Depends On The Definition Of Declining
by matt at 8:00 am on July 21st, 2007 in Bush Man Date, Iraq War, Podium Spin, Tony SnowWhite House press secretary Tony Snow (7/20/07):
Q Do you have the numbers from the attacks in other parts of the country that are covered by the surge?
MR. SNOW: No, but we’ll try to pull that together, because I think what you’ve seen is a declining level in the overall pace of attacks.
Daily attacks in Iraq hit new high in June – Reuters (7/20/07):
Attacks in Iraq last month reached their highest daily average since May 2003, showing a surge in violence as President George W. Bush completed a buildup of U.S. troops, Pentagon statistics show.
The data, obtained by Reuters from the Defense Department, showed an upward trend in daily attacks over the past four months, when U.S. and Iraqi forces were ramping up operations against insurgents and militants, including al Qaeda, in Iraq.
I’m sure JimC will be along any second now to explain to us, with the utmost intellectual honesty, how Snow isn’t a liar.
via TPM
JimC wrote:
No, its not worth it.
But I do want to explain something about me.
From Websters:
lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
I hold very strong feelings towards the latter part of that definition and feel that the standard of proving the intent must be there in order to call someone a liar otherwise it is just someone who said an incorrect or untrue statement and I have given democrats especially Bill Clinton same level of the benefit of the doubt.
The people you call liars may very well be liars but I won’t call them that until I know their intent.
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 11:29 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
I would be very interested in learning how it is possible to prove intent, short of waterboarding or some other form of voluntary confession.
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 11:48 am ¶
matt wrote:
not that it matters a bit to me, but what else could snow’s intent be? he’s paid to advance the administration’s goals. he said something untrue to do that. anyone watching that briefing, but not reading reuters or having access to defense dept data was deceived.
if snow or thompson or corralo or anyone else doesn’t know something for a fact, they should shut the fuck up until they do. not authoritatively assert something and then leave it to the pathetic spin people like you distribute.
we’ve been over standards of proof here before. proof to you seems to be admission by the guilty parties, not news reports, government data, independent confirmation, because oh, we may not know what was in their heart at the moment they deceived or cheated, or the like. i have news for you. that’s not the standard we use here, and that’s not negotiable.
snow lied yesterday. only a moron or a dishonest partisan would even attempt to argue differently.
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 11:49 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
Matt, wasn’t it clearly your intention in this post to deceive people into believing that Tony Snow is a liar?
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 11:51 am ¶
sarabeth wrote:
it is my considered belief that we are looking at a case of “or both”
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 11:54 am ¶
JimC wrote:
I guess you would have to eliminate or discredit any and all plausible deniability. And for the record I am not arguing that Tony Snow did or didn’t lie, I was merely saying my peace about why I am sensitive to accusations of lying (and no it has nothing to do with my personal past).
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 12:52 pm ¶
matt wrote:
who the fuck cares what you’re “sensitive to?”
what is it you think this site is about? feelings?
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 1:13 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
where the statement:
is sufficient to constitute plausible deniability?
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 1:16 pm ¶
sarabeth wrote:
for those keeping score at home, we’re now up to “sensitive moronic dishonest partisan”
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 1:18 pm ¶
JimC wrote:
Feelings, no never…
Posted 21 Jul 2007 at 1:55 pm ¶