Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

[tnitsuj]

I am as much as supporter of Bush as anyone can be, but I don't understand your questions.

1. Do you think it is OK to deliberately take statement out of their context, like is being done?
I don't see why not. It is exactly what he said. What context are you referring to. How does the British intelligence part make a difference?


2. Is it misleading the public by doing it?
What exactly is it misleading the public about? That British intelligence is responsible rather than the President? So you are saying that the caveat absolves Bush of responsibility for the statement, and as such should have been included whenever the statement is qouted. The Administration continues to maintain that that statement is technically true/not provable wrong and all good Americans should know that.

3. Do you think that this will hurt or help the Democratic candidates?
I don't think it will hurt the Democrats because most of the electorate would be too stupid to pick up on such suttle hints even if they did matter.

 

[Warin]

How is it possible to trash a thread by pointing out essential flaws in the logic of your president?

Is it wrong for the Dems to leave out the reference to the brits? Nop, it doesnt substantially change the tone of the speach, nor does it give the viewer a false impression. Leaving out the reference to the british does only one thing:

It no longer allows the Bush Administration to grasp at the feeble straw labelled 'plausible deniability'

 

[Moonbeam]

Good Grief, how could a thread be trashed in which I posted in perfect Caddy style.

Care to start a new thread, Caddy, in which you prove that the quote was a deliberate distortion or that the words were exactly ones he used? See Caddy, who cares whether it will help or hurt the Democrats, who cares what really was your point. The important thing was that I found and demonstrated flaws in your thinking and trashed your post. This is what you do in thread after thread.

 

[DealMonkey]

Beyond what MB said, you also scream about everyone being "partisan" and then start your own threads where you're apparantly free to be as partisan as you want. You have an attack on the democrats thinly disguised as a Q&A session. I mean, personally I don't really care -- attack 'em all you want, however it's the same thing you accuse other people of doing, only when Bush is the target you have some sort of problem with it...

Oh, I suppose you'll figure a way out to shoot me down here though

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Warin
How is it possible to trash a thread by pointing out essential flaws in the logic of your president?

Is it wrong for the Dems to leave out the reference to the brits? Nop, it doesnt substantially change the tone of the speach, nor does it give the viewer a false impression. Leaving out the reference to the british does only one thing:

It no longer allows the Bush Administration to grasp at the feeble straw labelled 'plausible deniability'

I would make the case that the edit more clearly conveys Bush's intent. Bush didn't want us to hear the, "British government has learned" part. He wanted us to hear, "Oh my God, Iraq has nukes! The sky is falling! Let's kill that evil bastard before he turns America into a radioactive wasteland!"

 

[Fencer128]

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

Hi,

Deliberately misquoting someone is always bad and only serves to undermine your arguement. Accidentaly misquoting whilst retaining the meaning (ie can't remember the exact wording) is more ambiguous IMHO. I'd like to think that everyone would go back and look up and quote the primary evidence all of the time, but sometimes in the midst of a frenzied and fast moving debate that just isn't possible/fun, and so I cut a little slack there (unless they're way off).

This debate should really be opened up to all sides - as the main point you appear to be making isn't specific to the uranium/democrat question, but more general than that.

Cheers,

Andy

ps When I saw the title of this thread, I thought it would be about how (in the UK at least) the war was portrayed as having WMD at the core of its necessity. Now our politions are desperately back peddling on that. I thought it was about that "truth and credability".

 

[Sternfan]

Originally posted by: 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.

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?

1A No I don't but both sides do it more and more.
2A Of course it is but again both sides do it.
3A I think it will hurt them just like it hurt them to turn a Senators Funeral into a pep rally for the party in MINN then got beat and lost the seat.

I had to include the quote from bowfinger, we all had a good laugh over this one.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The important thing was that I found and demonstrated flaws in your thinking and trashed your post.

And it took you 5 posts to do it this time! You are getting more lengthy in your post trashings.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
The important thing was that I found and demonstrated flaws in your thinking and trashed your post.

And it took you 5 posts to do it this time! You are getting more lengthy in your post trashings.

I wanted to do it just like Caddy does to drone on and on. Where'd that pea picker go?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wanted to do it just like Caddy does to drone on and on. Where'd that pea picker go?

I think he's mad at us now... Moonbeam, *sigh* why, oh why do you have to go wrecking all the threads like that? Now CkG won't argue with us about the stupid democrats...

 

[Moonbeam]

Maybe if I remind him tha Gore won.....

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I wanted to do it just like Caddy does to drone on and on. Where'd that pea picker go?

I think he's mad at us now... Moonbeam, *sigh* why, oh why do you have to go wrecking all the threads like that? Now CkG won't argue with us about the stupid democrats...

pea picker? mad at you for what?

You trashed a thread - only a couple people even attempted to respond.

So no - you aren't getting any more from me.

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yes it does, and I have always disliked political spin on both sides. Still, it doesn't get people killed, like other spin can.

