For post-modern posters, truth depends on who said it

This thread began with a quote from “the President” about the threat of Iraqi WMDs. Several posters attacked it. They said the quoted comment was:

– a lie
– ignoring intelligence contrary to his beliefs
– a lie to get us into war
– misleading
– misinformed
– repeating lies from top advisors
– reading from a script
– worse than lying about a blow job

The President quoted was President Bill Clinton. (Inadvertantly, the OP also included a quote was from Hillary Clinton that was attributed to “the President.”)

My thread was a parallel to Alan Sokal’s parody article published in the postmodern journal *Social Text *. Sokol submitted a scientifically silly article. The editors published it, because Sokol was a scientist and they liked his conclusions, not because the article made sense. The acceptance showed that the editors did not always make sound judgments on submitted articles.

My GD thread demonstrated that some posters will criticize the words of a Republican, but it’s OK with them when a Democrat says the same thing.

Did you expect differently from bi-partisan politics?

But don’t the Republicans claim everything Bill Clinton said was a lie? And don’t the Democrats say Iraqi WMDs are a lie? So… What’s the problem here? :wink:

I’d like to think we are critizing his actions, not his words.

criticizing

[sub]Must…type…slower[/sub]

Oh, you stinking liar. You’re almost as bad as Bush.

The quote is equally untrue whoever said it. If Bush says it, we get an extra frisson of disgust because we presume that he’s privy to the real story, that he gets unadulterated briefings from CIA and other intelligence bodies. When he says it, therefore, I presume he’s intentiaonally bullshitting. When Clinton says it, I presume he’s parroting bullshit he hears.

When Clinton attacked Sudan, I called bullshit.

Not all of us are as squawkingly partisan as you.
Daniel

I think december is expressing frustration with posters who are more interested in advancing the cause of their side than objectively gathering the facts and choosing the best course of action for the country. His relentless campaign against blind partisanism is, as usual, right on track.

Way to go, december!

I read the thread in question and think that I speak for many when I ask that you answer the question that was put to you by the administrator that locked the thread.

That said, I will offer you something to think about: Consider that the fact that you are completely partisan in your politics may have blinded you to the fact that others are capable of nuanced thought. Many of the folks that were against the Iraq wars 1.0 and 2.0 were also horrified when Clinton had his little bombing action (I would be among that number).

I really think that the issue at hand here is that you were at very best deceitful in the OP you cite and, IMHO, given how convenient your “inadvertand” mistake was, probably misquoting deliberately to fluff things. I may be a simple lad, but where I come from that is called lying.

Look, have all of the politics and beliefs that you want. Debate them. Refine and expand your beliefs. Many others here do, and are not as universally reviled as you are. Think about the contempt and lack of good faith and respect that you are showing for your fellow posters and ask yourself if this is a worth way to be.

:smiley:

I’m not fully aware of all the correct debating terms, but I think this:

is called “Bullshit”. The word “Fucking” may be involved somewhere, too.

I think that if you reflect on it long enough, you’ll find that your GD thread demonstrated a few things. Quite a few of them about you.

You know, when you trump up a quote from multiple sources, attribute it to “the president” and proceed to talk as if you’re referring to the current chief of state, your credibility goes out the window. Your “conclusions” are a crock predicated on the self-perceived moral rectitude of your own deceptions. The question asked was simply “Was the President lying or misleading us?” Trollish trickery aside, you got answers to the only honest portion of your OP. You’re lucky Gaudere is such a WIMP !

While I like the idea of copying Sokal’s “experiment”, and I suspect that you would, indeed, catch plenty of anti-Bush comments by doing so, it doesn’t seem to me that you’ve actually performed the experiment. When you say that:

…you’re clearly not quoting President Bill Clinton, who wasn’t in office after September 11 and, as far as I know, hasn’t made any statements linking al Qaeda to Iraq. Whence this quote? If you’ve made it appear to be by Bush by adding these elements, you can’t claim that it’s a Clinton quote.

You know, this actually interests me a bit. Let us suppose that we accept your conclusion here. Now, just for jollies, let us take the argument to a logical end. Would it not follow that the same could be said for Republicans; That they are, in fact, blind to the failings of their own and more that willing to be critical of the folks that are their opposite?

And at what point will you turn and look inward? Are we to believe that this failing is only a democratic one, and that the republicans and conservatives are somehow immune to it? Or, is it closer to the truth that this is a human failing, and that we tend to forgive more of those that we ideologically agree with?

Ultimately, what it comes to is this: When are you going to finally engage in an honest debate around here?

I just wonder what people like this expect. A signed “Thanks for defending our honor on the Internet” from President Bush? Everyone to go “Oooh, you got us! We guess you were right all along!”?

I apologize for having read my source article too hastily. This portion was a quote from Hillary Clinton, not Bill. If I had read the cite more carefully, I would would have omitted this portion of the quote or attributed it to a “close advisor of the President.”

december has simply demonstrated that (some) Republicans are not above bald-faced lying to advance their political goals. :rolleyes:

Well, except it didn’t. If you look at the thread, you’ll see that there were 13 posts after the revelation that the quotes were from the Clintons. Of those 13, three were justification by you for your actions, and 8 were criticisms of you for misattributing your source. Only 2 said anything about Clinton, and those posts said that even though Clinton did use rhetoric, he didn’t start a war.

Whatever. Admit it, december, you were trying to troll for responses.

How the hell do you know we wouldn’t have said the same thing had we known it was from Clinton, anyways?

:rolleyes:

You know it now.

DFTT