Rewriting History.

Remove all ads!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/28/1067233141495.html

After spinning themselves into a war it isn't actually surprising that the Bush crew is also "spinning up" what's left behind them ... in order to supress inconvenient questions ...

That means after all, by changing the White House's robots.txt file they blocked search engines from finding previous statements and they also corrected the texts of previous speeches in the Whitehouse internet archives by changing "end of combat" into "end of major combat" - looks much better considering the actual security situation in Iraq today ...

Fortunately, these changes were noticed and proved by readers because Google had archived them before the changes were made.

 

WTF? I thought I'd share some of stranger things amongst the hundreds of items banned on this website (check it out, there are pages under the news heading). I can't believe that changing official documents (like speeches and reports) is even legal.

Disallow:/help
Disallow:/firstlady/images/iraq
Disallow:/firstlady/recipes/text
Disallow:/history/grounds/kids/kidsgarden/iraq
Disallow:/history/photoessays/easter/2003/text
Disallow:/history/quiz/valentines/iraq
Disallow:/holiday/2002/hanukkah/menorah/text
Disallow:/infocus/africa/aids/text
Disallow:/infocus/education/teachers/iraq
Disallow:/infocus/victimsrights/iraq
Disallow:/kids/asia/text
Disallow:/kids/baseball/teeball-20020923/text
Disallow:/kids/games/concentration/holiday/iraq
Disallow:/kids/photoessays/barney/text
Disallow:/president/holiday/historicalpets3/iraq
Disallow:/vicepresident/news-speeches/iraq
Disallow:/tee-ball/iraq
Disallow:/text
Disallow:/webmail/text
Disallow:/privacy.html


Yessss....... I always knew Barney was a terrorrist, probably in cahoots with that suspicious first lady figure - and tee-ball, whoa slow down there kiddo.

Seriously though, this is a real pathetic pull on behalf of the government, this sort of thing -lying to your own people, changing official reports to produce propoganda- is what lead to WWII. And Bush doesn't have half the charisma Hitler had, but I think dubya makes up for it with sheer idocy and insanity.

Fancy pulling a stunt like this and getting caught for it. The sad thing is that people like him get voted in to office at all.

Ragusa where do you find this stuff? Yet again, I tip my hat to your resourcefulness.

 

How much longer must we accept this kind of attitude from a goverment that was supposed to be serious. What do they have for brains? We are not complete idiots and won't remember what the president said for such a serious matter?

 

Ragusa, you spend a lot more time digging up this sort of thing than I can, and so I often merely skim or even skip your posts because they are so long and involved (though I state for the record you are often bang on the money) but I'm glad I read this one. This is word for word Orwellian behaviour -- remember, folks? Winston Smith's job was to go through old records and correct them to jive with the present party position.

I'm moving to a south seas island and making my own country -- this is too scary!

 

Sorry that it has taken so long to reply to this thread, but I had to do research. You guys are really making a tempest in a teapot...there was no attempt to hide the change made in the declaration that combat operations were over to substantially over. The administration admitted that they put foot in mouth on this issue and changed the wording in a very public way (it's covered on all the major outlets). There was a possibility that due to the Presidential declaration of "the end of combat operations" that American soldiers who were killed after that date would not receive the benefits due them for serving in a combat theater. There was even concern that combat pay could be affected. Remember, this was never a declared war by Congress, rather a military action by Commander in Chief. As such, Bush's remarks can carry a great deal of weight, and the administration rather sheepishly changed them openly to protect the interest of American soldiers.

You all have on occaision raised anti-administration points, and I think that I have been up front enough to admit when the US has erred. This is a fabricated, spin machine blow-up that all of you should be intelligent enough to not accept. The evidence is so irrefutable that I'm not even bothering to make links, it's easy to find. Ragusa, this thread is beneath you.

 

In these days, where speeches, held by the president of USA, are taped worldwide, not just nationally, fraud is naught impossible. Of course many youths are so swallowed up by the internet, so what they read there rules out the need to both think rationally and search for information elsewhere.

