The President and the Truth [i]or[/i] Milbank and Krugman and Ari, Oh, My!

[elucidator]

Well, well. Seems as though one of our media whores got himself some spine. Whodathunkit? Dana Milbank stops short of using the word “liar”. But just barely. I encourage you to read the article in its entirety, but a few nuggets:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...nguage=printer

“President Bush, speaking to the nation this month about the need to challenge Saddam Hussein, warned that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned aircraft that could be used "for missions targeting the United States." "

Last month, asked if there were new and conclusive evidence of Hussein's nuclear weapons capabilities, Bush cited a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency saying the Iraqis were "six months away from developing a weapon." And last week, the president said objections by a labor union to having customs officials wear radiation detectors has the potential to delay the policy "for a long period of time." "

All three assertions were powerful arguments for the actions Bush sought. And all three statements were dubious, if not wrong. Further information revealed that the aircraft lack the range to reach the United States; there was no such report by the IAEA; and the customs dispute over the detectors was resolved long ago….”

And…..

“On Sept. 7, meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair at Camp David, Bush told reporters: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied, finally denied access, a report came out of the Atomic -- the IAEA -- that they were six months away from developing a weapon. I don't know what more evidence we need.

The IAEA did issue a report in 1998, around the time weapons inspectors were denied access to Iraq for the final time, but the report made no such assertion. It declared: "Based on all credible information to date, the IAEA has found no indication of Iraq having achieved its program goal of producing nuclear weapons or of Iraq having retained a physical capability for the production of weapon-useable nuclear material or having clandestinely obtained such material." The report said Iraq had been six to 24 months away from nuclear capability before the 1991 Gulf War.

The White House said that Bush "was imprecise on this" and that the source was U.S. intelligence, not the IAEA."

And “…Bush's statement about the Iraqi nuclear defector, implying such information was current in 1998, was a reference to Khidhir Hamza. But Hamza, though he spoke publicly about his information in 1998, retired from Iraq's nuclear program in 1991, fled to the Iraqi north in 1994 and left the country in 1995.”

And this from the redoubtable Mr. Krugman: “…Also in the last few days, The Wall Street Journal reported that "senior officials have referred repeatedly to intelligence . . . that remains largely unverified." The C.I.A.'s former head of counterterrorism was blunter: "Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements." USA Today reports that "pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda."

“…Right now the administration is playing the war card, inventing facts as necessary, and trying to use the remnants of Mr. Bush's post-Sept. 11 popularity to gain control of all three branches of government. But then what? There is, after all, no indication that Mr. Bush ever intends to move to the center….”

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/25/op...t&position=top

Now, as many of you already know, Mr. Bush has not lost any credibility with me, he had none to lose. I find myself wondering if he is parroting “facts” because he believes what his handlers tell him, or if he is deliberately misleading the people in pursuit of what he regards as a higher purpose.

As the air slowly leaks out of the War Blimp, and it settles flacidly to the ground, what next? Myself, as I’ve said before, I about half-expect an “incident”, “half-expect” only because of a lingering desire to believe that at least some of these men hold the public in higher esteem than themselves and their grasp on power.

It would seem not.

[Scylla]

If your thesis is that President Bush has been presenting information in the format most favorable to his policies, than I would agree.

If you want to go farther and say that this presentation has been factually innacurate on several occasions, I would also agree.

I'll take your points one at a time:

1. "Six months away" - The White House said he was imprecise on this. Ok.

2. "Airplanes with missiles that could target the United States" - Yes, they can't reach from Iraq. I don't think that the President said that they could. They can however be launched from a significant distance, and there is a threat from a sea-based launch, a foreign country, or even that one could be smuggled and assembled and launched from remote locations within the U.S. That these long range weapons could be used against the U.S. is in fact true. I personally was never under the impression that Saddam could launch from Iraq and hit the US, as this got clarified very quickly.

3. "Radiation detectors" - While I think radiation detectors would be a good idea, I think Bush was stretching if not talking completely out of his ass on this one.

4. "Hamza" - We don't know for a fact that it was a reference to Hamza but I think it's a reasonable supposition. Nonetheless, I find the objection rather Picayune on this. If it's a 1998 report then it seems reasonable to say it's current from 1998 even if the raw data goes back farther than that. One would expect some extrapolation from the intelligence received.

I think it would be fair to say that Bush is guilty of making the strongest possible assertion that could reasonably be argued from this report.

5. Krugman - Forgive me, but he and Anne Coulter make a fine pair, and I think his editorials opinins are dismissable.

6.

I find myself wondering if he is parroting “facts” because he believes what his handlers tell him, or if he is deliberately misleading the people in pursuit of what he regards as a higher purpose.

