What if I abandon my support of the war because the President is an abject liar who cannot be trusted even to tell us the correct time? What if I decide that the reasons he put forth for the war -to the limited extent they were not utter fabrications- have been accomplished, and that we need to start pulling out?
You're upset that some of us are abandoning the President? To hell with the President. He lies, he manipulates, he distracts from his own gross incompetence, and he plays politics by accusing people of playing politics.
I care about our country and I care about our troops. We should begin an orderly, safe withdrawal. For them.
Actually, that's a good summary of most of the arguments; a viscerally formed repetition, dismissiveness and self-reinforcing tautology - repeated endlessly until it forms a substrate upon which yet additional repetitions of the same are - endlessly repeated. Voila: The Political Truth du jour has magically been formed out of little or nothing. Our contemporary, political creationists, reciting chapter and verse of their own making; our political venomists cum solipcists.
Ask them to form a rational, well reasoned argument on the basis of the empirical evidence - and watch out, you've just stepped on the toes of their sum certain beliefs.
(Too, I fully realize many would dismiss that first paragraph as rhetorical bombast. It isn't, it does reflect however the extent one needs to go to in order to attempt to describe the pseudo-arguments forwarded by the Left and Left/Dems and their sundry adherents.)
Rhetorical bombast indeed. To the extent I was able to decipher it, I came up with something like: the Left vilifies the President and considers that enough to condemn all he does.
I do not. (Nor, if it matters, am I Lefty.) I supported the war, because I believed the President. But he was lying. There is no WMD. There was no WMD. It was all a lie. Now that he's been called on the lies, he attacks the callers as traitors.
Absent WMD, what was there to do? Get rid of Saddam? Good idea. OK, we're done. Keep the place stable while the Iraqis figure out who they want to run it? OK, we're working on it. That's it. No more to be done there. Start pulling back.
The Iraq war has also undermined our ability to fight the more immediate enemies: Iraq and Syria among them.
So disgust? Yes. With the President.
I'm sorry you think that was my starting point. It wasn't. It is my conclusion.
Didn't say you were a Lefty. (After supplying the quote I use it as an example, but do not otherwise personalize my comments against you specifically.) Still, the brief sentence I quoted reasonably summarizes your post and I can't be faulted for failing to read your mind. Nonetheless, in taking off from that quote and using it to typify much of what transpires as "debate" or "argument" from the Left and similar or similarly conformist commenters, my opening paragraph was accurate.
Another example: "But he was lying. There is no WMD. There was no WMD. It was all a lie. Now that he's been called on the lies, he attacks the callers as traitors."
Note I also spoke of asking "them to form a rational, well reasoned argument on the basis of the empirical evidence - and watch out, you've just stepped on the toes of their sum certain beliefs." Not only is there zero evidence the President was lying about WMD, all the official commissions which have been tasked to investigate this and similar questions have - entirely - exonerated the President on this charge. Never mind, it's endlessly repeated, as long as it sells. Still further, a wide variety of Dem and Left/Dem Senators and Representatives in addition to former Clinton officials such as Albright can be quoted and can even be viewed on video or heard on audio recordings to make some of the same statements concerning WMD which the President and other administration officals made in 2002/03.
Note I also spoke of the endless, unsupported repetitions which serve to forward yet additional endless, unsupported repetitions. Your response, such as it is, is an unembarrassed case in point.
I think you are mistaken. At least, you draw different conclusions from mine. There are plenty of timelines and precis and even orginal source material across the web for anyone to look at and draw his own conclusion. Just Google, as I'm sure you have.
From Wilson's trip, to Tenet's advice, to the SOTU address, to the Administration's efforts to discredit Wilson, I conclude: lie after lie. Clearly, you don't.
I don't accuse Bush of lying only about the war. He lies about the economy. He lies about the budget. He lies about social policy. I mean it when I say that I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time.
In my case, thinking that he lies does not stem from reflexive Bush-loathing.
Well, people can and do hold opinions which conflict with or are contrary to the evidence. All you're saying is you have your opinion and I have mine and ain't life wonderful. You can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts.
By contrast I previously noted:
"Not only is there zero evidence the President was lying about WMD, all the official commissions which have been tasked to investigate this and similar questions have - entirely - exonerated the President on this charge. Never mind, it's endlessly repeated, as long as it sells. Still further, a wide variety of Dem and Left/Dem Senators and Representatives in addition to former Clinton officials such as Albright can be quoted and can even be viewed on video or heard on audio recordings to make some of the same statements concerning WMD which the President and other administration officals made in 2002/03."
I can provide those quotes and the links, such as is evidenced here, but you've offered nothing concrete to support your assertions other than repeating them and then reinforcing them with yet additional repetitions of the same.
Endless repetitions, even if repeated hundreds or thousands of times, are not adequate substitutes for empirical evidence and well reasoned argument. Do you know what a 'mobius strip' is?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
What if I abandon my support of the war because the President is an abject liar who cannot be trusted even to tell us the correct time? What if I decide that the reasons he put forth for the war -to the limited extent they were not utter fabrications- have been accomplished, and that we need to start pulling out?
