Redstate

Posted at 12:03pm on May 3, 2006 A lie about a lie?

By kent miller

I have grown accustomed to the propensity of actors, comedians, recording artists and other members of our pop culture to wax moronic when it comes to current political events.  However, something Tim Robbins said here struck me as particularly fatuous and quite possibly revealing of how the left thinks.

(Bush) got us into (the Iraq) war based on lies that he knew were lies

What interested me is this use of the word lie.  The definition of lie that I have always known includes two critical elements: 1) a falsehood and 2) awareness of the falsehood.  Take away the second element and all we have is a falsehood with no intent to deceive.

It is quite important to President Bush's detractors to suggest not only that the reasons stated for the Iraq invasion were false but that the statements were made knowingly and with malice. This lends more emotional appeal to the arguments of people, like Robbins, who, for a host of reasons, want to foster antipathy for Bush. For the record, I don't believe the case has been made with regards to either element of the definition of lie but that isn't the point here.

Why was Robbins redundant by adding "...that he knew were lies"? Using the definition of lie this makes the quote read

Bush) got us into (the Iraq) war by knowingly expressing falsehoods that he knew were known falsehoods

To me this is a little more then a game of vocabulary gotcha.  I think Robbins was upping the ante so to speak by adding the reference to known lies.  This may imply that Robbins has become so accustomed to the very loose employment of the Bushlied ™ meme that he feels it necessary to use redundancy to make the point that Bush spread a known falsehood.  

Henceforth, it may be appropriate to interpret the phrase "Bush lied" as simply that Bush used or relied on a falsehood, unless the phrase is modified in Robbin's manner.

We should also consider that those that toss around Bushlied ™ do so knowing that it doesn't apply.  

A common theme in Gilligan's Island was Ginger believing that her acting experience provided her with important skills that could be used to solve problems and get the cast out of their various predicaments.  Now we are asked to believe that Robbins and other actors are our time's great thinkers. Am I alone in pining for a time when such a notion was considered funny?  

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (11) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:28pm on Apr. 17, 2006 ABC Offers Proof: BushLied

By kent miller

Last week on Good Morning America there was an interesting exchange in regards to President Bush's 2003 assertion regarding the discovery of mobile biological weapons laboratories.  ABC's story represented "piling on" in follow up to a Washington Post story which, while misleading, did not assert the "smoking gun" that ABC presented.

It was stated on ABC that:

They'd found a couple trailers that he said actually were the mobile biological laboratories that he said showed that they were indeed developing WMD, and The Washington Post has a story today that says the President knew at the time that was not true.

This is not a MSM bias post and the intent is neither to delve into the mechanics of ABC's misrepresentation of the Washington Post story nor the Washington Post's misrepresentation of the fact surrounding the issue.  Others have done that well.  For starters check out Powerline's coverage http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013742.php

What struck me is that ABC offered on April 12, 2006 the first proven assertion that BushLied. When this was proven not to be true there was no on air retraction and although they claim to have clarified it on their website I have yet to see it.

Any legitimate claim that BushLied must contain the following;

*    An assertion made by the President which is demonstrably false

*    Proof that the false assertion was made with the knowledge that the assertion was false

Most of the BushLied claims to date fall short of meeting the first criteria.  See No Al-Qaida-Iraq link and Bush's 16 words were false. Another tactic used is to cite facts which are believed to be slam dunks to be proven false and then to falsely assign them to the President.  Examples are saying that Bush linked Iraq to 911 or claimed that Iraq was "an imminent threat".

Every other BushLied claim (most of which are WMD related) failed to meet the second criteria. Good Morning America offered the "smoking gun" with a shrug and little fanfare. They ended up apologizing to the White House privately but failed to reverse their assertion to the audience that initially heard it.

Is ABC's (and the rest of the MSM's) nonchalant treatment of this on-air blunder a result of embarrassment?  Or, is it, as I believe, a result of their believing that the BushLied meme has all ready been proven thus, neither the original blunder nor what should be a public retraction, is of any consequence.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:57pm on Mar. 29, 2006 Life Imitates HBO?

