# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 5:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/61 "2003-05-15T17:38:43Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > Dowd lied, pure and simple. She should be terminated by the _Times_. Along the lines of what I noted before, do you then support the firing of essentially the entire WSJ editorial page staff? (And, the banning of many of the writers of their op-ed pieces?) I’m willing to entertain the idea of enforcing a new much stronger code of ethics in this regard but I think it better be done across the board. The WSJ editorial page already makes the NYT one look like a fountain of objectivity and careful precise and fully truthful statements! As **elucidator** noted, if we want to extend this beyond editorial page staff and into all of political life, a lot of heads are going to roll. And, some of them, like our Pres, will be have to be chopped off about 1000 times. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/62 "2003-05-15T19:31:06Z")
> [@](#): > > _Shodan_ > RandySpears - who exactly are you saying misquoted Chirac? If it is me, feel free to show where, and I will apologize as appropriate. My dear fellow I wasn’t aiming at you. But I am so happy for a chance to pin down the real culprits. I was recalling this thread a while back where our friends **Revtim, SuaSponte, Bricker** and **Beagle** seemed quite convinced that Chirac had indeed said France would veto any resolution against iraq. [Here.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179185) Search for “_any_” in the thread and that’ll take you to Revtims first post starting the discussion on Chiracs statements. An interesting read since it deals with similar issues on interpretation as are discussed here. Anyways, they brought up that quote; out of context. But on to the real culprits. Where did they get the idea? Why, from the UK government, who were the main instigators of the smearing campaign against the french after the british veto draft had to be withdrawn because of lack of support. Prominently by Jack Straw: [Jack Straw, foreign minister, adressing UK House of Commons](http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030317/143/dvond.html) > [@](#): > > Sadly, one country then ensured that the security council could not act. President Chirac’s unequivocal announcement last Monday that France would veto a second resolution containing this or any ultimatum, “whatever the circumstances,” inevitably created a sense of paralysis into our negotiations. I deeply regret that France has put Security Council consensus beyond reach. These sentiments, a little more distorted on the labour party web site: [The Labour Party, Blairs support for the Iraq war](http://www.labour.org.uk/iraq130303/) > [@](#): > > We believe it should be possible to build support for this proposal. It is extraordinary, and regrettable, that the French have rejected the entire package, without any time for discussion, out of hand. It underlines the strategic decision taken by President Chirac that **whatever the circumstances France will veto any proposal that is put forward.** This means that despite the fact that they agreed to Resolution 1441, which offered Saddam a “final opportunity” to disarm, and warned of “serious consequences” if he did not take it, France is not willing to take any further action at all. And then echoed in the british press: [Robin Gedye, The Daily Telegraph](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/11/wirq211.xml) > [@](#): > > The declaration by Jacques Chirac that France would veto a second resolution on Iraq “whatever the circumstances” is a milestone on his mission to put his country back on the map of world players. [Political editor Chris Fisher in Frontline24](http://www.edp24.co.uk/Content/Frontline/2003/030312Roads.asp) > [@](#): > > The Prime Minister [Tony Blair] bounced back yesterday from the French president’s sensational announcement that he was going to do the diplomatic equivalent of pressing the nuclear button and, “whatever the circumstances,” veto any UN resolution authorising war against Iraq. > > Indeed, Tony Blair turned Mr Chirac’s ill-chosen ploy and words to his own advantage. It wasn’t just the “whatever the circumstances”, it was also that the French president admitted, in saying this, that Saddam was not fully co-operating with the weapons inspectors. > In such circumstances, reported Mr Blair’s official spokesman, the use of a veto would be “unreasonable”. Making it’s way across the atlantic: [Jim Sparkman, The Cronwatch (A website checking the “bias” of the San Fran Cronicle)](http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=1981) > [@](#): > > Yet in his interview Mr. Chirac had also dropped the little bomb that France would veto a second U.N. resolution on Iraq, ‘‘no matter what the circumstances.’’ In other words, inspectors could have come back with pocketsful of biological weapons, Saddam could have launched World War III, or he could have gassed three more villages. Non. The French veto was etched in stone. And this critical voice sums up why this was selective quoting, out of context, and a distortion: [Leader, Guardian](http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,914692,00.html) > [@](#): > > The latest spate of British government and media vilification of France over Iraq is unjustified and distasteful. It is damaging to Britain’s own wider interests. It is also less than totally honest. One remark by President Jacques Chirac is at the centre of this storm - his apparent vow, in a television interview last Monday, to veto a second UN resolution “whatever the circumstances”. Downing Street said Mr Chirac had “poisoned” the diplomatic process. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, told this newspaper yesterday that this “extraordinary” intervention has made war more likely. > > This is a very serious charge. The unmistakable implication is that if the UN refuses to back military action at this time and Britain goes to war regardless, France will somehow be to blame. Without bothering to inquire further, British and American media, notably the Murdoch-owned press, have gleefully taken the government’s cue. Yet as a matter of fact, as opposed to a matter of political and chauvinist expediency, the charge levelled at Mr Chirac is unfounded. What he actually said, according to the transcript, is as follows: “My position is that, regardless of the circumstances, France will vote ‘no’ because she considers this evening that there are no grounds for waging war in order to achieve the goal we have set ourselves, that is to say, to disarm Iraq.” > > **The key words here are “this evening”. What Mr Chirac clearly meant was that, in circumstances pertaining at that moment in time, France would use its veto. He did not say that would be the case at all times; and indeed, since he spoke, several official statements have made it plain that France is anxious to preserve UN unity and will explore “all opportunities” for compromise. That was the import, too, of his telephone conversation yesterday with Tony Blair. To the extent that Mr Chirac’s meaning could have been misinterpreted, he made a tactical mistake. But the overall French position, that war may be supportable but only as a last resort, is not objectively in doubt.** > > Why Mr Straw and others appear deliberately and provocatively to misunderstand it is a more important question. So what is the answer? Britain and the US seem determined to portray France’s policy as unreasonable to support Tony Blair’s face-saving definition of an “unreasonable veto”. Fearing the loss of the war-enabling second resolution for many reasons, but mainly because the vast majority of UN member states regards it as premature and unnecessary, they conspire to pin the blame for their own chronic miscalculations on France. It is fair to suspect Mr Chirac’s deeper motives. But it is dishonest to try to scapegoat France’s present, logical and in many ways admirable stance on continued inspections for an avoidable crisis that is essentially one made in America. So guys: do you really think that Mssrs Straw, Gedye, Fisher, Sparkman et al should get the boot? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/63 "2003-05-15T20:27:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > So guys: do you really think that Mssrs Straw, Gedye, Fisher, Sparkman et al should get the boot? Dumping Straw, Gedye, Fisher, Sparkman, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, the entire WSJ editorial page staff, … Now that’s what I call a “housecleaning”! 😉 I’m more than happy to get rid of Dowd if the rest of these go too! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 8:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/64 "2003-05-15T20:31:05Z")
**RandySpears** - Well, OK, I re-read the thread to which you linked. It sounds to me that the French were promising to veto any resolution authorizing war with Iraq for the next few months. You posted as follows in that thread: > [@](#): > > It is not the case that “a reasonable person could parse Chirac’s words to assume he is referring very narrowly to the specific resolution at the specific moment”. (My bold) > > It is the case that a reasonable person should interpret Chirac’s statements as refering to the matters at hand. Consider that he in the same interview was asking for more time for the inspectors; “months”. > > Now; Sua’s questions. Valid concerns for the people pursuing the war. But totally irelevant to the current discussion. This argument was sparked by Revtims recollection of how “France said they’d veto under _any_ circumstance”. This I called a distorsion / lie; which it is. > > And that’s what’s being discussed, not how the french would have acted in the future. Perhaps I am being partisan, but I think we would agree that the French wanted to give the Iraqis a period of “months” to cooperate with the inspections. Thus, they would veto any resolution authorizing immediate war with Iraq that was submitted to the Security Council for the next few months - thus giving the Iraqis time to cooperate with the inspections. Insofar as anyone stated or implied that the French had decided to veto any resolution authorizing war with Iraq - ever, at any