pass the tinfoil and BOHICA

[taliv]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/13986477.htm

Gonzales to clarify testimony on spying
The Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appeared to suggest Tuesday that the administration’s warrantless domestic surveillance operations may extend beyond the outlines that President Bush acknowledged in mid-December.

In a letter Tuesday in which he asked to clarify his Feb. 6 testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Gonzales also seemed to imply that the administration’s original legal justification was not as clear-cut as he had indicated.

At that appearance, Gonzales confined his comments to the wiretapping program, saying that Bush had authorized it “and that is all that he has authorized.”

But in Tuesday’s letter, Gonzales, citing that quote, wrote that he “could not address ... any other classified intelligence activities” and was confining his remarks to the program as described by Bush, “the legality of which was the subject” of the Feb. 6 hearing.

A Justice Department official said Gonzales’ letter “should not be taken or construed to be talking about anything other than” the program described by Bush.

translation: bush has directed the federal gov to conduct wiretaps on citizens without getting any warrants.

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

Uh-oh. Dick Cheney's really going to have to shoot someone now to deflect attention away from this.

 

[Sindawe]

translation: bush has directed the federal gov to conduct wiretaps on citizens without getting any warrants.

Uh-oh. Dick Cheney's really going to have to shoot someone now to deflect attention away from this.

Warrantless wiretaps? Well..Uhh...Ummm OH LOOK! ISN'T THAT OSAMA OVERTHERE?

 

[Biker]

How many issues can the average American concentrate on at a time? We have the Dickster shooting lawyers, Portgate, renewal of the Patriot Act, domestic wire tapping, civil war in Iraq....
Tell ya what, I betcha that Rush and Hannity are busier than a lone rooster in a full henhouse lately trying to spin this crap. I don't watch tv, bit I'm about to turn on the radio and check out Limbaugh. Should be entertaining.
Biker

 

[JohnBT]

"Gonzales also seemed to imply..."

Seemed to imply? Well, did he or didn't he? It's not a hard question for an objective observer, or reporter, to answer.

John

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

John, you are mistaken here. The only logical way to phrase such a thing would be "seemed to imply," because the word "imply" connotes a degree of interpretation. Thus it can never be used in an empirical sense. To write otherwise would be biased reporting.

Sorry dude, but no points for that one, except maybe a bonus point for attempting to be sneaky.

 

[JohnBT]

Nonsense. Either he implied or he was direct. Seemed to imply is the statement of someone who can't tell the difference or is simply spinning the facts.

Googled up at random...

"To imply is to suggest a thought or an idea by letting it be inferred from something else, such as a statement, that is more explicit."

 

[Lobotomy Boy]

One can imply something, but one can never empirically state that another implied something. You may think, for example, that I am implying something about your understanding of linguistics, and you can say that I seem to be implying such, but only I can say empirically that I am implying anything. If I make an explicit statement, per your definition, then you can point to that with some empirical certainty, but when I am doing something as esoteric as implying something, you cannot say that I was doing this explicitly.

This reminds me of the eternal argument that married couples have: The husband says one thing that is a harmless statement but the wife gets mad because the husband "meant something else." That is nonsense. No one can presume to know what is in the head of another person. To do so is the height of arrogance. Thus you can never say: "_____ implied something," but rather only "_____ seemed to imply something."