You're upset that some of us are abandoning the President? To hell with the President. He lies, he manipulates, he distracts from his own gross incompetence, and he plays politics by accusing people of playing politics.
I care about our country and I care about our troops. We should begin an orderly, safe withdrawal. For them.
"To hell with the President." carpundit
Actually, that's a good summary of most of the arguments; a viscerally formed repetition, dismissiveness and self-reinforcing tautology - repeated endlessly until it forms a substrate upon which yet additional repetitions of the same are - endlessly repeated. Voila: The Political Truth du jour has magically been formed out of little or nothing. Our contemporary, political creationists, reciting chapter and verse of their own making; our political venomists cum solipcists.
Ask them to form a rational, well reasoned argument on the basis of the empirical evidence - and watch out, you've just stepped on the toes of their sum certain beliefs.
(Too, I fully realize many would dismiss that first paragraph as rhetorical bombast. It isn't, it does reflect however the extent one needs to go to in order to attempt to describe the pseudo-arguments forwarded by the Left and Left/Dems and their sundry adherents.)
Rhetorical bombast indeed. To the extent I was able to decipher it, I came up with something like: the Left vilifies the President and considers that enough to condemn all he does.
I do not. (Nor, if it matters, am I Lefty.) I supported the war, because I believed the President. But he was lying. There is no WMD. There was no WMD. It was all a lie. Now that he's been called on the lies, he attacks the callers as traitors.
Absent WMD, what was there to do? Get rid of Saddam? Good idea. OK, we're done. Keep the place stable while the Iraqis figure out who they want to run it? OK, we're working on it. That's it. No more to be done there. Start pulling back.
The Iraq war has also undermined our ability to fight the more immediate enemies: Iraq and Syria among them.
So disgust? Yes. With the President.
I'm sorry you think that was my starting point. It wasn't. It is my conclusion.
Didn't say you were a Lefty. (After supplying the quote I use it as an example, but do not otherwise personalize my comments against you specifically.) Still, the brief sentence I quoted reasonably summarizes your post and I can't be faulted for failing to read your mind. Nonetheless, in taking off from that quote and using it to typify much of what transpires as "debate" or "argument" from the Left and similar or similarly conformist commenters, my opening paragraph was accurate.
Another example: "But he was lying. There is no WMD. There was no WMD. It was all a lie. Now that he's been called on the lies, he attacks the callers as traitors."
Note I also spoke of asking "them to form a rational, well reasoned argument on the basis of the empirical evidence - and watch out, you've just stepped on the toes of their sum certain beliefs." Not only is there zero evidence the President was lying about WMD, all the official commissions which have been tasked to investigate this and similar questions have - entirely - exonerated the President on this charge. Never mind, it's endlessly repeated, as long as it sells. Still further, a wide variety of Dem and Left/Dem Senators and Representatives in addition to former Clinton officials such as Albright can be quoted and can even be viewed on video or heard on audio recordings to make some of the same statements concerning WMD which the President and other administration officals made in 2002/03.
Note I also spoke of the endless, unsupported repetitions which serve to forward yet additional endless, unsupported repetitions. Your response, such as it is, is an unembarrassed case in point.
I think you are mistaken. At least, you draw different conclusions from mine. There are plenty of timelines and precis and even orginal source material across the web for anyone to look at and draw his own conclusion. Just Google, as I'm sure you have.
From Wilson's trip, to Tenet's advice, to the SOTU address, to the Administration's efforts to discredit Wilson, I conclude: lie after lie. Clearly, you don't.
I don't accuse Bush of lying only about the war. He lies about the economy. He lies about the budget. He lies about social policy. I mean it when I say that I wouldn't trust him to tell me the time.
In my case, thinking that he lies does not stem from reflexive Bush-loathing.
It's the other way around.
carpundit,
Well, people can and do hold opinions which conflict with or are contrary to the evidence. All you're saying is you have your opinion and I have mine and ain't life wonderful. You can have your own opinion, you can't have your own facts.
By contrast I previously noted:
"Not only is there zero evidence the President was lying about WMD, all the official commissions which have been tasked to investigate this and similar questions have - entirely - exonerated the President on this charge. Never mind, it's endlessly repeated, as long as it sells. Still further, a wide variety of Dem and Left/Dem Senators and Representatives in addition to former Clinton officials such as Albright can be quoted and can even be viewed on video or heard on audio recordings to make some of the same statements concerning WMD which the President and other administration officals made in 2002/03."
I can provide those quotes and the links, such as is evidenced here, but you've offered nothing concrete to support your assertions other than repeating them and then reinforcing them with yet additional repetitions of the same.
Endless repetitions, even if repeated hundreds or thousands of times, are not adequate substitutes for empirical evidence and well reasoned argument. Do you know what a 'mobius strip' is?