Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys Strike Back!

Matthew Yglesias writes:

Matthew Yglesias: Facts? In the Lede? Shocking!: Via Brian Beutler, the AFP tries a revolutionary experiment in writing their story in such a way as to make readers better informed about the issue at hand rather than more familiar with the president's propaganda. Here's the lede:

US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran.

Oh, my! Imagine the world we might live in if this were the standard way to open a newspaper story about the president making a false or misleading claim.

Kudos for Agence France Press!

Comments

[jon livesey]

This is about as smart as a newspaper saying that FDR this morning falsely accused Hitler of declaring his intention to conquer Europe when in fact Hitler said he had now made his final territorial demand.

[jon livesey]

This is about as smart as a newspaper saying that FDR this morning falsely accused Hitler of declaring his intention to conquer Europe when in fact Hitler said he had now made his final territorial demand.

[jon livesey]

This is about as smart as a newspaper saying that FDR this morning falsely accused Hitler of declaring his intention to conquer Europe when in fact Hitler said he had now made his final territorial demand.

[andres]

Godwin's Law, jon, Godwin's Law. The big difference is that Iran's intelligent leaders (is most of the Ayatollahs, but not Ahmedinejad) do not _want_ nuclear weapons, but feel that they have no choice as otherwise they will become the next target of neocon regime change. Is it too much to ask that this simple logic should be kept in mind when discussing Iran policy?

[Monte Davis]

Next I suppose Matt will demand separate White House press operations for the journalists and for the journamalists. That's asking for trouble --look at all the unfortunate confusion between the Administration email and RNC email.

On second thought, not a problem -- the latter *is* pretty much the press operation for the journamalists.

[David Lloyd-Jones]

North Korea is invasion proof -- and is being worn down by the relentless negotiations of South Korea. Why is it safe from savagery of the kind inflicted in Iraq? Because it might, just might, be able to take out an aircraft carrier in its neighborhood.

If America can elect a man like George Bush President, nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran are a force for peace.

[anne]

http://icga.blogspot.com/2007/08/afghanistan-iraq-and-bush.html

August 7, 2007

Afghanistan, Iraq and the Bush Administration’s Incoherent Iran Policy
By Farideh Farhi

Two events in the past couple of days have once again highlighted the incoherence that characterizes the Bush Administration’s policy vis-à-vis Iran: Hamid Karzai’s visit to the US and his CNN comment regarding Iran’s helpful role in Afghanistan and the third US-Iran round of talks about Iraq’s security.

Let me begin with Karzai’s comments and Bush’s response. Here are excerpts of Bush’s exchange with a reporter:

Q: President Karzai said yesterday that he believed Iran was playing a helpful role in Afghanistan. Was he able to convince you, in your meetings that that was the case, or do you still have concerns about Iran's role?

BUSH: It's up to Iran to prove to the world that they're a stabilizing force as opposed to destabilizing force.

"After all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon. This is a government that's in defiance of international accord, a government that seems to be willing to thumb its nose at the international community, and at the same time a government that denies its people a rightful place in the world and denies its people the ability to realize their full potential.

"So I believe that it's in the interests of all of us that we have an Iran that tries to stabilize, not destabilize; an Iran that gives up its weapons ambitions. And therefore we're working to that end.

"The president knows best about what's taking place in his country. And, of course, I'm willing to listen.

"But from my perspective, the burden of proof is on the Iranian government to show us that they're a positive force.

"And I must tell you that this current leadership there is a -- is a big disappointment to the people of Iran.

"I mean, the people of Iran could be doing a lot better than they are today. But because of the actions of this government, this country is isolated.

"And we will continue to work to isolate it. Because they're not a force for good, as far as we can see. They are a destabilizing influence, wherever they are now.

"The president will talk to you about Afghanistan. But I would be very cautious about whether or not the Iranian influence there in Afghanistan is a positive force. And, therefore, it's going to be up to them to prove to us and prove to the government that they are."

Now I understand that George Bush’s spoken words cannot be considered a good marker for either coherence or eloquence. Nevertheless, his response is an astounding statement about how convoluted his thinking about Iran continues to be.

First of all, true to form, he begins with an outright misstatement (more accurately, a lie). The statement, “after all, this is a government that has proclaimed its desire to build a nuclear weapon,” is an obvious untruth that like so many other untruths will probably not be challenged by the mainstream media, but through which George Bush hopes to etch in the American mind (or his own mind?!) the proven or “proclaimed” aspirations of the Iranian leadership for acquiring the bomb.

This is while the Iranian government has never articulated such a desire and in fact has repeatedly claimed, genuinely or disingenuously, the opposite. The Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons (as distinct from the pursuit of the capability to build nuclear weapons), as of today, remains a charge and assertion. The issue at hand, repeatedly described through intense European negotiations with Iran, concerns Iran’s enrichment-related programs and the fact that those programs will eventually give Iran the technological “capability” to build nuclear weapons even if Iran denies the desire to build the bomb. The point has always been that “they” cannot be trusted with the technology and not the proclaimed desire to build the bomb....

[dogfacegeorge]

The charge is not "inaccurate"; it is "false."

[rea]

This is about as smart as a newspaper saying that FDR this morning falsely accused Hitler of declaring his intention to conquer Europe when in fact Hitler said he had now made his final territorial demand.

You have the evidence of history as to what Hitler really intended, so a false statement about what Hitler said about his intentions wouldn't bother you.

What you are saying is that it's okay to make up evidence in support of a conclusion that you know to be true.

Of course, your approach poses an epistemological question: how do you know what is true? Evidently, in your case, not as a result of applying reason to the evidence--"evidence" for you is something you just make up.

You just "know" that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons--maybe the voices in your head told you--so it's okay to fabricate a claim that Iran has announced that it is seeking nuclear weapons, and cite that as the dispositive evidence showing that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons.

Are you really incapable of conprehending how such methodology leads to bad real-world results?

[wkwillis]

Actually, Hitler didn't want to conquer Western Europe and murder all the natives except those to be kept for slaves. He wanted to conquer Eastern Europe and murder all the natives except those to be kept for slaves.
Starting with liberating the oppressed German minorities in Czechoslovakia, Lithuania, and Poland was just a tactic. He wanted some kind of justification for a genocide war before he got busy and actually did it.

[jaim klein]

Rotten Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys are wrong and the President is right. for unknown reasons, Iranians have said they have the right to atomic weapons and that they are developing it, they have said it will be dropped on Israel, and lately they have declared that Bahrain as well as other Gulf islands are historical Iranian territory, as well as that Saudi Arabia is an illegitimate colonial creation, implying that was part of the Sassanid or whatever Iranian empire. President Bush said what had to be said: the Truth.