Oh, boy. Not even a full 1/5 of the way in, and I've alread got one:
This is not a lie if you believe it to be true
Guess who said that one?!
Also, (not viewed by me yet) video can be found here at fox's site. It's to the right of the article.
minda25, what's the problem there?
Isn't a lie a deliberate falsehood, delivered to deceive?
Surprisingly civil reading. Haven't seen the video yet.
I'm offended that Moore keeps calling all the soldiers 'children'. Yeah, we're all somebody's children, but he's using it like they're little kids or something. And if I'm not mistaken, the parents didn't "send" these soldiers to war, like forced armed servitude.
It's pretty insulting, especially considering my brother's over there, volunteering on his own watch.
I'm offended that Moore keeps calling all the soldiers 'children'.
[looks at f8x's profile- ahh, 23 years old...]
I take your point, f8x, they aren't child soldiers. But I know plenty of 18 year olds who are boys in men's bodies. And at the ripe old age of 36, I reserve the right to call some of them "children."
I don't think Moore's choice of words was meant to be offensive, but rather to drive home the point that 18 and 19-year olds are putting their lives on the line before they've had a chance to live.
I thought that Moore pulled most of his punches. O'Reilly is a moron but he is a master at putting words in peoples mouth, notice how he made the baseless statement of Moore being Saddam's biggest defender in the media and how it went unchallenged by Moore.
Moore should have come at Bill with some of his harder to deny information instead of arguing opinion about the validity of intelligence reports.
What isn't shown is how Bill got the interview. He didn't go through Moore's agent. Bill tracked Moore down on the street stuck a camera in his face and accused Moore of trying to dodge an interview on his show.
Regardless of the Moore interview; If you can't see through Bill's tactics, you should not be voting in this election.
I am not a Moore fan, but thought he came out of the interview well. When O'Reilly has to defend (by his words) "bad intelligence" and George Tenet (which he quickly backed away from) he doesn't have much ground. O'Reilly had to go on Good Morning America and admit he was wrong about WMDs.
f8x:
the use of 'children' is factual, in that each soldier is the child of two parents. Thus, they are children, just as we all are children. Moore's interested in emphasizing the heartaches of war, and believe me, the heartache of losing a child or a sibling - whatever the cause - is overwhelming.
mwhybark, don't waste your time.
I don't think Moore's choice of words was meant to be offensive, but rather to drive home the point that 18 and 19-year olds are putting their lives on the line before they've had a chance to live.
Which is vintage Moore. He chooses his words to evoke highly emotional responses to rather complex issues. At best, it's sloppy diction; at worst, he's being intellectually dishonest. Frankly, Moore's arguments are lousy, and if I had to declare a winner here, it'd be O'Reilly. Moore harps on the point of whether or not Bush lied. He says nothing here to establish that. My own view on this is that Moore misses the point: Bush may or may not have lied, I doubt we'll know for sure, but we know he acted far too hastily on what turned out to be spectacularly false information. If the Bush administration didn't intentionally lie about the war, they have made some very bad decisions which led to it.
And again, whereas O'Reilly maintains his position on the moral responsiblity of mistakes in the example of a car accident, Moore tries to confuse the issue by bringing in alcohol. There is a clear difference there.
None of this is say I disagree with Moore's conclusions or that O'Reilly completely avoids logical errors. In fact, I think Moore's mostly right this time, if not partly by accident.
Now if you'll excuse me, after defending O'Reilly, I suddenly feel the need to take a shower.
I'm offended that Moore keeps calling all the soldiers 'children'.
Then she turned to me, let me see how angry she was, and that the anger was for me. She had been talking to herself, so what she said was a fragment of a much larger conversation. 'You were just babies then!' she said.
'What?' I said
'You were just babies in the war - like the one's upstairs!'
I nodded that this was true. We had been foolish virgins in the war, right at the end of childhood.
'But you're not going to write it that way, are you.' This wasn't a question. It was an accusation.
'I-I don't know,' I said.
'Well, I know,' she said. 'You'll pretend you were men instead of babies, and you'll be played in the movies by Frank Sinatra and John Wayne or some other glamorous, war-loving, dirty old men. And war will look just wonderful, so we'll have a lot more of them. And they'll be fought by babies like the babies upstairs.'
Michael Moore, brilliant military commander:
O: OK, well look you cant kill everybody. You wouldn
I am very interested in what my fellow monkeys have to say.
Alright!
mwhybark, don't waste your time.
Oh. Never mind. *Sad face*
f8x, I don't Trac to send me another email about picking on you. So I leave it at that. I've seen your blog.
