Liberal Fallacies

[RandFan]

Bill, please show us a statement by George W. Bush or any member of his administration who said the invasion had nothing to do with WMD. We have provided links and quotes of many people in many instances making the case for invasion based on WMD.

Do you have any evidence for YOUR claim?

 

[jj]

I object to that term. Arguing against a straw man is nothing new, and Bill Thompson certainly didn't invent it.

While I do think that naming a rhetorical dishonesty after an individual who posts here is over the top, I notice again your support for the most extreme right-wing elements here.

Bill Thompson's straw men in the first post, which were for the most part not JUST straw men, but also fallacies, prejudices, and well-poisoning, were clearly intended as an attempt to defame "liberals" and as such, show ill intent and knowing prejudice on the part of the poster.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

"___(They)___ are inferior to ___(we)___ because ___(reason)___ " summarizes the topic of most JREF Politics or Social Issues forum threads.

 

[RandFan]

While I do think that naming a rhetorical dishonesty after an individual who posts here is over the top, I notice again your support for the most extreme right-wing elements here.

Bill Thompson's straw men in the first post, which were for the most part not JUST straw men, but also fallacies, prejudices, and well-poisoning, were clearly intended as an attempt to defame "liberals" and as such, show ill intent and knowing prejudice on the part of the poster.

I think you make a compelling argument. But I wouldn't so easily dismiss willful ignorance and a life lived in an echo chamber. And of course the concept forwarded by Haidt, The Righteous Mind. If a person hears this kind of nonsense day in and day out without any real intellectual challenge then they are more likely to regurgitate it without question.

Where the poster does not deserve a break is the length of time he has been involved with the JREF. Given that fact, I have to say that your case is even stronger. There really is no excuse for that kind of nonsense.

ETA: It should be pointed out that folks like myself have explained burden of proof and providing citations over and over. It never sinks in. The poster doesn't give a damn that others are expected to actually make a case and not simply spew out accusations WITHOUT ANY evidence for the claims. None whatsoever.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

...When the slaves were freed, Republicans were the liberals and Democrats were the conservatives.¹ In the mid-twentieth century, the Republicans exploited southern conservative racism to pull in traditionally Democratic states to their side, essentially reversing the political polarity of the two parties.² The GOP may be "The Party of Lincoln" but today, it's pretty much in name only.³

1. The labels retard rather than advance the discussion. How long must a policy (e.g., the Postal Service monopoly on first class mail, Social Security) be in place before its defenders merit the label "conservative"? If the alternative to an old policy (e.g., war with East Asia, the State-monopoly school system) is an older policy (e.g., alliance with East Asia against WestAsia, homeschooling or vouchers), who's the "conservative"? It's simpler just to talk policy.
2. Dunno 'bout "mid-century. Consider Mass. Sen. Ed Brooke. Hawaii Sen. Hiram Fong.
3. Dunno 'bout "today". Consider Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, J.C. Watts, Allan West, Condoleeza Rice.
Color-blind law is one policy option. What constitutes "netrality" is a thorny issue. One other option is State power behind race preferences in college admissions and employment. If one party maintains a position in favor of race-neutral law and the other goes from white preference to black preference, who has changed sides?

 

[Upchurch]

1. The labels retard rather than advance the discussion. How long must a policy (e.g., the Postal Service monopoly on first class mail, Social Security) be in place before its defenders merit the label "conservative"?

Ask Bill. He's the one who conflated "Republican" with "conservative".

2. Dunno 'bout "mid-century.

When did it start, Malcolm? Denying history doesn't actually change it.

3. Dunno 'bout "today".

I was referring to support of civil liberties, not racial makeup.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

While I do think that naming a rhetorical dishonesty after an individual who posts here is over the top, I notice again your support for the most extreme right-wing elements here.

That doesn't make a lick of sense. Arguing that Bill Thompson didn't invent the strawman fallacy somehow supports a right wing position?

That's just silly.

Bill Thompson's straw men in the first post, which were for the most part not JUST straw men, but also fallacies, prejudices, and well-poisoning, were clearly intended as an attempt to defame "liberals" and as such, show ill intent and knowing prejudice on the part of the poster.

I'd agree with the first part--that he's engaging in more than just the strawman fallacy--but his intent or motivation for posting is irrelevant to the truth value of any of his claims.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think you make a compelling argument.

