Truth Puts Its Boots On (Hitchens Helps)

The last time we checked in Christopher Hitchens was tackling the notion that Bush lied and Joe Wilson told the heroic truth about his mission to Niger in search of Iraqi interest in uranium.

Now Hitchens is going after another of the left's greatest hits: Ari Fleischer's infamous comment that "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do":

And there it was again, in Frank Rich's  column (TimesSelect subscription required) in the New York Times of Sunday, Sept. 10, recalling the alleged pall of fear that fell over Americans five years ago this month:

The presidential press secretary, Ari Fleischer, condemned Bill Maher's irreverent comic response to 9/11 by reminding "all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do." Fear itself—the fear that "paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance," as FDR had it—was already being wielded as a weapon against Americans by their own government.

I have been meaning to put this pathetic canard out of its misery for some time now, and this week seems as good a time as any.

Putting the canard out of its misery is really just a matter of checking the transcript or reading Fleischer's letter to the NY Times, but Hitch manages to do so with his accustomed flair.

If folks would care to suggest a few more classic bit of mis-remembering or opportunistic misunderstanding by the Dems, that might make for some interesting comments.  Maybe we can predict Hitch's next target (or Maureen Dowd's next column... or not.)

I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING BUT WHY A DUCK?  What is it about "canards" that makes folks want to end their misery?  Something they quacked?  Something they didn't quack?

Troubling.  Where is PETA on this?

Comments

[Chants]

Canards (Listed in no order of importance):

WMD's was THE reason we went to war. (No, it was A reason we went to war. (Canard's purpose: Keeps the Bush Lied meme moving).

Plame's cover was vital to national security. (Most certainly not true, but if true, she sure didn't act like it. (Canard's purpose: TRAITORS!!).

There was NO connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. ("No connection" is an absolute, and those are very rarely true. (Conard's purpose: Bush lied! Stifle any serious examination of the issue with derisive laughter).

There are a lot more. Sought vs. Bought uranium; 16 words based on the forgeries; and, of course, Bush knew, planned, and/or orchestrated 9-11.

[SteveMG]

This list can get quite lengthy so I'll jump in at the head of the line and suggest the false charge that Bush said that "You were either for me or against me" in the war against terrorism.

If one reads the entire quote, you'll quickly see that Bush was referring to foreign governments that either openly supported or secretly harbored terrorists. That is, following the September 11 attacks that the US government would no longer distinguish between the two. A country that was passively allowing terrorists to operate from their territory would be treated the same way that a regime that was actively supporting terrorism.

Both were our enemies.

SMG

[owl]

invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward. (No, they had a plan that possibly only had 12 years of planning w/half-assed a bonus. Carnard's purpose: Bush incompetent)

[boris]

Libby sent out to lie about a Key finding of the NIE being Iraq seeking nukes.

[owl]

Sorry TM...couldn't resist.

[Tom Maguire]

invading Iraq with a half-assed non-plan that results in confusion and limbo was probably not be the way to move America, or freedom, forward.

LOL. I'm not sure that specific phrasing of the canard has been as widely popularized.

But I guess the "too few troops" question is either a weary canard or (my emerging view) the truth.

[Florence Schmieg]

Frank Rich: Ex theater critic who pretends to be an expert in foreign policy and military tactics and who has bamboozled the gullible into thinking he is some sort of authority.

[Syl]

Plastic Turkey!

bush is a dope.

[SteveMG]

Plastic Turkey!

I thought we were only allowed to mention this one at Tim Blair's site?

Did Rove give out new orders?

SMG

[JM Hanes]

The MSM fights for the public's right to know.

[fulldroolcup]

"The MSM fights for the public's right to know."

Now there's a canard, based on liberal idiots' unarticulated belief that our government should have no secrets, that everything should be declassified and made "transparent", even to our sworn enemies.

[JM Hanes]

Actually, I'll take a do-over on that one:

The MSM believes in your right to know.

[dvorak]

But I guess the "too few troops" question is either a weary canard or (my emerging view) the truth.

One of my favorites bits from MST3K, episode 306 Time of the Apes:

-- Commander of the Apes: If you had listened, things would be different.
-- Tom Servo: Not better, just different.

