> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 20:04:17 -0400, Leythos wrote:
>
>>> On Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:17:29 -0400, "Pea Shooter"
cox.net> wrote:
>>> >>>>I believe it's his veracity that's in question. :-)
>>>
>>> You believed him Then but not Now.
>>>
>>> I didn't believe him Then, but I do Now.
>>
>>With all my years in the service, the one thing I learned very quickly
>>was the the News does not present the truth. They sometimes present
>>parts of the truth, but they mostly spin for having the most impact on
>>viewers.
>
> A large part of that is because reporters don't Know whatever The
> Truth might be. Presented with a statement from someone in a high
> position, reporters report the content of the statement.
>
> The Truth of the statement is not and generally cannot be known a
> priori. And to argue with the statement at the time it's made is to
> be cut off from a source of future statements.
>
>>In the case of Scott, I have never "Believed" without validation,
>>anything from any administration, any "Expert", any Intelligence report,
>>etc... not without validation.
>
> Well, what would Validation be, in the instant case? Do you require
> the raw data? You ain't hardly gonna get it, are you? Do you require
> access to inside memos? Not gonna happen.
>
> What you are going to get is canned statements, which will be
> dutifully reported because the only Truth a reporter might know is
> that so and so said such and such. That's true.
>
> But the deeper truth is hidden from most reporters. Just part of the
> game.
>
> The hope is that eventually the Truth will make itself known. DeeCee
> being the sort of place that it is, that usually happens. It has in
> this case.
>
>>I did find that George Soros funded the publishing of Scott's book,
>
> That is likewise true. Did you figure that the Heritage Foundation
> would publish it?
>
> Don't be silly here!
>
>>that Scott was unable to validate any of his statements
>
> What statements did he fail to validate? Scott himself is the
> eyewitness providing you with the information. Did you figure that
> Dick Cheney would suddenly agree to fess up?
>
> You're entirely unrealistic.
No, it's unrealistic to believe that a book paid for by the enemy of
this country, Soros, and a book written without any documented proof to
back it, is anything other than a diversion from the election process,
to scare people into voting Democrat.
>
>>and has not, to date, provided any testimony to the authorities......
>
> That's because to date he hasn't been asked to provide such testimony.
> And "the authorities" who might request it are few and far between,
> just at the moment.
Yep, and he's not going to present proof either, he's going to state "In
my opinion" and "I believe" and "I saw", and then he's going to say "I
have no evidence to prove anything I say, you're going to have to take
my word on it".....
> The US Department of Justice won't Ever request such testimony. So
> don't expect a subpoena from there until the administration changes.
>
> No Law Enforcement Agency at any State Level has jurisdiction, so
> that's not gonna happen.
>
> Congress is the one and Only entity that might ask. That will take
> time. The Senate, for example, is presently out of town and won't be
> back till next week.
>
> Be patient here. He's going to be testifying before some authority.
LOL - and we've seen the value that has.
> But you will apparently not recognize Their authority either.
His testimony without documents that he had access too, like others that
have taken documents from the white-house and archives, means that it's
just his world, holds no validity - it's just opinion.
You guys are all alike, always screaming about abc and without any facts
to back up your postions, and then with the facts come out and
contradict your hate filled statements, you run and hide instead of
admitting your mistakes and learning that you should not make such
statements until you can prove them.
--
- Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum.
- Calling an illegal alien an "undocumented worker" is like calling a
drug dealer an "unlicensed pharmacist"
spam999free@
rrohio.com (remove 999 for proper email address)
