Third Party & Independents: Archives

Matt:

Along with the word “spin”, I hope our country also condemns the use of the word “lie”. Today, any incorrect statement automatically becomes a lie. Yet a lie must have intent, while many incorrect statements do not have intent to them.

For instance, if I say that you are 40 years old, it might be incorrect, but still not be a lie. It might simply be incorrect.

As far as campaign ads go, the level of spin, and the level of misinformation is a reason I don’t rely much on them. They might bolster an existing opinion I have by reinforcing it in my mind, but the homework will have already been done.

Matt, this isnt to say that there arent lies out there. FactCheck.org has listed a number of “exaggerations” from both parties, yet both parties persist in repeating them. So what may have started as spin or exaggeration then becomes a lie.

The end result of this is to alert the public to do their own homework on the issues. Look at the issues from various viewpoints, such as the red, green and blue columns on WB. Look for the inherent biases in different sources, and factor them into the equation. Then, and only then, decide what the facts lead you to believe as the truth.

Matt —

I agree. JBOD’s comments, while accurate, further reflect the cynicism of politics: We have to do our own research to find out what part of the candidates’ speeches is true. We shouldn’t need to do that, regardless of whether politicans have always lied or not. They lie to us because WE LET THEM.

Alejo:

It’s been that way always, and will always be that way. Often times, its simply how to view certain factual information. There can be facts which can be viewed as meaning different things.

For instance, if there is evidence of heavier attacks in the month of October in Iraq, it could mean that A) the situation is worsening, or B) that the terrorists are trying to influence the election in a last ditch hope. Both are plausible conclusions, and therefore could be made without it being called spin.

In WWII, the Battle of the Bulge was viewed at the time as a defeat for the US. The Germans counterattacked and pushed through US forces, creating the bulge in our lines in the Ardennes Forest. It has been acknowledged, via history and hindsight, that the Battle of the Bulge was NOT a turning point of success for the Germans, but rather a last ditch effort on their part. But at the time, no one knew.

Our world is simply not black and white; instead its a world full of gray. There are few things that are so clear that they can be unequivocally stated as total fact. One would have thought that the videotapes of the Rodney King situation and the riots that followed his trial would have provided clear unassailable facts. Yet the officers who beat King were found not guilty, and some of the rioters caught on tape beating Reg Denny were also found not guilty. Despite all the clear “facts” on the tapes, the outcomes were subject to differing opinions.

But we can certainly look with intellect and base our opinion on the preponderance of fact.

Matt,

I saw that same interview last week, and agree, Koch’s comment about only the left booing was particularly annoying.

I was reminded of it while reading a column here on WB painting democrats as willing to go to any lengths to get their man in office.

It doesn’t take a lot of critical thinking to see that there are dumb actions being perpetrated on both sides.

Yes, politicians lie to us because they can count on the fact that many people do not bother to follow up and find out whether or not they’re telling the truth.

With all this bullshit flying around by both major parties, it’s a real disappointment to me that there isn’t a third party for me to get behind. I read on someone’s personal blog here (and I’m sorry I don’t remember whose) that there should be a centrist third party (instead of fringe) that could attract quite a number of voters. Thoughts?

jbod —

Come on, man, give me some credit. I’m not being a complete idealist — we all know the world isn’t black and white. But we also know there are measurable truths. To use one that damages my own candidate, we KNOW Kerry’s figure for the cost of the Iraq war was a lie. Not a spin, not an exaggeration — an intentional lie. A provable untruth.

If everyone checked their facts, politicians couldn’t get away with lying. Since very few people bother to check their ideology at the door when they listen to politicians, politicians don’t have to change. I don’t care if it has always been that way; that doesn’t mean it always has to be that way.

CER —

A centrist third party? Sounds good to me! Who shall lead us?

jbod,

Our world is simply not black and white; instead its a world full of gray. There are few things that are so clear that they can be unequivocally stated as total fact.

This is the perfect lead in to my question.

Did George Bush lie when he stated unequivocally that Iraq had WMD?