I would guess that he's presenting his case in the strongest way possible to support his policy.

I would hope that if he is stretching credibility (and I think he is,) on some points, he's not doing it out of a "higher purpose," but because he has to make to do with discussing public information while he has access to more privileged and sensitive information that backs up his case, but which he cannot reveal without compromising his sources.

That's not far-fetched at all. Clinton was in much the same boat during the "Wag the dog" debacle, and the cruise missiles.

He was under a lot of pressure for what he did, and a lot of acrimony, but I think those actions are vindicated.

It's proper that Bush fall under similar pressure for justification, and that if his actions are not similarly vindicated that he be called to task for them.

Such are the checks and balances of our system.

I about half-expect an “incident”, “half-expect” only because of a lingering desire to believe that at least some of these men hold the public in higher esteem than themselves and their grasp on power.

Yes. You have to believe that, but you are also right to be suspicious.

I had thought to myself that as much as I personally dislike Bill Clinton it would be a terrible thing to beleive he would take military action that costs lives just to pull attention away from a scandal directed at him, but I still felt very uncomfortable.

Similarly I think you have to believe that Bush is doing this for better reasons than a desire to beat up on the guy that took a potshot at his Dad.

But suspicion and distrust are good as long as you also posit the possibility of good faith.

[december]

What Scylla said. Additional opinions on this topic can be found here and here.

What Krugman lacks in accuracy, he makes up for in exuberance. For the sort of thing explained by Scylla, Krugman calls Bush "as slippery and evasive as any politician in memory." That is, integrity comparable to Clinton and Nixon! Mr Krugman, give us a break.

[ElvisL1ves]

One could posit good faith if there were some plausible way to flesh out that possibility. Got any good way to explain how good faith could cause him to engage in this behavior pattern in general, or in regard to his proposed Iraq invasion in particular, or is that simply desperately-wishful thinking? It isn't simple spin, or using the most generous possible interpretations - it is lying.

Not caring about stating the factual truth is just as bad as stating known falsehoods. Either one makes a person a liar. Bush's intellectual laziness, or simple incuriosity if you wish, is not widely disputed, although it's widely excused by the hopeful. But it means simply not caring about the truth.

Bush is a chronic liar, and has a number of enablers both close to him and among the citizenry. Some people have simply been much quicker to catch on to that than others. Fortunately for democracy, the lapdog media has been starting to realize they haven't been doing their jobs on this, and are starting to report it, too - gingerly, lest they attract the liberal=traitor label, but more boldly as they remember ancient lessons about the meaning of responsible participation in the political processes of democracy. So there is hope.

elucidator, you forgot to say "blowjob" this time - can we simply assume that point in the future?

[Scylla]

Elvis:

I think elucidator wrote a pretty good OP because he was specific and drew consclusions and suppositions that were specific, rather than vague generalities.

We've had a lot of punditry and vagueness lately.

Bush's intellectual laziness, or simple incuriosity if you wish, is not widely disputed, although it's widely excused by the hopeful. But it means simply not caring about the truth.

C'mon. You're better than that. Your just slinging muddy opinion.

Got any good way to explain how good faith could cause him to engage in this behavior pattern in general, or in regard to his proposed Iraq invasion in particular, or is that simply desperately-wishful thinking?

Yes. I provided one. I even likened it to a scenario faced by the previous administration.

More convincing though is trying to consider the alternative.

Getting a coalition, and going to war, and taking lives is a very difficult and dangerous course of action and one that is bound to be divisive and costly.

You have to posit a high degree of arbitrariness to assume that he'd do it for fun, and I don't think that's a realistic asessment.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Comparing Krugman to Coulter is like comparing comparing Einstein to Hitler. Paul Krugman bases his opinions on facts or tested economic theories, and is probably one of the wisest economic and political thinkers of our time. Ann Coulter is quite the opposite. You may not agree with Krugman on many issues, but I guarantee that he's got a hell of alot more facts backing up his opinions than you have for yours. Bite your tongue young man!

Oh yes, and if you think Clinton was a liar, Bush beats him by exponential proportions.

[Apos]

---That is, integrity comparable to Clinton and Nixon! Mr Krugman, give us a break.---

I don't think there is really any any meaningful grounds on which to compare the three, and say that one is a worse liar than the other. Both Clinton and Nixon got caught in a lie in spectacular media fashion: but that hardly makes them more or less likely to bend and break the truth than other Presidents. There are as many cases for Bush's bending of the truth and blanching his integrity as any of these other two. Though I can't remember a time when the media has been so soft going on a politician from campaign to presidency.

