Reacting to this ludicrously titled AP story (“Bush Twists Kerry’s Words on Iraq”), a certain Britney Spears aficionado surfaces from his Fruity Pebbles long enough to type, “George Bush Is A LIAR. This man is pathological. To date, Senator Kerry has said that Bush ‘misled’, ‘deceived’, etc. Sometime soon, Senator, you’re going to have to say it: your opponent is a liar.”
And what is this big lie that prompted a certain collector of Beyonce action figures (and accessories) to rend his cloak? Why, this:
[Bush] stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week “he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today.” The line drew gasps of surprise from Bush’s audience in a Racine, Wis., park. “I just strongly disagree,” the president said.
But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam “a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell.” He added, “The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure.”
Leaving aside a certain YooHoo lover’s decision to exclude the line immediately preceding the excerpt (“It was not unlike the spin that Kerry and his forces sometimes place on Bush’s words.”), let me suggest that Bush’s statement is not a “lie” (and that Bush is not “A LIAR”), but that it is in fact a reasonable interpretation of—and extrapolation from—Kerry’s current position on Iraq: that the longstanding US policy of containment worked; that the Senator would not have enforced with military action the UN Security Council resolutions Hussein flouted (before he would have enforced them; but that position is, like, sooo two weeks ago); and that America is less safe now than it was when Saddam Hussein was in power (and would a certain fan of Clinton Portis argue that Kerry does not ”prefer” America be more safe? And does it not follow that if America was safer before Saddam was toppled, then America would be safer with Saddam in power?—or, as President Bush put it, that Senator Kerry “would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today”?)
The point is, this endless game of semantic gotcha is tiresome. Listen: anyone who can’t figure out what Bush meant is too hermeneutically challenged to be commenting on serious matters. And those who can figure it out—but who choose instead to pounce on stump rhetoric not first vetted by a lawyer and a professor of linguistics—are intentionally disingenuous, which is far worse an offense.
I know it’s tough to find things to blog on everyday, Oliver, but come on: Didn’t Jessica Alba have something new pierced this week?
****
update: cowed by the organized attack muscle of the RNC-controlled right side of the blogosphere (which is not to be confused with the fiercely non-partisan left side, ethically our superior, yet powerless against the right’s orchestrated lies), the AP has changed the story title. The latest title reads, “Bush, Kerry Twisting Each Other’s Words.” Guess they’re going for that whole “cycle of violence” vibe (h/t SVJ)
****
update 2: Oliver responds to my argument by noting that I crave attention (which is true, though I’d prefer if it came from someone a little less likely to eat me with gravy and slaw and a half-dozen biscuits). He then makes the point that, “Dear Leader didn’t say anything resembling ‘Senator Kerry’s words would have us believe’ (not that the sorry excuse for a President could get such a complex sentence out), but blatantly lied and blatantly claimed that Kerry said: ‘he would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today’ [at which point, we know from the AP story, the conservative troglodytes in the audience dropped their Bibles and audibly gasped, so sure surprised were they that the good Senator would say such a thing directly! – ed.] Look. Black is black and white is white, and George W. Bush is a heck of a liar, and Goldstein’s a hell of an idiot apologist. John Kerry never said that. He just didn’t.”
Oliver then presents an example which, not surprisingly, misses the entire point of my post.
Bottom line: in Oliver’s world, assembling on-the-record assertions and using them to draw a conclusion is an unfair representation of the assertions as they existed at the time of their initial pristine utterance. In Oliver’s world, construing is lying. Paraphrasing is prevarication. Distilling is devious. And Cheez Doodles™ are a food group.
****
update 3: More here, here, here, and here (h/t LaShawn Barber)
****
update 4: Of the AP’s change of headline, Willis writes, “Jeez. And now the AP has been bullied—yet again—into retitling their headlines. It’s now ‘Bush, Kerry Twisting Each Other’s Words’. What ‘liberal’ media was that again? Please”— not far from what I suggested in update 1 would be the likely Willisian response (h/t MM). Chalk it up to predictability (rather than some extraordinarily prescience on my part).
Wow…”Fruity Pebbles”. “Yoo-Hoo”. You wingnuts are so-o-o-o-o clever, making fun of Oliver’s appearance and all.
Bush lied about what Kerry said.
So let me get this straight: you’re response is “Bush lied, wingnut”?
Well, that is the Democratic platform…
The only lies here are the ones AP stooge Jennifer Lovin told in this story, and the lie AP itself told by releasing this bilge as hard news. Oh, and the one little miss rpm posted, above.
I jumped on this one myself, before finding out that Jeff was on the case.
Yep, Steve. Me too. That all three of us jumped on it inside an hour shows you just how biased it is…
Hmm, I fail to see how YooHoo’s and Fruity Pebbles would refer to his appearance. It would seem to be more of a commentary on his maturity. Guess rpm is “comprehension challenged”, lot of that among leftist I’ve noticed. Well, that and a failure to understand fundamental logic or economics.
As of about fifteen minutes ago, AP has retitled the piece. I’m still a bit confused. I thought AP was a NEWS service. The piece is an OPINION piece. I don’t think it has all its facts straight, either, but, even if it did, it’s far more opinion than news.
I don’t think your trackback system likes me. I linked to you in a post called “The Mess That Is CBS.”
Having had to endure the left media and politics in Canada for way too many years, it’s certainly refrehing to see that there is a medium (other than MSM) where thinking people in your country and mine can have their/our views heard, debated, debunked or just being able to yell bullshit (metaphor for prairie oysters, road apples, stools or basic poo-poo).
