# SDMB - Fair and Balanced ? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 29, 2005, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353 "2005-06-29T13:25:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/141 "2005-06-29T20:52:45Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > Anyhow, on the question of “did Bush lie”, I think that you guys who are arguing with **Bricker** about it are, bluntly, being a bit silly. So Bush got up in front of the nation and said that a whole bunch of things were true, and that because of them, we should go to war. So we went to war. Now it turns out that those things weren’t true. … > > Before the war, Rumsfeld said (this is close to a precise quote) “I can’t tell you how long the war will be… 6 days, 6 weeks, I don’t think as long as 6 months”. We should trumpet this quote from the rooftops, but NOT because it proves he’s a liar, because it proves he, and the administration as a whole, were criminally unprepared for this war. If I remember correctly, one of the oh so many “selling points” for the war was that it would be short, decisive and inexpensive (fought on the cheap). It sure hasn’t turned out that way. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/142 "2005-06-29T20:56:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Assuming “criminally” is meant as hyperbole for “really, really, REALLY” and not that Rumsfeld factually committed any violations of law. True. In the same sense that I would say “the fact that so many hundreds of brave young Americans have died for no clear purpose based on faulty information from an administration that refuses to ever admit its own mistakes is a f\*\*\*ing crime”, without actually being able to tell you what specific part of the criminal code has been violated. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/143 "2005-06-29T21:05:06Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > No. > It was known **then** that they weren’t true. That’s the point. Bush had our intel agencies telling him that the claims of Iraqi exiles were false. He knew, _while he was making the statements_, that they were not true. Except that he also did have parts of our intelligence agencies telling him (incorrectly) that there were WMDs. My point is, if someone has 4 people telling them A and 2 people telling them not-A, and he gets up and say “I am quite sure that A is true”, and then it later turns out that not-A is true, is he a LIAR? And do we know that it was Bush, specifically, as opposed to nefarious aides, speechwriters, handlers, etc., who specifically chose to include particular pieces of information? If 3 people in the administration know that a particular fact is wrong, but they don’t communicate that knowledge well to others, and that “fact” ends up in a Bush speech, is that a LIE? Ignoring evidence that contradicts what you believe is stupid and shortsighted and illogical, but it’s not lying. Suppressing evidence that contradicts what you believe is stupid, shortsighted, illogical, and a betrayal of logic and reason. Doing the above while you’re president magnifies the importance 1000-fold, and doing it while starting a war magnifies the importance yet again. BUT, that doesn’t mean that you didn’t honestly believe it in the first place, it just means that you’re a blind, willful, arrogant, idiot. > [@](#): > > Naw, that factors into Bush’s presidency, but does not directly go to proving that he lied. The other facts, however, do. But, given that **Bricker** is a reasonable enough person that he has admitted that the Bush administration was criminally unprepared for the war, and thus demonstrates that he is willing to use reason and truth in this discussion, mightn’t we be better off discussing other actual issues, rather than going back on forth on what “liar” means? (Of course, who am I to talk? I’ve spent all this effort typing up a post that’s not just a discussion of whether Bush lied, but a discussion of a DISCUSSION of whether Bush lied 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/144 "2005-06-29T21:07:59Z")
> [@boofu](#): > > As a decidely undecided person politics-wise, I see almost nothing from ANY side that would make me want to align myself with them, exclusively. It seems like you are either Democrat/left or Republican/right (there are those libertarian nut-jobs 🙂 ). I think I will sit it out with the internationals. So, what do you think of all the really dire accusations that have been leveled against Bush, for instance, gee, oh, I dunno, he led us into war under false pretenses? Given that you seem to think that both sides are equivalent, you presumably either (a) think that claim is false, (b) think it’s no big deal, or (c) think that liberals have done something equally destructive. Which is it? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/145 "2005-06-29T21:13:42Z")
