Guardian Catch-22
The Guardian’s Luke Harding today questions whether Bush got the number of dead in Iraq since its liberation from Saddam correct the other day when he claimed it was around 30,000. Harding contrasts Bush’s figure with the infamous Lancet study which last year placed the number at 100,000. Naturally, Harding failed to inform his readers of just how misleading that headline-grabbing number was.
More notably, though, he begins his piece by characterizing Bush’s 30,000 number as a “belated admission”. Yet he then goes on to claim that the actual figure of deaths is “categorically unknowable”, concluding that Bush “would do better” not to cite any specific number at all.
So, one might wonder, how is it possible to be “late” in “admitting” something that is both unknowable and better left unspecified? Guardianthink at its best.
More notably, though, he begins his piece by characterizing Bush’s 30,000 number as a “belated admission”. Yet he then goes on to claim that the actual figure of deaths is “categorically unknowable”, concluding that Bush “would do better” not to cite any specific number at all.
So, one might wonder, how is it possible to be “late” in “admitting” something that is both unknowable and better left unspecified? Guardianthink at its best.
2 Comments:
Doublethink: the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them
who cares about the Grauniad anyway?
Post a Comment
<< Home