Ignorance, War, Lies, and Fox News

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Fox is in a catch-22 with the casualty situation. The normal right-wing inclination is to sentimentalize, politicize and jingoize fallen soldiers. In this case, however, The White House doesn’t want those casualties humanaized because that might make people start to think that this illegal, ill-prepared train-wreck of an invasion is a bad thing. Fox, therefore, does what it can to de-emphasize American casualties and misdirect its audiences short attention spans to more productive topics…like wondering aloud if Wesley Clark ate Vietnamese children during the war. They’re not saying he did, mind you. They’re just asking the question…and here’s a guy who wrote a book to talk about it.

[John_Mace]

*Originally posted by jshore *
Nice try to divert our attention. But, the fact that they believe these incorrect “facts” in this case is correlated with the fact that our leaders and their supporters have consistently implied things that are not true or have used “bait and switch” techniques to sell the war on Iraq as the war on Al Quaida and so on. And, the media has done little to disabuse people of their ignorance.

The public is not ignorant by accident or neglect here…They are ignorant by design.

Give me a break. Somehow you’ve managed to come to the conclusion that Saddam was not behind the 9/11 atacks, that vast stockpiles of WMDs have not yet been found, and that large cheering crowds of Europeans were not urging their leaders to join the US and the British invasion of Iraq. Just how many pages and pages of newspaper did you have to wade thru to figure this out? How many countless hours weeding thu deceptive prose? How many blind alleys did you blunder into as devious reporters and fiendish politicians tricked you with false leads?

I never said it was an accident, but if the public is ignorant on the above subjects, it is through their own neglect.

[David_Simmons]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Florida recount study: Bush still wins.

Of course, I do not believe the mere presentation of ‘facts’ will change opinions of the hysterical ‘Gore shoulda won’ crowd. **

Of course, winning the electoral votes would mean that he won the election. However, it doesn’t mean that more people wanted GW than wanted Gore, since he still lost the popular vote.

As Ambrose Bierce wrote about the President, “A man of whom it is known, and known absolutely, that millions of his fellow countryment didn’t want him as their President.” In GW’s case more didn’t want him than didn’t want Gore.

And the study cited merely “suggests” that GW would still have won. It is pointed out in the caveats that there is no guarantee that the actual recount panel would have used the same criteria and come to the same conclusion as did the study panel.

All sorts of speculative “studies” can be done, but so what? The Supreme Court foreclosed any possibility of knowing what would really have happened.

[John_Mace]

WWW wrote:
See, Diogenes? You have to phrase it like a lawyer would: No loopholes, no wiggle room, no chances given.

Sorry, but the cite for your fact doesn’t seem to be working. Here, I’ll provide one for you:

CNN.com: Florida recount study: Bush still wins

[Weird_With_Words]

*Originally posted by Brutus *
**Florida recount study: Bush still wins.

Of course, I do not believe the mere presentation of ‘facts’ will change opinions of the hysterical ‘Gore shoulda won’ crowd. **

Tee hee! How I giggle with glee! I chortle with satisfaction! Oh, my stomach! It flutters in anticipation of the smackdown you so richly deserve, and I, of course, shall be oh so obliging in delivering said smackdown.

Remember that bit earlier where I was talking about Diogenes’ post and how I knew someone was gonna chomp down on it? Well, it’s the same thing with this one, only this time [movie trailer voiceover]It’s Intentional![/movie trailer voiceover]

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/112101a.html

(I’m using this link because the original Newsweek article requires you to pay 3 bucks)

A document, revealed by Newsweek, indicates that the Florida recount that was stopped last year by five Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court would have taken into account so-called “overvotes” that heavily favored Gore.

If those “overvotes” were counted, as now it appears they would have been, Gore would have carried Florida regardless of what standard of chad – dimpled, hanging, punched-through – was used in counting the so-called “undervotes,” according to an examination of those ballots by a group of leading news organizations.

[Bush] would have lost the key state of Florida and thus the presidency, if Florida’s authorities had been allowed to count the votes that met the state’s legal requirement of demonstrating the clear intent of the voter.

“If you would segregate ‘overvotes’ as you describe and indicate in your final report how many where you determined the clear intent of the voter,” wrote Judge Terry Lewis, who had been named by the Florida Supreme Court to oversee the statewide recount, “I will rule on the issue for all counties.”

