Facts Are Malleable

“Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the issue raised in the Milbank piece.

Let's try to forego the smear tactics and stay on point, shall we? See Uphill Klimber's post? It pertained to the article in question.

Hi UK. Unfortunately, unnamed sources are the order of the day. Those on the Right would like to pretend that it's a disease of the Left, but it's been the trend in All journalism for years.

Yes, Milbank discussed the sources Bush used... but the point is that there are problems with his sources.

The story concerning Bush's distortion of the IAEA report is telling, and by far the most disturbing. Their spokesperson heard about Bush's statement and was on the phone to multiple news agencies two hours after they hit the airwaves. The problem was that Bush's statements were broadcast all over Creation and printed on Page One the next day, while the refutations from the IAEA wound up on Page 17, two days later.

Now it has been widely reported.... weeks later.



So what's the story folks?

1) Were the unmanned aircraft with the 10,000+ mile range fictional or not?
2) Was the IAEA report misrepresented?
3) Was the "$15 billion" figure figure supplied by lobbyists?
4) Was the "300,000 jobs" figure 'extrapolated'?
5) Was the radiation detector flap overblown to make politcal hay?
6) Did GOP lawmakers plan to have the taxcut expire after 9 years as a QUIRK to make Their Own Numbers look better?


The Bush Administration supplies a steady stream of these tidbits to support their arguments but they don't hold up very well when light shines on them.


Father Goose doesn't refute the argument (or even a single point). All he wants to do is try to screw with the thread, make cutesy alterations to peoples' names, post a non germane op-ed and the like.


So the questions I am left with are these:

Is Bush simply naive and too trusting of the people who feed him these "facts"? Or is it something else?

Is he purposely stretching the truth? Does he feel his case for war with Saddam isn't strong enough without resorting to this type of thing?”

“Do I have to remind you that thinking is unpatriotic?”

“My momma always told me unpatriotic is as unpatriotic does.

The best interests of this country must therefore be served by lying to the public about matters of significant import.

Oh, but lie about a blowjob and they'll impeach you.”

“I just had a great idea.

Why not put politicians under oath whenever they speak in public? Wouldn't that be a gas... every press release could be a sworn deposition.



Right-O, V....

"Pay No Attention To The Man Behind The Curtain!!!"”

“Unnamed sources are the order of the day... Yeah, I guess so. What ever happened to a man calling a spade aspade, out loud for all to hear. That kind of man stood for something and would announce his name. And you know what, it normally meant he did his home work, and he was right.

So what did the opposing view quite often do to quiet such men? Find a character flaw and destroy the man's character, thus every one would think " who would believe such a cheat as him". It's a sad day when a man can't be right anymore, or stand up for what is right without becoming a target...

Disclaimer: All references to the male gender are hereby deemed to be interchangable with the female gender, in so far as to be politically correct.”

“Well, they're supposed to at least line up a Couple of unnamed sources to comfirm the story! LOL


Straight-shooters rarely rise to positions of power these days. They can't break into the inner sanctums (sancti?) unless they're well practiced at bobbing and weaving, <G>


Scott Ritter sounded like one of those straight shooters. He was on some news show with his former boss David Kay and there were some serious fireworks. At the end of one particular exchange, Kay said "Are you calling me a liar?" I think he thought he had called Ritter's bluff but he was Way Wrong, LOL

Ritter replied, "Yes. You're a liar and I have the documentation to prove it."

Ya Just Don't Hear That Everyday!”

“You have heard it from me more than once.”

“"Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the issue raised in the Milbank piece."

Why, yes it does. Goes to motive and opportunity, Your Honor...

"Let's try to forego the smear tactics... "

Oh, please!!! That's what you whiney-@SS libs are all about. Y'all Still can't stand the fact that your boy LOST (Gott sei dank)!

"Unfortunately, unnamed sources are the order of the day."

As far as the press is concerned, they always have been. Accountability is a four-letter word to the Fourth Estate. First Amendment protections and all that...gives 'em carte blanche to say whatever they wish without hard facts...

"...it's been the trend in All journalism for years."

OMG!!! Can it be??? A ray of truth...

"Father Goose doesn't refute the argument..."

I don't refute Grimm's Fairy Tales, either...

"All he wants to do is try to screw with the thread..."

