07-15-2003, 08:18 AM
|
#1 (permalink)
|
| Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: inside the Beltway, outside the loop
Posts: 1,067
| » 
"Technically accurate"
From The Volokh Conspiracy: Quote:
"The British government has learned": Michael Kinsley writes in Slate:
Quote: |
Bushies fanned out to the weekend talk shows to note, as if with one voice, that what Bush said was technically accurate. But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpickery, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business -- he said they "learned" it. The difference between "said" and "learned" is that "learned" clearly means there is some pre-existing basis for believing whatever it is, apart from the fact that someone said it. Is it theoretically possible to "learn" something that is not true? I'm not sure (as Donald Rumsfeld would say). However, it certainly is not possible to say that someone has "learned" a piece of information without clearly intending to imply that you, the speaker, wish the listener to accept it as true. Bush expressed no skepticism or doubt, even though the Brits qualification was only added as protection because doubts had been expressed internally.
| I can't speak to people "fann[ing] out to the weekend talk shows," but I have heard this "it was technically accurate" defense -- and Kinsley is quite right that, if Hussein had not bought uranium from Africa, then this defense is not sound. I have little to add to his analysis on this score: Indeed, saying "The British government has learned X" implicitly means "And I believe X to be true," for the very reasons Kinsley mentions. Whatever legitimate defense the Administration might or might not have here (Bush didn't know it was false / the CIA screwed up / etc.), the "it was technically accurate" defense is incorrect.
|
|
|  |
Linear Mode
