Snope a Dope, Part Duh
A little over a month ago, Kevin Roderick rightly noted that Snopes’s purported debunking of Annie Jacobsen’s story did not seem particularly convincing. Despite agreeing with their conclusion, Kevin rightly noted that it appeared to be based on relatively few sources, at least when compared to several blogs that had followed the issue more closely.
I find Snopes entertaining and think that Barbara and David Mikkelson do a great service aggregating rumors and sifting the media reports, but their weak spot is the conclusions. Unfortunately, too many reporters cite Snopes as the authority on whether a rumor is true, instead of just another opinion based on reading the Web (i.e., no special expertise or sources). On many topics, their judgment doesn’t seem any more informed than a typical journalist or blogger (and as Cathy Seipp showed in a recent CityBeat column, Snopes — like everybody else — sometimes lets political bias color its take.)
I agreed wholeheartedly, and cited an additional example in the comments, namely the semi-debunking of the faux myth that Al Gore claimed to have “invented” the Internet. Read the heading, and you’ll see that the story is “false.” Only if you read the entire article defensively do you learn that the rumor is in fact substantially true, and “false” only in that he didn’t actually use the word “invent.” Rather, as the Mikkelsons eventually acknowledge, he claimed to have “taken initiative in inventing” the Internet - an equally ludicrous and baseless claim. But it’s a safe bet that most readers don’t read down that far.
Today, though, it looks like Kevin may have forgotten his earlier observations. Today, he linked favorably to the Martini Republicans’ attempted debunking of Zell Miller’s speech. Both Kevin and Alex’s attempted debunkies relied entirely on this Snopes entry, one which had itself been debunked within hours of the speech.
The heading on Kevin’s prior entry read “Snopes speaks, but so what?” That should have been the heading this time, too.
UPDATE: Professor Bainbridge takes another, more novel approach: pay attention to what John Kerry actually said on the Senate floor about the weapons systems in question. He finds Kerry bashing several of the weapon systems mentioned by Miller, while finding no references to others, and presumably none in support of any of them. Since this results in less than full vindication for Miller (it only mentions some of the weapons systems at issue), the professor declares a “draw” between Miller and his critics. I don’t think that’s right. Partial vindication for one side, vs. none at all for the other is not a draw; it’s a shut-out.
September 3rd, 2004 at 10:01 am
Thanks for this post. I tried to post essentially the same thing on Roderick’s site about 6 times, not realizing that he has comments disabled at the current time.
The Snopes entry was transparently inadequate, a fact that would have been obvious to anyone not blinded by ideology who had bothered to look at it. All it said was that *maybe* Kerry voted against the defense appropriations bills because he wanted a *tougher* military — but it provided absolutely no evidence to that effect. Your Vodkapundit link shows that there is no truth to any such conclusion.
So, Kerry *might* have meant to be tougher . . . but, in fact, he didn’t.
My guess: Roderick didn’t look at Mailander’s evidence, but trusted him. Mistake. Mailander, as we all know, is blinded by ideology.
Remember, Mailander is the dude who thinks that Iraq the Model is an obvious CIA intern project — despite the fact that two of the Iraq the Model bloggers are now running for elective office in Iraq. What a coup for the CIA!
September 3rd, 2004 at 11:11 am
The Snopes folks should really stick with what their good at—urban legends. Politics and history just don’t fit the Snopes format very well.
September 3rd, 2004 at 11:20 am
I’m just waiting for them to come out and debunk the popular myth that George W. Bush is a good President.
September 3rd, 2004 at 11:55 am
Fact-checking Zell Miller *
Joseph Mailander writes that his anti-Bush blog Martini Republic is getting lots of links and traffic today for reporting that Zell Miller’s speech at the Republic convention drew heavily on an anti-Kerry chain email debunked by the urban legends site…
September 3rd, 2004 at 2:57 pm
Vodkapundit’s “debunking” based on a 20-year old campaign sheet from Kerry’s first Senate Campaign is devastating, just as long as you ignore his actual voting record, everything that actually transpired in the last 20 years, and the fact that 20 years ago GWBush was doing lines and driving drunk.
