paulsol the Righteous wrote:
So. let me get this straight....
You're saying that, even tho McLellan actually
did say, for example,
Quote:
“I stood at the White house briefing room podium in front of the glare of the klieg lights for the better part of two weeks and publicly exonerated two of the seniormost aides in the White House: Karl Rove and Scooter Libby,†McClellan wrote.
“There was one problem. It was not true.â€
it is of no interest to the public at large, because we wouldn't have known about it unless the publisher told us thats what he said via the press?
Why do you think that the Whitehouse press secretary, publically admitting that he lied thru his teeth, isn't important to the public only because the publisher wants to sell their books?
Um... He didn't "lie through his teeth". He stated something he believed was true. Do we need to go through the whole "definition of a lie" again?
I also don't trust *any* second hand quote where there's a split in the quotation marks. Period. For all I know there were three other sentences between the first one and the second. Doubly so since it appears on a separate paragraph in the article.
While it would be a blatant (and obvious) "trick", any quote appearing on a separate line with no clear indication who wrote it can't be assumed to be a quote by any particular person. Could be the editor inserting his own opinion for all I know. At the very least we have no direct evidence of the connection between that sentence and the preceding one.
Read only what's there. Don't make assumptions. Once you stop inferring from the quoted sections what you already believe to be true, you might just realize that he didn't really say anything that damning or inflammatory. It's just presented that way in the article.
Quote:
Im truly interested to know why you think that the 'spokesman for the Whitehouse' should admit to lying to the 'public' (thats you) and that that is of no cause for concern to anyone.
Um... Because he didn't?
All we can directly state from the quotes provided is that in his book is a quote in which he states that he publicly exonerated Rove and Libby. And then a second quote (which is presumably a quote from the book but could technically be from any damn thing the article writer choose to quote), in which he states "There was one problem. It was not true".
You assume that the second quote immediately precedes the first in the book, with nothing in between. But there's absolutely no need for that to be the case (it could be, but isn't required). They are separate quotes. We can't assume anything about their relative position or order in the source material. The writer of the article put those two quotes together that way. We have no idea how it's actually written in the book.
Again. Read only what's there. Don't add anything extra.
Quote:
You sound as if you would prefer there to be no such thing as freely availiable information in the form of the press, intrawebs etc. that way you could happily continue along safe in the knowledge that us inferior beings wouldn't have to concern ourselves about anything beyond the price of turnips or the current weather conditions.
I'd much rather that they simply provided the entire three paragraphs from the snippet to us instead of essentially "editorializing" it. Seriously. Wouldn't it have been shorter to just write the paragraphs and let the public read it for themselves? The only reason to write their own words is to tell you what they want you to believe about the subject being written about.
That's "available information", It may even be "freely available information". But it's not "good information". Is it too much to ask for free information that is actually untainted by the person delivering it to me? There is some middle ground between having *no* information and having information that only comes to us through the lens of the media. Presenting it as an either/or is a huge fallacy.
I'd like my information to be accurate. Not spun all to hell by the time it reaches me.
Quote:
Quote:
Leaked bits from numerous security assessments prior to official release spring to mind (inevitably showing some quote saying that the war in Iraq is causing an increase in terrorism while magically forgetting to include the quotes stating that the increase would be worse if we weren't in Iraq).
Care to provide a link?
Lol. Google "leaked national intelligence estimate". Do I have to do everything for ya?
There's been at least one "leak" every single year since the war began. It's not exactly hard to find. And selective portions quoted from NIEs on a number of other sources magically appear on the interwebs all the time as well (while conveniently missing the facts quite often as well.
One of the major arguments against the war in Iraq is based on the "fact" that two NIEs prior to the invasion made some statements, which when selectively plucked out of context would make one think that our intelligence agencies were all desperately trying to wave us off of military involvement in Iraq.
There are more examples of this then I could post without making your eyes go more buggy then they already are.
Quote:
How is it possible to 'state' that terrorist incidents would have been higher, if you hadnt illegally invaded and occupied iraq?
Strange. You completely buy that it's possible the 'state' that terrrorist incidents would have been lower if we hadn't invaded Iraq, yet are tripped up on this?
That's why they're called NIEs (national intelligence estimates). They make assessments about "might have been" and "might be" scenarios.
Quote:
Or does someone truly have that magic crystal [s]*********** ball that allows them to see what would have happenned if the US had continued chasing down OBL, as opposed to poncing around in Mesopotamia.
See answer above.
You're right. They are guesses. They are made up of a collection of intelligence agencies, both governmental and private think tanks and their assessments of a whole range of things.
Put what weight on it you want. My point is that the anti-war folks have put absolutely *huge* weight on a handful of leaked lines from selected NIEs over the years to argue against the war, while ignoring the bulk and context of those same NIEs. If we should put no weight in those, then so be it. But then you've tossed out the bulk of the arguments about the shaky nature of intelligence that led us into Iraq.
If those NIEs have weight, then we should look at the bulk of NIE reports that counter the snippets that the anti-war folks have pulled out of selected NIEs and leaked to the public. You don't get it both ways. You can't declare only the stuff out of NIEs that support your "side" as valid and ignore everything else. But that appears to be exactly what the anti-war argument is based on.
And it "flies" with the public largely because the public only sees the furor made in the media when one of these "damning" leaks occurs, and yet virtually never hears about the full reports and how they don't support the implication in the leaked bits at all.
Just as I'm sure when this book comes out, and people read it and sure enough McClellan isn't really slamming the Bush administration over it's handling of the Plame leak, you won't hear about it. Because it wont be printed in any magazine or news source that you read, so you'll never know and will continue living in ignorance believing what you believe about the facts of the situation. Just like the last dozen times something like this has happened...
Quote:
Making stuff up in your head is not the same as 'reality'.
Getting information from more then just what's shoved in front of you on your TV and far left anti-war sites might just help you have a better view of reality though. Just a thought...