I could have stopped here, but let us take a closer look at that link. It is actually kinda amusing http://www.differentstrings.info/archives/002813.html

First off, you can listen the speech, where he says major combat. Does anything else matters? He did not lie. Altering the press releases, to what is actually said, is not fraud, it is precision. You can argue that the video sequence is a spin-off too, but so can I about those "evidences" of insertion of the word "major" in the webpages. Which is just a matter of text file/photo shop editing. But heck, they *are* altered to match the acutal speech most likely. So different-string didn't even have to do any actual work to start their vicious anti-military campaign on the internet.

But since speeches are shown not only nationally but worldwide, you'll probably be able to phone in on your German news station and get the "truth". IF that is what you seek Ragusa?

The amusing part
And just off the record; Ragusa, you have been very very naughty with your sources. If deliberate, you are manipulating. If not deliberate, then check those darn internet sources differentstrings is a DEMOCRAT-donation webpage, christ can it get more subjective? Does the phrase Neutral mean anything in Court when a VERDICT(the most honerable achievement in a debate) must be found? Yes. Neutrality is the jury and judge. Imagine them beeing on the defendants side... Good work Ragusa. Are you a lawyer perchance?

Now go and give me a video link from anywhere else in the world except Syria or Iraq. Or a phonenumber to a neutral person on a newstation, with access to the real recordings. This whole internet, is the worst place to have faith in anyway. All I am asking is a video-recording, sound string, ***Not Democrat text files***, that support the theories and comes from a non-partial website. Or at least Not-so-partial-as-the-running-opposition-website

And just to mention it again, I believe that changing press releases(given that they are beeing changed), to what is actually said, is not fraud, it is precision. Perhaps you can find some real non-partial evidence for us to chew on your Honor, and then I might bite, because this jury member has bad taste in his mouth right now. And I know you can do much better, Judge RagUSA.

EDIT;

From header in differentstrings. Only a Lawyer would feel happy about using their info as the truth against Bush. There even is a flashy icon you can click where it says

Subtle, eh? you will get redirected to the donation page clicking on that link. Sweet.

[ November 07, 2003, 14:59: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

The two second links in Ragusa'a post are actually linked in the newspaper arcticle he originally linked to. Being familiar with other posts by Ragusa, I would assume that he had noticed it in The Age, and linked all things to us directly, without worrying who owns the site. I guess more than just lawyers would use that link, but of course, I don't know how trustworthy The Age is in the first place

I'm not disputing your post, just defending Ragusa's ethics.

 

There is actually something of an ongoing debate regarding the ethics of changing, and how one changes, various news stories or releases on the internet.

For example, the BBC makes changes to stories without letting readers know that the changes have been made. Other places make the changes but then have a separate page where they list the changes that have been made - you have to find that page yourself. Other places make the changes and at the end of the article list the changes. And yet others make the changes, yet include the previous wording in the article still (in these thingamabobs) so that one sees that it was changed immediately.

As far as the spin complaint goes, the article says they changed it from 'combat' to 'major combat.' There are probably bigger fish to fry.

 

Nobleman,
I don't quite understand your rant, not even the amusing part. The sort of news I referred to is certainly not what you'll find on a GOPnews site. So if it is a democrat donation page - so what - is the bit wrong because of that? If so, please explain why. It isn't so that the dems need to invent things to attack or criticise Bush - there is definitely more than enough IRL ... Despite the partisanship, here and then even actual news have been reported on FOX. So what deeper meaning has your attacking of the site I found that bit on?
That I'm ... errr ... not neutral? Is that supposed to be news? Yes, I look at this as a lawyer, not as a judge. You're free do disagree and post your dissenting views if you like. As for verdicts, as we, you and me, in the end post opinions ... that's not surprising: AoDA is a *discussion board*. And as for toying around with my name, aren't you too old for that?

