More attempted spin by the Bush administration

[corplinx]

I agree with much of what you wrote, but the reasons to investigate this possibility should have been obvious. The FBI believed that Iraq was involved with the first WTC bombing, and Saddam was a sworn enemy of the US and used terrorists before. To not investigate the possibility of a connection would have been irresponsible.

I did not know that the FBI suspected that.

 

[Cain]

sniff...sniff....sniff...

I think I smell a logical fallacy...

Ah, yes!

False Dichotomy!

I thought I smelled something.

Not sure if this is intended as a serious post. What other meaningful alternatives are ignored? That Rice is only a little incompetent? Or that she's wrong (i.e. incompetent, but it's insiginficant?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Not sure if this is intended as a serious post. What other meaningful alternatives are ignored? That Rice is only a little incompetent? Or that she's wrong (i.e. incompetent, but it's insiginficant?

No, Cain, you've missed a third alternative. That Condi is correct in what she says.

Mind you, you'd think that if kerfer believed that, he'd provide some sort of evidence to support his case. Over to you, kerfer...

 

[kerfer]

No, Cain, you've missed a third alternative. That Condi is correct in what she says.

Mind you, you'd think that if kerfer believed that, he'd provide some sort of evidence to support his case. Over to you, kerfer...

Thank you. That is at least one of the other alternatives that make the argument fallacious. There are still, perhaps, several other possibilities, among them the possibility that the information is classified, and therefore, unable to be published.

So there's at least two other possibilities, and if we really wanted to, I'm sure that a reasonable list containing other entries than "Condi is incompetant or a liar." could be assembled, no?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Thank you. That is at least one of the other alternatives that make the argument fallacious. There are still, perhaps, several other possibilities, among them the possibility that the information is classified, and therefore, unable to be published.

So there's at least two other possibilities, and if we really wanted to, I'm sure that a reasonable list containing other entries than "Condi is incompetant or a liar." could be assembled, no?

Well, I noticed that, while you said there was a third possibility... in fact, any number of possibilities... you haven't provided any kind of evidence to support those cases whatsoever.

Why is this a problem, you may ask? Well, imagine if we had to frame every argument thusly;

"God either exists, or he doesn't, or there's a third possibility which we haven't any evidence for, but who knows?"
"Humankind either developed through evolution, or it didn't, or there's a third possiblity which we haven't any evidence for, but who knows?"
"Sh!t either stinks and makes a horrible mid-day meal, or it doesn't, or there's a third possiblity which we haven't any evidence for, but who knows?"

So, if you want to demonstrate that Cain has made a 'false dichotomy,' provide evidence that says we should consider a third case.

 

[Virgil]

my problem is that Bush seems to be spinning this to confuse everyone, ties, links, went to school together. This is as bad a Clinton and what does is mean.

If he would come out and say it, not these damn word games,

Also, Dr Rice knows what the commison meant better than the comission?


Virgil

 

[Jocko]

So, if you want to demonstrate that Cain has made a 'false dichotomy,' provide evidence that says we should consider a third case.

What a boob you can be. He posited possibilities, not assertions. Possibilities don't need evidence beyond simple plausibility. Cain did present a false dichotomy, and was rightly called on it, just as you are now being called on demanding evidence for a claim that was never made.

You don't see the fallacy because you enjoy both alternatives provided by Cain... but there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your 4th period poli sci course, Manifesto.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

What a boob you can be. He posited possibilities, not assertions. Possibilities don't need evidence beyond simple plausibility. Cain did present a false dichotomy, and was rightly called on it, just as you are now being called on demanding evidence for a claim that was never made.

You don't see the fallacy because you enjoy both alternatives provided by Cain... but there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your 4th period poli sci course, Manifesto.

I realise that you're busy, what with organising the sandstone for your altar to Reagan and your letter-campaign to the President asking that Reagan be posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Gosh What a Swell Guy, but try to take a moment to digest this:

If there are only two plausible scenarioes, it isn't a false dichotomy. If you think there is a third plauible scenario, you should state what it is, and your reasons why you believe it is plausible.

You may go back to your Reagan-worshipping.

