EC>> Repeating things seems to be your only skill.  You ignored
 EC>> the news reports in the Daily News (which, by the way, were
 EC>> actually in the NEW YORK SUN, not the Daily News!) based on
 EC>> you rejecting out of hand anything printed in the paper.

 EC>> Now that you know you got the wrong paper, of course, you
 EC>> will choose to ignore what was reported in the Sun, because
 EC>> now THAT paper will be in your eyes "a right wing
 EC>> mouthpiece."

->> Oh wow. I owe the NY Daily News. Confusing them with the right wing
->> rag, the NY Sun, is truly hurtful.

 EC> Your response was not only predictable but predicted.  You

 No, it wasn't.

 EC> reject out of hand anything in the Daily News.  You reject

 See, now that was predictable. But not predicted, you would lie
 about that, I won't.

 See above, where *YOU* identified the error in attribution? I
 had never even looked at the NY Daily News before. However, I
 did check up on it, and it's not near as bad as the Sun. It
 actually had some good stuff in it.

 But you invented an accusation, since you have nothing real.

 Oh, and you only noticed the misattribution after quoting it
 twice before. Try to keep track.

 EC> out of hand anything in the New York Sun.  You reject

 Actually, I called the Sun a right wing mouthpiece. Or was that
 a right wing rag? I use both terms, can't recall which I used
 this time. Maybe both.

 However, I do not reject everything just because I find a paper
 biased. For example, Detroit has the Detroit News, a right wing
 rag. That doesn't mean everything they publish is right wing,
 just that they lean that way. I have used articles from the
 Detroit news to disprove allegations made by right wingers
 before. Even the most right wing rags will usually not try to
 tilt the actual news reporting where they can get caught.
 However, analysis is something they can get away with.

 EC> anything written by Eli Lake, based on the fact that he
 EC> works for one of those papers.

 Actually, I have no way of knowing if Eli Lake works for the
 Sun. I have one reference to one story, or was that a column?
 I see stories in the Toledo Blade from reporters from other
 papers all the time. I said I didn't know if he had one story, a
 a couple a week. So I could not comment on his story, without
 seeing the actual story.

 You really should learn to read English.

 EC> You ignore everything said
 EC> by the various sources cited in the story, based on the

 I didn't bother to drill down to the story's sources, except
 where I thought they might be distorted. Just like you painted
 Scheuer as anti-Clinton, but ignored his attacks on Bush.

 EC> fact that they were sources used by a news reporter for one
 EC> of those papers.  Since the references to the Sun articles

 Falshood thy name is Croasmun. I did not ignore the stories
 because of the source, I replied to the sources you cited, not
 to the sources of the sources.

 EC> came from Jake Tapper on the ABC News website, you are just
 EC> an easy step away from calling ABC and Tapper "rightwing
 EC> mouthpieces" as well.

 Well, the broadcast media is behaving like a bunch of abused
 children, sucking up to the right wing republicans.

 I have no idea who Jake Tapper is, other than this discussion. I
 have no idea if he is a right wing mouthpiece.

 Oh, and it was the ABC blog. IIRC. Yep... blogs.abcnews.com.

 EC> Since you are going whole-hog on
 EC> fallacies of composition, fallacies of division, and ad
 EC> hominem fallacies, why stop there?

 Identifying a biased source is *NOT* a fallacy. Anyone who
 doesn't understand that is likely to fall for anything...oh...
 yeah... that explains a lot of what you say.

 EC> The story was on the
 EC> internet, so you can call it a rightwing mouthpiece as well.

 Not yet, but Bush will make it one if he can manage it.

 OTOH, ABC news is a broadcast source, which goes out over the
 air waves, though the air. So, you are now deriving that the air
 is right wing? Dang you are screwed up.

->> Your source was
->> the Familysecuritymatters website. They cited the Sun.

 EC> Actually that particular essay by Christopher Holton cited
 EC> the 9/11 Commission and a number of news reports.  The ONLY

 Which has nothing to do with the fact that I did not look at the
 story in the Sun because it was a source for your source. I
 didn't go digging for second step sources.