time, under any circumstances, for any reason, regardless if they began cooperating with the inspections or not - yes, that was a distortion. Is that what you meant? I suspect I feel towards this as **Daniel Withrow** does towards Bush’s original speech - that I am drawing inferences that may or may not be justified by a close reading of the text. Did Bush distort the truth by claiming that al-Queda is on the run, and is slowly being decimated? Not as far as I can tell. Is it a distortion to phrase the French position as “we are going to veto any resolution of war for the next few months”? I suppose you could see it that way, but, perhaps because of my partisan bias, it sounds like an arguable position. Certainly you are correct that the French were referring narrowly to the resolution currently under discussion, and were going to veto it. But I don’t think it is unfair to infer from the French-supplied time line of “months” to begin to cooperate with the inspections that they would consider a different resolution that did not also include a period of months for the Iraqi government to begin to cooperate/hide the WMD/stall/however one’s own partisanship leads one to characterize the future course of action of Saddam Hussein. In other words, it seems inescapable to infer that the French weren’t going to support any war with Iraq for some months at least. And that they would veto any resolution leading to war within that period. That’s how it sounds to me. **Sua Sponte** , **Bricker** , and **Spite** are better qualified than I to speak to how they perceive the French position. As I say, this sounds to me like an inference rather than a distortion. The French were saying, in effect, “no war for a few months”. At which point my own bias leads me into saying, “If the French won’t support war after twelve years, they probably won’t after three months either, and the whole exercise in stalling plays into Saddam’s blood-stained hands.” Which turns this into a hijack. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/65 "2003-05-15T20:42:14Z")
Yep, i agree “months”. Please compare to above cites. F. e. Mr Sparkman: _Yet in his interview Mr. Chirac had also dropped the little bomb that France would veto a second U.N. resolution on Iraq, ‘‘no matter what the circumstances.’’ In other words, inspectors could have come back with pocketsful of biological weapons, Saddam could have launched World War III, or he could have gassed three more villages. Non. The French veto was etched in stone._ Communicates that French say they want a couple of months for the inspectors? Communicates something else? ---
**Author:** ![manhattan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/manhattan/32/7_2.png) [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/66 "2003-05-15T23:18:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\*You’re right. BUt it’s also true that Bush said, “Al Qaeda is on the run.” And if recent events in Saudi Arabia are indeed linked back to Al Qaeda, he was proven horribly wrong. > \*\* He’s not wrong – they are on the run. Being “on the run” doesn’t mean dissolved or impotent or undangerous, any more than a more conventional army is incapable of inflicting damage whilst retreating. That’s why the President said, “and we’ll stay on the hunt” and “But the best way to secure America is to get the enemy before they get us, and that’s exactly what’s **going to happen**.” (emphasis added). We picked up a couple more today. And we’ll continue to do it. And until we get them all, they’ll continue to attack us. Given all the hue and cry from various folks that the Administration is _overstating_ the threat al Qaeda poses, I’m stunned to see you claim that the President is now understating it. Perhaps you could find some of those guys and argue the point. My only point is that Dowd intentionally and maliciously lied about what he _did_ say as she coasted through her lazy column. Which she did. Whether the current al Qaeda threat is over or understated is debatable. That she lied is not. As to your other point: a) I’m not going to apologize for having a job and thus being unable to respond to you on your timetable, so do feel free to can the bullshit that I didn’t “take the trouble” and b) No, I do not recall repeating any statments about Jacques Chirac – please find me doing so. Regarding the other publishers, I’ll leave them to their own devices. I’ll simply note that none of them had a huge honkin’ _mea culpa_ on their front pages last week and that I don’t give any of them a buck a day. Finally, this: > [@](#): > > It does not count as lying. There are formal rules for how to handle quotes. Unproper handling of quotes would be alterning the wording without the use of brackets or taking away parts without indicating it with the use of periods like so “…”. So formally the quote is correct. Calling it a “lie” is quite simply an ignorant statement. > > It is more properly called a “manipulation” / “distortion”. But the most factually way to denote it would be “fragmentary quoting to imply a coherent argument that is not present in the original text”. Thank you, President Clinton. But