Oh, and ignore the fact that GHWBush and/or Dick Cheney actually proposed cutting or cut many of the same weapons systems Miller mentions.
September 3rd, 2004 at 3:51 pm
Okay, then: tell us about his actual voting record, rather than lazily linking to a Snopes article that doesn’t.
September 3rd, 2004 at 4:39 pm
Okay, then: tell us about his actual voting record, rather than lazily linking to a Snopes article that doesn’t.
You mean other than the fact that he’s voted for 16 of the 19 defense appropriations bills with passed Congress, which contained those same weapons he was intent on killing?
Why don’t you provide one shred of proof to back Zell’s insane allegation that Kerry wants to arm naked American troops with spitballs first?
September 3rd, 2004 at 5:11 pm
I’ll tell you why. Because you’re the guy who wrote a whole post purporting to debunk Miller’s assertions, and suggesting that Kerry has been the tough guy on defense, while providing no evidence for it. Now you’re using pathetic debating tricks (”before I support my assertions, you support assertions that you never made, otherwise I don’t have to provide my evidence”) to avoid providing evidence.
Maybe what you say is true. I don’t know. But so far, the only *evidence* in this thread or any post linked therein, — including your own — goes against Kerry.
All I am saying is that you have not provided a scrap of evidence to support your assertions. Got some proof of Kerry’s votes on the 16 of 19 defense appropriations bills, and what weapons systems were contained therein?
If you do, finally, it will be the first solid evidence that you have provided.
September 3rd, 2004 at 5:12 pm
OK, Smart Alex, let’s ignore for the moment the fact that it is a wild conjecture on your part, and not an established “fact” as you claim, that Bush ever snorted coke, or that he drove drunk anytime after 1976 (and then only barely). Assume all that crap is true, and more. WTF does it have to do with the accuracy (or lack thereof) of Zell Miller’s description of John Kerry’s voting record?!
September 3rd, 2004 at 6:12 pm
If I understand your peculiar methodology correctly, patterico, if I were to declare that GWBush regularly fornicates with Satan in the Rose Garden, and you deny it on your blog, it is then incumbent upon you to prove the falsity of my assertions?
As for your claim that I cited “no evidence” that Zell’s claims were false, that is as blatent a lie as any of Zell’s. Eccchs and Vodkapun have attacked the evidence, (in unimmpressive fashion, I might add) but you’re saying “no evidence” is factually no more accurate than Bush saying “Mission Accomplished” 800+ American war dead ago. . .
But, just for fun you can go here for a more “nuanced” debunking of Zell’s RNC-generated bull manure.
Now. I demand you produce your PROOF that Bush does not fornicate with Satan in the Rose Garden on a regular basis. . . .
September 3rd, 2004 at 6:19 pm
Linkee no work. Try again.
If I understand your peculiar methodology correctly, patterico, if I were to declare that GWBush regularly fornicates with Satan in the Rose Garden, and you deny it on your blog, it is then incumbent upon you to prove the falsity of my assertions?
As for your claim that I cited “no evidence” that Zell’s claims were false, that is as blatent a lie as any of Zell’s. Eccchs and Vodkapun have attacked the evidence, (in unimmpressive fashion, I might add) but your saying “no evidence” is factually no more accurate than Bush saying “Mission Accomplished” 800+ American war dead ago. . .
But, just for fun you can go here for a more “nuanced” debunking of Zell’s RNC-generated bull manure.
But Kerry’s votes against specific military hardware were mostly against strategic nuclear weapons including the B-2 bomber, Trident missile and anti-missile items, not against conventional equipment such as tanks. And Kerry has a point when he says “I’ve voted for some of the largest defense and intelligence budgets in our history,” which is correct. He’s voted for military spending bills regularly since 1997.
Now. I demand you produce your PROOF that Bush does not fornicate with Satan in the Rose Garden on a regular basis. . . .
X says: “WTF does it have to do with the accuracy (or lack thereof) of Zell Miller’s description of John Kerry’s voting record?”
One might just as well ask how the hell a 20 year old campaign flier establishes Kerry’s actual voting record over the 20 year period that followed. The fact is, it doesn’t.
