Bricker, vis-a-vis claims of a connection between AQ and Saddam? Here’s a couple to get you started:
– Vice President Cheney, National Public Radio, “Morning Edition,” 1/22/04
Before I respond in detail…
Would someone please define, specifically, what proposition they believe I am supposed to be proving?
Thanks.
Could it the claims of direct linkage between Saddam and AQ?
Just a wild guess, since that’s exactly the contention Mr S made and you asked for cites to.
Yep, I’m a wild and crazy guy after all!
Hope that helps. Well, the first part anyway.
See, here’s the thing, Bricker. You are intent on focusing the argument on acquiting the President of the charge of lying. To this end, you ask us to present you with certain proofs, and then proceed to parse the meanings, to bring to bear whatever semantic arguments can be made to appear relevent. These are rational arguments, no denying it. But they are not reasonable arguments, they are lawyerly arguments.
We both know that the odds of flipping a coin and having it land heads each of 1,000 tries are astronomical. But each and every of the trials it is perfectly reasonable to expect a result of “heads”. I am assured by the mathematically inclined amongst us that this is perfectly sensible, and I take their word for it.
As in the IAEA incident above, you posit a scenario not in evidence: perhaps he was talking about something else, maybe he simply mispoke about some other report. Well, maybe he did. That is not irrational.
But given the great flood of untruth, half-truth, and shaded truth that has passed through the lips of the Bushivik team, as they begin to pile up, one atop another atop another… Each and every one might be defended, each one might be seen to be, possibly, “heads”. But it is not reasonable that so many non-truths could pass through them without any awareness on their part, such innocence strains credulity, it boggles the mind and buggers all understanding.
It is a rational argument, composed of premises, conjectures, and semantic shadings, it is intelligent, in its way. It almost winks at us in recognition of its own cleverness, the bright intelligence it warps to its purpose. It is a display, a mental peacock strutting its feathers.
It is a relentlessly, mercilessly rational argument. But it is not a reasonable argument.
Ooh, yeah. Sorry, man. I realize this one is a particular bear to defend. Go ahead, though. Give it a shot. I bet you can do it!
It is time again for:
[super cynical mode]
On the Torture thread I said I was going with my gut feeling and said that I suspected the torture interrogations gave the administration what it wanted: connections to TWAT to Iraq. It was an educated guess, it was a cinical guess, finding information that supports that gut feeling still feels like a puch to the same.
I do feel now more than ever that a factor on why very little was investigated regarding the information obtained by the torture of the prisioners is because many torturerers and enablers that where “effective” on finding the now proven false evidence are typically promoted by this administration. (hello Mr. Alberto Gonzales!)
[/super cynical mode]
I’d say ‘no’. That’s one area that Mr. S mentioned, and it’s one I asked for more detail on, but surely you agree that even if I were to conclusively show that Mr. Bush never made a claim of direct linkage between Saddam and A-Q, my task would not be over… right?
I’m trying to show that there’s a rational argument to be made that exclude Mr. Bush’s deliberate lying… that it’s more likely that the problems raised above are the result of incompetence in the administration rather than deliberate lying.
Does everyone agree that THAT is what I’m supposed to be showing?
No, not in the way you mean. You seem to define “rational” not in the way people mean it, but in a lawyerly way, that is to say, an argument made to convince those who already want to be convinced, and want rationalization to pass a law
Thanks. Again, my apologies for my misunderstanding you.
Yes, certainly - the Powell speech was primarily about Iraqi WMD programs, and Iraqi attempts to hide them. But even there, Powell made a passing reference to Saddam’s torture and murders. So it would not be accurate to say that even that speech was solely about WMDs.
I would like to respond to this, but I don’t really have time (the unfortunate necessity of earning a living), and part of the reason for my misunderstanding MaxTheVool above was that I didn’t have time to read carefully. So I will just drop this in, and check back later.
Do you recognize a distinction between “Iraq has WMD”, and “Iraq has not lived up to her commitments to prove she has no WMD”?
Because I see a lot of references to violations of the inspection regime in most of the cites provided. In fact, I would say this was much of the justification for the invasion. And a lot more of it was the idea that we needed to invade Iraq before she got WMD.
