For the record here is a direct quote of Craig defending the use of a totally false quote in another thread.
Keep in mind that the Bush quote was made up by taking a longer quote and editing out parts of it and was thus completely fake. While the quote in the OP only lacks proper context.
Amazing how Craig's mind works in cases like this. Make stuff up about Bush and it is okay as long as you got the right meaning, but quote a liberal without context and it is the end of the world.
You're lying again.
What I said was exactly correct.
The attack against the alleged Bush quote was excessive. I did not 'defend' the quote as correct; I did the opposite. I pointed out how it's wrong.
I also pointed out where the attack was incorrect.
That's the correct response. Point out the error in the quote, and the error in the attack.
You are the one misrepresenting that as simply a 'defense of the quote', as if there was any part of the error I wrongly defended.
In fact, you did not include more of what I said, such as that I'm a stickler for accurate quotes.
Here's the basic error you commit:
Something deserves criticism. Some makes an *excessive* criticism. Someone else points out both the correct and incorrect parts of the criticism.
Then someone like you attacks the latter person as 'defending the thing that deserves criticism'.
Say someone says Hitler's holocaust was caused by his following the Satanic religion. Say someone calls OJ Simpson a "mass serial killer". Say someone claims that Bush's policies are driven by his just hating poor people and enjoying their suffering. Say someone claims Qadafi "has blown up many civilian airliners".
All of these examples contain things worth condemning, and false exaggerations that are also wrong. Pointing out that OJ Simpson killed two people, and was not a 'mass serial killer' as far as we know, is not, as someone like you says, defending OJ Simpson's two murders he did commit. It's an accurate and correct response.
I pointed out what the flaws in the quote were - and the false exaggeration that the quote was 'totally fabricated'.
A 'totally fabricated' quote would be totally fabricated, such as "I eat babies for breakfast - but only minority babies. - George Bush"
One that edits what he said and does not indicate the editing is just that. It's a false quote; and not a 'totally fabricated' quote.
Whether it accurately reflects the speaker depends what was edited and the context. It's possible to falsely edit a quote and be completely accurate in representing the speaker's view; it's possible to accurately quote a speaker and, because of things like context, misrepresent their view.
In this case, IMO, the quote from Bush was false in pulling pieces of what he said together and not indicating the editing. It had, as I said, some accuracy to it - it captures a good part of what he was saying. It also omitted some context that some would view as important qualifications to what he was saying.
It is shocking to many Americans that six months after 9/11, Bush had gone from saying he was strongly concentrating on going after bin Laden to saying it's just not much of a priority. Left out of the quote was Bush's explanation that his view was because bin Laden had been marginalized, and was not viewed as that critical to the larger war.
Many Americans are shocked because they viewed going after bin Laden for a purpose of 'justice' as very important, in contrast to Bush's being dismissive about that and weighing his level of current risk more importantly. Some are more sympathetic to Bush and view his position as justified; others disagree, and some think that Bush's shift was a political move to give him cover for the fact he might well not find bin Laden, and not wanting his re-election campaign to be about him not doing so.
Regardless, that's a fair summary of the situation and response to the flawed quote.
You are lying, with things like false name-calling. There's no 'hypocrisy' in what I said.
Just your lies. If you had some more integrity, you would apologize.
Facebook
Twitter