quote: It's Smartland. The nation of the newsmedia people. That's where they live. Not in America. These newspeople generally don't even know anybody, apart from "sources," who serves America in the military. Smartland consists of a very different crowd.
I know that crowd. I've heard them jeer at all the values that most Americans still care about, laughing at religious people, at the middle class, at suburbanites, at the poor ignorant saps who don't think correct thoughts all the time. You know -- the citizens of Heartland.
...
Already large numbers of Americans seethe over the puritanical laws imposed on us by anti-democratic judges, who cannot wait for compromise and the political process to "purify" us. Already we are outraged by the propaganda they foist on our children in the schools, without reference to the values of the community or the roots of the American culture.
The Taliban of Smartland will be just as repugnant to the people of America as the Islamist Taliban was to most of the people of Afghanistan.
So as we watch the Democratic Party flush away democratic processes in order to get correct outcomes, it's worth remembering that we're not so different from "those wacky Muslims."
Are you willing to concede that this is, at best, a "harsh" generalization? And at its worst, it's exactly the kind of divisive stereotyping that you spend the entire column criticizing.
----------
And, hey, if you want me to address some points, it's worth noting that accusing Newsweek of running a story that it knew to be "a lie" is blatantly inaccurate; by that standard, Bush most certainly "lied" about WMD (and yet it's clear you don't intend to use that standard, as you explicitly exonerate Bush in the next phrase). In your defense, though, I don't think most of your essays are really that dependent on fact; I'd imagine it's pretty easy to complain about journalistic accuracy when you don't have to do it yourself.
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
I guess you follow that modern bible translation that says "If thy eye offend thee, try rubbing it harder."
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
One thing that's often missing from these discussions is the hard facts, in this case, what was said.
Bush said, in the 2003 State of the Union address, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." (The rest of the address is at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html .)
British intelligence had indeed reported exactly that. The info the CIA supplied to Bush was "go ahead, run with it." This since was "debunked" by someone who went to Niger, asked officials if they had engaged in any deal that would make the world's premier superpower angry, and they said no. AFAIK there has never been any evidence past this claim by the UK and the claim by Niger.
Newsweek said, "Investigators probing interrogation abuses at the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay have confirmed some infractions alleged in internal FBI e-mails that surfaced late last year. Among the previously unreported cases, sources tell NEWSWEEK: interrogators, in an attempt to rattle suspects, flushed a Qur'an down a toilet..." ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7693014/site/newsweek/ )
Newsweek knew that they had one source (not "investigators") and that the infractions were not confirmed. They said otherwise. Isn't that the definition of lying?
Posted by mothertree (Member # 4999) on :
Naw, it's just the definition of bad journalism. I'd add to that that I have always felt the WMD justification for war was bad statesmanship.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Isn't that the definition of lying?"
Again, only if you're going to apply that same definition to the Bush case. The yellow-cake incident is hardly the only instance of questionable "reporting" from the Bush administration.
Given that we still don't know the Newsweek case was false -- only know, in fact, that our government denies it, and running the story on such tenuous "evidence" was irresponsible at best -- it seems a bit presumptive to go leaping for the throats of a news magazine when our own government hasn't exactly been forthcoming with the facts behind their life-or-death decisions.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Here's what we do know about the Newsweek case:
Newsweek said "Investigators ... have confirmed" Newsweek knew that investigators had not confirmed.
Definition: if A says B, and A knows B is false, A lied.
Here's what we know about the Bush case:
Bush said "The British government has learned" Bush had no evidence that the British government had not learned. The British government said so; the CIA said ok; we know of no other source at that time.
It is not reasonable to say that if A says B, and all the evidence A has suggest B, then B lied.
Posted by alluvion (Member # 7462) on :
What I wanna know is where StoopidLand lies? Adjacent to gullible Heartland, or square in the rotting center of Smartland?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Here's what we know about the Bush case:
What makes you think that this is the only Bush deception, Will?
