Narrowing the range of acceptable discourse?
By Thoreau
Why is it considered a sign of lunacy to say that Bush (or Cheney) lied and people died? As near as I can tell, that’s what actually happened. Sure, any actual article of impeachment will have to flesh it out a bit, but that’s a pretty good synopsis of what happened in the run-up to war.
So why is it considered a sign of lunacy to say so?
Comment by Frank —
December 16, 2007 @ 1:46 pm
You hang out with too many Republicans.
Comment by Grant Gould —
December 16, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
Because it rhymes. Sane people’s political slogans haven’t rhymed since “I Like Ike,” and that was pushing it.
Comment by Dustin —
December 16, 2007 @ 4:16 pm
I’m rather fond of:
Not another nickel, not another dime, not another soldier, not this time.
Maxine Waters made that one up. She’s also a co-sponsor of Kucinich’s resolution to impeach Cheney.
Comment by Doug —
December 16, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
“Tippecanoe and Tyler too” now that was a slogan!
But to answer your question: making a bumper sticker comment like “Bush lied and people died” without, actually, uh…making an argument is not lunacy it’s lazy.
Now, it might be possible that the US Congress were all in on Bush and Cheney’s lies before they made them, but I find it much more likely that the the current administration, like the previous one, was relying on imperfect information provided by poor intelligence work.
Instead you are asking me to believe that two different administrations, from opposing parties, told the very same lies and convinced the US Congress to support regime change multiple times over 11 years, that this was done to further some nefarious evil purpose, and that the evidence provided is some weak-@ss articles of impeachment that even Kucinich’s own party and anti-war media laugh off, and you expect that to fly? Well, that is lunacy.
Comment by ran —
December 16, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
No lunacy about it – it’s exactly what happened. They knew damn well there were no WMDs and no AQ connection but they lied through their teeth and started an illegal war of aggression anyway for their own nefarious purposes.
Impeachment’s too good for them. They belong in The Hague answering for war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 16, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
So why is it considered a sign of lunacy to say so?
Bcs when you tell ppl things that they don’t want to hear, but deep, deep, deep down inside they know are true, then it is easier for them to brand you as a lunatic than to learn. It makes them feel less bad about themselves to play this gambit. You just have to be very patient & persistent.
Comment by VM —
December 16, 2007 @ 9:51 pm
You know, that meta discussion you’re having with the fantasies you have with people is getting really old.
Since 1) you don’t do that 2) nobody of consequence on this thread acts like that and 3) it’s extra crispy irrelevant, it just comes across more pathetic than usual.
It was teh funni when it was about de-a-beetus and guns that discharge whenever, but this Tycho Brahe act really doesn’t work.
(you may puzzle about that as long as you like. just realize that I’m not gonna answer)
Comment by Doug —
December 17, 2007 @ 6:01 am
Ran, let’s start with Al Gore then, just as a test case.
Comment by Doug —
December 17, 2007 @ 6:05 am
Second try for the link.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 17, 2007 @ 7:33 am
guns that discharge whenever
http://www.news-register.net/page/content.detail/id/503296.html?nav=515
Comment by ran —
December 17, 2007 @ 8:36 am
No Doug, let’s start with the war criminals (Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell, Feith, Libby, etc.) that actually lied us into this murderous smash and grab. I’m fine with working our way back to Clinton’s many crimes afterwards.
Anywho, Arthur Silber patiently explains so that even slow learners and Shrub apologists (sorry for the redundancy) can grasp that “intelligence” about a country our government wants to invade is absolutely irrelevant.
Comment by Donald Johnson —
December 17, 2007 @ 9:25 am
It’s not a convincing argument around here to point out that Bush couldn’t have lied about Iraq, because the Clintonites told the same lies. Duh.
Now in a blog comment section less populated by libertarians and lefties and more populated by partisan Democrats, you might have some fun with it.
Comment by Thoreau —
December 17, 2007 @ 12:16 pm
Donald Johnson-
I remember a particularly fun thread on Hit and Run where a commenter tried to justify the invasion of Iraq with “Even Bill Clinton and Jacques Chirac thought Saddam had WMD!”
Yes, because invoking those two guys is a sure-fire way to get most H&R posters on your side….
Comment by mds —
December 17, 2007 @ 12:57 pm
Let me once again call upon the services of my trusty, somewhat dusty, electronic light-pen input high-tech expensive device:
Just pray* that your libertarian blog never gets commenters who are convinced it’s left-wing or Clinton-loving** due to its criticism of odious right-wing authoritarian malarkey.
*You’d better be praying, and to Jesus, or you aren’t worth shit, as Mr. Copold is fond of pointing out when he’s not wailing about Muslim religious intolerance.
**Yeah, despite my cynical sophistimication, I still manage to shake my head over how these two things are supposedly the same.
Comment by Andromeda —
December 17, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
My guesses?
1) Guilt by association. There are some really knee-jerk people out there who spend a lot of time parroting that slogan. That doesn’t mean that everyone who stands by those words is a looney, but it can create a presumption against them.