A reading from the Book of [del]Croaker[/del] Cecil: In those days the Company was in service to the eradication of ignorance. Cecil said that it’s impossible to know fact unless all evidence is weighed–or at least most of it. Making a decision without all the facts is as dangerous as making a decision with no facts. Even if it seems a small piece of evidence, it must still be thrown into the pot–only then can a reasonable conslusion be drawn. And yet, it’s difficult to know when to stop gathering evidence. Thus we approved by acclamation the Cecilian Paradox: “Keep an open mind.” Here ends the reading. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/146 "2005-06-29T21:15:43Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > But then there’s no “Debate” in Great Debates if all agree. Well, quite, and I certainly don’t wish to stifle debate; my point is solely that the _mere appearance of bias_ doesn’t necessarily mean that the bias is indeed present, or if present, unreasonable or unfair. The above may or may not be applicable in the case of apparent left-leaning bias on the SDMB, but I still say that as a general principle, _bias, or the appearance thereof, is not necessarily automatically bad_. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/147 "2005-06-29T21:18:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What I suspect is happening is that we are seeing the evolution of a meme on the SDMB. > > Bush, as you say, describes Iraq as part of the global war on terror. As he did previously with North Korea and other members of the Axis of Evil. But, in his speech, he makes the distinction among the various groups who form the other side (who I referred to earlier as Islamo-fascists). > > But that part - the distinction - doesn’t register with the SDMB - not very well, anyway. > > What seems to be happening is that we are evolving a meaning from Bush’s speech that leaves out the parts that nobody likes. And, since contrasting voices are less common on the SDMB, and since the Usual Suspects have so strong an interest in shouting down those voices in favor of the general chant of “BUSHLIED! BUSHLIED!” that seems to form the basis of much political thought, the meaning of Bush’s speech gets shoved pretty hard along the route of what the Usual Suspects want to believe all along. I have no doubt that in six months, or perhaps six minutes 🙂 , someone will be posting as if Bush’s speech said specifically “We all know that Saddam plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks”. And getting a chorus of general approval and agreement along the way - and Pitting anyone who dares to dissent. You lost me completely… ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/148 "2005-06-29T21:28:38Z")
He made the claim that the situation with Bush is not so simplistic as people claim it is. However, liberals’ view of the situation is incredably simplistic. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Plaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/258eb7/32.png) [@Scott\_Plaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Plaid)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/149 "2005-06-29T21:29:47Z")
“Liberals”, the group, not the person, that is. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/150 "2005-06-29T21:35:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > I have no doubt that in six months, or perhaps six minutes 🙂 , someone will be posting as if Bush’s speech said specifically “We all know that Saddam plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks”. And getting a chorus of general approval and agreement along the way - and Pitting anyone who dares to dissent. Do you have an example of something that happened 6 months ago about which there is now unanimous and wrongheaded consensus among bleating SDMB liberals? Also, if in six months someone posts that Bush’s speech made NO link whatsoever between Iraq and 9/11, that sure as heck won’t be true. > [@](#): > > Consider what happened during the last campaign. Here on the SDMB it was like Pauline Kael’s famous line about the Nixon election - “How could he have won? No one I know voted for him.” In much the same way, more than one Doper was convinced that it was going to be a ringing Kerry victory, because they had closed themselves off from any arguments to the contrary. They were convinced they were unassailably, obviously, unarguably correct. You’re conflating two things. Most anti-Bush people, including myself, are absolutely positively convinced that Bush is a terrible president, this will go down in history as a disastrous 8 years for America, etc. Being convinced of that and being convinced that we will win an election are two very different things. And losing an election doesn’t in any way prove we’re WRONG, just that our views weren’t shared by a majority. > [@](#): > > And then along came the election, and yanked the rug out from under them. Which I suspect accounts largely for the intense need to cling to rather far-fetched suspicions about election fraud and Karl Rove with such touching faith. When was the last time you heard anyone even quasi-seriously mention election fraud? Given the bad memories from 2000, and given the early exit polling that tended to lean towards Kerry, things seemed suspicious to begin with, and people were angry and confused and upset, but… they got over it. > [@](#): > > And the determination of many to deny that the Democratic party is doing _anything_ that needs changing. No, darn it - we are **right!right!right!