SDMB - Fair and Balanced ?

[elucidator]

A couple of issues are being confused here. A growing disdain for GeeDubya does not necessarily indicate any fundamental change in political perspective, it indicates a change in opinion about him.

Please ask yourself: how many times have you read a poster saying the he has changed his opinion about GeeDubya and his nasty little war in the negative? “I used to be on board, but over time, I’ve become persuaded that so on and so forth…”

Now…how many times have you read a poster reveal the opposite change in opinion? Who has persuaded, and who has been persuaded? And does that not reflect, rather closely, the change in the nation at large. Now, a majority of Americans believes that we were misled. (A fact I find just a tad disconcerting, I am so rarely in a majority opinion, I almost want to bolt out of habit…)

So perhaps our Bushiviks should note: you haven’t been “shouted down” (how the hell do you shout someone down with a keyboard?). You’ve simply lost the argument. Which is as it should be. When you’re like, you know, wrong.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

I wish we could go back to the Republicans of just a few years ago. You know, the ones who prided themselves on being straight shooters who had no time for equivocation, who had no business for people who said one thing and meant another, wouldn’t have any problem calling someone on sidesteps and evasions. Those who so proudly proclaimed their personal accountability.

Now you have to nail down whether saying that “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” means that they were 100% certain, whether they were shading the truth or whether they were intentionally lying.

(Rumsfeld: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/2003/t03302003_t0330sdabcsteph.html)

You have to go ten rounds over whether the administration ever said that WMD were an imminent threat because they avoided the use of the words “imminent threat” in preference for “grave and gathering danger.”

You have to understand that saying “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction” is not a lie, even though we never found the weapons of mass destruction.

You have to wade through old links and pages, like this:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/why/said.html

With these quotes:

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

“There’s no doubt in my mind but what Saddam Hussein had these capabilities. … I’m not willing at all at this point to buy the proposition that somehow Saddam Hussein was innocent and he had no WMD and some guy out at the CIA, because I called him, cooked up a report saying he did. That’s crazy….”

Or the famous 16 words.

You have to do this every few weeks, and even then, today’s Republicans will nickel and dime you to death, quibbling over nuance, and what someone said, versus what they knew to be true in their mind…

It’s quite sad. I wish Republicans of my dad’s generation were around. Hell, I’d even go for the integrity of those just a few years ago.

[SteveG1]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Now you have to nail down whether saying that “It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat” means that they were 100% certain, whether they were shading the truth or whether they were intentionally lying.

Agreed. It was said in a tone that meant “we know they have WMD and we know where they are”. They stuck to this story even after nothing was found, even after Blix, the CIA, etc. said there was nothing there.

@Hentor the Barbarian

You have to go ten rounds over whether the administration ever said that WMD were an imminent threat because they avoided the use of the words “imminent threat” in preference for “grave and gathering danger.”

To me, it still says the same thing.

@Hentor the Barbarian

You have to understand that saying “We’ve found the weapons of mass destruction” is not a lie, even though we never found the weapons of mass destruction.

Umm yeah, that’s about it.

@Hentor the Barbarian

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.”

“We’ve learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”

Still waiting to SEE any evidence of any of this. It never appeared. Time to change the story AGAIN.

@Hentor the Barbarian

You have to do this every few weeks, and even then, today’s Republicans will nickel and dime you to death, quibbling over nuance, and what someone said, versus what they knew to be true in their mind…

It’s quite sad. I wish Republicans of my dad’s generation were around. Hell, I’d even go for the integrity of those just a few years ago.

They dodge around and twist the already twisted words, and count on us to not remember what they said. The old school Republicans - Ike, Goldwater, etc would kick their asses. Literally.

[John_Mace]

@Hentor the Barbarian

You have to go ten rounds over whether the administration ever said that WMD were an imminent threat because they avoided the use of the words “imminent threat” in preference for “grave and gathering danger.”

Christ, do we have to go thru this again? Bush explicitly said that we can’t wait until an enemy became an “imminent threat”. He didn’t use that term because he flat out said it wasn’t relavent. Now, we can disagree with that assessment, but why is it necessary to mischaracterize it?

Once more, look at Spinsanity on Sorting out the “imminent threat” debate:

Those defending Bush most often point to an excerpt from the President’s 2003 State of the Union speech in which he explicitly said Iraq was not an imminent threat:

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@John Mace

Christ, do we have to go thru this again? Bush explicitly said that we can’t wait until an enemy became an “imminent threat”. He didn’t use that term because he flat out said it wasn’t relavent. Now, we can disagree with that assessment, but why is it necessary to mischaracterize it?

Once more, look at Spinsanity on Sorting out the “imminent threat” debate:

Is this a joke? Some sort of parody of the type of response I was talking about? (By the way, you are the type of conservative I generally wish we had more of around here, and still do - don’t get me wrong.) No, at this point, I’m not going to go another ten rounds about whether Bush did or did not intend to portray Iraq as an imminent threat. It should be sufficient to note that in the Downing Street Memo and the subsequent memo, it is clear that invading Iraq was a foregone conclusion for Bush, that he was fixing intelligence around that conclusion, and that he was going to try to trip up Hussein into provoking the invasion. Whether he would or would not erroneously portray Iraq as an “imminent threat” in this context seems like pretty small potatos.

