secret information revealed - the rhetoric vs the reality

Submitted by myth (Germany), Aug 18, 2011 at 08:31

Jerusalem a part of Israel? The US government's reaction is childish to say the least. Secret information revealed in the CIA factbook here www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/is.html states under section geography/people:

Tel Aviv-Yafo 3.219 million; Haifa 1.027 million; JERUSALEM (capital) 768,000 (2009)

Yes, I took this from the page about Israel. No, the "capital" in parenthesis does not refer to the capital letters of the word JERUSALEM.

Changing website demonstrates Obama's style of confusing rhetoric with reality. The recipe is easy: just confuse text with the truth. Creative as it looks it is in fact a rerun of "Yes Minister" in the eighties. In those days the British Government confused figures with facts. Do not confuse tv with truth either, I am talking about BBC television. Here's the dialogue:

Sir Humphrey: "Minister, you said you wanted the administration figures reduced, didn't you?"
Jim Hacker: "Yes."
Sir Humphrey: "So we reduced the figures."
Jim Hacker: "But only the figures, not the number of administrators."
Sir Humphrey: "Well of course not."
Jim Hacker: "Well that is not what I meant."
Sir Humphrey: "Well really Minister, one is not a mind-reader, is one? You said reduce the figures, so we reduced the figures."

www.yes-minister.com/ymseas2a.htm has the audio as well.

Am I to suspect a desperate but serious attempt on the side of Obama to seperate Jerusalem from Israel? The gallant Whitehouse staff did it exactly like Sir Humphrey. With similar results: A laugh on my part. Welcome to the next episode of "Yes we can, President".

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".