The administration lies about everything, it seems, but it is interesting that its use of preliminary findings in the WMD case is quite opposite to its "caution" in regards to global warming.
What are the chances the larger scientific community could be involved in a statement decrying this blatant misuse of evidence?
Doug Brugge wrote:
> I believe that the Bush administration has pursued its own elaborate strategy with regard to press coverage of WMD. The basic approach is to raise dramatic, but preliminary claims that are then covered broadly and prominantly in the press. All the while, I believe, they know the claim to be false or at least far more questionable than they let on. Then, after the passage of enough time, they retract the claim. In most cases the retraction is carried on the back pages or not at all. In the rare instance of the uranium from Niger they have to back off more publically.
> Thus, in most instances they have technically set the record straight, while at the same time leaving a majority of the public with the false impression that the original claim was accurate. To my knowledge the media have not explored or decried this practice and most of the public seems oblivious to the deception.
Michael H. Goldhaber
[log in to unmask]