she still lied. Watch: > [@](#): > > \*Originally **most definitely not** posted by DanielWithrow \* > \*\*So formally the quote is… a “lie.” It is… a “manipulation” / “distortion”. > \*\* ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 15, 2003, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/67 "2003-05-15T23:49:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jsgoddess \* > \*\*…In other words, if GWB is so evil/stupid/whatnot, use his real words to discredit him… \*\* Gosh, **Julie** , you sure would think that would work. Sure ought to. But it doesn’t. I have watched that man shovel steaming piles of bullshit onto plates and the Usual Suspects eat it with a spoon and swear its chocolate custard! If everything said here about Ms. Doud is true, she is a paragon of scrupulous veracity in comparison to Fearless Misleader, who is fast closing in on the Nixon Prize. She’s just a pundit. He gets folks killed. Maybe I’m just oversensitive, but seems to me theres a major distinction in effect, there. PS to **Shodan** : the term “Usual Suspects” as a term of mild scorn and affectionate derision is trademarked by Elucidator Enterprises, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Project for Universal Enlightenment. On each instance of your use, please forward one dollar to the Eugene V. Debs Memorial Fund. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/68 "2003-05-16T01:02:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\*So, > > **Shodan & Brutus & Manhattan & Milum and JSGodess** > none of you guys took the trouble to respond to how you feel about the Chirac analogy i posted here. It would still be veeery interesting to hear your take on that… \*\* I guess I’ll just quote myself: “I imagine that it does happen. Personally, I would damn any specific instance that is brought to my attention as lying.” Julie ---
**Author:** ![Mandelstam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Mandelstam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mandelstam)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/69 "2003-05-16T01:26:03Z")
I asked **Shodan** : _" Do you really think that this kind of thing–the decontextualization or editing of a quotation to make it seem more damning than it is–doesn’t happen every day of the week in some place like the WSJ, or on Fox, or what have you?_ To which **Shodan** replied: _“I am not sure - are you agreeing with me that the quote was deliberately distorted, in order to make a political accusation? And that this is a bad thing to do?”_ Why don’t you take a look at my earlier post back on p.1 (c. 6am) and get back to me… **jshore** , you clearly have a stronger stomach than I do ;). **Randy** , well done. Thanks for having the patience to reconstruct the genesis of the Chirac smear. ---
**Author:** ![Payton\_s\_Servant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3da27b/32.png) [@Payton\_s\_Servant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Payton_s_Servant)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/70 "2003-05-16T02:56:41Z")
I just adore the fact that when a columnist takes a shot at Shrub, all the Republicans/Conservatives start screeching and bleating like Shrub was being flayed, convieniently ignoring the fact that when the exact same columnist did the same thing to Clinton for 8 years, the Repubs/conservatives were right there cheering the columnist on. Nice.:rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/71 "2003-05-16T10:56:39Z")
> [@](#): > > _Manhattan_ > Finally, this: > > > [@](#): > > > > It does not count as lying. There are formal rules for how to handle quotes. Unproper handling of quotes would be alterning the wording without the use of brackets or taking away parts without indicating it with the use of periods like so “…”. So formally the quote is correct. Calling it a “lie” is quite simply an ignorant statement. > > > > It is more properly called a “manipulation” / “distortion”. But the most factually way to denote it would be “fragmentary quoting to imply a coherent argument that is not present in the original text”. > > Thank you, President Clinton. But she still lied. Watch: > > > [@](#): > > > > _Originally most definitely not posted by DanielWithrow_ > > So formally the quote is… a “lie.” It is… a “manipulation” / “distortion”. Err. You are quite correct, that last part was “most definitety not posted by” **DanielWithrow**. It was posted by me. As was the one sans selective quoting up above. You think you might have got things a little bit mixed up there, matey? On to the issue. I think things will become a little bit clearer for you, my friend, once you realize that three periods by convention means \. Let’s try again. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RandySpears_ > So formally the quote is \ a “lie”. It is \ a “manipulation” / “distortion”. And that is indeed a formally correct cite of my earlier post. It is certainly no “lie”. But it **is** a **distortion of the argument** I made, insofar that it **implies** another kind of argument than in the original text. So, I hope this was not to “Clinton-esque” for you? (taken to mean correct, informed and pertinent). **mandelstam:** Thanks! I’m not sure though if it’s as much a matter of “patience” as it is of “surplus time”. