Posted on 08/05/2004 2:59:12 PM PDT by swilhelm73
Two friends of mine recently got into a brief political debate after our weekly softball game. Friend A argued that George W. Bush was "a moron"; Friend B, on the other hand, insisted that Bush was "an evil SOB." The issue was resolved when A noted that the two propositions weren't mutually exclusive: Bush could be an evil SOB who also happened to be a moron.
What's remarkable about this exchange is that it's so unremarkable — indeed, it's difficult to dine out in Manhattan nowadays and not overhear a conversation along these lines. New Yorkers, who pride themselves on their sophistication, seem honestly to believe that calling the president names constitutes a compelling argument against his policies. But that's only the most glaring logical error at work in what might be described as the Bashers' Case Against Bush.
Another common error is the idea that a connection equals a cause — call it the Michael Moore Fallacy. Bush bashers invariably point to his family's business dealings with the oil-rich Saudi royal family, or to Dick Cheney's former job as head of the oil company Halliburton, and therefore assume that the administration's policies toward Iraq are dictated primarily by the fact that the country sits on billions of gallons of oil. But playing connect-the-dots in order to prove someone's motives is always tricky, and often absurd. For example: Noam Chomsky's book sales have skyrocketed since the invasion of Iraq; Chomsky teaches at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; MIT is a major contractor for the Department of Defense; the Iraqi war strengthens the Defense Department requests for budget increases.... Therefore, Noam Chomsky conspired with the Defense Department to convince President Bush to invade Iraq.
What's lacking in every basher argument against Bush's preemptive war in Iraq is a grasp of who bears the burden of proof. The casus belli, according to Bush, was that Saddam was in violation of the cease-fire agreement that left him in power after the first Gulf War — and, following September 11, such defiance could no longer be tolerated. Bush's claim might be written off as mere flimflam — except that Saddam actually was in violation of the cease-fire agreement, and September 11 actually did alter many Americans' perceptions of tolerable risks. Moreover, we now know that Bush had learned of secret meetings between al Qaeda and Iraqi officials, that he'd learned of Saddam's attempts to acquire uranium from Niger, and that he'd been warned by Russian President Vladimir Putin that Saddam was planning terrorist strikes against the United States.
Yet Bush's stated rationale for going to war is universally sneered at by Bush bashers. On what basis? Typically, the basher will simply insist on his own ability to peer into Bush's soul to discern the "true" motive — dismissing as irrelevant Bush's specific justifications. And the "true" motive is always the same: Bush invaded Iraq to line the pockets of his corporate capitalist cronies.
To suppose this, however, is to suppose that President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, et. al., were willing, in effect, to commit mass murder in order to enrich themselves and their friends. Here's where the burden of proof comes in. Believing such a thing entails a burden of proof so astronomically high that nothing short of a videotape of the parties actually plotting it — or at least a signed memo detailing that plot — would even begin to surmount any rational observer's doubt.
To be sure, nothing I've just said proves that President Bush was right to invade Iraq. It was a tough call, and reasonable people can disagree on its wisdom. But reasonable people do not base their arguments on name-calling or mind-reading.
Then again, the category "reasonable people" does not include many Bush bashers.
New Yorkers may pride themselves on their "sophistication," but trust me on this one -- they are generally among the most shallow, superficial people I've ever met.
They are like drunks in denial. There is noo reasoning with them.
When radioactive waste is spewing from a dirty bomb in their city, they may wake up, but it will be too late.
They believe whatever the Ministry of Truth tells them, and can reverse themselves overnight, if that is what the Party Line requires.
Bush is Evil - the REpublicans are the eternal enemy - it's Big Oil, yada yada yada yada
Orwell might as well have stayed in bed, as far as these jackasses go.
There are certainly Michael Moore Kool-Aid drinkers who believe that all of those people are evil, which is why I think this misses the bigger question. Why did Tony Blair and the UK go along with the Iraqi invasion? I want the liberals to tell me why the center-left Prime Minister of the UK and friend of Bill Clinton went along with George W. Bush's war if it were only about oil. As for rushing into war, am I the only one who remembers the months of debates in the UN? Gotta love revisionism-based conspiracy theories...
Kerry claims that Bush is "squandering" the good will towards Americans generated by 9/11. Same thing goes for New York City.
And he's trying as he might to protect these ingrateful pieces of filth.
NYC Liberal live in this bubble. It is not as though there are not other voices around them, there of course are those voices but they are just out of earshot. To question even in the slightest the pieties and bromides of Liberal doctrine around any group of Liberals, no matter how worldly sophisticated or experienced, is to submit oneself literally to abusive shouting, yelling and even at times the threat of physical violence. I have know peoploe that have lost their jobsoer it or have been passed over for promotions. It can come up in job interviews. I know that sort of stuff is illegal but what is one to do?
Even the intelligent among them have a quite hard time dealing rationally with what is going on in this country. It is hard to face the fact that every thing you believe and have based your entire life on is a lie.
How else would they have voted for Hitlery?
Not much to squander. The "good will" generated by 9/11 toward Americans by the Eurowimps and others is largely a myth and was short-lived at best.No later than 9/12 numerous declarations of how America brought on the 9/11 attack, in effect justifying it, could he heard and read around the world, including from the American left.
WELL it won't be long and they can all discuss it with the devil, because "Hell" is where they will be going as the hourglass is about out of sand anyway!
It isn't Bush they hate, but the Jesus in him....Jesus said "they will hate you because they hate me", simple as that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.