PolitiFact Embraces Equivocation, the Truth Gets Squeezed

david — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 00:38:52 +0000

The real problem here is our need for reductionism. We can’t handle a lot of facts. We need short answers. True or false? Guilty or innocent? Approve or disapprove? “American” or “Socialist?” Who won the week? Which is the more important question here — whether KBR owes the government a lot of money, or whose description of the events is more accurate — Huffington’s, Cheney’s, or PolitiFact’s? Until our society can cope with complex questions and answers, we’re not going to make much progress toward solving complex problems.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Is this what victory means to you?

david — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 23:29:00 +0000

This was McCain Chief Strategist Steve Schmidt, speaking today on Meet the Press, on the definition of victory in Iraq:

Here is what victory means in Iraq: It means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its borders and it means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its people, that moves forward on its path to democracy.

[video removed from original source]

That’s a fine definition, except that:

It’s so vague that it’s impossible to tell when it’s been achieved.
Even if it could be defined, it would be impossible to know whether those conditions would survive the withdrawal of US troops.
There is little if any indication that this is a realistic goal any time in the next several decades.
It begs the question of whether such a "victory" is necessarily in the best interests of the United States and how much we are willing to pay for it.
It’s probably not something the American people would support as the mission of US troops.
It’s definitely not what we signed up for in 2003.

When American troops leave, they will not leave in defeat no matter what the situation on the ground in Iraq. We already won the war in Iraq. You can’t win an occupation.

The Schrug » Uncategorized

PolitiFact Embraces Equivocation, the Truth Gets Squeezed

Is this what victory means to you?