# Bush can "legally" declassify. So what? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 8, 2006, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863 "2006-04-08T15:38:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/41 "2006-04-08T21:16:05Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > To ask whether or not we should believe Bush on topic X, based on our assessment of the character he has displayed in the past, is a logical fallacy. In fact, it is called the [Genetic Fallacy](http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html). Or is it possible to interpret this statement any other way?: Yes. You should interpret it as a question about whether or not we should believe Bush on topic X, based on our assessment of the character he has displayed in the past. Indeed, to not take into account one’s character in formulating the percentage one thinks that X is true or not is downright foolish. The statement says nothing about formal logic and proof. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/42 "2006-04-08T21:31:51Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Yes. You should interpret it as a question about whether or not we should believe Bush on topic X, based on our assessment of the character he has displayed in the past. Seemed obvious. > [@](#): > > Indeed, to not take into account one’s character in formulating the percentage one thinks that X is true or not is downright foolish. Hold on now, be careful. Do you have firm evidence that everyone, everywhere, would be foolish if they didn’t take character into account? 😉 > [@](#): > > The statement says nothing about formal logic and proof. Sorry, Ludovic, the statement absolutely goes to the basis of the genetic fallacy, a notion in logic established by people much smarter than me. Not trying to be contentious–you can’t win this point, not if you’re asserting there’s nothing illogical (even if we other humans find it emminently practical) about assessing truthfulness relative to prior character. Anyway, I don’t want to hijack the thread further. ---
**Author:** ![Soylent\_Gene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecae2f/32.png) [@Soylent\_Gene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Soylent_Gene)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 9:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/43 "2006-04-08T21:43:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I saw the ‘debate’ on this in the Pit. I really must be missing something here. > > Are you disputing that the president has the legal right to declassify information as he see’s fit? I don’t just mean Bush…I mean PotUS? Assuming you say its not legal, could you expand on that point. If you say its legal, how is it equivelent to claiming Bush can legally tap my phone in the US (and as an aside where does it say he can in the Constitution)? > > \*No. My point is that just because it is legal, doesn’t mean that its acceptable do it. \* > > Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to cheat on your wife?? (pursuit of happyness clause?? 😉 ) And whats this got to do with the current situation? I’m totally lost here…throw me a bone! > > _Again, just because there’s not a law that says I can’t have sex with the neighbor, that doesn’t mean it’s ok to do it._ > > Are you saying that PotUS has exactly the same rights and powers as the average citizen? Is that what you are getting at here? > > _No. I making an analogy._ > > BTW, are we all on the same page with what exactly WAS released? I get the feeling that some people are still under the impression that the Plame outing was part of this. Assuming that everyone IS on the same page…what specifically is wrong with the information that WAS released? Why all this tempest in a tea cup over it? How does it ‘prove’ Bush lied that he released what he did? I really am struggling to understand here. > > \*I’m on the same page as you. Bush said he’d fire anybody he caught leaking. Now the White House is saying that since Bush did it (remember they are not denying what Libby testified) it’s not technically a “leak”. \* > > -XT So, you dont have a problem with any of this? ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/44 "2006-04-08T21:47:12Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Not trying to be contentious–you can’t win this point, not if you’re asserting there’s nothing illogical (even if we other humans find it emminently practical) about assessing truthfulness relative to prior character. Did you even READ the last sentence of my post? > [@](#): > > The statement says nothing about formal logic and proof. If you don’t get it by now I would be forced to conclude that you’re being deliberately obtuse. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/45 "2006-04-08T22:12:33Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Did you even READ the last sentence of my post?If you don’t get it by now I would be forced to conclude that you’re being deliberately obtuse. Talk about deliberately obtuse. The statement absolutely has a reference in formal logic and proof, as much as you’d prefer otherwise. You asked what you said that was a logical fallacy, and I pointed it out. Keep dancing, though. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/46 "2006-04-08T22:25:06Z")
> [@Soylent Gene](#): > > So, you dont have a problem with any of this? Define “this”. I think most of us have lots of problems with things that Bush has done. You just haven’t articulated any of them. In fact, you’ve muddled things up considerably by trying to compare the president’s indisuputable authority to declassify documents with his very questionable authority for warrantless wiretaps. What specific problem do you have with the declassification of the NIE. You seem to want us all to assume that If Bush does X, then X = bad. