Final (?) response to Dave

My apologies to one and all for the length of this reply. Of necessity a comprehensive rebuttal always must be longer than the argument to be countered.  
 
Point of information:  
I was not the one who selected the picture of Bush in a dunce cap trying to put Iraq back together that accompanied the initial essay “Bush is Winning in Iraq.” While I agree with the sentiment and have been the source of many satirical Bush cartoons published on these screens in the past, you will have to take this one up with Shahram. 
 
Another point of information for Dave:  
Attacking the person instead of the policy is a logical flaw known as an “Ad Hominem” argument not a "Staw Man." The Straw Man strategy is mounting the weakest possible argument attributable to your opponent and them knocking it over easily and saying that you have refuted the argument. [1]  
 
And please let’s everyone let up on the flaming Nazi/Hanoi Jane rhetoric a little. I do reserve the right to call-out and make fun of Bush and his cronies. I just feel uncomfortable calling people who try to put forth arguments on this forum names. Shahram is pretty liberal in the amount of leeway he allows for mean-spirited name calling, but let’s try to keep a civil discussion here. As the designation implies, flaming always generates far more heat than light. 
 
Dave pointed out a number of issues I failed to address in my previous post. I will try to respond to them on a point-counterpoint basis using quotes from Dave’s post. 
 
 
“You guys really believe all the crap spewed about Bush on the liberal airwaves.” 
 
First of all, I believe next to nothing of the crap spewed about Bush or anyone else on the “liberal” airwaves. Second the so-called “liberal” press has been roundly criticized for their lack of any critical analysis of Bush’s past conduct and programs. [2] I have rarely seen such acquiescence to a president as blatantly controversial (and I am using a very generous word here – “controversial”) as Bush. I remember the lack of slack given to presidents like Truman and Clinton by this same “liberal” press. Finally now, the corporate press is beginning to awaken from their slumbers, put aside their steno pads and begin to criticize the war. I say it is all a little too little a little too late even though I appreciate the sentiment. It certainly does not represent spreading crap about Bush. I say it is about time.  
 
 
“At the state of the Union address, as I speak, the whole of Congress is giving our president a standing O (including Pelosi).”  
 
Don’t be fooled, Dave. All that demonstrates is that the Democrats (unlike their neighbors across the aisle) have a modicum of civility in the wielding of their power. The President will not feel nearly so lauded if Representatives Conyers and Waxman have their way with investigations (with subpoena power) of wrongdoing on the part of the President and the V.P. 
 
“Many support the war and the president, even the ones who aren't clapping, because they are on the inside with the defense intelligence, unlike you and I.”  
 
I find that a truly amazing interpretation of events and must confess I have never heard it advanced by anyone before. I wish I could believe it, but have never seen any evidence to support that theory. Believe me, if anyone has the skinny on any sort of mitigating defense intelligence that might have a chance to pull us out of the quagmire in Iraq, they wouldn’t be keeping it under their hats – especially the Republicans who are becoming so critical of Bush’s blunders. No, I’m afraid we have only two choices in Iraq. [3] Pull out now on our timetable, or be driven out later on their time table (to the tune of hundreds of thousands more innocent dead.) This is a situation in which victory on any terms is just not an option. Bush was advised of the “slam-dunk” certainty of this well before the invasion.  
 
”Despite the fact that our media's influence can start or prevent attacks on our people as well as our troops, give confidence to our enemies and take it from our own people or start or prevent a civil war, they continue to put us down.”  
 
I think you give the media, even a biased, managed media, too much credit. The media certainly was responsible for helping Bush create an atmosphere of fear and fog in the weeks leading up to the invasion of Iraq as well as keeping a lid on the events on the ground on the more recent destruction of Lebanon by Israel. But to contend that the unrest that was created in the Islamic world by the release of the Abu Ghraib pornography and the rape of 14 year old AbirQassim al-Janabi [4] was the responsibility of the press and not our troops and their leaders is pure sophistry. Yes, as Geraldo learned, the press should not be broadcasting troop movements and putting people in danger unnecessarily. But when critics, the administration and their corporate owners attempt to muzzle the 4th Estate when there is scandal, malfeasance, graft, lies, theft, torture, rape and murder to be uncovered they are doing a disservice to the very idea of a free press. 
 
“Informed people know that we are safer under Bush than we would have been under Gore or Clinton because this president puts the needs of the NATION 1st....what is a president is hired to do!?!?”  
 
Is that a hypothetical question to end all hypothetical questions for you!?!? I contend just the opposite. Prove me wrong. Actually there IS a lot of historical evidence that, in spite of Clinton’s being virtually hamstrung by the Republican Congress, we were far safer under Clinton than Bush ’43. At least Clinton took terrorism seriously. Here is a hypothetical for you: I cannot imagine President Gore not noticing Richard Clarke running around the White House “with his hair on fire.” 
 