 

[Cain]

What a boob you can be. He posited possibilities, not assertions. Possibilities don't need evidence beyond simple plausibility. Cain did present a false dichotomy, and was rightly called on it, just as you are now being called on demanding evidence for a claim that was never made.

You don't see the fallacy because you enjoy both alternatives provided by Cain... but there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamed of in your 4th period poli sci course, Manifesto.

I thought the original post positing a "false dichotomy" was a joke.

One could list an infinite number of possibilities, none of them the least bit probable. Read the original post for my prima facie presumption. The truthfulness of Rice's claim did not go unconsidered; on the contrary, it was evaluated, as it must be, prior to the either/or explanation offered.

Besides, I directly restated and referred to an earlier post. Why can't you bug
Nasarius with this mindless crap?

"Deliberate lying or gross incompetence? You decide. "

Now it's up to Kerfer and Jocko to decide who will wear the dunce cap first. I'm not sure who had it last, but your best bet is to check with Shanek or Skeptic. Yeah, and don't accuse me of a false dichotomy here either. I fully recognize the many (real) possibilities.

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Notice the immediate second reference to an operational relationship. Sounds like people making a mountain out of a molehill.

Let's do a factcheck:
1. the sept 11 commission investigated whether or not Iraq was involved with 911, despite no apparent reason to look into it
2. the sept 11 commission discussed all the same Iraq/AlQ links we've all seen reported before
3. the commission found no hard evidence of Iraq governement members collaboration with Al Q. to pull off terrorist attacks in America
4. Dick Cheney once again mentioned Iraqi/AlQ ties and was lambasted for it despite the fact that there were ties.
5. AP and Reuters both reported that the Sept 11 commission rejected administration claims that Iraq was involved with 911. However, there never was a claim. The dubious wording AP used made it seem like the commission proved there were no ties despite the evidence presented and put on record before the commission.

Actually my post here: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41954

Goes into how Bush did say Saddam was connected with 9/11, he just did so ambiguously. (Something known as strategic ambiguity).

 

[AtheistArchon]

- This whole thing can be boiled down to transparency.

- Are there "links" between Iraq and al Qaeda? Fine, then describe them. Don't just say "Saddam had connections", because the American public understands that to mean they cooperated, and therefore Iraq is a legitimate target in the "war on terrah" begun by a different party.

- Intel is classified? Describe the links generally, or else bite the bullet and disclose everything and pull our agents... we're in the war anyway at this point, and without this last tenuous allusion to some kind of justification for the whole invasion, there's just no standing reason for having done the damn thing to begin with.

- I personally would LOVE to see a firm link between Saddam and bin Laden. I am ready and willing to pound heads in a genuine war on terror, but Iraq isn't it. Iraq is a CF.

 

[Jocko]

<Snotty Reagan rant snipped for the sake of brevity>

If there are only two plausible scenarioes, it isn't a false dichotomy. If you think there is a third plauible scenario, you should state what it is, and your reasons why you believe it is plausible.

Your assumption that Cain's are the only two plausible scenarious indicate two things:

1. You're not interested in anything not fitting your spoonfed worldview, as I stated earlier and you aptly demonstrated; and

2. You are convinced that you know all there is to know about the situation, including classified intel. Don't worry too much, Manifeto, I was the same way until puberty. There is hope for you yet. A solid dose of the real world is all you'll need, and you can't stay in school forever.

You may go back to your Reagan-worshipping.

And you'd better hurry to math class before the tardy bell rings.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Your assumption that Cain's are the only two plausible scenarious indicate two things:

1. You're not interested in anything not fitting your spoonfed worldview, as I stated earlier and you aptly demonstrated; and

2. You are convinced that you know all there is to know about the situation, including classified intel. Don't worry too much, Manifeto, I was the same way until puberty. There is hope for you yet. A solid dose of the real world is all you'll need, and you can't stay in school forever.

Still haven't come up with that third scenario, I see. What a blowhard.

 

[Jocko]

I thought the original post positing a "false dichotomy" was a joke.

One could list an infinite number of possibilities, none of them the least bit probable. Read the original post for my prima facie presumption. The truthfulness of Rice's claim did not go unconsidered; on the contrary, it was evaluated, as it must be, prior to the either/or explanation offered.

