Does 'misspeak' mean lying?

[Gunny]

Hillary Clinton says she was "misspeaking" when she incorrectly recalled her trip to Bosnia. Is this a euphemism?

After Donald Rumsfeld's "unknown unknowns", it's time to untangle another piece of US politics-speak. Or should that be misspeak?

When Hillary Clinton corrected her description of a visit to Bosnia in 1996, she made an interesting choice of words: "I did misspeak the other day."

Her initial version of events was that her plane landed under fire and she had to duck and run to her vehicle.

But television footage shows her disembarking with a smile, waving to the crowd and strolling across the tarmac to greet a little girl who read her a poem.

The word "misspeak" has a long and varied history, says John Simpson, chief editor of the Oxford English Dictionary.

"It goes back to the Old English period before the Norman Conquest to mean to murmur or grumble.

"But it's got quite a wide sense of meanings, to speak insultingly or improperly or to speak disparagingly or disrespectfully or to speak evil of. Then in the mid to late Middle Ages, it was to pronounce incorrectly."

Chaucer used it in the Miller's Tale - "If that I mysspeke or seye" - as meaning to speak insultingly. But nearly all these meanings are mostly obsolete, according to the OED.

The most common modern sense of "misspeak" is in the US, where it has developed two meanings since the late 19th Century - to speak unclearly or to fail to tell the whole truth, says Mr Simpson. And it crossed the Atlantic in the mid 20th Century.

Fiona Douglas, a lecturer in English language at the University of Leeds, says the origins of the modern meanings go back to before 1393, when poet John Gower penned Confessio Amantis.

"The modern senses all have to do with unclear speaking and incorrect or misleading communication.

"The citations suggest that this 'misspeaking' can be deliberate or unintentional, conscious or unconscious - hence it's quite interesting to speculate exactly what Hillary Clinton's use of the word actually meant."

Bush gaffe

US politicians have used it before to correct themselves.

How the OED defines it
In 2004, President George W Bush accidentally said: "They [our enemies] never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people - and neither do we."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan responded by saying: "Even the most straightforward and plain-spoken people misspeak."

There are also references by Ronald Reagan's staff using it and recently John McCain admitted "misspeaking" after mistakenly saying Iran was arming al-Qaeda.

It's no accident that politicians have grasped for this phrase, says Cormac McKeown, one of the editors of Collins English Dictionary. They often do so when they don't want to say they told a deliberate untruth.

"It can mean to fluff one's lines, like an actor would, but it can also mean to speak erroneously or hastily without thinking, without giving it proper thought, so Clinton is relying on this ambiguity between the two meanings because then she can't really be proved wrong.

WHO, WHAT, WHY?

A regular part of the BBC News Magazine, Who, What, Why? aims to answer some of the questions behind the headlines
"But it's a stretch of the imagination that it was a slip of the tongue because it was quite a long and involved story that went on for about five minutes.

"So if pressed she might say she was referring to the second meaning but she's hoping the first meaning carries through in people's minds."

Choosing this word is a terrible mistake, says lexicographer Tony Thorne.

Soundbite

"She's in danger of doing what Bill Clinton did in redefining sexual relations.

"She's redefining telling the truth because 'misspeaking' is a euphemism for not telling the truth. It's the language of bamboozling, which US politicians and the US military love and get away with."

more ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7314726.stm

A history lesson.

 

[Shogun]

funny that the other side of the fence gets to ponder what constitutes a blatant lie these days, eh?

 

[hjmick]

funny that the other side of the fence gets to ponder what constitutes a blatant lie these days, eh?

It's cyclical.

 

[rayboyusmc]

She lied. That's wrong.

Now let's hold both sides to the same standard.

Obama in 08.

 

[Shogun]

She lied. That's wrong.

Now let's hold both sides to the same standard.

Obama in 08.

werd.

But it's truly rich that the right wing all of a sudden gets litigious about what constitutes a lie. I mean, if Clinton was told there were snipers and she believed her advisors and used this info to push a political agenda...

rich. rich indeed.

 

[Bern80]

werd.

But it's truly rich that the right wing all of a sudden gets litigious about what constitutes a lie. I mean, if Clinton was told there were snipers and she believed her advisors and used this info to push a political agenda...

rich. rich indeed.

