# Was Maureen Dowd's Comment Correct, Spin, Innocent Error, or Flat-Out Lie? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 14, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273 "2003-05-14T20:32:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/1 "2003-05-14T20:32:50Z")
In her column today, [Maureen Dowd wrote](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/14/opinion/14DOWD.html), > [@](#): > > Busy chasing off Saddam, the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. “Al Qaeda is on the run,” President Bush said last week. “That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They’re not a problem anymore.” What [Bush actually said](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030505-4.html) was, > [@](#): > > Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore. (Applause.) And we’ll stay on the hunt. To make sure America is a secure country, the al Qaeda terrorists have got to understand it doesn’t matter how long it’s going to take, they will be brought to justice. (Applause.) Was Dowd’s description of Bush’s comment fair and accurate? If not, was it an understandable error on her part? Or, was she intentionally fooling the reader? On the one hand, one could interpret Bush’s comment, “They’re not a problem anymore,” to mean “_Al Qaeda_ are not a problem anymore.” Under that interpretation, Dowd’s column was fair and accuate, when it characterized Bush’s position as “Al Qaeda is spent.” Her criticism of the President would be justified: a major al Qaeda attack would have occured right after he told us that al Qaeda was not a problem anymore. OTOH, in the complete quote, it seems clear that Bush was referring not to all of al Qaeda but to those who are “either jailed or dead.” Furthermore, the thrust of the entire paragraph as well as other comments by the President would be that al Quada _is_ still a problem, although less of a problem than previously. Furthermore, Dowd’s omission of a key sentence invites a misinterpretation of what Bush said. In Dowd’s version, the antecedant of the pronoun _they]_ (in “They’re not a problem anymore”) seems to be _al Qaeda_. In the complete quote, it’s clear that the antecedant of of _they_ is the _half of all the top al Qaeda operatives [who] are either jailed or dead._ It seems that Dowd intentionally omitted a key sentence so as to twist Bush’s meaning in an effort to embarass the President. Or, perhaps her main purpose was to find some sort of catchy point to justify her column. Either way, I think the column showed a disregard for the truth. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/2 "2003-05-14T20:37:51Z")
What Dowd said seems a reasonable precis of Bush’s comments. The primary thrust of his statement was that the al-Qaida threat was largely nullified, which I suspect is probably true. What Dowd said pretty much says the same thing. The most important part of the comment is “(they) are slowly but surely being decimated,” which Dowd repeated in full. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/3 "2003-05-14T20:38:25Z")
Does this one get the prize for the furthest **december** has ever reached to grasp a straw? ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/4 "2003-05-14T20:39:01Z")
I think Dowd oversimplified the President’s remarks a bit, but I don’t see any serious distortion or deceit. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/5 "2003-05-14T20:43:00Z")
Not quite knowing who Maureen O’Dowd is, can someone please translate for me the true decembrist meaning of the OP? Many thanks. ---
**Author:** ![futureman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3da27b/32.png) [@futureman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/futureman)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/6 "2003-05-14T20:51:42Z")
The true decemberist meaning is that Maureen Dowd is a communist and is trying to take Dear Leader down a peg. She’s also anti-american ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/7 "2003-05-14T20:53:54Z")
\*\*Istara, \*\*Maureen Dowd is a regular political columnist for the New York Times. ---
**Author:** ![Brutus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/91b2a8/32.png) [@Brutus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brutus)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/8 "2003-05-14T21:03:22Z")
Dowd, in her special little she-harpy way, misrepresented what GW said. Her interpretation of events has the President saying that Al Queda is no longer a problem, which GW clearly did not say. She, and the entire shrieking host of liberal columnists, _want_ GW to stumble, to give them something to write about. The '04 elections are looking bleak for Blue America, and the increasingly outlandish diatribes spewed by the usual suspects confirms this. I wonder if Dowd is among the other NYT staff members now under internal investigation? Will she soon be a ‘columnist’ for the soon-to-be NY Enquirer? ---
**Author:** ![hazel-rah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/73ab20/32.png) [@hazel-rah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hazel-rah)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/9 "2003-05-14T21:10:37Z")
Brutus, you forgot to mention that Clinton is a liar. ---
