On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 05:48 PM, Bhairitu wrote:
Your reading comprehension sucks, Emily.? Go back and read my original post.
I read it.? What I am saying is....if you read the article, you'll disagree with the description as "secret" (because it clearly says it isn't) and also that it's some kind of a scientific prediction¡ªit's neither of those things.? I'd argue that whoever wrote the
Observer?article got it wrong. Which you, as a self-described analytical person would know, if you read the source article. You're so quick to see the word "secret" and assume a conspiracy, I thought I'd check your assumptions for you. It *was* commissioned by a DOD planner.??You're welcome.?
In fact, from a 2004 review of said report:?
While?The Observer?sensationalized the story with its erroneous claim that the report was ¡°secret¡± and ¡°suppressed by U.S. defense chiefs¡± when in fact it had already been publicly discussed, the document is worthy of even the British press¡¯ flair for melodrama.?
When Muckraker contacted White House?Council on Environmental Quality?spokesperson?Dana Perino?for a statement on the report, she responded, ¡°I haven¡¯t seen it, I haven¡¯t read it, and I don¡¯t want to make any comments on the matter. As I understand it, this is a ¡®what-if¡¯ scenario ¡ª not a diagnosis, not a prophecy, and not a foundation for new policy.¡±
https://grist.org/article/pentagoners/
?
--
Em
Emily Mae