September 3rd, 2004 at 10:22 pm
I missed the proof of the alleged “fact” that Kerry “voted for 16 of the 19 defense appropriations bills with passed Congress, which contained those same weapons he was intent on killing.”
Where was that again?
September 4th, 2004 at 11:40 am
The Sounds of Scrabbling Toe Nails in the Morning — Kerry on De Fence
like Moonbats in the attic… In my email come more Moonbat droppings [eww - hand me the lysol] from MooreOn MoveOn.con claiming that “much of [Zell] Miller’s speech was cribbed from a long-circulating (and false) email chain letter.” Whaaaa? They’…
September 4th, 2004 at 1:28 pm
Alex,
I’m still waiting for one scrap of evidence that Miller’s claims were false.
And waiting.
And waiting . . .
Hey, while we have you here (or don’t), how about that CIA intern running for elective office in Iraq? Still think Iraq the Model is an obvious Langley project? I want to find out how deep this moonbattery goes.
September 4th, 2004 at 2:06 pm
Patterico,
I am still waiting for you to extract your head from your colon.
And waiting. . .
and waiting. . .
You can ignore evidence, but that doesn’t negat its existence. . . how about actually adressing some of the points raised, instead of sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “I can’t hear you!”
Go ahead with your last feeble shot. If you think Zell Miller’s address approached sanity, you’d best check into UCLA for a 48 hour. . .
September 4th, 2004 at 2:53 pm
Your last comment shows you are not serious. I already knew that, but now people previously unfamiliar with you know it too.
Anyone who bothers to read the so-called “evidence” you have cited can judge for themselves whether it supports your alleged debunking of Miller’s accusations. On your blog you claim to specifically refute Miller’s statement that Kerry opposed many specific weapons systems. Nowhere in your post or on this thread do you cite a single piece of evidence to support that assertion.
I still don’t know whether Miller was right or wrong — all I know is that you have proved, and refuted, precisely nothing.
It’s kind of difficult to “address” a “point” that has nothing to back it up. So, unless you come up with something else, I am satisfied to let your own words, and lack of evidence, refute themselves.
September 5th, 2004 at 9:19 am
Patterico,
You’ve yet to address any facts I’ve provided. The attack x levels at Snopes is an ad hominem. You’ve not addressed Factcheck’s facts. Kerry’s votes for 16 of 19 appropriations budgets, including every one since 1997 is a matter of record.
Your sole response is to continue to deny they exist.
I am serious, but you are close-minded to an extreme. Your method of debate is puerile and pointless: you posit the truth of lies, and deny facts which rebut those lies. David Irving would be proud.
September 5th, 2004 at 10:45 am
If “Kerry’s votes for 16 of 19 appropriations budgets, including every one since 1997″ is a “matter of record” then it should be easy for you to cite evidence. You have for the “every one since 1997″ part, but haven’t for the 16 of 19 part.
But who cares?
See, even if you *can* support that assertion, IT STILL DOESN’T DEBUNK ZELL MILLER. Which is where we came in — with you claiming to do THAT and failing.
September 5th, 2004 at 10:56 am
Let me try to make this very simple for you, Alex. In your post — that’s what we’re talking about — you purport to “debunk” Zell Miller’s assertion that John Kerry voted against certain specific weapons systems. He listed a number.
Your evidence NOWHERE says: “In fact, John Kerry voted for weapons systems x, y, and z.” In fact, your best evidence (which was provided in this thread only and not in your post, which relied solely on a contentless Snopes entry) lists several specific weapons systems that Kerry voted AGAINST, but no specific weapons systems that he voted FOR.
So, from what you have provided, we have no way of knowing what was in the appropriations bills that Kerry voted for — to see if any of the systems that Miller listed are in them. In other words, you have completely failed to debunk that which you claimed to debunk.
No amount of hot air from you is going to obscure this simple fact.
September 6th, 2004 at 9:33 am
Wow . . . I think I shut him up!
September 6th, 2004 at 11:12 am
You’ve bored me into silence, as if I were signing to the blind.