More troops may have have made things better; it may have made things worse. We can only speculate.

Since the terrorists quickly began to blow up unarmed Iraqis and Iraqi police/military recruits rather than only target US soldiers, plus the fact that some members of Iraq's new government (xref Sadr) are part of the problem, I'm skeptical that even three or four times the number of troops would ultimately make a positive difference instead of just resulting in bombs exploding on a different street.

[dvorak]

ps, has Hitchens done anything on 'Loose Change'/the 9-11 Truthers? Now there's a group that deserves every bitch-slap it gets.

[Assistant Village Idiot]

Bush stole Florida and the SCOTUS vote on the central issue was 5-4?

The Republicans took the house in 1994 because of angry white males?

The Clinton impeachment was all about sex?

The Bush TANG story was fake but accurate?

[Soylent Red]

Jeez the list is so long it's hard to know where to start.

1. Diebold. Ohio. Rove.

2. Anything Al Gore has ever said.

3. The alleged intelligence of John Kerry.

Problem with debunking myths is that you have to have an audience who will admit when they are debunked.

[Ron Brynaert]

Fleischer's letter is the canard.

He was asked in the next press briefing about the "watch what you say" bit...and he did his usual spin worm job...said one thing then said the opposite...but he clearly indicated that he at least personally believed that Americans should watch what they do or say.

Q So you stand by what you said?

MR. FLEISCHER: I stand by what I said about what he said, was unfortunate and should not have been said. But I understand, of course, in all times, it's everybody's right to say things, no matter how wrong they can be.

Q So you then don't believe what you said, that Americans ought to at this time watch what they say? Do you stand by that specific part of your statement?

MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, I think that everybody always has to be thoughtful. I think everybody has to think through the repercussions, the implications of what they say. And I shared this morning, as well, but I had a message on my answering machine from somebody, a citizen who called up and said that the United States needs to round up all the Muslims, the good ones and the bad ones, because you can't tell the difference. And that's the type of thing -- people have to think carefully about the things that they do and they say.

And our nation, as it goes into an increased wartime footing, is going to be confronting issues that typically, thankfully, have not come up in the past, that make people think more carefully about what they're doing. And so that's the answer to the question.

There's no doubt that many on the left have over-inflated Fleischer's words.

The Fleischer comments are a metaphoric anecdote...not proof that speech was stifled post-9/11.

[maryrose]

Soylent; You've nailed it.Especially the comment"the alleged intelligence of John Kerry".
It was my first laugh of the day!

[Major John]

"Too few troops" is my favorite. But I am just some dumb field grade officer with a logistics background, neither as informed nor intelligent as the ladies and gentlemen of the press...

[Cecil Turner]

But I am just some dumb field grade officer with a logistics background . . .

I find it amusing that, AFAICT, everyone with a similar background comes up with the same answer . . . but the meme persists.

[boris]

"Not Enough Troops" is a phoney argument to explain how we are losing a war we aren't losing. It shifts the attention away from reasonable metric of progress toward a completely arbitrary nonissue.

It assumes the desired message (losing) to generate as much discussion as possible on a dependent issue (troops). Very much the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife". You can't engage the troop issue without implicitly endorsing the assumption that we're losing.

[Cecil Turner]

"Not Enough Troops" is a phoney argument to explain how we are losing a war we aren't losing.

I suspect there's also an element of setting an impossible precondition for military action (a la the "global test" . . . or the concept of getting French concurrence for the Iraq war).

It shifts the attention away from reasonable metric of progress toward a completely arbitrary nonissue.

Concur. It's similar to the argument that we're losing unless Iraq is peaceful and stable (hence the enemy wins if they only keep fighting). It's hard to see how anyone could look at the GWOT from Osama's viewpoint and see it as anything but an unmitigated disaster, but apparently the Dems and the MSM are convinced we're losing. On a related note, the Lebanese are apparently reevaluating Hizbullah's contribution to their security. If accurate, this may mark the first time the "Arab street" blames the terrorist instigators of a war for the ensuing carnage. One can only hope.