[Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question

[Bill Effros]

Thank you.  I'll track it down.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Michael Meltzer 
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list 
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question


I got it from:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9911

it a British news IT site, if that helps

MJM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Effros" <bill at effros.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question


Michael,

It's a great quote!  Thanks.  Unfortunately it's a composite, but the parts are still useful.  An FBI guy said the absence of
evidence part.  Rumsfeld did the known unknowns.  Still looking for the origin of the facts we know don't exist part.

Bill


----- Original Message ----- 
From: Michael Meltzer
To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 10:04 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question


I am not sure this is true, but this is to good :-)

And as Donald Rumsfeld recently said:

"The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"There are no knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say there are things that we now
know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don't know.

"It is a very serious, important matter. Simply because you do not have evidence that something exists does not mean that you have
evidence that it doesn't exist. And yet, almost always, when we make our threat assessments, when we look at the world, we end up
basing it on the first two pieces of that puzzle rather than all. That is to say, we should make judgments giving equal weight to
facts we don't know exist"



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "brad haslett" <flybrad at yahoo.com>
To: "The Rhodes 22 mail list" <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
Sent: Monday, June 09, 2003 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] Politics -- Question


> Bill,
>
> This is just a guess.  Could it be that the DOD is
> reporting all deaths from whatever the cause and the
> papers are reporting only hostile deaths?  It doesn't
> make sense that the DOD would overstate the numbers,
> you'd think it would be the other way around.  I did a
> google search and came up with nothing.  Lexus-Nexus
> would be the ideal search engine.
>
> Brad
> --- Bill Effros <bill at effros.com> wrote:
> > In Sunday's New York Times there was a defense
> > department confirmation of the deaths of 9 soldiers
> > in Iraq.  Every day there is another announcement
> > like this from the department of defense.  The
> > confirmed deaths are greatly exceeding the reported
> > deaths in newspaper stories.
> >
> > Does anyone know what's going on?
> >
> > Bill Effros
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help?
> www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
> http://calendar.yahoo.com
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>
>

__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list


__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list


__________________________________________________
Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list