I'm thinking of starting a new weblog, which will feature rebuttals or corrections to the daily posts on Spinsanity.org. For example, in chiding Molly Ivins here writer Brenden Nyhan takes the publication's motto of "countering rhetoric with reason" too literally. Ivins has obviously framed her statement in subjective terms ("I keep thinking" is about as blatant as you can make it), but Nyhan still writes, "The fact that the Bush administration does not oppose corporate interests to Ivins' [sic] satisfaction is hardly proof that it bears any relation to fascism." I mean, is he being thick on purpose?

Oh well, stay tuned -- I might do it, althouth my enjoyment of Spinsanity in general may dissuade me. Of course, I like it best when taking on those with whom I disagree (if I do begin a blog, you can be sure I'll frame this fact very, very unambiguously).

--- --- ---

Later, in the same article as above, Nyhan attacks Dean because he "paraphrased President Bush" in saying "that the Iraqis were purchasing uranium from Niger" on the August 12 edition of MSNBC's Buchanan & Press. Nyhan concludes Dean misrepresents Bush's claim in two ways: (1) saying "purchasing" rather than "sought" (what Bush actually said in his "State of the Union" address) and (2) saying "Niger" instead of, again as Bush actually said, "Africa."

Here's exactly how the transcript to the show reads:

PRESS: Do you think President Bush misled the American people in making the case for the war in Iraq?
DEAN: Yes, I do. I believe he said four things that weren’t true. One, that the Iraqis were purchasing uranium from Niger. Two, that the Iraqis had a relationship with al Qaeda. Three, that-the vice president said that they were about to get the-get atomic weapons. And I’ve forgotten what the fourth one was.

Note Dean never says the words "State of the Union." This is because he is not referencing it. Nyhan has gotten sucked into his own bubble on this one. It is Nyhan himself and alone bringing up the "State of the Union," because he's using that as his textual evidence against his interpretation of Dean's remarks. I say "interpretation" here because, as usual, Nyhan fails to grasp a claim in context -- Dean was speaking in general terms, refering to the policies and actions of the White House and the executive branch that it and, thereby, President Bush head. And it has been proven that the White House, Pentagon, and CIA engaged in the forgery of facts, specifically the knowing acceptance of a forged document as evidence for war, claiming the ideological impossibility and untruth of an al Qaeda/Baath Party cooperation, and Cheney's stating Iraq was on the cusp of attaining nuclear weaponry when that was also a known fasle statement. Dean is right. The president lied. Whether willful or not, Bush misled the public and continues to do so and in regard to sundry issues.

But here's what I find most interesting: Nyhan feels compelled to mention Rush Limbaugh in his piece ("Finally, as Rush Limbaugh noted on his radio show..."). This is quite odd, don't you think? Nyhan may not believe in overt rhetoric, but he certainly makes use of it in many, many subtler ways. Nothing is worse than a writer claiming or even working from the assumed position of absolute objectivity. Perhaps one should just present evidence and remain silent, allowing the reader or viewer to reach his or her own conclusions. JPEGs come cheap, you know.

  posted by S. Parker @ 11:22 PM