You refer to the point that forgery is basically impossible as so many people have recorded the speeches - so one simple question: Why did they change the text? Did they get an perfectionism attack suddenly? Like "Oh no, we forgot that 'major' when writing down the president's speech three months ago!" to then go and correct it ... some three months later? Couldn't it be that PR intended to reduce vulnerabilities? But no, not in the Whitehouse ...
The actual thing is that Bush's triumphant PR stunt on the Abe Lincoln signalled "War's over, Folks". The surprise later expressed by administration officials to find resistance in Iraq where flowers were expected to be underlines nothing less.
Changing the text with the benefit of hindsight, knowing that in fact combat there was far from over, means *changing* that statement. That is my point.

While there might be bigger fish to fry it is still noteworthy. It sheds light on how Bush's crew works.

 

I think that any site that has an agenda or affiliaton will apply the spin that they want to the story...which is certain that the Democratic site has done in this instance. The news they report shouldn't be disregarded, but try to look past what they say and find why they would say it. The story as reported in the major outlets doesn't have the same spin, but if you read the Dem. take and then verify the event from a neutral source, it's very easy to buy into the interpretation that is given. Hey, the Republicans do it too, don't buy their spin any more than the Dems.

Both Nobleman's and Ragusa's points are valid, it all comes down to judgement, and how much you are willing to allow yourself to be influenced.

Despite this, I sadly must report that I have found a neutral source that does verify beyond any doubt that Bush has been Dancing around with the issues . I concede all to you, Ragusa .

 

Well, The Age looks like a respectable website. Nobleman didn't give any arguments against that site, and it practically said the same as Different Strings.

Logic leans towards Nobleman though. Bush would be hard pressed to think of a way to change so many media outlets across the world. But, of course, there are lots of things I don't know about. But, nothing would surpirse me now with the Bush Administration.

And I resent the term "Anti-American". How is wanting peace "Anti"? We don't call people who hate Hitler "Anti-Nazi's".

 

Actually, people who hated Hitler were "anti-Nazi" (except for the sizeable number of Nazis who hated him). The term you're looking for is "anti-German".

The current American administration is anti-American. They couldn't be hurting this country and everything it stands for more if that was their plan all along. There's too much to go into here, but just check out what they're doing to American soldiers on active combat duty besides, of course, getting them killed. Cutting pay, gutting benefits, warehousing them in substandard hospitals back in the States... on and on.

Mark Twain was probably the greatest American writer. Here's what he has to say about a particular brand of "patriotism" that seems rampant in today's America:
"Patriotism is usually the refuge of the scoundrel. He is the man who talks the loudest."

 

@Ragusa

You say they lessen their vulnerability. Of course they do. Selfdefence works that way.
Of course it is PR to change press releases. But changing them to match what is actually said is wrong in just what way? It prevents confusion. It prevents the opposition from making spin-offs(which they are apparently doing anyway). If such a fuzz can be made over putting the correct quotes in speeches, then I do quite frankly understand why there is a need to be precise.


Bush *did* say major combat, so let us look at the other scenario where the PR group didn't take their time to change the documents;

There could be an ongoing range of journalists telling Bush, that he said the combat was over in iraq, and Bush could make ongoing responses, that he said major combat. They could all watch the videos from around the world and agree that Bush was right. He did in fact say major combat. End of story. No harm to the sitting government.

Despite, that they don't have much to gain, they go out and change the documents to what is really said. Still, with the knowledge that the opposition and news stations will easily find out about it, in this age of technology, and use it to make headlines of fraud, they descide to change the documents to what was said. If that isn't honesty too, PR through selfdefence, what is it then?

How hard can it be to see, that it is not the issue here to find a Neutral source (hackNslash ), that says the government is changing the documents, when the government is actually doing it... The problem is to find a video recording that says that Bush does not say Major Combat operations, and hence would make this whole editing documents a fraud Vs actual speeches.


