Changes

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added.  I would point out three things:-

Well, I see you removed the information I'd added.  I would point out three things:-

 

a)  I'm not a "Bush-hater".

<br>a)  I'm not a "Bush-hater".

b)  The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"!  It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]

<br>b)  The issue is hardly being covered only by "Bush haters"!  It's front page news on Fox News as we write! [http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291591,00.html]

c)  Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too?  Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.

<br>c)  Why don't you add the into about Glenn Goodman [Miller] too?  Deceit is deceit, whatever group it comes from.

 

It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops.  Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]].  Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]].  [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems to me you're being <i>very</i> selective with the truth, and I think that's unfair to our troops.  Friendly fire accidents are not partisan politics - they happen, it's tragic, but it's a consequence of war and the truth should not be hidden from the public by [[deceit]].  Just because it's not [[liberal]] [[deceit]] doesn't mean this incident is not [[deceit]].  [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 19:54, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

:Your point is well taken. We could use some more information on Tilman and Goodman [Miller]. One of the virtues of a democracy with a [[free press]] is that errors and misconduct can be brought to light by ordinary citizens. When this is not done for [[partisan advantage]], it's usually a good thing. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] ^{[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]} 19:59, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed.  I wouold do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in.  Perhaps someone else would tackle it?  It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased.  Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes.  [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Exactly, Ed.  I would do it, except I fear a ban from a certain someone if I put Tillman back in.  Perhaps someone else would tackle it?  It seems to me that an announcement that a three-star general is to be censured over the matter makes this a notable enough example of deceit in high places, and deserving of appearing in the article, and it will also make the article less biased.  Deceit is practiced by all who are prepared to lie, regardless of the color of their stripes.  [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:03, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

 

First, my mistake, it was Glenn "Miller", not Goodman.  So I've inserted "Miller" above in brackets to prevent the error from propagating.

:Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

Second, no one is being blocked for this disagreement.

:Third, more facts are needed.  What was the alleged "deceit"?  Why is this being singled out?  Was was the motive for the deceit?  Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance.  Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance?  Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Third, more facts are needed. What was the alleged "deceit"? Why is this being singled out?  Was was the motive for the deceit?  Our examples have thorough proof of deceit on issues of extreme public importance. Why do you think covering up an incident of [[friendly fire]], which happens in every military conflict, ranks so highly in importance? Godspeed.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 20:07, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Andy.  One point is that the Deceit article is extremely partisan and one-sided, and this type of bias is part of Conservapedia' credibility problem.   Adding a publicly acknowledged incident from the 'other' side that is today part of the public record adds fairness and balance - a good thing, surely?   As to the details of the incident, the report has yet to be published - I make no comment.  However, in the context of the 'Deceit' article, since the three-star General is accused in public with the actual use of the word "deception", it seems more than appropriate for the article.  As to the 'importance', I make no partisan claims one way or the other to the validity of the incident, but as a current example of deceit, I can think of no better example.   And finally, while the Glenn Miller incident was friendly fire (and yes, that happens, and no political party is to balme for it), there was no cover-up or deceit involved, was there?   [[User:NotForgotten|NotForgotten]] 20:38, 31 July 2007 (EDT)