Nah.

JJ is trying to portray me as a right wing supporter because I completely dismantled his claim that a smear campaign is usurping or revolting against the government or treason.

I've already pointed out that the reason I reject baseless arguments against right wingers is that they tend to diminish credibility of legitimate arguments against right wingers.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Bill, please show us a statement by George W. Bush or any member of his administration who said the invasion had nothing to do with WMD. We have provided links and quotes of many people in many instances making the case for invasion based on WMD.

I think this point gets lost very easily by Bush defenders. If he wasn't at least exploiting misinformation about WMDs and links between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 attacks, he could have easily clarified his position by stating in no uncertain terms that he wanted to oust Saddam but not because he was an imminent threat to the U.S. or because he was complicit in any way with the 9/11 attacks.

I think Bush was pretty careful not to make any obviously false statements himself, though--other than stating things that were only suspected as if they were certain. I think he let others (Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney) do that for him.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Ask Bill. He's the one who conflated "Republican" with "conservative". ¹When did it start, Malcolm?² Denying history doesn't actually change it.³I was referring to support of civil liberties⁴, not racial makeup.⁴

1. I wasn't asking. I observed that "conservative" refers to a defense of established policy. Everyone who uses loose labels like "conservative" and "liberal" introduces a lot of slop into a policy discussion.
2. Dunno. To what does "it" refer?
3. We agree. Back atcha. It wasn't that "Republicans exploited southern conservative racism", as UpChurch maintains, but that the Democratic Party switched from one kind of race preference to another.
4. So am I. Freedom of association and freedom of contract.
5. Well, look into that link:..."republican-base-heavily-white-conservative-religious". There's "racial make-up" in there.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's a description of the Zogby poll published in Stars and Stripes I mentioned earlier.

http://0xtc.com/2006/03/01/85-of-us-troops-in-iraq-believe-in-saddam-911-connection.xhtml/

85% of the troops in Iraq polled believed that they were there to retaliate for the 9/11 attacks.

93% said that finding and destroying illegal WMDs was not one of reasons they were there.

I think it's pretty horrendous that the Commander in Chief could have disabused them of these false notions with a single statement but didn't, and instead seemed to exploit this false belief.

It's one thing to ask people to risk their lives in service, but to do so under a false understanding is something else.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

1. I wasn't asking. I observed that "conservative" refers to a defense of established policy.

That's certainly one way of defining "conservative", but it's not a very complete one. I think using "conservative" more generally would also include "reactionary" positions.

Conservatives opposed the abolition of slavery. But weren't the people who continued to oppose abolition after slavery had been abolished (for any length of time) still properly called conservatives on that issue? In other words, is there any way that the KKK, for example, can accurately be considered to be a progressive movement simply because what they oppose is now long established?

Similarly, the position calling for privatizing Social Security or Medicare (or doing away with the programs by making participation voluntary) is properly considered a conservative position, no matter how long the programs have been in existence.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

I think Bush was pretty careful not to make any obviously false statements himself, though--other than stating things that were only suspected as if they were certain. I think he let others (Rice, Rumsfeld, Powell, Cheney) do that for him.

The intelligence did not change between the Clinton aadministration and the Bush II administration. The CIA claimed "high confidence" that Iraq had WMD.

Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgments in This Estimate
High Confidence:
• Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs contrary to UN resolutions.

• We are not detecting portions of these weapons programs.

• Iraq possesses proscribed chemical and biological weapons and missiles.

• Iraq could make a nuclear weapon in months to a year once if acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material.

 

[RandFan]

I was referring to support of civil liberties, not racial makeup.

OT but those are awful stats. No way to build a future party given the trends in the ethnic make up of the US. At some point the GOP will have to adapt.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The intelligence did not change between the Clinton aadministration and the Bush II administration. The CIA claimed "high confidence" that Iraq had WMD.

That's not true.

[ETA: I suppose considering that there was no actual time between the Clinton and Bush administration, it's technically true, but I don't think that's what you meant. I think what you meant was that the intelligence did not change from the time of the Clinton administration until the time Bush ordered the invasion.]

Before the invasion of Iraq during the Bush II administration, UN inspectors were allowed back in the country, and our assessment of the potential threat Iraq posed was updated tremendously.

