General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Here's a Hint - when someone .... [View all]
posts something with their "hair on fire", even if they post a link to a BLOG of someone else who also seems to have their "hair on fire", it's probably wrong. Or at least misrepresented.
There is something that DUers should understand, and that I think they do but only when it is convenient - Journalists can, and will, lie.
In this case, we have been blessed in the fact that the actual documents themselves are available.
However, most people simply don't want to read the original documents. They would rather have someone else "tell" them what it contains, even if it is WRONG and directly contradicts what was said in the original document.
A perfect example is the FISA order that the Guardian decried as "being only one paragraph!". Well, yes it was, but that single paragraph had several references to existing laws. In essence, the FISA order said that "all orders will follow existing law". But the Guardian article tried to portray the brevity as some kind of "proof" that the FISA court doesn't follow established law. When in fact the order commands that the FISA Court MUST follow those laws that have been established previously - without being redundant.
I know that many people here will disagree with my interpretations, but the Guardian interpretations are demonstrably wrong simply by reading the documents that they, themselves, released.
The thing that amazes me is that a News Article could be so "off-base" and then release documents that directly contradict them as "proof" of their stance. The leaked documents directly contradict their allegations, and yet the allegations remain. Karl Rove himslelf couldn't have engineered such a coup.
Before you jump to conclusions, please read the FISA order.
Ya know, I started to link to the original order, but I'm tired of doing that. Google is your friend.
And if you want to argue, refer back to the actual order. I don't care what any site says, because they are full of shit. Refer back to the actual order.