-By Warner Todd Huston
This one takes the cake as today, Reuters is trying to manufacture a controversy. Apparently al Reuters doesn’t understand the concept of “context” because they’re idiotically claiming that in his Thursday press conference Bush said that Nelson Mandela is dead. Calling what Bush said “an embarrassing gaffe,” Reuters took Bush’s words out of context to make it seem as if Bush was talking about something he was not talking about. But any intelligent person can easily understand Bush’s context merely by listening to his whole sentence instead of shortening it to just two words.
With a headline that reads, Mandela still alive after embarrassing Bush remark, Reuters does their best to make a Bush “gaffe” where none exists.
JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) – Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader’s death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.
Heartwarming that Reuters is so concerned over Mandela’s health, isn’t it?
But here’s the problem. During the press conference, Bush was not talking about the actual Nelson Mandela. He was talking about people like Nelson Mandela and speaking metaphorically. And listening to Bush’s entire segment, while not artfully stated, makes it clear that he was not talking about the actual Nelson Mandela.
Here is Bush’s entire segment transcribed: (My bold emphasis)
“I thought an interesting comment was made when somebody said to me, I heard somebody say, ‘now where’s Mandela?’ Well, Mandela’s dead. Because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandela’s.
He was a brutal tyrant that divided people up and split families and people are recovering from this. So there’s a psychological recovery that is taking place and it’s hard work for them and I understand that it’s hard work for them.”
Could it be any more obvious that Bush is saying that there aren’t any Iraqis filling the same sort of role in Iraq that Nelson Mandela filled in South Africa? Could it be any more clear that Bush was saying that Saddam “killed all the Mandelas” of Iraq?
But even with that, Reuters seems to understand that their headline is a lie because they include this paragraph in their story:
In a speech defending his administration’s Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein’s brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.
OK, then if you KNOW what Bush meant, what he was actually talking about… then why this trumped up story?
Ah, it’s solely because you want to make Bush look bad, eh Reuters?
Now we get it.
____________
Warner Todd Huston’s thoughtful commentary, sometimes irreverent often historically based, is featured on many websites such as newsbusters.org, townhall.com, men’snewsdaily.com and americandaily.com among many, many others. Additionally, he has been a guest on several radio programs to discuss his opinion editorials and current events. He has also written for several history magazines and appears in the new book “Americans on Politics, Policy and Pop Culture” which can be purchased on amazon.com. He is also the owner and operator of publiusforum.com. Feel free to contact him with any comments or questions : EMAIL Warner Todd Huston
This is indeed a humorous post, Huston, given that you attempted to mislead your own readers about the meaning of Michael Kinsley’s recent piece in Time, only two days ago.
Pot, meet kettle…
Well, it looks like we’ve got a new fan! Welcome stinkingmeat! Looks like you are a mind-numbed, kool-aide drinker from waaaay back!
Looks like you don’t have the balls to answer the questions I asked you in the comments to your Kinsley post of 9/20.
This was funny…
“Looks like you don’t have the balls to answer the questions I asked you in the comments to your Kinsley post of 9/20.”
What reason do you imagine it is that I should feel compelled to “answer” your questions? Why, in the good Lord’s name would you imagine yourself so important that I should spend more time than you are worth? Especially considering the fact that you are just a low-brow, name caller!
What makes YOU worth my time?
So far I’ve seen no evidence that debate with you would either add substance to this website, or provide worthwhile discussion for our readers.
The term “troll” seems to have been tailor made to describe you, thus far.
What reason do you imagine it is that I should feel compelled to “answer” your questions?”
There’s nothing compelling you to answer my questions, nor have I claimed that there is.
However… your claims about the meaning of Kinsley’s article were in fact complete fabrications. You can’t defend those fabrications. Thus do we learn something about your intellectual dishonesty.
Your claim that there was a time “when no conservative voice was heard in public” is a complete fabrication. You can’t defend that fabrication. Thus do we learn something about your intellectual dishonesty.
You’re not interested in “add[ing] substance to this website, or provid[ing] worthwhile discussion for [your] readers”. Your intent is to mislead and misinform. Every time you are challenged to back up your claims with facts, and fail to do so, you simply supply more evidence of your true intent.
I truly appreciate your cooperation.
“There’s nothing compelling you to answer my questions.”
