----- Original Message ----- From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 11:12 PM Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3
> > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Minette" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 8:52 PM > Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3 > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Friday, December 17, 2004 7:25 PM > > Subject: Re: "God Is With Us" L3 > > > > > > > > > > > > xponent > > > > > > Too many Hits To Bother With Maru > > > > I now recall that with a bit more detail. But, having someone on > the list > > who talked to someone was in a hospital after the war is also a > reasonable > > data point. > > I don't think so really. I've talked to plenty of people who swear > they have seen flying saucers (people who in other circumstances would > be taken as rational and reasonable), but if I were to repeat their > stories no one here would take these "data points" as being anything > other than the mistaken impressions that they are. Sure, eyewitness accounts are not always right. But, we are talking about someone who continues to have responsibility in the area of foreign affairs discussing something fairly mundane that she observed in the course of her responsibilities. Swamp gas doesn't cause one to see that incubators are missing. There is no arguement that the testimony before Congress was not by an eye-witness. But, the rebuttal of the testimony did not include, as far as the references I read from you, reasonable assurance that all the incubators stayed put during the period of occupation. I saw some generalities, but nothing that even matches > Now if Gautam were to say onlist that he saw this himself at a time > when he was at this location in Kuwait it would weigh heavier as a > fact. (I do not doubt Gautam an iota myself). > > But the fact that this "gossip" (in that it is third hand) It's second hand...Gautam heard it first hand. Quotes in a news report are also second hand, as is quoting a news report. Both are a bit more than gossip, I think. >is repeated > by a government employee gives it less creedence these days > considering the way the truth is mangled with regularity by "Our > Employees". But, as an aside in a blistering attack on Bush II, to show that her criticism of Bush does not mean she thought Hussein was OK, it's hard to understand how she was just pushing the party line. > > Maybe a story that came out of Kuwait was personalized, in > > order to better persuade Congress. Maybe they framed a guilty man. > Maybe > > the incubators were removed, but the premature infants were not > thrown on > > the ground...they just did without. And, maybe the person from the > US > > embassy was flim-flammed. > > Mayhaps the Illuminati or the gray aliens are hiding something in > Kuwait.<G> When I worked with field and lab reports, I usually worked to not reject any field reports out of hand, even if what they claimed was in contradiction with the lab data that I took. I usually found that there was something behind the field reports, even though exactly as reported, it was impossible. In this case, from what I've seen, you and David are postulating Because a false eye-witness account of Hussein's actions was given before Congress, he didn't do anything of the source. I'm arguing Taking incubators out of Kuwait for use elsewhere is consistent with what I know of Hussein's other actions. The fact that the Kuwait's ambassador's daughter gave a false eye-witness account makes accounts coming directly from the Kuwait government, or directly from Bush I suspect, because they knew about the false accounts. But, it doesn't falsify the premise. Thus, other accounts still need to be considered. Just because OJ was framed, he isn't automatically innocent. :-) > > I don't doubt that Iraqi soldiers trashed many buildings and did > bodily harm to many people. I don't doubt that American soldiers have > done similar things in Iraq. Why do you, specifically, doubt that they would steal incubators. Let's say they knew of hospitals in Iraq that could use them. Why not move them to where they would "do more good." > But not every story repeated will have the same component of truth. No, but I try to weight probability as dispassionately as possible. Part of this is an assumption that I have about the general bias of the news media. The news media is biased towards explanations that provide a good, simple story. The original story was the eye-witness account. The first twist was that it was a PR job. Telling the story that it was a PR job that was set up, but that did happen to claim something that was close to what actually happened, opens up a can of worms that is not easy to report. So, the story stays simple. Explaining that someone lied about the truth wouldn't have much in the way of legs. It does illustrate some of the problems with setting up false PR...even if it turns out to be true later, few will believe you the second time. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
