Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
ok, let's try it this way, then:
pretend for a moment that you are actually interested in persuading someone who does not already agree with you politically---which means that you have to explain you frame of reference rather than simply repeat it. i am sure you understand the distinction.
so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment---think of it as evangelism, if you will----and then try sort this out logically, politicophile--go through the chain of events that resulted in the distorted intl presented to congress by teh administration--and perhaps presented as such from one office to another within the administration at one point or another---then to the congressional actions you are talking about---taking into account the fact of the unsc and information presented publically by the un and other international sources. and then explain to me how it is that your way of trying to frame what is "relevant" does not require so many assumptions behind to that it is functionally arbitrary.
repeating yourself is not answering, btw.
sometimes it seems like there has to be a rule or two.
|
It is unfortunate that you felt the need to pollute the dialogue between Host and me with these personal insults. Your tendancy to accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being hopelessly and illogically dependent upon "the conservative talking points of hte moment" is annoying, to say the least. It is more than time for you to lose this labeling (lumpenconservative, e.g.)/ad hominem (so let's adopt this fiction, shall we--that you are actually interested in talking to folk who do not share your intimate relationship with the conservative talking points of hte moment) tendency that is so damaging to good dialogue. Host and I will continue our discussion in spite of your rude, confrontational interference. It is possible to debate a conservative heathen without resorting to name-calling: take a page out of Host's book.
In response to your actual argument, I will attempt to explain my chain of logic:
George Bush's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
France's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Great Britain's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Germany's intelligence indicated Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
George Bush sent his intelligence to Congress, who agreed by a vote of 77-23 that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that the President should be authorized to use military force against Iraq if necessary.
France thought the use of military force against Iraq was unnecessary.
Germany thought the use of military force against Iraq was unnecessary.
George Bush thought the use of military force against Iraq was necessary.
Congress thought the use of military force against Iraq was necessary.
George Bush is accused of falsifying the case for going to war against Iraq because the actual threat turned out to be insignificant compared to the threat portrayed by the intelligence.
Some members of Congress who voted in favor of authorizing the use of military force in Iraq, and who are on record for thinking that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, now accuse Bush of falsifying the case for going to war against Iraq.
Bush's intelligence was not different from the intelligence of France or Germany.
It is safe to assume that Bush did not falsify the French or German intelligence.
Thus, Bush did not falsify the American intelligence, as it would not have matched the French and German intelligence if he did.
Thus, Congress' claims that Bush "hyped" the case for war are ridiculous because the Congress had access to the same intelligence as France and Germany and yet they voted in favor of going to war.
The members of Congress who changed their minds are just looking for an excuse to justify voting in obvious opposition to the facts.