Split from: Hitchen's Signature Behavior

[Glenn]

Like many, I got bored with the dodging. But this I found amusing:

I am not inferior in knowledge or logical skills to my critics here. Quite the contrary. Based on what I've been reading, I'm debating people who rely on a handful of debater's tricks employed ad nauseam to bully their opponents.

Numerous examples of Pomeroo doing exactly that have already been pointed out. Here's another such bit of recent history:

I wrote this:

Many Islamists have been mobilized with this sense of indignation [against Western culture], that's true. But the leaders -- Bin Laden et al. -- their motivations and rage stem not from some generalized disdain for the American way of life. That's effective Bush administration PR, to make the enemy a purely evil "other" out to destroy us merely because of our innate goodness. (It's a time-tested story. Make it about pure good and pure evil, 100% black and white, to really sell it.)

...followed by political reasons the militant Islamist leaders are rabidly anti-American.

Pomeroo replied with this:

When an interpretation of jihadist behavior has to invoke the devil-figure George Bush, it probably misses the mark.

I replied with this:

"Devil-figure?" Your words, not mine. Not even my implication. This is just... weird.

"Has to?" Not at all. That was purely an aside.

Your bizarre tactics continue to surprise.

And Pomeroo replied with this mixed message:

There you go again, pretending that I'm ascribing things to you that you never said or suggested. ... To facilitate progress, let us agree that it was I who introduced the term.

...followed bizarrely by an unrelated account of a columnist putting words into William F Buckley's mouth back in 1965, after which Pomeroo argued:

Nah, liberals wouldn't dream of putting words into a conservative's mouth.

Total non sequitor. Thrown in there to prove... what? Who said this was a liberals vs. conservatives issue? Was he trying to justify his use of that debater's trick by arguing that others use the same debater's trick? Didn't he just tell us he's superior in logic skills to people who use "debater's tricks"? The construction of his sentence, "Nah, liberals wouldn't dream of putting words into a conservative's mouth," indicates he thinks someone here claimed that only conservatives do that.

Straw man argument. Debater's trick.

In the same post Pomeroo admitted his bias and the level of his evidence in assessing others' beliefs:

I called Bush a devil-figure because that is how I think everyone on your side views him. How wrong am I?

Note his words: "Everyone" "your side." How wrong? 100%.

I have no idea what the last part of this statement refers to [boldface added], unless it was a wholly unrelated hypothetical:

Incidentally, putting words into another person's mouth, while usually a very unfair tactic, can sometimes be defensible. If someone states that absolutely everything Bush has done is bad for the country, I can say that this person thinks that the tax cuts are bad for the country. When I am attacked for ascribing to the person things he didn't say, I can respond that my critic is illogical and is arguing in bad faith.

That would be an irrational debate tactic. Also, it's interesting that he says "attacked," as if it's, well, an attack instead of a mere statement of fact.

I'm sure Pomeroo is shocked, shocked that there are debate tricks going on here. (In the unlikely event anyone doesn't know that reference, it's time to watch Casablanca again. Immediately.)

 

[Glenn]

I fail to see how five years' experience in battling with rhetoric (a pursuit of dubious value) does not form a base of knowledge of one's ideological opponents.

Negative. I am disputing your position that experience is not a valid basis for argument. That is not the same thing. You reject experience. I find that a bizarre position. You seem to presume that his experience is fabricated, or otherwise of no value, and so you reject it.

The question was about whether his claims serve as evidence for his generalizations. First of all, personal experience is not very good evidence because it can be knowingly or unwittingly inaccurate (among other reasons). Who knows if he's telling the truth? Who knows if he accurately perceived things? He's already given ample evidence of his proclivity for prejudice and assigning points of view to people without proof. One of many examples:

I called Bush a devil-figure because that is how I think everyone on your side views him.

In case you missed it, he was wrong about what he termed "my side." (Any defense that some people think that way would be wholly irrelevant; he said "your side" and was responding to something I said, which had nothing to do with suggesting Bush is a "devil-figure.") That and many other statements call into question his reliability in assessing people and their beliefs accurately or honestly.

It is undeniably reasonable for someone to want more evidence than the word of an anonymous forum poster describing his personal experiences.

But for sake of argument, let's take him at his word, for I find it easy to believe he has encountered some of the things he describes. I (and I think others) have offered counterevidence of equal weight, based on all the political events I've attended over the years. The key difference was that Pomeroo says he goes to protest rallies and far left blogs. Nobody has argued with him that he is likely to encounter many irrational, hyperbolic statements at those two venues. That was never in question. The question is his habit of generalizing based on such extremely narrow sources.

Moreover, he has failed to take into account the intelligent analyses here about the difference between irrational, hyperbolic assertions like "Bush=Hitler," and more nuanced discussions about the direction our country may be headed that weigh the curtailment of civil liberties vs. effective national security, using analogies.

