October 06, 2003

Stephen, you might be interested in what Spinsanity had to say (in April) when others did just what you've done, quoting that single parapgraph of Kamiya's:

* * * * * *
Kamiya disavows "[s]ome of this," stating that it "is merely the result of pettiness -- ignoble resentment, partisan hackdom, the desire to be proved right and to prove the likes of Rumsfeld wrong, irritation with the sanitizing, myth-making American media. That part of it I feel guilty about, and disavow." He also admits that he worried that President Bush's success in the war would lead to worse outcomes in the future, but ultimately returns to his position that we should celebrate the liberation of Iraqis previously oppressed by Saddam.

Those who wish to quote from such a nuanced piece have a particular obligation to represent it accurately, but many conservatives did exactly the opposite. Writing in the Washington Times, Inside Politics columnist Greg Pierce ran an item predictably titled "Cheering the enemy" on March 18, which claimed that Kamiya "confirms what some Americans have only suspected: Liberals were cheering for the enemy in Iraq." He then quotes Kamiya out of context, stating that the Salon editor believes "[m]ore casualties would have been a preferred alternative to the 'larger moral negative' of a victory that boosted President Bush's chances for re-election."
* * * * * * *
(Entire Spinsanity piece can be found here.) I think you'd agree that it's best when words are treated in their proper context, and not isolated.

Gary Kamiya was the reason I stopped reading Salon. While a talented guy, his writing gets out of control, particularly in the leads. And when that happens, his pretense factor goes up exponentially.

He was, I thought, simply the worst professional writer of our generation ... until Mark Morford came along.

Frank,
Thanks for the "context". I love that term "nuanced"! I guess you can say any detestable slander you want about the President, but if you add "I'm glad Saddam is gone" it's "nuanced". Nevertheless, I'll accept that he is pleased Saddam is gone, now that it has happened, but hope you'll agree with his self description as a partisan hack. I am also going to assume that from now on you won't lift a couple of sentences about WMD's from the President's SOTU and instead will place them in the context of the many reasons for going after Saddam that he also supplied?

Frank: The issue here is not a quote. It is simply that the anti-Bush liberals consider themselves " intelligent, morally sensitive people " who want this president to fail. That is beyond dispute. In their zeal to see the president fall on his face, they will even harbor "dumb, immoral and insensitive " thoughts.

Stephen, I dn't think I ever did that, to be honest with you. In that lovely exchange last February, you may remember, I posted the Iraq-relevant content from both the SOTU and Cincinnati, showing both the WMD-related and non-WMD related content, and how the former was a good 80% of what Bush said on those two occasions. You know from my other efforts that context is important to me. So yes, you can trust me. But the "from now on" is questionable.

Ruth, when you put it that way, it's very clearly the quote, because that's in the quote.

I can't speal for all liberals, but I want Bush to succeed, because therein lies the fate of our country. I'll grant you there are some who place partisanship above patriotism, but you have to be careful about generalizing to all liberals.

This is one of my frequent issues with the feelings expressed on this blog: a tendency to look at those who have opposing viewpoints monolithically. It comes out in many ways, and our country isn't helped by that simplicity, because it makes all sides more extreme and we don't know how to talk to each other.

I need to amend what I just wrote. There are areas where I want Bush to fail because I think his policies are bad for the country (such as the Labor Department's re-writing of the overtime rules), but there are areas where I want him to succeed for the same reason (the economy, for instance).

UGH, I'm not being very clear. I want Bush to succeed in improving the economy, because an improved economy is good for the country.

Frank, I truly hope you keep coming around (in all manifestations of the phrase).