From: "Gary S. Simon"
Subject: Re: trying to fool "the media"
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:34:11 -0400
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
X-Server-Date: 18 Jul 2003 02:31:59 GMT
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.1 (PPC)
In article ,
"David Marc Nieporent" wrote:
> Gary S. Simon wrote:
> > "David Marc Nieporent" wrote:
> >> The only thing that has ever been "falsified" was some documents
> >> relating to Niger, and those were falsified by a Nigerien official.
> > Let's stick to words like "lying", "misleading" and "misrepresenting"
> > to describe the administration's efforts to sell its war to the
> > American public so as to avoid offending David's semantic sensibilities.
> If the British government said, "You know, we never said that," I'd say that
> the Bush administration was lying. If the British government said, "We said
> that, but only because Bush told us to say it," then I'd say that the Bush
> administration was being misleading. If the British government said, "We
> said it, but we didn't believe it," I might accuse the Bush administration
> of being misleading.
> But the British government is saying, "Yes, we said it, we believed it, and
> we still believe it." How on earth was Bush lying?
I never accused Rove's puppet of lying; he may be wholly incapable of
lying, because lying requires knowing something.
The administration, however, was dishonest to include a claim it knew
to have been discredited in its laundry list of war rationale.
I do confess, however, that I've been very worried since learning
that Hussein was (or, for all I know, remains) in possession on not only
WMD but also Romulan cloaking technology which renders those weapons
invisible. I don't understand how anyone in the Bush administration
(aside from the puppet) can sleep, for fear that the WMD have already
been distributed to al-Qaeda.
> > David's too bright not to recognize that the deceptive sales
> > practices employed in this administration's selling of the Iraq war are
> > quite similar to the its intellectual dishonesty on the domestic front
> > (e.g. "average" family tax savings and censoring global warming out
> > of an EPA report), but he's determined to be offensive in defense of the
> > indefensible.
> Indeed, I would argue that critics of the war are the ones engaging in
> deception. The war was explicitly about _un_certainty as to Iraq, and yet
> they're pretending that the information being uncertain is an argument
> against the Bush administration.
There was no uncertainly about the forgery having been reported as
such last year.
Read the sales pitches put forth from the administration starting
last summer. There was very little, if any, "maybe" about it.
Here's the acid test. Ask yourself whether the administration's
attitude toward learning that a large percentage of the public thought
Saddam Hussein was tied to the 9/11 attacks was more along the lines of:
(a) oh my goodness; the public is seriously misinformed. We must
make certain that our mandate for military action isn't clouded by such
(b) good, it's working.
> Let's not even get into the intellectual dishonesty of pretending that
> global warming is established scientific fact.
The intellectual dishonesty was censoring discussion of the issue
from the EPA report.