[Jackknifed Juggernaut]

Comparing Krugman to Coulter is like comparing comparing Einstein to Hitler. Paul Krugman bases his opinions on facts or tested economic theories, and is probably one of the wisest economic and political thinkers of our time. Ann Coulter is quite the opposite. You may not agree with Krugman on many issues, but I guarantee that he's got a hell of alot more facts backing up his opinions than you have for yours. Bite your tongue young man!

Oh yes, and if you think Clinton was a liar, Bush beats him by exponential proportions.

[ElvisL1ves]

Originally posted by Scylla
C'mon. You're better than that. Your just slinging muddy opinion.

Opinion, yes, but one with far more factual support (read Milbank, for instance) than the contrary, though. But to continue:

Yes. I provided one. I even likened it to a scenario faced by the previous administration.

Limiting your discussion to only a single incident, then claiming victory, while ignoring the pattern and any other inconvenient examples. A typical approach for you, though; one you've been called out for on multiple occasions.

Getting a coalition, and going to war, and taking lives is a very difficult and dangerous course of action and one that is bound to be divisive and costly.

Well, no shit, Captain Obvious. Which is exactly why we all want the President we're stuck with to take it seriously, and face facts as they are and not as he might wish them to be.

Oh, and btw, please provide a cite for this little gem:

[T]here is a threat from a sea-based launch, a foreign country, or even that one could be smuggled and assembled and launched from remote locations within the U.S. That these long range weapons could be used against the U.S. is in fact true.

Read much Tom Clancy, do you?

[Scylla]

Elvis:

Ok, Elvis. I won't make that mistake again.

[Stoid]

I may have missed the answer, someone please direct me... but even if Hussein showed up with a nuke today, why would he lob it us again?

[Scylla]

Stoid:

The fact is that he probably wouldn't (though he's probably pretty upset about the whole Gulf War thing.)

[december]

Originally posted by Jackknifed Juggernaut
Comparing Krugman to Coulter is like comparing comparing Einstein to Hitler.

Suppose Anne Coulter wrote: "Joe Lieberman is as big a liar as Richard Nixon." We'd all think that was outrageous. Well, Krugman effectively wrote the same thing about George W. Bush. There's your comparison.

Coulter is a smart lawyer, and Krugman is a brilliant economist. It's a shame to see people of this quality in the gutter. It's a shame that mean-spirited, attack journalism has been the road to success as a pundit for both of them.

Stoid, if Saddam acquires nukes, a likely scenario is tha he would again attack Kuwait and perhaps Saudi Arabia, using the nuclear threat to keep the US and UN from intervening. This scenario could result in terrible consequences, depending on how it played out.

[elucidator]

Paul Krugman compared to "Anne of Green Goebbels"? december, tell me you didn't really say that! Tell me you misjudged your medication, you were deranged by grief over your parakeets sudden demise, Ms. December made you get up in the middle of the night to trim your toenails and it made you surly. I'll accept almost any excuse. But, Good Lord, man!

Point of fact, Mr. Krugman didn't really break any news, or make any assertions not already on the table. You got a beef, you got a beef with Milbank. Can you refute any of the assertions made by him/her?

As for Saddam bin Laden and his nukes: if he sets one off, he might as well be sitting on it, for all the good it will do him. Might as well stuff a stick of dynamite up his Nixon and light it with his cigar: AMF.

[december]

Originally posted by elucidator
Point of fact, Mr. Krugman didn't really break any news, or make any assertions not already on the table. You got a beef, you got a beef with Milbank. Can you refute any of the assertions made by him/her?

Almost the same thought expressed in two different ways can have opposite meanings. E.g.

A. "Darling, when I look at you, time stands still."

B. "You have a face that would stop a clock."

Here are quotes from the two cited articles.

Dana Millbank
Presidential embroidery is, of course, a hoary tradition... "Everybody makes mistakes when they open their mouths and we forgive them," Brookings Institution scholar Stephen Hess said.

Paul Krugman
Mr. Bush... in fact...is as slippery and evasive as any politician in memory.

These two quotes look similar. However, Millbank's version means Bush demonstrates a normal level of Presidential embroidery. Krugman's version means that Bush is as slippery and evasive as the very worst of "any politician in memory."

So, Krugman implied that Bush is as slippery as the worst of Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joseph McCarthy, Jim Trafficant, and Bob Torricelli.

See what I mean?

[sleestak]

Originally posted by ElvisL1ves

Oh, and btw, please provide a cite for this little gem:

Read much Tom Clancy, do you?

Well, now that you bring up Tom Clancy you do realize that he wrote a book where a Japanese pilot flew a plane into the Capital Building, right? Clancy, when asked about the book and the 9-11 attacks stated, not verbatum, that he knew planes could be used as weapons but that he didn't think that 20 people would decide to kill themselves at once. He thought it would be one or two people.

