I haven't posted since then end of Dr. Dean's campaign. Personally, I have had to get enthusiastic about Kerry. Anyway, a really revolutionary aspect of the internet, that people have not focused on, is we can fact check politicians and media sources in a heart-beat. Sometimes, it isn't just King George that is flouncing around in the buff, but Krauthammer and Safire had also become charter members of that nudist club.
Anyway, in the last 24 hours I read two op-eds that got my blood pumping.
1) Charles Krauthammer, March 15th, Time Magazine:
"Sept. 11, its aftermath and the response -- the War on Terror, the Bush doctrine of going after states and not just terrorists, and the implementation of that doctrine in both Afghanistan and Iraq -- are central to deciding the fitness of George W. Bush to continue in office."
Who would like to guess what section of this statement enraged me so much?
Yes, the, "going after states and not just terrorists," part. The rhetorical jump implied here is that Bush attacks not just terrorists, but states that sponsor terrorists. Of course this is a lie, as Powell stated on January 8, 2003, there are no proven links between Al Qaida and Iraq. Bush just attacked Iraq.
Krauthammer has no right trying to trick readers into believing there was an evil nexus between Al Qaida and Saddam Hussein.
2) William Safire, March 15th, New York Times Magazine:
"Presumably unaware of the presence of a live microphone, Senator John Kerry, campaigning last week in Chicago, let loose with his opinion of Republicans opposing him as "the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen."
My first reaction -- like that of millions of parents and schoolteachers around the country -- was to wince at a prominent politician's use of "you know," a halting interjection that has been cluttering the speech of teenagers for years.
Only later, as the rest of the Kerry condemnation sunk in, did I wonder: Was it wise for a candidate for president to characterize Republicans -- tens of millions of American voters, including even veterans -- as thieves and liars?"
For someone who publishes a weekly column on rhetoric and grammar for the New York Times Magazine, Safire is becoming more of a joke each time he stabs at his keyboard. This op-ed is particularly embarrassing, as he points out Kerry's poor choice of words "you know" and pulls his own "bait-and-switch" on linguistics in the same section.
First, Safire omitted the start of Kerry's statement - "These guys are..." Notice rhetorically that "these guys" is a specific, not a general condemnation. Second, Safire defines "these guys" as Republicans opposing him, which makes sense, like Rove and Cheney, etc... Then, and here is the trick, Safire expands the charge that Rove and Cheney are crooked liars to every Republican voter, that is tens of millions of American voters.
Clearly, looking at the context, Kerry wasn't denigrating every Republican voter. But now, as Safire has made this linguistic leap (if this was an evolutionary leap, it would be so large that it could be compared with trilobites evolving to a New York Times Op-Ed columnist over night), every right wing pundit can claim that Kerry called every Republican voter a crooked liar.
(Ps. I write for a small town newspaper, and if I wrote that misleading crap I would be fired. Is there a reason that Time Magazine and the New York Times hold their columnists to lower standards?)