** Again, you are conflating two things. I’m absolutely convinced that Gore would have been a better president than Bush, that Kerry would have been a better president than Bush, and that the country would be generally far better off right now if democracts had been in control for the past 5 years instead of republicans. And yes, I’m certain I’m rightrightright about that. Why wouldn’t I be? Isn’t that what having opinions is? But that doesn’t mean I don’t think the democratic party is doing anything that needs changing. Of COURSE we are doing things that need changing, we’re getting our asses kicked. Republicans, at least recently, have been WAY better at politics than Democrats. Thus, their extraordinarily narrow victories in the past two presidential elections don’t necessarily prove that Republican positions are preferred by voters, all other things equal. And they CERTAINLY don’t prove that Republican positions are BETTER. (Nor, of course, do they prove the opposite). You seem to believe that the results of the election have proven something, and that we liberals are all in denial. As in, “well, back in 2003, there was legitimate debate about whether the war was right, but now there was an election, so we KNOW the war was right and Bush didn’t lie, but those damn liberals just don’t get it!” And that’s just silly. The results of the election proved precisely one thing: very slightly more Americans voted for Bush than for Kerry that day. > [@](#): > > And the only possible explanation for losing the election - again - cannot possibly be anything except cheating, or unfair election laws, or racism, or dirty campaigning, or something that doesn’t mean we have to take our opposition and its arguements seriously. I’d say the rather large number of people civilly discussing this and other political issues here means that we DO take our opposition and its arguments seriously. Yes, it’s easy and tempting to cry foul in various ways. Heck, I’d bet very big money that at least SOMETHING dishonest happened SOMEWHERE in that election, if only because people can be dishonest. Certainly, the Democratic party doesn’t have a history of sainthood when it comes to elections. But, honestly, what should the reaction be? Particuarly on issues where there’s not really any middle ground, if I truly believe X, and argue for X, and you truly believe Y, and argue for Y, and then 100 people vote, and 48 agree with me and 52 agree with you, should I then retire to a cave for a period of soul-searching? Should I pretend that I don’t believe X? Should I just give up in the face of your overwhelming support? > [@](#): > > And they tend to interpret any post that does not attack Bush as one that comes from someone who is not reasonable. Pretty much by definition. Plenty of reasonable people support Bush. Any implication otherwise (ie, “what? you said something nice about Bush? you must be an idiot/stooge/dupe/racist/fascist”) is ungrounded, insulting, unfair, untrue, and really does do harm to the SDMB. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/151 "2005-06-29T21:35:48Z")
I don’t think thats what Shodan was saying. I read it that they are interpereting Bush’s statements through their own filters and prejudices, and then by repeating their interperatation on this board, it becomes ‘fact’. -XT ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/152 "2005-06-29T21:39:46Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t think thats what Shodan was saying. I read it that they are interpereting Bush’s statements through their own **filters** and prejudices, and then by repeating their interperatation on this board, it becomes **‘fact’**. Back to that again. ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/153 "2005-06-29T21:41:05Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > Well, quite, and I certainly don’t wish to stifle debate; my point is solely that the _mere appearance of bias_ doesn’t necessarily mean that the bias is indeed present, or if present, unreasonable or unfair. > > The above may or may not be applicable in the case of apparent left-leaning bias on the SDMB, but I still say that as a general principle, _bias, or the appearance thereof, is not necessarily automatically bad_. I want to reempasize this point. There have been times in America’s past when there was legitimate debate among honest, intelligent, patriotic people about controversial issues, and then slowly the pendulum swung, and one of those positions is now viewed as totally wrongheaded. Imagine a version of the SDMB in the late 1940’s, with a discussion of integration, miscegenation etc. To begin with, there would probably be well meaning, intelligent people arguing on both sides. Then as society shifted and the pendulum swung, the anti-integration side would have started getting smaller and smaller. At some point, they would have been saying exactly the same thing that the conservatives here today are saying, “this board is left-leaning”, “I’m sick of getting piled on”, etc. Which doesn’t, of course, prove that this situation is in any way comparable. But we don’t know that it’s NOT comparable, either, and won’t for 40 or 50 years. It’s certainly not prima facie ridiculous to think that at least some of the overwhelming anti-Bush bias is, bluntly, because that side is RIGHT. ---
