|
Edited on Thu Jul-14-05 11:25 AM by bryant69
I don't know how many of you follow the Daily Howler. I think it's very good on most occasions. This week, however, with Joe Wilson back in the news, they are a bit problemattic. " As far as we know, Wilson’s trip to Niger was completely appropriate, as was his performance while there. (For the record, everyone agrees that Wilson performed admirably during his earlier days in Iraq.) And we’ll assume his principal conclusion was sound—most likely, Iraq hadn’t purchased uranium from Niger, he judged after making his trip. (Wilson, 7/6/03, New York Times: “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.”) But his New York Times piece should never have run in the form it took—because of its groaning illogic. As we noted yesterday, nothing in Wilson’s now-famous piece contradicted what Bush had actually said—that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa (according to British intelligence). Yes, as we have often noted, the current New York Times op-ed page is like the Smithsonian of groaning illogic. But frankly, we’re surprised at our readers (as we are every year at this time). Few seem troubled by the fact that Wilson’s piece was deeply illogical, right to its core. Bush didn’t say a transaction took place; he only said a transaction was sought. Simply put, Wilson didn’t speak to what Bush said. But he never seemed to realize. Neither did his New York Times editor.
For the record, there were other groaning problems with the logic of Wilson’s piece. Bush described an attempt to purchase uranium “in Africa”—and Wilson had only gone to Niger. Why did he think that his experience there could address the entire continent? Even in his 500-page book, he never explained this conundrum. (Indeed, in a typical bit of confusion, Wilson said there were only three other countries that could be involved—Gabon, South Africa and Namibia. If he had done elementary background reading, he would have known that the British press roiled with speculation about the Congo when the intelligence report in question had been discussed the previous fall. See THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/28/03.) Meanwhile, since Bush was referring to British intelligence that no one in the US had ever seen, it’s hard to know why Wilson thought that he could rule out what the Brit intel said. But these elementary points weren’t addressed in his piece. To all appearances, he didn’t see the illogic all around. Neither did his ed at the Times.
Does it matter if columns are wholly illogical? Only if you want a rational world—and that should be one of your wishes. Logic—rationality—is a part of intellectual due process, and whenever due process is undermined, it eventually serves the interests of power. Yes, it’s true: In this case, the hapless press corps took Wilson’s side, as they have continued to do, even after the embarrassment of that Intelligence Committee report. But frankly, we’re amazed to see how many readers don’t care about an elementary fact—Wilson’s piece simply doesn’t make sense. To our readers, it works like this: They don’t like Bush, and neither does Wilson. All else can be overlooked!" - Linke http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh071405.shtmlI don't know - something to consider at the very least. Bryant Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