I think any discounting of such nuanced discussions reveals an unproductive desire to rant rather than discuss. This really has nothing to do with political points of view.

 

[Glenn]

(deleted message)

 

[pomeroo]

[=Glenn;2323703]Like many, I got bored with the dodging. But this I found amusing:

Numerous examples of Pomeroo doing exactly that have already been pointed out. Here's another such bit of recent history:

None of the examples were correct, however. You neglected to mention that minor point.

I wrote this:

...followed by political reasons the militant Islamist leaders are rabidly anti-American.

Pomeroo replied with this:

I replied with this:

And Pomeroo replied with this mixed message:
...followed bizarrely by an unrelated account of a columnist putting words into William F Buckley's mouth back in 1965, after which Pomeroo argued:

Bizarrely? Unrelated? Tell me that you're just playing dumb.

Total non sequitor.

Nope, not at all.

Thrown in there to prove... what? Who said this was a liberals vs. conservatives issue? Was he trying to justify his use of that debater's trick by arguing that others use the same debater's trick? Didn't he just tell us he's superior in logic skills to people who use "debater's tricks"? The construction of his sentence, "Nah, liberals wouldn't dream of putting words into a conservative's mouth," indicates he thinks someone here claimed that only conservatives do that.

Straw man argument. Debater's trick.

You don't have the slightest idea of what a strawman argument is. You disingenuously pretended that I was trying to put words in your mouth. I showed, using an example taken from a book by Buckley, that no one in his right mind would assume that I was quoting you, especially when your original post was so readily available. Wilkins's use of "dat ole debbil communism" is analogous to my "the devil-figure George Bush."

In the same post Pomeroo admitted his bias and the level of his evidence in assessing others' beliefs:



Note his words: "Everyone" "your side." How wrong? 100%.

And your "evidence" is...? No, I am, of course, not wrong. The demonization of George Bush by his opponents is extraordinary, even by the debased standards of American politics.

I have no idea what the last part of this statement refers to [boldface added], unless it was a wholly unrelated hypothetical:

You're almost right: it is a related hypothetical.

That would be an irrational debate tactic.

How would you know?

Also, it's interesting that he says "attacked," as if it's, well, an attack instead of a mere statement of fact.

No, it's not a "mere statement of fact." I'm guessing you didn't do too well in Logic. I'm demonstrating how a totally airtight inference can be attacked because one or more of the links in the chain of reasoning was left unspoken. To put it syllogistically: I) Absolutely everything Bush has done is bad for the country; II) The tax cuts are one of things Bush has done; III) The tax cuts are bad for the country. If my opponent states (I), then he is committed to maintaining (III). You can't be serious here.

I'm sure Pomeroo is shocked, shocked that there are debate tricks going on here. (In the unlikely event anyone doesn't know that reference, it's time to watch Casablanca again. Immediately.)

Pomeroo isn't the least bit shocked. He can spot this stuff a mile off.

 

[Glenn]

Pomeroo, I don't know if you're arguing because you're loath to acknowledge error/hypocrisy, or because you're skimming too fast to follow just so you can whip out a retort. If the latter, I'll try to help:

You don't have the slightest idea of what a strawman argument is.

A straw man (two words, BTW, in case they didn't teach you that in class; a "strawman" is something else) argument is a rhetorical technique wherein one creates a position or argument that is easy to refute, and attributes that position or argument to an opponent. I pointed out that you did it with your statement: "Nah, liberals wouldn't dream of putting words into a conservative's mouth." That statement refutes an implied argument that neither I nor anyone here ever made -- or even remotely suggested -- namely, that only conservatives put words in people's mouths and/or that liberals don't.

I know you get it. Move on.

And your "evidence" is...? No, I am, of course, not wrong. The demonization of George Bush by his opponents is extraordinary, even by the debased standards of American politics.

Again, you are failing to read what said. I'll walk you through it.

You wrote: "I called Bush a devil-figure because that is how I think everyone on your side views him. How wrong am I?"

I said you were 100% wrong, after highlighting your key words that made you 100% wrong: "Everyone" and "your side."

To spell it out further: The reasons you are wrong are 1) you said "everyone," which is inaccurate (I don't view bush as a "devil-figure," so that alone disproves your claim); and 2) you said "your side," yet people like me do not view Bush as a "devil-figure." It's your bad habit of generalizing and prejudice.

Still confused? Maybe this will help. What if I said, "Pomeroo, I think everyone on your side is a mindless raving lunatic. How wrong am I?"

How wrong would I be that "everyone" on "your side" is as I described? 100%, because "everyone" on "your side" is not a mindless raving lunatic. (I would guess.)

I know you get it. Move on.

You're almost right: it is a related hypothetical.