It's pretty simple really. A lie requires the intent to deceive. It requires knowing the truth beforehand. If you can prove that Bush meets either of those criteria, you have a case that he lied. If you can't provide evidence that he knew something beforehand and presented something contradictory to that then you don't have a case.

 

[Shogun]

It's pretty simple really. A lie requires the intent to deceive. It requires knowing the truth beforehand. If you can prove that Bush meets either of those criteria, you have a case that he lied. If you can't provide evidence that he knew something beforehand and presented something contradictory to that then you don't have a case.

does the same apply to clinton then or do we revisit those requirements when applied to a democrat? Can you prove Clinton didn't KNOW that there were not snipers? That she was never advised on as much and merely wanted to mis-state the truth in a purposeful manner that is rife with devious intent?


It's still rich, dude. Like a chocolate covered log of fudge dipped in brown sugar and confectionery sugar.

 

[TopGunna]

does the same apply to clinton then or do we revisit those requirements when applied to a democrat? Can you prove Clinton didn't KNOW that there were not snipers? That she was never advised on as much and merely wanted to mis-state the truth in a purposeful manner that is rife with devious intent?

It's still rich, dude. Like a chocolate covered log of fudge dipped in brown sugar and confectionery sugar.

Ha! I can prove she didn't make a mad dash off the runway "running with her head down" under sniper fire! Which is, oddly enough, how she chose to describe it.

The decision to go to war in Iraq was based on bad intel - intel that didn't prove to be true - but still, intel from the US and British governments. Saddam may not have had facilities to build WMDs, but he sure was acting like he did, refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.

You can say the administration bit off more than they could chew by getting into this war, but that doesn't make them liars. I don't think George Bush exercised very good judgement about the war, but lack of good judgement is not the same as lack of integrity.

 

[Shogun]

could that be any less facetious on her part than "phantom Weapons of Mass Destruction" has turned out for bush?

yup.. still rich as hell.


you can take your opinion to the polls, dude. wear it on a shirt while voting. dancing around bush's less than honest statements probably doesn't make it ironic to throw clinton under the bus.

 

[dread]

'Misspeak' is a dainty way of saying I lied without the intent of deceit but with stupidity to back it up. Kind of like when Hillary said she was the first lady since Eleanor Roosevelt to visit a war zone....Er...Wrong again. That honor would go to Pat Nixon.

Whoever is on her fact checking staff should be fired!

 

[TopGunna]

could that be any less facetious on her part than "phantom Weapons of Mass Destruction" has turned out for bush?

yup.. still rich as hell.


you can take your opinion to the polls, dude. wear it on a shirt while voting. dancing around bush's less than honest statements probably doesn't make it ironic to throw clinton under the bus.

And you can do the same, dude. Calling Bush's statements "less than honest" is just that - your opinion. I don't get what's difficult about it... Bush gets intel stating that it's likely Saddam has WMDs. Bush tells country that intel says it's likely Saddam has WMDs, therefore we should address this threat.

Was war the best way address the threat? I'm not going to say that. Were there other factors that influenced the decision, like the want to remove a cruel dictator from power? Almost certainly.

That still doesn't mean that Bush lied.

 

[Shogun]

Trust me.. the wave of voters will do just that. Hve fun on the day after the election.


I've heard the same tired ole excuses since 2004. Make whatever allowances that are necessary to wrap that turd up in a sellable package on your way to lampooning Clinton over phantom sniper fire. Like I said, it's probably not rich as hell watching conservatives become experts on what constitutes a lie and what does not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Trust me.. the wave of voters will do just that. Hve fun on the day after the election.


I've heard the same tired ole excuses since 2004. Make whatever allowances that are necessary to wrap that turd up in a sellable package on your way to lampooning Clinton over phantom sniper fire. Like I said, it's probably not rich as hell watching conservatives become experts on what constitutes a lie and what does not.

She stated she had to "duck and run" and we have film footage of her calmly walking off the plane to a waiting 8 year old to do a photo op.

 

[Bern80]

does the same apply to clinton then or do we revisit those requirements when applied to a democrat? Can you prove Clinton didn't KNOW that there were not snipers? That she was never advised on as much and merely wanted to mis-state the truth in a purposeful manner that is rife with devious intent?


It's still rich, dude. Like a chocolate covered log of fudge dipped in brown sugar and confectionery sugar.

