I don't mean to be smary about this, but I don't have a tv, so I don't get to see Fox ever-- and the Clark interview is really eye-opening.
First, there's the old fallacy of the complex question: "who put you up to this?" presupposes that someone did-- maybe Bill Clinton, as the follow-up suggests, as if the four-star general were malleable clay in that pudgy machiavel's hands.
Second, even better, is the next question, a trifecta of distorting rhetoric: there's (i) the "I hate to, but I have to" disclaimer; (ii) the "since you're a newcomer, you make more mistakes" insinuation, carefully sandwiched between the faux apology and the real question, so it can't be addressed without going 'off message'; (iii) the thematizing of the "sideshow" remark as a mistake. Clark's point: the Iraq war is a distraction from the real threat. Sounds defensible, even true. But it's introduced in this incredulous, this-must-be-a-gaffe tone, so we naturally look for the gaffe reading-- did he mean to trivialize Our Boys? Compare them to the Bearded Lady? How dare he!
Thirty seconds of tape, and there's steam coming from my ears.
I could do fifteen posts a day about things like this. Also notable was how the host tried to make it sound as if Clark was denying that he had even said "sideshow" when Clark kept saying "No Sir." A bit more of that and the next round would have been how Clark denied saying what he said.
I hate to admit it, but I'm used to this. It doesn't even make me angry anymore, it's just part of the game. Clark did as good a job as I've seen of calling them on it. I think he and the host were speaking to entirely different audiences, and no one went away dissatisfied.
"who talked you into this?...did Bill Clinton have the deciding vote?"
I was hoping he'd say "Wesley Clark talked himself into it, and cast the deciding vote."
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 11-18-03 10:00 AM
What a question to start with! Who controls the Manchurian Candidacy of General Clark? might have been more direct.
Might have been.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-18-03 10:04 AM
I don't mean to be smary about this, but I don't have a tv, so I don't get to see Fox ever-- and the Clark interview is really eye-opening.
First, there's the old fallacy of the complex question: "who put you up to this?" presupposes that someone did-- maybe Bill Clinton, as the follow-up suggests, as if the four-star general were malleable clay in that pudgy machiavel's hands.
Second, even better, is the next question, a trifecta of distorting rhetoric: there's (i) the "I hate to, but I have to" disclaimer; (ii) the "since you're a newcomer, you make more mistakes" insinuation, carefully sandwiched between the faux apology and the real question, so it can't be addressed without going 'off message'; (iii) the thematizing of the "sideshow" remark as a mistake. Clark's point: the Iraq war is a distraction from the real threat. Sounds defensible, even true. But it's introduced in this incredulous, this-must-be-a-gaffe tone, so we naturally look for the gaffe reading-- did he mean to trivialize Our Boys? Compare them to the Bearded Lady? How dare he!
Thirty seconds of tape, and there's steam coming from my ears.
Posted by Fontana Labs | Link to this comment | 11-18-03 12:49 PM
I could do fifteen posts a day about things like this. Also notable was how the host tried to make it sound as if Clark was denying that he had even said "sideshow" when Clark kept saying "No Sir." A bit more of that and the next round would have been how Clark denied saying what he said.
I hate to admit it, but I'm used to this. It doesn't even make me angry anymore, it's just part of the game. Clark did as good a job as I've seen of calling them on it. I think he and the host were speaking to entirely different audiences, and no one went away dissatisfied.
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 11-18-03 12:58 PM