# New McCain Doctrine: Preemptive lying **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 20, 2008, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405 "2008-09-20T05:06:49Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/61 "2008-09-20T13:57:31Z")
> [@askeptic](#): > > Yeah because Lieberman is such a breath of fresh air… I meant actual independents. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/62 "2008-09-20T14:15:15Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > This is fuckin’ hilarious. McCain is fucking up royally, and all you have to defend him is the technicality of what a lie is. We’re right back to “Bush didn’t _know_ he was giving us false information.” It lets you defend your boy while not having to acknowledge the fact that he has fucked up royally in a way that should not be overlooked by a decent person. I find it despicable. > > It’s hard to say that it was a lie, true. What it was was McCain putting words in Obama’s mouth. It’s a falsehood, it’s a pre-emptive strawman, and damn near teeters on slander. Can you at least acknowledge that at best this was a gaffe and at worst it was a real and true fuck-up? > > I’m so goddamned sick of the _bullshit_. I can abide by twisting words, although it’s still wrong, but making shit up out of whole cloth is fucked UP. You, sir, are a fucking idiot. Let met count the ways: 1. I was not defending McCain. 2. McCain is not “my boy.” 3. And then, after all that, you actually agreed with what I said. Jesus. 4. I’ve already acknowledged that. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/63 "2008-09-20T14:35:20Z")
This is pretty standard SDMB stuff, ISTM. McCain’s camp is lying. How do we know? Because it is an absolute given that McCain’s camp could not possibly have heard what they said they did. Why is that? Because they said they heard it, and we all know they’re liars. How do we know they’re liars? Didn’t you hear me? I just told you the lie they spread about hearing what Obama was planning to say. (Repeat until everyone tires of the thread or until the election is over, whichever comes first.) Rand Rover is absolutely right. You want to deride the preemptive statement, before Obama actually said it as a poor strategy? Fine. That doesn’t by definition make it a lie. Diogenes, by the way, the fact that Obama didn’t ultimately say it does not by definition turn this into a lie. That just doesn’t make sense. It’s a minor point, and it makes people apoplectic, absolutely refusing to make the most minor concession to common-sense semantics. I have never seen a board like this, with such a propensity to rage at the “lies” one sees from the opponent, but an absolute blind eye for any misstatement from one’s own guy. It’s really pretty amusing. ---
**Author:** ![George\_Kaplin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/3e96dc/32.png) [@George\_Kaplin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/George_Kaplin)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/64 "2008-09-20T15:01:29Z")
Serious question: If ‘lie’ is too strong a word, would ‘fantasy’ suffice? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/65 "2008-09-20T15:17:32Z")
Was that really a serious question? OK, I’ll assume it is. No, it is equally an unsupported supposition that does not, by simply saying it, rule out the possibility that the McCain camp actually heard what they said they did. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/66 "2008-09-20T15:21:21Z")
Heard it from who? If they’re going to claim they “heard” it, they have a responsibility to say who they heard it from. If not, then this becomes a game where one side can say anything it wants about the other as long as it uses the magic words, “we heard…” ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Svinlesha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/22d042/32.png) [@Mr.Svinlesha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Svinlesha)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/67 "2008-09-20T15:23:18Z")
**Stratocaster:** Let me ask a simple question: do you have any evidence that the McCain camp “heard” what they claimed to have heard? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/68 "2008-09-20T15:37:45Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Heard it from who? > > If they’re going to claim they “heard” it, they have a responsibility to say who they heard it from. If not, then this becomes a game where one side can say anything it wants about the other as long as it uses the magic words, “we heard…” I don’t know who they heard it from. If they’re protecting a source of info, why would they reveal the person’s name? And you’re right that a liar might use such a ruse to obscure his lie. That is NOT the same as saying that anyone who says they heard something is lying. Mr. Svinlesha, the answer is no. So if I can only say that I assume it is true, or that I don’t know for certain. I would be wrong to assert it _must_ be true. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/69 "2008-09-20T15:39:25Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You, sir, are a fucking idiot. Let met count the ways: > > 1. I was not defending McCain. > 2. McCain is not “my boy.” > 3. And then, after all that, you actually agreed with what I said. Jesus. > 4. I’ve already acknowledged that. So you’re not partisan, **Rand Rover** , you’re merely a nitpicking pedant. Gotcha. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/70 "2008-09-20T15:47:44Z")
> [@Sampiro](#): > > Yes, but it should be remembered that Obama chooses the words McCain puts in his mouth very carefully. Best comment ever. