Here’s a case where ash’s letter makes no sense but as a rebuttal to another. More than she disdains propaganda is propaganda appropriated whole from the brain of the original propagandist without attribution, probably because the regurgitator has forgotten it’s not an original concept. That’s beside the fact, of course, that it has no basis in logic.
Clinton people should be quiet about 9/11
So, the Clinton administration wants the truth to be told regarding the events leading up to 9/11.
If they were smart they would be quiet because, the truth of the matter is, when the World Trade Center was attacked in 1993 and later when the USS Cole was attacked the Clinton administration did NOTHING about it. The only time Osama bin Laden’s name was even mentioned during the Clinton era was when Clinton was trying to take some of the heat off of himself during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.
The truth is if he had paid as much attention to those disasters when they happened as he did to his personal issues, maybe some of this could have been avoided in the first place.
Not so fast, ash cautions, as she flips the argument and raises the stakes:
Is truth in the eye of the beholder? Does absolute truth exist? If so, is it determinable by gathering all the available facts and synthesizing them to arrive at the truth? Or, as long as one remains uncertain that all relevant facts have been collected, is truth elusive at best?
Currently, the previous administration is balking at a movie depicting events culminating in the atrocities of September 11, 2001, as misleading at best, downright lying at worst. Since no one is in the position to ascertain the truth of that event better than the officials who were there, the rest of us are left to evaluate whether these people are telling the truth, or whether the movie is worthless propaganda designed to make the subsequent administration seem less culpable by comparison.
The game of which administration – Clinton’s or Bush’s - is more responsible for 911 is but one example of the complexities involved in truth-seeking, which then can become the weapon to condemn, or rationale to praise, the individuals contributing to a particular outcome. The truth is that the phrase “the truth is” is a dangerous presumption, indeed.