March 17, 2006
...A Persistent Vegetative State
Let me get this straight:
You cannot believe documents released by un-named government sources, because you cannot vouch for the credibility of the source,
-BUT-
You must believe documents released by un-named government sources, because the credibility of the source must be impeccable for them to want to remain anonymous.
"Paging Dr. Sanity..."
Interesting piece by Dr. Sanity.
I'd love to read the piece she must have done a few years ago on the *Clinto Haters*.
It would be interesting to learn if it's the same pathology she attributes to the *Bush Haters*.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 17, 2006 06:57 PMThe difference, Richard, is that no Republican has ever seriously tried to create a mental illness to deal with their disappointments.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 17, 2006 07:37 PMSo if you see no real difference between accepting the validity of these new documents and accepting the validity of the memo, then I suppose you accept the validity of the Downing Street Memo.
Or perhaps you have other "proof" that the DSM is a fake and these new documents are real.
Or perhaps everyone believes what they want to believe and analogies don't work.
Either way, by the logic of your analogy these two documents are equally legitimate. So now that you agree that the DSM is valid, I guess you think its pretty bad that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” when this new document proves that there actually was a relationship between SH and OBL all along.
Posted by: Dedulysses at March 17, 2006 08:47 PMdedulysses, this post does not appear to be a validation of either case but an attempt to demonstrate the difference in MSM reporting standards.
Posted by: Ray Robison at March 17, 2006 08:51 PMExactly. Specifically the BIAS of ABC and other MSM outlets. What say you oh Stoned One?
Posted by: Specter at March 17, 2006 10:01 PMCY-
That's funny.
But it wasn't what my question concerned.
Posted by: ArthurStone at March 17, 2006 10:19 PM"dedulysses, this post does not appear to be a validation of either case but an attempt to demonstrate the difference in MSM reporting standards."
Well it seems like a call for equal treatment, so either both this new document and the DSM deserve a disclaimer or neither deserve it and should be treated as legitimate (or, at least, should be treated as both possibly true).
This argument seems to render them equal.
I'm sure that this blogger would have no problem if the situation were reversed: the media article about the DSM contained a disclaimer and the media article about these new documents did not.
Posted by: Dedulysses at March 17, 2006 11:00 PMI guess the drop in status to 'Former' MSM has effected them more than most people would think. I don't smoke, but i'll have some of what the former MSM types are smoking. That way we can all join the Holy-wood crowd in fantasy land. Maybe there really is a magic rabbit hole in Ks.
Posted by: scrapiron at March 18, 2006 12:32 AMSo now that you agree that the DSM is valid, I guess you think its pretty bad that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”
The problem with this reasoning is that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" is not an iron-clad and detailed determination. It's a shorthand summary of the opinions of the British official, "C", to whom they are attributed. The paragraph from which the famous sentence is drawn provides no detail about why C thinks this. And since C is anonymous, we can't really ask him or her.
So, "valid" in what sense? To say that the DSM is "valid" just means it accurately reflects the personal opinion of an unnamed British envoy.
Posted by: Ofc. Krupke at March 18, 2006 11:49 AMI think the main substantive difference here is the DSM were retyped while the originals were destroyed, and this was admitted to by the reporter.
Finally, it is amusing that the left wholly & completely ignores this portion of the DSM:
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary."Posted by: The Ace at March 18, 2006 12:37 PM
"Well, if you don't know what the difference is, I'm certainly not going to tell you!"
Sound familiar? Heheheee!
Posted by: benning at March 18, 2006 08:19 PMWhat is the most important information I should know about Clonazepam?
• Use caution when driving, operating machinery, or performing other hazardous activities. Clonazepam will cause drowsiness and may cause dizziness. If you experience drowsiness or dizziness, avoid these activities.
• Use alcohol cautiously. Alcohol may increase drowsiness and dizziness while you are taking Clonazepam. Alcohol may also increase your risk of having a seizure.
• Do not stop taking Clonazepam suddenly. This could cause seizures and withdrawal symptoms. Talk to your doctor if you need to stop treatment with Clonazepam.
What is Clonazepam?
• Clonazepam is in a class of drugs called benzodiazepines. Clonazepam affects chemicals in your brain that may become unbalanced and cause seizures.
• Clonazepam is used to treat seizures.
• Clonazepam may also be used for purposes other than those listed in this medication guide.