OFF topic;
@Ragusa
I only used the court reference to see the mind behind your arguments. To find out, what you think about the concept of debate. Not surprisingly you enjoy the lawyer role...
So we both know there could(we are actually quite sure) be much more to this document case. But I choose blindly to watch this from one side as a lawyer and not even trying to look rational at the facts from both sides... Not to find an agreement, but post my one sided opinions. So it boils down to this, what is a court when none of its participants are willing to share the burden of the judge? A waste of time.

[ November 07, 2003, 16:20: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

Neriana...

Yeah. Anti-German's is a much better parallel. Basically, Anti-American's are being shot down because they think, and don't blindly accept whatever "Mr. President" says. Just like anti-Nazi's thought against the Nationalists.

 

Nobleman,
As for you wanting to get clarification on my mindset: Will you tell me that your partial because I am? Or that you aren't and do actually play the judge part? I doubt so.
I recently read a republican source, telling that in his opinion the dems only attack Bush because of the coming elections.

While it has a grain of salt, it blows fog about the other thing - that Bush indeed does things that are very much questionable: That war on terror that miraculously led him into Iraq, a land that was no terror problem and became one. Iraq made the US less safe not more - and that's definitely a reason to whoop Bush Jr's ass, be it only for the havoc he allowed to be wreaked on foreign relations.
That means there are actually reasons for concern. And criticising there is much more than just election bickering as the dude above tried to imply - on the cheap lane out of discussion.

And I share a good deal of these concerns as far as it concerns foreign policy, even more as these days mad Perle again roams Germany on a PR tour to explain us why France actually is our enemy too. The neocon's agressive warcourse and rampage on diplomatic china and international law did plenty of damage to the US.
To me that underlines that the currenct US administration is a security risk. For the US.

 

No one can be the judge. Only a perceived judge. Since humans can only perceive truth through their own thoughts not through others. What we perceive is our truth. The problem of most debates is that one or more parts are unwilling to accept that an agreement is possible. That reason and logic if nothing else can be seen in more than one way.

I do know that the Bush administration is a liability to the world peace through one perceived truth. There are rational arguments and logic that supports this, if we look at reality through different perceived truths.

So you are right the Bush government is a danger to world peace. But what part does that play in explaining the principles of altering press releases to what is actually said? It cannot be perceived only as manipulation, fraud and rewriting history, but can also be perceived as an attempt to fend of confusion(which of course benefits oneself but can be perceived as fraud by the opposition), be precise(which of course benefits oneself and can be perceived as manipulation by the opposition) and calibrating history(which of course benefits oneself and can be percieved as rewriting history by the opposition).

It might come as a surprise to you that I vote democratic, but I choose to focus on matters that even when hard streched are difficulty to be perceived as beeing acts of good intentions to yourself, myself, the reality around you and the reality around me. It's called solid arguments. They are the ones to stand on when trying to make a difference. If people, be that democrats or republicans, or anything between set out standing on a fragile argument and yelling in the ocean of opinions, I'll sure make it storm, so that the real problems stand clearer in the horizon. It benefits us all.

 

Nobleman,
I pretty much got you wrong then. Both, your and my interpretations are plausible. It was one problem with Iraq's WMD program procurement that the scientists involved, being professionals, were able to build credible cover stories for the equipment they needed. So it wasn't easy to tell what they were up to, same here.
A webmaster can easily bring up a good reason for such an update. IIRC the official statement was that it was done, just as the robot.txt blocking, to prevent double or conflicting search results. As for altering the headline to what has been said, and considering it as precision: It can make a substantial difference, some people do only read the headlines ...

... and headlines aren't printed larger and in bold for no reason. They are meant to sum up the content of the article. I expect the Whitehouse to invest some thoughtful effort in choosing them before release.

In the end it is hard to tell if you're right or I am or if we're both because, as so often, there maybe was a multitude of reasons. But as long as no insider comes out to tell the tale we'll never know for sure. Insofar it is indeed neither rewarding nor productive to further discuss this issue.
There is bigger fish to fry.