So your little flippant remark about Tom Clancy comes back to bite you on the ass. He predicted that this could happen in a novel. Clancy is very good at understanding weapon systems and how they are used. Obviously he knows a whole lot more than you do.

Slee

[elucidator]

Yeah, sure, december, but Ann Coulter? Show me a quote where Krugman says something about executing a few liberals pour encourager les autres. A Krugman quote about killing Muslim leaders and converting them to Christianity.

You are trying to make an equivalence between a bit of fever and rabies because both involve a temperature.

Balderdash, sir! Tommyrot!

[december]

[quote]Originally posted by elucidator Show me a quote where Krugman says something about executing a few liberals pour encourager les autres. A Krugman quote about killing Muslim leaders and converting them to Christianity.

You are trying to make an equivalence between a bit of fever and rabies because both involve a temperature.

Yes, you have a point. They have different styles of nastinesss. Coulter's style is more flamboyant.

BTW, elucidator, your last two posts used flamboyant figures of speech: Goebbels and rabies.

[jshore]

december:

I don't find Anne Coulter to be a dispicable human being because she called Bill Clinton a liar....Good God, if I did that, I would have to say the same about the entire Republican Party and many Dems and others on the left. (Christopher Hitchens for one particularly dramatic example!)

I must say that Bush makes me yearn for liars like Nixon, Torricelli, and Clinton who only (or at least mainly) seem to lie to save their own ass rather than lying about policy matters on a regular basis.

[Scylla]

Elucidator:

From where I sit, Anne and Paul are pretty much the same. They're both bores who fabricate on the subject of their political nemesis.

[elucidator]

Did you guys manage to keep a straight face when you pecked this out on your keyboards? Do you take special irony-suppresent drugs? But never mind, it is a triviality. Besides, it is churlish to belittle a faith that surpasseth all understanding.

What of Dana Milbank? What of Our Leader, the Man Who Fell Up? That's rather more to the point, don't you think? Whether one uses the delicately embroidered euphemism "imprecise" or the more homey "so full of bullshit his eyes are brown", the fact remains that the cited article lays out an entire array of [things that aren't entirely true] or [bald faced lies].

Mr. Krugman is not trying to mislead us into war. Whatever his faults, there is little immediate likelihood of fatality. If you are quite finished with him, might I direct your attention to Mr. Bush whose laser guided imprecision has more dramatic impact, i.e., death, destruction and horror?

[Scylla]

We've been over this before 'Luce. The President's words are possibly the most scrutinized in the entire world. Not to beat around the Bush, but Clinton said lots of things that weren't true, lots of things that were misleading, lots of things that were ambiguous and could have been said better than they were.

When the spoken word is analyzed and searched for innacuracies, they are found. This is because it is very difficult to speak exactly what you mean to say or with perfect factual accuracy.

It is unreasonable to presume otherwise, and it has been this way with every President there's been in the modern media age.


The old searching for falsehoods and innacuracies game, is one that's always played by the lowest common denominator of the opposition in the presses. It's bullshit.

There's gonna be innacuracies and problems with his extamporaneous comments, as with anybody's.

If you want to take issue with policy and arguments it's best to take it from prepared speeches, where this is less excuse for these kinds of errors or innacuracies.

[december]

What Scylla said.

Also, if you think the President is trying to "mislead us into war," it would be better to debate directly whether or not war is a good policy. Even though a handful of Bush comments may be inaccurate, that doesn't prove war is a mistake. He may be using inaccurate arguments to properly lead us into war.

[Apos]

I think the point is that Bush has a reputation for being a plain spoken, honest guy. There is absolutely no basis for this opinion, anymore than there is for Gore being a pathological liar, Bush being a gibbering idiot, etc. These are simply scripts.

[elucidator]

Scylla, we're not talking about minor blunders in syntax or inadvertent oopsies. We are talking about a man making a case for war. Kind of thing a lot of us regard as pretty serious business. (I'm kind of sensitive that way, I guess, I don't much cotton to procedures that makes folks dead. Your Morality May Vary.)

Now, admittedly, this doesn't rise to really grave levels, like lying about sex, but, you know, a body bag here, a body bag there, after awhile they start to pile up. A lie in service of civility, like maudlin Republican tributes to the late lamented Mr. Wellstone, is understandable, hypocrisy being the compliment that vice pays to virtue. A lie to promote horror and havoc is an obscenity.

december

He may be using inaccurate arguments to properly lead us into war.

Stunning. Utterly stunning.

[Scylla]

Elucidator:

Scylla, we're not talking about minor blunders in syntax or inadvertent oopsies. We are talking about a man making a case for war.

