A familiar place.
By Victor Davis Hanson
"Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians."
Midget Hot Rink
I blame the extremist spin doctors for this problem. Recent history has been all about twisting the truth to point in subtilely wrong directions. For instance:
“The reason we are at war with Iraq has to do with WMD or “terrorist connections””, was utterly false yet we are there.
“That J Kerry was a terrible soldier and G W Bush was more experienced at combat than Kerry”… another lie.
“Arlen Spector is a left wing extremist…” ha ha ha…
“The written and televised media are not to be trusted…” this spin has served the republicans really well.
“Oil is so expensive that we really need to drill in Alaska, other forms of energy are too expensive…” what a crock, create a situation so that you have to do the worst thing.
The list is too long and convoluted to write here. When your own government spends it’s time spouting lies and lies about lies, you can expect that the general population will become confused about the simplest issues. So you could say that it is the same people who are in power and spout moral superiority that have driven the general public to be confused about moral issues. Don’t blame the general public for confusion, blame the power brokers who constantly lie to keep the public confused and their power intact. 
Hanson misquotes Dingell, and I am sure that he knows it. The article raises a good issue, but the treatment is crap.
| Quote (DrGuitar @ Aug. 09 2006,11:17) |
| I blame the extremist spin doctors for this problem. Recent history has been all about twisting the truth to point in subtilely wrong directions. For instance: “The reason we are at war with Iraq has to do with WMD or “terrorist connections””, was utterly false yet we are there. “That J Kerry was a terrible soldier and G W Bush was more experienced at combat than Kerry”… another lie. “Arlen Spector is a left wing extremist…” ha ha ha… “The written and televised media are not to be trusted…” this spin has served the republicans really well. “Oil is so expensive that we really need to drill in Alaska, other forms of energy are too expensive…” what a crock, create a situation so that you have to do the worst thing. The list is too long and convoluted to write here. When your own government spends it’s time spouting lies and lies about lies, you can expect that the general population will become confused about the simplest issues. So you could say that it is the same people who are in power and spout moral superiority that have driven the general public to be confused about moral issues. Don’t blame the general public for confusion, blame the power brokers who constantly lie to keep the public confused and their power intact.
|
First point, suffice to say that both J. Kerry and Bill Clinton stated publicly that Iraq had WMD’s
Second point, Never heard that quote, attribution?
Third point,
Fourth point, CBS (forged memo), New York Times (Jason Blair),
Reuters (doctored photo’s).
Fifth point, it would been easier just to lift the embargo.
Check out the U.N. Oil for Food Program.
Midget Hot Rink
Midget, I will not argue with you. You have chosen to follow the spin. It is easy to explain away a lie with half truths. Point to the mistake of another person and claim that if they were mistaken, then the person in power should be allowed to make the same mistake policy. That is exactly what I was talking about and you have proved my point precisely.
| Quote (Midget Hot Rink @ Aug. 09 2006,00:33) |
|
By Victor Davis Hanson "Our present generation too is on the brink of moral insanity. That has never been more evident than in the last three weeks, as the West has proven utterly unable to distinguish between an attacked democracy that seeks to strike back at terrorist combatants, and terrorist aggressors who seek to kill civilians." Midget Hot Rink |
Meh, it is the same old same old. Yeah, every other civilization ever conceived by man had the highest moral regard to human life as the raped and pillaged their way around the world. Right. What it comes down to is this… the terrorist is the guy not on your side. The present breed also seem to fight dirty… but no more dirty it seems than past history shows folks to fight. History is written by the winners. Who knows, maybe Iran will get the nuke and we (or our new robot over lords) will all be reading about the terrible American oppressors in another 100 years. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think blowing yourself up on a bus is ever justified… but it is nothing new. My point and what gets me is this is used by commentators to stir folks up using supposed surprise and urgency (MORAL INSANITY! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!) as if cruelty, fighting dirty, arguing over land rights based on natural resources/religion, those not benefitting from the status quo scratching their way to be the one’s who set the status quo, or the poor fighting not in the “king’s” fashion were new or unusual.
| Quote (TomS @ Aug. 09 2006,11:48) |
| Hanson misquotes Dingell, and I am sure that he knows it. The article raises a good issue, but the treatment is crap. |
No, I heard that quote myself. He said those words. I did not hear the entire interview however, so I cannot comment on the context.
