Just for you, I did. And so I ask you again, what part of Jindal's story was inaccurate? Did you read the links I posted? Did you read the quote I posted? If you need me to explain the point that you seem to be missing I'd be happy to. Or you could answer my simple question and point out what I'm missing.
You seem to be asking me to copy and paste the article in my own words. I mean, I'm not sure how much clearer I could make it.... Jindal was in BR during Katrina, and was not on the ground in NO until at the earliest Sept 2nd. The ginormously chaotic boat rescue business happened between August 30 and 31st. Moreoever, it appears that not even Lee understood the red-tape holding up the boats (insurance, preservers) until well after the fact.
So to clarify - ignoring the fact that he wasn't actually in town when this happened, according to Jindal, Lee was trying to do important rescue work on the phone, and then Jindal interrupted his work and got Lee to explain everything to him, and then Lee continued his phone call?
Thank you. I appreciate you taking the time to spell it out. Now I can tell you where I think your statement is wrong. Jindal is not claiming this happened in the middle of the storm. The story on politico that actually talked to Jindal's representatives states this clearly. Jindal was never claiming this happened in August. I re-read the transcript of his story, and his representatives are right. It was carefully worded so that it never actually states that he was in the sheriff's office as the storm was happening or as the boats were trying to get out on to the water. Jindal is saying that he was in the sheriff's office a week or so after the storm and the sheriff was on the phone talking about boats that failed to go out and why they failed to go out in the past tense. The bulk of the claims in your link and the tpm link were about Jindal not being there during the immediate aftermath, but since Jindal is not claiming he was there during the immediate aftermath that part is not a lie. His words were misleading but not false. It's still quite possible that the story is not accurate based on some other evidence, but I haven't seen it yet. I hope you read the politico link. I think it is a reasonable take on the situation. The dailykos and tpm blogs sadden me, though, as they are simply partisanship with little regard for truth that ignores relevant issues to focus on scoring points against the other side. There's plenty of honest reasons to discuss or debate with Jindal's speech, there's no need for this other stuff. As far as I can tell, Jindal did not admit that his Katrina story was false, and so this time it is the left-wing inspired thread title that gets a thumbs down.
I suppose that depends on which version of Jindal's representative's story you subscribe to. This is blatantly placing Jindal right there, at the time of the incident (furthermore, there are two lies here, since not even lee knew of the beurocratic issues until later). End of story.
You mean they were rescuing people while the hurricane was still over New Orleans? No, of course not. They were rescuing people after the storm. "During Katrina" means at the time of the storm and its aftermath. Like I said, it's misleading because it implies that the situation occurred when the boats were going out. But it's not factually inaccurate especially if Jindal never claimed it happened when the boats were going out. No, it is blatantly putting Jindal right there, in Lee's office at the time of the phone call. Lee didn't know of the bureaucratic issues until a week or so after the storm, right? That's when this phone call occurred, and that is when Jindal was in his office.
Huh?? Did you read the politico link? The answer is right there. You're making assumptions and wondering why the story doesn't mesh with your assumptions, when it's your assumptions that are false. Timeline: Hurricane Katrina hits New Orleans. Time passes (a day or two). Some boats are not allowed to go out to rescue people. Sheriff Lee orders the boats out. Time passes (a week or so). Lee is on the phone and finds out that the reasons the boats weren't being let out was because of inadequate insurance or lack of life preservers or whatnot. He is upset about this. Jindal shows up in Lee's office while he is on the phone. Lee makes his comment that they can arrest Jindal too. That's the chronology. So to answer your question, the people being rescued on the boats were people stranded in the immediate aftermath of Katrina, and Jindal was in Lee's office while Lee was on the phone a week later talking about rescue attempts that had already taken place.
