[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You've mastered one of Bush's (and moveon.org's) common techniques:

[/ QUOTE ]

So let's have a little inquiry into common debating techniques. Perhaps we can shed some light on this:



[/ QUOTE ]

First, I should apologize for the remark above. It is exactly the kind of thing that isn't very productive for debate. My point is that it is necessary to be careful that we don't commit the same flaws we find in others (in this case, distorting what others said to argue our cause), but I could have said it in a much productive and helpful way.

[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
He dismisses the extreme leftwing criticisms of the war, and he is right to do so.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Which 'extreme leftwing' criticisms has he/did he specifically dismissed/dismiss? One common technique in debates is to pretend as if you've dismissed your opponents points when you've actually just presented a strawman or red herring (for instance, constantly implying that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 when questioned about the wisdom of going to war, when no compelling evidence for such a claim exists)



[/ QUOTE ]

First, I agree that Bush often uses the dismissal of extreme leftwing views as a red herring. Unfortunately, the fact that these views do exist and do get a lot of publicity makes this move by Bush more successful than it ought to be. That is why it is so important to keep challenging him where he is wrong (e.g. his implication that the primary motivation of terrorists is their hate for American values of liberty and freedom -- when the primary motivation is clearly the presence of American troops in Arab lands, particularly Saudi Arabia during and after the Persian Gulf War) and try to get the silly arguments out of the public debate (e.g. that this war was primarily for oil).

[ QUOTE ]


2) Why are they 'extreme'? (because, as I'm sure you know, referring to opponents as 'extreme' is a common rhetorical technique that's used to cast opponents in an unpleasant light, while attempting to add some measure of credence that the arguer's position is more widely agreed upon or popular -- not that you would stoop to that hackneyed technique, though)



[/ QUOTE ]

My purpose in labelling the views as 'extreme' was to distinguish them from the many valid criticisms of Bush's policies that come from people on the left. I did not offer much of an elaboration to indicate what views I thought are valid and which are 'extreme' (which I meant to imply are so over-the-top that they are not basid on valid criticism but simply misinformation). The two examples I listed above give some examples of how I distinguish the two cases.

[ QUOTE ]


3) Why is he right to do so? (another common debating technique, again as I'm sure you're aware, is to present opinions as if they're fact and need no further explanation)



[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think you make a good point here; the problem with debate is you are limited in how much you can say and you have to try to find things that are agreeable. I believe that it is right for Bush to dismiss criticisms about the war such as that it was primarily about oil or that he used 9/11 as an excuse for war in Iraq. The first claim I think you probably agree with, but I will address the second (perhaps more controversial) claim. It is clear that Bush has linked 9/11 with Iraq -- and in ways that I think are faulty -- but I don't think it is at all fair to say that he used 9/11 as an excuse, even if it is correct that he had considered war with Iraq before 9/11. From what he has said repeatedly linking 9/11 to Iraq, he has made it clear that in his mind, the events of 9/11 made it more urgent to him to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein. I think that his judgment was wrong in this matter and that it led him to hastily start an invasion when there was more time to pursue diplomatic means and continue deterrance measures -- but I also think it is reasonable to accept at face value his reasoning here.

Besides, there is nothing more that Bush can do to answer the charge that 9/11 was an excuse for the war in Iraq than to outline his thinking on the matter.

I do acknowledge that he played up this line of thought a lot in his speeches -- and I do suspect that his political handlers encouraged this because the connection between 9/11 and Iraq was perceived to beneficial in winning support from people who only casually follow the news. But I also have looked at things from the perspective of his supporters and I do understand how they can reasonably believe that 9/11 "changed everything" (an admittedly meaningless phrase in and of itself) and made the invasion of Iraq a good idea. I can understand their view as reasonable while still disagreeing with their conclusion.

[ QUOTE ]


I'd hate to see you get too bogged down in details, as empirical evidence which helps form the foundation of the premises that aid in making our arguments compelling can often get in the way of a nice, opinion based rant - but just humor those irrational Bush haters like me and the rest of the resident MoveOn crowd.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope I improved my tone in this post and did a better job explaining my perspective. In the end, much of what I say is merely opinion and judgment. But I have tried to outline to some extent how I formed those opinions and judgments and what criteria I try to use.

Lastly, it may be that we simply don't disagree as much as I originally thought. What disappionted me in your initial post was your summary of his speech, particularly the bit about repeating 9/11 a bunch of times. He didn't do that, and it is easy for anyone who supports Bush to see your post, remark "He just doesn't get what Bush was saying" and dismiss your criticisms. I don't want to see that happen because I suspect that your judgment about Iraq is probably better than most. (I have only seen a limited amount of data regarding your positions on Iraq, so that's the strongest endorsement I can give you.)

Sincerely and respectfully,
Mike