Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ranger:
moving away from the previous tonal register.
let's see if this works.
|
Fair enough. I'll attempt to follow suit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
two points/questions:
1. in the strict sense--sadly--you are right. there seems to be no recourse for what i see as an outcome shaped by hysteria (the congressional approval of bushwar).
the question of whether the approval was rooted in false premises is, from ths viewpoint, a political rather than directly legal one.
the argument that i was making above actually converges with yours in a backhanded way: there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment--not because there are not problems, not because there are not a thousand reasons that the bush squad should be held to account, but simply because there is no possibility that the congress would initiate it (as over against the clinton thing--the point there was that initiating impeachment is a purely political move.)
|
Well, it appears that we do agree on something. You're correct, there will be no hearing, no process, no impeachment. Unfortunately, we do not agree on the reasons why there won't be. I submit that the reason that there won't be is simply because there is no reason for it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
you appear to be fine with that, from your responses.
|
Let me clarify, I am fine with there being no impeachment process. There is no basis for it. It is as simple as that. We can go round and round on whether or not we agree the war was justified, but impeachment is merely a fringe fantasy at this point.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
i would argue that this possibility--that hysteria can override normal checks and result in launching a war on false pretenses---is a significant political problem that should require a political response. surely you would concede--were you to consider the matter--that if one were to find the case against bushwar compelling, that teh call for some type of serious response, some type of serious censure of the responsable parties within the bush administration--would follow.
|
The only hysteria I see is coming from those on the left. I am amused by the visions of lefties all in a tizzy running up and down their dormitory hallways waving copies of the Downing Street Memo frantically above their heads yelling "BUSH LIED!!! BUSH IS TEH DEVIL!!!".
I would concede that if one were to find the case against Bushwar compelling, that it would call for a serious response. Go for it. Show us something. If the evidence is there, why would the the New York Times, of all people, be giving the Bush cronies a free pass. Hint....pssst... it's not there.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
2. it is hard to tell from your post which claims support which:
does your dismissal of the mountain of proof that the administration cooked intel, bent information, concocted rationales for war condition your argument about legality, or does your position on legality lead you to dismiss everything that contradicts the administration's case for war?
this is the question around which assumptions as to your politics turned.
i confess that i assumed you worked from the first position.
but i could have been wrong and maybe you work from the second in that your initial post was directed primarily at the logic of host's opening (insofar as you saw impeachment to be a type of fantasy).
if you read your post from the first viewpoint, then you work from a more or less standard conserviatve ideological position and it is perfectly reasonable to associate that position with its sources, and to switch from discussing your particular variant of that ideology to the ideology itself.
if it is the second that informs your post, then things are otherwise--in that you could be talking from a variety of positions--and i would apologize for the flourishes in my response.
so which is it?
|
My viewpoint comes from neither. My statement was that host's opening question used an old debate technique commonly referred to as "begging the question". He assumed that the Iraq war was launched illegally, and premised his question with it. It's like asking, "Host, have you stopped beating your wife yet?" For the question to have merit, one must assume that Host has beat his wife in the past. That is begging the question.
It appears this thread has gone off topic. It's really not about whether or not Bushco launched a war on false premises, but whether or not the New York Times is suppressing information that would support that theory. I doubt it. Bush has never gotten any free passes from the NYT. If there was any damning information there, you can bet your ass the Times would be all over it.
Disclaimer: I am not suggesting that Host is even married, has a wife, beats her, or is even a heterosexual male. This was simply used as an example of the "begging the question" debate technique.