Besides, I directly restated and referred to an earlier post. Why can't you bug
Nasarius with this mindless crap?

"Deliberate lying or gross incompetence? You decide. "

Now it's up to Kerfer and Jocko to decide who will wear the dunce cap first. I'm not sure who had it last, but your best bet is to check with Shanek or Skeptic. Yeah, and don't accuse me of a false dichotomy here either. I fully recognize the many (real) possibilities.

Sorry, I don't spend much time in the dunce cap these days. I worked past that once I figured out that I didn't know everything and that simplistic overgeneralizations tended to make me sound silly. Particularly when they were so bloody partisan.

Seems like a threshold you've yet to cross, unless you're highly placed in the CIA, FBI or the administration and privvy to all the info that could lead you to your conclusions with any confidence whatsoever.

Want evidence that the full story often doesn't come to light for years after an event? Look at any administration of any government in modern times. If the idea that it's happening again is so mind-blowing to you and manifesto, then you've obviously both ditched history class.

 

[Jocko]

Still haven't come up with that third scenario, I see. What a blowhard.

I see you've missed vocabulary as well as logic, history and the better part of economics. The word used throughout is "possibility." Not "scenario," not "claim," and certainly not "the only two possible reasons."

If you can't see the difference, then by all means keep digging deeper. I'm enjoying it.

Since you obviously missed it, let me explain my post a little more for the attention-span-challenged crowd. As an example of the false dichotomy, I asserted (note my choice of words, please) that you are an ass because you either:

1. Are blind to anything that doesn't fit your wordlview, and

2. Assume you know everything, as most students do.

Now, THIS presents a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy because you may be an ass for any one or comination of many other reasons: genetics, upbringing, childhood trauma, juvenile detainment, too many Paul Hogan movies, guilt over unleashing Yahoo Serious upon an unsuspecting world, latent Aboriginal oppression guilt, etc. etc.

See the difference?

 

[Mr Manifesto]

I see you've missed vocabulary as well as logic, history and the better part of economics. The word used throughout is "possibility." Not "scenario," not "claim," and certainly not "the only two possible reasons."

If you can't see the difference, then by all means keep digging deeper. I'm enjoying it.

Since you obviously missed it, let me explain my post a little more for the attention-span-challenged crowd. As an example of the false dichotomy, I asserted (note my choice of words, please) that you are an ass because you either:

1. Are blind to anything that doesn't fit your wordlview, and

2. Assume you know everything, as most students do.

Now, THIS presents a logical fallacy of the false dichotomy because you may be an ass for any one or comination of many other reasons: genetics, upbringing, childhood trauma, juvenile detainment, too many Paul Hogan movies, guilt over unleashing Yahoo Serious upon an unsuspecting world, latent Aboriginal oppression guilt, etc. etc.

See the difference?

Still haven't come up with that third scenario, I see. What a blowhard.

 

[Cain]

Sorry, I don't spend much time in the dunce cap these days. I worked past that once I figured out that I didn't know everything and that simplistic overgeneralizations tended to make me sound silly. Particularly when they were so bloody partisan.

Seems like a threshold you've yet to cross, unless you're highly placed in the CIA, FBI or the administration and privvy to all the info that could lead you to your conclusions with any confidence whatsoever.

Want evidence that the full story often doesn't come to light for years after an event? Look at any administration of any government in modern times. If the idea that it's happening again is so mind-blowing to you and manifesto, then you've obviously both ditched history class.

What the f*ck are you blabbering about?

Not to get taken (further) off topic, but you're right in saying that it often takes awhile for the whole story to come out. That's because the awful truth usually embarrasses and undermines the government's alleged motives and accomplishments.

You may now resume you're regularly scheduled hour of Reagan-worship.

Manifesto: You... you complete me.

 

[Lurker]

I heard Reagan had "connections" and "ties" with the Soviet Union.

Does that make him complicit in the Evil Empire?

Lurker

 

[Renfield]

I heard Reagan had "connections" and "ties" with the Soviet Union.

Does that make him complicit in the Evil Empire?

Lurker

Lets not forget the 9/11 hijackers ties to Florida! I hear they got much of their flight training there.

We already have a stong military presence in the area, so deposing Jeb Bush shouldn't be difficult at least.