**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:** [June 29, 2005, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/154 "2005-06-29T22:07:28Z")
**bordelon** : > [@](#): > > - See, **Finn** – here’s why my tack is not a tangent to the thread. > > We have here a clear demonstration that **Mr. Svinlesha** and **Bricker** have differing views on “truth” … on what is “convincing”. > > If people can’t even agree on that kind of stuff, then any debate is dead before it starts. This leads to birds of a feather flocking together, ad hominem attacks (when fair-game debate proves ineffective), pile-ons, etc.\* ? This is obviously, and with all due respect rather trivally, the case. I’m asking **Bricker** what he considers to be “convincing” so that I might better meet his standards. As long as his standards seem reasonable to me, then I’ll do what I can to meet them. If they seem unreasonable, I can argue why they seem that way to me, or simply give up the debate. Generally speaking, I don’t debate walls; but I also don’t think **Bricker’s** a wall, despite the connotations of his username. If you wish to continue this line of argument, I think you should start a thread on epistemology instead. For the sake of this discussion let us assume that our views on truth and so forth are at least congruent enough to permit communication despite our ideological differences. **John** : > [@](#): > > - The claim was that Bush knew Saddam didn’t have WMDs, not that he didn’t know if Saddam had WMDs. Two very different things. Is there any significant evidence that Bush knew no WMDs existed? That seems like quite a stretch to me.\* Yeah, I don’t agree with **Finn’s** formulation myself. I don’t think anyone knew with much certainty what we would find in Iraq after the invasion, including the Bush administration. The lie was the assertion that we _did_ know, with 100% certainty, when in fact, we were only guessing; that Bush and his cronies stated – and continue to state – _as fact_, assertions that they knew, without doubt, to be dubious speculation. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/155 "2005-06-29T22:18:32Z")
[http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/bush.intl/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/bush.intl/index.html) > [@CNN](#): > > (CNN) – Critics of the U.S. war in Iraq have condemned President George W. Bush for attempting to link the insurgency there with the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington. > In a televised address marking a year since the U.S. handover of sovereignty in Iraq, Bush urged Americans not to “forget the lessons of September 11.” > > He also pledged that American troops would stay in Iraq until their job was done and that the U.S. would not “yield the future of the Middle East” to Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda terror network. > > In a bid to shore up flagging domestic support for the war, Bush said the war against terror had “reached our shores” on September 11 and that sacrifices in Iraq were “vital to the future security of our country.” > > And in Britain, Lynne Jones, a lawmaker in Prime Minister Tony Blair’s ruling Labour Party, said any attempt to suggest that Iraq was a response to the September 11 attacks was “absolute nonsense.” > “There is absolutely no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda,” she said. > “What they have ensured, in invading Iraq, is they have actually promoted al Qaeda’s involvement in other countries, including Iraq.” > British MP George Galloway, who was expelled from Labour over his criticism of the war, said, "The truth is, as everyone can see, that Zarqawi and the other extremist formations that have sprouted in Iraq are the result of the invasion, not the reason for it. > > Gergen pointed out that Bush never used the term “insurgent,” referring to them instead as “terrorists.” > “(September 11) has been all along his trump card,” Gergen said. “He played it in the campaign; he’s playing it again now.” > > Sen. John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who ran for president against Bush last year, told CNN’s “Larry King Live” that the speech offered a third rationale for the war in Iraq. > “The first, of course, was weapons of mass destruction. The second was democracy, and now, tonight, it’s to combat the hotbed of terrorism,” he said. “But most Americans are aware that the hotbed of terrorism never existed in Iraq until we got there.” [http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/politics/main704954.shtml](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/06/28/politics/main704954.shtml) > [@GWBush](#): > > The troops here and across the world are fighting a global war on terror. This war reached our shores on Sept. 11, 2001. The terrorists who attacked us and the terrorists we face murder in the name of a totalitarian ideology that hates freedom, rejects tolerance and despises all dissent. Their aim is to remake the Middle East in their own grim image of tyranny and oppression by toppling governments, driving us out of the region and exporting terror. > > The terrorists believe that free societies are essentially corrupt and decadent, and with a few hard blows they can force us to retreat. They are mistaken. After September 11, I made a commitment to the American people: This nation will not wait to be attacked again. We will take the fight to the enemy. We will defend our freedom. > > Iraq is the latest battlefield in this war. Many terrorists who kill innocent men, women and children on the streets of Baghdad are followers of the same murderous ideology that took the lives of our citizens in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. > > The terrorists can kill the innocent but they cannot stop the advance of freedom. The only way our enemies can succeed is if we forget the lessons of September 11, if we abandon the Iraqi people to men like Zarqawi and if we yield the future of the Middle East to men like bin Laden. > > After Sept. 11, 2001, I told the American people that the road ahead would be difficult - and that we would prevail. NOTE: Bush kept trying to conflate 9/11 with Iraq, while trying to not actually doing so(?). That way, he and his followers can say “he never did it”. He mentioned 9/11 several times. Never mind that he had been trying to get into Iraq before the attacks, never mind that Iraq had nothing to do with the attacks. He slipped up during the election debates by saying Saddam attacked us. That was after WMD, false 9/11 links, yellow cake, freedom, h8ers,etc. Now it’s the “shining city on the hill” when it was at one time insisted that he was not interested in “nation building”. He flipflops worse than anyone else. He lies. No cite for the debates transcripts, look for it yourselves. He really thinks we are that stupid. Cheney says “they” are in the final throes” He also thinks we are really that stupid. Rove calls damn near everyone a traitor who wants our soldiers killed (the Motives). When are the apologists going to stop making excuses for these people? