>> This is not Latin, but it's clever. And the example is on the today's topic. It's enthymematic argumentation. I think you'll appreciate its specialness.<<
Karen -
I do appreciate the specialness of enthymematic argumentation, and though I did not know it had a name at the time, I noticed when Bush, Cheney, and all the other members of that team used it. And used it. And used it.
They left themselves with plausible deniability while continuing to mislead the American public.
Of course, this is not the only technique they used. It was only part of the systematic, methodical campaign to lead the country to war based on information that they knew was at least very possibly incorrect.
Let's not call it lying, since as you point out, it's unproductive to do so. But let us not fail to call it intentional deception, since it most emphatically was that.
By the way, I'm going around the corner to a bookstore in a little while, to buy Scott McClellan's book. I'm not a very fast reader, since I tend not to make time for reading, but I'll report to the thread on what I find.
- Allen |