I have always felt that he did lie because of the unequivocal way that he said it. To quote GWB, “He’s got weapons of mass destruction.” (October 28, 2002) This was not something Bush knew, but believed. It turned out to be false.

To me, there is a fundamental difference between saying “He’s got weapons of mass destruction” and saying “We believe that he has weapons of mass destruction.”

There’s no question that Bush didn’t tell the truth. But being wrong about Iraq having WMD didn’t preclude him from telling the truth, he just didn’t do it.

Dan

Ed Koch was famous for booing.

-Cf

For instance, if I say that you are 40 years old, it might be incorrect, but still not be a lie. It might simply be incorrect.

How about if Bush tells Congress that the prescription drug act will cost a certain amount, knowing that it will cost about $150+ billion more? Is that a lie?

An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program’s chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

Alejo,

we KNOW Kerry’s figure for the cost of the Iraq war was a lie

Technically, it was a projection. :)

While only $120 billion has been spent, the other $80 billion has already been approved by Congress for next years budget. I’m sure you also noticed that as soon as the media pounced on it, Kerry started using the more accurate $120 billion figure - while Bush still talks about the danger of terrorists getting Saddam’s non-existent WMD through non-existent connections.

AP —

I was trying to be fair. Kerry did present the figure knowing it wasn’t factually true. The fact that I think Bush tells more damning lies is only my own opinion, so I try not to fling it about too much.

It should probably be noted that the Bush Administration just requested $70 billion more, so it was only inaccurate for a week or two…

You can’t blame the Republicans for Ed Koch. He was is and probably always will be a Democrat and a liberal. That is what made the booing so interesting. Koch said that he disagreed with Bush about everything else, but thought that Bush would protect America better and that meant that everything else mattered less. You may disagree with him, but it was evidently a true confession of his belief. Koch has nothing to gain from supporting Bush and maybe a lot to lose.

Koch did not deserve to be booed or grilled by John Steward, who not only gave John Kerry a free pass, but actually caught some of the passes for him. I have been a fan of the Daily Show for years, but it is becoming too political of late. Humor can be deadly serious.

There is a definite double standard. When people like Koch, (with impeccable Democratic credentials), Ray Flynn (a Boston Democrat who knows Kerry well), or Zell Miller criticize the John Kerry they can expect boos and derision and censure in the mainstream media and the commedy shows. When Jim Jeffords deserted his party right after being elected as a Republican, he was hailed as courageous.

As for intolerance, I think there is enough on both side. We should try this simple experiment. Put on a Kerry T-shirt and walk through Salt Lake City or Simi Valley and see what happens. Now put on a Bush T-shirt and walk through San Francisco or New York. I really don’t know what would be the results, but if I was concerned about my safety know which I would wear.

Dan:

The thing you should keep in mind is that George Bush is a man of Faith. When he says “Saddam has weapons of mass destruction”, it’s no more a lie than when he says “Jesus loves me, he’d vote for me.” These are things he firmly believes are true, and that he bases the way he lives his life on, even if he cannot factually claim to know them.

Of course, children firmly believe in the tooth fairy, and you don’t see us electing them to public office to give them a chance to act on that faith… ;-)

As a general response, does anyone really believe that the people spending millions of dollars on these political campaigns didn’t do any fact checking? The idea that “oops, we didn’t know that” is an acceptable response is absurd. If they truly didn’t do the most basic research before making their speeches or producing their commercials, then they are not competent to be in the position they are in or frankly, not to denigrate fast food workers, but not even competent to do anything more challenging than asking “do you want fries with that?”.

And believing something is true without having any factual basis for that belief is no better an excuse.

JBOD, you are right the world was, is, and always will be full of lies. Kids learn lying gets them things by the age of 2. It still works at 40.

Perhaps that flinging bullshit thing only with real bullshit every time someone tells a whopper would help. At least I’d laugh.

Jack, I agree with you Jon Stewart should be less admiring of Kerry, it just ain’t funny.

I wish Dennis Miller had a sense of humor, at least there’d be some balance among comedy shows.

> There is a definite double standard.