The byline for this section could have been any number of things. "Things That Piss Me Off", "Freakin' Liberals!", and "Under The Table And Dreaming Of A World Without Liberals" come to mind. But I decided to play it PC, or at least apolitical, and just describe the way I feel about my blog all the time, as opposed to the spaces between the moments when I'm fired up for one reason or another. Welcome to the Fringe.
I'm just happy to be one of your "spaces between the moments when I'm fired up for one reason or another."
f8x pointed out "Yeah, we're all somebody's children [...]", and that they volunteered to do so, so it seems a little redundant to chide it for him. And yeah, Moore's usage does make it clear he considers the human aspect to be eminent (like the mom in his movie -- that tore me up).
And I don't think that it's devaluing to ask what they died for, like some sort of social faux pas. If my wife spends a chunk of money from our accound, I ask her what what she bought. Why should we be less frugal with people's lives? To say that the soldier's lives were given to defend freedom, or democracy, would be like me accepting my wife bought "stuff and things".
>The pretext of a war has absolutely no bearing on the value of a soldier's service.
True. If Michael Moore were, in this context, attempting to rebut Bill O'Reilly's statement of respect towards the troops, your statement would be valid. Heck, if Michael Moore was attempting to do so, I would be the first to say he was wrong.
However, it seems readily apparent to me that Michael was, in this context, not attempting to rebut Bill's statement. The record shows he agrees with that statement, actually. In the context of the larger discussion, Michael was attempting to coax a complete answer to the question out of Bill.
The question that Bill answered was "Over 900 of our soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?" Out of context, his answer was fine. But in the context of the discussion leading up to the question, the answer was incomplete. The preceeding conversation centered around this statement by Bill: "Yeah, but he didn’t lie, he was misinformed."
So, if we condense the context of the preceeding discussion back into the question, you get this: 'If you were president, and you were misinformed, and you sent our soldiers to fight based on this misinformation, and as a result over 900 of our soldiers died, what would you say to their parents?'
In that context, Bill's answer was incomplete. It did not address the principle issue behind the question, which is ostensibly 'what do you say to the parents of dead soldiers, if they died due to a mistake on your part'?
Personally, I know what I would say, and I suspect most of you would say the same thing: I would admin that I had been wrong, and I would say that I was sorry.
f8x, I don't Trac to send me another email about picking on you.
*closes email client*
I agree with Smo. I've never seen Bill O'Reilly's show, so I don't know what I may or may not be defending, but Moore does use emotive language to get the appropriate reactions from his audience. I agree with his message in Bowling for Columbine and haven't seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet, but I do sometimes regret that he has to resort to Oprah Winfrey-style tactics to get the widespread audience and to get his message through.
It's hard to look past the style of presentation to the message when his intention is to get you, the viewer, fired up, angry, upset, amused, or whatever, and seems like a cheap trick. But that's his style and he gets people watching that you probably couldn't get near a news show.
So, if we condense the context of the preceeding discussion back into the question, you get this: 'If you were president, and you were misinformed, and you sent our soldiers to fight based on this misinformation, and as a result over 900 of our soldiers died, what would you say to their parents?'
I understand what you're saying, but the implication is still the same -- they died for nothing.
Moore rightly notes there were no WMDs and he brushes aside the regime toppling part of it by saying that wasn't the original reason we went to war. Fine. But regardless of the justifications for the war, these soldiers accomplished something and they fought for their country.
That's why saying "What did they die for?" in that way is a disrespectful thing to do. He's not making any of the families feel better by cheapening the deaths, he's just pissing people off.
I can't figure out which is the bigger gasbag - Moore or O'Reilly. I know I can stand Michael Moore, but he doesn't inspire the testicle-crushing hatred that Bill O'Reilly does. I will say, that the largest portion of the debate covers topics that I feel neither one of them is qualified to discuss in a national forum.
"I understand what you're saying, but the implication is still the same -- they died for nothing."
Funny that you both agree on the same thing, but are using different words.
If shrub was "misinformed", started a war that killed troops, then found out that the war was started because of "misinformation", the soldiers would have died for nothing.
That is the point.
They have died for nothing.
That is why the war is wrong and shouldn't have gone the way it did.
Because there are no WMD's and the UN speculated that there haven't been since the first gulf war.
I consider it incredibly disrespectfull to send in soldiers so flippantly, without making sure it's for a good reason.
That is why Moore is asking Bill what he would say to the parents of the dead soldiers,
"Why did they have to die for nothing?" might be a better wording.
Saying that the troops died for nothing is not necisarily disrespecting the troops in iRaq.
I would consider it respectfull to say that, because that means that Moore would only send in troops when it meant something, giving them the respect they deserve for taking personal responsibilty for the safety of their country.
Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree and get on with solving the next problem, like how to get better looking hair.
Slaughterhouse Five, right dng?
thank you scartol. Whew.
*puts down slide-ruler*
It's not so much that Moore's referring to soldiers as children is offensive, it's that it's just plain wrong.
Remember the part in the movie where he went to Capitol Hill and tried to get Congressmen to sign their kids up for military service? Parents can't sign their kids up. Congressmen can't, and Bill O'Reilly can't. The whole "would you send your kid" question is a giant smokescreen intended to do nothing more than appeal to emotion. Not that appealing to emotion is inherently invalid, but when you're discussing a policy question and you make an emotional appeal that doesn't have anything to do with anything, you're not participating in the public discourse any more. You're just standing up and saying, "Look at this puppy!"
Besides, isn't Moore's underlying reasoning kind of a disaster? He's either saying that war is never okay or that war is sometimes okay but not now. Right? I can't think of a third option there; if I've overlooked something, somebody correct me.
If he's saying that war is never okay, then his argument isn't persuasive because I reject his premise. He should be trying to tell us why war is never okay. He should be trying to convince us of his premise, not assuming his premise and then trying to convince us of a conclusion based on it.
On the other hand, if he's saying that war is sometimes okay but not now, he's basically saying that the freedom and self-determination of (rounding up) 25 million Iraqis isn't worth the lives of (rounding up) 1,000 American adult volunteer soldiers. By my math, that means he's saying that an American soldier's life is 25,000 times more valuable than an Iraqi's life.
How is that not vile, pathetic racism? Actual racism I mean, not the other kind where somebody says, "Ack! That Middle Eastern man is acting in a very strange manner and it's frightening to me!" and then thousands of people from all over the world join hands in a massive, synchronized pile-on.
(Full disclosure: I never gave a damn about WMD stockpiles. I was convinced that the invasion was justified by the fact that Saddam's Iraq had been in constant violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and some 17 UN Security Council resolutions. I was convinced that the invasion was right by Saddam's full-voiced support for terrorism. I pretty much had my mind made up about Iraq by the spring of 2002, long before anybody started talking about WMD stockpiles. That's just me, but since everybody else was talking about it I figured it was only fair for me to put it out there and let those of you who are going to flame me get it out of your systems.)
To a parent, no matter how old their kid is, they're still their children. To outlive your offspring is a kick in the guts like no other. A bitterness too bitter for words to describe. So, in a sense, from the POV of a parent, Moore's choice of words are reasonable.
As for who signs up a person for service.. can we really say that a young person makes their own choice, on their own beliefs? Parentage & peer group enforce belief. Church & state enforce belief. Patriotic movies and tv shows, the burbling of morons like O'Reilly, and, indeed, Moore, enforce a set of beliefs. When I was 18 I was pretty smart, but I was not experienced enough to know the subtle truths of human nature and the world I know now, at 34. And even at 34, I am aware I am not yet as clued-in as some older, more experienced person. So can we say that a callow youth really signs themselves up for war? Or is it indeed their parents?
"I was convinced that the invasion was justified by the fact that Saddam's Iraq had been in constant violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire and some 17 UN Security Council resolutions..."
Strawman. That wasn't the rationale for invading Iraq. Sanctions were already in place, and the UN forces were boxing Saddam in, successfully. There's no real argument about that except by wingnuts trying to justify the illegal war against Iraq.
I'll say it again, your personal opinion/point is irrelevant, since the rationale for invading Iraq was WMD and imminent threat to the United States.
How do you feel about Israel's violation of UN resolutions, or the United States' similar unilateral actions in the face of UN denunciations to enact this war, Jeff? Does your logic extend to that? What about other violators of UN resolution? Should the US go after them, too?
Remember, the enlistment oath is 'I do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...' not defend the World against anyone who violates UN resolutions. We are talking about US soldiers, Jeff, not UN soldiers. Let's be clear about that. I don't think many Americans believe their troops should be the police of the world..
the rationale for invading Iraq was WMD and imminent threat to the United States.
No, Nostril. The rationale was defiance of the UN Sec Cou.
Would you send your child to war? Would you send your spouse to war? Would you send your father/mother to war? Would you send your cousin to war? Would you send your best friend to war? Would you send your coworker to war? Would you send your neighbor to war? Would you send your boss to war? Would you send your congressman to war? Would you send your President to war?
Yes, it may be a cheap emotional ploy, but isn't it also an excellent way to remind us that soldiers are precious human lives and more than just casualties of war?
