Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
I don't doubt that or that it's true. I'm just pointing out that you are very quick to rely on the Suskin book for many matters. If others were doing the same you would chide them.
|
You seem to think that if A says X, and you believe it, then if B says Y, you must also believe it. If so, that's too stupid for words. So perhaps you are making a more nuanced point that is eluding me.
Meanwhile, you have suggested in the last day that the New York Times was lying when it attributed a position to the Administration in a front-page story, and that Suskind was lying when he explained that the Treasury Department sent O'Neill documents after he left office. Both of these are fairly factual statements in contexts where it is implausible that the author would lie because it would be too easy for someone else to bust them on it. If the New York Times gets caught making shit up and putting it on the front page as the Administration's position, it's in trouble. See, e.g., Jason Whateverhisnameis. It's too easy for the White House to say, we never said that. If Suskind makes that shit up, the Treasury Dept. is all over him like ugly on an ape. In both situations, it is simply implausible to me that the authors are lying, without some other reason to believe otherwise. I'm willing to listen, but you're not saying anything.
