Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

[CADsortaGUY]

I ran across this article that talks about the Democrats running a TV ad that misquotes Bush's statements made in the SOTU.

The video says Bush said "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
What he actually said "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

1. Do you think it is OK to deliberately take statement out of their context, like is being done?
2. Is it misleading the public by doing it?
3. Do you think that this will hurt or help the Democratic candidates?

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

I don't know if Bush has ever made such a stump speech but members of his administration crossed the globe with tales of Saddam and his nukes. Ultimately, Bush is responsible for the good and the bad which occurs on his watch.

 

[DealMonkey]

Wow, the tables have really turned haven't they? Well, let's see, technically what the Democrats are saying is true. Bush said it didn't he? Sure, it's a little out of context... What does that matter though, right?

 

[Warin]

I think that trying to excuse Bush's lies by saying:

HE DIDNT LIE!!! IT WAS ALL THOSE EVIL BRITS! THERE IS A REASON WE KICKED THEM OUT IN 1776!!

is just as deceptive and evil as outright lying.

Bush needs to own up to the fact that the entire justification for the war on WMD charges was falsifications and less than half truths.

If Bush had come out and said:

We want to liberate the people of Iraq and their oil from a brutal dictator.

ANd still had majority support of Congress for the war, then no one would be saying he's a moron right about now.

Spin it all you like, Bush relied on intel that even the British admit is based on false claims, and now he's being called for it.

 

[konichiwa]

I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand, CAD. Bush is the president of the united states.

To suggest that because he said, "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought..." instead of, "Saddam Hussein recently sought...," his statement was 100% true is insanity. Perhaps the actual statement he made was true, but aren't we forgetting something by dumbing it down so much?

He used this information in a speech that was specifically written to plead the case for war to the American public. He used this information as well as other information in that SOTU address to push his reasoning for war with Iraq. The statement in question was FALSE.

The fact is he used that information to sway public opinion towards WAR. Whether the words he used were true or not makes no difference; he used that information which people in his administration knew to be false to make a case for an invasion.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Wow, 3 replies, and 3 posts full of rhetoric and question dodging. Whodda thunk it. Edit - make that 4 of each.

Anyone care to discuss the issue at hand? - the purposeful misquoting and it's potential fallout?

CkG

 

[MonstaThrilla]

First off, just because the British government made the claim doesn't make the MESSAGE of the statement any different. The message was "Saddam wants to make nukes". That's the broad message conveyed by that statement. We know that was a wrong statement to make, whether or not the British still stand behind their claim. As the CIA director explained when he took the fall, he should not have allowed that statement in the speech. The issue doesn't have to do with what the British claim, its that the President is responsible for what messages he conveys in his SOTU. The President could have also said, "According to Pakistani clerics, Jews posing as Arabs were behind the 9/11 attacks". That statement would have also been factually correct, but its still irresponsible to include it in a SOTU.

To answer your questions:

1. No the DNC should have included the entire statement in its commercial
2. Its not misleading the public because the CRUX of the statement stays the same
3. It will be ineffectual to the Democratic candidate. This commercial is only airing in Minnesota (or it might be Wisoonsin, I forget). It will do nothing to sway the public opinion, because the public already knows that the President made a statement in the SOTU that should not have been in there. Furthermore, the public already knows that its an argument for the war that should never have been made.

 

[konichiwa]

All three questions you asked apply both to Bush's actual statements and the DNC's ad. To call my post as well as the others question dodging rhetoric is a cop-out. Look who's dodging now...

 

[flavio]

If you would like to blame his quote on the British it's not going to help.

Can you learn something that's not true.

If he had said "The British government has learned that the moon is made of cheese" ...learned would be the wrong word unless he already had this information or agreed with their assessment.

But seeing as Bush had known long before his speech that the information about Africa was false or at the very least very suspect this is not the case. At this point he deserves everything he gets.

 

[konichiwa]

The fact you're missing, CAD, is that by putting the piece about British intelligence in his SOTU, Bush implicitly told the public that he believed their intelligence, that the war was based on their intelligence, that his administration believed their intelligence, and that the public should believe there intelligence.

That is all false.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: konichiwa
All three questions you asked apply both to Bush's actual statements and the DNC's ad. To call my post as well as the others question dodging rhetoric is a cop-out. Look who's dodging now...

You didn't address the thread's topic or the questions asked. The topic isn't "what did his statement mean" - it is in regards to an ad that deliberately misquotes a statement and it's effect.

Edit - if you and flavio et al do not wish to discuss the topic at hand then please leave this thread.

CkG

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Wow, 3 replies, and 3 posts full of rhetoric and question dodging. Whodda thunk it. Edit - make that 4 of each.

Anyone care to discuss the issue at hand? - the purposeful misquoting and it's potential fallout?

CkG

But of course I do. How can you dare claim the misquote was purposeful or even a misquote. He said exactly those worlds right? Come on Caddy, turn around is fair play, right. I know Bush lied just like there was a purposeful misquote. We're either both right or you're a fool. Sorry.

 

[Moonbeam]

There you go saying it was deliberate. Just how do you know that HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

 

[konichiwa]

-----
You didn't address the thread's topic or the questions asked. The topic isn't "what did his statement mean" - it is in regards to an ad that deliberately misquotes a statement and it's[sic] effect.
-----

I sure did address the thread's topic. I just addressed Bush's "credibility" and "truth" more than I addressed the DNC's.

Furthermore, if you're willing to split hairs when claiming that Bush's statement was in fact truthful, I'd be willing to split hairs and say that the DNC's ad is 100% truthful also; after all, Bush did say what is in the ad, didn't he?