I’m not trying to be a wise-acre here, but I don’t see a double standard at all. Think about it from the point of view of a person whose political beleifs are deeply felt, and genuine. I happen to think that Democrats and Republicans don’t have equally valid political views. I prefer Democratic policies. Therefore a person who leaves the Democratic party to support a Republican or Republican policies has, to me, changed their policies for the worse, while a Republican who leaves their party to support a Democrat has changed their policies for the better.

This is, of course, in general. I have seen occasions where the Democrat was so heinous that their opposition was indeed superior.

Republicans should feel totally free to think the exact inverse of the above and also not be accused of a double standard.

-Cf

Alejo:

Believe me, I give you much credit. I find your posts to be very intelligent, even while I disagree with some of your conclusions. Your logic typically works out, though I find a different conclusion than you do from the same set of information.

Of course there are provable facts, like the one you mentioned regarding Kerry. There are the same for Bush. I check out FactCheck.org regularly and find both candidates guilty as sin of using bad information, and information that they KNOW is bad.

Dan:

I don’t think Bush lied about the WMD’s any more than any of the scores of other people who said there were WMD’s lied about it. Kerry thought Saddam had them, Clinton thought Saddam had them, France, Germany etc etc thought Saddam had them.

Bush said plainly what he thought to be true. If you consider Bush to be a liar for having done so, then you also have to consider Kerry and Clinton to have equally lied, since their comments were just as plain.

It’s evident that the information was wrong. And its evident that Bush played up the information, or took the worst possible scenario about it. As to that, so did Clinton when he approved Operation Desert Fox, during which he asserted that he was taking pre-emptive military action against WMD’s.

I dont consider either man to have lied, though I do think both maximized the information that bolstered their cases and minimized the information that went against their cases.

Jack:
“Koch did not deserve to be booed or grilled by John Steward,”

But Ed Koch had to know who The Daily Show’s audience is and which side of the isle they lean towards. Just as Jon Stewart knew before the show that Koch has been speaking out in support of Dubya and would therefore want to question him about breaking with his party. Also, since the show is political in nature, all the political guests should have a fair idea that political questions are going to be raised and reacted to by the audience.

“who not only gave John Kerry a free pass, but actually caught some of the passes for him.”

And what exactly is wrong with that? Its a free country. John Stewart has as much right as anyone to his own political affiliation. If you don’t agree with him, you can always change the channel, right?

“I have been a fan of the Daily Show for years, but it is becoming too political of late.”

Its a fake news show. Its always been political — even long before Jon Stewart took it over and made it his own.

“Humor can be deadly serious.”

Well, he was definitely serious when he went on Crossfire and shredded both Tucker Carlson and Paul Begalia. But at least he was honest enough to admit that he didn’t go on that show to be their “Monkey”. And I think that what he said about the media letting us all down by not asking real questions, while simultaneously helping to tear this country apart with nothing but partisan punditry are opinions that could definitely be appreciated by many people left, right and center. Don’t you agree?

jbod,

I agree that many thought Saddam had them. I actually googled looking for a quote where Kerry stated that Saddam had WMD, but didn’t find one. I found two quotes.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force— if necessary— to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to Miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real. - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), January 23, 2003

It’s evident that the information was wrong. And its evident that Bush played up the information, or took the worst possible scenario about it. As to that, so did Clinton when he approved Operation Desert Fox, during which he asserted that he was taking pre-emptive military action against WMD’s.

Operation Desert Fox was in late 1998. It is possible for Clinton to have been correct, while still leaving Bush incorrect.

I really don’t know much about ODF, so I’ll make the following statement looking to be corrected if I’m wrong. It could be that Bush was wrong because ODF was successful. Also, I think comparing ODF to this war is really reaching.

George W. Bush, as commander-in-chief, must be held to a higher standard than any Senator. He is the only one with access to the sources in the intelligence. The Senators only have access to the intelligence report, not the sources. No one else could seriously question the validity of the intelligence. No one else could make the decision to invade Iraq. No one else had the power to invade Iraq.

When he states, “He has weapons of mass destruction,” we believe him because he’s the president and presidents simply don’t say that unless it’s true.

It could be that Bush was wrong because ODF was successful.