Yes, but that doesn't change the nature of spoken speech, or extamporaneous comments.

They will occasionally be innacurate, ambiguous, or misleading.

[jshore]

Scylla:

I don't think most of this discussion has been about extemperaneous subjects. I'm sure the speech Bush gave to the American people on TV was carefully written and rehearsed.

[Ace_Face]

Originally posted by Scylla
There's gonna be innacuracies and problems with his extamporaneous comments, as with anybody's.

If you want to take issue with policy and arguments it's best to take it from prepared speeches, where this is less excuse for these kinds of errors or innacuracies.

It's unclear that all (or even most) of these are extamporaneous comments, Millbank says only that "Some of Bush's overstatements appear to be off-the-cuff mistakes." But it also appears that some of these "overstatements" were made repeatedly (e.g. the radiation detector fib). I've seen Bush speak extemporaneously at several press conferences now, and complicated sentences such as "There's over $15 billion of construction projects which are on hold, which aren't going forward -- which means there's over 300,000 jobs that would be in place, or soon to be in place, that aren't in place" don't come easy to him.

A more interesting question is why (up till now at least) the press has treated these stretchers -- most of which involve major policy issues -- with relative kid gloves, while excoriating Gore for trivialities such as his choice of attire, or whether a schoolgirl had a desk. See the
Daily Howler for more examples. (And I say this as no particular fan of Gore).

Also, the Krugman/Coulter analogy just doesn't hold up. You would need to show a pattern of lies and hate that I'm afraid Krugman just can't approach. I suspect it's Krugman's Harken reporting that has Scylla and other conservatives most riled. Whether Bush did anything illegal or not, the central point of his columns has been to show that Bush's "man of the people" personna is a farce, and more importantly that the Prez is a product of crony capitalism.

Is this mud slinging? Not worth knowing? Well, I was in Asia when the 1997-98 financial meltdown occured -- I still remember the strutting arrogance of most American commentators, denouncing the region for rampant crony capitalism (and advocating they adopt "American-style" accounting standards -- snicker!). Now we have a president who is the very embodiment of this brand of entitlement capitalism. Something to be very concerned about, IMO, whether he did anything technically illegal or not.

[Stoid]

Originally posted by jshore

I must say that Bush makes me yearn for liars like Nixon, Torricelli, and Clinton who only (or at least mainly) seem to lie to save their own ass rather than lying about policy matters on a regular basis.

Preach it, brother!

[elucidator]

And this as well.......

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...-bamford_x.htm

"As the White House searches for every possible excuse to go to war with Iraq, pressure has been building on the intelligence agencies to deliberately slant estimates to fit a political agenda. In this case, the agencies are being pressed to find a casus belli for war, whether or not one exists.

"Basically, cooked information is working its way into high-level pronouncements, and there's a lot of unhappiness about it in intelligence, especially among analysts at the CIA," Vince Cannistraro, the agency's former head of counterterrorism, told The Guardian, a London newspaper....."

There's more as well, some of it repeating the already noted "imprecise" statements, as well as other offhand, extemporaneous pronouncements that turn out to be not quite true, a shade less than factual. Of note, however, is this regarding the Dreaded Aluminum Tubes...

"...In his Oct. 7 address to the nation, Bush warned of Iraq's attempts to import hardened aluminum tubes "for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons." But David Albright, a physicist and former United Nations weapons inspector, told The Guardian that it was far from clear that the tubes were intended for such a purpose. He also said skeptics at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California had been ordered to keep their doubts to themselves. ..."

Other, more generous, observers will no doubt see minor rhetorical stumbles, niggling insignificant innaccuracies, the sort of loveable errors and oopsies we have come to expect from the Man Who Fell Up, the living avatar of the Peter Principle.

I hear lies.

[Scylla]

Ace Face:

Also, the Krugman/Coulter analogy just doesn't hold up. You would need to show a pattern of lies and hate that I'm afraid Krugman just can't approach

That pattern's there. As has been proven in at least two seperate threads, Krugman habitually dissembles on the subject of Bush, and he draws his preferred conclusion no matter, and often in spite of the evidence.

[xenophon41]

As has been proven in at least two seperate threads, Krugman habitually dissembles...

Scylla, that assertion has been made on several occasions, but it by no means has been proven. What's been shown is that Krugman has made occasional factual errors, most or at least many of which he's acknowledged and corrected in subsequent columns, something which cannot be said of Coulter. The instances where Krugman's conclusions differ from those held by his opponents, or where he's made characterizations with which his opponents disagree are not instances of dissembly.