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/47 "2006-04-08T22:57:48Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Unless I’m misunderstanding something, Bush said he’d fire anyone who leaked Plame’s status, then he changed his wording and [said that](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/18/politics/main709678.shtml), “if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA leak case, that person will ‘no longer work in my administration.’” The change in wording notwithstanding, nothing about what Libby admitted suggests that Bush set a different standard for himself. Why? Because Libby has not said that Bush (or Cheney) declassified Plame’s CIA status, period. > > That’s why I’m perplexed when this last piece of news–Libby states Bush ultimately authorized the declassification of the NIE report–prompts people to suggest a double standard, or that Bush is walking a fine line, or whatever. Even if one accepts what Libby said at face value, if we hold it as gospel truth, it does not suggest that Bush was inconsistent. Libby has not stated what some people seem to think he did. I’m not saying there’s a double standard. I’m saying that, if Libby’s telling the truth _now_, then Bush lied back _then_. If Libby’s correct in what he says, then Bush knew who “leaked” the info- or, at least, that it wasn’t really a leak (since he, himself, authorized it). And yet while he knew this, he vowed that whomever the link was would pay for it. If not a straight-out lie, then a lie by omission. Of course, if it turns out that Libby is lying _now_, or has been misled by Cheney, then obviously Bush is blameless in this (and, in that case, either Libby or Cheney should be in a heck of a lot of trouble). However, this would then indicate that Bush has a history of, well, selecting the wrong subordinates. If we can’t trust the men that Bush has with him, how can we trust the Bush administration? Either way, since the buck stops at Bush, he’s got to shoulder at least some of the blame. I’m bettin’ he won’t. “You’re doin’ a heck of a job, {insert name here}.” ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/48 "2006-04-08T23:03:01Z")
> [@Soylent Gene](#): > > So, you dont have a problem with any of this? With the fact you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked? No, I don’t really have a major problem with that. 😛 As John Mace said…problem with what exactly? What SHOULD I have a problem with? The fact that PotUS can declassify stuff? While I think there should be some kind of check on that I don’t have a major problem with it, no. The specifics of what Bush declassified? From what I read so far (and this has been more along the line of skimming and reading through the related Pit thread) no…I don’t have a major problem with what was released. Perhaps I missed something though. Again…what do YOU think I should have a problem with? Lets start there. -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/49 "2006-04-08T23:09:09Z")
> [@Lightnin'](#): > > I’m not saying there’s a double standard. I’m saying that, if Libby’s telling the truth _now_, then Bush lied back _then_. Could you be specific because frankly I’m confused here…Bush lied about WHAT if Libby is telling the truth now? I have no doubts that Bush has told any number of lies, but specifically WHAT did Bush lie about if Libby is telling the truth?? -XT ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/50 "2006-04-08T23:14:32Z")
> [@Lightnin'](#): > > I’m not saying there’s a double standard. I’m saying that, if Libby’s telling the truth _now_, then Bush lied back _then_. > > If Libby’s correct in what he says, then Bush knew who “leaked” the info- or, at least, that it wasn’t really a leak (since he, himself, authorized it). And yet while he knew this, he vowed that whomever the link was would pay for it. If not a straight-out lie, then a lie by omission. What info? “The info” was Valerie Plame’s status as a covert agent. None of this new material indicates that Bush authorized Libby to leak that. Now, should Bush have had an idea of who first to go to about the Plame affair? Yes. But Libby still denies that he was the original source of her status being made public, so I would presume he told Bush the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 11:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/51 "2006-04-08T23:32:45Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Talk about deliberately obtuse. The statement absolutely has a reference in formal logic and proof, as much as you’d prefer otherwise. You asked what you said that was a logical fallacy, and I pointed it out. Keep dancing, though. No, it absolutely isn’t a reference to formal logic and proof, as much as you’d prefer otherwise. Genetic fallacy doesn’t mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean that we cannot base our opinions on the truthfulness of _certain_ types of statements using the past truth values of past statements by that individual in similar circumstances. It means that we cannot base the truth values of logical propositions based on the character of the individual. In this case, we are not referring to a logical proposition in which all of the facts are mutually known. For instance, if George Bush claimed that 1+1=2, his past lies or lack thereof do not influence the truth value of his logical assertion. However, we are not dealing with mutually known information. Indeed, that’s sort of the definition of classified information. It’s not a genetic fallacy to state that since one thinks that X has lied about Y in previous situations very similar to Y, that X is probably lying again. If you think I’m wrong about that, I’d like to play you at poker sometime. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/52 "2006-04-09T00:28:01Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > No, it absolutely isn’t a reference to formal logic and proof, as much as you’d prefer otherwise. Right. The faulty syllogism you have constructed can’t be called on its faulty logic because, well, because you say it’s a syllogism that has nothing to do with logic. One of them syllogisms, you see. Gotcha. And if you say, “I firmly believe that for every action there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction, but that belief has nothing to do with science,” no one can call your statement bad science, because, after all, you _said_ it has nothing to do with science. This makes perfect sense, and I bow to the master of logic. > [@](#): > > Genetic fallacy doesn’t mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean that we cannot base our opinions on the truthfulness of _certain_ types of statements using the past truth values of past statements by that individual in similar circumstances. The origin of an assertion can be called into question without invoking the genetic fallacy when the source of the assertion _necessarily_ makes the statement false or questionable. Joe Smith says that he knows for sure that an event occurred, and that assurance is based solely on his contention that he witnessed that event on May 15, 1959. We determine he wasn’t born until 1961. It is not illogical to call his assertion into question–meaning, we cannot rely on his assurance–because the origin of the assertion _necessarily_ has no basis for making said assertion. His statement carries no weight–we can conclude nothing from it. If Ed Jones makes an assertion, and we dismiss it because, “Ed is a known liar,” then we have constructed a logical fallacy, specifically the genetic fallacy. It is by _definition_, a definition that I provided you. > [@](#): > > In this case, we are not referring to a logical proposition in which all of the facts are mutually known. For instance, if George Bush claimed that 1+1=2, his past lies or lack thereof do not influence the truth value of his logical assertion. > > However, we are not dealing with mutually known information. Indeed, that’s sort of the definition of classified information. It’s not a genetic fallacy to state that since one thinks that X has lied about Y in previous situations very similar to Y, that X is probably lying again. It is the very f@#$ing _definition_ of the genetic fallacy, for Pete’s sake. I gave you a cite. If Bush lied a _billion_ times in the past, that does not make his current statement false. Here’s another clue for you. This doesn’t mean that you aren’t right. I can flip a coin and tell you that heads came up, so that means the Flyers will win tonight, and maybe the Flyers _will_ win. It was still faulty logic. I have also already pointed out that as a practical matter all of us–except you, of course, other than in this thread–construct these kinds of illogical conclusions out of necessity. Life demands it of us, if we are to get through the day. But that still doesn’t mean it’s not a logical fallacy. Period. Have the grace to say, “my bad,” and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/53 "2006-04-09T00:41:06Z")
> [@Lightnin'](#): > > I’m not saying there’s a double standard. I’m saying that, if Libby’s telling the truth _now_, then Bush lied back _then_. > > If Libby’s correct in what he says, then Bush knew who “leaked” the info- or, at least, that it wasn’t really a leak (since he, himself, authorized it). And yet while he knew this, he vowed that whomever the link was would pay for it. If not a straight-out lie, then a lie by omission. You’re absolutely missing the very point I tried to make. Libby is admitting something that has NOTHING directly to do with Bush’s comments about the consequences for whoever leaked Plame’s CIA status to the press. If Libby is 100% truthful regarding the item currently in the news, it has NOTHING to do with whoever revealed Plame’s CIA position. I’m not trying to be contentious, but do you get that? Do you understand that Libby is NOT now asserting that Bush authorized him to communicate information that Bush previously said should not have been communicated under penalty of firing? IOW, Bush previously said, anybody who illegally leaked “ **A** ” is getting his ass fired. Libby is now asserting that Bush authorized him to communciate “ **not-A**.” To now ask, “Okay, who’s telling the truth here?” is illogical. The two statements are not inconsistent. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/54 "2006-04-09T01:45:05Z")
> [@Malodorous](#): > > He’s using his executive powers to score political points, which is why I think many of us find the event immoral. As prez, he can sift through the data gathered by several gigantic federal agencies, find the bits that support him, then declassify those bits without letting anyone else get a look. This sort of hacking apart CIA documents to make a case is not what we, as taxpayers, intend our intelligence dollars to be spent on. > > Of course, it’s largely a matter of what you think about Bush (or politicians in general). If you think that what was released was a fair summary of the information, and that the administration was merely trying to inform the public, then it seems an allright thing to do. I don’t know for a fact that this wasn’t the case, but I don’t really trust any politician to release a fair summary of what they know about a contentious political issue. This is correct. It can bear some elaboration. The reason for keeping information secret is national security. The President is in a unique position of trust regarding classified information. The person holding that office is trusted to withold and to release information according to national security considerations. Secrecy in government is profoundly anti-democratic, which is why in principle most classified information is eventually released under a ‘30 year rule’ or something similar. Because secrecy is so anti-democratic, a government must bring a very high standard of care and integrity to its use of secrecy provisions. Above all it must be impartial. The breaches: It appears the President has violated the public trust as follows: - The declassification occurred to make the Republican Party look good. - The declassification occurred indifferently to its consequences for national security. - The NIE documents were declassified selectively to bolster the Republican Party, rather than in their entirety to serve the public interest in those documents. This violates the well established principles of managing secret information in government. What the President has done is to announce: **’We have bugged congress’ private 'phones and found that 38% of Democrats cheat on their wives.'