|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
 Posted - 10/02/2005 : 16:15:25
|
The latest from factcheck.org:
"An anti-war coalition of mostly liberal groups ran a newspaper ad quoting six alleged lies about Iraq by President Bush and others.
"But, like movie blurbs, the quotes sometimes look different when read in full context.
"And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there's evidence that the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time."
Full analysis here: http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
While in general I agree with the criticism that many of these supposed "lies" may not be lies at all, the error could be replaced by changing "They lied, They died" to "They were wrong, They died" (I know, the rhyme is lost - alas!) and responsibility still holds. Sure it is more incriminating to be malicious (like a liar), but it is still incriminating to be a reckless bafoon with power that no one can trust.
Liberals would do good to be vicious, but also strictly and totally honest in our attacks. If we distort the truth in our attacks, even slightly, because we are currently the underdog, we will be that much more exposed and ridiculed for it.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
Edited by - marfknox on 10/02/2005 16:18:28
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2005 : 16:44:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
the error could be replaced by changing "They lied, They died" to "They were wrong, They died" (I know, the rhyme is lost - alas!)
How about: "Info misapplied, they died"?
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/02/2005 : 21:06:20 [Permalink]
|
| History tells us these guys knowingly lie on a regular basis. I haven't had time to view the ad so my comments are more general than specific. I'm sure Bush and his advisers truly believed they were going to have a simple 'mission accomplished' and a capitalist democracy selling oil to their friends in no time. To think they went ahead knowing the outcome we now have makes no sense. However, to think they didn't purposely tell misleading statements and some outright lies to convince others to go along would be quite naive. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 10/02/2005 21:06:46 |
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2005 : 00:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
If you are going to war, you'd better be damned sure that your intel is correct.
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/05/2005 : 00:42:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starman
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
If you are going to war, you'd better be damned sure that your intel is correct.
I recommend you listen to a smattering of the Nixon tapes. Check into Kissinger's meetings with the North Vietnamese asking them to hold off on any settlement before the election. Then maybe look into the Reagan group negotiating with Iran to hold off on releasing the hostages until that election.
I do believe stupidity leads to malice when you are stupid enough to think you know so much more than everyone else it's OK to lie because after all, they would make the wrong choice if you didn't distort the picture. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/08/2005 : 12:44:13 [Permalink]
|
Walt wrote: How about: "Info misapplied, they died"?
LOL! I love it!
Beskeptical wrote: However, to think they didn't purposely tell misleading statements and some outright lies to convince others to go along would be quite naive.
In general, I agree with you, but keep in mind that “think” and “accuse” are two different things. Public and official accusations must have hard, and preferably plenty of, evidence behind them, otherwise they can backfire.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 01:15:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Walt wrote: How about: "Info misapplied, they died"?
LOL! I love it!
Beskeptical wrote: However, to think they didn't purposely tell misleading statements and some outright lies to convince others to go along would be quite naive.
In general, I agree with you, but keep in mind that “think” and “accuse” are two different things. Public and official accusations must have hard, and preferably plenty of, evidence behind them, otherwise they can backfire.
Are you saying you haven't read any of the evidence of at least some outright lies in the Iraq war case? Because I certainly have. I do think these fools believed in some of the twisted tales they told. But do you really think they were possibly merely mistaken in all the press releases about the need for intervention? |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 01:29:29 [Permalink]
|
I read the factcheck arguments and they seem as misleading as their claims about the ad quotes.
The ad cherry picked quotes that factcheck sort of tore apart by nitpicking some points along with other semi-valid points. But in general, the quotes were also summaries of the lies that were put out in the talking points memos which clearly showed the deliberateness of the whole thing.
For example, while Bush claimed to have never said Saddam was involved in 9/11, Bush's administration was out there on the talk show circuit making sure the talking points message got out Saddam was involved.
Factcheck only looked at the technical accuracy, was the specific quote cited in context and accurately portrayed? The reality was Bush put out a carefully planned and orchestrated effort to deceive the public.
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 01:44:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
I do think these fools believed in some of the twisted tales they told. But do you really think they were possibly merely mistaken in all the press releases about the need for intervention?
They had their minds made up from the beginning.
The "twisted tales" were only a way to sell the war to the public and as such were accepted by them without question.
Kind of a Mortons Demon.
Then, I doubt that any of them mind using lies when they think they can get away with it.
This war reminds me of Crassus war against Parthia. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 10/11/2005 : 20:15:00 [Permalink]
|
beskeptical wrote: I read the factcheck arguments and they seem as misleading as their claims about the ad quotes...Factcheck only looked at the technical accuracy, was the specific quote cited in context and accurately portrayed? The reality was Bush put out a carefully planned and orchestrated effort to deceive the public.
Again we fall back to the problem of hard evidence instead of interpretation. I agree with your interpretation. However, there are persuasive arguments to the contrary. Factcheck is not misleading. (If you think they are, what do you propose is their motive?) They are totally nonpartisan project and their mission is to point out things said by politicians or the media that are not "technically" correct. They are not in the business of interpretation. That is the business of journalists and voters. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 10/11/2005 20:18:27 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/12/2005 : 11:58:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
beskeptical wrote: I read the factcheck arguments and they seem as misleading as their claims about the ad quotes...Factcheck only looked at the technical accuracy, was the specific quote cited in context and accurately portrayed? The reality was Bush put out a carefully planned and orchestrated effort to deceive the public.
Again we fall back to the problem of hard evidence instead of interpretation. I agree with your interpretation. However, there are persuasive arguments to the contrary. Factcheck is not misleading. (If you think they are, what do you propose is their motive?) They are totally nonpartisan project and their mission is to point out things said by politicians or the media that are not "technically" correct. They are not in the business of interpretation. That is the business of journalists and voters.
Not motive so much as method. If one looks at the ad in the most limited way then factcheck may be technically accurate. But if one broadens the examination to, "were actual lies purposefully used that the ad represented", then the hard evidence is indeed there and it isn't mere speculation. The deceit was carefully orchestrated. It is done in marketing all the time. |
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
