[extropy-chat] Impeachment of President Bush What odds am I offered?

[Brent Neal]

 (12/23/05 16:49) David Lubkin <extropy at unreasonable.com> wrote:

>Brent wrote:
>
>> >Read this please.
>>
>> >http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/12%2022%2005%20NSA%20letter.pdf
>>
>>Read this please. It carries about as much weight as the letter you reference.
>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202119.html
>
>That's like claiming that an article in Newsweek carries as much 
>weight as a paper in Lancet.


Then you clearly didn't read the article. 

A Justice Department that has a record of dubious interpretation of the law writes a formal letter.  A Senator who was involved in the passage of the law referenced says, "No, we explicitly left that authority out."  A quick check confirms that the section reads as he stated.  That seems like a no-brainer to me.

You know, just because people cite things doesn't mean they cited them correctly.  That you would assume that a formal letter with citations is more correct simply by that virtue shows a remarkable lack of critical thinking.

B
-- 
Brent Neal
Geek of all Trades
http://brentn.freeshell.org

"Specialization is for insects" -- Robert A. Heinlein