‘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”:
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…..
