From: David Marc Nieporent
Subject: Re: trying to fool "the media"
Date: Sun, 20 Jul 2003 03:02:23 -0400
Organization: Jumping To Conclusions: http://tollbooth.blogspot.com
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <9t2cnSbwNs9w7oWiRTvUqQ@giganews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nycmny1-ar7-4-3-085-171.nycmny1.elnk.dsl.genuity.net (22.214.171.124)
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)
In article <9t2cnSbwNs9w7oWiRTvUqQ@giganews.com>,
"Mark Stahl" wrote:
>"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
>> that the Bush administration was lying. If the British government said,
>> "We said 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,
>> and 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.
Different people believe different things. The British government said it
>> > 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.
...which is exactly what you would have said about Afghanistan, on 9/10/01.
>> 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.
You mean to free millions of people, right? But I'll defer to Tony Blair
on this point:
Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction
will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we
will have destroyed a threat that, at its least, is responsible
for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am
confident history will forgive. But if our critics are wrong,
if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and
conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will
have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have
That is something history will not forgive.
>> 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.
Then perhaps you can explain why satellite data on temperature doesn't
match surface measurements. Or why the majority of the observed warming in
the 20th century occurred in the first half of the century.
Unfortunately for you, science isn't determined by polling -- not even when
the respondents are scientists -- but by hard evidence and _established_
relationships. Which there isn't, for anthropogenic global warming.
That's why the "consensus" for global warming is as reliable as the
"consensus" for global cooling 25 years ago.
>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
I know many creationists say this, but I've never heard Bush say it. Can
you please provide a citation?
David M. Nieporent email@example.com