 EC> reference he made to the New York Sun was to a story
 EC> reported in the Sun concerning documents that were captured
 EC> by US forces in Iraq.

 Then he should have cited the actual story, and the documents.
 You should have. Not my problem.

 EC> Let's see, that gives you two
 EC> choice: you can call captured documents rightwing
 EC> mouthpieces, or you can call US forces in Iraq rightwing
 EC> mouthpieces.

 Or I can call you a liar, since none of your sources gave the
 original sources, the documents. Your attempt to conflate the
 documents with those who captured the documents is your
 dishonesty. For that matter, you so closely tie the documents to
 the captors, you must, logically, say the US forces in Iraq are
 responsible for what the documents say. You really should not
 attack our military like that.

 EC> Either way, it wouldn't mean anything, since
 EC> it came from you.  But go ahead and entertain.

 Tu Quoque.

->> Show where I misrepresented anything above.

 EC> Done over and over again.  In this particular instance
 EC> there was a report that Saad bin Laden had been given safe
 EC> haven in Iran when he was fleeing capture by the US.  That
 EC> did indeed happen.

 Ah, the fallacy of repetition. You have said, over and over,
 that it happened, but you have not presented one single
 verifiable and authorative source to back it up.

 Not to mention, arguement by definition.

 EC> But you wanted to say something that
 EC> would LOOK like refutation, so you misrepresented the
 EC> report as saying that he was doing terrorist operations in
 EC> Iran,

 I do not believe that report said he had "safe haven", but that
 Al Qaeda was sending him dispatches in Iran. You said he was
 organizing terror cells. If that isn't conducting operations, I
 can't imagine what would fit your definition.

 EC> and then you attacked that misrepresentation rather
 EC> than the actual report.

 I attacked what you later claimed was true. If they had said Al
 Qaeda was sending him Christmas Cards, or sympathy notes, then
 you would be the only one saying he was conducting operations.
 Reports and such are part of operations.

->> In Feb 2007 the *CIA* sent Bush a report saying Saad Bin Laden was
->> being *HELD* in Iraq.

 EC> I have no reason to believe that the CIA said any such
 EC> thing, given your history of making stuff up or falsely
 EC> paraphrasing things.

 My history is of not making up anything at all. Now, do you want
 to look for it on the web, or do I first accuse you of making a
 false accusation, ie: a lie, and give you the source?

 EC> But as far as I know he is STILL
 EC> being held in Iran (not Iraq).

 Gee... slipped over a country.

 EC> For a while he was under
 EC> house arrest, but apparently he was released from that in
 EC> 2006 so that he could assist terrorist operations and
 EC> training.

 Yet you have no verifiable source on that. My source was the
 CIA, in Feb 2007. Your claim was July 28, 2006.

 EC> This is old news, Bob.  Were you going to
 EC> stumble toward a point?

 This is an old smoke screen Earl, were you ever going to stumble
 out of the smoke?

->> Then explain how and why anyone in Al Qaeda would be supposedly
->> sending messages to Saad Bin Laden and other senior Al Qaeda leaders

 EC> Gee, Bob, that is a TOUGH one.  Why would Al Qaeda try to
 EC> communicate with leaders of Al Qaeda?  Gosh, why don't you
 EC> ponder that?

 I did. That one is easy, because they are conducting operations.
 What is hard to figure out is why you think you can get away
 with editing the comment to leave out the parts about them being
 held in Iran, and conducting operations. Did I neglect to addd
 that they were arrested?

 ->> and why Iran would allow that

 EC> Wow, Bob, that would almost make it sound like Iran and Al
 EC> Qaeda might have some COMMON ENEMY?  Do you think it
 EC> POSSIBLE?

 Yeah, and dismissed it because, if that was the cause, Iran
 would have released Saad bin Laden and sent him out where he
 could do some harm to us. They would have not just taken him to
 Lebanon, but let him go to Lebanon. So, how would they be
 holding him in 2007?

 Ya gotta think these things through.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn{at}sev.org   http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... George W. Bush, the most corrupt man to hold the presidency in my lifetime.
 * Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a