2) It’s so personality-cult (like, really, all of our presidential politics for the last 15 years…). Again, there are a lot of people whose hatred of Bush is so reflexive and consuming that they kinda seem to lose the power of judgment (see also: people on the right who had the same reaction to Clinton, either Clinton). You can make that statement and mean it as a criticism of substantive issues, concerning intelligence and spin and foreign policy and so forth. But you can also make it and just mean “I hate Bush and will tar him with whatever brush I can find.” And the two versions aren’t actually distinguishable. In fact, any sort of soundbite politics is going to tend to sound like the knee-jerk, not the reasoned, version.
Comment by Gene Callahan —
December 17, 2007 @ 2:58 pm
‘Now, it might be possible that the US Congress were all in on Bush and Cheney’s lies before they made them, but I find it much more likely that the the current administration, like the previous one, was relying on imperfect information provided by poor intelligence work.’
Fine, let’s grant that for the sake of argument, Doug — they still lied! Why? Cause what they should have said was, ‘We’re very suspicious that Iraq is continuing their weapons programmes.’ In the face of many conflicting intelligence reports (e.g., Scott Ritter saying, ‘Nope, no WMDs’) that is the strongest thing they were entitled to say. Instead, they said, ‘We know for sure Iraq has WMDs and WMD programmes’. That’s called lying, Doug.
Comment by Doug —
December 17, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
You said Shrub, how very, very clever, you should trademark it before someone else uses it.
Anyhoooo-hooo-hooo, It’s called Historian’s Fallacy: resting your argument on the assumption that the knowledge we have today was the same knowledge that decision makers had available in the past. Additionally, anything we now know to be false, decision makers should have also known to be false, even though it might well have been true if you consider all evidence at the time.
I offer evidence (within the limits the medium) that other individuals, governments, agencies, political parties, media outlets thought the same thing not to say “See Clinton was also bad” but as evidence that information was not perfect. But you, Ran, and other “Bush Lied, People Died” faithful would rather believe that everyone involved over a period of 23 odd years had perfect knowledge and that they choose to act with evil intent.
I followed and read Silber’s link and found I agree with some of what he wrote, especially this
So no Special Super Secret perfect knowledge available to our decision makers…hmmm…sounds familiar. I don’t agree when he talks about the causes and results of cr@p intel, when you start clicking through the links he offers to support his argument, you find his opinions supported by other’s opinions, supported by other’s but little…uh…proof.
In the end it would make it a whole lot easier to swallow the whole Illuminati wants war at any cost argument if someone could point out a motive, I mean a real motive, besides its good for Halliburton stocks.
Comment by Doug —
December 17, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Fair enough, Gene, a much more believable argument, however watch the Gore clip to see how sure this sitting Senator was at the time. There is a common thread linking all these various decision makers.
Comment by Dave W. —
December 17, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
In the end it would make it a whole lot easier to swallow the whole Illuminati wants war at any cost argument if someone could point out a motive, I mean a real motive, besides its good for Halliburton stocks.
War is paid for by income taxes rather than capital gains tax, but tends to benefit stock value more than it increases salaries. If you want me to demonstrate this with documentary evidence than you will have to give me some discovery. If it is beyond your ability to give me discovery, Doug (and I think it is), then you will just have to take my word on it.
Comment by Doug —
December 17, 2007 @ 5:19 pm
Dave W.,
And? I give you that war is good for some stocks (and bad for others). What’s your point? That the US has gone to War with Iraq to increase stock values?
Comment by Dave W. —
December 17, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
What’s your point?
That people in the legendary Illuminati like the war because it is one way to effect a governmental wealth transfer from the middle class to the upper class. The US didn’t go to war merely to increase stock values, but rather more precisely because middle class tax revenues (and lower class lives) could be spent to increase stock values.
Now, it is not that no rich people pay income tax (they pay lots), nor that no middle class people own stocks (they own some), nor that no upper or middle class US citizens have given their lives in service of the nation’s defense (Pat Tillman comes to mind, but he was Afghanistan). However, adjusting our focus to see the big picture, the war generally uses middle class revenues to disproportionately help rich people’s bank accounts. That can be a tricky thing to do politically, but George W. Bush and Dick Cheney managed it, at least for awhile. I think, by now, however, even a lot of people of average intelligence are beginning to realize that Bush lied and people died.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 17, 2007 @ 7:19 pm
Do people actually consider it lunacy, beyond the dead-ender Reds who think saying “the Iraq War was a bad idea” is the height of madness?
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 17, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
guns that discharge whenever 2, The VemSter Boogaloo.
We’ll put this one in the maybe category:
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19118534&BRD=1817&PAG=461&dept_id=68561&rfi=6
Comment by Doug —
December 17, 2007 @ 11:56 pm
Comment by Doug —
December 18, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
Dave,
So simple question: Are you stating that the real reason for the 2003 invasion of Iraq was to:
Only a no answer needs explanation.
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 18, 2007 @ 4:55 pm
yes
Comment by Doug —
December 18, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
You’re off your chump.
Comment by Eric the .5b —
December 19, 2007 @ 2:20 am
Cyril Connelly?
Comment by Dave Woycechowsky —
December 19, 2007 @ 6:54 am
guns that discharge whenever 3:
see J Golden Rockwell’s comments on the Glock trigger over at HnR Khang Vang thd #2.
Comment by Doug —
December 19, 2007 @ 9:47 am
No! ‘Semi-carnally’
Oh!