I'm not familiar with the incident you're referring to. As far as this double standard we're talking about, a lie is a lie. I'm annoyed enough at Bush for this WMD retrieval turned liberation turned babysitting operation that this war has become. If it can be proved he lied to get us there, to waste lives for a less than altruistic cause, yes I'd be pretty pissed and would go as far as to say he should be brought up on legal charges.

 

[Paulie]

I'm not familiar with the incident you're referring to. As far as this double standard we're talking about, a lie is a lie. I'm annoyed enough at Bush for this WMD retrieval turned liberation turned babysitting operation that this war has become. If it can be proved he lied to get us there, to waste lives for a less than altruistic cause, yes I'd be pretty pissed and would go as far as to say he should be brought up on legal charges.

But, you could pretty much say that about ANY politician. "If only it could be proven that they lied, THEN I'd care".

Why not just look at the writing on the wall? Iraq had to be SOLD to the American people. That took a lot of time, you know, to program the masses to accept the idea that Saddam was bad enough to warrant a full-scale invasion.

The CIA knows everything. They're everywhere, and they're nowhere. There's no way they could have screwed up THAT BAD, that there was faulty intel to the point of providing an actual reason to invade a country. And that the admin and congress were THAT INEPT, that they didn't take the time to fully investigate the matter and be 100% sure? I mean, most of congress just blindly signed on the dotted line. God forbid they look "unpatriotic" and challenge the notion for a bit before lending out their express endorsement for a full-scale invasion of a sovereign country.

When you add in all the companies who are cronies with Bush and Cheney that have profitted from this war, and you know the usual suspects...is it any wonder that people have come to the conclusion that we've been had?

 

[Shogun]

She stated she had to "duck and run" and we have film footage of her calmly walking off the plane to a waiting 8 year old to do a photo op.

kinda like someone else declared "mission accomplished", eh?


spare me your justifications.. i've heard em all before.

 

[midcan5]

Ah what a wonderful euphemism. Lots more should that get hackneyed.

Misspeak

Synonyms: amplify, boast, boost, brag, build up, caricature, color, cook up*, corrupt, distort, embroider, emphasize, enlarge, exalt, expand, fabricate, falsify, fudge*, heighten, hike, hyperbolize, inflate, intensify, jack up, lie, loud talk*, magnify, misquote, misreport, misrepresent, overdo, overdraw, overemphasize, overestimate, pad*, pretty up*, puff, put on, pyramid*, romance, romanticize, scam, stretch, up*

from dictionary.com

 

[rayboyusmc]

The decision to go to war in Iraq was based on bad intel - intel that didn't prove to be true - but still, intel from the US and British governments. Saddam may not have had facilities to build WMDs, but he sure was acting like he did, refusing to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors.

Not just bad intel. They cherry picked what they wanted. They ignored what contradicted their desire to attack Iraq. They really aren't quite as innocent as your statement indicates.

Let's parse words some more. They mispoke their frigging self.

 

[Shogun]

I'm not familiar with the incident you're referring to. As far as this double standard we're talking about, a lie is a lie. I'm annoyed enough at Bush for this WMD retrieval turned liberation turned babysitting operation that this war has become. If it can be proved he lied to get us there, to waste lives for a less than altruistic cause, yes I'd be pretty pissed and would go as far as to say he should be brought up on legal charges.

Ya know.. I wasn't really wanting to hash out another blame bush thread. If such is how my post has been interpreted then I apologize. Although, I tend to agree with your take. I just find it ironic as hell that the right can pinpoint a lie at 300 yards when coming from a dem while making every effort within reach to rationalize the buildup to invading iraq.

I'll be honest, I won't vote for clinton even if she gets the dem nomination. I don't respect her tactics thus far and laughed my ass off when she dramatized herself into a hole.

BUT, this doesn't erase the irony of the usual bush defenders who have been dissecting the definition of lie in order to squeeze out the slightest positive spin on hindsight.


good day sir.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

kinda like someone else declared "mission accomplished", eh?


spare me your justifications.. i've heard em all before.

You know, unless your a moron, that the Mission Accomplished bullshit story doesn't fly. It was in fact true in the context it was presented, unless of course your to STUPID to understand the facts. Is that what you are? TO DAMN STUPID to understand that a Carrier that HAD IN FACT COMPLETED it's mission had the sign on it? The carrier was returning home AFTER "gasp" completion of it's mission in the Iraq theater.

I love when you drooling Bush haters make it so easy to make you look like the morons you are on this issue.