Now think through this one
All of us, myself included, are fond of quoting from particular sources when it suits our needs, and not quoting from these sources when it doesn't.
As an example, let's look at Saddam Hussein. Most baby seal clubbers would agree that Saddam Hussein is not an authoritative source of anything, and that you can't put a lot of credibility into his statements.
But when a France-bashing opportunity arises, then Saddam Hussein suddenly becomes an authortative source, more trustworthy than Uncle Walter Cronkite.
Take this Sun article:
IRAQI tyrant Saddam Hussein has made a series of astonishing claims — giving a glimpse of his state of mind.
The once-feared despot broke his silence in an interview with The Sun from his cell.
In it he ranted how he...PRAISES cowardly French President Jacques Chirac as his “longtime friend”....
Saddam — currently on trial charged with killing 140 people in the Iraqi town of Dujail in 1982 — also heaped praise on his old friend President Jacques Chirac.
Spineless French leader Chirac was dubbed “Le Worm” in the run-up to the Iraq war after failing to back allied forces invading Iraq.
Chirac’s cowardice has earned him the eternal gratitude of the Butcher of Baghdad. Saddam boasted from jail: “Chirac has been a longtime friend of mine.”
This article is accompanied by two pictures - one showing Hussein and Chirac together in 1975, and another showing an old Sun cover with pictures of the two and the caption "Spot the difference":
One is a corrupt bully who is risking the lives of our troops. He is sneering at Britain, destroying democracy and endangering world peace. The other is Saddam Hussein.
Ouch.
But think about it for a moment - the Sun, certainly no lover of Saddam, has decided that because Saddam said "Chirac has been a longtime friend of mine," it must be true. If Saddam claimed that Dubya was a longtime friend, would the Sun have reported it?
I'm not saying that Chirac is a saint, or even an oba saint, but you gotta laugh at the Sun using Saddam as an authoritative source.
Comments