More accurately analogous:
Q: Do you think you did enough?
A: Obviously not, since the desired result was not obtained.
Q: Then you should have done more?
A: No, in fact I think I did everything I could have done within reason in order to obtain the desired result. It just turns out that “everything that could have been done within reason” was not sufficient to the goal.
Q: Ah. Indeed you are most wise.
-FrL-
Sorry to post again.
I’m curious how you think you ought to answer if I ask you “Do you think you’ve done enough to fly to Pluto, dig a well, and bring back that delicious green peanut butter the Plutonians use to fuel their space stations?”
A yes or no answer is preferred here, but answer however you think appropriate.
If the answer contains a statement or implication that you in fact have not gone to Pluto etc., please also explain why your answer doesn’t constitute an admission that you haven’t done enough to accomplish that goal.
Or, if you do think you are “admitting” you haven’t done enough for the Pluto trip, then it becomes clear the participants in this discussion are working with at least two understandings of the definition or proper use of the word “admit.”
-Kris
“Accepted” “admitted” “confessed” as in “I am firm, you are stubborn, he is a pig-headed fool”.
Yes, I have done enough, because zero effort = enough concerning that task. However, if it were a task that I actually wish I had accomplished-- you know, like capturting ObL just to pick some random thing-- then I would say I hadn’t done enough. Clinton didn’t do enough. Bush didn’t do enough. I’m sure both wish they had done more. It’s really that simple, and I can’t imagine why it’s even a point of contention.
Let me put it this way.
Say there’s a huge stockpile of cookies in another country. You really want those cookies, but the other country has a huge army, easily dwarfing your own, and they want the cookies for themselves. In order to get those cookies, then, you stage a covert assault using intelligence assests and small commando units. It fails spectacularly - all your men are captured.
Have you done enough to secure those cookies? Nope; you didn’t get them. Clearly you didn’t do enough. Should you have done more? You could have sent in a conventional army; but they’d likely be beaten, leading to great loss of life. You could have tried another covert op, but given the completeness of the failure of the previous one, there’s a good chance that would fail, too. So should you have done more? Hell no.
We’re not talking about cookies. We’re talking about people who are trying to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. There is a slight difference.
What if the cookies had peanuts in them? Close enough?
Almonds, maybe, but not peanuts.
I think we can safely say that this thread has now jumped the shark…
Yes, there is; that’s why it’s an analogy and not a description of the situation. In deference to your complaint, though, i’ll try again with a more closely related analogy.
Say a certain country contains some people who want to kill Americans. Your objective is to stop Americans being killed. You send troops to said country in order to kill those people; and some of those people are indeed killed. Alas, it did not go without problems; your troops came under attack from those people as well. In addition, other people, seeing your troops as an invading force, also took up arms, and new people were inspired to join the original group.
So, did you do enough? Nope. Your objective wasn’t fulfilled.
Should you have done more? Depends on your options. You could have sent more troops in - but that depends on whether or not you have those troops avaliable, and whether you’d be taking them from some other hostile area. Plus, more troops there means more people for the American-killers to, well, kill. You could have ramped up the money going into the campaign; but that would mean taking it from other areas of spending, and those areas would take a big hit. You could have just nuked the entire region, but I hope the problems with that are clear.
So *should * you have done more? Possibly. It depends on the situation. Doing more might have helped the situation; on the other hand it might mean extra costs in many terms that aren’t outweighed by the benefits. But my point is that just because you haven’t done enough does *not * inevitably mean you should have done more; it’s certainly not a simple situation.
Exactly. And to be clear, what Revenant just said is true even if we’re talking about a truly worthy goal that you really desire to accomplish. Even if that’s the case, it’s not the case that not having done enough to accomplish it implies that one should have done more. Revenant has done a good job of illustrating this. I’m just reiterating the point.
-Kris
This is an excellent post and a fine assessment of the situation.
John Mace and Age Quod Agis, please read this one again. I’m afraid you’re missing something.
To add to the point Clinton was making, if Bush was asked the question phrased as Sevastopol puts this one, the answer would be NO!
Well the honest answer. The actual answer would of course be a lying yes.
But why would they lie? According to your reasoning, they’d have no reason to lie, since a “No” answer is utterly meaningless.
Here’s what I think you folks are missing. The point of what Clinton admitted came up because Wallace asked Clinton “Why didn’t you do more to catch Bin Laden?” Some folks said that was unfair because it assumed the Clinton had not done enough to catch Bin Laden. yojimbo pointed out that Clinton admitted that he didn’t do enough to catch Bin Laden.
Now you folks are arguing that Clinton never admitted he should have done more to catch Bin Laden. Well, fine. Clinton never admitted that he should have done more. If you want to believe that Clinton doesn’t think he should have done more to catch Bin Laden, then you can roll around in that all you want. (Although I think it paints a pretty poor picture of Clinton, and not one I particularly want to believe.)