Sorry, Uncle Tiltie, I didn't mean to throw a monkey wrench into to your scwewed up widdle thwead...poor widdle wibs...can't stand a divergent opinion...

"...make cutesy alterations to peoples' names..."

What? You don't like 'Uncle Tiltie'? Or does that mean you think it's cute?

"Do I have to remind you that thinking is unpatriotic?"
Violin
12:29:47 PM
11/09/02

Only if someone doesn't think as you do, right, Fiddler?

"I just had a great idea.
Why not put politicians under oath whenever they speak in public?"

If we did the same for the mass media (not to mention your hero, Slick Willie), they'd never print/speak a word...

Sorry ladies; y'all can go back to your mutual masturbation now, I'll leave your precious little thread alone...”

“So the guy posting the manifesto labeling anyone who would dare question the president an America-hater feels that I am an intellectual fascist? Sorry, but I gave you more credit than that, Father Goose.”

“What do you call a bus full of politicians going over a cliff with 6 emply seats?













A waste of six seats..”

“What do you have when you have thirty politicians in the water with 3 big hungry sharks?

















Not enough sharks.”

“Once again, Father Goose cannot respond to the points at hand so he resorts to a load of horseshit.”

“Dry your tears, Tilt. I believe I responded quite well. Substantiation, please?”

“You've responded the only way you know how, apparently.”

“And you can't substantiate your views, apparently...”

“Read the previous posts.”

“You have no supporting data (pounds head against wall...). I am trying to research The Gospel According to St. Millbank, er the article in question, in relentless search of the truth. That IS what you want, isn't it??? Or is fear and loathing of conservativism your primary objective?

Tilt's lexicon;
hor#&%!$ = opinion divergent from my own”

“horse#&%!$”

“Well, I'll be danged.

horse$hit”

“...interesting...”

“Substatiating anything to you would be a monumental waste of time. It'd just be your Left Wing Conspiracy crap all over again.

It's the Republican Party's answer to everything.



What pertinent information have you posted for me to disagree with?

Zip. Nada. Zilch.”

“"Substatiating anything to you would be a monumental waste of time."

Yes, I cannot possibly fathom the depths of your immense intellectual genius.

"It'd just be your Left Wing Conspiracy crap all over again."

As opposed to your Right Wing Conspiracy crap?

"It's the Republican Party's answer to everything."

What is?

"What pertinent information have you posted for me to disagree with?"

note to self; disagreement with Tilt renders one irrelevant

"Zip. Nada. Zilch."

The sum total of your ability to defend your argument.”

“Tilt, gotta say it, you do need some substantiation. You're doing alot of quoting from un named sources, with out actual documentation. You could be correct, but you do those who share your viewpoint a huge dis service

Here's an alegory for you:
At a Christian college, they set up a debate, and two teams of 4 to debate whether the Bible was in fact correct or not. Well of course, those on the yea side, figured they could not lose, ever, no matter what. They took their case for granted, did no homework, never studied up....

The nay side, knowing they had an uphill battle, jumped all over the task at hand. They were able to quote the Bible out of context, bring forth difficult arguments that the unlearned could not answer, etc...

Well, the naysayers ate the "christians" for lunch. They had it all over them. Only thing is, they knew they were misquoting the Bible, and they got away with it because the opposing viewpoint didn't do their homework, could not question what they had heard, basically had no clue.

When the debate was done, the judges and all in the audience, even the participants agreed that the nay sayers had done a better job of presenting the case, and a much more convincing job. This was at a christian college, no less.It was quite an eye opener to the students who then took it upon themselves to study and learn their subject, and be able to corroborate their findings.

Tilt, you need corroboration (SP), which means more than one reputable source. Un related eye witness reports, actual documents, something...”

“Well said, UK. The truth is all we're after here.
I'm sorry this has gotten rancorous, Tilt. My bad.”

“I know Conservatives are still pissed about Watergate, but the Washington Post is a premier national news outlet.

Have any lawsuits been filed on behalf of the Bush Administration re: the veracity of this article? Richard Scaife and Emmett Tyrrell are uncharacteristically silent. One would think they would go after this piece with hammer and tongs, but they have not.


All that's been offered here as rebuttal has been denial. I don't think that's much of a debating tactic. Negation does not an argument make... remember your Python.


I think they simply can't stomach the possibility that their boy has problems with the truth and has been called on it.”