The “overvotes” in which voters marked the name of their choice and also wrote in his name would be even more clearly legal votes than the so-called “undervotes” which were kicked out for failing to register a choice that could be read by voting machines.

But what’s even more relevant to my “recount florida” comment, is that there was one detail most people missed in the flood of articles headlining “Bush would have won”. Which was? Gore would have won the state if there had been a statewide recount (which was Gore’s initial request, but Bush refused) even if it were done under the most stringent guidelines.

Two paragraphs later, the Times noted that the examination of all rejected ballots “found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount. … The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ‘count all the votes.’”

Left out of that formulation, which suggests that Gore was a hypocrite, is the fact that Bush rejected Gore’s early proposal for a full statewide recount. Bush also waged a relentless campaign of obstruction that left no time for the state courts to address the equal-protection-under-the-law concerns raised by the U.S. Supreme Court in its final ruling on Dec. 12, 2000.

And for a nice bit of icing on the cake, re: your veiled assertion of NY Times’ liberal bias…

The New York Times, for instance, used the word “would” and even declarative statements when referring to Bush prevailing in hypothetical partial recounts. By contrast, the word “might” was used when mentioning that Gore topped Bush if all ballots were considered.

“A comprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots,” the Times wrote, “reveal that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward. Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United State Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore.”

Not exactly damning evidence, but I’d like to see you come up with better evidence in support of your lib bias belief. Incidentally, I can come up with more evidence of NY Times pro-bush/pro-war, and some of it is even pretty fuckin’ concrete. Go on. Challenge me.

Originally posted by Brutus:
Of course, I do not believe the mere presentation of ‘facts’ will change opinions of the hysterical ‘Gore shoulda won’ crowd.

I must concede this point, I am quite hysterical right now. I haven’t laughed this hard since… I haven’t laughed this hard. {wipes a tear} Whew. Y’know, when jshore paid me that compliment earlier, I thought my day had been made. My ego went sky-high. Well Brutus, you have shown that the sky is never truly the limit.

Thanks man. I just wish I could put you on speed-dial for any kind of bad-mood emergency.

[Weird_With_Words]

I should add that I wouldn’t have been able to find the justification to be so tickled if Brutus’ rebuttal hadn’t been so smugly snide.

Thanks again, man. I owe you one.

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Weird With Words *
…Challenge me.

No need. I readily concede that you are ‘challenged’, if you think that some rant from ‘consortiumnews’ counts as an actual and factual cite. I fully expect you to make your monthly Zmag-cite quota, however.

**

I must concede this point, I am quite hysterical right now. **

See, we can find something to agree on!

[Weird_With_Words]

As I mentioned above: Newsconsortium.com is not the cite, Newsweek is. I read the original Newsweek article years ago, but it’s in the archive now, so it would cost me $3 to check it and link it, then $3 for you to confirm my cite, unless I just quoted the whole story, which would be a crime.

But that’s okay, because those parts where they use quotations are quoted verbatim from the article. Secondly, the actual quote you rebutted was:

Hell, most Fox fans probably think Bush would have won the 2000 election if there’d been a recount of Florida’s votes.

Which is to say, if they had performed a recount for all of Florida. Well, NY Times and AP (not to mention virtually every other news organization except for CNN and Fox News) reported it thusly:

“[the Herald recount] found that Mr. Gore might have [which actually means “would have”, if you use the same standards by which they came to that conclusion for Bush] won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount. … The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to ‘count all the votes.’"

Now you could claim that I’m lying when I say I remember seeing this in the news articles and reports of the time (not to mention that beacon of truth, Newshour), and that ConsortiumNews.com was being outright fraudulent when they quoted them. But c’mon, are you really willing to go that far to stay in denial?

[Brutus]

*Originally posted by Weird With Words *
**…Now you could claim that I’m lying when I say I remember seeing this in the news articles and reports of the time (not to mention that beacon of truth, Newshour), and that ConsortiumNews.com was being outright fraudulent when they quoted them. But c’mon, are you really willing to go that far to stay in denial? **

There is no need to claim that you are lying. Your claims lack credibility on their own, and need no proding from me. I provide a cite from a reputable news source, you give a cite from some flunky leftist web page. Oh, and from your memory. I have little doubt that usual crowd of malcontents will hail your ‘cite(s)’ as pravda, but those interested in facts will note that you don’t actually provide any.

