Bush lied?

hoosier · #1 11-21-2005, 02:49 PM

"If you have verifiable information that the president knew there were no Iragi weapons of mass destruction, but went ahead and invaded anyway, please post said information.

"If not, please go back to demanding all Supreme Court nominees embrace abortion."

- Bill O'Reilly

PS: "By the way, please consult Dan Rather and Mary Mapes if you are going to use documents to prove President Bush a liar."

DeltAlum · #2 11-21-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
"By the way, please consult Dan Rather and Mary Mapes if you are going to use documents to prove President Bush a liar."

Again, just to keep the record clear, the documents used in the "60 Minutes" were never proven to be fake. They could not be proven to be real. They certainly weren't original, wherein lies the potential problem.

It's like the difference between being found "not guilty" and absolutely being "innocent." That's a big difference.

I don't know if the documents were real or fake -- nor do you, Hoosier.

hoosier · #3 11-21-2005, 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Again, just to keep the record clear, the documents used in the "60 Minutes" were never proven to be fake. They could not be proven to be real. They certainly weren't original, wherein lies the potential problem.

It's like the difference between being found "not guilty" and absolutely being "innocent." That's a big difference.

I don't know if the documents were real or fake -- nor do you, Hoosier.

I think Ms Mapes has been laughed off the air (even off the shows and columns of the Media Wing of you know what) for continuing to say "it's up to the reader/viewer to prove they're fake." She and her book disappeared quickly.

DeltAlum · #4 11-21-2005, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
I think Ms Mapes has been laughed off the air (even off the shows and columns of the Media Wing of you know what) for continuing to say "it's up to the reader/viewer to prove they're fake." She and her book disappeared quickly.

But her credibility or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether the papers are real or fake, do they?

Tom Earp · #5 11-21-2005, 06:33 PM

Question?

So. When Did One Not Know a Polotician To Lie?

All of the Iraq Armament comes out now when all of a sudden it is all a Lie?

Saddam It was and is still Dilussion. Did He Not Kill Many Non Conformers?

Iraq to be sure is a quagmire and getting Our People Killed.

So, We bail out of Iraq, does that mena the Radicals will quit?

Oh, World Trade Center, The Twin Towers? There was No War in Iraq Then. Correct Me if I am Wrong!

hoosier · #6 11-21-2005, 06:39 PM

I am convinced that the proof was burried with Jimmy Hoffa under the goal posts of Giants Stadium, or else burned up at Waco.

It's hard to think that a TV producer with no credibility produces papers with no credibility (and calls the Kerry campaign in advance of airing), and some think we should consider them accurate.

She lied, Rather lied - both in their enthusiasm to defeat Bush.

And tonight I'm going to see the Edward R. Murrow film - Ann Coulter has writen about McCarthy two weeks in a row, and I need to know more.

DeltAlum · #7 11-21-2005, 06:45 PM

I saw the film. It's OK.

KSig RC · #8 11-21-2005, 06:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
But her credibility or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether the papers are real or fake, do they?

While this is true in an absolute sense (in that any falsehoods exist outside of the person's credibility), it's really not true in practice.

First, it's somewhat absurd to claim "no one can prove they AREN'T real!!!", when most rational people would require the person making an assertion to prove their assertion (and thus their supporting documentation).

Second, when the veracity of the documents falls into question, of course the credibility of the source will influence how others view the documents. In the absence of absolute proof in either direction, the credibility of the source can, should and must be taken into consideration. If you'd like, I would suggest breaking the credibility down into its components instead, to illustrate my point (see? positing proof for assertions?):

-Expertise (obviously important to consider when judging ones' assertions is the level of knowledge the person has in the area being discussed)
-Objectivity (bias should be considered when determining credibility, but can be offset by other areas)
-Trustworthiness (is there evidence that the source has a higher-than-average chance of lying, or a reason to be lying?)
-Reliability (do you have reason to doubt information from the source for reasons other than blatant falsehood?)

I think we can safely ignore dynamism and confidence in this examination, but the remaining factors of credibility, as you can see, should be taken into consideration when a source produces documents of dubious background.

While this does not change, say, if the documents actually came from the sources claimed (the absolute sense, as mentioned earlier), in the absence of other proof these elements can and will point toward whether or not people consider the documents to be legitimate.

hoosier · #9 11-21-2005, 07:06 PM

All this is probably unimportant, considering the parting of the oceans (or something like that) today on TV, when a woman won the World Championship of Monster Truck Racing in Las Vegas. Yes, a woman, driving a truck name Madusa.

Tom Earp · #10 11-21-2005, 07:25 PM

Damn, I guess I am Really out of The Know!

Wish So Bad, I could turn Water into Wine and Bread into Fish for Dinner!

Hell, wouldnt have to pay so much!

Well, maybe or Not will go to Hello!

DeltAlum · #11 11-22-2005, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KSig RC
First, it's somewhat absurd to claim "no one can prove they AREN'T real...

Where does it say that?

KSig RC · #12 11-22-2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Where does it say that?

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Again, just to keep the record clear, the documents used in the "60 Minutes" were never proven to be fake. They could not be proven to be real.

DeltAlum · #13 11-22-2005, 11:19 AM

It doesn't say the documents can't be proven to be fake -- it says that they haven't.

And again, nor have they been proven to be real.

Either is possible.

RACooper · #14 11-22-2005, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hoosier
And tonight I'm going to see the Edward R. Murrow film - Ann Coulter has writen about McCarthy two weeks in a row, and I need to know more.

<hijack> I saw the film and it wasn't all that bad in covering the media-McCarthy battle; and even today the actual clips of McCarthy are somewhat disturbing to watch... as for Coulter I can't for the life of me understand how she can defend McCarthy-ism or the witch-hunts. <end-hijack>

KSig RC · #15 11-22-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
It doesn't say the documents can't be proven to be fake -- it says that they haven't.

And again, nor have they been proven to be real.

Either is possible.

I'm not trying to participate in some sort of slackjawed argument over semiotics, Delt - I didn't claim anything of the sort that you're addressing.

However, I will reiterate my main point: the onus for proving the documents are real is on the party making the accusations and utilizing the documents. There should be considerably less 'push' to require that the accused party prove them false if the documents are in question.

So yeah, they could go either way - which probably means you should discount them heavily when assessing the accusations being made, in absence of further proof.

Does this make sense?