Lil White Lies: Partition Definition Edition

‘When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' --Lewis Carroll, "Through the Looking Glass”

This is how Bryan began his critique of PolitiFact’s (PF) ruling on Joe Biden’s statement “I never called for a partition of Iraq.” But it’s obvious Bryan has Humpty Dumpty upside down. In other words, for whatever Humpty Dumpty chose ‘a word’ to mean, if it always meant the same thing, does that make Humpty Dumpty wrong? Especially if it was how others chose what the word would mean, not necessarily him?

The following is a point-by-point summary of Bryan’s argument as to why Joe Biden’s statement is “disingenuous” in denying he called for a partition of Iraq in an interview with Jake Tapper on “ABC’s This Week”:

1.  Biden makes statement X “I never called for partition--I called for a central government and three autonomous regions”

2.  Bryan says Joe’s wrong, it IS partition (Y)

3.  Bryan attacks Y, citing all these other sources calling it partition, deducing that Biden (and others) have re-defined partition (“employing euphemisms”) to suit his purpose.

4.  Therefore X is wrong: it is disingenuous for Biden to deny that he never called for partition (And furthermore, you guys at PF are covering for him by using only ONE definition for partition!)

Do you see something here? If I could while away the hours, conferrin’ with the flowers….oh, excuse me I digress…..

Basically Bryan ignored the context of Biden’s statement: “I never called for a partition. I called for a central government with considerable autonomy in the regions.” PolitiFact held that up as “the distinction” for ruling Biden’s statement True.

Also, Factcheck.org appears to be in agreement, reporting on July 19: “Biden is right that he didn’t call for a complete partition of Iraq, instead recommending that the country maintain a central government with three largely self-governing regions.”

To continue from Factcheck: **But Tapper is also right. He never said that Biden called for the abolition of a centralized government in Iraq; he said Biden believed a "strong" central government was untenable. And it’s certainly the case that Biden presented his proposal as an alternative to Bush’s "futile effort to establish a strong central government in Baghdad."**

In the last section of the “Condensed Critique the Critique” table, I re-state what I think Bryan wants his readers to believe based on his arguments. I try to keep it short, so here is the long version with caveats: Joe Biden was being disingenuous and misleading Jake Tapper by saying he never called for partition of Iraq. It is and has been called partition by many sources. He DID call for it according to a dictionary definition, even though it was a what most sources called a soft partition (dividing Iraq into “states”) and even though was not a complete partition (dividing Iraq into 3 separate countries). Even though in the past he said it was not a partition. Even though FactCheck says Biden’s right. Even though there are many forms of “partition.” Even though Joe never came out and said it. Most important, even though WHATEVER partition may mean, he has consistently held the position he wants a central government with autonomous regions.

Title and Link	July 25: Joe Biden says he never called for partition of Iraq
Who? Affiliation	Joe Biden, V.P., Democrat
Ruling	TRUE
Checkers	Robert Farley (Writer, Researcher); Martha Hamilton, Editor
# of Words	1,016
#Sources Cited	13
Argument Summary	Biden’s plan was sometimes referred to as a partition or “soft partition” but it was not a partition in the traditional sense (dividing Iraq into 3 countries); because he has always held this position, PF ruled *True.*
Bryan’s Argument	Biden was “employing euphemisms” so as not to use term “partition” while PF only considered one definition of “complete partition” even though there’s no evidence Jake Tapper stated it.
Interpretation	None required.
My criticism:	Bryan is ignoring context here. If Biden was disingenuous about not using the word “partition” and then in same sentence states his position “central government with autonomous regions” which was what he has consistently advocated, does that make his position untrue or make him a liar? Also, when Jake Tapper said “three-way partition” in his question to Biden, is that to be interpreted as “complete”? If so, then all bets are off on Bryan’s analysis.
Guidelines	None
Rhetorical Devices/Logic fallacies	Bryan is attacking the use of the word “partition” which is fairly easy to refute, while he cannot attack Biden’s consistent position on “central government with 3 autonomous regions” as he stated it to Tapper. “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position…. to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"—“partition”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”
DOES IT CHANGE THE RULING?	Bryan: ** "True" is the one rating that cannot apply.** Because Bryan claims it requires *significant* clarification, I’m guessing he’d prefer Half True.
My view	Partition may have been loosely used to contrast it to Bush’s plan which was for Iraq to have one strong central government. In fact, when Biden made the comment he was also responding to a quote of a speech he made in 2007 in opposition to that plan.
Comments	Error! Error! Clarification is spelled Clairification in paragraph under PF rating description
Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct)	Joe Biden was being disingenuous and misleading Jake Tapper by saying he never called for partition of Iraq. It has been called partition by many sources. PF displayed left-wing bias by *significantly clarifying the word partition* and assuming it meant “complete partition” (even though most sources called it “soft partition” or just “partition”) for Biden in order to call it True.
Bryan's Rating	Cinqo Pepés: Usted pensó que usted podría engañar a cada uno?
PF Rating	No Pepé: Usted tuvo suerte esta vez!

.