I’m not Avenger, but the reason is that everyone else in the universe understands that they meant in the period immediately preceding the war. Since everyone understands that, except you, no tags specifiying that time frame are needed.
Very, very, flimsy, especially considering the OP was much more misleading than any of the comments it is whining about.
Have you ever heard of context? It is obvious what the both the DNC and Gobear were saying and it certainly is not what your claiming and nneither are they being misleading as what is meant is obvious from the context. You accuse Avenger of playing semantic games, yet your whole argument is based on semantics!
*they are not being misleading… :smack:
I am!
Doesn’t say who ‘he’ is either. I’m assuming it to be George W Bush. That would be your first indication of context.
You really see no indication of context there indicating that the charge was in relation to claims made before the invasion of Iraq?
Now I would like a cite for your assertion that the GOP when ‘insisting that Saddam had WMDs’ as Gobear said were not speaking in the present tense.
Replace that last sentence with “Here is a very excellent one.” and I think you’ve got it.
In both cases, since the reference is to George Bush’s presidency, the implied time frame is “since January 2001”.
What’s this now, a Pit thread?
I understand what they’re saying and doing. Don’t feed me the “context” line, either. The voters they’re trying to influence don’t follow the news that closely. Try going out on the street and talking to voters of average intelligence. Ask them if Iraq ever had WMD. I’ve tried this experiment, and a large number of Democrats say that no, Iraq never had them. That’s what the newspapers say and that’s what they saw on TV. Why are they saying this? Because ads like the one I cited are intentionally misleading.
I know what context is. Your average man on the street, though, picks up a 30-second soundbite that says “There were no weapons of mass destruction” and doesn’t go looking for context. This is a way to manipulate voters through partial information.
Are you (and Neurotik and Complex Conjugate and Avenger) simply excusing this because you agree with it, or do you really feel it’s okay?
Bottom line is this: There were WMD in Iraq in 1989. There are no WMD in Iraq today. There probably weren’t when we invaded.
Why is it different for the DNC to say “There were no WMD” than for Bush to say “There were WMD”? Both are correct, but both are highly misleading because they don’t include the context or justification.
I’ll go with your logic then. The DNC should definitely pull the ad. And replace it with one stating that the President has wooden teeth.
Since most people understand completely what was meant due to their grasp of the concepts of context and inference, yes, it’s OK.
The text I typed was the voiceover laid over a picture of GWB. That creates pretty obvious context.
I never said I didn’t see it, Avenger. You’re missing my point entirely. It’s like misleading charts in the newspaper that don’t base out at zero. I know the trick, you know the trick, and we both see through it. But we both admit it’s a trick and they’re trying to mislead people. Don’t you see the trick here?
I made no such assertion. I haven’t said a bloody thing about the GOP.
Invisble Wombat, has anyone been mislead by this? I highly doubt it becasue quite frankly, to read it any other way you’d have to either be exteremly obtuse, menatlly impaired or isolated from civilization for the last few years.
Cite?
I’d love to see a cite from any reputable source (i.e. something more comprehensive than a random bunch of people you approached on the street) showing that a majority of Democrats believe that Saddam Hussein’s regime never possessed weapons of mass destruction. Or a majority of literate adult humans, even.
The plural of “anecdote” isn’t “data”.
Try my experiment. Not with your politically-aware friends. Try it with 18-year olds. Try it with Grandma. Try it with the math-impaired folks buying lottery tickets at the 7-11. See what you find. I asked a bunch of people, and there are a lot of them that clearly believe there never were any WMD in Iraq. I ask the ones who say that about Chemical Ali, and they’ve never heard of him.
I think the question in my OP was answered. You clearly believe that this is okay because it will help to achieve the political result you’re after (and you are making the mistake of overestimating the intelligence of the masses).
Honestly, if someone said, “Did President Bush ever get arrested for DUI,” would you consider it okay to say “no,” because he wasn’t President Bush when it happened? Of course not. You’d throw a fit because that’s a misleading answer, using exactly the same technique you’re defending here.
One thing to keep in mind is that, unlike a gun, biological and chemical weapons have a limited shelf life.
That is, even if you had 10,000 tons of biochem nastiness in 1990, and stored it under ideal conditions, you’d end up with 10,000 tons of harmless sludge by 1995.
Hence the emphasis on time frames.
No. It’s just that your apparent inability to tell the difference between the past or present tense makes you look like an idiot. I’m sure it’s all a big mistake.
Well, I am skeptical. Sure, there might be a few ignorant people who believe this but I doubt there are many. And, to be honest, you haven’t really impressed me with your careful statements here to the point where I believe that you asked the question correctly, using “ever” and emphasizing the word.
Cites to where they said Saddam “never” had WMD. People understand in context that when the argument is that this administration claimed he had WMD and now it turns out he didn’t, it refers to the period immediately before the war.
Oh, the irony is rich here! There are polls showing that a substantial number of people believe manifestly false things just because of the way they have been manipulated…People who believe there is a direct connection between the 9/11 attacks and Saddam, for example, and you are worried about this? Come on!!!
You have yet to demonstrate either that
(a) those people who say “there were no WMD” when they more precisely mean “there were no WMD at the time of the invastion” are intentionally trying to mislead
OR
(b) there are really a significant number of people who believe as a result of hearing this that Saddam never in the past had WMD.
You’ve made some vague claim on the latter but, to be honest, I have seen no clear evidence of that and I’m not about to take your word on it based on some very unscientific poll that you claim to have conducted.
Besides which, one could also argue that, if anything, the reports regarding Saddam and WMD are still being exaggerated. For example, the report released claims, and the media has reported, that Saddam had the intent of reconstituting his WMD programs once sanctions were lifted. Now, this may in fact be true but the evidence for it apparently isn’t that strong. It is always hard to know someone’s intentions and they even admit that there is no written evidence of this. So, they are apparently relying on discussions with people in the Iraqi government who say that this seemed to be Saddam’s intentions for the future.
As someone else pointed out in another thread, the most spectacular remaining claim (of intent) has essentially no hard evidence to support it, while all the other claims (such as the lack of any WMD at the time of the invasion) seem to be on firmer ground.
[Moderator Hat ON]
This is NOT a Pit thread, so anyone wanting to talk about someone being “obtuse” or an idiot will not do so here. Understood?
[Moderator Hat OFF]
I thought I added the necessary qualifiers, but thanks.