“It's ALWAYS been rancorous and it will always BE rancorous. It was so before we got here and will be so long after we're gone.”

“"I know Conservatives are still pissed about Watergate..."

Watergate doesn't bother me. At least no one was killed.

"...but the Washington Post is a premier national news outlet."

Certainly not without extreme left-wing bias.

"All that's been offered here as rebuttal has been denial. I don't think that's much of a debating tactic. Negation does not an argument make..."

I have found nothing so far to confirm or deny the points made in the article. You can't successfully debate that which can't be shown to exist (please, no esoteric arguments here).

"...remember your Python."

How about my feather boa?

"I think they simply can't stomach the possibility that their boy has problems with the truth and has been called on it."

That doesn't bother me either. All I'm asking for is proof.”

“No, your only denying what's obvious. There is no proof that would convince you.

Yeah, there's that Left Wing Bias crap again.

GEEEEEEEEEeeeeeee.... Nobody saw that one coming a mile away did they?”

“"No, your only denying what's obvious. There is no proof that would convince you."

Right. I'm profoundly stupid.

"Yeah, there's that Left Wing Bias crap again."

Yep. There it is, all right.

"GEEEEEEEEEeeeeeee.... Nobody saw that one coming a mile away did they?"

Even a cretin like myself can occasionally stumble upon the obvious.”

“Its funny you bring up Python on a thread about an article where the author employed so many euphemisms to avoid calling Bush a liar. Remember this?

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! 'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!! ”

“test”

“just checking!

(there's been a rash of unclosed bold tags this evening)


Yaz... I'm a great fan of irony. You wouldn't happen to have a link to the script of the Argument Sketch, would you?”

“All that's been offered here as rebuttal has been denial. I don't think that's much of a debating tactic. Negation does not an argument make... remember your Python
Tilt



HUH!???!
this is your thread tilt-o-whirl. the burdon of proof therefore, lies upon you my liberal friend. . .. .”

“Your boy's a liar, Dewd.

So sorry to bust yo l'il bubble like that there, LOL”

“maybe this reporters a liar. he has just as much motive.

what if i posted a thread showing a reporter that said that ....oh let's say....extremist environmentalist are liars.

i bet you a gajillion dollars you'de be sayin....oh that's story has no verifiable facts, it gives no sources, bla bla bla.

proove it schmedly.....”

“OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He's got..... AL GORE DISEASE!!!


The plain truth just isn't enough to Get the Job Done! He can't make his case without streeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetching the facts!

Please Don't Tell Us That He's........ JUST ANOTHER POLITICIAN!!!!


the horror, the horror, etc.”

“WALL STREET JOURNAL
SCIENCE JOURNAL
By SHARON BEGLEY

People Believe a 'Fact' That Fits Their Views Even if It's Clearly False
February 4, 2005; Page B1

Funny thing, memory. With the second anniversary next month of the
U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, it's only natural that supporters as well
as opponents of the war will be reliving the many searing moments of
those first weeks of battle.

The rescue of Pvt. Jessica Lynch. U.S. troops firing at a van
approaching a Baghdad checkpoint and killing seven women and children.
A suicide bomber nearing a Najaf checkpoint and blowing up U.S.
soldiers. The execution of coalition POWs by Iraqis. The civilian
uprising in Basra against Saddam's Baathist party.

If you remember it well, then we have grist for another verse for
Lerner and Loewe ("We met at nine," "We met at eight," "I was on
time," "No, you were late." "Ah yes, I remember it well!"). The first
three events occurred. The second two were products of the fog of war:
After being reported by the media, both were quickly retracted by
coalition authorities as erroneous.

Yet retracting a report isn't the same as erasing it from people's
memories. According to an international study to be published next
month, Americans tend to believe that the last two events occurred --
even when they recall the retraction or correction. In contrast,
Germans and Australians who recall the retraction discount the
misinformation. It isn't that Germans and Australians are smarter.
Instead, it's further evidence that what we remember depends on what
we believe.

"People build mental models," explains Stephan Lewandowsky, a
psychology professor at the University of Western Australia, Crawley,
who led the study that will be published in Psychological Science. "By
the time they receive a retraction, the original misinformation has
already become an integral part of that mental model, or world view,
and disregarding it would leave the world view a shambles." Therefore,
he and his colleagues conclude in their paper, "People continue to
rely on misinformation even if they demonstrably remember and
understand a subsequent retraction."