**Author:** ![futureman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3da27b/32.png) [@futureman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/futureman)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/10 "2003-05-14T21:21:54Z")
I say the 2004 election looks bleak for the Red Ink Republicans. and their missing 2 million jobs. Um plus healthcare could be better. But what is dubya doing for healthcare? He’s cutting taxes! It can also be said that social issues will be on the line too. Don’t think Santorum won’t be an issue. W is tying to straddle the fence on the gay issue, and the freepers won’t have that. If Dean makes some waves, it will bring the issue up. It is a can’t loose situation for the democrats and possibly a wedge in the Republican party between the hard-core tom delays and the soccer mom. The prez can’t win that battle. The only thing dubya has for him is defense, which is fading from people’s memory. Take Afghanistan: That faded away after a year, unless he starts a new war, he’ll face dwindling support again. Coupled with the fact that even republicans are getting tired of his strong-armed tactics, this is hardly an enviable position. If I were to choose sides, I’d rather the democrats be in the opposition now. Also, America’s not buying the tax-cut deal either. And what’s going to happen in Iraq now? Its going to be such an easy election for the dems, my friend. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/11 "2003-05-14T21:24:46Z")
I subscribe to the School of Charitable Intepretation, and I think we should apply it across the board. Bush made an ambiguous comment. Specifically, he may have used a pronoun not to refer to the subject of the paragraph – Al Qaeda – but to the subject of the third (and immediately preceding sentence – “about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives.” If his pronoun was referring to Al Qaeda, it was clearly a foolish thing to say. If it was referring to “about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives,” it was not a foolish thing to say. The School of Charitable Interpretation requires that we assume he was not speaking foolishly. Even though we’re talking about the King of Malapropisms here, we must make this charitable assumption. Ms. Dowd subscribed to the School of Vindictive Interpretation. She elided words from his quote in such a way as to make it seem that the pronoun referred to “Al Qaeda.” We do not know whether she did this deliberately (so as to make him look dumb) or accidentally. The School of Charitable Interpretation requires us to assume it was an accident. **December** brought this matter to our attention. It is unclear whether he did so out of an honest desire for accuracy, or out of a skulking partisan desire to pee in Ms. Dowd’s cornflakes. The School of Charitable Interpretation requires us to assume it was out of an honest desire for accuracy. **Brutus** called Ms. Dowd a she-harpy, presumably to distinguish her from a he-harpy. Sadly, the School of Charitable Interpretation is all out of charitable interpretations. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/12 "2003-05-14T21:31:33Z")
Well, old fellow, she used the rethorical technique of fragmentary quoting; she quoted different parts of an original text to imply a coherent argument. Almost as popular as lifting quotes out of context. Badness here is obviously pretty dependent on how well the implied argument resembles the actual argument in the original text. In this case I would say it is a pretty mixed affair. On the one hand: In the original speach _they_ seem to refer to _those Al Qaeda operatives that are either dead or in jail_. So in this respect the quoting would somewhat distort the original argument. On the other hand: I would suggest that the original speach cleverly uses rethorical means to suggest [to some portion of the listeners] that the meaning of _they_ also include Al Qaeda as a whole. The particular rethorical technique used to accomplish this is a “triad”. [Rhetorical Tools of Structure](http://www.howardnations.com/themes/themes4.html) > [@](#): > > One of the most frequently used techniques throughout the history of eloquence is the rule of three, sometimes referred to as the triad. As a means of communicating rhythmically, memorably, and persuasively, the rule of three is one of the most valuable tools available to trial lawyers. This is true because the conscious mind is able to best deal with three items in terms of reception, retention and recall. > > The idea is to communicate in threes in any unit of language: words, phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs, or the development of the entire argument. A rule for advocates is to try to convey three major messages to your jury in such manner that the messages can be remembered. Instead of trying to cover every minor point and persuade on every minor issue, we develop themes which are repeated throughout the trial. You may wish to develop three themes which you will try and convey to the jury or one theme with three messages within the theme. From the viewpoint of trial lawyers the rule of three can be used for everything from effective use of three words through effective persuasion on three themes. > > Consider the following well-known examples in which the triad achieves rhythmic eloquence: > > We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. > > * * * > > We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor. (Thomas Jefferson). > > Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few. (Winston Churchill) > > With malice toward none, with charity for all; with firmness in the right. > We cannot dedicate - we cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow this ground. > And that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. (Abraham Lincoln) > > Duty - Honor - Country. Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, and what you will be. (Gen. Douglas MacArthur) There some examples. Now let’s apply it to Bush’s speech. > [@](#): > > _Bush’s speachwriter_ > Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they’re not a problem anymore. (Applause.) **Statement I:** _Al Qaeda is on the run._ proceding [without any proof of statement I] to **Statement II:** _Al Qaeda is being decimated._ and then comes **example / proof of statement II:** _Half of the top al Qaeda operatives are killed or in jail._ At this point note that statements I & II implies similar consequences: That Al Qaeda is less of a threat. Someone that is on the run is not a big threat. Someone that is badly damaged is not a big threat. Two iterations to the same effect. And then **Conclusion drawn from previous example:** _In either case, they’re not a problem anymore._ Which could quite easily be construed as the third iteration of the same line of thought as Statements I & II. **Statement III:** _Al Qaeda is not a problem any more._ So in conclusion: Very slick work, mister speech scribbler. ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/13 "2003-05-14T21:34:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > \*\*Not quite knowing who Maureen O’Dowd is, can someone please translate for me the true decembrist meaning of the OP? > > Many thanks. \*\* The meaning of the OP as I see it is that Dowd took a remark from the President, edited it - in such a way as to give it a meaning that wasn’t intended by the President - and then used it to take a poke at him. I think it’s dishonest. ---