“He (Bush) is a true scape goat for problems caused by our enemies.”  
 
I hate to say this, but the situation in Iraq is wholly Bush’s doing. I hope you are not going to counter by telling me Saddam was our enemy in any real sense, responsible for 9/11 or posed any threat whatsoever to the U.S. Like Brer Rabbit and the tar baby he got himself all stuck all by hisself. [5] Of course Afghanistan was bungled strategically and even this theater of operations is backfiring on us tragically as well. Most Americans supported Bush on his attack on Afghanistan, even though now it looks like a mistake. Here is a hypothetical for you? What would have happened if Bush had kept to the search for Bin Laden in stead of going after the “man who tried to kill my daddy”? 
 
”Did you watch the State of the Union address? Awesome. He spoke about the need to research and utilize new energy sources and asked congress to work with him to set a goal to reduce gasoline consumption by 20% in the next ten years.”  
 
This would be awesome if he had not already promised a coherent, effective action on exactly these same issues in every State of the Union address since he first stole the election in 2000. As you said in your response, in another context: He needs to either put up or shut up.  
 
“He (Bush) thinks we can balance the budget and still maintain tax relief, the reason for the extra income in the 1st place. And his record shows he won't put a dent in our military”  
 
Dave, I wish you would read your words over carefully here and see if you can spot the contradictions therein. 
 
“He also made motions toward combating Global warming.” 
 
You could have knocked me over with a feather!  
 
“... forcasting doom helps those very things to happen. Like the R.E.M. lyrics "Oh, no I've said too much...I set it up” 
 
There is a difference between a pessimist and one who announces, “Iceberg off the starboard bow!” 
 
Well that was fun. Any further questions? 
 
Finally I want to once again thank Dave for hanging in there with his arguments against people whom I’m sure he must think are quite incorrect both in their perceptions and their analysis. I realize that, based upon the previous posts in response to my original essay, there is probably little more that can be said on either side to try to sway each other to another point of view. Absent any major shift on either side I would like to make a couple of observations that might be useful for all concerned in this vital debate. [6]  
 
First of all, we Americans need to be a lot more critical and less willing to take both people and their assertions on faith. We need to examine most critically the opinions and people we feel the closest affinity with. In my original essay I came down quite critically on the Democrats. I must admit to being a life-long, voting Democrat and it goes against my grain to be so critical of most of them, especially considering the beatings they have suffered under Bush and before that, under the Congressional Republicans’ “Contract with America.” Nevertheless, I have concluded that, while they champion certain “liberal” causes I revere, most of them have either been spineless or downright complicit with Bush in terms of not opposing his neocon inspired domestic and foreign policy programs.  
 
As a result of my analysis of the current political scene I have (as I elaborated elsewhere) decided to withdraw from participation in national politics altogether. Hilary will just have to govern without my advise and consent. I regard the whole national political situation as hopeless and not subject to even slight remediation. I’m sure many will disagree with this conclusion. For me, I intend to devote the finite amount of energy left to me to the cause of developing local, sustainable, viable communities that just might be capable of surviving many of the disasters mankind and the Amerikan government has unleashed upon the planet.  
 
Peace, 
 
Bob Boldt 
 
Footnotes: 
[1] A straw man 
argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted. 
Its name is derived from the practice of using straw men in combat training. In such training, a scarecrow is made in the image of the enemy with the single intent of attacking it.[1] It is occasionally called a straw dog fallacy[2] or a scarecrow argument. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man 
 
An ad hominem argument,  
also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem 
 
[2] Here is an example of the New York Times Mea Culpa concerning its biased coverage on the build up to the War in Iraq: 
 
http://www.truthout.org/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi/9/4621 
 
[3] In case you believed the Pres. When he accused the Dems of not having a plan: 
 
http://www.atlantaprogressivenews.com/news/0121.html 
 
Last week US Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced H.R. 508, the "Bring the Troops Home and Iraq Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2007," the strongest of all current US Congressional bills which seek to de-escalate the US Invasion of Iraq. 
 
[4] http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,244597,00.html 
 
Her ID card picture here. http://members.aye.net/~hippie/images/blog/rape.jpg 
 
[5] Would that Bush was as briefed on this tale as he was on the “My Pet Goat” file! - The complete story here:  
http://www.otmfan.com/html/brertar.htm 
 
[6] “These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans. They’re real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we’re doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder. We better be as sure as you can be.  
And I want every one of you, every one of us, 100 senators to look in that camera, and you tell your people back home what you think. Don’t hide anymore; none of us.  
That is the essence of our responsibility. And if we’re not willing to do it, we’re not worthy to be seated right here. We fail our country. If we don’t debate this, if we don’t debate this, we are not worthy of our country. We fail our country.” 
Chuck Hagel Senate Republican from Nebraska. 
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/20070125_hagel_puts_the_senate_to_shame/  
 
 
 
:)

Guest