No.
First you have to establish that it is dishonest (as opposed to mistaken, say).
Not that I’m imparting some morsel of arcane wisdom to which you have no access.
Note to add that the US-sponsored genocide in Yemen gets very little attention in the US headlines despite (or maybe because of) it is being committed by the U.S. and Saudi’s.
The death of one reporter gets far more attention than the deliberate starvation deaths of 84,000 children.
Meanwhile, this story is also buried in TPM, as we all focus on the clown sideshow in DC, which is much more entertaining.
And just SHUTUP if you’re going to criticize Democrats and their role in the Yemen genocide.
1 Like
No.
When something is self-evidently false, I don’t need to establish it. I simply need to point it out, e.g., the rather silly Pelosi attack or the insistence that “supporting genocide is all good with some Democrats now.”
And when someone, as in this case, has a long history of endless unsupported diatribes against certain individuals, I need to do even less, other than to point out that such dishonest sliming has no place in a rational discussion of these issues. It offers no value and works against the very causes he claims to support.
“False” (your word now) and “dishonest” (your word previously) are quite distinct from each other.
But you knew this.
Yes, that’s entirely true, but this fact alone does not demonstrate that Obama supported genocide.
Again, I’m not saying he didn’t, but so far I’ve seen no evidence.
sigh Yes, I did, and both words were very carefully chosen. When something is self-evidently false and when someone has a long history of submitting such self-evidently false assertions, despite frequent corrections, then it rises to the level where “dishonest” is the appropriate word.
But you knew this.
You think the above is completely objective, I’m sure.
What do you think the blockade of food and medicine was intended to do? What has been the result?
I guess that one could have watched the walls being built around the Warsaw Ghetto and say that this fact alone does not demonstrate that Hitler supported genocide.
Either Obama knew or he did not know. Both posits are damning.
1 Like
First you have to establish that it is not objective (as opposed to mistaken, say).
Not that I’m imparting some morsel of arcane wisdom to which you have no access.
No, the symmetry you’d like to see is not there.
You called something “dishonest.” This was your opinion. I said it could just be a mistake.
Subsequently you called something “self-evidently false” — and I disagreed about the “self-evidently.”
Those are reasonable questions. I agree that such embargoes are generally inhumane.
So when you say Obama supported genocide in Yemen, it’s (only?) these embargoes you’re referring to?
If so, then it might be best to mention them when you make the broader accusation.