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/72 "2003-05-16T11:14:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Payton’s Servant \* > \*\*I just adore the fact that when a columnist takes a shot at Shrub, all the Republicans/Conservatives start screeching and bleating like Shrub was being flayed, convieniently ignoring the fact that when the exact same columnist did the same thing to Clinton for 8 years, the Repubs/conservatives were right there cheering the columnist on. > > Nice.:rolleyes: \*\* You have a point, **Payton’s Servant**. It wasn’t a full 8 years, but througout the Lewinsky scandal, Dowd did give Bill Clinton pretty similar treatment. If this were a thread about Dowd’s political bias, your point would be a good defence. However, this is thread is about Dowd’s journalistic integrity. Her Clinton columns are therefore _Exhibit B._ ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/73 "2003-05-16T11:29:07Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > **So, I hope this was not to “Clinton-esque” for you? (taken to mean correct, informed and pertinent).** Why stop at using an ellipsis to replace words. We can manipulate quotes even more easily by replacing letters. E.g., to see that **RandySpears** boasts about lying, just condense his post above to say: **I hope this was… li…es for you.** Seriously, the important point in selecting or condensing a quote is that it fairly represent the speaker’s position. Bush stated in his May 3 Radio Address, two days before the Arkansas speech: > [@](#): > > The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that still goes on. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist networks still operate in many nations. And we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend our homeland and, more importantly, we will continue to hunt the enemy down before he can strike. So, the condensed quote was the opposite of Bush’s position. OTOH the Jacque Chirac quote did more closely agree with his position. No doubt there are some hypothetical circumstances where Chirac might have approved a second UN resolution, but he never said what they might be. I think it’s reasonable to believe that he would have vetoed a second resolution under continued “normal” Iraqi violation of existing UN resolutions. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 11:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/74 "2003-05-16T11:48:08Z")
December, Well if you want to quote me like so: > [@](#): > > I hope this was\ li\es for you. I guess you can and still keep your place in my heart as one of my favourite charming weirdos with the most peculiar of interests. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/75 "2003-05-16T11:56:53Z")
And on your (slightly) more serious notions: This nonsense about the quoting of Chirac being more accurate of his views than in the case of Dowd. Well quite frankly it is BS. BS in the same way that your (unfounded) speculations of what Chirac would have done and would not have done in the future that never came to be. Suffice to say that the latter was discussed at great length in the thread linked to above. [Here it is again.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=179185) So i’ll leave more eleborate December-bashing to some other poster this time. I’m not up for it. I’ll check back here after the weak-end and maybe have a go. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/76 "2003-05-16T12:54:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mandelstam \* > \*\*I asked **Shodan** : > > _" Do you really think that this kind of thing–the decontextualization or editing of a quotation to make it seem more damning than it is–doesn’t happen every day of the week in some place like the WSJ, or on Fox, or what have you?_ > > To which **Shodan** replied: > > _“I am not sure - are you agreeing with me that the quote was deliberately distorted, in order to make a political accusation? And that this is a bad thing to do?”_ > > Why don’t you take a look at my earlier post back on p.1 (c. 6am) and get back to me… \*\* Well, OK, then we are in agreement that Dowd distorted a quote, and that this was dishonest. Your post didn’t have anything from Fox, and the one quote you provided from the Wall Street Journal didn’t seem to me to have any misquotations or distortions. So if you want to provide an example (as **december** and **Daniel Withrow** did), we can discuss if it is equivalent or not. Or start a new thread. I don’t want to hijack this one. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > **PS to Shodan: the term “Usual Suspects” as a term of mild scorn and affectionate derision is trademarked by Elucidator Enterprises, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Project for Universal Enlightenment. On each instance of your use, please forward one dollar to the Eugene V. Debs Memorial Fund.** You have distorted my quote! I didn’t capitalize, and you did not include the necessary trademark[sup]TM[/sup]. Yet another example of the sort of nasty, vicious, left-wing personal attacks on those of us who stand for all that is decent and upstanding in America! Have you no shame? Besides, I don’t have a dollar. _( **Shodan** flounces off to regain his composure by cleaning his guns, adjusting his medications, and polishing his framed but badly PhotoShopped composite of Ann Coulter performing unnatural acts on William F. Buckley, Jr.)_ Regards, Shodan ---
