Let Me Paraphrase President Bush's speech tonight:

[DVaut1]

[ 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 ]
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)

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)

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)

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.

[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

[ QUOTE ]
"Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + I'm listening to you're phone calls +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + I'm in way over my head + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Reformer with results + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq + Daddy, what's Vietnam? +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq +Terrorism + 9/11 + Iraq."


[/ QUOTE ]

[sweetjazz]

"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

I consider myself in the former category, and really want to increase debate about what is going on in Iraq and what will and will not work.

I get so frustrated by the many people who are in the latter category -- and I think your post and that of the OP post are suggestive of that attitude. The approach of angrily denouncing Bush and using cheap arguments that are no better than many of his weak arguments is undermining the legitimate criticism of how Bush has handled the situation in Iraq.

I suspect you probably just hate Bush so much that you don't care or don't believe me. I personally don't hate Bush, but I am very disappointed with many of his policy decisions and I'd like to convince others why there are better alternatives.

I really fear that the rise of a leftwing outlets like moveon.org have encouraged the same lazy and sloppy thinking that the Rush Limbaughs brought to rightwing zealots in the 90s (and continue to supply).

This is a very simplistic formulation of public debate, but if you simplify arguments to petty namecalling and accusations, the right will always dominate. The right has mastered appealing to our emotions -- especially fear -- and will sway the moderate middle if that is where the debate stalls.

I think of myself as a (to the extent I can label my complex views in two words) classical liberal. (Which leads in practice to the fact that I tend to lean left but do sometimes think Republican ideas are better than Democratic ideas on some issues. And am not very happy with the ideas, or more specifically the lack of good ones, coming from either party.) If the public debate stalls at petty name-calling and attempts at fear-mongering, I think a lot of the policies I support will not be enacted.

If you choose to give up on improving the quality of debate and reduce yourself to petty Bush insults, then you are no better than Bush at his worst. If you are okay with that and want to blindly go on assuming that you have all the answers to everything (as a certain chief executive has done in the past), feel free. Ironically, while your policy preferences will be different, you will be methodologically similar to the very individual you so ardently (and counterproductively) ridicule.

Read my other posts, I do participate in debate. This was a cheap shot that was too easy for me to pass up. To address your statement, I've yet to hear a good idea from Bush for me to embrace other than the obvious attacking those who attacked us, however, he kinda lost me when he decided to attack Iraq for no reason, never come clean about the B.S. intelligence, etc. Plus, it's very difficult to respect a man who, during his first administration, had to look in the mirror every day with the knowledge that the majority of the country voted against him.

[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
Read my other posts, I do participate in debate. This was a cheap shot that was too easy for me to pass up. To address your statement, I've yet to hear a good idea from Bush for me to embrace other than the obvious attacking those who attacked us, however, he kinda lost me when he decided to attack Iraq for no reason, never come clean about the B.S. intelligence, etc. Plus, it's very difficult to respect a man who, during his first administration, had to look in the mirror every day with the knowledge that the majority of the country voted against him.

[/ QUOTE ]

RB, I did read one of your other posts after my reply above, and I appreciate your willingness for dialogue.

I think you may be underestimating how counterproductive the cheap shots at Bush are. He has hidden behind them for a long time, and many moderate people are aware that most of the outspoken critiques of Bush are just lame cheap shots. (Of course, so are most critiques of Democrats as well, and I do think that Republicans manage to get away with cheap shots a bit easier because they play the fear card better.)

I think if you look at the specifics of what is going in Iraq, you see a lot of mistakes but also some good moves and you realize how hard it is to make good decisions there. (Which by the way is the main reason I thought we should have held out longer before invading Iraq -- nation-building is not an easy task and it is sometimes a necessary evil to have to allow an evil dictator to stay in power if there are ways to contain him, and it was certainly possible to contain him longer than we did. Whether he could have been deterred from rebuilding a weapons program indefinitely is debatable and there were serious problems with the oil-for-food program, but I think is fairly clear that we had more time with the inspectors still there.) After the invasion, we moved too slowly in organizing Iraqi security forces (military and police). It turns out in hindsight that disbanding the army formally was probably a major strategic flaw. But there is now an urgency to get Iraqi security forces trained and that's a good thing. So yes, Bush screwed up, but now he's finally getting things right on this matter (or so it appears). So let's applaud that and acknowledge that this is an improvement. Let's focus on other issues with have with Bush's idea. I'd like to focus on understanding the motivations of Islamist fundamentalists and try to pressure Bush to stop with the frequent nonsense implication in his speeches that they are motivated by "hatred of Western values of democracy, liberty, and freedom" when in fact they are motivated by their opposition to the presence of American troops in Muslim nations, particularly Saudi Arabia. That might not fit in as well into political speeches, but it's the reality that we are facing and it's important that the public realize it. There will likely be a debate as to how this particular fact should affect our strategy.