By kent miller

My initial reaction to the nationwide school walkouts surrounding the immigration debate was one of puzzlement. The students that we saw on the news acted as if they were reacting to a simmering problem that just reached the boiling point; in a manner similar to those that protested during the late `60's in reaction to civil rights abuses and the war in Viet Nam. The immigration walkouts happened quite suddenly with seemingly very little warning.

Even though there is quite a bit of evidence (such as provided by the David Horowitz and others) http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=4 that the riots and protests of the late `60's were sponsored and supported by foreign and/or anti-American agitators I am quite certain that there was a significant organic or homegrown component to the protests.  The immigration walkouts, which were marked by students across the country leaving school en masse, to me, had a synthetic ring to them.  

Initial report in the MSM made it seem as if we were witnessing a spontaneous response to a very topical issue that, understandably, caused a very passionate response in a great number of people. Subsequent reports, such as this one, http://cbs2.com/topstories/local_story_087231321.html appear to suggest that the school walkouts, as well as the weekend mass protests were not as spontaneous as we originally thought.

My first thought was of the HBO movie Walkout http://www.hbo.com/films/walkout/ which premiered just last Saturday.  Walkout, directed by Edward James Olmos (who I admire greatly) is the story of a walkout coordinated by Hispanic students in East LA in response to the ill treatment that they were subjected to on a persistent basis.  Walkout provided the look and feel of the `60's protest movement along with the ethnic pride component that Olmos provided in Stand and Deliver.  Ironically, in Stand and Deliver, the Hispanic students demonstrated their ethnic pride by mastering integral calculus.  In Walkout they achieve it by leaving school.

I haven't seen much discussion of this but I am curious to know if anyone else thinks there may be a link here.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (3) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 1:32am on Mar. 29, 2006 AP Provides Partial List of Common Superstitions

By kent miller

Because I think eclipses are cool, I read this article today with interest.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/28/AR200603280
0434.html

I was amused at the following from the article:

Superstition will follow around the world, as it has for generations.

One Indian paper advised pregnant women not to go outside during the eclipse to avoid having a blind baby or one with a cleft lip. Food cooked before the eclipse should be thrown out afterward because it will be impure and those who are holding a knife or ax during the eclipse will cut themselves, the Hindustan Times added.

I was first struck by how such ridiculous notions could be held simultaneously by so many people.  It then occurred to me that AP was, as they are wont to do, inserting editorial opinion by declaring these notions to be superstitions.  The least they could do is put scare quotes around superstition to let the reader know that these things were subject to personal interpretation.

Since AP has decided to help us fact check The Hindustan Times I am sure we will soon see them put the following superstitions held by many closer to home to rest:

1. There was no connection between Iraq and Al -Qaida prior to the US invasion
   
   
2.  President Bush's famous 16 word assertion that British intelligence determined that Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa was completely discredited by Joe Wilson's assertion that "no transaction ever took place"
   
   
3. That WMD was the only reason we went into Iraq
   
   
4.  That when you assert something that isn't proven true within 3 years, you lied about it.  This applies even when you and just about everybody else believed it to be true. (Google search Bush Lied for citation)
   
   
5. The Bush administration claimed Iraq was behind 9/11
   
   
6. Iraqis don't believe getting rid of Saddam Hussein was "worth it"
   
   
7. There is no "good news" to report from Iraq
   
   
8. President Bush called the Iraq threat an imminent one
   
   
9. You can count on AP and Jennifer Loven in particular for objective journalism
   

Aside from causing food to be wasted, the superstitions promulgated by The Hindustan Times have little consequence.  Not so for the ones that have yet to be addressed by the AP.  They could have serious impact on how our future leaders chose to deal with emerging threats to our country and way of life.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 3:52am on Dec. 17, 2005 NY Times Compromises The War On Terror

By kent miller

Regarding The Times timly release of their article "Bush Secretly Lifted Some Limits on Spying in U.S. After 9/11, Officials Say" I've notice some interesting reactions.

 The liberals tend to be shouting "1984" and `Big Brother' as loudly and frequently as is possible.  I've seem little if any acknowledgement of the upside of this so called egregious trampling of civil rights; namely that we haven't had an attack in 4 years.

