From: "David Marc Nieporent"
Subject: Re: trying to fool "the media"
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 12:25:24 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Host: ool-435222d7.dyn.optonline.net (22.214.171.124)
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
Gary S. Simon wrote:
> "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.
Discredited? For the umpteenth time, THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT IT IS
VALID. They don't say that they thought it was valid at the time, and now
realize otherwise. They say that it *is* valid.
> 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
> (aside from the puppet) can sleep, for fear that the WMD have already
> been distributed to al-Qaeda.
Gee, was that sarcasm?
Well, I'm glad to see you're finally worried about WMD, rather than a single
sentence out of an hour-long speech. So I guess you won't be voting
Democratic then. They're so obsessed with partisan politics that they can't
manage to be glad that a vicious dictator whose very existence destabilized
an entire region is out of power.
>>> 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.
And there was no citation of the forgery in the SOTU address.
See, this is what I mean about engaging in deception. I'm sure that by now,
anybody who follows the debate (rather than the facts) thinks that
(A) Bush said "We have documents proving that Iraq got uranium from Niger,"
(B) That wasn't true, and
(C) Bush knew it wasn't true.
But in fact
(A) He never said any such thing. It's wrong on four important points.
First, he said that the British government had learned it, not that the US
government had. Second, he didn't say that Iraq got anything; he said they
were seeking to obtain it. Third, he never mentioned the forged documents as
evidence. And fourth, he never mentioned Niger.
(B) There's no evidence that his statement wasn't entirely accurate on all
points. The documents were forged; everyone agrees. That doesn't mean that
Iraq wasn't _trying_ to get uranium from Niger, and it _certainly_ doesn't
mean that he wasn't trying to get uranium from Africa. The British
government specifically says that it relied on evidence other than the
(C) Which means there can't possibly be evidence he knew it was untrue.
> Read the sales pitches put forth from the administration starting
> last summer. There was very little, if any, "maybe" about it.
The phrase "unaccounted for" appears all over the place. The entire point
of the whole inspections charade was that Iraq refused to explain where its
WMD were _or what had happened to them._
> 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 misunderstand; or
> (b) good, it's working.
Or (c) Oh, my goodness. Democrats are going to throw a fit. Their attempts
to deflect attention from foreign policy to the attempt to hand over large
chunks of other people's money to senior citizens isn't working. Good.
Let's get on with our job of protecting the country.
I think it's (c), personally.
>> 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.
If I write a draft of a report on some topic and the government comes to my
house and rips out parts of it before I can submit it to a publisher, that's
censoring it. If I write a draft of a report on some topic and then I cross
out a section before submitting it to a publisher, that's not censoring it.
David Marc Nieporent firstname.lastname@example.org
Jumping To Conclusions: http://tollbooth.blogspot.com