« Those Arts-Loving Republicans | Main | Bushco Blames World »
Pants on Fire
In regards to the imminent threat Bush put forward as his reason for going to war with Iraq, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said on Tuesday that "...some in the media have chosen to use the word 'imminent.' Those were not words we used." Kos has a nice entry from a report by the Center for American Progress that debunks this so thoroughly that you won't even finish reading it.
Posted on January 29, 2004 08:31 PM
Comments
Someone should do a documentary on the subject of "Liguistic deception" in politics. Bush: we never said Iraq had anything to do with 9-11. Bush: we never said imminent. Clinton: I did not have sex with her. Etc. Etc.
How far back does this practice go? Does it really work on voters? Who acutaully writes the political speaches in which deceptive claims are made? Where do these people learn to write? Do universities actually encourage such deception in their students? Who loses the most, the deceptor or the deceieved?
Posted by Alex Lazarevich on January 31, 2004 12:41 PM
I think there's no question it really works with voters. A majority of Americans believe Saddam and Bin Laden conspired together for the 9/11 attack. The country thinks Iraq was worth going to war for.
As for who writes political speeches, its typically political speechwriters, whose goals are indeed political and not factual.
As for a study, I'd love to see one on this subject.
Posted by bg on February 1, 2004 07:21 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.criticalviewer.com/mt-tb.cgi/12