“Andrew Sullivan”:http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2004_11_14_dish_archive.html#110057476215171285 reminds us of the low point of Colin Powell’s political career – his argument for war in Iraq at the UN. But I was struck by this quote.

bq. My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. *These are not assertions.* What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources. (Emphasis added.)

What exactly does the bolded line even mean? Two hypotheses come to mind. The most natural is that it’s a kind of metalinguistic negation. He means these aren’t *mere* assertions, in the way that when I say “I don’t _like_ cricket” I mean to say I don’t *merely* like it. (I wonder if the tape shows the phonetic patterns usually indicative of metalinguistic negation?) The more charitable is that Powell is telling the truth – he isn’t asserting anything at all. He’s an actor on a stage, or a puppet in a play, reciting lines, and just as actors and puppets don’t make assertions, he’s not making assertions either.

It’s interesting how little pressure there is here to adopt the most charitable reading. Note that even with the standard provisos added to the principle of charity, to turn it into something like a principle of humanity, still the principle-preferred interpretation is that he’s telling the truth in this sentence and this sentence only. But that’s not how we interpret him at all. If we did it might not be the low-point of his political career.