Your logical is flawed. You make the giant leap that 100% inclusion necessitated all information. This is not the case at all. The inclusion must be those facts that, if absent, will fundamentally alter the conclusion your audience comes to.

The only remedy would be that the information be communicated in exactly the same form and in the same intervals (relative to time) ID pawn shop laws as it is received

Allow me to give you an example: I tell you that Bill Clinton was hated by Republicans, won the presidential election of 1996, and then the Republicans decided to impeach him so that he would no longer be president. Am I lying? Of course not, but I am leaving out the fact that he lied under oath. Now would including that fact lead to a different conclusion as to why the Republicans impeached Bill Clinton? Of course. Did that necessitate that I also include the sorid details of the affair, and names of all Congressmen, the weight and height of Bill Clinton? No, that would be absurd and irrelevant to the point.

The charges that you have leveled against me are so far divorced from anything that I have said and hinted at, I am not really sure what you expect me to say to these wild accusations of dictation and censorship

At this point, your logic is not merely flawed, you are simply continuing to try and recreate my argument in order to discredit it. The remedy to someone structuring their statements to deceive is (gasp) for that person to NOT structure his statements to not sure where you pulled those out of?

9) “Further, for you to presume to dictate the acceptable manner in which information must be disseminated to you and the public in order for that communication to be exempt from YOUR opinion of “deceptive speech,” IS CENSORSHIP.”

Huh? You must have assumed that I advocated total control of the United States media. When exactly did I presume to dictate anything to anyone? In fact, when did I presume to control what the public sees and hears? I am forced to conclude Mr. Mahan, that you have no serious interest in hearing a point of view that does not conform to your own (which is your right as an American).

9) I’ll accept your definition that, “Deception is false representation of the facts.” Problem is that deception is also interpretive. And you are imputing deception where it doesn’t exist.”

What an odd statement. If deception is interpretive, then how can you claim that it does not exist? Furthermore, you have taken as a matter of fact what we have been debating since the beginning of this post, that is simply “doesn’t exist.” Well, I believe that it does exist.

Witchhunts usually connote that a person is being attacked or condemned as a part of a systematic campaign absent any legitimate reason. I am “attacking” Bush, if you will, for legitimate reasons: misleading the American people when going to war. Hence, no whitchhunt is in place.

Mr. Lederer, I disagree with your contentions. The article you provided was interesting and helpful, but I disagree with those conclusions as well. In fact, the new press secretary also called Iraq and immediate threat to the United States, as did Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on Face the Nation.

However, frankly, I believe that all of these semantic games being played are foolish and miss the point. The reason we went to war with Iraq was because we were told that Saddam Hussein was a threat to America (THAT Bush DID say), and this was repeated in some form or another for whatever reason. This threat was not in the next century, or the next decade, it was soon enough that we could not wait for inspections or anything else, we had to act. I find the repeated denial of this fact and continuous dwelling on word choice to be rather, in a word, frustrating.