Midget Hot Rink
| Quote (DrGuitar @ Aug. 09 2006,14:26) |
| It is easy to explain away a lie with half truths. Point to the mistake of another person and claim that if they were mistaken, then the person in power should be allowed to make the same mistake policy. That is exactly what I was talking about and you have proved my point precisely. |
What is the "half truth" ? All three men stated publicly that they believed Saddaam had WMD's . And it was not the sole justification for going into Iraq.
Midget Hot Rink
umm, still, regardless if someone doesnt want to argue, listing the source of said quotes is sort of … nessecary…
In the world of Bullshit baffles Brains, Bullshit seems to be winning, but there again as Bubba says “it aint nothing new”
| Quote (Midget Hot Rink @ Aug. 09 2006,22:25) | ||
No, I heard that quote myself. He said those words. I did not hear the entire interview however, so I cannot comment on the context. Midget Hot Rink |
If you actually read credible news sources you'd find that Dingell has twice called for the EU to put Hezzbolah on the list of terrorist organizations. You picked up on a Powerline/Washington times bit of yellow journalism - more evidence that people will believe what they want to be true, rather than bother to investigate. Here's a summary from Think Progress - and if you don't trust this liberal blog, you can always listen to the actual audio, and if you don't trust that then I'll put you in the "conspiracy nut" file.
Following Powerline, Washington Times Falsely Claims Dingell Refuses To ?Condemn Hezbollah?
Yesterday, the right-wing blog Powerline posted a chopped audio clip from a July 30 interview to smear Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) as a Hezbollah apologist. This morning, the Washington Times follows their lead:
Here?s what Mr. Dingell had to say to a reporter in Detroit the other day during a television program: ?I don?t take sides for or against Hezbollah; I don?t take sides for or against Israel.? When asked if he really wasn?t ?against Hezbollah,? Mr. Dingell replied, ?No.?
Part of what?s behind Mr. Dingell?s appalling refusal to condemn Hezbollah are the tens of thousands of Muslims, mostly Shi?ites, living in his Michigan district.
Dingell did condemn Hezbollah in the same interview the Washington Times criticizes. The Washington Times cuts Dingell?s answer off at ?No.? Here?s the full exchange:
Q: You?re not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: No, I happen to be ? I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence.
Dingell also signed a letter on July 28, two days before the interview aired, calling on the EU to add Hezbollah to their terrorist list. He also voted for a House Resolution in March 2005 which made the same request. (In a subsquent post responding to ?the loons at Think Progress,? Powerline nevertheless maintains that Dingell ?does not quite deem [Hezbollah] a terrorist group.?)
There are legitimate criticisms of Dingell?s position on this issue. But they should be based on his actual views, not a dishonest caricature.
Contact Tony Blankley, the Washington Times Editorial Page Editor, and (politely) tell him to publish Dingell?s full response and stop misleading his readers.
Filed under: Middle East
Lesson: Hanson is a wanker and the NR not something one should read uncritically...
| Quote (TomS @ Aug. 10 2006,12:53) | ||||||
If you actually read credible news sources you’d find that Dingell has twice called for the EU to put Hezzbolah on the list of terrorist organizations. You picked up on a Powerline/Washington times bit of yellow journalism - more evidence that people will believe what they want to be true, rather than bother to investigate. Here’s a summary from Think Progress - and if you don’t trust this liberal blog, you can always listen to the actual audio, and if you don’t trust that then I’ll put you in the “conspiracy nut” file. <!–QuoteBegin>
Lesson: Hanson is a wanker and the NR not something one should read uncritically… |
As I stated I was not able to hear the entire interview, so I could not comment on the context of that quote. I will be happy to review the entire interview if you can post a link to it.
Midget Hot Rink
Huh, I thought I had included the link. Here’s the interview posted at thinkprogress.com:
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/01/powerline-dingell/
| Quote (TomS @ Aug. 11 2006,11:20) |
| Huh, I thought I had included the link. Here’s the interview posted at thinkprogress.com: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/08/01/powerline-dingell/ |
Huh? The following is from your link.
Now a cynic or “conspiracy nut”, may see this as a politician tangled up in his own duplicity.
DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter. Now, I condemn Hezbollah as does everybody else, for the violence, but I think if we’ve got to talk to them and if we don’t — if we don’t get ourselves in a position where we can talk to both sides and bring both sides together, the killing and the blood let is going to continue.
