Quote:
Originally posted by Scred
funny how a bunch of non-facts strung together can become a new non-fact. especially if it's brought to us by A Reliable SourceŽ
|
So at what point do a bunch of "non-facts" become something that maybe people should pay attention to?
In hindsight of 9/11, there were a bunch of "non-facts" that might have tipped us off as to what was going to happen. Sure, it's easy to look back now and say we should have seen this or that, but my point is that just because something isn't proven and verified and coming out of the the president's or some general's mouth doesn't mean it's <I>not</I> true.
During the Tora Bora battle, there were several officers from the northern alliance stating the same thing -- that lots of al Qaeda got away because we didn't have enough troops on the ground. Is that a "non-fact", or is that A Reliable Source? What is your basis for making such a determination?
Do you believe everything the president says, or are those non-facts too? Or does it take something being caught on the 11 o'clock news before you'll believe it?