President Bush Lied?
There is no way President Bush could have possibly known Saddam Hussein DID NOT have WMD. Given this fact, the absence of a necessary pre-condition for a lie, it is impossible win an argument that President Bush "lied" about the existence of WMD.
Be a gracious winner when you confront the next liberal extremist that says, "Bush lied," with the facts and logic.
President Bush may have been wrong about the existence of WMD, but it cannot be logically argued that he lied.
There is no way President Bush could have possibly known Saddam Hussein DID NOT have WMD. Given this fact, the absence of a necessary pre-condition for a lie, it is impossible win an argument that President Bush "lied" about the existence of WMD.
Be a gracious winner when you confront the next liberal extremist that says, "Bush lied," with the facts and logic.
President Bush may have been wrong about the existence of WMD, but it cannot be logically argued that he lied.
posted by Zack at 10:00 AM
7 Comments:
ZacklyRight's Conscience says:
If you follow ZacklyRight's advice, it will be a short-lived, Pyrrhic victory (not sure what the origins and exact meaning of the phrase "Pyrrhic victory" but I have a vague sense it works here), because the liberal undoubtedly will counter that while ZacklyRight's argument is technically correct, Bush did lie (they're allegation, not mine) about what information he had about the issue and intentionally overstated (they're allegation, not mine) the evidence in support of his belief that Sadaam had WMDs.
Conscience, please read my posts of April 21 and May 10. "Mark my words," says President Clinton. Did he lie? Did he cherry-pick intelligence? Did circumstances change so much in 5 years that Clinton is justified in all he said and Bush is still vulnerable?
On other matters, check out the May 18 post . . . I take a shot at Prof. Tribe.
Don't comment at any of those three posts if you have a comment, please do it here.
ZacklyRight's Conscience says:
I re-read your prior posts briefly.
I agree with you that when the liberals reply as I suggested, it is an effective come-back, at least in part, to use the information you cite from the Clinton era. It does not work, entirely, though, because certainly the information was not static so that what the state of intelligence revealed in 1998, may (I emphasize may since I don't know what it was) have changed dramatically in the interim. Also, I wonder whether the Boston Globe, NY Times or other media criticized Clinton's actions at the times. Moreover, my original point was that the over-simplistic argument presented in your post doesn't get you very far, which is true regardless whether you have better come-backs later.
As for esteemed Prof. Tribe, many of the references are too obscure for someone like me, who pays far less attention to politics and the details of the news than you. That said, although I know that consistency is your mantra, I generally don't find it all that persuasive to point out that someone is criticizing something now that they failed to criticize before. If the person has a valid point, it is valid regardless whether they chose to make the same point before -- even if the reasons they didn't make the point before were purely partisan. It might be something different if the person affirmatively supported something previously which they are now criticizing. That is inconsistent and hypocritical in a persuasive way that I find missing in a "silence before, but critical now" argument. Besides, how could a bright guy like Tribe ever be wrong -- I paid thousands of dollars to hear his wisdom. Do you ever think that Bush has done something wrong or that you disagree with? Do you point those instances out with the same degree of fervor as those of the Great Equivocator (granted, the Great Equivocator does provide an awful lot of fodder)?
P.S. I've been posting under "Anonymous" but saying who I am because my feeble mind is unable to remember my password, even though I re-set it within the last week or so when I re-joined this fray. So, you may want to take anything I say with a rather large grain of salt.
Tip for Conscience- Next time you post a comment, just click on "other" under "choose an identity". Then, type in "ZacklyRight's Conscience" in the "Name" space and you'll be set. Leave "web page" blank.(no need for any password this way)
By the way, a pyrrhic victory is a win that is offset by staggering losses. It originates from King Epirus's victory over the Romans many years B.C.
Conscience, my arguments don't have to be much greater than "simple" as I'm arguing against people that repeat "bush lied" and can provide no support of their position. I'm arguing with people that insist Bush said, "mission accomplished." I'm arguing with people that don't realize 43 of the 44 Senate Democrats voted an additional $66 Billion for the war on terror last week; somebody call Cindy Sheehan and let her know, she's still not taking my calls. The joy of defeating these dolts in debate is that you can actually do it so easily and simplistically.
If you vandalize 140 cars or 750 cars, you are a vandal. If you murder 140 people or 750, you are a mass murderer. I can go on. Apparently there is some magic number between 140 and 750 with regad to signing statements that prompts Prof. Tribe to suddenly become uncomfortable.
The Tribe column was just another way for the liberal media to put an expert's spin on the political. Oh, Prof. Trobe, he's brilliant, Bush must be wrong. Up here, the daily drumbeat goes on and on. Bush is responsible for prison abuses (impeach him, fire Rummy, etc.) but we have Mayor up here whose Deputy Superintendent of Police fired indiscriminantly into a crowd at a Red Sox post-game celebration. A police officer aside the Dep. Super. also fired indiscriminantly and killed a young woman. No one, I mean no one, is calling for the Mayor's head. The didn't even call for the Superintendent's head, the Sup. being a woman.
I "argue" daily with dolts. I can do it by being simplistic because that's as sophisticated as many are. And, yes, I make them apoplectic. "I agree with Hillary, the troops should not be withdrawn immediately." They go red.
Thanks, Right-of-Center for the assistance on the mechanics of Conscience's posts. Also, thanks for the "pyrrhic" definition.
Off the subject, I know- but, what responses to the horrific torture/murder of the 2 servicemen found today can we expect from the Al-Fedaban Americans?
Anonymous, I appreciate the question. Of course, the al Fedaban Americans will exhibit more Munchausen by We Hate America by Proxy Syndrome; it's what they do. Again, you can be for cutting and running and not be al Fedaban. You can disagree with the President on a host of things and not be al Fedaban. But, if you think the deaths of these two specific men is good in any way, there is a good chance you are al Fedaban. By all means close Gitmo. I wonder if the UN, Amnesty International, etc. etc. will ask for al Qaeda to close their . . . oh, I forgot, al Qaeda doesn't have a prison, they just kill'em all. But, close Gitmo, by all means.
Post a Comment
<< Home