"I have a written statement from th...i prison."<br><br>

Here it is...modern propaganda war tactic #1.<br><br>You're the U.S. Government. People haven't trusted you since Nixon/Watergate. You need propaganda for our times since those deco-facist posters won't wash today. <br><br>Just like the devil's greatest deception was convincing people that he doesn't exist...maybe the government's greatest deception was convincing people that it is incompetent.<br><br>Today's propoganda doesn't look like an election campaign (check out those vintage deco posters!). It looks like a tearful hollywood celebrity apology to something we all know is true. Next time you hear "intelligence failure" one more time, remember...they're still in charge.<br><br>

What happened to the good times… Monica Lewinsky style~!<br><br>

I hate the quote-lines-and-show-weakness-of-the-individual-statement approach to argument. I read enough of that in doing 16th century religious controversies in graduate school to last a lifetime. Nonetheless, here's what you said: [color:blue]Lastly to the "people in glass houses" argument on to why my post was singled out as ad hominem. So should I conclude then that you believe that ad hominem attacks are OK as long as the violator allows ad hominem responses?</font color=blue> That's not at all what you ought to conclude on the basis of what I said. The reason is fairly straightforwad: I said nothing at all about people who use adhomination without objecting to the practice. To conclude that I meant something about such people is to jump to the conclusion. Logically, it does not follow: if X then Y does not imply if not X then Y, or vice versa.<br><br>

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>The two things are as different as "Mission Accomplished" and "War Over"<p><hr></blockquote><p>You choose, based upon your partisanship, to overlook the obvious;<br><br>If the "mission" in that quote were 'the end of organised hostilities' (the war), then there is no difference at all. If that were not actually the "mission", would you mind telling us what exactly you believe the definition of "mission" to be in the context in which it was used?<br><br>Moo?

Not to mention the PR intent of the "message."<br><br>