Comments on: Media construct strawman argument on Iran, try to tear it down

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:22:37 +0000

tom, I simply won’t be responsible for your inability to comprehend not only what I wrote, but what the LA Times and the McClatchy piece asserted. I’ve explained myself as clearly as I can.

By: tom

tom — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 04:18:35 +0000

Wait a minute. The McClatchy piece referenced a section from the NIE that used the word “major cause”. You jumped on this phrase and pretended that the reporter is somehow attributing this to the president. We then get to re-live the SOTU to prove that Bush never did actually say the words “major cause”. Talk about a straw man! I think maybe it is the NIE, and not the media, that you should be splitting hairs with.

You ask

Where did ANYONE in the administration say that Iran is the “major cause of bloodshed” in Iraq, tom? Back up your assertions with more than just your interpretation of what someone said.

I never said the administration used the words “major cause of bloodshed”. How about reading what I said more carefully next time, ST?

Your post goes on to claim the LA times makes “faulty assertions”

The LA Times makes similar faulty assertions about the administration’s claims in this piece, in which the LAT reported that the admin â€˜can’t back up’ it’s claims about Iran

They haven’t proven their cliams yet! The LAT piece says “administration officials acknowledged Friday that they had yet to compile evidence strong enough to back up publicly their claims that Iran is fomenting violence against U.S. troops in Iraq”. Where are the faulty assertions in this piece?

I do find it interesting however that the president’s NSA man cannot deny that he has been saying for months that Iran is a “key driver” of violence in Iraq. Now I know we could argue about the phrases “major cause” vs. “key driver”, but I think they are pretty similar, don’t you?

By: Don Surber » Blog Archive » The left’s Iran-is-Iraq meme

Don Surber » Blog Archive » The left’s Iran-is-Iraq meme — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 17:12:14 +0000

[...] UPDATE: I overlooked Sister Toldjah’s fine piece this weekend, “Media construct strawman argument on Iran, try to tear it down.” I offer this taste: Â The much heralded NIE report that liberals and their cohorts in the media are latching on to clearly says that Iran is a problem in Iraq – part of the problem, and that intelligence officials at this point are saying is not a â€˜major’ problem – but a problem nonetheless, especially in light of Iran’s actions in the region. That is the argument the administration has been making about Iran – not that Iran was the “major cause of bloodshed” in Iraq. [...]

By: Sister Toldjah

Sister Toldjah — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:32:26 +0000

The adminstration has been asserting that Iran is a key driver of violence in Iraq. In this recent exchange with reporters, Steven Hadley apparently makes no denial that he has been saying for months that Iran is a key driver of violence in Iraq. Hadley then backpedals on the timing of the promised intelligence briefing.

Where did ANYONE in the administration say that Iran is the "major cause of bloodshed" in Iraq, tom? Back up your assertions with more than just your interpretation of what someone said.

You state: Based on that faulty assertion, the article's writers claim that the admin hasn't provided evidence to back up charges it never made. Maybe I'm missing something. If the administration never made charges that Iran was meddling in Iraq, why have they promised (twice now) to present evidence of Iran meddling in Iraq?

Yeah, you ARE missing something, like the fact that my assertion wasn't that the administration never said Iran "wasn't meddling" in Iraq. My assertion was that the administration has never stated that Iran was the "major cause for bloodshed in Iraq." How about reading what I said more carefully next time, tom?

By: tom

tom — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 06:46:04 +0000

This isn't a strawman. I think the McClatchy article is referring to the NIE's use of the word "major", which states that the involvement of Iraq's neighbors (ie Iran) are "not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability" in Iraq. The adminstration has been asserting that Iran is a key driver of violence in Iraq. In this recent exchange with reporters, Steven Hadley apparently makes no denial that he has been saying for months that Iran is a key driver of violence in Iraq. Hadley then backpedals on the timing of the promised intelligence briefing. You state: Based on that faulty assertion, the article's writers claim that the admin hasn't provided evidence to back up charges it never made. Maybe I'm missing something. If the administration never made charges that Iran was meddling in Iraq, why have they promised (twice now) to present evidence of Iran meddling in Iraq?

By: Marshall Art

Marshall Art — Sun, 04 Feb 2007 01:39:05 +0000

Awesome analysis, Sis. That there is some influence by Iran is without question, as there are reports of Iranian personnel present as well as Iranian materials. Now the libs need to be specific about just how much Iranian involvement is required before we address Iran directly. Of course, if we hold our breath waiting for the answer to that question, we’ll all pass out and our troops will have faced greater risk. Then they’ll have more for which they can blame Bush.