[Scylla]

Originally posted by xenophon41

Scylla, that assertion has been made on several occasions, but it by no means has been proven. What's been shown is that Krugman has made occasional factual errors, most or at least many of which he's acknowledged and corrected in subsequent columns, something which cannot be said of Coulter. The instances where Krugman's conclusions differ from those held by his opponents, or where he's made characterizations with which his opponents disagree are not instances of dissembly.

Bullshit. Krugman is welcome to his opinion. However, he asserts it not as opinion but as fact, and supports it with a string of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications.

He does this habitually, and I've never seen him retract any of these lies.

He's a lying pundit, selling bullshit to people who want to believe.

Coulter works just the same way. People want to believe her shit.

They both give their audiences what they want. That's all.

You may see it differently.

[elucidator]

And from whom should we demand a higher level of veracity? If we are to insist upon complete truth from Mr. Krugman, how much should we demand from a man who seeks to lead us into war? You are quite forgiving of the Man Who Fell Up, going so far as to suggest that his political enemies are combing through his speeches for niggling errors of syntax and minor mistatements.

The President buttresses his demands for war and political advantage that borders on autonomy with allegations that vary from fudging the numbers to bald-faced lies. This is not leadership, this is snake oil. Venemous snake oil.

It would seem from your posts that you accept Dana Milbanks column as essentially factual, what you object to is Mr. Krugmans "spin" on those facts. The facts themselves are quite enough, if Krugman had said nothing at all, they would still be there.

If, as you suggest, Mr. Krugman "habitually dissembles" why does he not get the advantage of your generousity? Our Leader "habitually dissembles", does he not?

[Tejota]

Originally posted by Scylla
Bullshit. Krugman is welcome to his opinion. However, he asserts it not as opinion but as fact, and supports it with a string of falsehoods, misrepresentations, and outright fabrications.

Bullshit yourself sir. As much as you've tried to slander Krugman as a liar in various threads. You've never been able to demonstrate anything more than a couple of mistakes. None of which were central to Krugman's arguments, and as such, are unlikely to be deliberate lies.

I should also point out that you've spent a lot more time claiming to have "already proved" your point's re Krugman that you have actually making an argument. No doubt hoping that those hoping to be able to disbelieve Krugman will just take your word for it...

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Hey Scylla, stop using Krugman as a "straw man"

Seriously though, Scylla, the issue is not dishonesty, per se, but the MOTIVE for dishonesty, as well as the potential consequences of said dishonesty.

The fact that political columnists, on both sides, can be glib, parsimonious with the truth, capricious, hypocritical and sniping is all true enough. However these people are understood to be rhetorical free-agents, expressing their own opinions,for good or for ill. They are not purporting to provide the public with vital information, in an official capacity, to justify war.

I don't think that it is unreasonable to expect a much higher level of truth and integrity from our chief executive than from a political pundit.

The instances of dishonesty in previous administrations is also irrelevant to THIS discussion. The question is not "is GWB more or less honest than anyone else?" but "Is Bush presenting a DELIBERATELY false casus belli?"

*nitpick* (not to Scylla but to the USA Today excerpt)

The phrase "casus belli for war" is redundant "casus belli" means "occasion for war" you don't have to say "occasion for war for war." This is like saying "per se, by itself" or "et cetera and the rest."

*nitpick over*

[Scylla]

Argh. Long reply eaten.

To paraphrase my lost post:

Of course we hold Bush to a higher standard. I'm simply saying that Krugman is a fabricator on the subject of Bush, and therefore hw's worthless for establishing what level of dishonesty Bush is engaging in.

I responded to Elucidator's summary of Milbank's points in the OP. Noone has taken issue with my discussion of those points as of yet, and my conclusions follow from that.

Finally, I disagree with Milbanks' assertion that these are central to Bush's thesis. They are at best peipheral. Some of it's guilding the lilly and some of it is in the nature of extamporaneous comments.

The central theis is that Saddam has proven himself hostile and dangerous, and he is in violation of resolutions that he himself agreed to. Those resolutions need to be enforced for the general good, and Saddam as a threat needs to be neutralized.

The fact that there is large disagreement and no conclusive proof about exactly where Saddam stands re: WOMD is an argument in favor of action. Not knowing is inherently dangerous.

[ElvisL1ves]

No, Scylla, you have not pointed out anything at all that Krugman has "fabricated". There is a difference between spinning and lying. Bush has crossed it, frequently. So has Coulter. Krugman has not.

If you disagree with Krugman that a grip on the facts is vital to the decision to do the most important thing a government can do, then you're in a such a tiny and sorry minority that there is no kind word for it.

Milbank is one of many who has shown that the central facts are other than what Bush says, and that you parrot, and that you have not been able to disprove. We pride ourselves on use of facts and reasoning here. You would do well to try that yourself, before you join Bush in complicity for the wasted deaths of a number of American servicepersons yet to be determined.