These issues certainly wouldn’t be debated on the CBC or in most of our left-leaning Canadian press, nor would we get a meaningful hearing or outlet for telling our politicians/media to pee or get off the pot (that’s an old image from my childhood)..
If Americans don’t re-elect GWB, they’re absolutely nuts. First time, in my rather long lifetime, that I’ve seen a LEADER to respect for the fact thet the man CAN make a decision, and stick with it; who also has amazing conviction in his values.
BLOG ON !!
Since Ollie “Like Kryptonite to Brains” Witless is getting snotty now, I feel entitled to say that he probably hates Jeff for being what he will never in his wildest dreams be: talented.
I linked to your piece, Jeff. Pass the Cheez Doodles.
….. and – something I don’t see discussed much anywhere …..
Either make Saddam do what the UN required under all the resolutions, or ….
What cost having the American fleet stuck in such great numbers in the Gulf for, how long now, while the inspectors are danced round Iraq … easily $840 billion?! (I’ll bet it would be double)
Now Oli is claiming that the AP correcting the headline proves that there is no liberal media.
Typical. That he has a paying gig is one of the Biblical signs of the apocalypse. Has to be.
“That all three of us jumped on it inside an hour shows you just how biased it is…”
Or how out there you are…
Yes. We’re like neanderthal spacemen. Crazy specimens—drunk on God and hoping to turn the underclass into carpets and upholstery for our corporate board rooms.
Methinks that Ollie has been brutally outclassed.
Well, I could see the argument that although Kerry says that post-war Iraq is “a chaos”, that doesn’t mean that Kerry wouldn’t have still invaded Iraq and overthrown Saddam in a “wiser” fashion resulting in better post-war conditions.
And by “see the argument”, I mean “see the argument losing”, because you’d pretty much have to ignore most of the rest of the speech in question. Particularly the parts about how his authorization for war wasn’t really an authorization, how war with Iraq was a “was a profound diversion from that war and the battle against our greatest enemy, Osama bin Laden…”, and also ignore what he specifically said he would have done if he had been President during that time:
“I would have tightened the noose and continued to pressure and isolate Saddam Hussein – who was weak and getting weaker—so that he would pose no threat to the region or America.” Kerry would have brought down the regime through the power of his mighty charisma, I guess. He would’ve been able to do in less than one term what Bill Clinton was unable to do in 2. Because he’s so much more suave and popular with the Europeans than Clinton. And they were so ready to crack down on Iraq.
It’s a fucking joke to read Kerry criticize Bush on how he should prepare Iraq for the upcoming elections, considering that if Kerry had been President, there would’ve only been one candidate and he would’ve gotten 100% of the votes.
Ok, NOW your implying he’s fat, or at least gluttonus. Is he fat? I’ve never seen him. Moore is fat, but he’s a slob too. What is with the Don Johnson Miami Vice four day growth anyway. Arggg. Sorry, Just picture Mikey in a white suit and sandals with his shirt open. I’ll pass on the cheese doodles, I’ve lost my appetite…
What Bush did is called “active listening”. It’s a communication technique where the listener re-phrases what the speaker said, as a means of ensuring clear communication.
Something, it seems, Fruity-Pebbles boy and his ilk are unfamiliar with – real communication, that is.
It’s patently obvious that the logical conclusion of the speech Lurch gave was that we were in a better position when the Baghdad Butcher was in control of Iraq. That is a pretty ridiculous argument to make however, so now the media shepherds must cover his gaff. So they go pedantic in the hopes that the reader, or viewer as the case may be(Jennings did more or less the same thing on WNT, raised eyebrow and all), won’t focus on the conclusion of of the Kerry argument. Too bad nobody believes them anymore.
Dorkafork –
Those were some great points. You should start your own blog!
..and Bush has never uttered the words Usama Bin Laden in his SOTU or other major public addresses. To most of us Al Queda and the President’s mention of such is synonymous with UBL. But to Democratic partisans it means he’s never mentioned his name, which simply has to mean something. It’s a symantical circle-jerk that violates the intellectual piousness that liberals hold so dear.
What credible media?
Well, I think it’s a cheap shot by the President. Not totally inaccurate; but pretty close to the edge.
Two points
(1) He doesn’t need to sink this low. He’s got enough material from Kerry – and it’s expanding everyday – to use against him without, let us say “abusing” Kerry’s comments and views.
(2) Don’t shoot down, Mr. President. Let Cheney handle this stuff. Elevate the debate, be positive, talk about what you’re doing right, not what Kerry is doing wrong. Sure, throw in a few shots against Kerry; but let Cheney and others handle the big stuff.
Oliver is a great guy, I think. But he’s got zero credibility in criticizing misreprensentation’s of candidates views. His love affair with the “truth” would be more sincere if he had sent flowers to Bush every now and then.
SMG
Poor Oliver. Jeff’s beating him like a drum and he’s snivelling. Reading his recent entries, he sounds on the point of crying. I can just imagine the hot, salty tears running down his face, carving a path through the Nacho Cheese Doritos dust.
If we want to talk about lies this week, look no further than Kerry saying that we have spent $200 billion in Iraq so far.(we have spent $120 billion to $130 billion) AND on Letterman he said that we only have 5000 Iraqi Security forces. ( we have 95,000)
These aren’t just twisting words, these are LIES.
I don’t think Saddam deserves a special place in Hell. He should get the regular place in Hell just like anybody else.
Noel, well….not everyone.
Now that’s what I call talking back to 80’s music.
I had a brilliant comment. But it wasn’t as brilliant as dorkafork’s. Damn him. Damn him.