[Desmostylus]

The original Newsweek story can be found reprinted here.

[Weird_With_Words]

Well, I’ve been looking for a couple hours now, and I can’t find any free articles on the subject, except for CNN.

(BTW, your cite actually confirms much of what my cite claimed, specifically that Gore would’ve won if the overvotes where the intent was completely obvious [i.e., they filled in the whole for Gore, then wrote in his name as well] were counted.)

Anyway, it doesn’t matter, because I’ve found the most empirical source possible for my proof.

Go to this page: http://www.norc.uchicago.edu/fl/results/index.html

Download the tabulator, and you can see what the results would have been for yourself. That tabulator contains an account of each and every ballot in Florida, so of course it’s huge and slow. I’ve just programmed mine to run the statewide recount scenario, it’s been twenty minutes now and it’s only barely begun. So I guess I’ll have the results for you tomorrow. I’m sure you’ll be waiting with baited breath.

But this is turning into a runaway hijacking, so while I’m figuring this stuff out, why don’t you guys get back to making fun of Fox News?

[Latro]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**
By contrast, less than a quarter of those polled who had none of the misconceptions backed the war."
**

Excuse me but 25% of those that did not hold any of the three misconceptions were still quite willing to start a war of agression, with little international support and without an OK from the UN?

Is it just me or isn’t that a rather high percentage?

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Weird With Words *
**Well, I’ve been looking for a couple hours now, and I can’t find any free articles on the subject, except for CNN.

(BTW, your cite actually confirms much of what my cite claimed, specifically that Gore would’ve won if the overvotes where the intent was completely obvious [i.e., they filled in the whole for Gore, then wrote in his name as well] were counted.)**

Do you have some sort of reading comprehension problem? I gave you exactly what you were looking for.

[Desmostylus]

Oh, I see. The link’s broken. Fixed link to reprinted Newsweek story.

[Aro]

Is it just me or isn’t that a rather high percentage?

Latro, I think you are forgetting the obvious “Imminent threat” idea and “Saddam was evil and should be removed from power” scenario. Certainly the latter was a perfectly legitimate idea in itself which could lend itself to an individual supporting the war. (albeit it would lead to acting outside of International law and was not the given reason for the invasion).

But they could account for the 25% of support outwith the three ‘false reasons’ stated in the OP.

[Weird_With_Words]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**Oh, I see. The link’s broken. Fixed link to reprinted Newsweek story. **

Er, that and I was actually responding to Brutus. I just hadn’t refreshed the page before I posted. Sorry, my bad.

Thanks a whole friggin’ heap by the way, I was getting pretty frustrated trying to find something that I knew had to be out there somewhere.

Incidentally, it also confirms what I claimed to see way back when the first results came in:

“By one consortium count, a full statewide count of both undervotes and overvotes would have resulted in Gore winning by 171 votes.”

Ahhh. Sweet vindication. Now if only I still felt as giddy as I did four hours ago. Oh well, at least now I can go to bed.

And I’m sure when I come back tomorrow it’ll be to the sight of John Mace & Brutus falling all over eachother in the attempt to be the first one to admit that they were misinformed.

Well, I can dream, and I plan to soon.

Thanks again, Desmo, you da man.

[Latro]

Latro, I think you are forgetting the obvious “Imminent threat” idea and “Saddam was evil and should be removed from power” scenario.

Hmm, yes you’re right.
Not holding those 3 misconceptions doesn’t mean they didn’t hold any misconceptions.
Who, at that time, could expect that they were being lied to that blatantly. By the president of the United States of all people.
I admit that I fell for it. I fully believed there would be at least some chemical weapons there. Though I didn’t see how that translated into an “immediate threat”.

[PatriotX]

To the Pit?

[elucidator]

I’ve heard it bandied about that many of our younger citizens derive the largest part of thier news intake from John Stewart and the Daily Show. A pity that the poll didn’t take that into account.

The Truth is mighty and will always prevail. There’s nothing wrong with that, except that it just ain’t so.

• Mark Twain

[smiling_bandit]

were evenly split between supporting and opposing it

Actually, this is probably true, although it might be more accurate to state that people in foreign countries didn’t care one way or another. It was only an issue among a very small number of countries.

BTW: Paris must be destroyed.

Apologies to Cicero.