Why not spend more time focusing on improving the understanding of the world among the public (which starts with improving our own understanding by reading a diverse selection of respected news sources -- New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, The Economist, The Atlantic Monthly)? Not everyone will agree on what this deeper understanding means for American policy, but at least it would get us on a better track.

Playing the game of Bush sucks versus Hillary sucks is just not productive in my opinion.

FWIW, I don't think the results of the controversial 2000 election are really worth focusing on any more at this point. Bush did end up winning the election through the ugly process and no doubt a different Supreme Court makeup could have changed the result; but he won the 2004 election legitimately and the reality is that it is in everyone's interest to get the president (and Congress and other public officials) to do what is best for America, regardless of how they got there or how much we respect them.

Respectfully,
Mike

[Exsubmariner]

Mike,
You seem to be willing to spend copious amounts of verbage on this discussion. To offer my two bits, after having discussed this extensively with a large number of people whom I feel are more politically astute than your average college professor, I firmly believe that the course of history would have been exactly the same if Al Gore won.

Consider it. As far as Iraq is concerned, the continued situation with the UN was not acceptable, the intelligence coming out about WMD's would have been the same no matter who was in office & as we all know, John Kerry voted for the war before he voted against it, as did many other wafflers on the left, and combine that all with the gutted intelligence operative capacity of the CIA, and there was simply no other alternative for a Iraq policy than going to war.

At least we have a President who is willing to do what is necessary, in his view to finish the job of firmly planting Democracy in Iraq, regardless of what the poll numbers say. Other Presidential contenders may not have done the same.

(Que Yoko Ono leading "give peace a chance")

FWIW,
X

[ QUOTE ]
So yes, Bush screwed up, but now he's finally getting things right on this matter (or so it appears). So let's applaud that and acknowledge that this is an improvement. Let's focus on other issues with have with Bush's idea. I'd like to focus on understanding the motivations of Islamist fundamentalists and try to pressure Bush to stop with the frequent nonsense implication in his speeches that they are motivated by "hatred of Western values of democracy, liberty, and freedom" when in fact they are motivated by their opposition to the presence of American troops in Muslim nations, particularly Saudi Arabia.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, we should ignroe the fact that Bush made a HUGE blunder by invading in the first place because he's now doing a good job of cleaning up his own mess?

[Lestat]

You are exactly right. I could go off for a couple thousand words on how and why I think Bush is a lying idiot who should literally be impeached (and possibly imprisoned?) for the incompetent (and criminal?) way he's led this country. But it is what it is, and right now the question is, where do we go from here?

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
If the public debate stalls at petty name-calling

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, doesn't it stink when debate stalls at name-calling? Let's examine, shall we?

---------------------------

[ QUOTE ]
"There is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right."

I get so frustrated by the many people who are in the latter category -- and I think your post and that of the OP post are suggestive of that attitude.

[/ QUOTE ]


So you hate petty-name calling -- but RussianBear and I are defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

Yes, it's quite apparent you really disdain name-calling.

Let's look deeper into the many ways you've raised the level of debate:

[ QUOTE ]
The approach of angrily denouncing Bush and using cheap arguments

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I suspect you probably just hate Bush so much

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I really fear that the rise of a leftwing outlets like moveon.org have encouraged the same lazy and sloppy thinking that the Rush Limbaughs brought to rightwing zealots in the 90s (and continue to supply).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I just hate name-calling too, and all those stupid, lazy, and intellectually spurious MoveOn folk and their right-wing zealot counterparts are just lazy name-callers who don't engage in hightened debate -- such as calling others zealots who are engaged in lazy and sloppy thinking.

Like I said, I just hate all those douchebag name-callers too. What dickheads those name-callers are.

I fear hypocrisy much more than I fear partisan outlets, and it's not even close.