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
It is a shame we cannot have all that effort on the side of the President and our efforts instead of against.
It does not matter now, to quote Lazarous Long "Sure the game is rigged, play it anyway it is the only game there is."
The WMD's that were not, seems to avoid the simple fact that the major source of dissinformation was Saddam's government, not ours. They wanted to seem to still have the bulge of a regional superpower. So a deliberate ruse worked. We go on and keep dealing with what we have.
New York has about 12 hours of food, think of that next time Smartland wants to dismiss 'foolish' Heartland.
God I am so lucky to have been born in Iowa, in the United States at this time. How sad that people in America love it so little that they waste malice on its leaders instead of its enemies.
BC
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
While malice is generally a poor way of showing disappointment in our leaders, I whole-heartedly accept it as the price we pay to also be able to hear constructive civil discourse.
Posted by teoivan (Member # 8049) on :
Just one point: Taliban meens Student. Maybe Afganistan is the bigest uni in the world!
Many people in my country believe that wars in Iraq, Afganistan are product of american weapon industry. I admit that there are a lot of problems and this nations are not marionets in hands of "Smartland'superpowers". If you listen the politics the word should finish yesterday without them. I have a phrase for them: Big words come from deep...bottom of the space. About the "Smartland" every one must calculate the % of "smart" people in his land then multiple this number by cm^3 of there brains. I think htis so called "LAND" is very small. Long live the country of the hearts in everybody's heart.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
THT, is it equally acceptable to say that while malice is generally a poor way of showing disappointment in our media, I whole=heartedly accept it as the price we pay to also be able to hear constructive civil discourse? If yes, then all (Media, politcians) are pretty equal in telling their 'truths'? If no, then why not?
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Tom, I wouldn't have time to vet every statement Bush ever made, so I took the one you seemed to be referring to, and the one that is the supposed justification for the "Bush lied! Kids died!" slogan. I don't think I can reasonably be expected to vet every statement Bush has ever made; you aren't paying me enough! Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
Just a quick point (while at work),
Will B, check your notes: The CIA specifically told Bush NOT to use that information (Niger yellow cake...), that they had reviewed it previously, and had found it to be a forgery.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
No. They told him to go ahead with it. They later said they had doubts about it, but they did _not_ tell him that at the time. You can find this in the notes of the Senate investigation, or in many other places.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I always though it was intresting that Hans Blix was there with high-tech scaning crews only months before bullets started firing. He said there were no unconvinitional weapons, but nobody cared what he said, he was just a U.N. burreacrat. What could he know?
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(if you can untangle Ari Fleischer's convolutions)
quote:Q: Which gets to the crux of what Ambassador Wilson is now alleging -- that he provided this information to the State Department and the CIA 11 months before the State of the Union and he is amazed that it, nonetheless, made it into the State of the Union address. He believes that that information was deliberately ignored by the White House. Your response to that?
FLEISCHER: And that's way, again, he's making the statement that -- he is saying that surely the Vice President must have known, or the White House must have known. And that's not the case, prior to the State of the Union.
Q: He's saying that surely people at the decision-making level within the NSC would have known the information which he -- passed on to both the State Department and the CIA.
FLEISCHER: And the information about the yellow cake and Niger was not specifically known prior to the State of the Union by the White House.
Q: What does that say about communications?
FLEISCHER: We've acknowledged that the information turned out to be bogus involving the report on the yellow cake. That is not new. You can go back. You can look it up. Dr. Rice has said it repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. It's been said from this podium on the record, in several instances. It's been said to many of you in this room, specifically.
(though Fleischer never says that the CIA either knew it was false before Bush said it, or told Bush it was false before he said it. But neither does he contest the "fact" that the CIA had been told it was false 11 months before the President said it was true.)
But FACTCHECK seems to support Bush's statement, so maybe I'll back off (for now)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And at its worst, it's exactly the kind of divisive stereotyping that you spend the entire column criticizing.