02-13-2007, 11:57 AM
|
 |
Site Moderator
Guru
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Indiana
Posts: 8,924
|
|
Par for the course
As usual, the NYTimes writes a headline that is definitive, and contradicts what was actually said. (The originator of this thread follows suit of course.) Why waste a great spin when done so masterfully? 
Pace uses language that leaves himself room for denial. There are phrases such as, "...not necessarily..." and language that allows for him to be proven wrong in the future, yet save face at the present. Just look at the following from the article:
Quote:
|
Asked if Pace had vetted the information that went into Sunday's briefing, the official said Pace was aware of what was going to be presented in Baghdad, but that the comment about involvement at the highest levels of Iranian government was not included in the material Pace was given.
|
In the end, Pace's role is then illustrated as that of a diminished role in the chain of command. It's in the last paragraph:
Quote:
|
The Joint Chiefs chairman is the senior military adviser to the president, but he commands no troops and is not in the chain of command that runs from the president to the secretary of defense to commanders in the field.
|
Just because the material, the weapons, the knowledge to set the demolitions, is Iranian (and proven to be through careful examination of the evidence) that "doesn't necessarily" mean it's coming directly from the Iranian government.... right?
Yeah, right. 
It could happen. 
__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
|