No, it was unrelated because the rationale for putting words in people's mouths in your hypothetical bore no relation to the instance at hand. It'd be like slapping somebody for no reason, then arguing "Well sometimes there are good reasons to slap somebody, like if you're trying to revive them." Unrelated hypothetical.

I know you get it. Move on.

No, it's not a "mere statement of fact." I'm guessing you didn't do too well in Logic. I'm demonstrating how a totally airtight inference can be attacked because one or more of the links in the chain of reasoning was left unspoken.

I see, your problem stems from sloppy wording, not from flawed logic. Again, your statement in question was: "When I am attacked for ascribing to the person things he didn't say, I can respond that my critic is illogical and is arguing in bad faith."

If you did well in Logic, you would have learned how important precise language is. It reads like you're justifying one type of fallacious argument with another, which would be an irrational debate tactic. (Specifically, justifying putting words in someone's mouth by claiming that person is arguing in bad faith anyway.)

But that's in fact not what you meant. So a clearer way of wording it would be, "When I am attacked for ascribing to the person things he didn't say, I can respond that the specific things I ascribed to him are perfectly consistent with the broader statement he made."

I know we both get it now. We move on.

Pomeroo isn't the least bit shocked. He can spot this stuff a mile off.

Sounds like you missed the meaning. Seriously, you should watch Casablanca again, no greater film ever made. The famous line I paraphrased isn't about you actually being shocked, it's an ironic statement about you being guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. As you may recall, in the film Captain Renault shuts down an illegal casino shouting, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!" -- just as someone hands him his winnings.

Get it, now?

 

[pomeroo]

[=Glenn;2325375]Pomeroo, I don't know if you're arguing because you're loath to acknowledge error/hypocrisy, or because you're skimming too fast to follow just so you can whip out a retort. If the latter, I'll try to help:

The condescension doesn't help, actually.

A straw man (two words, BTW, in case they didn't teach you that in class; a "strawman" is something else) argument is a rhetorical technique wherein one creates a position or argument that is easy to refute, and attributes that position or argument to an opponent. I pointed out that you did it with your statement: "Nah, liberals wouldn't dream of putting words into a conservative's mouth." That statement refutes an implied argument that neither I nor anyone here ever made -- or even remotely suggested -- namely, that only conservatives put words in people's mouths and/or that liberals don't.

I know you get it. Move on.

You're moving very fast, which suggests that there's trickery afoot. There's nothing egregious in your first paragraph, but it falls short of complete rhetorical honesty.

You are correct that "straw man" consists of two words, and I have written it as two words many, many times. I won't resort to the internet dodge of pretending that it was a typo. It was sloppiness, pure and simple. Sometimes mistakes become habits. You were right to call the error to my attention.

When you claim that I'm refuting an argument that you didn't remotely suggest, well, you're being less than truthful. Your original charge that I was somehow imputing to you the phrase I used, "the devil-figure of George Bush," proved unsustainable. I used a very close analogy to show that the tactic of mocking an opponent's position by exaggerating it or framing it in a humorous manner is a very common one. There was no attempt, either in the illustrative example or by me, to put words into anyone's mouth. Your feigned confusion as to my purposes was highly unconvincing.

Again, you are failing to read what said. I'll walk you through it.

You wrote: "I called Bush a devil-figure because that is how I think everyone on your side views him. How wrong am I?"

I said you were 100% wrong, after highlighting your key words that made you 100% wrong: "Everyone" and "your side."

To spell it out further: The reasons you are wrong are 1) you said "everyone," which is inaccurate (I don't view bush as a "devil-figure," so that alone disproves your claim); and 2) you said "your side," yet people like me do not view Bush as a "devil-figure." It's your bad habit of generalizing and prejudice.

Do I believe that literally everyone on the left regards Bush as a devil-figure? Now, there's a straw man! Absolutely no one believes that 100% of the left is in agreement on anything. Of course, any sentence that begins, All men, or All baseball fans, will assuredly run headlong into the inevitable exceptions. This is a banality. Why waste time on it?

If a pundit writes, All Democrats are hoping that the primary process will produce the candidate best suited to regaining the White House, should we take him to task for imprecision? We really do get the idea that a group consisting of over a hundred million members will contain a few eccentrics. So, the hypothetical pundit doesn't mean literally all Democrats. What of it? That's how people talk. Agreed, my statement was sweeping, but the extraordinary phenomenon here is the over-the-top efforts, bordering on hysteria, by Bush's foes to transform him into a comic book villain. Charles Krauthammer has called it, Bush Derangement Syndrome. Perhaps I should have written that I think that an overwhelming majority of people on your side view Bush as a devil-figure. You could argue the point, but you'd be swimming against a strong current. My perception is shared by most observers.

