“Wasserman Schultz: Wrong Statements About Libya Doesn’t Mean They Were False”
— Which, when you’ve accepted that all truths are contingent and man-made, a product ultimately of some cocktail of historical consensus and the motivations of a particular interpretive community to defend that constructed narrative, you can argue with a straight face.
And that’s exactly what we’ve done at the linguistic level — “textualism” leads to nothing but and is a result of the foundational assumptions I’ve noted in the ouctome of their deployment — which leads me to believe that maybe all my talk about the importance of understanding language function and the incoherent assumptions we’ve internalized and institutionalized regarding what comes to count as legitimate interpretation, isn’t so “fundamentally unserious” after all.
But then, what do I know. I’m to be ignored. Because, really, polls!
They’d had her benched for a while. How desperate do you have to be to think she’s going to help your cause?
Aww, come on, Jeff. That’s unfair.
Looking at the link, she said “Wasserman Schultz: Well that doesn’t mean it was false. It doesn’t mean that it was deliberate. It means that.”
Now, she did say “that doesn’t mean it was false”, but it’s obvious from context (there and in the following paragraph) that she means ” … doesn’t mean it was a lie“, as in a knowing falsehood. Here utterance in isolation is ludicrous and does violence to the language – but it’s obvious from context that she mis-spoke, and meant something perfectly sensible.
If she was actually trying to argue that “wrong does not mean false” rather than “wrong does not mean lying”, the rest of her statements are irrelevant and incomprehensible. With my interpretation, they’re coherent and rational. The principle of charity suggests we should assume the latter, even with a hack like Schultz.
Now, she may be simply covering for them on that and know they were deliberately lying (rather than just confused and babbling, which I honestly think is more likely – yes, there were lots of warnings of possible attacks in advance, but information like that is often buried where the talking-heads can’t find it, let alone immediately when they need to babble to a microphone right now … which is why I’m inclined to lead towards “incompetent” rather than “lying” for now) .
But her argument here is not about relativism, but is in fact grounded on the same distinction between “wrong” and “lying” that any non-relativist who’s serious about the meaning of the terms – as I know you are – would harp on if their opposition was conflating them (and indeed as I have myself argued re. President Bush and the Iraq war; that the CIA was wrong about Iraqi WMDs didn’t make President Bush a liar – it made him wrong, and the difference is monumental).
She kinda looks like Big Bird to me, in too many ways to count. This is one of those cases where less is definitively more.
I really want to hear from Mr. Tinkles on this one.
– You probably just did. I’m not sure if it was Tinkles, but something just pissed into the wind at the DNCC.
…..In other news:
– If you’re as puzzled as the rest of the country over those seemingly impossible this week and last, heres the answer.
– California’s data is not included. Pure manipulation.
– They are carefully ‘parsing’, objecting y saying they did not “exclude” Cal, but then it is a simple fact that the Cal data was not recieved in time. Total Bullshit.
Sigivald —
I proceed on the assumption that Wasserman Schultz is a liar and that her argument is being made in bad faith. There’s a meta component to what I’ve written here that I think you are missing: namely, that I believe that the very act of trying to make the distinction between an intentional lie and a mistake based on insufficient data is itself, in this case, an intentional lie — and one that appears logically defensible precisely because we refuse to acknowledge the real context and the real agency behind the statement. Which, as I’ve said, is Wasserman Schultz and her history of outright lying. Which gives us clues metatextually and intertextually to the intent of the argument. Which was to deflect from the prior intent of the lie.
Her ostensible argument is not about relativism. But her intention is to promote the distinction between a lie and a mistake while knowing that the very act of doing so is in fact a lie meant to cover for a previous lie. And in other circumstances, she has denied others the distinction she now wishes to hide behind.
There is where anti-foundationalism comes in to play. There is no need for consistency, because to those who view language in such a way, the ends justify the means. Here, the appearance of a logical distinction hides the lie that the distinction is even applicable in this case — as well as the further fact that even in cases where it actually has been applicable, Wasserman Schultz has denied its legitimacy. She demands charitable interpretations of her lies while routinely producing and disseminating lies about statements made by others she’ll intentionally mischaracterize.
Having said that, the title comes not from me but from realclearpolitics. But my own interpretation stands.
– “seemingly impossible job/unemployment numbers”
Sigivald , Morgan said “those in positions of responsibility and knowledge…putting out a false statement before you know the facts…” Schultz choose to interpret this as an attack on the Administration’s intent and deliberation. From Piers Morgan, no less.
Or from Sigmund Freud, I say, meaning that as a liar she was technically correct to do so despite Morgan’s easy-out. She just didn’t take it.
I’m not Jeff but I tend to think his
isn’t therefore faulty.
So those speaking on this from the Obama administration were in possession of a “truth” which they alone believed to be “the one true truth” and which was to be found nowhere else and was in fact refuted by all reports from the scene.
They weren’t lying because they say that they believed what they said and we must therefore not say they lied because they tell us they didn’t. This is the Democrats usual “we were stupid” excuse ramped up to 11.
This is not like the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq either because that was the established view of all intelligence agencies and governments before the Iraq war.
If you watched yesterday’s hearing on this, you’ll know that no one could or would explain how they came to believe that there was a protest when in fact there was none. People who know what the information stream was will not explain precisely how they came to believe the attacks was caused by a video that had exactly nothing to do with it. It’s been a lie from the beginning and it remains a lie. Everyone, including Waterhead-Schlitz, knows it.
And they still won’t tell the truth.
false
adjective
1. not true or correct; erroneous: a false statement.
2. uttering or declaring what is untrue: a false witness.