 

[Amirtallica]

I agree with you that they shouldn't have taken his words out of context like that. But let's not remember that Bush made that speech after that statement was proven to be wrong time and time again. So as Colmes was saying on Hannity and Colmes, Bush himself was speaking out of context. He didn't say there was more than a resonable doubt that those statements was wrong.
In conclusion though I agree with you that they shouldn't have taken out the first part of the sentance. Of course there is a difference between a TV ad and the SOTU that ultimately leads to war.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

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?

What credibility? Like the Republicans the Democrats have no credibility. The President Spin Doktors are doing as bad a job as the Democrats Spin Doktors. Both sides are seen as lying scum IMO.

Frankly I think the only acceptable solution is to have one party controlling the Excutive Office and the other controlling the Senate.

 

[Moonbeam]

So no - you aren't getting any more from me.
--------------------
Oh no, I hope you aren't a manic gone depressive on us. Surely what's good for the Caddy is good for the golfer, no?

 

[AvesPKS]

Originally posted by: 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.

If there is duplicity on someone's part, that's one thing...but Bush can only make decisions as good as his intelligence is...right?

 

[Ferocious]

heh Karl Rove is the Goebbels of the modern era.

The Republicans already have the supreme master of disinformation on their side.

 

[CaptnKirk]

. . . . and like Cad has NEVER gone and trashed out anyone elses threads, right ?

 

[JellyBaby]

Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

CADkindaGUY, if credibility and the truth can be stretched by Bush, and you accept it, how can you honestly expect to apply a different standard to the democrats?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

CADkindaGUY, if credibility and the truth can be stretched by Bush, and you accept it, how can you honestly expect to apply a different standard to the democrats?

Thanks for a rational response
That is what I am saying -but in reverse. How can the Democrats think they stand to gain by twisting and stretching the truth in their attack against Bush's supposed "lies" (stretched truths or whatever you want to call it).
Aren't they using the same tactics that they are trying to point out?

I don't expect anything different from them - any of them but if you call one thing X you'd better call the other thing X.

/me ignores rest of comments that aren't part of the threads topic.
CkG

 

[MonkeyK]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

CADkindaGUY, if credibility and the truth can be stretched by Bush, and you accept it, how can you honestly expect to apply a different standard to the democrats?

Thanks for a rational response
That is what I am saying -but in reverse. How can the Democrats think they stand to gain by twisting and stretching the truth in their attack against Bush's supposed "lies" (stretched truths or whatever you want to call it).
Aren't they using the same tactics that they are trying to point out?

I don't expect anything different from them - any of them but if you call one thing X you'd better call the other thing X.

/me ignores rest of comments that aren't part of the threads topic.
CkG

CAD, That is some messed up reasoning, especially for you. First of all, yes it is bad of whichever Dems decided to create an ad that did not complete the quote.
Feel better?
Whatever the case, the point of the ad is true, which is that the President did try to mislead us. You can pass it off as "Bushisms", or "technically correct", or "the people around him didn't tell him that he was making misleading statements", or even "only 16 words". Whatever you want, the point is that the context of information available to the President, or those advising him was left out of its presentation. You are right that the ad did a dirty trick, if you accept that (by your own reasoning) the current Administration did a similar dirty trick, on a larger scale that led to war.

 

[ITJunkie]

I think this is indicitive of what is wrong with the media in general. They always take quotes out of context...why should the Dem's be any different.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: JellyBaby

Does credibility and the truth no longer matter?

CADkindaGUY, if credibility and the truth can be stretched by Bush, and you accept it, how can you honestly expect to apply a different standard to the democrats?

Thanks for a rational response
That is what I am saying -but in reverse. How can the Democrats think they stand to gain by twisting and stretching the truth in their attack against Bush's supposed "lies" (stretched truths or whatever you want to call it).
Aren't they using the same tactics that they are trying to point out?

I don't expect anything different from them - any of them but if you call one thing X you'd better call the other thing X.

/me ignores rest of comments that aren't part of the threads topic.
CkG

CAD, That is some messed up reasoning, especially for you. First of all, yes it is bad of whichever Dems decided to create an ad that did not complete the quote.
Feel better?
Whatever the case, the point of the ad is true, which is that the President did try to mislead us. You can pass it off as "Bushisms", or "technically correct", or "the people around him didn't tell him that he was making misleading statements", or even "only 16 words". Whatever you want, the point is that the context of information available to the President, or those advising him was left out of its presentation. You are right that the ad did a dirty trick, if you accept that (by your own reasoning) the current Administration did a similar dirty trick, on a larger scale that led to war.

No, the point of the ad isn't true. The ad "mis-represents" Bush's comments and spins them into saying that he was making the claim - but even it they suceed with that - we have since found out that our own intelligence has some evidence of Saddam trying to purchase Uranium from 3 other African countries - however unsubstantiated they are.

Now to you claiming "messed up reasoning" - huh? I'll try to be real slow and concise.
Democrats are using deception(taking quote out of context) to convince people that Bush decieved them with the statement.

Sorry you can't see it.

CkG

 

[Red Dawn]

Democrats are using deception(taking quote out of context) to convince people that Bush decieved them with the statement

And this is something new? Both Parties have been doing that continously for the last 30 years!