The page may have moved or may no longer be available Looks like Hillary is covering her ass yet again.

I guess expecting you to provide a link that specifically addresses this is out of the question.

How about confirmation from a credible, objective and neutral source familiar with and/or relevant to the subject matter. And about that NYT quip - cause and effect are related but not the same. Hope that helps.

That one about the NSC blocking the New York Times from publishing a story was a doozy, too. From what I've read about Propaganda (note the capitalization), it's not about telling out and out lies (at least not initially), but rather it's about distorting the truth to create a dishonest reality... not a complete fabrication... then again not the truth, either.

Just learning from a master. "I want my jet" Oh look, Kallend is trying to spin away from putting up or owning up, yet again. Must be a day ending with Y. I look forward to you claiming that whole business about Powell trying to cover up My Lai was sarcasm, too.

HEY KALLEND!!!! How about a link? ************************************** . I think the accepted response is "Exaggeration for the purposes of sarcasm" (paraphrasing NCclimber, Pelosi "I want my jet" thread). I also described it as "The Sky is Falling". Did you REALLY think I meant that literally? Really? Riiiiight. I'm guessing most people would infer the "sky is fallin" part as hyperbole. I never questioned it. And your "or at least, hundreds of thousands would be thrown out of work" was considered a serious statement. But that's just me. Funny thing, you using the "exaggeration for the purposes of sarcasm" rationale at this late date, right after I repeatedly explained its use in a recent thread. Coincidence? Ironic? Who is to say? I wonder why you didn't say that when I asked you about it back in December???

Here's an interesting story on the subject. Check out this link for more. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0405.kaplan.html I'm guess Bush was too caught up in his "get Saddam" program to be distracted with Kim's overt WMD program.

Well played.

The problem is the US has previously offered incentives "to go to the range down the street", but the property owner starts shooting again, right after he gets all the incentives.

A snide rant, followed by an equally snide reply, which is then followed by an... even-tempered, civil, clarification of the initial post. WTF!!! You're obviously in the wrong forum! Getting back to that civil reply, I'm guessing part of your irritation has to do with the sentiment of "don't expect us to give up our gun rights" every time one of these shooting sprees happens.

Perhaps you could give us some examples where people (other than a few fringe element types) advocated "adding more guns", in response to similar tragedies.

How about when al Sharpton essentially says the same thing?

Are there any other examples of the US government giving another country $500 million to curtail their military buildup? Is the US footing the entire bill for the settlement?

From the recent State of the Black Union symposium: Hmm.

As I see it (yes, I know that's ripe for criticism), the national mainstream media leans left. The signs are pretty subtle. From time to time, I'll come across some righty pundit, drawing attention to studies in a given timeframe, that looks at how often a Dem. is labeled as a liberal and a Rep. is labeled conservative. The results are heavily skewed towards "conservative republican". Then there is issue of which stories (and which parts of stories) get coverage. Again, there seems to be subtle anti-conservative bias. Where these biases are quite evident is on NPR. I don't see any leaning on PBS, but NPR... boy howdy... the top of the hour news is good, but many of the stories/pieces have a serious slant. Unfortunately, these suble biases have given a tanker-load of fuel to the overtly right leaning news outlets like FoxNews, which has done a spectacular job of polarizing the debate. As a result, we all lose.

True, but in several of those cases you failed to provide proof supporting your actual claims... the ones I've asked about. OJ Simpson has not been PROVED to be a killer. Nixon was never PROVED to have participated in the watergate cover-up. Clinton was never PROVED to have had a BJ and lied about it. There is no PROOF that the US government did not engineer the 9/11 events. Just because data I provide does not met your arbitrary standard of proof does not mean that I'm a liar. The difference between the examples above and your claims that I question is there are widely accepted, compelling evidence to support those claims. In contrast, you tend to use diversionary tactics instead of actually addressing the points I press you to defend. Got a link to support your claim that the right predicted "hundreds of thousands" would be unemployed" if minimum wage were raised? HEY KALLEND!!!! How about a link? **************************************** This little exchange began after I asked you for proof about five or six times. And let's not overlook your effort to make it look like I was questioning whether or not there was any cover up at all. Failed to cover it up would be more accurate. The Pentagon's attempt failed. I never claimed it succeeded, that's you trying to muddy the waters. And still you've repeatedly dodged my requests to provide evidence that Colin Powell tried to cover up the massacre. SSDD It was sarcastic hyperbole, based on what was being incorrectly claimed by some GOP knotheads. Sorry you missed that. Narcimund provided 10 pages full of links. Get over yourself. One credible link. Just one. Define "credible". You can do what rushmc does, and dispute anything you don't like regardless of the source. As I asked before, what exactly do you dispute? That the Pentagon brass tried (and failed) to cover up My Lai, or that Powell was involved, or both? Or are you just wasting time here with keyboard masturbation? I've been asking the same question all along. Now you're getting hung up on the word "credible". Sheesh. What a load of crap. So far, you've dodge the question and produced a google search results for all sites/pages that contain Colin Powell My & Lai. BFD. How about producing a story from a mainstream source. *************************************** And of course: Which goes to what seems like an unwillingness to concede that you may (just maybe ) have mispoken.