Bush caught in a bald faced lie.

[Ice_Wolf]

@Baldwin

Possible sign of the apocalypse, and definitely a sign that Bush has crossed a line this time.

Hopefully not the apocalypse – but I hope more stand up and start doubting out loud the “logic” of what Bush and his administration have done and are doing. We’re hopeful, out here on the periphery. We’re really hopeful for an outbreak of sanity in Washington.

[Debaser]

I’m troubled some by these wiretaps that were issued. I’d like to hear some more about it.

Bush’s statement was not a lie. It’s clear that he’s talking about the Patriot Act in that statement. It’s unfair to apply it to something else entirely.

I don’t think much political fallout will arise over this, even if it turns out that Bush was way out of line. The left has already been hysterically screaming about civil liberties violations for years now, despite the fact that there haven’t really been any. Nobody is listening anymore. The boy’s cried wolf too many times. Conservatives will need something a lot more damning that this to turn on Bush. If anything, his sticking by his decision might actually be helping his approval rating right now.

[Evil_Captor]

@SHAKES

OK,

So when the next Twin Towers or goverment building comes tumbling down and thousand of innocent lives are lost; PLEASE SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT “where was our security?” :rolleyes:

Jessus people we’re in a fucking war FCOL! Why hell are people getting so upset because they think big brother might be listening in on aunt Betsy exchanging recipes with cousin Betty-jo?

Get the fuck over yourselves already.

I’m not a Bush advocate mind you but when it comes to out nations safety; by all means, do what is necessary. I know I for one haven’t forgoten 9/11 as some of seemingly have.

“Those who would sacrifice their liberty for security deserve neither.”
–Benjamin Franklin.

Ol’ Ben was talking about **YOU[./b] Shakes!

[Clothahump]

This is interesting.

“Impeach Bush, impeach Bush, impeach Bush”. Sounds like a bunch of parrots on crack.

Would somebody mind telling me where the liberal cries of outrage and demands for impeachment were when Jimmy Carter did the same thing? Were liberals jumping around and bellowing like King Kong with a turpentined asshole when Bill Clinton authorized searches without warrants? I must have totally missed your screams of indignation completely. Or are they simply reserved for George Bush, while liberal presidents get a pass?

Jimmy Carter, 05/23/1979:

EXERCISE OF CERTAIN AUTHORITY RESPECTING ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE
EO 12139
23 May 1979

---

 By the authority vested in me as President by Sections 102 and

104 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.
1802 and 1804), in order to provide as set forth in that Act (this
chapter) for the authorization of electronic surveillance for
foreign intelligence purposes, it is hereby ordered as follows:

 1-101. Pursuant to Section 102(a)(1) of the Foreign Intelligence

Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1802(a)), the Attorney General
is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign
intelligence information without a court order, but only if the
Attorney General makes the certifications required by that Section.

Bill Clinton, 02/09/1995:

                    EXECUTIVE ORDER 12949

                        - - - - - - -
           FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE PHYSICAL SEARCHES
   By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution

and the laws of the United States, including sections 302 and 303 of the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“Act”) (50 U.S.C. 1801,
et seq.), as amended by Public Law 103- 359, and in order to provide for
the authorization of physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes
as set forth in the Act, it is hereby ordered as follows:

   Section 1.  Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the

Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a
court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year, if the Attorney General makes the certifications
required by that section.

[Revtim]

Wow, a tu quoque fallacy that doesn’t involve Clinton! Good job, that’s kinda rare these days.

FYI, I didn’t “cry with outrage” probably because I was 9 years old.

[Revtim]

Oops spoke too soon, Clinton is in there. I’m less impressed.

[ElvisL1ves]

Didn’t you notice the word “foreign” in either of your own damn cites, Humpy? They’re right below the references to the authorizing laws. Now look for those things in regard to Bush.

But never let such trivia get in the way of yet another tu quoque attempt, huh? Whadda maroon.

[Trion]

@Clothahump

Would somebody mind telling me where the liberal cries of outrage and demands for impeachment were when Jimmy Carter did the same thing? Were liberals jumping around and bellowing like King Kong with a turpentined asshole when Bill Clinton authorized searches without warrants? I must have totally missed your screams of indignation completely.

I’m sorry if you missed it Cloth old buddy. I’ve tried to find that Pit thread I started back in '79, but my searches are all coming up zilch. Maybe somebody can help me out.

[TV_time]

Let me see, Bush:

-Made war on a country that had nothing to do with 9/11 (consistently using 9/11 as part of the reason for that war)
-Claimed weapons of mass distruction existed as a further excuse for the war
-Manipulates the language so he can get away with stunts (he calls it a “war,” but those captured in the war are not “prisoners of war” they are “detainees” thus his administration is able to side step international agreements on treatment of prisoners of war)
-Hides secret prison camps around the world
-Has aides reveal the identity of individuals who find reasons not to go to war and then says to public that he will “get to the bottom of this” and find out who leaked the information to the press
-Has thousands of Americans deported and jailed for months (and in some cases years) because of their nationalities in the name of deterring terrorism.
-Releases budgets that do not include war expenses so he can give his rich buddies tax breaks then advocates cuts in social programs so we can support the “war”
-Tries to start a ministry of disinformation
-Permits the torture of citizens of other countries by Americans and those controled by Americans. First has spokespeople say it is isn’t happening, then that it is necessary, and finally that it is deplorable - all of the time refusing to support a bill in congress which will make torture illegal
-Has the military plant stories on how well the war is going in papers by paying papers in Iraq to take them
-Doesn’t release information that he is breaking national law by wire tapping American citizens without proper authorization

And you say, “he can be a* little* misleading” - And the gestapo could be a little high spirited in their enforcement of Hitler’s policies.