Dan, Gen. Zinni, who was CENTCOM for ODF backs you up in the book, “Battle Ready”,

“None of the equipment or facilities targeted had been prepared for it. None had been moved (no shell game). All the targets had been hit — hard.” Zinni told his boss, General Shelton, “We’ve done about as much damage to the WMD program as we’re going to do. Any more would just be bombing for bombing’s sake.”

jbod,

I don’t think Bush lied about the WMD’s any more than any of the scores of other people who said there were WMD’s lied about it.

Except that by March 2003, everybody but Bush and Cheney had changed their minds in the face of mounting evidence that there was not WMD. Hell, the IAEA had completely cleared Saddam of having nukes or nuke programs by that time - though Bush kept on making the debunked claim, regardless.

Dan:

Kerry has made many statements through the years that positively state that Saddam had WMD’s. Even the quote you provided says that Kerry admits voting for the use of force precisely because Saddam’s WMD’s created a grave threat. If Kerry isnt saying that Saddam had WMD’s, then he must toss out his reason for voting for the resolution. No other way to see that quote.

Bill Clinton said he did not know how successful ODF was in destroying the WMD’s. It’s possible that he destroyed them all, or that none existed, or that he destroyed some of them.

The Duelfer report seems to indicate that there were no WMD’s after 1991, which would make Clinton, and everyone else, a liar, under your standards.

“the top U.S. arms inspector said Wednesday he found no evidence that Iraq produced any weapons of mass destruction after 1991…But Duelfer also supports Bush’s argument that Saddam remained a threat. Interviews with the toppled leader and other former Iraqi officials made clear that Saddam had not lost his ambition to pursue weapons of mass destruction and hoped to revive his weapons program if U.N. sanctions were lifted, his report said.

“What is clear is that Saddam retained his notions of use of force, and had experiences that demonstrated the utility of WMD,” Duelfer told Congress.”

You must use the same standards for all equally, rather than using one standard for Democrats and another harsher one for Republicans.

If bush lied, then so did the others. If the others did not lie, then neither did Bush. I think we can all agree that our intelligence was very flawed, and needs to be fixed. This is why I have harped on Kerry’s missing 76% of the Senate Intelligence meetings from 1993-2001. This was his chance to reform our agencies, to correct the mistakes, and he couldnt be bothered to do it, nor to even attend the meetings.

I havent heard anyone give a rational explanation for this oversight, other than to suggest that Kerry attended OTHER meetings. Yet even Kerry has not allowed those records to be made public, making it appear that the records might not support his case.

jbod —

I’m simplifying here, but it appears that you’re saying the error in intelligence was not Bush’s alone. While I agree with that, and that Kerry is using the error to his advantage (as we would expect), I don’t think it’s a valid defense. The President is the leader of the country and therefore ultimately responsible, particularly when we’re talking about a war. There must be a higher standard, and if Kerry is elected he should be held to that same standard. “The buck stops here” is an old saw but it still holds true. Bush can try to blame the CIA, the FBI, and even John Kerry, but he will forever be the one accountable for the war, whether it turns out well or badly. That is his job.

Somewhere i saw a drawing of Koch in a dress. Whenever he speaks that image comes into my mind.
He just comes across as a sad old gay man who is no longer the life of the party, sitting dejectedly in his party dress.

I know it’s not fair, but that’s the image I’m stuck with.

jbod,

If I say, “I think that Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion,” that is very different from saying “Bush knew that there were no WMD in Iraq before the invasion.” One is given as my opinion, the other is stated as fact, and is a lie if it is false.

In my opinion, Kerry’s quote falls under the former category. There is no question that Bush’s falls under the latter. If I believed that Kerry’s statement fell under the latter, I would have no qualms saying that he lied.

I didn’t find a quote from Clinton. Here is the speech that Clinton gave after ODF. I didn’t see it in there. Also, here’s an analysis of that famous chain e-mail with all the quotes from Democrats. I didn’t see it in there either.

I don’t doubt that he could have said it somewhere, I just didn’t find it. And if he did give a false reason for utilizing our countries enormously expensive defense resources that caused death and destruction, I’d be upset about that too.