For the study, the scientists showed more than 860 people in
Australia, Germany and the U.S. a list of events -- some true (the
first three examples above), some reported but retracted (the second
two), some completely invented ("Iraqi troops poisoned a water supply
before withdrawing from Baghdad"). Each person indicated whether or
not he or she had heard of the event and rated its likelihood of being
true. People were pretty good at weeding out the invented reports.
Then, for each report they said they had heard, they noted whether it
had subsequently been retracted.

If the report had been retracted, surely people would no longer regard
it as true, would they? Here is where memory parts ways with reason.
The Germans and Australians responded as you'd expect. The better they
recalled that a claim had been taken back, the less true they judged
that claim. They did not believe in events they knew had been
erroneously reported.

But for the Americans in the study, the simple act of remembering that
they had once heard something was enough to make them regard it as
true, retraction be damned. Even many of those who remembered a
retraction still rated the original claim as true.

That comes as no surprise to memory researchers. Time and again, lab
studies show that people have an astonishing propensity to recall
things that never happened. If you read a list of words such as
pillow, bed and pajamas, and are later asked whether another word was
there, you may well "remember" related words that were never
presented. "Sleep" was on the list, wasn't it?

In this case, people's mental model is "words about sleep." In the
case of memories about Iraq, people's mental model is why the U.S.
invaded. The Germans and Australians in this study were skeptical of
the official justification, namely, to find weapons of mass
destruction. The Americans were more credulous on that point. How
suspicious or credulous people were strongly affected whether they
judged a retracted claim to be true or not.

"People who were not suspicious of the motives behind the war
continued to rely on misinformation," Prof. Lewandowsky said,
"believing in things they know to have been retracted." They held fast
to what they had originally heard "because it fits with their mental
model," which people seek to retain "whatever it takes."

In contrast, those who were suspicious of the WMD justification
believed the retractions. The reason is probably that they weren't
sold on the original, erroneous reports -- all of which cast the U.S.
in a good light and Iraqi forces in a bad one. These people "are more
willing to discard elements of a mental model that turn out to be
wrong," says Prof. Lewandowsky.

The news media would do well to keep in mind that once we report
something, some people will always believe it even if we try to stuff
the genie back in the bottle. For instance, six months after the
invasion, one-third of Americans believed WMDs had been found, even
though every such tentative claim was discomfirmed. The findings also
offer Machiavellian possibilities for politicians. They can make a
false claim that helps their cause, contritely retract it -- and rest
assured that some people will nevertheless keep thinking of it as
true.”

“What irony! Violink making a post about how people believe what they want to. Does this include manufacturing facts and lying to make everything fit into their own mind? LOL!”

“Yeah sure, but are facts ductile and sectile?”

“The Vileman has no shame.”

“ooooooh... Those Dirty Commies at the WSJ...

*LOL*”

“WASHINGTON -- A leading scientist told a House committee yesterday that "political interference is harming federal science and threatening the health and safety of Americans," and the committee chairman said the Bush White House has been misleading the public on the dangers of global warming.

"Political interference with the work of federal scientists threatens the quality and integrity of (federal) policies," said Francesca Grifo, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Scientific Integrity Program.

According to a UCS survey whose findings were presented to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, more than 40 percent of the 279 scientists who responded said their work had been edited to more closely reflect the administration's position on climate change.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/57ddbaea-b0c4-11db-8a62-0000779e2340.html”

“I completely agree! Being as global warming is the new religion of the left the state should keep itself separated from it. [troll font off]”

“As I have said before, Statistics don't lie, its the rhetoric surrounding the statistics, that can mislead.”

“Aurthor's Disclaimer:

I think this thread was begun before Fuego was Fuego.


BTW, what unfriendly politicians usually do is chip away at reserch budgets. It works the same way with the EPA: the laws are still on the books, but if the agency doesn't have the money to enforce them... It has the same effect (short term) as if the laws were repealed.
last edited: 1/31/07 9:45:09 AM”

“78% of Statistics are made up.
last edited: 1/31/07 10:33:09 AM”

“I guess the global warming thread isn't good enough for ol' Vile.”

“Ol' Vile is our expert on Malleable Facts. LOL
He's never met a Fact he couldn't twist.”