OMG. The whole point of that link is that the particular explanation you gave is only one of many. None of which are consistent. Maybe you should re-read that link. Let's back the truck up, and discuss our options: 1) Jindal lied. 2) Jindal did not lie, he just meticulously phrased things such that it appeared like what transpired was not nearly as boring or worthless as it was in reality. This assumes people are gullible enough to think that "intentionally disguising the truth" is somehow ethically superior to lying. 3) Jindal was totally honest, albeit clinically r****ded in regards to his speech-writing abilities. More importantly, his staff, being flustered at his horrid inability to recount a simple story he had made numerous references to before, panicked and gave out multiple inconsistent excuses for the governor's sudden case of linguistic herpes before settling in on a moderately plausible explanation firmly grounded in the techniques mentioned previously in 2). Let's see, by my counts: 1) Highly probable and no doubt the real cause of his aide's issues laid out in 3). 2) Equally pathetic and worthy of disdain. 3) Improbable, especially given the far more sensical logic of my statement regarding 1). It seems, uolj, that your only real defense is Jindal's bizarre wording. I profess, if one suspends any knowledge of how the english language is usually utilized to retell a story honestly, Jindal appears to have brazenly walked the tightrope of textual accuracy quite well. Every individual statement is accurate, but the whole is a mistruth. Jindal NEVER says that this was well after the fact, and really immaterial to any action he had actually taken. Should this omission make me feel better?
You seem to understand my point now. I think the most likely scenario is #2 and that is the best we can prove given the current evidence. Here are my thoughts on the situation. Jindal's story was misleading but the blog in the OP was just wrong. It is extremely hypocritical to criticize someone for making up a story when you can't even get your own facts straight. There is a big difference between outright lying and manipulating a true story to make it sound better for you. That is why I'm trying to make this distinction. The former is wrong and people should be blasted for it when it happens. The latter is wrong but happens all the time in politics. It is much harder to criticize the latter because whether such a statement is misleading is subjective. A lie is objective. The subjective versus objective difference is critical. It is plausible that Jindal did not have any intention to mislead the public with this story, and felt any additional information was irrelevant to the point he was making (bureaucracy is bad). I don't believe this to be the case, and obviously you don't either. But the appropriate response is to call out the misleading nature of the story, not incorrectly call it a lie and falsely claim that Jindal admitted it was a lie. Your scenario #2 is in my opinion easily the most likely one. You claim #1 is highly probable, but I disagree. What benefit could there be to blatantly lying about a story on such a huge occasion for the governor? They had to know that each sentence of the speech would be dissected. It is much more likely that they attempted to maintain plausible deniability by articulating the story in a factual way. By the way, I disagree that the representatives' stories were inconsistent. I think it was just confusion between the blog writer and the representatives. In the end, since you cannot prove #1, you cannot claim it to be true. The best you can do is claim #2 and say why you think #1 may in fact be the case. I guess the reason I am defending Jindal here is because I think it is important to be entirely accurate in your criticisms and fair in your assessments of an "opponent". I would not have said a word and would actually have appreciated it if these blogs had complained about the misleading nature of the story and Jindal's attempts to twist a Katrina anecdote for his own benefit.
The wording indicates a lie. That his meticulously disengenuous delivery backfired is nobody's fault but his. As I said, if you take it sentence by sentence, they are accurate. The problem, of course, is that no one gets one sentence, they get the whole thing. Perhaps Jindal's big mistake (as others have pointed out) was assuming his audience stupid and his planned excuse acceptable.
is a week or more after the storm left still considered "During Katrina" common sense says its either "After Katrina" or "Post-Katrina" right?
Again, it's your opinion that it's a lie. A plausible explanation can and has been made where his story was accurate. If you want to be outraged by a meticulously disingenuous delivery I've got no beef with that. In my opinion, claiming this was a lie is a wingnut position (has anybody else been on the story besides left-wing blogs?). It hurts one's credibility when you can't make the simple distinction here between a telling a lie and simply being misleading. Yes. But "during Katrina" is vague enough that it can include the time spent dealing with it afterward. Many have assumed that "during Katrina" meant the days afterward, so it doesn't take much of a stretch to include a week afterward. You're right, though, that common sense says that a more accurate phrase would have been "after Katrina".
No, because the information about Iraq was factually incorrect. Whether it was a lie or a mistake I won't try to argue, but it was factually incorrect. In this case, there have been no facts that have been shown to be incorrect. And you seem to think that somebody is arguing that it's ok to be misleading. It's not. But it's still different.
uolj: I think he was lying. Taking it as a whole, the entire episode is deceptive. We can wax philosophic about the subjectivity of the wording used, but it's moot - he was deliberately misleading, you admit that. You may think that distinct from lying, but I'd argue the term certainly within the subjective boundaries of lying. Wordplay is lame, but at least it's a two-way street.
