posted by Winston Smith at
3:51 PM
Sunday, July 02, 2006
Previous Posts
- Hersh: Bush Stumbles Toward Confrontation With Ir...
- Groupthink and the Times's Recent RevelationsWhew....
- Skepticism, "Critical Thinking," and "Shibboleths"...
- Lies and Spin: WMDs (6/30/06 Edition)It's too bad...
- Arrogant, Activist Judges Threaten the MonarchyHer...
- Beinart: Bush Prefers Victory Over Democrats to V...
- Oral Sex Is EvilThat's the point of much of the di...
- Same-Sex Marriage: James Dobson Explains It All T...
- Is Bush an Asshole?Remember: I respect the office ...
- The First-Amendment Desecration Act: Breaking It ...
Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]
8 Comments:
Quantity isn't quality. Of the 237 contentions, 10 are claimed to be "false." 8 by Condi, mostly on talk shows.
Condi, the least senior member of the administration at that time, did not lead us into war.
But if the 237 are so convincing, they should have run on them in 2004. Or they should in 2006. Except for the far left blogosphere, hardly anyone, even the top officials of the Democratic Party, went near the Waxman charges.
Needless to say I find most of the claims risible, altho there are a few good ones. But none that made any real difference on how it all went down.
What can I say? We're all wasting a beautiful weekend. I answer not in hopes of changing any minds (except possibly the non-commenting observer's), but to not give the impression I'm shying away from "truth." But enough's enough, guys.
Ah, yes...first, there's no deception...then they're deceptive, but not outright lies...then well, they're lies, but some of them were made by people other than the president, and some were made on talk shows...then well, they're lies, but...well...why didn't the Democrats capitalize on them??
That's a sad progression of points...
Those were just the tips of the iceberg, of course. The administration orchestrated an effort to get the political winds all going in one direction, blowing hot air in that direction relentlessly. Any even dispassionate observer who was paying attention could see what was going on. It was a relentless sales campaign, turning off even people like myself who were antecedently inclined to use force against Saddam. Every datum for the preferred course of action was dredged up and exaggerated. Evidence was outright fabricated. All evidence against the preferred course of action was ignored or minimized. Anyone who pointed out what was going on was vilified--they were crazy, they were leftists, they were unpatriotic.
We all lived through it. We know what went on. Weasle as you will, Tom, it won't change the facts.
If this doesn't count as deception in your book, then we have very, very different ideas about democracy.
We are allowed to disagree, WS. You find Waxman's lengthy bill of indictment enough to find Bush guilty of lying the country into war. I think it's taking a bunch of turkeys and trying to make an eagle.
I do not think evidence was fabricated. Neither do I stipulate Waxman's charges of falsehoods, I merely point out that his huge laundry list gets pared down bigtime in a hurry.
Please note that except for one instance, I have not characterized your arguments, altho it's deeply tempting. I do not call them bad or dishonest or sad. That is not for me to say, and is an enemy of critical thinking. I will not accuse you of weaseling, even when it's tempting.
Cheers, mate. I do not say you are wrong, only that I disagree with your evaluations.
"We" is the American people. "We" were all there. Make your arguments to the only jury that counts, in November.
Yes, my apologies for getting testy. Try as I might, I just can't agree with you on this issue.
I really wish we could get all the facts laid out in the clearest possible form so that everyone could reach agreement about it. But alas.
Sorry, Tom, that I've gotten so irritable about this. Of course I think you're wrong, but getting mad won't make the--to put it from my perspective--scales fall from your eyes.
Reading WS and TVD reminds me a little of teaching the Euthyphro dilemma in a class with an 18 year old Bible-thumping Baptist in it. There's absolutely nothing you can say to make her admit even the plausibility of the argument. And that's fine. It just shows that it's always open to someone to not accept the conclusion of a sound argument. Just deny a premise.
I suspect that there is no premise that TVD would accept that leads to the conclusion that Bush mislead us into war. There can't be, because then he'd have to buy the conclusion, and he's not going to do that.
But the fact that there is someone who disagrees says nothing at all about the argument. It seems to me that the bulk of TVD's responses are in the "but I'm not convinced by this" vein. But whether or not *you* are convinced, while perhaps politically relevant, is not relevant to the soundness of the argument.
I'd say we've reached the point where there's not a lot more to be said about the argument. Now, as TVD suggests, it's up to the jury of American voters. But that just involves politics and rhetoric. The actual truth of the claim is pretty much established, IMO.
WS, thanks. I'm afraid that I'm familiar (and have taken the time to familiarize myself with) what's in the Waxman arguments. They came out in early 2004, before the election. There's much more behind my own arguments that I don't get to say because as a lone wolf, I'm too busy getting my own back against charges of intellectual dishonesty, which I should ignore but have not learned to.
For you to tell me I'm wrong causes me no pain; I expect it. That you disagree is fine with me. But to hear that I'm the equivalent of a beardless Bible-thumper in the presence of Plato makes me genuinely angry; it's all that Christian charity and respect for your blog allow a man to take.
In fact, my religion doesn't require me to suffer fools gladly, only the acceptance of your hospitality. I think sometimes people take advantage of that fact.
TVD, since the comparison that you object to wasn't made by WS, how does your religion stand on reading for context?
Yeah, I think it'd be good to cool the charges of intellectual dishonety.
To my shame, I started it by getting frustrated and giving it the old "every even vaguely sentient being, even down to the nematodes, can see that...".
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home