A Provocation 2 Thought

Don’t believe everything you read, hear or see (even on this site). Most of the “news” in print, on the radio, and on television is commentary. Not NEWS. Even the “facts” in a story are usually presented in such a way as to leave you thinking as the writer. Sometimes the “facts” are made up, or so distorted they no longer resemble the truth. My goal is to provoke you 2 thought. Read between the lines. Glean truth from many sources. Then… Think for yourself. Make up your own mind.

My Photo
Name:
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio, United States

Thursday, July 01, 2004

What Do You Mean, Bush's War?

In the Reuters story "Justices Order Hearing on Guantanamo Bay Case" dated 6-30-2004, linked below:

Yahoo! News - Justices Order Hearing on Guantanamo Bay Case

The writer writes that the court in California is to consider if a case involving a prisoner held at the base "…as part of President Bush's war on terrorism…" is in the appropriate court.

FACT FAULT: The writer inappropriately calls this "…President Bush's war…". This would be understandable if, for example, the President was single handedly fighting the insurgency. ...or perhaps if Congress did not give their blessing, as they did. ...or perhaps if the hijackers of 9-11 had targeted only the President, and not thousands of innocent people at work trying to make a living. The terrorists declared war on the United States, and all free societies. Al qaeda has vowed not to stop until the whole WORLD is under Islamic law. Translation: When bin laden rules the world. Regardless of whether you are going to vote for President Bush or Senator Kerry, we can all agree that we do not want a president bin laden, can’t we? So, can we not agree that this is OUR war on terrorism?

What legitimate reason would one have to call it Bush's war? Assuming that the writer is an American, is it that they do not want to admit that the Senator(s) and/or Representative in Congress who represents them may have voted for the action? Could there be a political reason? Could the writer want the President to look bad? ...as if he were out there all alone, and no one supported him?

Now, as for the case itself, if you were a prisoner on Cuba, off the EAST coast, would you file suit on the WEST coast? Is it that the lawyer in the case is from California and was too lazy to travel? Is it possible that it is because it was filed in what is traditionally a liberal court, which frequently rules in a way which would be beneficial to the plaintiff? Have you ever heard a single member of the press ask why it was filed there? Are they not curious? I am.

Read up on it all and…

Think for yourself!

Make up your own mind!

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home