Gotcha, Sullivan Tells Times' Dowd

NewsMax.com ^ | 5/14/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

[kattracks]

New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd had distorted a quote from President Bush, drawing a quick slap on the wrist from columnist Andrew Sullivan.

"In case you thought the Blair debacle was the only indicator of the Times' slide, you obviously haven't been reading Maureen Dowd," Sullivan wrote on his website. "Today featured a classic, well, distortion. Here's Dowd's dumb-as-a-post take on Bush's conduct of the war on terror:

"Busy chasing off Saddam," Dowd wrote, "the president and vice president had told us that Al Qaeda was spent. "Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated... They're not a problem anymore."

Wrong, as Sullivan points out. "Here's what Bush actually said: 'Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated. Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore."

In other words, the half of the top al Qaeda leadership that is dead or in jail are no longer a problem - not the whole outfit as Dowd wrongfully suggests.

It looks as if the Blair witch disorder is spreading around the Times.

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:

Media Bias

[TomB]

Now if I know all this, and I'm not a journo, what's Dowd's excuse?

errrr, she's not a journo?

Was that a trick question?

;-)

[1rudeboy]

When using a quote, the "journalist" understands that the reader is not able to consider inflection, body language, etc. Thus leaving-out a portion of the quote that would allow the reader come to a conclusion other than the one the writer is proposing is a hallmark of unprofessionalism.

[browardchad]

In my opinion, the UK document overall is accurate even though there are a few minor cosmetic changes. The only inaccuracies in the UK document were that they maybe inflated some of the numbers of these intelligence agencies," he said.

Thanks for setting me straight... that's an angle I hadn't heard on that story.

Nice try: for your edification, I just thought I'd emphasize the salient modifiers in the statement. Marashi also goes on to explain that he had "softened" his descriptions of what the UK described as "terrorist organizations" since it was an academic paper. Interesting comment.

[TomB]

Sullivan's interpretation of "they're not a problem anymore" is open to debate. One could reasonably maintain that sentence meant "Al Qaeda in general" or "the dead or jailed ones in particular."

Not even close. Here are the quotes again:

Dowd:

"Al Qaeda is on the run," President Bush said last week. "That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly but surely being decimated. . . . They're not a problem anymore."

Bush:

Al Qaeda is on the run. That group of terrorists who attacked our country is slowly, but surely being decimated.Right now, about half of all the top al Qaeda operatives are either jailed or dead. In either case, they're not a problem anymore."

There can be NO DOUBT what Bush was talking about. Is has nothing to do with what "Sullivan's interpretation" is, becuase Bush's statement was crystal clear.

[Petronski]

The predicate 'in either case' can only be referring to the 'captured or killed' in the previous statement, which is the only alternative in the quote.

Thus in "in either case, they're not a problem anymore," the "they're" MUST be referring to those 'captured or killed' and NOT ALL members of Al Qaeda.

[RJL]

Bullsh*t!

The deletion of part of a quotation to change its meaning is one of the oldest dishonest tricks in the book. She knew what she was doing, and should be sanctioned for it!

I know that, it was said in jest/sarcasm.

It's more fun to make her look very stupid than to acknowledge the fact she is merely a lying radical hard left ideologue and Bush hater.

[dvwjr]

Dowd uses quotes as honestly as movie advertisers use movie review quotes:

"The greatest movie..." screen disaster since Ishtar!

"An outstanding film..." example of how to waste $100 million!

"Don't wait for this one on DVD...", avoid it while it is in the theatre!

"Sparks fly..." because this movie is like watching a slow-motion train-wreck!

"Michael Douglas told me he loved me..." more than the street crack whore near his drycleaners!

Hey, it's the New York Times. You can find truth in some of their news articles, you just have to learn to read between the lies...

dvwjr

[expatpat]

Yes, I was pretty sure you were being sarcastic. The BS remark was not directed at you post but put in for emphasis.

[GOPJ]

No one can hold their breath long enogh for the Times to do the right thing. So, the answer is, "no".

The NYT needs to fire Dowd immediately. Shall I hold my breath?

[RockBassCreek]

Sorry, but you're wrong. Using Bush's quote and ignoring Dowd's, it is NOT CLEAR what the referent is for "they're not a problem anymore." As I pointed out, to say that dead people are no longer a problem is NOT a serious comment. In English, since we have no gender or case endings, and since proximity isn't necessarily the determinant as to what is being referred/modified, English sometimes comes out fuzzy.

I read the statement, I took President Bush seriously, and I thought on first reading that he meant that "Al Qaeda is not a problem anymore."

Which is what I believe. They are minor thugs who've been seriously reduced. Except for Saudi Arabia's treachery, they wouldn't have been able to kill Americans in that compound.

Al Qaeda is NOT a problem.

Saudi Arabia is the Problem. I'd like to see them taken out.

[RockBassCreek]

You also are wrong. It makes no sense to say that captured or killed people are no longer a problem when you are addressing the serious-minded subject of Al Qaeda in general. The "in either case" can refer to Al Qaeda as a group or it can refer to the group of those who are "captured/killed." We are stuck with English and it's lack of specificity.

[Jim Noble]

We have to stop Maureen Dowd from writing for the Times.

Right now.

[Petronski]

The actual conservatives viewing the speech understood what he meant, and I think you did too. Your 'analysis' is the only thing that makes no sense, and you just don't understand enough about English to win any argument on the topic.

In any event, I don't have ridiculous discussions with newbie trolls. Why don't you scoot on back to DU or whatever other sewer oozed you forth.

[RockBassCreek]

I don't think the issue is anything other than the point that a fair reader could legitimately see the words going either direction. They can be seen both ways. There is nothing in the context that makes them of necessity be one or the other. I lean in the "all of al qaeda" direction simply because saying that dead people are no longer a problem seems simplistic to me. I have no problem asserting that Al qaeda is on the run and they are no longer a problem. We will track them down and kill them. No problem.

Now, regarding my annointing to "trollhood" by you. I will bet that I donated far more to the Republicans and to President GWBush's own campaign than you did. And I DID donate to both (and to the NRA.) If that's what counts as a "democrat troll" over here, then so be it. But I suspect you're just frustrated because I'm right. And you ain't.

[Petronski]

But I suspect you're just frustrated because I'm right. And you ain't.

LOL

[bourbon]

thanks. I couldn't believe we went 14 posts w/o a picture of Catherine! That's just way too long in my book. :-)

[Lee'sGhost]

"However, the spirit of Bush's statement suggests that Al-Qaeda is becoming less of a threat. "

WRONG! Certainly it is LESS a threat than it was a month ago. That does NOT mean there is no threat. Notice that the terrorists are attacking targets in the same country where the are headquartered. Dubya is perfectly correct.

[TomB]

I read the statement, I took President Bush seriously, and I thought on first reading that he meant that "Al Qaeda is not a problem anymore."

Al Qaeda is NOT a problem.

Saudi Arabia is the Problem. I'd like to see them taken out.

Well that explains it. You are projecting your own desires and world view onto Bush's statement.

The statement is written in pretty basic english and it cannot be construed any other way than to say that the ones killed or captured are "not a problem anymore", no matter how many times you say differently.

[RockBassCreek]

Bush's statement is a matter of English. There's a subject, a predicate, etc. It CAN be read both ways no matter how much someone protests.

[RockBassCreek]

Bush's statement is a matter of English. There's a subject, a predicate, etc. It CAN be read both ways no matter how much someone protests.