September 6th, 2004 at 12:01 pm
[i]I missed the proof of the alleged “fact” that Kerry “voted for 16 of the 19 defense appropriations bills with passed Congress, which contained those same weapons he was intent on killing.”[/i]
It is amazing how you can transmogrify your own intellectual sloth into my putative failure to provide “proof” to rebut Zell’s non-facts. Kerry voted against defense appropriations bills three times, in 1990, 1995 and 1996. Kerry’s been in the Senate almost 20 years — you ought to be able to do the math. Do the research here, or actually take the time to read the link to Factcheck you claim doesn’t support the conclusion that Miller’s tirade is overblown and innaccurate. You know, the link where it says things like, “GOP claims that he opposed a long list of conventional weapons are overblown,” or where it points out that:
Or where it points out that:
You can ignore facts, Patterico but you can’t make them go away. You’ve yet to post fact one to give credence to Miller’s speech, and simply denying the ones I’ve posted as inadequate is shrill quibbling.
Nice of you to email Kevin to announce “Mission Accomplished” on your claimed debunking, though.
September 6th, 2004 at 2:16 pm
You accuse me of sloth, but you are the one who claimed to debunk Miller. All it took for Xrlq to debunk you was to show that you hadn’t provided the evidence you claimed you had. And you still haven’t, in the face of repeated challenges to do so.
All your hot air still cannot obscure one simple truth: you have not provided ONE SINGLE DAMN PIECE of EVIDENCE to show that Kerry ever once voted for any of the systems that Miller said he voted against.
I read the Factcheck.org piece, which is how I can confidently assert that your “evidence” doesn’t debunk Miller’s claims as to a single weapons system. Not one. Zilch.
Maybe Kerry did vote for one of these systems. Maybe he didn’t. I don’t know, and I’m not doing the research for you. If you’re too goddamn lazy to do it yourself, that’s fine — but don’t expect us to sit here and pretend that you’ve provided something you haven’t. I can see through it, and so can everybody else reading this thread.
September 6th, 2004 at 8:11 pm
you have not provided ONE SINGLE DAMN PIECE of EVIDENCE to show that Kerry ever once voted for any of the systems that Miller said he voted against.
You are a liar, and a bad one. You conceded that I had provided proof via a link that Kerry had voted for every defense appropriations bill since 1997. I provided a link which detailed the 3 appropriations bills he voted against. I even provided you a link to factually disprove my assertion (which you can’t) but your sole resort is to shrill denial. Unless you think weapons systems fund themselves, it is pretty well established that: a) Kerry voted to fund these weapon systems; b) Zell’s speech primarily consisted of falsehoods; and 3) your faith in Zell’s veracity is indicative of foaming-at-the-mouth zealotry. For Christ’s sake, even Bush and the GOP has backed away from Mad Zell and his nonsense. Continue to drink the Miller Kool Aid at your own peril.
Like your avatar Bush, you seem to think if you repeat “Mission Accomplished” enough times, they become true. Zell’s speech contained about as many truths as Bush’s 50+ references to Saddam’s active WMD programs. Even Bush has given up on finding them, though you are likely still scouring the blogosphere for validation.
September 6th, 2004 at 8:23 pm
I leave it to the readers to determine which of us is a liar. The links are all there, and I invite any interested reader to read them.
I have wasted enough of my time on you. I’ll let you have the last word.
September 8th, 2004 at 5:46 pm
Zell Miller v. Fred Kaplan on Kerry on Weapons Systems: A Draw
At the recent GOP convention Zell Miller argued that:”For more than 20 years, on every one of the great issues of freedom and security, John Kerry has been more wrong, more weak and more wobbly than any other national figure,”
September 8th, 2004 at 6:40 pm
In this rather tedious dialog, the major point is missed. It was Miller who made the accusations. It is Miller (and by extension his acolytes, like Patterico) who bears the burden of proof. Not Kerry. Not Alex. If Miller and his supporters fail to meet this standard, it is not a draw–Miller (and Patterico) loses.
September 8th, 2004 at 6:42 pm
Alex said, “your faith in Zell’s veracity is indicative of foaming-at-the-mouth zealotry.” but earlier Patterico said, “Maybe Kerry did vote for one of these systems. Maybe he didn’t. I don’t know, and I’m not doing the research for you.”