Your ambivalent definition of "truth" and "credibility" is a two way street. Sucks, huh?

 

[DealMonkey]

Cad would rather argue semantics than look at the big picture.

Credibility and truth DO matter. Yup, they sure do.

1. Do you think it is OK to deliberately misquote statements like is being done?

** They took the statement out of context. That's different than misquoting.

2. Is it misleading the public by doing it?

** I don't know, but we should get a poll together stat!

3. Do you think that this will hurt or help the Democratic candidates?

** Who knows? It'll probably hurt the Bush Administration. The democrats have to keep this flap in the media somehow. It's probably their only chance...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Cad would rather argue semantics than look at the big picture.

Credibility and truth DO matter. Yup, they sure do.

1. Do you think it is OK to deliberately misquote statements like is being done?

** They took the statement out of context. That's different than misquoting.

2. Is it misleading the public by doing it?

** I don't know, but we should get a poll together stat!

3. Do you think that this will hurt or help the Democratic candidates?

** Who knows? It'll probably hurt the Bush Administration. The democrats have to keep this flap in the media somehow. It's probably their only chance...

OK, DM - I would agree that "out of context" is a better way of saying it. I will change it now - just for you

CkG


Edit- re #3 - But don't you think that by them taking the quote out of context it damages their credibility -the same credibility they are trying to attack?

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Admittedly, I ignored the questions b/c Bush's SOTU speech is self explanatory . . . it was phrased in that manner to take advantage of a fact (the content of British intelligence) as support for an unsubstantiated theory (Saddam has uranium or recently attempted to procure uranium from Africa).

1. Do you think it is OK to deliberately misquote statements like is being done?

Nope . . . but politicians of all stripes lie. Research Bush vs Richards and you will find plenty of lies and innuendo by the Bush political machine. Actually you find it in ALL of his campaigns (I have no explicit knowledge about his 1998 campaign but certainly Gub 1994 and GOP primary/Prez 2000).

2. Is it misleading the public by doing it?

Yes . . . if the quote differs substantitively from the actual utterance or message. Sometimes you paraphrase for clarity . . . sometimes for obfuscation . . . and sometimes to lie.

3. Do you think that this will hurt or help the Democratic candidates?

I think the better question is . . . does it let some of the air out of Bush's hot air balloon? The hype which carried him through 9/11, the Afghanistan Offensive, and NeoCon Wet Dream Pt 1 is over except for the cheerleaders at FOX. For thinking people, Bush will be evaluated on results not spin of the moment. Under that scenario Bush is cut down to size comparable to his actual stature and by extension less distant from his Democratic opposition.

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush cut down to size would require microscopic analysis.

 

[Moonbeam]

I take it Caddy, that you agree he said it and also that you have know idea if it was deliberate, right?

 

[DealMonkey]

CkG

Edit- re #3 - But don't you think that by them taking the quote out of context it damages their credibility -the same credibility they are trying to attack?

It may, especially amongst the Repubs, however I'm sure they don't care about that. For the audience that they're targeting, it'll probably strike a cord. Again, I think if you look at the big picture, you know what they're trying to do here...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
There you go saying it was deliberate. Just how do you know that HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?

Yeah! Where's the proof???

You know TV commercials cost a lot of money. I am confident the edit was simply to fit as much content as they could in a limited time slot. Just like Bush-lite left out, "We know this British intel is bad, but we want to scare you into supporting my crusade against Iraq. Otherwise you might notice that the economy sucks, we can't find Osama bin Laden, we're raping your civil liberties, and there are about a dozen corporate scandals that might implicate people in my administration." after his 16 words - but only because the SOTU was already too long, not because he was trying to deceive anyone.

Give it a rest CkG. You're becoming a parody of yourself.

 

[sandorski]

Black has become white, truth has become lies.

 

[DealMonkey]

Cats and dogs living together...

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa
All three questions you asked apply both to Bush's actual statements and the DNC's ad. To call my post as well as the others question dodging rhetoric is a cop-out. Look who's dodging now...

You didn't address the thread's topic or the questions asked. The topic isn't "what did his statement mean" - it is in regards to an ad that deliberately misquotes a statement and it's effect.

Edit - if you and flavio et al do not wish to discuss the topic at hand then please leave this thread.

CkG

I don't think anyone wants to play your game. You're insisting that people answer a, "Did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question. You're ready to pounce on whatever answer anyone offers. You're not nearly as sly as you seem to think.

Bottom line, trying to distract from Bush's malfeasance by attacking his opposition is getting real old. Defend Bush on his own merits or concede that you can't.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: konichiwa
All three questions you asked apply both to Bush's actual statements and the DNC's ad. To call my post as well as the others question dodging rhetoric is a cop-out. Look who's dodging now...

You didn't address the thread's topic or the questions asked. The topic isn't "what did his statement mean" - it is in regards to an ad that deliberately misquotes a statement and it's effect.

Edit - if you and flavio et al do not wish to discuss the topic at hand then please leave this thread.

CkG

I don't think anyone wants to play your game. You're insisting that people answer a, "Did you stop beating your wife?" kind of question. You're ready to pounce on whatever answer anyone offers. You're not nearly as sly as you seem to think.

Bottom line, trying to distract from Bush's malfeasance by attacking his opposition is getting real old. Defend Bush on his own merits or concede that you can't.

If you don't like the topic you are free to ignore it - and I suggest those who have not chosen to address the question at hand should refrain from posting. This thread is completely trashed - and to think(IIRC) You Bowfinger were the one who was complaining about being "shouted down" a while ago

CkG