Posted on 05/29/2008 6:10:39 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Was George Soros behind the publication of Scott McClellan's book? Meredith Vieira had the perfect opportunity this morning to find out—but chose to punt. The Today co-anchor certainly had the time: her much-touted exclusive interview with the author of What Happened ranged over the show's first two half-hours. But even when McClellan himself put the issue on the table by citing his publisher by name and alluding to its philosophy, Vieira failed to pursue a line of questioning that could have put matters in an explosive new light.
As MRC's Brent Baker has detailed, McClellan's publisher, PublicAffairs:
is part of the Perseus Books Group, which also owns Nation Books, “a project of The Nation Institute” which publishes the magazine of the same name, and Vanguard Press, whose home page now features The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, a new book by Vincent Bugliosi that “presents a tight, meticulously researched legal case that puts George W. Bush on trial in an American courtroom for the murder of nearly 4,000 American soldiers fighting the war in Iraq.”
Baker also notes that PublicAffairs is the publisher of no fewer than six books by Soros himself, and that McClellan's editor, Peter Osnos, who acknowledges having "worked very closely" with the author, is a liberal pundit in his own right.
Finally, Little Green Footballs has documented that there are several Perseus companies that actually include "Soros" as part of their name, as in Perseus-Soros Management, LLC.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
Well, you gotta admit that Bush's re-election chances ARE getting pretty low.
They're succeeding in denying his re-election.
Rriight!
Or, maybe that neither one knows the answer and one doesn't know the difference between an assertion of fact and 'because I said so' (a 'factual assertion').
(Go ahead, tell me that 'string theory' defines the maximum length of twine you can fit around a number two pencil:
I'll say "no it doesn't you idiot!
And you will have proved your 'fact'(?)
Someone, somewhere in TV newsland, last night, made a comment about "really bad blood" between Jorge and McClcllan's mother....it sort of got brshed aside.
You got anything on that?
Thanks for the post. To clarify, I think they exxagerated WMD’s for the reason to go in, not that they lied about them being there. And, as I said, the real reason to go in was even more noble, so I have no problem with it.
Can anyone clarify the quote attributed to Ari??
("Confsed" should be "confused" - see what I mean?)
Ah! Your first premise is false therefore your conclusion is false. You have no idea if the original assertion is true or not, therefore your premise is false and well as your conclusion. It's called logical fallacy.
Not at all. I know I don't know if the original assertion is true or not, thus I look for the accused to say "that's not true". If instead they yell and scream without saying "that's not true" I assume its because they can't say "that's not true".
BINGO! Therefore you have created a logical fallacy. Each premise in an argument must be 100% true in order for the conclusion to be true.
If someone is accused of something, they lack of their saying "that's not true" suggest the strong possibility that it is true.
sorry for all the typos above.
There seems no doubt but that every intelligence agency in the world believed in Saddam's WMDs.
Sufficient reports have come to light (but never to prominent light) to support that those devices were either real or in process of becoming.
Saddam's people believed the weapons were there and some of them, and others, scattered the evidence;
whatever that evidence was.
It's legitimate to question the timing - Clinton had announced no less firm belief in WMDs but had been content to bust a couple of amorphous, one-shot, targets; as I believe GWB put it - 'putting a Tomahawk up a Camel'.
If the discussion turns to "Why at just that time" we're entirely into speculation but I'm sure everyone has an opinion.
On the other hand: The Plame fiasco is news today ONLY because the hard left believes in it and because the left wants McCain tarred with the same brush they've been using on GWB.
(RJ, repeat after me: Armitage)
Logical fallacies, yes I have a problem with them. They are fallacies.
Thanks.
You apparently don’t know what a logical fallacy is, so we will just have to end this discussion.
False premise.
You have anything more that is incorrect to say?
What i said was not a logical fallacy. Your doing the mormon thing and posting a bunch of links and useless info doesn’t change that.
False premise = logical fallacy.
Yes, it does. I made no false premise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.