You mentioned earlier that you believed that Iraq was not part of the global war on terror before the invasion. I don’t believe this is true, based on the “axis of evil” speech, as well as the differing ways that Iraq, and Libya, Iran, and North Korea have been treated. North Korea, for instance, is being treated differently than Iraq, largely because NK has nukes. (This may also be part of the reason that Pakistan, who you mentioned as well, is being treated differently than, say, Libya.)
Shoot, gotta go.
Regards,
Shodan
I do. Do you, as well, recognize a distinction between “United States of America” and “United Nations”? Iraq had a committment to the UN, not the US. I know its only a silly little letter, but those twits at the UN seem bent on insisting that they are not merely an arm of the US Government. That the US does not have the right to make and enforce judgements on obligations to the UN. Where do they get such bizarre notions?
That dog won’t hunt. That dog is dead.
Again, I’d like to draw Bricker’s attention to the phrase “reckless disregard for the truth,” which, in defamation law at least, is treated as the equivalent of an intentional lie.
I’ve never been called either of those, or anything similar as far as I know, by any of the anti-Bush crowd. I don’t hate Bush with every fiber of my being. IIRC the only comment I’ve ever made about MoveOn.org or any of their “positions”(which I’ve only seen referenced in SDMB threads, having only visited the site once to see a couple of the election ads a year or so ago) was that I thought the “Your kids will be paying for Bush’s tax cuts” ad was clever. I think Bush is wrong. I think he’s deeply misguided and playing the game of politics, which certainly includes lying and being deceptive, towards what he sees as the best outcome for the most people, especially US citizens. I have seen enough flaws in the way the Admin is being run and how they are handling things to believe they are aiming for a goal which is unattainable and will burn through large amounts of bodies and money before learning this goal is unrealistic. Plus I think the goal of sheperding the world, or even the ME, towards democracy is not the legitimate province of the US.
If I had to draw an analogy I would compare Bush and most of his top associates to the Bolshiveks. Noble intentions, unrealistic goal, shitty execution.
I just hope it doesn’t take as long and incur the kind of costs for the US to learn the lesson as it did for the USSR.
Enjoy,
Steven
Well, you and I would disagree on that point then. It’s like saying
“He’s got WMD ,oh, and, WMD, and some more WMD, and he’s even testing WMD on prisoners in order to make better WMD.”
Torture/murder was never mentioned on its own as a justification, only in the context of showing how ruthless he was with his WMD program.
lekatt, I would like to point out something. Earlier in this thread, you said the following.
All those sound like nice ideas. However, if you are wondering why people don’t follow them in regards to you, it is because you have violated most of those points, and also because many of your posts are in fact easy to judge at face value. Also, often your “case studies” are nothing of the kind.
Perhaps it was the haste that you wrote the above quote with, perhaps it’s my own inability to parse it, but I am having a hard time figuring out what you tried to convey.
You appear to be saying that Iraq was a part of TWAT simply because Bush said so despite all available evidence – then and specially now – to the contrary. How in the world can you justify said belief? And I don’t even mean to anyone else, but to yourself, seeing as you have on this MB, copious evidence to the contrary. Of course, with such a faulty premise to begin with, I can see how we have little to nothing in common in this whole clusterfuck.
Not that your second line is any more encouraging, because, once again in my interpretation, all you seem to be saying is that you chose to invade Iraq because it was the path of least resistance and well, simply because you could. IOW, nothing more, or less, than the simplistic yet deadly Big Dog approach other Bush backers favor.
Lesson learned? Best hurry up and get your WMDs less the Big Dog comes to our house.
You comfortable with that? Or did I misread you completely? Sure hope so.
Bricker:
Well, speaking for myself (since I was the one who got you into this mess), I don’t really expect you to prove any particular proposition. I was just curious about your point of view regarding the list of evidence I presented on page 3.
To my mind no one piece of that evidence, arguably, is damning when taken in isolation – although some pieces are pretty strong. Rather, it’s when we look at all of them as a whole that the conclusion begins to appear inescapable. All of them point in the same direction: we see a so-called “consilience of inductions.”
Well, I for one can say that I’d be very interested in hearing an argument of that sort. If you could convince me then I’d even be a bit relieved, because I am truly worried by the depths to which the US seems to have sunk.