Midget Hot Rink
Like I said above, selective reading, midget. You have an agenda that is guiding the meaning you find in the text. People who are interested in genuine discourse recognize that sometimes people need to clarify their positions, and Dingell’s position is about as clear as it gets. He has condemned H. several times as a terrorist organization. In the context of the particular discussion he misspoke slightly, but later clarified. In any case, your friend Hanson was retailing not just a selective quotation, but a fabrication. Like you, he has an agenda driving him. Not exactly the dispassionate pursuit of truth, is it? 
| Quote (TomS @ Aug. 12 2006,10:35) |
| Like I said above, selective reading, midget. You have an agenda that is guiding the meaning you find in the text. People who are interested in genuine discourse recognize that sometimes people need to clarify their positions, and Dingell’s position is about as clear as it gets. He has condemned H. several times as a terrorist organization. In the context of the particular discussion he misspoke slightly, but later clarified. In any case, your friend Hanson was retailing not just a selective quotation, but a fabrication. Like you, he has an agenda driving him. Not exactly the dispassionate pursuit of truth, is it?
|
Get real, Tommy, you are the one with an agenda!!!
DINGELL: Well, we don’t, first of all, I don’t take sides for or against Hezbollah or for or against Israel.
ANCHOR: You’re not against Hezbollah?
DINGELL: No, I happen to be — I happen to be against violence, I think the United States has to bring resolution to this matter…
Twice he said he was not with or against Hezbollah ( or H. as you put it ) and once he said he was not with or against Israel.
Whatever His previous or subsequent comments, I think logic will bear the “duplicitous politician” interpretation.
P.S. Sorry, I’m just getting used to this “smiley business”…
Well, OK, you are correct, I do have an agenda, it is to spread the virtues of critical thinking. Dingell misspoke for a moment there, and then corrected himself. He has taken the same stand on H. for years. I know. I’m from Michigan and pay attention.
But you can ignore what he has repeatedly said on the topic in favor of a comment taken out of context and then restated in new words by some conservative wanker if you want. The only problem is, you have then given up actually looking at the evidence and thinking about things; in that sense my agenda differs, in that it requires me to recognize complexity and amibiguity, and apply the “hermeneutics of suspicion” and the “principle of charity in interpretation” (and whatever other intrepretive tools are applicable) as is appropriate. People whoa redriven by “agendas” in the bad sense don’t have to bother with that. 
| Quote (TomS @ Aug. 13 2006,19:37) |
| Well, OK, you are correct, I do have an agenda, it is to spread the virtues of critical thinking. Dingell misspoke for a moment there, and then corrected himself. He has taken the same stand on H. for years. I know. I'm from Michigan and pay attention. But you can ignore what he has repeatedly said on the topic in favor of a comment taken out of context and then restated in new words by some conservative wanker if you want. The only problem is, you have then given up actually looking at the evidence and thinking about things; in that sense my agenda differs, in that it requires me to recognize complexity and amibiguity, and apply the "hermeneutics of suspicion" and the "principle of charity in interpretation" (and whatever other intrepretive tools are applicable) as is appropriate. People whoa redriven by "agendas" in the bad sense don't have to bother with that.
|
If all you took from the article I linked to is the Dingell quote , then you do indeed have an agenda, tho not the one you stated. He was quoted accuratly and in context. If he contradicted his earlier or later statments that is not a reflection on the author.
In any case it is a moot point, as the gist of the article is in no way dependant on the quote in question.
Midget Hot Rink
P.S.
"hermeneutics of suspicion" and the "principle of charity in interpretation"
WOW I'm Impressed!!!
S’OK, MHP, I do have an agenda - of following reason where it leads, and not imposing some preconceived view on things. It’s not the only thing I took from the article, but if you think that the way Hanson used the Dingell quote is good journalism, then I can only say what I said before - you are not interested in following reason where it leads, you are interested in finding confirmation of your preconceived view of the world. That’s your agenda. You read John Dean’s new book, Conservatives without Conscience? I suspect you might find yourself in those pages. Hanson fits squarely. Not everything he says is incorrect - that much of the world is anti-Semitic, e.g., is absolutely correct - but much of the article is the usual name calling one gets from his kind of “journalist” - e.g., the "serial ravings on the Middle East of Pat Buchanan and Jimmy Carter - that’s just crap.