In a Pit thread, Psycho Pirate offered the following link as a cite that Al Franken is a Liar:
I thought that I would give my two cents on the validity of the claims on this website. For the record, I’m relatively liberal, and a big fan of Al Franken.
I’m going to restrict my comments to the factual content of the site, not its tone, etc.
The site offers 17 supposed lies in Al’s latest book, Lies, and the lying liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the right. I’ll go through them one by one.
#1: I’d like to know more facts about the situation (did Philippine intelligence operate entirely on their own?), but, assuming that US intellinence was involved somewhat, it’s a standard linguistic convention to say that “Clinton did XXX” when what is really meant is “elements of, and allies of, the US government, which is headed by Clinton, did XXX”. A minor quibble, assuming that there was some US involvement in the capture.
Even without any US involvement, I don’t think the language “Clinton thwarted them. Clinton thwarted them all” is making particularly specific claims about the precise actions taken by Clinton, although it’s obviously a bit disengenous. Some more context would be appreciated. Is this is an entire chapter about anti-terrorist successes during the Clinton years? Is “he thwarted them all” referring to more than just those 3 terrorists?
#2: What does Al claim, precisely? That these fliers were found. That appears to be true. Is it possible that the fliers are a hoax of some sort? Beats me. Again, a minor point, about one of a variety of pieces of circumstantial evidence being used to present a larger pattern. However, not a claim I dismiss out of hand. Do other dopers know more about this situation?
#2b: Irrelevant. Sure, there are scumbag democrats who are more or less on the same side of the political continuum as Al. What’s your point?
#3: <<Even salon.com, surely a Franken-friendly web site, has reported that the ad had “no provable ties to the Bush campaign” and "according to the official books, they had absolutely nothing to do with it."2>> Note the words “provable” and “official”. Sounds like salon.com is trying as it hard it can to say precisely the opposite. So the specific organization that produced the most famous negative attack ad of the past 20 years was not “officially” tied to the RNC. Who’s surprised by that? As for the specific claim about Roger Ailes, does anyone know if it’s generally considered to be true?
#4: This seems like a basically fair claim. Although note that Bill Clinton actually admits when he makes mistakes!
#5: Vague and meaningless. What, specifically, was Al lying about, if anything? The fact that the voting rolls needed to be reformed doesn’t prove that Al’s claim is false.
#6: Al was joking. Obviously.
#7: This is a rehash of #1
#8: What’s your point, precisely? A very minor quibble, at best. Certainly not a “lie”.
#9: Al is a humorist who enjoys satire. Satire and lying are two different things.
#10: There’s no purported lie here, as far as I can tell.
#11: What, precisely, is the purported lie here? I thought one of the most effective chapters in Al’s book was the hypothetical discussion between the two women about the Bush tax cuts and the actual impact they’ll have on poor people.
#12: So Al’s claim is a “lie” because he uses the word poverty to mean something which is technically defined as “extreme poverty”, not something which is technically defined as “poverty”. OK, you got him. And what’s with right-wingers constantly bringing up Clinton in irrelevant situations?
#13: This would be a more meaningful claim if we were told the context in which blogs were being cited. There are some situations in which citing blogs would be quite reasonable…
#14: What’s the lie, precisely? As far as I can tell, the claim being made here is that, sure, Al was right about what happened, but that Glick guy only got what was coming to him. Oh, and it seems clear to me (although this is totally irrelevant to whether Al lies) that Glick was using the word “alleged” as in “Al Qaeda are the alleged masterminds of 9/11” as opposed to “9/11 allegedly happened”.
#15: This is vague. Was there an article in the briefing with that title? Where did the title come from? More details would be nice… But again, if the CIA presents a document, it’s generally accepted to describe the report as being presented by the CIA director to the president, even if it’s some low level functionary who does the actual presentation of the document.
#16: This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees. Of course, Al isn’t claiming that there was an actual, literal, operation called “Operation Ignore”. Rather, he’s claiming that the Bush administration, pre-9/11, placed a very low emphasis on terrorism, both in an absolute sense, and compared to the Clinton years. Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
#17: This appears to be a legitimate claim.
OK, so my scorecard, based on the information I have at hand, reads:
One seemingly definitely legitimate claim: (#17)
One reasonably legitimate claim, although the language is a tad ambiguous, and I’d like more details: (#4)
A few situations in which, depending on the precise details, Al probably ought to have added a disclaimer of some sort (assuming, of course, that he didn’t add a disclaimer which the fine folks at frankenlies.com ignored). Certainly, I’d be interested in more precise and impartial information about all of these:
#1, #2, maybe #3, maybe #13, maybe #15, and (if you’re really really stretching) #12.
Thoughts?