I don't often read Josh Marshall, but he had a reputation for being a reasonably objective lefty (was willing to point out that the Rathergate memos were, well... not really evidence of anything negative about GWB) so I decided to see
about the Democrats' "that bad man tricked us, mommy" meme. Alas, there isn't even a mustard seed of objectivity now. To whit:
So, if you were thinking some semblance of objective truth has any relevance, well just grow the heck up you impossible romantic. Because even though Joe Wilson's CIA debrief said the opposite of his NYT piece, we know what he meant, right? Because within the boundaries of the hermeneutic circle the phrase "the Iraqis were seeking uranium in Niger" means the same as "the Iraqis were not seeking uranium in Niger." Nobody's counting anyway. Do you see anybody counting? I don't see anybody counting. Relatively speaking...
Isn't this a misuse of the term "parallel?" I mean, isn't he saying that the decisive issue is whether or not Bush has a committed base of support? Which, strictly speaking, would be the same, rather than a parallel dynamic... right? But maybe he means something else?
1. The President's "push back" is transparently so ridiculous that we needn't even reiterate its content here... because it's so ridiculous... and just silly... and not worth our time at all. No way, no how!
2. And all of those arguments we can't hear through the flesh and bones of our thumbs might as well be a chorus of airhorns at a football game, because we're not even listening... na na na na... can't hear... na na na na... a word... na na na... just noise... na na na... to impress... na na na... the evil Bushitlerburton's base... na na na na na na!
Not circular reasoning. It's really not. With two centroids it's more like... elliptical. Yeah, definitely not circular.
1
Just for the record I should probably point out that Joe Wilson's two testimonies weren't precisely oppositional. In his CIA debrief he offered evidence that tended to support the case that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger, without a conclusion that they were doing so. This makes his conclusion that Iraq was
not seeking uranium in Niger, in his
NYT editorial, incongruous at best. See, I didn't even say he was a liar. He just made up the truth, is all.
Posted by: Demosophist at November 17, 2005 12:02 PM (DHg+k)
2
Since the contradictions and changing positions of the lib/left are so obvious - it has to be for some other reason or ulterior motive or goal. They are many things but stupid isn't one of them (lets be honest here - the word is thrown out far to often).
Outside the US the driving force is anti-Americanism .. the issue itself doesn't matter.
In the US the driving force is the Culture War - Iraq is just a prop to them to rally around and use while other unspoken domestic cultural issues simmer below the surface.
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 12:49 PM (Jvmry)
3
Since the contradictions and changing positions of the lib/left are so obvious - it has to be for some other reason or ulterior motive or goal.
Lust for power.
Hatred for their opponents to the point of dementia.
Posted by: Robert Crawford at November 17, 2005 01:28 PM (n5eDP)
4
Barone and McCain have it right: people, including Marshall, who say the President lied are liars.
Posted by: Dean Esmay at November 17, 2005 04:48 PM (S1ka/)
5
Circular logic is a fundamental tenet of leftism.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 05:05 PM (YudAC)
6
I've just finished reading the link you provided to ProteinWisdom. Excellent material there. What I find so interesting is that The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee, The Butler Report and the Robb-Silberman Commission all came to the conclusion that there was no coercion, influence or pressure to change the intelligence. Yet ... the opposition here (and abroad) are overtly displaying coercion, influence and pressure to change that conclusion.
It's not unlike the "keep counting the votes until we win" strategy.
Posted by: Oyster at November 17, 2005 05:38 PM (YudAC)
7
Oyster:
What I find so interesting is that The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee, The Butler Report and the Robb-Silberman Commission all came to the conclusion that there was no coercion, influence or pressure to change the intelligence.
Oyster, SSC & R-S were precluded by their terms of reference from reaching the conclusions you say they reached. You read "we sought no evidence" and "we saw no evidence" as "there was no evidence". You read denials that evidenced was changed as denials that evidence was pressured, slanted, cherry-picked and stove-piped. You are GOP-deluded and/or self-deluded.
Posted by: AlanDownunder at November 17, 2005 06:11 PM (VXfDQ)
8
Why would the administration lie about evidence so they could get in a war where they knew the subsequent intel would prove embara$$ing?
Seriously, I don't even think democrats are that retarded...well maybe.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 17, 2005 07:38 PM (Id2gd)
9
purple
Try this one - there were no terrorists in Iraq but since the US invasion it has become a haven for terrorists and now detracts us from the war on terrorism.
I can't figure it out.
Posted by: hondo at November 17, 2005 10:08 PM (Jvmry)
10
Oyster, SSC & R-S were precluded by their terms of reference from reaching the conclusions you say they reached. You read "we sought no evidence" and "we saw no evidence" as "there was no evidence". Blah, blah, blah, etc.
????
