There's a good reason they're called Al Qaida in Iraq. They are Al Qaida in Iraq.The NYT has a piece here laying out some basics on the story. And yes, I know that another positive doping test is going to be announced at the Tour today. Dammit.
But back to another of yesterday's outrages: Berto's appearance in front of the Senate. Both Republicans and Democrats came stunningly close to accusing him of lying, and some did pretty directly: "untruthful", "I don't trust you", etc. from Dems and then the senior Republican on the committee (Arlen Specter) piles on with: “Your credibility has been breached to the point of being actionable.” That's harsh. It's not quite an actual charge of perjury, but that may be coming soon.
How do you defend yourself against this stuff? From the NYT, you read that:
… Justice Department aides acknowledged in a background briefing for reporters after the hearing that his “linguistic parsing” had caused confusion.We've gotten used to hearing parsing as a political term, but I was struck by the adjective there … look, guys, he's just freaking lying, OK? Turns out this usage is fairly established, especially on the right wing, it seems. (Why do they hate linguists? I don't know.) Here's an example, from www.lies.com (attacking Bill O'Reilly):
So I go back and look at what O’Reilly wrote in his piece, and glory be, he didn’t really lie, at least if you’re willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, and employ the kind of hypertechnically strict linguistic parsing that seems to be as necessary a tool for modern life as, say, lungs.Wow, where do I learn to do that kind of parsing?
More or less random image for 'parsing' from here. Doesn't strike me as particularly strict and it's surely not hypertechnical.