I think that I am applying my standard evenly. My standard is very clear. If you make statements purporting as facts things that are not true, you are lying. John Kerry lied when he stated that the war cost $200B so far. Dick Cheney lied when he said he had not met John Edwards before. If you say that your weight is 170 lbs when you know it is 180, you are lying.

If Bush stated that Saddam had WMD and he did not, it’s a lie. It’s not complicated. If Bush said that our intelligence shows that he had WMD, it’s not a lie.

Feel free to search and replace Bush in the above paragraph with Kerry, Clinton, Cheney, Big Bird, or whoever.

Unfortunately, it matters much more if the Commander-in-Chief makes that particular lie than if anyone else makes it.

Dan

From an article in today’s WSJ

“According to 9/11 Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean, Mr. Clinton believed with “absolute certainty” that Iraq provided al Qaeda with weapons of mass destruction expertise and technology in the 1990s. He believed it as president when he ordered the destruction of the al Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, and he believes it now. And it’s not just Mr. Clinton. According to Mr. Kean, “Top officials — Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and others — told us with absolute certainty that there were chemical weapons of mass destruction at that factory and that’s why we sent missiles.”“

Iraq & Al Queda. No operational coordindation on 9/11 is not the same as no connections.

Right Reverend Matt,

You could’ve counted me as a willing convert to your call for civility, truth and spin-free political discourse - but, you needed to catch me before I succumbed to the reality check of blogging.

At a point in this campaign, I came to realize the Kerry camp was running a positive, issues focused campaign. I was wary and baffled, but also took voters at their word, this is what they wanted. At the same time, the Swift Boat claims had been effectively debunked by the print media and Media Matters, and I agreed Kerry should ignore it.

And, we know how that turned out.

I am going to take issue with the blanket impression you infer, faulting each side equally for nothing but disingenuous spin, lies and exaggerations. I am not claiming my side innocent, but there is a damn good reason the Right has no corresponding groups to Media Matters and the Progress Report.

More handy, would be a close read of WatchBlog columns written throughout this election. There have been Blue and Green Column posts left with very few comments, a reflection of substantive and truthful arguments rendered. In contrast, the Red Column entries average about 40-50+ comments, a result of extensive debates on Swift Boat Vets, Sandy Berger, Whoopi, Mary Cheney, Dan Rather and massive voter fraud by Democrats.

And, although I remarked Kerry rushed to soon in blaming Bush for the missing explosives, I feared the Right had a ‘gotcha’ with the conflicting NBC News report. I was sure they would succeed in making this a story, but it never materialized and Kerry never apologized.

That was fine with me.

If bush lied, then so did the others. If the others did not lie, then neither did Bush.

jbod, that argument just totally ignores the flow of time and new intelligence. To equate statements from 1998 to 2003 is to ignore new evidence brought to light by inspections in the months leading up to the invasion.

Bush knew damned well that it wasn’t a “slam dunk”, yet he and Cheney continued to state they were “certain” Saddam had still had WMD.

In addition, Bush only showed Congress intelligence that had been stripped of caveats and dissenting views. Bush willfully conveyed the false impression that Saddam still had WMD.

I call that a lie, you can call it whatever you want.

BTW, here’s a specific example dealing with Bush’s claims of an Iraq/al Qaeda link.

The Senate report says that a highly classified report prepared by the C.I.A. in September 2002 on “Iraqi Ties to Terrorism” described the claims that Iraq had provided “training in poisons and gases” to Qaeda members, but that it cautioned that the information had come from “sources of varying reliability.”

By contrast, it noted that unclassified testimony to Congress in February 2003 from George J. Tenet, then the director of central intelligence, had not included any caveats and thus “could have led the recipients of that testimony to interpret that the C.I.A. believed the training had definitely occurred.”

Most public statements by Mr. Bush and other administration officials on the matter described the assertions as matters of fact.

Check this pic out… the locations of the top 16 colleges vs the electoral map. pretty funny and very telling. It just goes to show that the less educated or less informed are more prone to succumbing to fear mongering and spin.