**Author:** ![mack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b19c9b/32.png) [@mack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mack)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/14 "2003-05-14T21:37:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by mack \* > \*\*I think it’s dishonest. \*\* What Dowd did, that is. ---
**Author:** ![Sofa\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/58956e/32.png) [@Sofa\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sofa_King)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/15 "2003-05-14T21:49:38Z")
_Quoth **Brutus** (chuckle):_ > [@](#): > > Her interpretation of events has the President saying that Al Queda is no longer a problem, which GW clearly did not say. Oh, _I see now!_ It’s the _jailed and dead_ ones that aren’t a problem anymore. That’s why everyone was clapping, right? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/16 "2003-05-14T21:50:39Z")
Nice post, **Daniel** > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > Bush made an ambiguous comment. Specifically, he may have used a pronoun not to refer to the subject of the paragraph – Al Qaeda – but to the subject of the third (and immediately preceding sentence – “about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives.” > > If his pronoun was referring to Al Qaeda, it was clearly a foolish thing to say. If it was referring to “about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives,” it was not a foolish thing to say. Note that the rule of grammar is that the antecedent of a pronoun is [in most cases the closest possible noun coming before it](http://www.yale.edu/bass/wp/ref.html). In the case of Bush’s comment, that would be the _half of all the top al Qaeda operatives who are in prison or dead_. Note also that _al Qaeda_ generally referred to in the singular. E.g., from [Time Magazine](http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,451656,00.html) > [@](#): > > Before 9/11, Afghanistan had served as a global hub and sanctuary for al-Qaeda, allowing _it_ to run massive training camps… That’s another clue that the pronoun “they” referred to “half of all the top al Qaeda operatives,” rather than to “al Qaeda.” > [@](#): > > **December** brought this matter to our attention. It is unclear whether he did so out of an honest desire for accuracy, or out of a skulking partisan desire to pee in Ms. Dowd’s cornflakes. Both. The two theories kind of merge. I want to pee in her cornflakes (good metaphor!), because of her inaccuracy and silliness. She’s a wonderful writer from a stylistic POV, but IMHO this sort of foolishness is typical of her content, and I resent it. Even my wife, who is as liberal as any poster on this board, resents it. She considers Dowd’s columns to be an insult to women. She loves the Times, but wonders why they can’t get a better female political columnist. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/17 "2003-05-14T22:00:01Z")
Declaration: I can’t stand Bush at all. However… The implication in Bush’s speech is clear: al Qaeda is a diminished threat because nearly half of their leadership is dead or in jail. Dowd’s quotation is misleading, because the conclusion one would most likely draw from her passage is that al Qaeda is not just a diminished threat, but not a threat at all. Hardly a major transgression. It’s not like she’s Ann Coulter or Ted Rall. ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/18 "2003-05-14T22:11:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElvisL1ves \* > Does this one get the prize for the furthest **december** has ever reached to grasp a straw? That’s like trying to determine which piece of dog doodie is the most rancid, IMO – it ignores the bigger question of why we’re putting up with this sh\*t in the first place… ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/19 "2003-05-14T22:25:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > **Brutus** called Ms. Dowd a she-harpy Here’s an [example](http://www.spinsanity.com) of her harpyness: > [@](#): > > Some pundits have continued to compare their political foes to the Fedayeen Saddam, regime loyalists who attacked coalition troops while disguised as civilians. In a column originally published in the New York Times on April 27, Maureen Dowd suggested that those favoring Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s policies included the _“fedayeen of the Defense Policy Board – Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Gingrich, Ken Adelman.”_ In the same column, Dowd wrote that \*“Bush has never reined in Rummy’s rabid fedayeen.” \* ---
**Author:** ![Mojo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Mojo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mojo)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2003, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/20 "2003-05-14T22:29:24Z")
I’m not a big fan of “me too” posts, but I think **DanielWithrow’s** interpretation is correct. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273.md?page=2)