Favorite comments from the Bush press conference

[IrishHand]

His question went right over your head.

He was implying how sketchy it is to say that (1) we know he has WMD - they're over here, then (2) he moved those WMD over there. If we know he has them, and we know where he moved them - why haven't the inspectors found anything? Of course, the answer is that we don't actually know 1 or 2, despite what you like to think. (I just hope you realize that your belief relies on an assumption that Iraq and it's crippled military apparatus is capable of hiding massive quantities of weapons from the most powerful country and intelligence force in history.)

[BruceZ]

This is absurd on two levels: (1) there's no "them" defined, so it makes as much sense as saying "look what they did to us with anthrax, what they did at Pearl Harbor, what they did to Custer;"


"Them" refers to international terrorism by which we are currently threatened, not the Japanese nor the American Indians. I thought that was abundantly clear. If it wasn't clear to you, then I fail to see how you would have any credibility at all in any other analyses of this issue. If it was clear to you (which I actually think it was) then it is you who is offering an absurd argument solely for the purpose of advancing your cause, rather than arguing an issue on its merits.

(2) in the second sentence, you are effectively admitting that there is no reason to believe that invading Iraq will have any effect on terrorism. You could just as easily say "if we invade Iraq, they can certainly do that again or even worse." Moreover, you and Bush are both ducking the issue of whether the rage ignited by invading Iraq will exacerbate the inclination toward terrorism to the point where it overwhelms any ability to reduce the ability of terrorists to operate, accepting the dubious assumption that we can do even that.


In the first place, I'm not saying or ducking anything, I am interpreting Bush's comments to those who apparently had trouble understanding them. I thought I made that clear. In the second place, your statement is completly incorrect logically. You are saying effectively:

<font color="red">"If we invade they may attack us, and if we don't invade they can certainly attack us worse."</font color>

Is equivalent to:

<font color="red">"If we invade they can certainly attack us worse."</font color>

and we can deduce from this

<font color="red">"There is no reason to believe that invading Iraq will have any effect on terrorism."</font color>

Think about these assertions some more and see if you can't find the errors on your own. I can't teach a course in formal logic here on the other topics forum. I will tell you that this is incorrect in a very fundamental way. If this is representative of your thinking, then I would suspect that your arguments would carry very little weight at all until this is corrected.

[John Cole]

Irish,

That, of course, and I also wondered why no reporter asked this question. Perhaps there is an answer, but, for me anyway, the logic seems flawed.

John

[Chris Alger]

In the first place, "terrorism" is a "thing," not a "them." If you are referring to "terrorists" in connection with a proposed bombardment and invasion of Iraq, perhaps you could draw some slight connection between the people Bush proposes to kill and some terrorism on their part that could justify it.

As for inability to see a distinction between terrorists that "may attack us" in one case, and "can certainly attack us worse" in another, I'd like to know what, in the real world, that could be. For example, just how will invading Iraq make it less "certain" that terrorists "can attack us worse?" How will invading Iraq preclude terrorists stealing plutonium for a dirty bomb from India, Pakistan or Russia, or just highjacking a few more planes with boxcutters the next time?

Any argument that the U.S. is justified in waging war with Iraq because of 9/11 is no better than an argument for murdering Sikhs or throwing virgins into volcanos because of 9/11.

[MMMMMM]

But they move them just in time, John; the Iraqis have eyes and ears in the Inspection team--and bugs too. Minders also outnumber inspectors by some absurd ratio.

Also, isn't it even less logical to presume that Saddam actually unilaterally destroyed all his WMD, when all his actions over the years have consisted of obstructing, deceiving, delaying, and even expelling inspectors? IMO it's absolutely preposterous.

Just put all the pieces of the jigsaw together: Saddam's actions, Iraq's illegal imports of special technologies, testimonies of ranking defectors, the death threats to Iraqi scientists if they cooperate...it just goes on and on. Doesn't all this, in your mind, far outweigh one minor apparent logical inconsistency?


I'm really having trouble seeing why people are trying to give Saddam every last shred of available doubt--especially in light of his history which should, if anything, incline people in the other direction.

[IrishHand]

Again - you totally mischaracterize the issue. Nobody is trying to give Hussein "every last shred of available doubt". We've already all agreed that he's a bad guy and would be better off retired, dead or enjoying a new career. The question is what to do about it. You think the only solution is war, even though the reasons offered by our government are so full of holes even my gullible 12-year old brother doesn't buy 1/2 of it.

Nobody here is full of love and trust for Hussein - it's just that some of us think that blindly following where others would lead might not be the best solution in light of available facts.

[MMMMMM]

No...READ what I wrote--I said "defeat" regarding radical Islamists and terrorists, but I said "wipe out" only regarding al Qaeda. That's NOT at all the same as saying wipe out all radical Islamists--although I can see why a careless reading might lead someone to think so. Further, I only said that I'm coming to this conclusion--I didn't say I had fully arrived at this conclusion.

Do I need to clarify these subtle points which should be obvious from a careful reading of my words? Apparently so, since you, andyfox, and others have at times missed the finer yet important points in my words--which greatly alter the meaning.

You're misunderstanding my prescription. I'm suggesting that it may be necessary to defeat radical Islamists and terrorists--and to wipe out the worst such as al Qaeda--but I'm certainly not suggesting wiping out large segments of the population.

[MMMMMM]

I believe Tom Haley has you on his Ignore List too.

Don't bother trying to argue about it; You're staying on my ignore list due to your blatant insincerity with malicious intent.

Apology not necessary and will not be accepted.

End of discussion and communication.

[IrishHand]

Very mature - bravo! [img]/forums/images/icons/smile.gif[/img]

[brad]

reminds me of 'liberals' on talk radio who are on for a particular issue, when presented with evidence that (for example) their little issue part of a more general attack on american ideals and such, they always say, well i cant comment on that im just hear to talk about (implantable microchips, for example).