 From the side of conservatives and sincere civil libertarians I've observed some thoughtful cost benefit analysis of the tradeoffs associated with balancing the civil liberty costs associated with absolute security as well as the security costs associated with absolute civil liberties, but I have also seen some rather scary `ends justify the means" arguments from conservatives.  I am most impressed with those that choose to allow The United States Constitution to be the arbiter of the boundaries that should be placed upon government activities.

I personally don't think that the lack of significant breeches of civil liberties documented since the inception of The Patriot Act is sufficient to justify its existence.  Nor does the best intentions and perhaps thoughtful application of elements of the NSA's "special collection program" which have traditionally been eschewed on Constitutional grounds, make me comfortable with the program in perpetuity.  9/11 and the ensuing War on Terror create special circumstances that require consideration of not only the costs of civil liberty compromises but also of the resultant benefits.  Both sides of this equation needs to be evaluated on its own.  For example because we have not had an attack in 4 years (the benefit) does not mean that there has not been some loss of civil liberties (the cost).  Nor does the loss of civil liberties (if you believe that to be a fact) mean that there has been no resultant benefit.  To me this only seems like reasonable and logical rules to the debate, but you don't have to look far to find reactionary liberals denying the benefits and pragmatic conservatives denying that there are costs.  

What I hope for is a reasonable public debate that demonstrates the costs and benefits in a manner which is as comprehensive as is possible without jeopardizing critical intelligence gathering tools.  What I fear is continuing political posturing that places the political fortunes of our leaders above either our constitutionally protected civil liberties or our national security.  I am counting the days until either author of the McCain-Feingold Amendment has the unmitigated temerity to lecture on civil liberties when neither has demonstrated an understanding that the most important parts or The Constitution begin with "Congress shall make no law....".

In regards to the NY Times, they have clearly shown that they will do anything to undermine President Bush and The War on Terror.  The argument that they provided cover to The President during the election holds little merit.  They simply didn't believe that it would do much damage, since an aggressive defense of Administration policies, which would surely ensue, and the fact that the policies were enacted with an informed Congress and Judiciary, would convince the public that these measures were justified.  The timing of the release to dampen the impact of the Iraqi elections is quite possibly,  in the Times view, optimal in its ability to do damage to The President.  I will be curious to find out which bits the Times acknowledges compromises intelligence but were printed anyway.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (4) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:27pm on Dec. 15, 2005 Patriot Act

By kent miller

Current events that would be front and center in the debate regarding the balancing of civil liberties and national security, if we had a responsible, non-partisan media, include:

1)    Senator Weldon's investigations into the Able Danger Project

2)    9/11 commission findings (or lack thereof) of correlation  between our not preventing terrorist acts and  "The Wall" separating federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies from sharing information.

3)    How was Commission member Gorelick allowed even to serve on the Commission given her vested interest in protecting the previous administration for which she served?

4)    Democrat senators such as Feinstein http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comstock200401211300.asp of CA who are on the record declaring that to her knowledge, no civil liberty breaches can be attributed to The Patriot Act.

5)    Evidence exists that the so called "controversial" provisions have indeed helped thwart terrorist activities since 9/11.

The renewal of The Patriot At should be above political considerations and calculus.  A candid and thorough review of the issues (including those listed above) in a senate debate will separate, for those who are paying attention, those who have legitimate, albeit in my mind misguided, concerns for civil liberties over national security, and those who choose to be contrarian for political gain.

Democrats who supported the original Patriot Act but now won't support breaking a filibuster may be exposed for one of the following:

1)    Attempting political gain at the expense of national security in advance of the 2006 elections

2)    Being cavalier in regards to civil liberties because it was politically expedient to do so in the wake of 9/11.

The only intellectually honest arguments would be held by those who have not changed their position regarding the Patriot Act, or those that say that new data suggest abuse of The Act or that it is simply no longer required.  For either of these arguments to hold up I would expect to see data.  I don't believe that data exists, but isn't that what debates are for?

Civil liberties vs. nation security is a cost vs. benefit argument.  Belief that there are no national security costs associated with unlimited civil liberties is as intellectually dishonest as is the belief that absolute security (no possibility of terrorism) can occur without the wholesale trashing of civil liberties.  We need to find the optimum point between these two extreme positions.  I believe we are closer to that point with The Patriot Act than without it.

Posted in User Blogs — Comments (0) / Email this page » / Read More »