Sure, our soldiers volunteer to serve in our armed forces, but ultimately it's the guy we elect on our behalf who determines when and if they are actually put in harm's way. I think that the thrust of Moore's argument, however hamfisted it may have been made was, as DaveJay so beautifully clarified it, that we have a commander-in-chief who refuses to take responsibility for getting people killed on false pretenses. It would have been interesting to see O'Reilly respond to that question.
Also, Jeff Harrell makes a very interesting point: how do we determine the value of the life of an American solider? Are some citizens of the world worth dying for more or less than others?
"No, Nostril. The rationale was defiance of the UN Sec Cou."
Nooooo, that was a *later* rationale. The rationale that bought the US people & the senate was imminent threat to the US. Yellowcake. Mushroom cloud. All that jazz.
It doesn't matter what reason the Bush administration used to sell this war. A person can support the war and oppose Bush's reasons for it at the same time. I see this false binary all the time, and it always bothers me. It may not be the simplest position or even the most ideal, but it is a valid one for an individual to take.
Bush was wrong. Most of us probably agree on that. This does not, however, mean that every action Bush took is, by that very fact, wrong.
Put another way: although I may not agree with Michael Moore's rationale, I agree with his conclusions. Just replace Moore's name with Bush's.
Except don't do it with me, because I don't agree with it.
Scartol: Dead on. Vonnegut in the hizzouse!
Just to be clear. When I said Bush was wrong, I meant about the WMDs. When I said I didn't agree with it, I meant I don't support the war.
Nostrildamus, I think you're grasping at straws with the pseudo-determinist argument. At some point, you have to hold people responsible for their decisions. Most societies seem to have chosen 18 years old. I'm 19 and I would never sign on for mility service, especially if I lived in the US, unless I believed strongly in the cause, and only if there was a clear enemy to fight.
If I may play with your argument a bit: can we really hold Bush accountable for his decisions. Aren't they a product of the advice he receives and the people who surround him?
right on jacbo scartol (and the_bone)
Smo: Yes. As Commander-In-Chief, the ultimate responsibility for the decision to deploy, regardless of other input, rests solely on his shoulders. He may, in certain cases, require the consent of Congress, who then shares the responsibility for supporting his decision, and he is advised by others who share in a portion of the responsibility accruing to their area, but we cannot deploy soldiers without the President's say-so. Harry Truman summed it up best: "The buck stops here."
If even a single soldier dies in combat, it was ultimately the President who put him in harms way. Whether or not he chooses to accept that he is responsible is another matter entirely. Is it an impossible standard to live up to? Probably, but he doesn't even appear to be trying.
Our nation deserves a better leader. His administration and it's policies have been divisive (counter to his orginal campaign promises to unite). His decisions have the appearance of being arbitrary as opposed to reasoned. we have lost the respect of our allies; and every so slowly we are creeping toward a nation governed by fear, rather than a nation governed by law. His administration, rather than working to soothe the public paranoia regarding terrorism, seeks to play upon it and take advantage of it.
On a more personal level, watching the man speak in front of a crowd is a painful experience. Our leaders should be as comfortable with one person or many and he is clearly not. He does not inspire me to be a better American, rather his demeanor leaves me feeling somewhat ashamed of my country that we did not do better.
/end political hack mode
I totally agree with you.
"Nostrildamus, I think you're grasping at straws with the pseudo-determinist argument."
-- I don't think I'm grasping at straws so much as laying it on a bit thick. Yes, one is ultimately responsible for one's own decisions, even at 12 or 11 (there are murderers who are younger, I believe). Nevertheless, most people don't know jack shit at 18. This is just my experience. I was quite a smart 19-yr old, just like you, but I still made utterly stupid decisions that the older me would never have made, influenced solely by others.
"At some point, you have to hold people responsible for their decisions. Most societies seem to have chosen 18 years old."
-- I agree. I was really only presenting an argument as devil's advocate, but you've pretty much nailed where I actually stand, to be frank with you.
No, Nostril. The rationale was defiance of the UN Sec Cou.
Goetter, are you saying we went to war because the Bush administration because they didn't like the U.N. Also, I think you should go to a doctor to check out that no nostril problem.
There are three types of cowardice among some who support George Bush's invasion of Iraq: Those who will not die for their country, when called; Those who will not send their children to die for their country, when called; and, the worst of the lot, those who will send other
THERE THE ITALIC CURSE IS LIFTED
GODDAMN IT
WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE
Nothing is in italics for me except that last comment...
That is astonishingly weak, Sully. And, "Egbert F. Bhatty"? Getthefuckouttahere.
(I meant the "Bhatty" piece was weak. As for the UN -- indeed. Bush the eleventh-hour internationalist.)
