Quote:
|
Originally Posted by boatin
Wow. Are you familiar with occam's razor? It suggests that the simplest answer is often the right one. It is true that the things you suggest are possible. Or it's possible the bush campaign is an opportunistic group who will do what they feel like when they feel like it.
Are you saying that that isn't possible? It's utilizing a terrorism tagline, and then using that to instead counter a horrible debate that I find so offensive.
Do I think the president lied? No. Do I think he was party to a lie? Yes. And complicity is enough. It's his show - he sets the tone. When his campaign makes decisions, he is responsible. That's part of how I define leadership. Is that crazy?
|
That explanation is in no way the simplest. The simplest would probably be that there was miscommunication between the White House and the press.
I never said it wasn't possible. But please feel free to explain why the administration strategists would think that repeating the "same old information" one more time would give the President a significant advantage at the risk of alienating the networks and press corps.
Your last paragraph clearly communicates why you think the big conspiracy theory in this case is the "simplest".