TELLING LIES
In a recent post, lefty academic Australian blogger John Quiggin uses "forensic Googling" to expose an "infamous doctored [Stephen] Schneider quote". Quiggin obviously went to a bit of trouble researching this.
For an earlier post titled "Bush lied", Quiggin doesn't use his touted Googling skills to prove Bush a liar: his only link is to a 2003 Quiggin post, which itself contains no external links. In short, Quiggin argues Bush is liar, well, because Quiggin says so.
Now this strikes me as odd: if Bush is a liar, there must be some proof. Beats me where it is; I've read lots of reputable sources and haven't found anyone offering up a Bush-lied smoking gun. So, I'm forced to conclude that Bush actually believed, based on the best evidence available, what he said about Iraq's WMDs. If so, he's not a liar.
How then to characterize Quiggin's "Bush lied" post? I mean, it contradicts – without supporting evidence – every single reputable source I've been able to find. Surely there must be a word to describe this situation.
For an earlier post titled "Bush lied", Quiggin doesn't use his touted Googling skills to prove Bush a liar: his only link is to a 2003 Quiggin post, which itself contains no external links. In short, Quiggin argues Bush is liar, well, because Quiggin says so.
Now this strikes me as odd: if Bush is a liar, there must be some proof. Beats me where it is; I've read lots of reputable sources and haven't found anyone offering up a Bush-lied smoking gun. So, I'm forced to conclude that Bush actually believed, based on the best evidence available, what he said about Iraq's WMDs. If so, he's not a liar.
How then to characterize Quiggin's "Bush lied" post? I mean, it contradicts – without supporting evidence – every single reputable source I've been able to find. Surely there must be a word to describe this situation.
posted by Anonymous at 7:31 PM |
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home