However, to be clear, Bush is only one actor on this stage. Occasionally I use “Bush” as short-hand for the clumsier “Bush administration,” since I feel in the final analysis that Bush is responsible for his administration. If someone under him lied in order to instigate a war I’d expect Bush to prosecute that person to the fullest extent of the law, for example. Since nothing of the kind has happened, Bush is in my view at least partially responsible for the lies other members of his administration have perpetrated as well as his own. Perhaps I should be more clear about this point, but you may have noticed my list included items that did not directly issue from the presidential pie-hole, but for which I hold that pie-hole accountable.
In addition, I’d like to point out that there’s a significant difference between a “rational” argument and a “convincing” argument. Rational arguments can be constructed to support all sorts of preposterous assertions. Construction of a rational but fundamentally unconvincing argument to support your view will almost certainly prove to be an exercise in futility here, so if that’s your intent, I’d advise you not to waste your time.
Finally, I’d like to rise in support of a point made gentletexan from Minnesota, Big Luci: I find his coin-toss analogy particularly apt. Intelligence gathering may be a “murky business,” but in the case of Iraq our administration would have us believe it to be a totally opaque one. Not one of the pre-war claims about Saddam Hussein’s “WMDs,” or his ties to al-Qaeda or other organizations of international terrorism, has panned out. Not a single one. Think about that. It’s not a matter of 25% of the claims being incorrect, and 75% being accurate. This would be a lousy accuracy rating, but given it I guess I would be more predisposed to believe the incorrect 25% could simply be honest error. It’s not a matter of 50% being incorrect, and 50% being correct. At that level I would expect even true believers might start scratching their heads a bit (although I’m clearly an optimist with that expectation). It’s not a matter 75% being incorrect and 25% being correct, such as might allow us to argue that intelligence gathering is an extremely murky business. No: we’re looking at a situation in which 99.5% of the claims were incorrect, and .5% correct, if that. That’s not murk; it’s total blackout.
It is very hard for me to believe that this ratio could be the result of mere incompetence on the part of the administration.
It’s virtually impossible, so far as I know, to convince someone away from a position of which that someone is already convinced.
Another way to look at it – the listener can choose to be unconvinced, regadless of what’s presented. And no one would be the wiser. Can’t argue against “I’m not convinced”.
Can’t speak for Shodan, but I do agree with him that the war in Iraq is a front in the “War on Terror” (actually a “War of Neoconservative Brinkmanship and of Weakening Terror”, because the terrorists aren’t just going to disappear into nothing).
But note – “War on Terror” is not the same as “War to Avenge 9-11”. At this point, 9-11 is not all that relevant. There is a lot, lot more going on than “avenging” 9-11.
Come now – just because the U.S. could? There are in fact concrete goals in mind concerning the “War on Terror”. Are you well versed on neoconservative policy? There’s an idea shared among many neoconservative policy makers that pre-emptive violence may sometimes be necessary to bolster American security – admittedly, and pragmatically, at the (hopefully short-term) expense of the security of some other nations. The estimate of the cost of this violence – in dollars and in lives – has been measured and found acceptable.
How can you debate the morality of was when there is fundamental disagreement on the value of the lives lost (again … not speaking for Shodan)? Neoconservative policy may be appalling, insidious, and heinous … but there it is. How best to deal with it?
This isn’t the worst thing that could come of the War on Terror, IMHO. The Cold War arms race between the USSR and US actually served indirectly to promote peace (by making all-out war too risky) and eventually foster detente. This seems to be the case with North Korea already – abject as the regime is, there are no bullets flying right now.
I wish we could do better, but in the meantime – yes. **Shodan ** may answer for himself.
Hang on… you DON’T hate Bush with every fiber of your being, and yet the SDMB Liberal Usual Suspect Deadly Viper Assassination Squad has NOT called you lots of nasty words?
Why, it’s almost like there’s a meme floating around that is widely trumpeted by some board conservatives* but (as we see from this counterexample) provably false.
Huh.
*Note my use of the word “some”. There are some who don’t lower themselves to that kind of generalizing, which is much appreciated.
I think the only reasonable question is whether it was due to deliberate deceit of others, or inadvertent self-deceit.