Cheney lied ...Follow

If it didn't mean that he would have had once been an angel, I'd swear Cheney was the fu[i][/i]cking devil.

Eb

I'd like to also take this time to point out that this is *exactly* what us Republicans are talking about when we say there is a liberal bias in the media.

Here's an article in which the only *news* was the statement by the Pentagon that Cheny did not influence the decision to use Halliburton in Iraq, but was merely informed of the decision.

Yet, by writing the first paragraph the way he did, the author of this piece of steaming ***** manages to find a way to imply to the reader that the exact opposite is true. The "facts" are burried somewhere halfway through the article. The "innuendo" is right at the top. The fact that Git read it and immediately came to the conclusion that this was proof of Cheny's guilt is evidence of the slant in this article.


Sheesh. How much more blatant do they have to get?

I'll take your lack of refutation as agreement...

Um. Yes. Your posts and position *are* weak. That's what happens when you have no actual ability to argue your point, nor facts to support it.

Thanks for clarifying that for us though. You should get a cookie or something...

Whitehouse==Pentagon?

No, Whitehouse=Whitehouse


Cheney repeatedly has denied that he had any influence over the decision to award the massive contract last March. "As vice president, I have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts let by the Corps of Engineers or anybody else in the federal government," he said on NBC's "Meet The Press" last fall.

Cheney's staff stood by that statement yesterday.

"The policy of this office always has been and continues to be that if a staff member is approached with information about a pending government contract for Halliburton, the standard response is to state that we don't get involved in those decisions and do whatever is best for the country," one aide said.


Reading the article helps if you want to discuss it.

You don't listen!

I told you that I don't argue with Windmill-tilters!

Eb

We all know you can't hang.

So Cheney's chief of staff says "No, no lttle nobody army lawyer we are going to do the 'right' thing here and give the contract to Haliburton."

It's his Chief of Staff! How can the man make such a big desision without oking it with his boss? I realize it doesn't say "Cheney overruled little nobody army lawyer" but *** how hard is it to read between the lines?

Git. Again. Read the *entire* article, instead of just the first slanted paragraph.

When you read it, you will realize that the extent of the "involvement" was that the Pentagon notified Cheny's staff of a potential conflict of interest issue with the decision that they had made.

This is why I highlighted this as a surpreme example of media slant. The "story" is about the Pentagon saying that Cheny and his office had nothing to do with the decision to use Halliburton. But the first 5 or so paragraphs are all written in such a way as to imply that they really did have something to do with it.

Here's the actual "news" in the article:




That's it. There is no other "involvement" in the story. The point I'm making is that the author of this article specifically chose the words in the first few paragraphs to make it look like the facts said the exact opposite of what they really did.


Honestly. Read the whole damn story. Then ask yourself: "what information is actually contained in here". The *only* "news" in this article is that the pentagon said that Cheny's people did not influence their decision at all, but that they informed Cheny's staff of the decision because they knew that some idiots would assume there was influence involved. Additionally, Cheny's staff re-iterated what they've been saying all along.

Everything else in that article is wordcraft by the writer to make it appear as though there was wrongdoing when the facts of the story say otherwise...


That's such blatant slant that it's not even funny.

And that's my point. The part at the beginning which is "doubtlessly of the most importance to said story as it is in the writers best interest to get the point across as soon as possible and not loose the reader" is the part that contradicts the meat of the story. That's why it's an obvious slant. How can you not see this?

You have a statement in the story that says:

"Pentagon officials also have said that Cheney did not influence the awarding of the contract"

Note, that that's a direct statement that is very clear: Cheny did not influence the awarding of the contract. End of story. No qualifications. No way to misinterprete that. Contrast that to saying that "Cheny was involved in the dicision...". Um... What exactly does "involved" mean? If I'm "involved in a car accident, does that mean I caused it? Can't I be a bystander and be "involved" if I called 911? Involved can mean many different things. It's vague. It was chosen specifically because it's technically accurate, but leads the reader to make an assumption.

And in fact, you made that assumption. You read the story and then made this statement:

Cheney lied about not influencing award of contract to Halliburton


Please tell me you aren't this dense? How on earth did you read a news story and then make a statement about it that is exactly the opposite of what was said? Could it possibly be because the writer wrote it in a way that made you think that? Sheesh. Get a clue man!


Here Git. Answer me this question: "According to this news article, in what was was Cheny involved" in the decision to use Halliburton?"

I'm really curious as to the answer. And if you don't have one, then why did you jump to the conclusion that "involved" meant that he "influenced" the decision? Doubly so since the story specifically said that's not what happened?

Hehe. What's amusing is that every single article I've found so far (from a major media outlet anyway) has the same biased pattern:

- They start out with a paraphrase of one of Waxman's claims, usually some implication of wrongdoing.

- Then they follow up with some historical information about how much concern there is about the possible wrongdoing.

- Then they have a bit about Halliburton and the contracts and how much money they got, usually with another plug about questions about the fairness of the award.

- Then. Finally. Somewhere about 3/4ths of the way down the page, they'll include the actual quotes and information from various sources, every one of which says that Cheny didn't influence the decision to go with Halliburton at all.

- Finally, a wrap up about how Waxman is going to continue pursuing them until he "gets justice" or something.



Wow. When did the innuendo and "might be true" bits become more important then what people actually said. We have story after story where every official involved says that Cheny did not influence the decision, and yet the story is 90% filled up with the allegations of influence rather then the facts.


So we can believe the Pentagon when they say that Cheny was "involved", and we'll assume that means he influenced the decision, but we can't believe the *same source* when it says that Cheny straight up did not influence the decision.


Spin spin spin. C'mon folks. This one is obvious as hell.