Because it’s beside the point. Wallace’s question assumed that Clinton did not do enough. Wallace’s question did not assume that Clinton should have done more. If Clinton should not have done more, Wallace’s question is not unfair, and in fact, gave him the perfect opportunity to explain why he shouldn’t have done more.
So you’re talking about something completely different than what you’re arguing. You’re saying that Clinton didn’t admit that he didn’t do enough because he should not have done more (which it’s worth mentioning again, seems to me to be an incredible assertion). But those are two different things. And the thing you’re talking about is irrelevant to our discussion.
Now I’m the one who is having difficulty believing somebody typed something. 
-FrL-
For what it’s worth, I love the name Frylock, since I loved Futurama. Every time I look at that name, it gives me the giggles.
In general that is true, but not in this specific case. Do you think Clinton (or Bush) should not have done more wrt al Qaeda and ObL? I don’t understand why we even need an analogy. Why not just focus on the actual issue.
I think you guys are confusing two things. I’m sure Clinton thinks he did about as much as he could have done with the information he had at the time. But now, looking back, of course he wishes he had done more. How could he not?
And the question **Sevastopol **asked is a different question. Since you guys like analogies… Do I wish I had bought Google stock when if first went public? Hell yes! Did I make the best decision I could at the time when I decided not to? Yes-- with the information I had then.
Wait, wait, I don’t get this.
“Wallace’s question assumed that Clinton did not do enough”: Doesn’t it logically follow that there was some assumed quantum of “more” that Clinton therefore should have done?
Not sniping here, I truly do not follow your reasoning in this.
Ok. Should either Clinton or Bush have done more? It depends really on what “more” is. Should they have put more resources into intelligence on al Qaeda and finding ObL before 9/11? With the benefit of hindsight, it seems like an easy yes - on the other hand, there’s always the possibility that moving resources around to focus on those things would have opened up a gap for some other group to stage an attack (or several smaller attacks) of similar destructiveness. And of course there’s the problem of whether or not the attacks were stoppable with a reasonable amount of attention and defence. Certainly, there’s enough room to say “No, I shouldn’t have done more, because (basically) the costs would outweigh the benefits”, though i’d say Clinton had more room in that regard than Bush does.
Because doing more might have hindered rather than helped, and because increasing activity and resources in one area means a decrease in another.
What if all your money was tied up in stock in another business that rose much more than Google, though? If you’d sold all that to buy Google stock, you’d be worse off even in hindsight. You could “do more” by selling even more of your better stock to buy Google stock, but that doesn’t mean you end up with more money at the end of it. Do you wish you’d bought Google stock? Yes, because it rose in price. Should you have done? No, because it would have meant selling stock that rose much more.
Clinton would have answered yes. That makes it sound positive,as in “I made an honest effort based on the info I had” That isn’t what Fox or their friends in the White House wanted so they chose a question to create a negative impression.
Bush had all the info Clinton had and Richard Clarke who stressed the importance of dealing with Terrorism and OBL and in his first 8 months did squat. So the honest answer to the question, would be NO! No he didn’t take all reasonable measures, he didn’t pursue all prudent action according to his best advice. In fact he demoted his best antiterrorism advisor. And, no he did not avoid dereliction or negligence, meaning, he was derelict and negligent. Does that seem meaningless to you? How clear does it have to be?
If you can’t quite fathom that I don’t know what else to say.
I think you’re close here. Does Clinton wish he had gotten him? Of course.
That still doesn’t make the question a fair one without any perspective or context.
I like your Google analogy. Now what if people were trying to create the false impression that you were a fucking loser and an idiot for not buying Google stock.
What if they were trying to create the impression that because you didn’t buy it you were somehow derelict and to blame for their financial crisis? Would you be royally pissed? Would you fight back when they asked
Geez man…why didn’t you do more to acquire Google stock,
knowing they asked it only to bolster the false impressions they had fostered about you?
Would any of that change the fact that you still wish you had bought it? Nope.
I find it confusing, too.
But as I understand the arguments that are being made, others are saying that Clinton didn’t really admit that he didn’t do enough insofar as there was nothing more he could have done.
If you’re right – and I think for all practical purposes, you are – then Clinton’s admission that he didn’t do enough effectively admits that he should have done more.
But as I understand the arguments of others, there’s enough of a difference between not doing enough (which Clinton admitted) and the idea that he should have done something more (which Clinton allegedly did not admit) so that admitting the first doesn’t necessarily mean that the second is admitted. See, e.g., Revenant Threshold’s example of a king who wants to steal cookies.
I’m trying to point out that if you’re saying the two are different, so that an admission to Question A is not an admission to Question B, then you can’t also say that the two are the same, so that a non-admission to Question B somehow overtakes the admission to Question A. You can’t have it both ways.
I know, clear as mud.