Comments on: “A cowardly way”

By: Henry

Henry — Sun, 11 Jun 2006 02:04:32 +0000

Winston Smith’s theory fails to explain why they do not categorically deny all truths. He says that, if they categorically deny something, then it has a 50/50 chance of being true. So, if they categorically deny some truths, why not all of them? The only explanation that I can think of for why they didn’t deny this one is that the anonymous White House spokesperson was uncomfortable categorically denying something he knew to be true — in other words, he had a smidgen of a conscience. He must have been filling in for a regular spokesperson who was on vacation. Or can someone come up with another explanation?

By: Winston Smith

Winston Smith — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:11:03 +0000

Yeah, from this buch that means “that’s exactly what happened.”
Remember “there are no plans to invade Iraq on my desk”? (If this wasn’t simply an outright lie, then they must have been in his drawer, or on Cheney’s desk, or already off his desk and at the Pentagon.)
The rule with these guys:
If you ask “Is x true?” and they say “No. Absolutely, categorically not,” then x has about a 50/50 chance of being true.
If you ask “Is x true?” and they do anything other than categorically deny it, then x is true.

By: Rob

Rob — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:04:23 +0000

Why really should the White Hosue do this? No one will call them on it. I mean the Presdeint just blatantly lied about Snow beign removed and the press ignores it. Why would something that happened 18 months ago be more scrutinized than something that happened two weeks ago?

By: Good

Good — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 16:40:46 +0000

Tell your plans to the people…
Organize a revolution…
Get the people behind you…
Coward.