Yes. You should interpret it as a question about whether or not we should believe Bush on topic X, based on our assessment of the character he has displayed in the past.
Indeed, to not take into account one’s character in formulating the percentage one thinks that X is true or not is downright foolish.
The statement says nothing about formal logic and proof.
Seemed obvious.
Hold on now, be careful. Do you have firm evidence that everyone, everywhere, would be foolish if they didn’t take character into account? 
Sorry, Ludovic, the statement absolutely goes to the basis of the genetic fallacy, a notion in logic established by people much smarter than me. Not trying to be contentious–you can’t win this point, not if you’re asserting there’s nothing illogical (even if we other humans find it emminently practical) about assessing truthfulness relative to prior character. Anyway, I don’t want to hijack the thread further.
So, you dont have a problem with any of this?
Did you even READ the last sentence of my post?
If you don’t get it by now I would be forced to conclude that you’re being deliberately obtuse.
Talk about deliberately obtuse. The statement absolutely has a reference in formal logic and proof, as much as you’d prefer otherwise. You asked what you said that was a logical fallacy, and I pointed it out. Keep dancing, though.
Define “this”.
I think most of us have lots of problems with things that Bush has done. You just haven’t articulated any of them. In fact, you’ve muddled things up considerably by trying to compare the president’s indisuputable authority to declassify documents with his very questionable authority for warrantless wiretaps. What specific problem do you have with the declassification of the NIE. You seem to want us all to assume that If Bush does X, then X = bad.
I’m not saying there’s a double standard. I’m saying that, if Libby’s telling the truth now, then Bush lied back then.
If Libby’s correct in what he says, then Bush knew who “leaked” the info- or, at least, that it wasn’t really a leak (since he, himself, authorized it). And yet while he knew this, he vowed that whomever the link was would pay for it. If not a straight-out lie, then a lie by omission.
Of course, if it turns out that Libby is lying now, or has been misled by Cheney, then obviously Bush is blameless in this (and, in that case, either Libby or Cheney should be in a heck of a lot of trouble). However, this would then indicate that Bush has a history of, well, selecting the wrong subordinates. If we can’t trust the men that Bush has with him, how can we trust the Bush administration? Either way, since the buck stops at Bush, he’s got to shoulder at least some of the blame.
I’m bettin’ he won’t. “You’re doin’ a heck of a job, {insert name here}.”
With the fact you didn’t answer any of the questions I asked? No, I don’t really have a major problem with that. 
As John Mace said…problem with what exactly? What SHOULD I have a problem with? The fact that PotUS can declassify stuff? While I think there should be some kind of check on that I don’t have a major problem with it, no. The specifics of what Bush declassified? From what I read so far (and this has been more along the line of skimming and reading through the related Pit thread) no…I don’t have a major problem with what was released. Perhaps I missed something though. Again…what do YOU think I should have a problem with? Lets start there.
-XT
Could you be specific because frankly I’m confused here…Bush lied about WHAT if Libby is telling the truth now? I have no doubts that Bush has told any number of lies, but specifically WHAT did Bush lie about if Libby is telling the truth??
-XT
What info? “The info” was Valerie Plame’s status as a covert agent. None of this new material indicates that Bush authorized Libby to leak that. Now, should Bush have had an idea of who first to go to about the Plame affair? Yes. But Libby still denies that he was the original source of her status being made public, so I would presume he told Bush the same thing.
No, it absolutely isn’t a reference to formal logic and proof, as much as you’d prefer otherwise.
Genetic fallacy doesn’t mean what you think it means. It doesn’t mean that we cannot base our opinions on the truthfulness of certain types of statements using the past truth values of past statements by that individual in similar circumstances. It means that we cannot base the truth values of logical propositions based on the character of the individual.
In this case, we are not referring to a logical proposition in which all of the facts are mutually known. For instance, if George Bush claimed that 1+1=2, his past lies or lack thereof do not influence the truth value of his logical assertion.
However, we are not dealing with mutually known information. Indeed, that’s sort of the definition of classified information. It’s not a genetic fallacy to state that since one thinks that X has lied about Y in previous situations very similar to Y, that X is probably lying again.
If you think I’m wrong about that, I’d like to play you at poker sometime.
Right. The faulty syllogism you have constructed can’t be called on its faulty logic because, well, because you say it’s a syllogism that has nothing to do with logic. One of them syllogisms, you see. Gotcha.
And if you say, “I firmly believe that for every action there is NOT an equal and opposite reaction, but that belief has nothing to do with science,” no one can call your statement bad science, because, after all, you said it has nothing to do with science. This makes perfect sense, and I bow to the master of logic.
The origin of an assertion can be called into question without invoking the genetic fallacy when the source of the assertion necessarily makes the statement false or questionable.
