Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 6 May 2009 18:27:57 -0400, "Eisboch"
wrote:


Here's another example of how issues become causes. Not too many months
ago the main topic of debate regarding water boarding was if it was indeed a
form of torture. To many, that question still remains. However, the
media coverage and hype has produced a general consensus that it *is*
torture. As I type, I am listening to a Harvard law professor stating that
officials in Bush's administration have admitted to "torturing" detainees.
But, don't you see, that's under the newly adopted, post event definition
that water boarding *is* torture. If public opinion (now an assumption)
was otherwise, then Bush and his administration could not be accused of
torture by authorizing water boarding.

See what I mean?

Problem is, arguing about whether water torture is torture is sort of
meaningless, don't you think? I mean, it's called water torture.
Well it was - until the American government started using it.
Then it became waterboarding. I guess some folks are easily confused.
Anybody who lets a name get in the way of truth isn't thinking
clearly.
"A rose is a rose by any other name."
But some folks are susceptible to Newspeak.

--Vic


It's not illegal if the president okays it...
Richard M. Nixon & Condi Rice (before she recanted)