- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Nick,
In terms of how to rebut, I think now that we know the rhetorical device, we need to face it head on. Rather than fight against the constant 'framing' of issues by liars, we need to call them on their own frames. If they say "appeasement" then we need to call them not just on North Korea and Iran but also why are they appeasing Saudi Arabia? This is precisely how they divide the left.
We need to take a phrase like "But I thought you said X" and use it again and again to point out the phony catch phrases.
When Bush says 'no fuzzy numbers' you don't defend Gore's numbers, you ask for Bush's and then say "wait a minute, I thought you said no fuzzy numbers." This is how they attack Gore- "I thought you said the environment was important, but you drive a car and have a furnace. Hypocrite!" This is highly effective for them even though we all know Gore is actually committed to this cause. Why can't it be effective against Bush when we know he is not, for instance, committed to New Orleans. Don't call him a liar, take him at his word and ask how he's living up to it. Take his best, most revered and Churchillian soundbites at face value and force his defenders to defend his actions as consistent with them. "I thought you said..."
When people point to Libya as a diplomatic success ask why Quadaffi gets a free pass and keeps his terrorist regime? "I thought you said terrorist dictators couldn't be trusted to keep their word. Is that not true?" Make them defend Quadaffi and the House of Saud they way they wanted the left to defend Saddam. Kim Jong Il. Pakistan. Don't point out their hypocricy, simply ask them to explain how they're being consistent with the rhetoric they spew to their base. Tough job.
When Bush says surge ask him if that means the Rumsfield doctrine has failed. When he says no then ask him if his leadership has failed. When he says no ask him why he's scapegoating the men in uniform. This might just work because it happens to be obviously true.
Ditto Kurtz. He said this calling for the death of the VP is outrageous, period. He is so right. Can he please tell us all about death wishes and the blogoshpere? Please Howie, write MORE about this subject. Either he lies worse or he writes more honestly.
The doctrine of the people in power now is to never admit they were wrong and never claim to have changed their minds about what's right. This is their achilles heel and this is the route to discredit this brand of politics. They contradict themselves and then flat out deny it. Since the media has no memory, the best weapon is to simply ask were they were being honest before they started lying, or were they lying before they started being honest. They report, you decide.
This is essentially what Glenn does, and why we are attracted to this blog. The best weapon against a liar is to take the lies at face value and expose them to sunlight. Don't reframe, repeat.