[elucidator]

Not quite, John. Your relentless quest to be even-handed has led you slightly astray. His statement questions the importance of “imminence”, he suggests it is not important whether or not a threat can be determined to be imminent, or not.

That is not quite the same thing as saying explicitly that Iraq was not an “imminent threat”, point of fact, it begs the question entirely, by suggesting that it doesn’t matter.

If you tell me “Fred is tall” and I answer “It isn’t important whether or not Fred is tall” that is not the same thing as me saying “Fred is not tall.”

Swing and a miss, strike one.

[boofuu]

@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 never said both sides were equivilant (I think); if I implied that I apologize. What I said is the speakers for both sides are shrill and whiny and are doing nothing to “change” or “sway” my views. It think the way you phrased your question to me is a very indicative of what I am saying. That question is biased and argumentative. I am assuming that is not indicative of your overall posting style and that somehow I rubbed you wrong. If so, I again apologize.

I cannot wrap my mind around the all evidence/proof/whatever that is being sent my way. All these cites are filtered, changed and spun by the time they hit paper. Politics is not Math. There hardly hard and fast facts, especially in this case. Those facts come out later when the dust has settled.

The claims being made are a big deal. But I think I am justified in not wanting to “take sides.” This is not an elementary school schoolyard. If I were to say Pres. Bush lied, I would be lumped as a liberal. If I said, well, anything else, I would be labled conservative. How about I stay out of Gangland and choose neither the Bloods nor the Crips?

Don’t get me wrong, I am not sailing on the “our President, right or wrong” boat. But I like to believe that if it does come to light that he was willfully and decidedly lying out of his ass, he will be dealt with in the proper manner. That is the belief I will hold onto as long as I am an American.

But that is neither here nor there. I came into this thread specifically because it was not “about” Bush; the OP queried whether the Boards are fair and balanced. I was stupid to overlook the sub-text, I suppose. I hope you do not think I am equivocating. I did not think my thoughts specifically on the President were especially relevant on the supposed topic.

-boofuu = she

[John_Mace]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Is this a joke? Some sort of parody of the type of response I was talking about? (By the way, you are the type of conservative I generally wish we had more of around here, and still do - don’t get me wrong.)

I’m not a conservative.

But you guys are missing the point. Bush didn’t say Iraq was an imminent threat. He said we couldn’t wait untill they became an imminent threat. You guys are so eager to call him a liar that you let him pass on this dangerous idea. He didn’t lie about Iraq being an imminent threat. What he did was rewrite the rules of engangement, and I think that’s a far more dangerous proposition than the phantom lie you are so eager to pin on him.

[John_Mace]

@elucidator

Not quite, John. Your relentless quest to be even-handed has led you slightly astray. His statement questions the importance of “imminence”, he suggests it is not important whether or not a threat can be determined to be imminent, or not.

That is not quite the same thing as saying explicitly that Iraq was not an “imminent threat”, point of fact, it begs the question entirely, by suggesting that it doesn’t matter.

No, it doesn’t beg the question. It poses an entierly different question. So why debate whether he lied or not? What we need to be debating is whether or not we should redfine when and why we go to war.

I’m not trying to be even handed here. I think Bush’s premise is fatally flawed. It hink the policy is a huge mistake. I think that letting him get away with that premise is what got us into the mess of Iraq to begin with.

[David_Simmons]

@Hampshire

Like we’ve said you can’t manufacture “fair and balanced”. I’ve never seen a mod ban someone because they support right wing views and everyone is welcome.
If you know people who can debate some undeniable points for the right invite them to make some points.

Come to think of it, if you have some pro-Bush, pro Iraq points to be made, make them instead of whining that nobody makes them.

[David_Simmons]

On going over the above post I realize that it could be misconstrued. The comment was addressed to the OP, not to Hampshire.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@John Mace

I’m not a conservative.

Perhaps that’s why you’re the kind of conservative I would like to see more of around here.

Okay, you’re the kind of [del]conservative[/del] guy who usually takes up the commonly-regarded conservative side of an argument, or who calls liberals “you guys,” but is also intelligent, open to multiple lines of evidence and is able to express logical and reasoned thinking.

But you guys are missing the point. Bush didn’t say Iraq was an imminent threat. He said we couldn’t wait untill they became an imminent threat.

Okay, maybe I’ll go one round on this, but only just. Was the point of his rhetoric to get us to agree that we should act now or not?

You guys are so eager to call him a liar that you let him pass on this dangerous idea.

We let him pass? Who let him pass? We who opposed him for both lying about the existence of specific reports, the utility of aluminum tubes, the Niger matter (and the outing of an undercover operative over the Niger matter) AND who opposed his rewriting of, or more to the point ignoring and running roughshod over, procedures, methods and diplomatic strategies -

OR “you guys,” who only get upset by “BUSHLIEDBUSHLIED”? I think blaming long-term opponents of that which you now oppose for the success of the thing is a coward’s practice.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

But you guys are missing the point. Bush didn’t say Iraq was an imminent threat. He said we couldn’t wait untill they became an imminent threat.