Now, you may be attempting to draw a distinction between yourself and "most leftists." It's true that I'm lumping you in with people with whom you may have little in common. I'll concede that I'm being unfair. As I wrote in another thread, the left, as opposed to "liberals," is characterized by varying degrees of disapproval of America, extending all the way to hatred. You might well be a liberal who has this country's best interests at heart. I'd be wrong to imply that you share the irrationality of the BusHitler crowd. You'd be wrong to minimize the size or influence of that crowd.

Still confused?

And when did you stop beating your wife? I wasn't confused at any time.

Maybe this will help. What if I said, "Pomeroo, I think everyone on your side is a mindless raving lunatic. How wrong am I?"

How wrong would I be that "everyone" on "your side" is as I described? 100%, because "everyone" on "your side" is not a mindless raving lunatic. (I would guess.)

I know you get it. Move on.

I'm beginning to think that you really don't get it. There is no widespread perception that every conservative is a mindless raving lunatic. It would be easy to find conservatives who don't fit the bill. Finding someone on the left who doesn't regard Bush as a devil-figure is difficult. Your analogy misses the mark. I am making a claim about what I believe to be a widely-held position by "your" side. You counter by telling me what you believe--your own, idiosyncratic position. My view that Bush is regarded as a devil-figure by the left reflects a consensus, the demonization of the man having been noticed by observers across the political spectrum. When Jonathan Chait wrote his now-notorious column, "Why I Hate George Bush," several pundits commented that something new had entered the political discourse.

No, it was unrelated because the rationale for putting words in people's mouths in your hypothetical bore no relation to the instance at hand. It'd be like slapping somebody for no reason, then arguing "Well sometimes there are good reasons to slap somebody, like if you're trying to revive them." Unrelated hypothetical.

Again, the relationship between the two instances is abundantly clear. What Wilkins did is exactly what I was doing. I know you get it.

I know you get it. Move on.

Yes, I do get it. Are we on the same page?

I see, your problem stems from sloppy wording, not from flawed logic. Again, your statement in question was: "When I am attacked for ascribing to the person things he didn't say, I can respond that my critic is illogical and is arguing in bad faith."

If you did well in Logic, you would have learned how important precise language is. It reads like you're justifying one type of fallacious argument with another, which would be an irrational debate tactic. (Specifically, justifying putting words in someone's mouth by claiming that person is arguing in bad faith anyway.)

You keep asserting that I'm the one with the problem, but your efforts so far suggest that the reverse is true. I am precisely not justifying one type of fallacious argument with another. The argument that I'm putting words into my hypothetical opponent's mouth is fallacious because it follows from premise (I), i.e., Absolutely everything Bush has done is bad for the country, that he maintains (III), i.e., The Bush tax cuts were bad for the country--even though he never specifically said those exact words. I'm not putting words into his mouth--his own premise puts them there. My argument is not fallacious; it is sound. To contend that I'm arguing unfairly is fallacious.

But that's in fact not what you meant. So a clearer way of wording it would be, "When I am attacked for ascribing to the person things he didn't say, I can respond that the specific things I ascribed to him are perfectly consistent with the broader statement he made."

I know we both get it now. We move on.

Not quite. In my example, what I ascribe to my opponent is, of course, consistent with his broader statement, but that doesn't go far enough. The consistency is necessary. It is not enough to note it: we must acknowledge that it cannot be denied. Having posited premise (I), it is logically impossible for him not to be committed to the conclusion (III).

Sounds like you missed the meaning. Seriously, you should watch Casablanca again, no greater film ever made. The famous line I paraphrased isn't about you actually being shocked, it's an ironic statement about you being guilty of the very thing you accuse others of. As you may recall, in the film Captain Renault shuts down an illegal casino shouting, "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on here!" -- just as someone hands him his winnings.

Uh, I strongly doubt that I missed anything.

While I wouldn't agree that Casablanca is the number one film of all time (I prefer The Big Sleep and The Maltese Falcon, to pick just from Bogey's films), it's certainly one of my favorites. Claude Raines is perfect as the corrupt Renault.

Get it, now?

You know, you're not a fool and neither am I. We could conceivably have a fruitful discussion if we would both agree to avoid condescension and watch our manners.

 

[Glenn]

The condescension doesn't help, actually.

My comment about "straw man" being 2 words and learning it in Logic class was nothing more than a reference to your comment about not doing well in Logic, intended to highlight the pure silliness of such condescension. I don't actually care about the spelling. I saw you weren't taking things seriously with your tone quite awhile ago, so I wasn't taking things seriously with mine either. I think your serious conversation is with Merko, not me. (And BTW, my refrain of "Move on" was merely a lighthearted play on your favorite organization. I hope you were amused.)

Your feigned confusion as to my purposes was highly unconvincing.

Honestly, nothing was feigned, it was confusing.

Do I believe that literally everyone on the left regards Bush as a devil-figure?

