NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 17:25:49 -0500
From: "Mark Stahl"
Subject: Re: trying to fool "the media"
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 18:27:07 -0400
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
"David Marc Nieporent" wrote in message
> Gary S. Simon wrote:
> > "David Marc Nieporent" wrote:
> >> The only thing that has ever been "falsified" was some documents
> >> relating to Niger, and those were falsified by a Nigerien official.
> > Let's stick to words like "lying", "misleading" and "misrepresenting"
> > to describe the administration's efforts to sell its war to the
> > American public so as to avoid offending David's semantic sensibilities.
> If the British government said, "You know, we never said that," I'd say
> the Bush administration was lying. If the British government said, "We
> that, but only because Bush told us to say it," then I'd say that the Bush
> administration was being misleading. If the British government said, "We
> said it, but we didn't believe it," I might accuse the Bush administration
> of being misleading.
> But the British government is saying, "Yes, we said it, we believed it,
> we still believe it." How on earth was Bush lying?
because he left out the part where our own intelligence community *didn't*
believe it. a lie of ommission on the most serious scale, david.
> > David's too bright not to recognize that the deceptive sales
> > practices employed in this administration's selling of the Iraq war are
> > quite similar to the its intellectual dishonesty on the domestic front
> > (e.g. "average" family tax savings and censoring global warming out
> > of an EPA report), but he's determined to be offensive in defense of the
> > indefensible.
> Indeed, I would argue that critics of the war are the ones engaging in
> deception. The war was explicitly about _un_certainty as to Iraq,
no, it was not. it was about iraq supposedly being a threat, which it
clearly was not.
> and yet
> they're pretending that the information being uncertain is an argument
> against the Bush administration.
a hunch isn't good enough reason to slaughter thousands of people, david. a
bit of data which you know to be false is even worse justification.
> Let's not even get into the intellectual dishonesty of pretending that
> global warming is established scientific fact.
very funny indeed. anthropogenic global warming is current established
scientific consensus. pick up a scientific journal instead of Newsmax.com to
see why. as a scientist i get a real kick out of politicians and lawyers
telling us what the data mean.
let's not even get into the intellectual stupidity of claiming "evolution is
just a theory" (as our esteemed president has done to show off his