I know, the last thing the SDMB needs is yet another Bush-bashing thread, but I’ve gotta get this off my chest:
It appears that the administration of GWB has one and only one tactic for addressing criticism: slander or generally attempt to discredit the reputation of the person making the criticism.
It has applied this “tactic,” to some greater or lesser degree, to many conservatives, former UN inspectors, or ex-Whitehouse insiders who have come forward to criticize the administrations handling of the “war on terrorism,” WMDs in Iraq, the “damn fool war,” and other related items: David Brock, Scott Ritter, Hans Blix, Karen Kwiatkowski, Paul O’Neill, David Kay, and now Richard Clarke. It stretches credulity to believe that all these people are somehow partisan to the Democrats, or just voicing sour grapes, or are a bunch of liars. Or are they all somehow in collusion? :rolleyes:
Maybe there’s something to this criticism, afterall? An ad hominem rebuttal to an accusation or argument usually means the rebutter has nothing of substance to say.
**George W. Bush: here’s to your “miserable failure” of a presidency going down in flames!
(Is there an obligation to include profanity in a Pit thread? If so, here goes: hell, damn, fart!)
(Side MPSIMS: today is my birthday, and this is my first new thread as a charter member! w00t!)
Tactic 1B is to say that person doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Cheney on yesterday’s Limbaugh show, as reported in the Denver Post: “[Clarke] wasn’t in the loop, frankly, on a lot of this stuff.”
We’re supposed to believe that your counterterrorism coordinator was not in the loop on your counterterrorism efforts? snort Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
What’s new here? What powerful politician has not moved to destroy the reputations of his perceived enemies? Bush isn’t the first president to call his critics liars and conspirators. Don’t forget that every woman who every worked for Clinton was a gold-digging slut who lied about his advances and that there was a vast conspiracy against him from the right.
Such words never came from the Clinton administration. Also, most of the allegations were in fact utterly lacking in substance (see below), and none were about policy.
The Bush admin. is relatively unique in that so many are coming forward to criticize policy, not the president’s character or sexual pecadillos.
Except that there was…read Blinded by the Right by David Brock, a former self-described “right-wing hitman” who was in on it…
Regardless, I pitted George W. Bush, not anyone else. What do the habits of past administrations have to do with the OP? Did I compare Bush to anyone? I believe I did not.
A. The tu quoque defense is invalid and irrelevant; Clinton’s misdeeds do not absolve Bush from his.
B. At least 1 woman (Paula Jones) was a lying, gold-digging slut.
C. And, yes, there was a vast right-wing conspiracy, financed by Richard Mellon Scaife. The Whitewater investigation, largely manipulated by Scaife and his GOP pawns, came up empty after 4 years of threats, lies, and harassment; if Bill had kept his dick in his pants and been honest about his involvement with Monica, the GOP would not have been able to orchestrate his impeachment.
But as I said, Clinton’s misdeeds and the GOP campaign against him have no bearing on this discussion of the current GOP sleazery of lies and innuendo.
Ethics aside, the smear is a tactic that works. I don’t really expect the GOOP to expend its powers of creativity on an alternative to the tried and true.
Secondly, over its term this administration has cultivated the expectation that it has a short sharp answer to every question. That is its style. The media by and large has bought into this.
So in talking to the general public it has locked itself out of the option of presenting in-depth and reasoned or point-by-point responses.
Remember they aren’t in the abstract truth business. That’s for theologians. They want to win.
Defense? Defense of what, Gobear? This isn’t Great Debates. It’s a rant about — wait for it — an unscrupulous and boorish politician. I just asked what’s new about that? Why rant as though something has been uncovered. It’s like complaining about the smell of trash while digging through the dumpster.
Lib has a point: this is, pretty much, business as usual in politics. Although the Bush admin. seems to be breaking all sorts of records for the frequency and transparency of their lies. However, that dishonesty is a bipartisan tactic is by no means an excuse to let the lies slide, from either side. Checks and balances: the pols are there to lie to us, and we’re all here to throw them out when they get too obvious about it. This thread is merely another step in that direction, God willing.
In addition to the ad hominems and tu quoques, I’ve seen more than a couple straw men, post hoc and subverted support. Sheesh, the whole thing gives me warm fuzzies for my old days of Logic 101 freshman year in college, 1986.
I wish people would be required to take that class before voting. The politics of both sides would benefit.
I’d offer to buy Libertarian a copy of The Hunting of the President, just so he can read about the mechanations of the anti-Clinton “vast, right-wing conspiracy” in lurid detail, but I suspect he’s already shut his mind to the whole notion.
Like others have said, ad hominem* attacks are a staple of politics because of their rhetorical power. Furthermore, they aren’t necessarily fallacious. For it to be a fallacy, an ad hominem attack must be offered as a counter to an otherwise rational argument. When two people make contradictory claims about something that can’t be proven with evidence and/or logical support, the only course is to determine the relative credibility of the opponents.
I believe you are mischaracterizing the nature of the administration’s response. Whereas a response that is purely ad hominem may indicate that they have nothing of substance to say, this has never been the case with any administration response that I remember (and your second paragraph, which states otherwise, is incorrect). The administration has always responded with substantive arguments putting forth alternative explanations. As an additional tactic they have attempted to undermine the source of the charges by downgrading their credibility. This has been necessary because some of the sources have been ostensibly non-partisan or Republican.
As they say, success has a thousand fathers and failure is an orphan. Most or all of the criticisms have been in areas in which the Bush administration has ostensibly failed (e.g. economy or WMD) and in such cases there will always be people coming forth to vindicate their own performance by indicting others, or trumpeting their own competing point of view. It is not unreasonable to point out motivations for criticism that might not be readily apparent.
In sum, its not as if the exchange goes: “they failed at X”, “oh, yeah, well he’s a biased loser”. More like “they failed at X” “no we did not, and don’t believe him because he’s a biased loser”.
I don’t see why it “stretches credulity” to believe that there could be any number of people out there who have some motivation or other for publicly criticizing the Bush administration or its policies. Seems to be a pretty common feature of politics.
Besides, we’re not talking about every critic: the OP was about those who are conversatives, UN weapons inspectors, or people formerly on the inside of the present administration. I.e. credible witnesses and/or people for whom it is (or at least was) in their best interest to otherwise support the POTUS.
By the way, I have yet to hear a credible rebuttal outside of the ad hominem kind to most of the criticisms given by the people I mentioned in the OP.
I don’t believe that every critic of the Bush administration has been accused of being a “a crank with a personal agenda”. The OP himself listed several options: “somehow partisan to the Democrats, or just voicing sour grapes, or are a bunch of liars”, and despite the impression that you get to pick one option that must apply to all Bush critics, the criticisms could be varied. And there could be other motivations, including self-aggrandizement (increased book sales), or a desire to distance oneself from a perceived failure, or any number of others. It does make sense, if you believe the truth to be X, that a high percentage of people who claim the truth to be Y will have some motivation for making this claim.
Exactly my point earlier. Because if a Democrat criticizes the administration his motivation is obvious and the public does not have as much of a need to be informed about it. But if an ostensibly unbiased figure criticizes the administration, it is useful to point out that this individual may not be as unbiased as he appears to be.
You know, I was actually going to look up the substantive rebuttal given in the case of the most recent “victim” (Clarke). But then I noticed the word “credible” in your post. A weasel word.