If you didn't really mean that's what you think everyone on "my side" thinks, after being asked so many times to be more careful with gross generalizations, then I don't think anybody can be blamed for the confusion. It's not hard or time-consuming to add those modifiers. But by what you say next, I see you don't really believe it needs much modifying. Which isn't much different.

We really do get the idea that a group consisting of over a hundred million members will contain a few eccentrics. So, the hypothetical pundit doesn't mean literally all Democrats.
[...]
Perhaps I should have written that I think that an overwhelming majority of people on your side view Bush as a devil-figure. You could argue the point, but you'd be swimming against a strong current.

You're back to the beginning, and there is no point in further discussion, at least of this claim of yours. I've been active in the Democratic party for decades, working on campaigns and closely involved with the DNC, and can tell you with all honesty you are the one swimming upstream, and sinking. But since this returns us to a "No, you're wrong," "No, you're wrong" loop, let's just leave it at that. You say your perception comes from a very narrow source, mine comes from a much wider source, both are on the left. You'll argue even this, I'll disagree, round and round the loop. I know your claim is outrageous. I know from the press (and even liberal talk radio like Al Franken and Ed Schultz), I know from personal experience. I know countless liberals who don't think the way you characterize. Of the many hundreds I know personally and have worked with on campaigns, none fit your characterization. These are good solid progressive Democrats, not some minority. It's just sad to me that you can't shake your perception, because it will never lead anywhere productive, for you or for anyone else. But it is as it is, live and let live.

Some liberals I know make hyperbolic jokes now and then, which I take no more seriously than the hyperbolic jokes some of my right-wing friends make about Democrats. (Or the jokes we Democrats make about Democrats.) See, all of us get along pretty well, and we're pretty realistic about things.

Finding someone on the left who doesn't regard Bush as a devil-figure is difficult.

Not if you stop looking in weird places.

There is no widespread perception that every conservative is a mindless raving lunatic.

Actually...

I am precisely not justifying one type of fallacious argument with another.

Pomeroo, Pomeroo, sweet dear ol' Pomeroo, you spent a lot of time arguing a claim I didn't make. I'm genuinely sorry you lost that bit of time. Please reread the prior post. I said exactly what you're saying. I described what it had sounded like you originally said, acknowledged that wasn't what you were really saying, and concluded the problem was not your argument, but merely your wording of it, and then offered a much clearer wording to convey your intended point. I'm sure you agree it's a more clearly worded sentence.

And when did you stop beating your wife?

Monday, about 3pm.

Oh BTW, I purposely didn't say Casablanca is the number one film of all time, I said no greater film was ever made. Others may be as good. I like your other choices, not as much, but great films. There are 12 films in my #1 slot, I can never pick one.

 

[Glenn]

One last comment: when I talk about Democrats not fitting your characterization, I don't mean there's not a lot of anger at Bush. Most of us who pay attention and love our country are angry at him for doing so much damage to it -- through bad international policy, bad tax policy, bad education policies, bad faith-based policies, bad environmental policies, bad appointments, etc. There is a lot of fair, reasonable outrage. Some of it comes down to differing ideologies, some of it does not. The large number of Republicans who share the anger proves it's not just ideological. It's an honest assessment that this president has been very bad for our country and the world in many significant ways. Some view his policies differently, of course, but there's no denying it's a widespread opinion.

So my point is simply that there's a big difference between mindless angry outbursts such as "Bush=Hitler" and "he's a devil" you'll hear at rallies and blogs, and the mainstream honest anger many people feel toward an administration that has done so much serious damage to our beloved nation and beyond. Nobody should confuse the latter attitude for the former or lump them together.

 

[Glenn]

I just reread post #307 which I dashed off last night, it sounded more lighthearted to me when writing it than it does upon rereading... it was meant more tongue-in-cheek than I suspect it comes off. Sorry if that didn't come through. And I do find the conversation with Merko more interesting and serious-minded.

 

[pomeroo]

[=Merko;2320124]Which conveniently 'forgets' how 300-400 tons of chemical weapons were sent by the U.S. firm Alcolac International alone. But well, this US article was published just as the US went to war with Iraq - you can hardly expect it to be free of propaganda.

Again, I apologize for overlooking your post. It's becoming too onerous to track down this thread. Perhaps we'll meet again on a different one, but for now, I'm happy to let you have the last word here. Now, a few comments:

The link you provide should be studied carefully. It supports my contention that Amercia's role in arming Saddam pales beside that of other nations. Your assumption that anything published in an American magazine must be propaganda, while silly, tells us what we need to know about your own mindset.

I don't call the planned escalation 'packing up and leaving'. Yes, the majority of Americans would like to do that, and it is important for us non-US citizens such as me to defend those of you who do not want to take part in this. But sadly,it is not US policy.