Well, then. I’m glad we agree.
Of course, there is a difference between finding someone not worthy of reply and not be able to do so. I’ve debated people of the left many times, often enjoying the exercise immensely. There have been many times when we’ve both, right and left, come away from the debate with a sense of accomplishment and enlightenment.
But, again, there are those worth the effort and those who are not.
You, sir, are not.
I’ve looked your prosaic little site over and it is naught but simple-minded, vitriol. There is nothing of merit there to make my wasting time in true debate with you a justified effort.
So, thanks for stopping by. Have a great life. And I wish you no luck whatsoever in convincing other Americans to be as hateful and anti-American as you are.
Chow, baby.
“There is nothing of merit there to make my wasting time in true debate with you a justified effort.”
Huston doesn’t have the facts to back up his claims. He also lacks the courage to admit this — so he makes up an excuse to run away from the hard questions.
…you’re truly not intelligent enough to know when you’re being insulted. A sad case, indeed.
Ta ta, brainlessmeat.
Oh, it’s quite obvious that you are insulting me, Huston. I didn’t mention it explicitly because I didn’t realize you craved public acknowledgment of your own cowardly tactics. Consider your insults acknowledged.
The point, of course, is that when challenged directly to back up your claims with facts, you can’t do it. When you are challenged to clarify the meaning of one of your statements, you can’t do it.
Instead, you try desperately to distract attention from your inability to conduct a rational discussion by hurling insults.
That tells us much about both your claims and your character. Thanks again for the cooperation.
A little help for you since you don’t seem to have a dictionary handy… or cannot afford one.
CAN’T
Pronunciation:\ˈkant, ˈkänt, especially Southern ˈkānt\
Date: 15th century
Meaning: can not
——-
WON’T
Pronunciation:\ˈwōnt; New England, upstate NY, nPa ˌwənt, ˈwənt; greater NYC ˈwünt; eSC ˈwünt, ˈwu̇nt\
Date:1562
Meaning: will not
—–
I would like to helpfully point out that they are actually two different words.
Now, I realize that words mean nothing to an extremist of the left like yourself. But, just in case some learnin’ might actually strike you like an epiphany, I just thought I’d help.
Your friend, WTH
I am aware of the two words, and the difference between them.
In your case, Huston, the applicable word is “can’t”.
You can’t conduct a rational discussion.
You can’t provide any facts to support your claim that there was a time when no conservative voices were heard.
You can’t explain what you mean when you claim that “the left [is] upset at Bush for replying to terrorism with force”.
In all cases, you just can’t. You may pretend that you “won’t” all you like. Just understand how transparent your pretense truly is.
Thanks again for the cooperation.
Sad thing is, if I thought you’d be interested in a real, spirited, but rational debate, I’d indulge you.
But, any look at your site proves that you are not fit for polite society.
There hasn’t been any rationality on the left since Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Paul Simon passed away.
Sigh.
“Sad thing is, if I thought you’d be interested in a real, spirited, but rational debate, I’d indulge you.”
Ah… now an ad hominem attack is trotted out as the latest excuse for Huston’s inability to provide facts to back up his claims. How laughably predictable.
Notice that the facts are still lacking. All Huston can do is continue to try to spin his deficiencies into some sort of noble, high-minded effort.
Thanks again for your cooperation, Huston.
Wait. I can’t believe I didn’t see it before. It’s that dreaded disease… lastworditis. You certainly have a bad case of it.
Yes my friend meat… I will be magnanimous (look it up, no help this time) and allow you to have it.
But, thanks for playing, anyway.
Notice that the facts are still lacking.
Thanks again for your cooperation, Huston.
WTH,
This conversation is a hoot! Meatbrain should be a regular on your posts. Although he does get a bit repetitious.
I think you are right though. He just wants attention and hopes to lead people to his pitiful site. Most of his postings have little or no comments which could mean he has no friends.
Perhaps we can befriend the poor chap, lead him onto the path of “right thinking” and thereby correct his moonbat leftyism.
That is if we can wipe the foam off his lips and get him to write without using “Michael Moore’s Handbook For Public Correspondence”
…HEY! Michael Moore only cares about the little people, ya know? Just like the folks who made Manufacturing Dissent found out, eh?
Ha, ha.