cnredd said:
Exact words...own voice...journalism school...:rofl
You rascally kids crack me up...
From a previous thread...
One thing that I find worse than actual lying is the infamous "lie of omission"...
Taking things out of context or outright removing certain text deliberately is the ultimate is skullduggery...
I'll give an example...
Let's say there is a video of someone asking me, "Do you hate your neighbors"?...
My full reply - "Yeah...I hate them...I hate then so much that I spent the day helping them chop down a tree and then let them borrow my SUV to remove it"...
Obviously, the second sentence points out the sarcasm of the first sentence...
But what happens if the video gets spliced in the middle of my answer?...
"Do you hate your neighbors"?...
"Yeah...I hate them"...(cut)
See the difference?...
Now here's the douchebag defense...
Did anyone "lie"?...Nope...
Was anything that we saw on the tape doctored?...Nope...
Were they the actual words that came out of your mouth?....Yup...
So it MUST be the truth!...
Removing the full answer gives the viewer exactly the opposite position I original mentioned...Thus, the lie of omission...
Here's another example brought to you by the King of the Lie of Omission a la Fahrenheit 9/11...
Condi Rice's quote chopped into little bits to make you think a certain way...
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11."
Now take a gander at what was NOT in the film...The whole quote...
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It’s not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11, but, if you think about what caused 9/11, it is the rise of ideologies of hatred that lead people to drive airplanes into buildings in New York. This is a great terrorist, international terrorist network that is determined to defeat freedom. It has perverted Islam from a peaceful religion into one in which they call on it for violence. And they're all linked. And Iraq is a central front because, if and when, and we will, we change the nature of Iraq to a place that is peaceful and democratic and prosperous in the heart of the Middle East, you will begin to change the Middle East...."
The beginning of the second sentence points out that you should NOT take the first sentence ver batum and literally...
But Mr. Lie of Omission doesn't want any of the fine viewers to know that...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=184113&postcount=14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that we are through with the lessonplan...Let's go through this instance to show how weak the accusations are shall we?
#1) John Yoo is NOT the legal advisor to President Bush...he is a law professor at Berkeley, is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a
former Justice Department official...
Get that kids?...A)FORMER...B)DoJ official...He was a lawyer for the Office of Legal Counsel...he was NOT Bush's legal advisor, as the original post was written...
That's bullsh!t #1...Let's move on...
#2) "his exact words in his own voice"!?!?!?...Try again...Here is what was actually said and by whom...This was in Chicago in a debate with Doug Cassel...a human rights activist and professor at Notre Dame...
How about that?...NOT his own voice...Couldn't even get that part right...:rofl
I know you're thinking "same diff"...I suggest you immediately apply for newsanchor at CBS...:2wave:
Bullsh!t #2...Let's go to the conclusion...
#3) All Yoo said(implied) was that there was NO TREATY or LAW BY CONGRESS to prevent the President were he to "deem it necessary"...
He did NOT say he was advocating it...
It would also be legal for him to run around the White House in his skivvies and beg for a Chicago Bear's win this week...doesn't mean he's gonna do it...
See?...Grab an article, throw it out without getting the true facts, and spin it anyway you like...
That's the
modus operandi here kids...
Move along...nothing to see here...
Oh come on now. Do you really believe what you are shoveling here? Talk about hair splitting and word parsing.
1) Yoo had 2 opportunities state his position. In his first opportunity he clearly stated there was no treaty, when truth be known, the Geneva accords, which we are a signatory to, make it a war crime. Like I said, Yoo clearly supported torturing the child of a suspect.
2) In stating that there was no treaty against it, Yoo clearly indicates that he does not see the torturing of the children of suspects as illegal.
3) In his second opportunity to state his position, Yoo stated that it was up to Bush to determine the legality of torturing the children of suspects. Now, based only on the audio itself, we dont know what side of the argument Bush would take. However, by deferring the legality to someone else, Yoo clearly takes the position that, should whoever he deferred to should mandate that children have to tortured, then he has no problem with it.
4) You say that because he is a FORMER justice official, then his opinion does not count. Correction - While he may be a former justice department official, he was the official who codified the administration's position on Guantanamo, the Geneva Conventions, a new category of "illegal combatant", and other postitions which are at odds with international law.
5) In addition,
John Yoo is still one of the movers and shakers at the American Enterprise Institute, the think tank from which much of Bush policy comes from, and still codifies policy there. In addition, Yoo's work for Bush in writing his memos was
AFTER he left the Justice Department. By implying that, because Yoo is a FORMER Justice Department Official, and therefore has nothing to do with administration policy, you are being dishonest.
7) You also make another dishonest claim, in that who Yoo was debating determined what he said. Are you really attempting to claim that, because Yoo was debating Doug Cassell, that it is Cassell's fault that Yoo said what he said? Does Cassell have that much power over Yoo, or could it be that Yoo said what was on his mind? How about a little personal responsibility here? Oh thats right, I forgot. Republicans dont do that anymore.
8) Put it all together, and any reasonable person can conclude that Yoo DID take the position in the debate that torturing children was perfectly OK. And yes, those are his own words in the audio which are taking that position. By taking that position, he is clearly supporting it. Oh wait, I missed the part where he said it was reprehensible and against international law. Oops, he didnt say that, did he?
9) Finally, I know you dont like me, and thats OK. Cant be liked by everyone, thats a fact of life. However, your attempts to tie me in as a subject are completely irrelevant, unless you somehow feel that I put those words in Yoo's mouth. Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not into Voodoo, but I must congratulate you on your use of Voodoo to conjure up a tale that makes no sense at all.