|
Before I begin, this is just an exercise in thinking about what we expect or should expect out of gov't officials.
Here's a statement: "Saddam did have weapons of mass destruction" Given the definition of WOMDs, this statement is of course true. There is no getting around this. But given today, Saddam is in US custody, and even now he 'did have weapons of mass destruction' as we defined them. WE GAVE THEM TO HIM!!!
The above paragraph is a sin of misleading the public. It's almost close to a throw down gun by a cop. But is the cop lying when he says the criminal had a gun? In this case, the cop threw the gun down 16 years or so before he shot the criminal. It's a deception by leaving out the concept of time.
When the White House released the background briefing that Clarke gave, it related information that was true. It's not untrue. It IS deceptive. Thompson, who says he is from the Midwest, tried to accuse Clarke of saying something that was untrue. Thompson is not that far from being correct, but Clarke's correction of 'politics' left him gasping. Thompson is far too old to be playing this Polyanna stuff.
The 7 points are a mirage, and this is what all administrations do. They use time as a means to lie. What Clarke said he did is exactly what all the spinners do on all the shows, with the exception that Clarke actually did not get caught in an untruth, if you forgive the 'time' standard.
The entire time I heard Clarke's 7 points crap, it was funny how I was thinking to my self....that's all nice, but WHEN did each happen....WHEN did each actually become policy and what do most of his seven points mean.
You have to remember that this story happened in the summer of 2002, so you can say that we did this, we did that, and we were on our way to doing this without lying. The press has the job of checking these officials, because they have been spinning like this for years.
Everything Clark said was 'true', but it each point was not held to the standard of when. Many things only happened at 9/4/2001. Many things happened after it. But given his statements, you can't tell what actually happened, because the press wasn't inquisitive. Then again, it was a 'background' report, which likely is to put them at ease, rather than make them inquisitive.
I guess what I'm saying is I am sort of philosophically sensitive to Thompson's polyanna routine. I would love to have the gov't answer questions fully, rather than spin them. But the onus is on the press to ask specific questions, to be on the ball right now. And they are clearly not there.
I don't think of this as that much different from previous times in our democracy, but while Thompson pretended or actually was shocked(he pretended), do we expect gov't officials to tell the whole truth? It seems they tell as much of the truth to keep them from making something up. Otherwise, they neither confirm or deny.
I don't see this as an easy thing to understand or prevent. I was appalled by the hack on Wolf Blitzer who could not understand the 3 options Clarke presented. Does anyone believe that there should be a resignation everytime a gov't official is asked to spin?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