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/71 "2008-09-20T15:48:51Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > I don’t know who they heard it from. If they’re protecting a source of info, why would they reveal the person’s name? And you’re right that a liar might use such a ruse to obscure his lie. That is NOT the same as saying that anyone who says they heard something is lying. > > Mr. Svinlesha, the answer is no. So if I can only say that I assume it is true, or that I don’t know for certain. I would be wrong to assert it _must_ be true. You’ve hit the nail on the head here **Stratocaster**. And ironically you’ve also explained why we really should shout LIAR! from the rooftops. It’s because this “shading of the truth” has been the modus operandi for far, far too long. Politicians count on the public and/or media “assuming it must be true”. - “well, we don’t know for certain”, they’ll say… “better report both sides”. NO! We must start calling them LIARS! I’m really sorry if this offends pedantic nitpickers, but you’ve gotta break some eggs to make an elitist egg white omelette with gruyere cheese. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/72 "2008-09-20T15:54:27Z")
Euphonious, you’re making my point. If it’s possible they’re lying, we should call them liars–is that about right? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/73 "2008-09-20T15:55:13Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The lie is accusing Obama of “planning” to say something he wasn’t planning to say. Is it really supposed to be meaningful to weasel it by saying “well that’s what we _heard_?” Heard from who? Madame Cleo? ---
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/74 "2008-09-20T15:56:05Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You’re just saying the same thing in different words. You still have to show that McCain did indeed “make an accusation he did not know to be true.” > > Look, McCain didn’t lie. But what he did do was pretty weird (i.e., responding to something that Obama hadn’t even said yet). Why not just get mad at that? Why do you have to say it’s a “lie”? Or he might have waited until Obama actually said something before trying to cover the little turd he left on the campaign trail. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/75 "2008-09-20T15:58:42Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > You, sir, are confused about what a “lie” is. It is making a statement one knows to be false, or making a statement one has no good reason to believe to be true with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. For instance, the statement “ **Rand Rover** is an embezzler” would be an example of a lie of the latter type, as is the statement under discussion in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/76 "2008-09-20T15:59:19Z")
If I had it to do again, I would change my thread title to “preemptive outrage” and avoid the semantic quibbling overwhether it was a “lie.” So let me just change the definition of the McCain doctrine to “preemptive outrage” now. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/77 "2008-09-20T16:04:11Z")
Well, now that you put it that way, yeah, I agree, what a dick. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/78 "2008-09-20T16:05:58Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Was that really a serious question? OK, I’ll assume it is. No, it is equally an unsupported supposition that does not, by simply saying it, rule out the possibility that the McCain camp actually heard what they said they did. So, since you can’t rule out the possibility that I heard somebody say “ **Stratocaster** goes around sniffing little girls’ bicycle seats”, then I have free license to say “I heard that **Stratocaster** goes around sniffing little girls’ bicycle seats”? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/79 "2008-09-20T16:06:36Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Euphonious, you’re making my point. If it’s possible they’re lying, we should call them liars–is that about right? I would say that if it is highly likely they are lying, we should call them liars. In this particular case, I believe it is extremely likely that McCain’s camp were lying - that is, they knew for an absolute fact that Obama was not going to say any such thing, but they planned on sticking their comment out there because they knew that a non-discerning media just prints what they are given. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [September 20, 2008, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405/80 "2008-09-20T16:10:48Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > Euphonious, you’re making my point. If it’s possible they’re lying, we should call them liars–is that about right? Why not? They claimed they’d “heard” it somewhere. Where? Tell us. Why was it even necessary to claim that they had a mystery source? A simple “Should Obama’s campaign choose to distort this event…” would have sufficed. If McCain wants to put words in Obama’s mouth, he should be prepared to give citations. If the last administration should have taught us anything, it’s that these sorts of claims should never be taken at face value. When Obama’s campaign steps up and claims “they’ve heard” that McCain is going to accuse him of being a secret mime, people should respond the same way. “You lie, Obama campaign. You lie so bad with your magic psychic future vision.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-mccain-doctrine-preemptive-lying/464405.md?page=5)