Your statement is incoherent. It is highly doubtful that most Americans simply want to abandon Iraq to the chaos and eventual satellization by Iran.

Nonsense. The estimates I refer to are extremely conservative. One of the world's most respected scientific journals, the Lancet, recently published an estimate which is about 10 times (1000%) higher. My source argues that the estimates in the Lancet are too high, and I tend to agree. However, it is clear that the figures from my source are far too low, since it only includes reported deaths.

But it isn't nonsense. The left's indifference to Saddam's oppression is characteristic. Casualties resulting from American military actions are routinely inflated.

Wars are not won because you kill more people than the opponent. That is a bizarre idea which has nothing to do with reality. I've sometimes come across Americans claiming that the US did not lose the war in Vietnam, because the US killed more Vietnamese than the other way round. Duh. War is not a game of football, with some kind of scoreboard. The 'winner' of the war is the one that stays when the war ends. Naturally, the US will give up sooner than the Iraqi given the same rate of casualties, because Iraq is, well, closer to Iraq than to the US. Americans in general don't care much about Iraq. Iraqis do.

Again, much of this paragraph is incoherent. America suffered a strategic defeat in Vietnam as our stated goals were not achieved. It is absurd to talk about America "losing the war" since the invading North Vietnamese did not fight any Americans in 1975.
The notion that the fighting in Iraq is directed at expelling the Americans is bizarre. America would leave instantly if the fighting stopped--everyone gets that idea.

The communists had very considerable support in the South. Certainly not enough to combat the combined force of the government and the US, but the truth is that there was a civil war, where both sides were heavily supported by outside allies (US and North Vietnam respectively).

Your thoroughly discredited "truth" was abandoned by most leftists over twenty years ago. North Vietnamese archives and books by various generals make clear that the Vietcong were puppets. The myth of a civil war is long dead.

Then they are lying.

I'm afraid that won't do. Your purely emotional need to pretend that torture is official U.S. policy doesn't change reality. The International Red Cross visits Gitmo regularly. Force-feeding prisoners to stop suicide-by-starving is not torture.

There were a number of defectors who tried to make a career out of supplying the US with 'information'. Of course, such 'information' does not pay too well if it claims that there is no big problem. Unfortunately, US intelligence was unable to correct for this very well known pitfall.

Uh, the intelligence was bad. Having said that, can we agree that everybody thought that Iraq had WMD?

Nobody ever knows anything for sure. There were very good reasons to assume that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs in 1998.

Really? How come nobody could think of even one of those reasons at the time? The term for your type of "analysis" is Monday-morning quarterbacking.

In fact, it was a few years after that date that the uncertainty was most significant. But even at that date, there were no really sane reasons to assume that Iraq had enough WMDs to pose any real threat. Sure, a completely suicidal regime can cause some considerable damage with a very small arsenal - but although Saddam Hussein wasn't the greatest strategist in the world - rather a very mediocre one - he had displayed very clearly that what he cared most about was staying in power, not some suicide mission to wreak general havoc on the world.

Nobody expected reckless, suicidal bravado from Saddam. Oh, wait--his reckless suicidal bravado caused him to allow his regime to be destroyed. My mistake.

The threat posed by Saddam's arsenal was his presumed willingness to sell parts of it to well-financed terrorists. The fear was that he would gamble on our inability to trace anything back to him.

 

[pomeroo]

[=Glenn;2326934]My comment about "straw man" being 2 words and learning it in Logic class was nothing more than a reference to your comment about not doing well in Logic, intended to highlight the pure silliness of such condescension. I don't actually care about the spelling. I saw you weren't taking things seriously with your tone quite awhile ago, so I wasn't taking things seriously with mine either. I think your serious conversation is with Merko, not me. (And BTW, my refrain of "Move on" was merely a lighthearted play on your favorite organization. I hope you were amused.)

My apologies for the delay in responding. As I wrote in my post to Merko, locating this thread has become a nuisance. No doubt, we'll meet again: you're welcome to take the last word. Yes, your play on words was amusing. I hope my comments on that organization haven't made you soros.

Honestly, nothing was feigned, it was confusing.

I'll take your word for it.

If you didn't really mean that's what you think everyone on "my side" thinks, after being asked so many times to be more careful with gross generalizations, then I don't think anybody can be blamed for the confusion. It's not hard or time-consuming to add those modifiers. But by what you say next, I see you don't really believe it needs much modifying. Which isn't much different.


