Another note

by

This reader e-mail to TPM gets the litigation tactics right; not sure about debate crossover, however. Shorter TPM: If you’re so fortunate to catch someone in a lie, and you know you can prove it’s a lie without help from the witness, leave it be. Otherwise, you run the risk that the witness will try to explain it, potentially muddying the waters.

And, yeah: despite winning last nights debate on points, some of Cheney’s claims were lies. As in: untrue statements of fact made by a speaker with knowledge of, or reckless indifference to, the truth. That they were on pretty inconsequential subjects (e.g., not meeting Edwards prior to the debate) may make them unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but it don’t change their character.

Ya gotta call it like it is.

15 thoughts on “Another note”

  1. Ai-i-i-iy…what happened to the other post????

    Evidence of discourses on existential wrongdoing, however, do not, in and of themselves, support the plaintiff’s claim that the defendent, an attorney in this case, has padded the billable hours with philosophically interesting but arguably irrelevant tangents.

  2. As in: untrue statements of fact made by a speaker with knowledge of, or reckless indifference to, the truth. That they were on pretty inconsequential subjects (e.g., not meeting Edwards prior to the debate) may make them unimportant in the grand scheme of things, but it don’t change their character.
    I only watched a few minutes of the debate, but there were a couple of other bald-faced lies that he threw out. For example, when refuting Edward’s statement that of coalition casualties, 90% were American, he bundled in Iraqi security forces casualties so that he could say that US had taken only 50% of the casualties. Iraq armed forces and police forces are not part of the coalition forces, they’re a domestic force set up by the coalition. And tragic as their sacrifice may have been, that had nothing to do with the point Edwards was making, that this coalition was nothing like the Gulf Storm coalition.

  3. Well, yes.
    The lies you cite were inconsequential, as is the resulting kerfluffle (I’ve always wanted to use that word. I just hope my 14-year old doesn’t start using the word to describe my pique at his inconsequential lies).
    I’m not sure if “Cheney won on points” is your opinion, Von, or your conclusion about consensus opinion, but ..
    …if he did win on points (I can never tell who wins debates; I always think it’s me even when I’m not the one debating), then the “grand scheme of things” is that most of the electorate still believes the big lies re: Iraq and much else.
    Which makes the “is” in “call it like it is” a little more, I don’t know, important.

  4. Oh, I think there were some fairly consequential lies. For instance:
    * “Cheney said that Saddam’s regime allowed Zarqawi “to set up shop in Baghdad” and run a poison facility in “Khurmal.”
    The facility was actually in a hamlet called Sargat.
    Sargat, however, is in a region of Iraq that was under the control of U.S.-backed Kurdish rebels, not Saddam’s forces, where U.S. intelligence agencies believe Zarqawi spent most of his time before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. Cheney said Zarqawi is now in Baghdad; U.S. intelligence agencies believe he’s probably in the city of Fallujah, which is controlled by insurgents.”
    * “Cheney said the Kerry plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts on taxpayers with incomes greater than $200,000 would affect “900,000 small businesses.”
    That number is drawn from an analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint venture by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, which concluded that the Kerry plan would increase taxes on 995,000 taxpayers with “business income.” The Tax Policy Center has since adjusted that analysis and cut the number in half. Moreover, most of those taxpayers have no employees beside themselves and only half of them derived most of their income from business. With 33 million small businesses in the country, left unsaid in Cheney’s criticism is that more than 32 million wouldn’t be affected or would benefit from Kerry’s plan.”
    * “Edwards attacked Halliburton, the firm Cheney once headed, as being investigated for corruption and dealing with governments hostile to the United States while Cheney ran the company. Cheney replied “they know those charges are false” and referred to the Web site FactCheck.org. (He gave the wrong address, it’s factcheck.org, not factcheck.com).
    But Halliburton’s own corporate Web site and its official filings with the federal government acknowledge Edwards’ charges and contradict Cheney. Here is the Web site: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67605&p=irol-sec.”
    Quotes from Knight-Ridder.
    There was also his denial that he has suggested a link between Iraq and 9/11. I call this consequential since it’s not a question of whether he did or did not say some random, unimportant thing; it’s about whether he said something untrue in the run-up to war.

  5. [Pedant mode on] It’s kerfuffle. [Pedant mode off]
    [Flippant mode on] (I can never tell who wins debates; I always think it’s me even when I’m not the one debating
    Great, let’s declare all the P/P and VP/VP debates a win for John Thullen and be done with it. Then we can argue about the issues instead…[Flippant mode off]
    …if he did win on points ….., then the “grand scheme of things” is that most of the electorate still believes the big lies re: Iraq and much else.
    True, unfortunately. According to today’s Mark Morford column, in fact, most of the electorate don’t know who Dick Cheney is…

  6. I like “kerfluffle” better.
    Jes:
    You know, I hate it when my flippant mode is on and yours isn’t and then as soon as mine goes off, yours flips on.
    We liberals could lose yet another election because of unsynchronized flippany modes. ;).
    Flippancy switch still in “on” position.

  9. Is saying that Saddam had an ongoing relationship with Al Qaeda a consequential lie (and then later in the debate making the demostrably false claim that he never suggested a link between Saddam and 911?)

  10. “I’ve learned over the years that when somebody embellishes their resume in a job interview, you don’t hire them.”
    — Dick Cheney

  11. Ed — I thought the prior post was a bit boring, so I took it down.
    I’m not sure if “Cheney won on points” is your opinion, Von, or your conclusion about consensus opinion, but ..
    That’s my opinion. Cheney was clearly ahead on points after the foreign policy portion; he ceded some points during the domestic discussion, but not many.

  12. That’s my opinion. Cheney was clearly ahead on points after the foreign policy portion; he ceded some points during the domestic discussion, but not many.
    Does that include the lying? In other words, are you gauging the policy presentations on their own merits — in which the lying becomes, or should become, paramount — or in their impact on the election?

  14. he ceded some points during the domestic discussion, but not many
    IMO, Edwards demolished Cheney with the list of programs Cheney voted against. and Cheney’s (literal) non-response was most satisfying.

  15. Curse you, von, for anticipating my thoughts in transit! Curse you and your precognitive telepathic ways!
    *ahem* I’ll be fine.

Comments are closed.