The Bill Press Fallacy (is it AOK to dis the Prez?)

Self | Apr 2, 2002 | The Duke

[The Duke]

Last night Bill Press of CNN was a guest on Hannity and Colmes and was discussing the legitimacy of voicing opposition to the President on matters other than those related to the war. Mr. Press advocated, for example, the legitimacy of opposing the President on issues pertaining to "the environment".

Personally I don't find myself an ardent supporter of the current administration simply because it's proven to be significantly to the left of my position on the political spectrum, however I must take issue with Mr. Press' assertion that there is any legitimacy at all in detracting from the President during our current national crisis.

America today is likely a single terrorist event away from the type of social disruption that has heretofore been the province of the science fiction writer. Imagine one single major city being rendered uninhabitable due to a terrorist action (c'mon, it's easy if you can). Why should our reaction be any different to an uncertainty at an airport, resulting in the evacution of that airport, than to an uncertainty within a major city?

Bill Press's fallacy is not that the President should be subject to criticism on issues in the news unrelated to America's war on terrorism - but rather his fallacy is the stipulation that there exist any issues and/or stories other than the war.

[The Duke]

Until the threat of terrorism is extinguished America can ill afford to expend her energies in the debate of unrelated issues. And you can rest assured that if I know this the leftist media knows it as well. They continue to attack the President because their political agendas are more important to them than even America's survival - and perhaps in some cases because their agendas are at odds with America's survival.

[liberalism=failure]

Mr. Press advocated, for example, the legitimacy of opposing the President on issues pertaining to "the environment".

"the environment", as press referred to it, is very much a national security issue. Drilling ANWR would not disturb anything other than 2 square miles out of thousands, but it would make us independent from a great deal of mideast oil.

BTW I wonder if Bill Press remembers when liberal democrats said it was terrible to criticize Clinton for bombing an aspirin factory in the Sudan to distract from his Monica troubles? I bet Bill press was in on that one.

If this were played out in reverse the democrats would be doing it even more.

[cricket]

"They continue to attack the President because their political agendas are more important to them than even America's survival - and perhaps in some cases because their agendas are at odds with America's survival."

bump for truth. . .

The 'Left' are terrorists in Liberal clothing. . .

[serinde]

Until the threat of terrorism is extinguished America can ill afford to expend her energies in the debate of unrelated issues.

I think that "the threat of terrorism" is a poor excuse for not calling Bush on his actions that are counter-productive to America and our freedoms. And there are LOTS of those actions.

The concept that fewer liberties equals more safety is totally false, but Bush and other officials are proclaiming it loudly. The "war on terrorism," while needed to a degree, is actually turning into a defeat for American liberties, not terrorists.

[MurryMom]

Bill Press's fallacy is not that the President should be subject to criticism on issues in the news unrelated to America's war on terrorism - but rather his fallacy is the stipulation that there exist any issues and/or stories other than the war.

Carrying this argument to its logical extreme means that little Dumbya ought to give up on his efforts to destroy the environment and the economy through his short-sighted and unexplained policies, because those issues are irrelevant compared with Dumbya's conduct of the "war".

[ladtx]

little Dumbya ought to give up on his efforts to destroy the environment

C'mon MurryMom,aka Molly Ivins, give us one example of how the environment will be destroyed and how that is more important than our survival as a nation of free people.

[chocobot]

Until the threat of terrorism is extinguished America can ill afford to expend her energies in the debate of unrelated issues.

The War on Terrorism won't extinguish the threat of terrorism any more than the War on Drugs has or ever will extinguish drugs, so you're talking about an indefinite moratorium on criticism of the policies of the executive branch. Handwaving about how the War on Terrorism must preempt all debate on issues affecting this country is surely as self-serving as any criticism of the President.

Policy debates, politicized as they may be, are a hallmark of democracy. Unchecked fealty to the executive is a hallmark of dictatorships. See esp. Saddam Hussein.

Sorry, try again.

[Sandy]

Until the threat of terrorism is extinguished America can ill afford to expend her energies in the debate of unrelated issues.

Don't be ridiculous. The threat of terrorism will never be extinguished.

[Common Tator]

It tells you something about Fox,when their programmsers book a failed host of CNN and think it will draw an audience.

There is no profession whose members are more incestuous than the media.

[Sandy]

so you're talking about an indefinite moratorium on criticism of the policies of the executive branch

Exactly. As if asking us to permanently give up our free speech rights is a-okay. Personally, I will never let the War on Terror distract my attention from government shenanigans.

[MinuteGal]

Yikes, last night I was channel surfing and saw Crossfire which I haven't watched for two years. It's nothing more than a freak show! Little Tommy Tucker with his bow tie, the space alien Carville with creepy smoked shades, the ferret-looking Begala and the glum-looking, out-of-place Novak. I quickly moved on to Fox.

All Crossfire needs now is a plaid-suited barker instead of an announcer.

Leni

[1Old Pro]

Bill Press is no different from the main stream liberal media except they attempt to hide their hard left views and he spouts them out loudly.

[Always Right]

Carrying this argument to its logical extreme means that little Dumbya ought to give up on his efforts to destroy the environment and the economy through his short-sighted and unexplained policies

Murrymom, its been a while since I have come across your droppings.

[Benson_Carter]

first of all, "the threat of terrorism" will NEVER be extinguished. You can minimize the threat, but you can never live free from terrorism.

Second, in America, I believe that it is our duty as citizens, the final check and balance in this great experiment with liberty, to questions our leaders at ALL times. Take for instance the USA PATRIOT act. Should that be free from criticism because of what it was in responce to? No, certainly not.

just a few ideas. Not that I like Bill Press or anything...