**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 16, 2003, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/77 "2003-05-16T12:55:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\*As to your other point: \*\* **Randy** already pointed this out, but it bears repeating: that wasn’t my other point, it was his. Might wanna fire your fact-checkers. 😉 Daniel ---
**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 16, 2003, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/78 "2003-05-16T15:44:12Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by manhattan \* > \*\*He’s not wrong – they are on the run. Being “on the run” doesn’t mean dissolved or impotent or undangerous, any more than a more conventional army is incapable of inflicting damage whilst retreating. \*\* [Not according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies](http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,955333,00.html): > [@](#): > > The report warns that al-Qaida has reconstituted itself since the war in Afghanistan and was now “doing business in a somewhat different manner, but more insidious and just as dangerous as in its pre-September 11 incarnation”. > > … > > The report says that the US and its allies have had some successes against al-Qaida, with about 2,700 known or suspected terrorists arrested, including its operations chief, Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the third in command. > > They have captured or killed 10 “senior leaders” as well as some 2,000 rank and file members, the institute says. That left a “rump” leadership of around 20 and some 18,000 jihadists who had been through al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan. > > It said that changes in the organisation since the Afghan conflict could make it more difficult to combat: “The counter-terrorism effort also, perversely, impelled an already decentralised and elusive transnational network to become even harder to identify and neutralise.” Doesn’t sound to me like an organization in retreat – and a highly-coordinated terrorist attack is an offensive, not a rear-guard action. Sounds to me like Bush hasn’t kept the pressure on Al Qaida and has ignored the political issues that enable Al Qaida to recruit and exist in countries. I still say he’s not painting an accurate picture, and that his inaccuracy is going to have more serious consequences than the inaccuracies of an unfunny comedic columnist. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![Payton\_s\_Servant](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3da27b/32.png) [@Payton\_s\_Servant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Payton_s_Servant)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/79 "2003-05-16T18:00:30Z")
I think you guys are missing a very important point—Maureen Dowd is an **editorial/opinion columnist** , not a reporter, which, given the mess that is journalistic ehtics these days, seems to make it quite alright for her to take statements out of context and use them any way she pleases. Hey, the Conservatives and Republicans, ie, Drudge, Coulter, Limbaugh et all did the exact same thing to Clinton for 8 years and no one said a damn thing. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2003, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273/80 "2003-05-16T18:50:16Z")
You made two interesting points, **PS**. Reversing their order: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Payton’s Servant \* > Hey, the Conservatives and Republicans, ie, Drudge, Coulter, Limbaugh et all did the exact same thing to Clinton for 8 years and no one said a damn thing. I do agree that Coulter and Limbaugh have done the same thing. They’re vilified when they do it, and properly so. They’re generally regarded as entertainers or partisan hacks, rather than journalists. Is it OK for a regular New York Times columnist to be no better than Limbaugh and Coulter? > [@](#): > > I think you guys are missing a very important point—Maureen Dowd is an **editorial/opinion columnist** , not a reporter, which, given the mess that is journalistic ehtics these days, seems to make it quite alright for her to take statements out of context and use them any way she pleases. Unfortunately, I think you have hit the nail on the head. Maureen Dowd knows exactly what she’s doing. So does her boss, Gail Collins, and her boss, Howell Raines, and his boss Pinch Sulzberger. So does the Committee that awarded her a Pulizer Prize. These journalistic leaders agree that it’s perfectly OK for her to out of context and use them any way she pleases. Pity. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/was-maureen-dowds-comment-correct-spin-innocent-error-or-flat-out-lie/175273.md?page=5)