Deceptive talking 101

Here is a post by Gordon Prather. He mentions how Bush referenced that Saddam's son-in-law, while in the U.S., said Saddam had WMDs and when he returned to Iraq Saddam had him killed. Many take from that statement that Saddam's son-in-law was killed because he told the U.S. that Iraq had WMDs. But while Saddam's son-in-law said Iraq had WMDs, he also said they were destroyed and Iraq no longer had them. With this information we might just as well conclude the son-in-law was killed for saying Iraq did not have WMDs. This game of tenses and incomplete information made it very difficult when people asked, "How come our guys are the liars and your guys ain't?" My answer was to not answer that question since even now the administration doesn't think they lied or are now lying. I answered by explaining why Iraq had no WMDs. It may sound like I was calling the Fox news people (and others including the White House Press) liars but that is not true either. Those folks were misled by the administration and in turn misled others.

This would no longer be important except the administration is continuing its deception. Watch out for tenses. Ask yourself if the continued use of had is for a reason. The press should really press the matter and ask questions like, "Does this power currently have these weapons?"

Rumsfeld uses a similar technique in explaining torture. He redefines torture which may in itself be one deception while saying U.S. forces do not torture. The questions should be about the CIA and "special ops" from "contractors." Are these considered U.S. forces? The rest of the world has lost much respect for this country because of these unnecessary antics.

When exposed, these masters of verbal ledgerdemain may label you by saying, "You think you're slimier than snot on a wet frog." I've always taken that as a complement.