You're back to the beginning, and there is no point in further discussion, at least of this claim of yours. I've been active in the Democratic party for decades, working on campaigns and closely involved with the DNC, and can tell you with all honesty you are the one swimming upstream, and sinking. But since this returns us to a "No, you're wrong," "No, you're wrong" loop, let's just leave it at that. You say your perception comes from a very narrow source, mine comes from a much wider source, both are on the left. You'll argue even this, I'll disagree, round and round the loop. I know your claim is outrageous. I know from the press (and even liberal talk radio like Al Franken and Ed Schultz), I know from personal experience. I know countless liberals who don't think the way you characterize. Of the many hundreds I know personally and have worked with on campaigns, none fit your characterization. These are good solid progressive Democrats, not some minority. It's just sad to me that you can't shake your perception, because it will never lead anywhere productive, for you or for anyone else. But it is as it is, live and let live.

Some liberals I know make hyperbolic jokes now and then, which I take no more seriously than the hyperbolic jokes some of my right-wing friends make about Democrats. (Or the jokes we Democrats make about Democrats.) See, all of us get along pretty well, and we're pretty realistic about things.

Many observers, not all of them Republcians, have criticized mainstream Democrats like Dick Durbin for casual Nazi allusions that appear designed to throw red meat to the party's lunatic base. The perception that the Democratic Party has gone w-a-y over the top in its relentless assault on Bush is, as you know, very far from being one man's opinion. Mort Kondracke, a centrist Democrat, has stated many times that, in his years as a Capitol Hill pundit, he has never seen anything comparable to the savagery of the Bush-bashers.

Not if you stop looking in weird places.

You won't persuade anybody that comparisons of Bush to Hitler are rare or confined to a far-left fringe. The phenomenon is too widespread and has been noted by too many observers.

Actually...


Pomeroo, Pomeroo, sweet dear ol' Pomeroo, you spent a lot of time arguing a claim I didn't make. I'm genuinely sorry you lost that bit of time. Please reread the prior post. I said exactly what you're saying. I described what it had sounded like you originally said, acknowledged that wasn't what you were really saying, and concluded the problem was not your argument, but merely your wording of it, and then offered a much clearer wording to convey your intended point. I'm sure you agree it's a more clearly worded sentence.

The fact is, you are quite simply wrong. Your attempted correction overlooked the important distinctions, rendering your conclusion incorrect. My wording conveyed exactly what it was intended to convey, and your attempt at improved clarity failed because it aimed to solve a nonexistent problem. I am contending--and re-reading my previous post should help--that my defense to the charge that I'm putting words in my opponent's mouth, i.e., that he is being illogical and is arguing from bad faith, is the most precisely accurate one. The view I'm ascribing to my opponent is not merely consistent with his broader statement; it is a view he is logically committed to.

Monday, about 3pm.

Oh BTW, I purposely didn't say Casablanca is the number one film of all time, I said no greater film was ever made. Others may be as good. I like your other choices, not as much, but great films. There are 12 films in my #1 slot, I can never pick one.

No big deal. I think that greater films have been made, but it's just my opinion. I feel as you do, that designating one film as the "Greatest Movie Ever Made" is a hopeless task. How does one compare mysteries with dramas with comedies? Try comparing "The Producers" (the original, of course) with "To Kill a Mockingbird," or "All About Eve." All three are fabulous, but so very different.

 

[pomeroo]

[=Glenn;2328229]One last comment: when I talk about Democrats not fitting your characterization, I don't mean there's not a lot of anger at Bush. Most of us who pay attention and love our country are angry at him for doing so much damage to it -- through bad international policy, bad tax policy,

Bad tax policy? Bush's tax policy has proved a billowing success. The current economy--the one Democrats seek ever more creative ways of deriding--is a very good one. If a Democrat were presiding over it, the media would be trumpeting its glories from the rooftops.

bad education policies, bad faith-based policies, bad environmental policies, bad appointments, etc. There is a lot of fair, reasonable outrage. Some of it comes down to differing ideologies, some of it does not. The large number of Republicans who share the anger proves it's not just ideological. It's an honest assessment that this president has been very bad for our country and the world in many significant ways. Some view his policies differently, of course, but there's no denying it's a widespread opinion.

No, there is no reasonable outrage. There are policy disagreements that have been presented dishonestly and wildly over-hyped. Agreed, this is nothing new to American politics, but the degree to which Democrats are willing to moralize about their partisan views stamps them as frauds in my eyes.

So my point is simply that there's a big difference between mindless angry outbursts such as "Bush=Hitler" and "he's a devil" you'll hear at rallies and blogs, and the mainstream honest anger many people feel toward an administration that has done so much serious damage to our beloved nation and beyond. Nobody should confuse the latter attitude for the former or lump them together.

The "serious damage" is, of course, a purely partisan assessment that the other side would vigorously dispute. That you can matter-of-factly assert an ideologized, debatable slant demonstrates Bernie Goldberg's thesis: the liberal media establishment correctly identifies anything right-of-center as "conservative"; anything left-of-center is identified as "mainstream" or "common-sense." Conservatives tend to acknowledge their views as conservative. Liberals can't imagine any rational humans disagreeing with their views. As Goldberg often points out, the percentage of prominent media figures who are anti-abortion is exactly ZERO. Yet, the nation is split almost down the middle over this issue. Liberal pundits don't see their pro-abortion sentiments as liberal: they are simply views that all sane people hold. (Incidentally, I am pro-choice.)

