what he shoulda said

U.S. intelligence: Iraq situation is in sharp decline | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
During a White House briefing, Hadley was pressed to reconcile that assessment with the president's refusal to describe the Iraq situation as a civil war. "I think I can't do better than the description of the facts on the ground that is in the NIE, with which we agree, and that says this is a complex, difficult situation," Hadley said. "And that's what it is."

...is, "We absolutely agree. This is what we've been saying all along - 'civil war' isn't useful and is a non-optimal descriptor because it doesn't convey the true complexity and difficulty of the situation," then introduce the "new and approved term."
04 Feb 2007 by Simon W. Moon

Pro-War Psychology
According to the NASD study, fraud victims are more likely than the rest of the population to have experienced a "negative life event" (such as the death of a loved one, a layoff or a divorce) in the previous three to five years.
"When something bad happens in your life, it chews up your cognitive abilities and your coping skills," says University of California-Santa Cruz psychology professor Anthony Pratkanis, who worked on the study.
(Source URL: http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/moneymag/scam/2.html)

It's now five years on.

The lure of the big score is well known to Stanford University psychology professor Brian Knutson. His research has shown that the parts of the brain that anticipate reward are markedly more sensitive to the amount of potential gain than to the probability of earning it.
In other words, we're wired to ask, "How big?" not "How likely?"
(Source URL: http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/moneymag/scam/4.html)

Solve the Middle East.

According to research done by Emory University neuroscientist Gregory Berns, when we go along with peers, activity in a part of the brain that thinks analytically may decrease, presumably reducing our skepticism. And when we go against consensus, there's a reaction in the part of the brain usually triggered by fear. So we're afraid to go against the crowd, even when confronted with plain evidence.
(Source URL: http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/moneymag/scam/index.html)
04 Nov 2006 by Simon W. Moon

Cheney Wouldn't Accidentally Endorse Water-Boarding
Mr Snow said this:
"You know as a matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding. Never would, never does, never will. You think Dick Cheney's going to slip up on something like this? No, come on."

and its said he said that "...the question put to Cheney was loosely worded."

He implies it'd go against common sense for a Veep to endorse water boarding without saying exactly why a VP wouldn't do so. He then suggests that this Veep wouldn't make that kind of a mistake.

Why bother with the 'slip-up' bit? Why not just stick to the other themes- 'this country doesn't torture' and Cheney wasn't talking about water-boarding?

It's different than Mr Snow saying that to have endorsed water-boarding would be endorsing a breach of law, policy, or morality and the VP doesn't swing that way.
Mr Snow decides to include that publicly endorsing water-boarding is too crass a "slip-up" for the VP to have made.

Why offer that as supporting rhetoric?

It brings us back to the primary point of the affair- why it's a "matter of common sense that the vice president of the United States is not going to be talking about water boarding."

The OVP wouldn't be careless enough to publicly lend support to waterboarding w/o plausible deniability, would they?
27 Oct 2006 by Simon W. Moon

<< Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next >>