Correct. He didn’t say “imminent threat”, he said “grave and gathering threat”, with a Rice throwing in “mushroom cloud”. You apparently think a distinction not only exists but is pivotal, so pivotal that there wasn’t even time for him to tell us what it was before sending us to war anyway. Care to enlighten us?

[Shodan]

@MaxTheVool

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?

That the election was only lost because of dirty tricks by the Republicans.

@MaxTheVool

When was the last time you heard anyone even quasi-seriously mention election fraud?

About a day and a half ago.

@MaxTheVool

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.

Sorry, this comes under the heading of “it should be too common to require a cite”. Check out a few posts in the Pit addressed to Airman Doors or Weirddave. Or Hentor’s recent characterization of a Sam Stone cite saying exactly what Sam said it did as “dishonest”. Or Evil Captor and his “Republicans are racist” crap.

:shrugs:

Good luck with your denial-fest.

Regards,
Shodan

[Bricker]

@acsenray

Again, Bricker, I have to ask, and I mean this seriously: At what point do we get to draw conclusions? Do we, the public, even get to draw conclusions? Must we keep our minds open unless and until there is an impeachment trial? If the Republican Congress chooses never to impeach a Republican president (a considerable likelihood), do we all have to continue to give him the benefit of the doubt?

And, yes, the argument that the problem was incompetence is stronger than plain dishonesty. But I truly think what we have here is a combination of the two, operating in various proportions at different stages. In any case, if Bush’s opponents agree to dispense with the dishonesty argument, will his supporters stipulate incompetence?

If, as you acknowledge, the argument for incompetence is stronger than the argument for dishonesty, then I don’t see how, in fair-mindedness, you could EVER draw the the conclusion of dishonesty.

To answer your overalll question, I’d say every person has to draw that line himself – decide what quanta of evidence compels a conclusion – but that a fair-minded person would acknowledge that the conclusion he’s drawing is a LIKELY one, or a VERY LIKELY one, and not speak of it in terms of absolute certainty.

[bordelond]

@Mr. Svinlesha

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.

My “tangent” has nothing to do with epistomology … not from where I’m sitting.

But I’ll wait a bit, and see if you and Bricker come to any kind of an agreement.

[bordelond]

@bordelond

@ElvisL1ves

War On Ignorance is fought one battle at a time, one opponent at a time, one topic at a time. This is the one before us at the moment, no more - and because it’s the worst example, conservatively thousands of people being dead and tens of thousands more being maimed for life as a result of it.

And what of the Machiavellians who are not ignorant, but rather do not care about what you may value, so long as their agenda (for the greater good, in their mind) is advanced? How are they to be convinced of “the truth”?

Ignore or demonize these folks all you like – but folks with this kind of thinking hold a lot of power in the world right now.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Bricker

If, as you acknowledge, the argument for incompetence is stronger than the argument for dishonesty, then I don’t see how, in fair-mindedness, you could EVER draw the the conclusion of dishonesty.

Because, in assuming the reasoning behind the motivation of others, generally, people tend to be charitable. They lean towards the idea that any given person will be as smart as they are. To assume otherwise is to insulting the other person.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Shodan

[…]Or Hentor’s recent characterization of a Sam Stone cite saying exactly what Sam said it did as “dishonest”. […]:shrugs:

Good luck with your denial-fest.

Regards,
Shodan

See, this is the type of fairness and balance that conservatives really want around here.

Shodan surely read my reply to Sam, but discounts it without comment. (The issue was whether John Kerry believes that fighting terrorism is primarily just a police and intelligence matter.) To evaluate this, conservatives like Shodan and Sam Stone shrilly point out an extemporaneous line in a debate in response to a question about the color coding terrorist scheme, and discount explicit statements by Kerry detailing his position.

Is this really honest and fair, and the type of debate that conservatives here really want? Selecting one item of dubious worth (regarding the point you are trying to make) and summarily dismissing arguably stronger evidence? And then making snide summary accusations about it later?

If this is what conservatives really value, I frankly hope we never see it around here, at least in Great Debates. If that is fair and balanced, may this board forever remain unfair and horribly skewed.

[Shodan]

@Hentor the Barbarian

Is this really honest and fair, and the type of debate that conservatives here really want? Selecting one item of dubious worth (regarding the point you are trying to make) and summarily dismissing arguably stronger evidence? And then making snide summary accusations about it later?

If this is what conservatives really value, I frankly hope we never see it around here, at least in Great Debates.

You can stop peddling the “conservatives are dishonest whenever they propose an argument I don’t care for” line of horseshit whenever you’re ready.

Frankly, “selecting one item of dubious worth (regarding the point you are trying to make) and summarily dismissing arguably stronger evidence, and then making snide summary accusations about it later” is a pretty good characterization of any number of SDMB threads, and it sure as hell doesn’t come only or primarily from conservatives.

I’d say “this is bullshit and you know it”, but I am not sure if you do know it. It’s hard to sell a line of hoo-hah as hard as some of y’all do without buying hook, line and sinker first.

Regards,
Shodan