Almost to make a point, inspectors literally opened closet doors in various residences of Saddam Hussein. Before Powell addressed the UN Security Council, we had inspectors at the sites he mentioned (the plastic factory comes to mind), and we knew they weren't what he said they were.

The UN assessements of the threat were quite a bit different than the picture painted by the CIA during the Clinton administration. The Bush administration said that they had information that the UN wasn't privvy to. Hans Blix and Mohammed El Baredei said that that information should be given to them so that they can verify it on the ground.

I can remember talking with people who were sure that this was Bush's real aim--to threaten war in order to get the inspectors back in place so we could update that intelligence (and not rely on known unreliable informants). I really hoped that they were right, but was pretty certain they weren't.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Similarly, the position calling for privatizing Social Security or Medicare (or doing away with the programs by making participation voluntary) is properly considered a conservative position, no matter how long the programs have been in existence.

Why "is properly considered a conservative position" (note the passive voice)? You apparently intend some definition of "conservative" by example, but I don't see it. How long must a policy be in place before a defense qualifies as "conservative"? If it's not duration, what?

Does this matter? Why not just discuss the merits of markets in pension services (or schooling, or medical care) versus provision of services by a State enterprise?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

That's not true.

Flat false. It is most definitely true. Further, see the Congressional hearings on the intelligence failures that led to the war (David Kay testimony). Further, see the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (CounterPunch, feb. 2003) broadside against the war that argued against the war on the basis of the cost in allied lives from chemical weapons.

Chemical Weapons

With respect to possible Iraqi use of chemical weapons, it has been the judgment of the US intelligence community for over 12 years that the likelihood of such use would greatly increase during an offensive aimed at getting rid of Saddam Hussein.

Listing the indictment particulars, Secretary Powell said, in an oh-by-the-way tone, that sources had reported that Saddam Hussein recently authorized his field commanders to use such weapons. We find this truly alarming. We do not share the Defense Department’s optimism that radio broadcasts and leaflets would induce Iraqi commanders not to obey orders to use such weapons, or that Iraqi generals would remove Saddam Hussein as soon as the first US soldier sets foot in Iraq. Clearly, an invasion would be no cakewalk for American troops, ill equipped as they are to operate in a chemical environment.

Further, Amb. Wilson's investigation reinforced (NOT undermined) the CIA conclusion that Iraq sought refined uranium ore in Niger.

 

[jimbob]

One thing I never could understand was why Saddam *did* try to make it seem as if he had a more active WMD program than was the case - for example rebuilding the Castor oil factory in Falluja as wll as pesticide factories in a complex that had previously (Iran-Iraq war IIRC) been implicated in chemical weapons manufacture.

Given his past history, he had to know it would look as if he was starting a WMD program, but what he thought he'd gain from such a bluff without anything about a capability - I can't understand.

 

[Chaos]

One thing I never could understand was why Saddam *did* try to make it seem as if he had a more active WMD program than was the case - for example rebuilding the Castor oil factory in Falluja as wll as pesticide factories in a complex that had previously (Iran-Iraq war IIRC) been implicated in chemical weapons manufacture.

Given his past history, he had to know it would look as if he was starting a WMD program, but what he thought he'd gain from such a bluff without anything about a capability - I can't understand.

He was trying to appear to be strong by defying the US. And WMD are pretty much "strong" incarnate.

 

[RandFan]

One thing I never could understand was why Saddam *did* try to make it seem as if he had a more active WMD program than was the case - for example rebuilding the Castor oil factory in Falluja as wll as pesticide factories in a complex that had previously (Iran-Iraq war IIRC) been implicated in chemical weapons manufacture.

Given his past history, he had to know it would look as if he was starting a WMD program, but what he thought he'd gain from such a bluff without anything about a capability - I can't understand.

My understanding was to save face to some elements of the Arab world. He had one of the largest armies in the world and he was otherwise being pushed around like a rag doll by the US and UN. That and I think he really believed that it was unlikely that the US would invade and he wanted to appear to be, in part, master of his destiny and a bad ass in the middle east. Clearly he knew what the inspectors knew when it came to WMD, he was a toothless tiger. I think he guessed badly that G.W. Bush would actually look at the facts as they were and not his (Saddam's) silly games.

Make no mistake, Saddam was playing a most dangerous game and he lost as spectacularly as he could.