3. not faithful or loyal; treacherous: a false friend.
4. tending to deceive or mislead; deceptive: a false impression.
5. not genuine; counterfeit.
Schultz selected roughly half of these definitions, none of which are the first definition. She knee-jerked her way into the history books.
The Administration had put out untrue, incorrect, and erroneous statements; had uttered and declared what was untrue; and was disingenuous. From external facts and appearances it was a false witness, unfaithful or disloyal, treacherous, tended to deceive or mislead, was deceptive, and finally, issued counterfeits.
And she knew it. She also knew she could conceal it behind bullshit alluding — also falsely — to motive. Such are our times. Being entitled to an opinion, now everyone is also entitled to a reality.
Tell it to Scooter Libby, bitch.
More on lying.
Heh, I was anticipating Jeff would be all over this breath taking performance by the DNC chair – and he did not disappoint. The past few weeks have been an extra traget rich environment. And more to come, I am sure!
Even if we take Sigivald’s view that Dim Debbie meant “Just ’cuz it’s wrong don’t mean it’s a lie,” we’re left with a situation almost exactly identical to that presented when WMDs were not found in Iraq.
In one case, we had an administration in agreement with the Brits, the Israelis, and who knows how many other intelligence services, which turned out to be mistaken or to have changed during the run-up to the war. In the other, we have an administration blatantly contradicting its own agencies about a specific, discrete event at our consulate.
Now Dim Debbie wants us to grant her and her bosses the benefit of the doubt, and to acknowledge the distinction between error and falsehood. Anyone care to point me to all of Dim Debbie’s compatriots who brought this bit of nuance to Bush’s aid a decade ago?
Sauce for the goose, Deb. Karma’s a bitch.
– They’re riding dirty at every opportunity because they’re in full metal jacket free fall panic.
– If Biden does as expected tonight, it will get even worse, as the wheels spin off the wagon.
– If he does better, then he makes his boss look even more of an inept loser, so again, it will get worse.
– We’re all going to need some of Satche’s popcorn.
Putin cancels Turkey trip. World quails.
Booosh!
– What we’re witnessing in real time is the collision of the Statist narrative, an active effort to shape reality through false perspective shilled by the media to prop up Obama’s candidacy, and actual reality.
– When propagandist narrative reaches this level people generally die.
– Unfortunately for the Progressives, our enemies don’t give a fuck about their fantasies. In fact they welcome the opportunity to take advantage of such delusional thinking, and Benghazi is the typical result when you play “placate” with people that would eradicate you if given any chance.
– If this is allowed to continue, we don’t take back our Republic from the collectivists, more will die.
After six years of the Bush lied people died bullshit and the General Betrayus bullshit and Valerie Plame —Superspy— outed bullshit and the Speaking Truth to Power bullshit, I don’t want to be fair.
Old Smirkin’ Joe.
Consequences? What consequences? Nowadays we mean rise to the Vice Presidency of the United States on the shit-heels of an even worse liar who sits in the highest seat of them all.
If Old Smirkin’ Joe wants to get cute tonight, I suggest (and expect) Ryan to ask him “How many State Department employees do we have remaining overseas? How many will still be alive on Election Day?”
Push back twice as hard.
I’m hearing people speculate that Biden will likely attempt to paint Paul Ryan’s House positions as though they are Romney’s positions, but wouldn’t that open Biden to the retort from Ryan: “Do you, Vice President Biden, determine the positions of your principle, President Obama? Wouldn’t that mean that President Obama isn’t fully qualified for the seat he holds if he needs you to make his decisions for him?”
Ok,
Maybe I spoke too soon (see my post here). Ol Debbie sets the standard for teh crazy-talk!
“I proceed on the assumption that Wasserman Schultz is a liar”
I dunno Jeff,
I’ts hard to tell where the crazy ends and the lies begin with Wassername.
Squid: Yep. Assuming she was making the argument I thought, that’s exactly the parallel – and her side wants to pretend it isn’t, hypocritically.
Pablo said: If you watched yesterday’s hearing on this, you’ll know that no one could or would explain how they came to believe that there was a protest when in fact there was none. People who know what the information stream was will not explain precisely how they came to believe the attacks was caused by a video that had exactly nothing to do with it. It’s been a lie from the beginning and it remains a lie. Everyone, including Waterhead-Schlitz, knows it.
Oh, I don’t doubt for a moment that plenty of actual lying happened by Administration mouthpieces. Though frankly, given the ease of confusion and rumor even among people who are honestly seeking truth I also suspect that there was quite a bit of non-lying falsehood in the mix of all the statements, simply because humans tend, unless they train themselves not to, to accept dubious information that comforts them or supports their side, with much less suspicion than the reverse.
I bet a fair number of talking heads for the Administration were spouting falsehoods they either thought were true or were told were true and never thought to question.
Which doesn’t excuse from from reaction in terms of what incompetent prats they are as a group, mind you. But it ain’t the same as being deliberate liars.
(Like Wasserman-Schultz, who has told a whopper or fifty in her time, I’m sure, and doubtless was covering for people she knew were outright lying.
My comment was not meant as some sort of defense of her partisan hackery, but as close parsing of her actual utterance-as-intended [rather than utterance itself].
Jeff’s assumption that she was acting in bad faith, in his reply above, is … perfectly justifiable from knowing her past and her function as a Democratic operative. My point was just that the utterance-as-intended [ie, replacing the obvious fumble of “false” for “lie”] was not, strictly, a relativist move; as an argument it works perfectly when one assumes “normal” objective truth and strict interpretation of utterances.
She’s still a partisan sack of deceit trying to cover for liars and incompetents, agreed.)