Your love for America is, to me, highly commendable, but many on the left disagree vehemently and are not shy about expressing their feelings.

 

[Merko]

The link you provide should be studied carefully. It supports my contention that Amercia's role in arming Saddam pales beside that of other nations.

It does not. For example, while other nations sent more chemicals that could be used to produce chemical weapons, it was the US, through CIA, that helped the Iraqi fine-tune their use of actual chemical weapons. This is a difference in two respects: First, while chemicals can be used for making WMD, they can also be used for other things, and so the exporters of such substances can claim that they were not directly involved in the WMD effort, while the CIA cannot. Second, the CIA is not just a company operating from the US, but actually a part of the US government.

Now, I'm not saying that the US was more responsible here than other nations such as Germany and Russia, but I'm saying that the US responsibility was significant.

Your assumption that anything published in an American magazine must be propaganda, while silly, tells us what we need to know about your own mindset.

It doesn't have to be, but something published in an American magazine when America has just gone to war, and that conveniently fails to include information of American responsibility, that's something that can and should be suspected of being propaganda.

Your statement is incoherent. It is highly doubtful that most Americans simply want to abandon Iraq to the chaos and eventual satellization by Iran.

They probably don't want it to be dominated by aliens from Venus either. But on the other hand, the Venusians might invade Ohio, so perhaps the US should regroup its army to Ohio instead.

Another option would be to make political decisions based on the real world, as it is. Despite political pressure on the CIA and other agencies to find Iranian complicity, there has been no evidence of Irani weapons deliveries to the Iraqi insurgency, for example.

Fortunately, most Americans don't buy your false dilemma, and so they would, in fact, support a withdrawal.

But it isn't nonsense. The left's indifference to Saddam's oppression is characteristic. Casualties resulting from American military actions are routinely inflated.

I've given sources supporting my opinion that the level of violence is higher in Iraq today, than it was during the end of the Hussein regime. You have offered absolutely no evidence to the contrary, just opinions that my figures would be wrong. So, what do you base that opinion on, really?

Again, much of this paragraph is incoherent. America suffered a strategic defeat in Vietnam as our stated goals were not achieved. It is absurd to talk about America "losing the war" since the invading North Vietnamese did not fight any Americans in 1975.

Because the US had already lost the war and retreated, that is. Besides, it is a bit disingenious to first claim that there was no civil war because the North heavily supported the insurgency, and then claiming that the US didn't lose because they never fought the North.

The notion that the fighting in Iraq is directed at expelling the Americans is bizarre. America would leave instantly if the fighting stopped--everyone gets that idea.

Now that is a bizarre notion. If the fighting stopped, Iraq would be extremely profitable and the US most certainly would not cede control.

Your thoroughly discredited "truth" was abandoned by most leftists over twenty years ago. North Vietnamese archives and books by various generals make clear that the Vietcong were puppets. The myth of a civil war is long dead.

The FNL were puppets of North Vietnam just as the South Vietnam government was a puppet of the US. That is, in both cases, they were completely dominated by their stronger external ally. However, in both cases, the South Vietnamese forces had their own motives and took part in the conflict for their own reasons.

I'm afraid that won't do. Your purely emotional need to pretend that torture is official U.S. policy doesn't change reality. The International Red Cross visits Gitmo regularly. Force-feeding prisoners to stop suicide-by-starving is not torture.

The International Red Cross visits prisons of many regimes that routinely use torture. It is official Red Cross policy to not even go public with their observations of torture, unless the government in charge is demonstrably unwilling to listen to the concerns of the Red Cross. In the case of Guantanamo, the latter happened.

Uh, the intelligence was bad. Having said that, can we agree that everybody thought that Iraq had WMD?

No, sensible analysts around the world agreed that Iraq most likely had no WMDs. This could be deduced from sources that were, at that time, entirely public.

Nobody expected reckless, suicidal bravado from Saddam. Oh, wait--his reckless suicidal bravado caused him to allow his regime to be destroyed. My mistake.

Allow? How? When Hussein's regime was seriously threatened, he retreated, humbled himself, suffered disgrace rather than lashing out into some desperate act of retaliation.

The threat posed by Saddam's arsenal was his presumed willingness to sell parts of it to well-financed terrorists. The fear was that he would gamble on our inability to trace anything back to him.

Yeah right. Maybe he'd have sold them to the Venusians. Everybody knows the Venusians are desperate to nuke Ohio, after all, and there was a clear Venus-Iraq link.