One has to laugh.
One thing this very 'focussed' reaction of yours has to ignore is the massive evidence that was accumulating in other departments, too, on this question of motivated exclusion of inconvenient facts.
I'll just mention (someone may have a link, I have to go paint a bookcase now) the telling case of the highly placed relative (son in law, I believe) of Saddam who had heavy responsibilities in the secret programs, who defected, gave a detailed deposition to the effect that the WMD programs had been terminated, and then, tricked by Saddam, foolishly returned to Baghdad, where Saddam murdered him.
His deposition containing descriptions of the programs was published. But the concluding section, which contained the information that the programs described had been cancelled, was... missing!
Somebody, after a while, got hold of the original. That's the only reason we know about this particular episode of info-management.
So you believe that Clarence Thomas is the most qualified of the justices for the post of Chief Justice, do you, Neo?
Edit: Besides 'qualified,' I should have mentioned 'respected by his peers' and 'distinguished,' of course. A 'brilliant' record would be a good thing, too, perhaps? 'Trusted'? 'Articulate'?; though those adjectives define 'qualified,' so maybe they would be redundant.
: ) |