For reference: The Complete Bushisms. ""There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, fool me once, shame on—shame on you. Fool me—you can't get fooled again."—Nashville, Tenn., Sept. 17, 2002

[elucidator]

Of course we hold Bush to a higher standard. I'm simply saying that Krugman is a fabricator on the subject of Bush, and therefore hw's worthless for establishing what level of dishonesty Bush is engaging in.

First sentence: quite rightly so. As to whether Krugman is a "fabricator", that is proven to your entire satisfaction. It is, nonetheless, irrelevent. If Bush tells 10 lies, and Krugman says its 20 lies, he is fabricating, perhaps, but it is no defense.

I responded to Elucidator's summary of Milbank's points in the OP. Noone has taken issue with my discussion of those points as of yet, and my conclusions follow from that.

Well, there was no call to "take issue", since you largely agreed that Milbanks assertions were true. I cannot help but notice the spin in point one: as if the issue were the "six months" estimate from the alleged report, in fact, said report did not exist. I would give a lot to know if the report existed in Our Leaders mind, or if he was, in fact, lying through his teeth.

In the first instance, he would have latched on to "evidence" and flouted it, without bothering to ask if it were true. Given the depth and number of White House staff available for such purpose, that seems hardly likely. On the other hand, if he was bullshitting, he must have believed he wouldn't get called on it. Also, hardly likely (thank God!). Point of fact, the media whores were, save for Mssrs. Milbank and Krugman, utterly supine.

As to being "peripheral", the Bushistas are admirably flexible on that point. One week, it is WMD, the next, no, the really important issue is nuclear arms, then it is non-compliance with UN resolutions, etc. Point of fact, of the litany of inexcusable sins on the part of Saddam bin Laden, each and every one has been called into question. You or I would certainly be distressed to be convicted of a crime on the basis of such evidence.

As to your last point, which I assume you regard as the central issue, it falls short. Unless, of course, you are asserting that our future policy should be to nuetralize and liquidate any conceivable threat, regardless of its imminence. Talk about "inherently dangerous"! We are not beloved of the nations, Scylla. It is difficult to imagine how a policy of pre-emptive war, which is utterly indistinguishable from aggressive war, is going to endear us.

[Scylla]

elucidator:

You got two things. The "six months" comment and "The Radiation detectors" comment.

The first has been corrected by the White House, and it seems that nobody has a clue as to what he was trying to say, or what he meant with the second comment.


The rest are nitpicks or ambiguous.

iirc correctly Only the first was made as a policy speech. The second was a pretty clear fuck-up while talking extemporaneously.


From this you draw your campaign of deceit?


Milbank is clearly partisan, but she seems to have written a pretty fair column. Clearly some of Bush's comments haven't been as accurate and unambiguous as they should be on these kind of important topics. As you say, she stops short of calling Bush a liar.

I imagine that she does so because the evidence does not support such a claim.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Let's presume for a moment that GWB has not deliberately lied or intentionally attempted to mislead the public about the threat of Iraq. Let's assume he is, on occasion, simply talking out of his ass without having a command of the facts, or a clear understanding of information which he, himself, has been given.

Is this any better than lying?

Is the public any better informed?

Does this still have the potential to stampede the public into an unwarranted "pre-emptive" invasion of an other country?

If Iraq is indeed the imminent threat that the WH would have us believe, then shouldn't all of W's handlers and babysitters be able to keep him armed with accurate information, make sure he understands it, and make sure that he knows precisely how to present it to the public?

If Iraq has the ability to hurt the US then why doesn't the president have a clear grasp of what those abilities are, and why can't he articulate them to us?

Is he a bald-faced liar, or is he an incomprehending nitwit drowning in a job which is clearly over his head?

Does it matter?

[elucidator]

Again with the "six months" already! Scylla, the report did not exist! Never happened! He did not misquote the bloody thing, it was not a distortion of a fact, it was not "spin", the report in question DID NOT EXIST! Did I mention that it didn't exist? Yes, I think I did. Well, it didn't. Exist, that is. "I'll take "Things That Don't Exist" for $600, Alex."

And then, pressed to the wall, the White House drags out this utterly lame bit of booshwa about how it was an "intelligence report" being quoted. That dog won't hunt. That dog won't even lick his balls, that dog is dead, rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, El Croako. Let us not forget the clinching quote: "I don't know what more proof you need".

Well, proof that actually exists. I won't accept anything less. Will you?

(cue sound track: The Who, Won't Get Fooled Again!)

[Scylla]

Elucidator:

No report? What about Iaea one of 1998 which says Iraq was 6-24 months away from the bomb before the gulf war?