Oyster's statement was a synopsis of several conclusions, among which were:
SSC: “Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction capabilities. [And yes, that does mean they were looking for evidence. Otherwise there'd have been no point in making the statement.] Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President’s visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.” ("Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq,” U.S. Senate Select Committee On Intelligence, 7/7/04, p. 284-285)
R-S: “No Evidence Of Political Pressure.” “These are errors serious errors. But these errors stem from poor tradecraft and poor management. The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community’s pre-war assessments of Iraq’s weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.”
These two conclusions were about "pressure and influence," but absent that I just don't see how there's even the ghost of a case that the Bush Administration coerced anything, or deliberately misled anyone. If youd don't think so, look up the term "coerced" in your handy
Webster's. Moreover, there's just no evidence presented that the commissions cited were precluded from reaching conclusions relevant to the bogus indictments of the
NYT.
So your post was just smoke, and what it reflects about you and your cause is that you have inordinate faith in sophistry and deconstructionist hermeneutics, and precious little faith in plain auld sense and good auld honesty. Or to put it another way (using Penn and Teller's apt phraseology): BS.
Believe it or not, when you "ain't got nuthin'" you're way better off to just admit it and move on. Otherwise people have only two options to choose from: 1 You're crazy; or 2 you're unprincipled. Or both.
Posted by: Demosophist at November 18, 2005 12:32 AM (0fhcJ)
11
Wilson's report to the CIA was supposed to suggest that Saddam was _shopping_ for yellowcake.
I understand that Wilson's NYT article said Saddam had not _purchased_ yellowcake.
Both statements could be true, if my understanding of what they were is correct.
Posted by: Phillep at November 18, 2005 09:30 AM (TN/ft)
12
You know, Phillep, I got the same impression. Wilson was careful to be as dishonest as he could without outright fabrication in order to push an agenda forward. And he knew there would be enough people out there that wanted so badly to believe that, they wouldn't even catch it.
Remember, Joe Wilson was a diplomat. Someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you actually look forward to the trip. Deception and manipulation is their business.
Posted by: Oyster at November 18, 2005 10:17 AM (YudAC)
13
Quothe Oyster:
"Circular logic is a fundamental tenet of leftism."
Not just leftism, but any ideology which is not supportable by hard, cold reality. Circular logic is nothing but a series of logical leaps, forward, backward, and sideways, which dodge facts that refute or do not support the "truth", i.e. a predetermined conclusion, and seek out any scraps and bits of potential supporting evidence, no matter how specious, even if they have to be made up out of whole cloth.
Take religion for example; without circular logic religion couldn't exist, because religion relies up
faith, not facts, and faith is nothing more than a belief held in absence of, or contrary to, the known facts. But because we are rational creatures, (and I use the term very loosely when speaking of the whole of humanity), we can't look reality and logic in the eye without blinking, so we have to make up an alternate reality, supported by an alternate logic, so that we can keep our faith and not go insane, though this clearly does't work very well, as is demonstrated by the fact that the most insane people in our society are otherwise completely sane and reasonable, but are driven mad by an ideology that is incompatible with reality, and so engage in behavior that is destructive to themselves and others.
Leftist political ideology is no different from religion in that it is full of
non-sequiturs which require great leaps of faith in order for our logical brains to accept them. We have evolved the ability to ingore or even refute facts, so that we may believe what we want, and this is a guaranteed formula for trouble. Circular logic, and
any ideology that requires its support, is instrinsically false, and cannot be made otherwise.
Now for the disclaimer: I'm not saying that all religions are as kooky as communism or islam, the former being as much a religion as the latter, but that they have certain things in common. A man once tried to convince me that he, though not himself in possession of the keys to heaven, knew where they lay. I, having long ago abandoned all matters of religion and faith, politely declined to drink his Kool-Aid, having tasted it before and found it sweet at first blush, but then bitter and potentially fatal if swallowed. He then said the most astonishing thing; he asked me if I had read the Classics much, which I had, and he told me that my trouble was that I was a Greek thinker, i.e. a linear thinker, and that I would have to learn to think circuitously in order to be able to regain my faith. Such honesty was shocking from someone who clearly wanted me to abandon honest reason and fact-based logic, and it was then that I felt fully justified in my rejection of faith.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 18, 2005 10:26 AM (0yYS2)
14
Maxie
There is no God but Alphafa and Buckweat is his prophet -
can I get an OTAY!
Before I can accept you as a true non-believer you must first drink from the cup of Ayn Rand.
Posted by: hondo at November 18, 2005 12:50 PM (Jvmry)
Posted by: Oyster's Doppelganger at November 18, 2005 01:02 PM (YudAC)
16
I drank from Ayn Rand's cup one time, and the taste was bitter. I spit it out, unlike Plato.
Posted by: jesusland joe at November 18, 2005 01:45 PM (rUyw4)
17
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
--Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman
Posted by: Jeff G. at November 19, 2005 12:49 PM (1MHqI)
18
Jeff:
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
That's what I thought.
Posted by: Demosophist at November 20, 2005 01:21 AM (pD/kV)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