Does this constitute evidence that Alex is illiterate?
September 8th, 2004 at 6:46 pm
well, that was entertaining - Sen Miller’s speech at the RNC was in the tradition of old time political oratory - which is seldom heard these days (don’t mistake the ramblings of Sen Byrd for it) and that’s a shame
I will grant that Sen Kerry voted for a number of the appropriations bills and the accompanying conference reports, but I believe Patterico has gotten the better of Alex here
I would add that during my 11+ years in the Senate as a staffer, I never once heard Sen Kerry’s name associated with a significant piece of legislation - in fact, I only heard his name as trivia - the “other” Sen from Mass…
the Kerry campaign’s silence on his Senate record is deafening and damning in its self indictment
moving on…
September 8th, 2004 at 7:10 pm
Ah, yes, “old time polical oratory.” As befits a twice-candidate on the dixicrat ticket.
I grew up in the South during the twilight of American apartheid. I’ve certainly lived long enough to be familiar with “old time political oratory.” George Wallace, Lester Maddox, Strom Thermond. Thank God these old time voices are silenced. Their feeble, sclerotic echos in the Alzheimers-tinged ramblings of Zell Miller recall a shameful history of nastiness and distortion.
September 8th, 2004 at 8:10 pm
Joel, give me a break. For all the Democrats making an issue of Zell Miller having made a racist remark 40 years ago, not one had a problem when the same Zell Miller spoke at the Democrat convention 12 years ago. If the Dixiecrap was ancient history then, it’s prehistoric now.
September 8th, 2004 at 8:29 pm
It was Miller who made the accusations. It is Miller (and by extension his acolytes, like Patterico) who bears the burden of proof.
A point I’ve made several times. But you’re in a bizarro universe, where the truth of falsehoods are irrebutable, and the facts which rebut them are invisible.
For all the Democrats making an issue of Zell Miller having made a racist remark 40 years ago. . .
Just like some wingnut lunatics ignore Kerry’s pro-defense voting record in the Senate and make an issue out a flyer some campaign staffer wrote 20 years ago before the man was elected.
September 8th, 2004 at 11:48 pm
Alex, you’re the one living in bizarro world. It’s one thing to be a skeptic, and quite another to claim to have disproved something that you haven’t disproved, nor even touched. Your entire case boils down to “Snopes said it, I believe it, that settles it.” That will not do.
Meanwhile, Prof. Bainbridge and others have found some evidence to back up Miller’s central assertions. They’ve made the prima facie case. Now the burden has shifted to those who think Miller is wrong.
September 9th, 2004 at 10:34 am
Your entire case boils down to “Snopes said it, I believe it, that settles it.” That will not do.
Another resort to blatant lying. You’ve not even rebutted Snopes, you just resorted to an inane ad hominem: Roderick says Snopes was wrong on Jacobsen, ergo Snopes is wrong on RNC spam. Pathetic.
Moreover, I’ve pointed out, ad nauseum, links to FactCheck.org, and the fact that Kerry voted for 16 of 19 Defense Appropriations bills while in the Senate, hardly the “against, against, against” lunacy Zell described.
Moreover, I’ve pointed out that BushI and Cheney have cut or tried to cut the same systems which Zell accuses Kerry of being agin’. For you to say my whole case boils down to Snopes is the result of utter disingenuousness or congnitive dissonance on your part.
-
September 9th, 2004 at 10:52 am
well, Joel - these voices - as you state - have faded into the past…
where was your outrage when he elected to the Senate six years ago?
while I don’t think Sen Robert “KKK” Byrd of West Virginia (former recruiter for the Klan) is in the same grand tradition of this style oratory - where is your condemnation of his past? he is not “past” - but the most senior member of Democratic party in the US Senate today
getting back on topic - I think Kerry’s statements on his desire to shut down a number of these weapon systems says more about his intentions than a vote up or down on DoD appropriations bills - there well could have been (and likely was) specific projects within these conference reports and/or bills that he promised to his constituency