Is that the report that doesn't exist?

Because seeing as you quoted from it, that would be surreal.


Diogenes:

Let's presume for a moment that GWB has not deliberately lied or intentionally attempted to mislead the public about the threat of Iraq. Let's assume he is, on occasion, simply talking out of his ass without having a command of the facts, or a clear understanding of information which he, himself, has been given.

Ok.

Is this any better than lying?

Yes. The President has to absorb a lot of information. He has to speak authoritatively extamporaneously on a wide variety of subjects. The nature of that suggests that he will occasionally speak in error. As the psychologist in Elucidator cite points out, this is pretty much par for the course. We've been over this a number of times.

Is the public any better informed?

Yes. Errors get caught and corrected.

Does this still have the potential to stampede the public into an unwarranted "pre-emptive" invasion of an other country?

Yes. Mistakes can be disastrous. Did you really not know that?

If Iraq is indeed the imminent threat that the WH would have us believe, then shouldn't all of W's handlers and babysitters be able to keep him armed with accurate information, make sure he understands it, and make sure that he knows precisely how to present it to the public?

No. We're talking about huge amounts of information. The mideast isn't a subject like 10th grade algebra that you can just understand completely. And, the President does have other responsibilities other than studying facts. The best that they can hope to accomplish is a generalized knowledge and some key specifics. There will be mistakes in the details. That's the nature of the thing.

If Iraq has the ability to hurt the US then why doesn't the president have a clear grasp of what those abilities are, and why can't he articulate them to us?

He does. His basic thesis is sound. his mistakes (and we have two of them. TWO) are in the details. Two mistakes is hardly a campaign of deceit or an example of uninformed incompetance.

Is he a bald-faced liar, or is he an incomprehending nitwit drowning in a job which is clearly over his head?

Have you stopped beating your wife yet, or are you still in denial?

[Scylla]

elucidator:

And then, pressed to the wall, the White House drags out this utterly lame bit of booshwa about how it was an "intelligence report" being quoted. That dog won't hunt. That dog won't even lick his balls, that dog is dead, rung down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible, El Croako.

So you're saying that the idea of the President seeing one report and confusing with another is impossible and that it is therefore a lie?

[elucidator]

No report? What about Iaea one of 1998 which says Iraq was 6-24 months away from the bomb before the gulf war?

Is that the report that doesn't exist?

Because seeing as you quoted from it, that would be surreal.

You're kidding right? You don't know? I have brought this up more than once, in fact, you participated in a thread on precisely this subject. Now, as to quotes, what quote of mine are referring to? Surely not the "six month" stuff. Shirley you know I am quoting you?

No way. No way you don't know that report is bogus. Got your faults, stupid isn't on the list.

Wait, let me check....slippery...mutter mutter mutter...arrogant..mutter mutter mutter... page 2...insuffficiently respectful of a clearly superior intelligence...mutter mutter...nope, not on the list. Read both pages, ain't there.

But this gem, ah, this is a chestnut!

So you're saying that the idea of the President seeing one report and confusing with another is impossible and that it is therefore a lie?

I'm going have to be careful here, metaphysics has always been a weak spot for me. The really big question: "What is everything, anyway?"

OK, got it now. Report A does not exist. Report B is reported to exist, but is not defined or revealed. Report B very well may not exist. So: is it impossible to confuse a report that does not exist with a report that may not exist?

Well, its obvious! That's impossible!

Wait a minute.......A does not exist, if B does not exist, they both don't exist, therefore they are identical, so you could easily confuse two things that are identical. Unless one of them doesn't exist. But essence precedes existence.....

No, I was right the first time. It is obvious.

[Scylla]

I see right through you.

If it didn't exist, how do you know he misquoted it?

If they both don't exist, how come their different, and how can you prove he didn't read it, and didn't quote it accurately.

Can you show me where in this report that doesn't exist it doesn't say Iraq is 6 months away from Nukes?

I didn't think so.


Thus your whole house of cards crumbles.

[The Ace of Swords]

Scylla is absolutely right:

When The President of the United States MAKES UP a report to push us into war, hey that could happen to anyone, right? Also, it's not true! And it happened months ago!

And when A political reporter for the NY Times MAKES MINOR FACTUAL ERRORS in his column, my goodness, he shouldn't even be reporting after that outrageous offense! This cannot stand! we need someone respectable and factual and hot like Ann Coulter!

Liberals, understand, you owe it to us to believe what the President says at all times, even when he contradicts himself; he was always right, he's just more right now! Those of you tilting windmills at Bush, give up -- unless Bush slips up and becomes a reporter for the NY Times, you cannot prove he is not simply uninformed, so you cannot possibly catch him a lie -- stop trying!