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/156 "2005-06-29T22:18:47Z")
> [@Mr. Svinlesha](#): > > **John** :Yeah, I don’t agree with **Finn’s** formulation myself. I don’t think anyone knew with much certainty what we would find in Iraq after the invasion, including the Bush administration. > > The lie was the assertion that we _did_ know, with 100% certainty, when in fact, we were only guessing; that Bush and his cronies stated – and continue to state – _as fact_, assertions that they knew, without doubt, to be dubious speculation. Did he say “with 100% certainty”? That’s the problem with exagerations\*-- they can undermine your basic argument. Here’s the thing: we can never know something with 100% certainty, so if that’s the requirement, no one can ever say “I know that …” about anything. Clearly Bush exagerated his level of certainty. But I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that he really did believe WMDs existed in Iraq. \*pronounced: ex-A-ger-AAAA-tions 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Mockingbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mockingbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mockingbird)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/157 "2005-06-29T22:21:26Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I don’t think thats what Shodan was saying. I read it that they are interpereting Bush’s statements through their own filters and prejudices, and then by repeating their interperatation on this board, it becomes ‘fact’. > > -XT You mean like the administration’s repeated iteration of a lie until the majority accept it as truth? ---
**Author:** ![suranyi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e36b37/32.png) [@suranyi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/suranyi)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/158 "2005-06-29T23:02:53Z")
> [@MaxTheVool](#): > > So, what do you think of all the really dire accusations that have been leveled against Bush, for instance, gee, oh, I dunno, he led us into war under false pretenses? Given that you seem to think that both sides are equivalent, you presumably either (a) think that claim is false, (b) think it’s no big deal, or (c) think that liberals have done something equally destructive. Which is it? I’m not boofu, but I can imagine a fourth possible thing he might be thinking: (d) He might not have made up his mind yet as to whether the claim is true or false. Ed ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/159 "2005-06-29T23:24:27Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What seems to be happening is that we are evolving a meaning from Bush’s speech that leaves out the parts that nobody likes. And, since contrasting voices are less common on the SDMB, and since the Usual Suspects have so strong an interest in shouting down those voices in favor of the general chant of “BUSHLIED! BUSHLIED!” that seems to form the basis of much political thought, the meaning of Bush’s speech gets shoved pretty hard along the route of what the Usual Suspects want to believe all along. I have no doubt that in six months, or perhaps six minutes 🙂 , someone will be posting as if Bush’s speech said specifically “We all know that Saddam plotted and carried out the 9/11 attacks”. And getting a chorus of general approval and agreement along the way - and Pitting anyone who dares to dissent. I am on record on saying this before: what Bush and buddies are doing is called Equivocation. Bush is continuing to mislead the people who still think Saddam was involved in 9/11, while at the same time trowing a good denial bone to the more understanding followers. The result: reasonable conservatives patting themselves in the back thinking that liberals are silly for complaining, but that is indeed simple minded: for the desired effect is not to mislead more sophisticated conservatives, but to keep the misled people still off course. For more reasonable folks, equivocation remains. And as my teacher of marketing in a conservative institution told me about the equivocation fallacy: _it is the same as lying._ ---
**Author:** ![MaxTheVool](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9fc29f/32.png) [@MaxTheVool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MaxTheVool)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353/160 "2005-06-29T23:46:54Z")
> [@suranyi](#): > > I’m not boofu, but I can imagine a fourth possible thing he might be thinking: > > (d) He might not have made up his mind yet as to whether the claim is true or false. > > Ed So… what’s he waiting for? The 2016 elections? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/sdmb-fair-and-balanced/310353.md?page=9)