Comment Re: Simply Occam's Razor (Score 1) 3201
Again you seem to be ignoring the points that I'm making:
1. That the story did not just 'break' now, it was well known at the time of its occurance, by a wide circle of people. It bubbled onto the rader of mass media under vague headlines of CIA discontent with pressurce from the administration.
2. The systematic supression, and attempts at supression created an atmosphere of self-censoring. Here the censor does not need to censor all mediums, the behaviour is internalised after few examples and setting up of the environment. But I don't think this is all that relevant, more importantly, even if there were partisan reasons for appeareance as you say, you are avoiding the issue, it is whether the statements and attitude taken by this administration contradicts the reality of the dissent at the time. It is impossible to conclude otherwise, than the positive.
Although all forms of political commentary is abhorent to me, I must insist that the issue here is not only that they (the administration) made a mistake based on the mistake of others, which is what Ms. Rice and you are now defending ('people are still debating this'), it is the one-sided push for war and destruction which Mr. Cheney ('irrfutable evidence'), and Ms. Rice ('only really suited for nuclear weapons programs') and the relegation of alternate views, or the very existence of alternate views, as opposed to the actual, and important, alternate views that did exist, which were not countenanced publicly by this administration. Now (if I were to use your method, or as you like to slander Occam by, 'Occam's Razor' which in actuallity is: 'one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything' [http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html]), I would wonder why, so conveniently, the Administration refused to show information, which just happened to go against the case that they had already decided upon. One wonders.
Note: I do not know or care about the 'Bush Guard Records' issue, to me it is a non-issue, not related to policy and current executive action.