[Debaser]

@Revtim

Wow, a tu quoque fallacy that doesn’t involve Clinton! Good job, that’s kinda rare these days.

@ElvisL1ves

But never let such trivia get in the way of yet another tu quoque attempt, huh?

It’s funny when people read a page on the web about logical fallacy types and then try and use them with no clue how to.

Description of Ad Hominem Tu Quoque

This fallacy is committed when it is concluded that a person’s claim is false because 1) it is inconsistent with something else a person has said or 2) what a person says is inconsistent with her actions. This type of “argument” has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.

Person B asserts that A’s actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.

Therefore X is false.

The fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false (although of any pair of inconsistent claims only one can be true - but both can be false). Also, the fact that a person’s claims are not consistent with his actions might indicate that the person is a hypocrite but this does not prove his claims are false.

Bolding mine. (This is the part that you guys don’t seem to get.)

Clothahump was correctly pointing out that what Bush has done here is not new. Democratic presidents have done the same or similar things and there was no outrage at the time. However, since this president is irrationally hated by all the liberals he gets slammed for doing it.

However, at no point did Clothahump use this as an attempt to prove anything. He’s not saying that since Carter and Clinton did the same thing there is no wrongdoing by Bush. He’s simply pointing out the hypocracy of the left for attacking Bush for actions that are no different than past presidents.

Logical fallacies only apply when somone uses one to try and prove an argument correct or incorrect. You can’t whip them out every time somebody exhibits the behavior described by one of them. That’s meaningless and quite stupid.

[Scott_Plaid]

@Debaser

Clothahump was correctly pointing out that what Bush has done here is not new. Democratic presidents have done the same or similar things and there was no outrage at the time.

Cite? I can’t find it right now, but I recall Doonesbury comic from the Carter Era, and Feiffer cartoons.

However, since this president is irrationally hated by all the liberals he gets slammed for doing it.

Cite? You almost certainly believe they hate him without cause. However, that is a helpful way of seeing the world for you, but it isn’t true. In fact, people hate Bush for things he has actually done. Hardly “Irrational.”

[Revtim]

The thread’s about Bush, I think it was implied that Clothahump was defending Bush by posting in it. But, it was only an implication, and I admit he didn’t specifically say Bush’s action were OK because of Clinton and Carter’s actions, so technically, it’s not a tu quoque. I suspect it was meant as one, though.

[Debaser]

@Scott Plaid

Cite? I can’t find it right now, but I recall Doonesbury comic from the Carter Era, and Feiffer cartoons.

I can’t prove a negative. I will grant you that my wording might be a little strong. Maybe I shouldn’t say “no outrage”. There might have been some. But, I think any fair minded person would argue that the level of bile any past president has gotten over such things doesn’t compare with what we see in the Bush bashers.

Cite? You almost certainly believe they hate him without cause. However, that is a helpful way of seeing the world for you, but it isn’t true. In fact, people hate Bush for things he has actually done. Hardly “Irrational.”

Sure, there might be reasons for some of the hate Bush gets. Dumb reasons, mostly, IMO. But there are reasons. However, the hating is still very much irrational. Many posters are completely incapable of being rational when it comes to Bush. Do you really need a cite for this? It’s here every day.

[Debaser]

Revtim: Fair enough. He can come back and clear things up if he wants to.

[The_Tooth]

It’s a red herring. According to this, tu quoque is a specific form of such.

I don’t believe for one second that Clothahump was doing anything other than trying to poison the well with said herring by implying you guys are just jumping down Bush’s throat for shits and giggles, but would be fine with these actions committed by another president. Not for one second.

And the same goes for Debaser:

@Debaser

However, since this president is irrationally hated by all the liberals he gets slammed for doing it.

No, that’s not why. It’s because they live in the now.

[Revtim]

@Debaser

Revtim: Fair enough. He can come back and clear things up if he wants to.

If he’s got even the tiniest bit of a brain, he’ll avoid the fallacy by claiming he didn’t mean it to defend Bush, whether that was his intention or not.

[Homebrew]

Nikzor isn’t the be-all and end-all of defining logical fallacies.

Adam Smith Institute

Tu quoque means ‘you also,’ and is committed when a case is undermined by the claim that its proponent is himself guilty of what he talks of. It is a change of subject from a claim made by a proponent to one made against him.

[snip]

The fallacy of the tu quoque occurs because it makes no attempt to deal with the subject under discussion. A new subject is introduced, namely the record of someone involved. The truth or falsehood of an assertion has nothing to do with the background of the person who makes it. Evidence for or against that assertion is not altered by details of the previous actions of the one who is putting it forward.

Clothahump is clearly making a tu quoque by bringing up possible past infractions by other presidents to deflect attention from the current subject of the current president likely violating the law in the present.

[ivylass]

@Homebrew

Clothahump is clearly making a tu quoque by bringing up possible past infractions by other presidents to deflect attention from the current subject of the current president likely violating the law in the present.

I don’t follow. Are you saying that Clinton and Carter also broke the law?

[Debaser]

Besides, it’s not like Clinton or Carter are in this thread making any claims.

Clearly the actions of past presidents is relevent when discussing the actions of the current president. If you start wielding logical fallacies with such ham handed interpretations then any debate is impossible.

[ElvisL1ves]

So even you can’t find a way to defend him anymore either, huh?