** “_Mr President, what is the percentage for Republicans?_” **’That information remains classified.'** ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/55 "2006-04-09T01:59:35Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > The breaches: It appears the President has violated the public trust as follows: > > - The declassification occurred to make the Republican Party look good. > - The declassification occurred indifferently to its consequences for national security. > - The NIE documents were declassified selectively to bolster the Republican Party, rather than in their entirety to serve the public interest in those documents. How do you know this? Was the rest of the NIE declassified at a later date so that you can conlude that it was originally withheld only for political purposes? What were the specific consequences to national security of the sutff that was declassified in 2003? I’m asking these questions because I don’t know the answers, so I have no way of assessing the validity of those three statements. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 2:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/56 "2006-04-09T02:11:03Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Right. The faulty syllogism you have constructed can’t be called on its faulty logic because, well, because you say it’s a syllogism that has nothing to do with logic. One of them syllogisms, you see. Gotcha. Show me where I am not referring to weighing percentages rather than proclaiming truthiness. > [@](#): > > If Ed Jones makes an assertion, and we dismiss it because, “Ed is a known liar,” then we have constructed a logical fallacy, specifically the genetic fallacy. Good thing I didn’t do that. > [@](#): > > If Bush lied a _billion_ times in the past, that does not make his current statement false. When did I say that it did? > [@](#): > > Here’s another clue for you. This doesn’t mean that you aren’t right. I can flip a coin and tell you that heads came up, so that means the Flyers will win tonight, and maybe the Flyers _will_ win. It was still faulty logic. Do you seriously think that there is a random pile of paper somewhere marked half “lies” and half “truth” and whenever anyone utters anything, it’s completely random as to whether they are lying based on the luck of the draw? > [@](#): > > I have also already pointed out that as a practical matter all of us–except you, of course, other than in this thread–construct these kinds of illogical conclusions out of necessity. I have already pointed out that weighing the percentage of someone telling the truth based on similar past circumstances is not only logical but wise. > [@](#): > > Life demands it of us, if we are to get through the day. But that still doesn’t mean it’s not a logical fallacy. Period. It is only a fallacy if we try to prove a logical assertion. Saying “Bob has lied %95 of the time in past similar circumstances, therefore I think he has a %95 chance of lying right now,” is not a logical fallacy. If it is, you could win a Nobel Prize in economics through your brilliant revision of the science of statistics. It’s only a fallacy if you make a positive claim about a truth statement based on character. ---
**Author:** ![Sevastopol](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/cdc98d/32.png) [@Sevastopol](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sevastopol)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/57 "2006-04-09T02:12:14Z")
Those are the best inferences from the evidence of older and recent reports of the events. As I do each time, I chose the word ‘appears’ with care. 😉 More pointedly: ‘withheld for political purposes’; this is the best inference from the NIE having been released to bolster the administration’s case. ‘specific consequences for national security’; the best inference is that the information was released without due regard being given to its consequences for NS. I.e that consideration should be paramount. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/58 "2006-04-09T02:33:22Z")
> [@Sevastopol](#): > > As I do each time, I chose the word ‘appears’ with care. 😉 OK. That caveat helps. > [@](#): > > More pointedly: ‘withheld for political purposes’; this is the best inference from the NIE having been released to bolster the administration’s case. Without knowing what that info was, I would say any inference about it is weak at best, and more likely meaningless. > [@](#): > > ‘specific consequences for national security’; the best inference is that the information was released without due regard being given to its consequences for NS. I.e that consideration should be paramount. This doesn’t make any sense since you say above that the best inference about what was withheld is that it was withheld for political reasons. And since you can’t name even one national security consequence of releasing the stuff that was released, your argument is not just weak, it’s nonexistent. I think you’re starting with the assumption that whatever Bush does is bad, and since Bush did this it must be bad. That’s exactly the kind of reasoning Bush used to get us into Iraq. He assumed Saddam was a threat and then fit the data to that assumption. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/59 "2006-04-09T02:36:49Z")
> [@Ludovic](#): > > Saying “Bob has lied %95 of the time in past similar circumstances, therefore I think he has a %95 chance of lying right now,” is not a logical fallacy. I’m done. Keep believing this, it’s fine with me. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863/60 "2006-04-09T02:40:43Z")
Feel free to look me up the next time you have some loose change you want to wager away. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-can-legally-declassify-so-what/351863.md?page=4)