Joe Smith says that he knows for sure that an event occurred, and that assurance is based solely on his contention that he witnessed that event on May 15, 1959. We determine he wasn’t born until 1961. It is not illogical to call his assertion into question–meaning, we cannot rely on his assurance–because the origin of the assertion necessarily has no basis for making said assertion. His statement carries no weight–we can conclude nothing from it.
If Ed Jones makes an assertion, and we dismiss it because, “Ed is a known liar,” then we have constructed a logical fallacy, specifically the genetic fallacy. It is by definition, a definition that I provided you.
It is the very f@#$ing definition of the genetic fallacy, for Pete’s sake. I gave you a cite. If Bush lied a billion times in the past, that does not make his current statement false.
Here’s another clue for you. This doesn’t mean that you aren’t right. I can flip a coin and tell you that heads came up, so that means the Flyers will win tonight, and maybe the Flyers will win. It was still faulty logic.
I have also already pointed out that as a practical matter all of us–except you, of course, other than in this thread–construct these kinds of illogical conclusions out of necessity. Life demands it of us, if we are to get through the day. But that still doesn’t mean it’s not a logical fallacy. Period. Have the grace to say, “my bad,” and move on.
You’re absolutely missing the very point I tried to make. Libby is admitting something that has NOTHING directly to do with Bush’s comments about the consequences for whoever leaked Plame’s CIA status to the press. If Libby is 100% truthful regarding the item currently in the news, it has NOTHING to do with whoever revealed Plame’s CIA position. I’m not trying to be contentious, but do you get that? Do you understand that Libby is NOT now asserting that Bush authorized him to communicate information that Bush previously said should not have been communicated under penalty of firing?
IOW, Bush previously said, anybody who illegally leaked “A” is getting his ass fired. Libby is now asserting that Bush authorized him to communciate “not-A.” To now ask, “Okay, who’s telling the truth here?” is illogical. The two statements are not inconsistent.
This is correct. It can bear some elaboration.
The reason for keeping information secret is national security. The President is in a unique position of trust regarding classified information. The person holding that office is trusted to withold and to release information according to national security considerations.
Secrecy in government is profoundly anti-democratic, which is why in principle most classified information is eventually released under a ‘30 year rule’ or something similar. Because secrecy is so anti-democratic, a government must bring a very high standard of care and integrity to its use of secrecy provisions. Above all it must be impartial.
The breaches: It appears the President has violated the public trust as follows:
This violates the well established principles of managing secret information in government. What the President has done is to announce:
’We have bugged congress’ private 'phones and found that 38% of Democrats cheat on their wives.'
“Mr President, what is the percentage for Republicans?”
’That information remains classified.'
How do you know this? Was the rest of the NIE declassified at a later date so that you can conlude that it was originally withheld only for political purposes? What were the specific consequences to national security of the sutff that was declassified in 2003?
I’m asking these questions because I don’t know the answers, so I have no way of assessing the validity of those three statements.
Show me where I am not referring to weighing percentages rather than proclaiming truthiness.
Good thing I didn’t do that.
When did I say that it did?
Do you seriously think that there is a random pile of paper somewhere marked half “lies” and half “truth” and whenever anyone utters anything, it’s completely random as to whether they are lying based on the luck of the draw?
I have already pointed out that weighing the percentage of someone telling the truth based on similar past circumstances is not only logical but wise.
It is only a fallacy if we try to prove a logical assertion. Saying “Bob has lied %95 of the time in past similar circumstances, therefore I think he has a %95 chance of lying right now,” is not a logical fallacy. If it is, you could win a Nobel Prize in economics through your brilliant revision of the science of statistics. It’s only a fallacy if you make a positive claim about a truth statement based on character.
Those are the best inferences from the evidence of older and recent reports of the events. As I do each time, I chose the word ‘appears’ with care.
More pointedly: ‘withheld for political purposes’; this is the best inference from the NIE having been released to bolster the administration’s case.
‘specific consequences for national security’; the best inference is that the information was released without due regard being given to its consequences for NS. I.e that consideration should be paramount.
OK. That caveat helps.
Without knowing what that info was, I would say any inference about it is weak at best, and more likely meaningless.
This doesn’t make any sense since you say above that the best inference about what was withheld is that it was withheld for political reasons. And since you can’t name even one national security consequence of releasing the stuff that was released, your argument is not just weak, it’s nonexistent.
I think you’re starting with the assumption that whatever Bush does is bad, and since Bush did this it must be bad. That’s exactly the kind of reasoning Bush used to get us into Iraq. He assumed Saddam was a threat and then fit the data to that assumption.
I’m done. Keep believing this, it’s fine with me.
Feel free to look me up the next time you have some loose change you want to wager away.