Two useless bastards who now that I think of it are both very good at what they do - be complete bastards. At least Moore doesn't hate the poor though.
My personal opinion is irrelevant because I disagree with you.
Your personal opinion is irrelevant because a) it is wrong factually, and b) it is a strawman argument invoked to avoid the facts.
It seems your only rebuttal to my other points is to quote from whitehouse.gov, which can not be considered an unbiased source, now can it? Please try a non-partisan objective outside source to bolster your arguments (there isn't one, I know - which is why you cut&paste whitehouse.gov - I get it).
Quoting the administration's own carefully crafted obscure blather verbatim in lieu of a rebuttal is not a rebuttal, Jeffy, it is mindless parroting. I assume you had time to come up with something, but all you could do was quote chapter & verse from the current administration - the very source at question for its veracity - without actually demonstrating you understood any of the screed itself. Please try harder. F-
to quote from whitehouse.gov
That's called citing a primary source, Nostril.
If you're reduced to such sarcastic handwaving, then you lose.
That's called citing a primary source, Nostril.
Perhaps in latter days, Goetter. Now, it's simply latching on to more empty soundbites. Because the White House keeps repeating the same thing ad-nauseum doesn't mean it's any less spurious than it was when it was first uttered.
If you have to keep saying things in an attempt to make people believe you're right, you lose as well.
[holds up mirror to Surly]
this comment has no bearing on the conversation as it is. I never answered f8x, so I'm doing so now. Even though he seems to have abandoned this thread.
f8x, your question has made me thing very hard, and inspired a philosophical debate with myself. As I was sitting last night trying to concentrate on my friends' pictures of Ireland, I kept picturing your question.
If you keep it in the current context: B.O. says GWB didn't lie about WMD because he believed them to exist. It's a lie, though, because there's no way he knew for certain they did exist, but still painted a frightening picture of stockpiles of WMDs all but unleashed on innocent people. Very arguable, because now that he have the report that the CIA messed up, we'll never know for sure if he had the CIA skew the info. But all this is just my opinion, and certainly subject to holes being poked in it by more politically-savvy people than I. This kind of thing is not my forte.
But this isn't why I went to bed thinking about your question, and woke up thinking about it. It was the question itself, in no context: if a person believes something to be true, but turns out to be wrong, is it a lie? Your definition up there is correct. But what about people who lie to themselves, for example? They know the truth, but are deceiving themselves into believing something entirely different. So, because they believe this thing to be true that's not, are they still lying? And what about people who pick out only the most convenient sources for discovering their truth, knowing all the while their "truth" may be nothing of the sort, if they would just look harder?
I may be making a mountain out of a mole-hill. I did just put Zen and the art of motercycle maintenance down for a break at page 250. I may have been made slightly crazy because of it.
I'm a rather handsome devil, aren't I?
That aside. I back up my statements when asked. I don't repeat them over and over as if that'll suffice for substance.
It seems your only rebuttal to my other points is to quote from whitehouse.gov, which can not be considered an unbiased source, now can it?
The White House can't be considered an unbiased source of information about the White House's statements?
Okay, dude. Whatever.
(Are you even paying attention to the thread of discussion, or are you just posting by reflex?)
I'm with Actually Settle. Both Moore and O'Reilly are full of brown stinky empty rhetoric (and I am igry about Moore, because I believe he is capable of better), but Moore doesn't hate the poor which makes him the more moral - certainly the more Christian, though I don't know if he would espouse himself as such or not (never heard otherwise).
Nice contributtion, minda25!
Some people that use half-assed information to prove something are probably in denial. That counts as self-deceiving. But it doesn't count as lying to others because to lie you must be conscious of your own intentions to deceive. People in self-denial believe they are saying the truth and use a leap of faith to disregard any information that proves them otherwise. Or you would regard mildly mentally-ill people, like paranoids and conspirancy theorists, as liars?
but Moore doesn't hate the poor which makes him the more moral - certainly the more Christian, though I don't know if he would espouse himself as such or not (never heard otherwise).
Moore's a Catholic.
Moore's a Catholic.
I do not question the man's faith; if he says he's a Catholic, then he's a Catholic, and good for him.
But he sure doesn't act like a very devout Catholic.
minda25, thank you for that response. I have not been going to bed and waking up with this discussion on my mind, so don't think too hard about it!
But you bring up interesting points.
My contention about a lie is that it must fulfill requirements of determinant deception--that is, intent is the basis of the definition of lying.
If one is self-deceiving--and really, how can one make a scientifically reasonable assertion that one is self-deceiving? It's observable---we see it in others all the time---but when you say, "oh that person is just deceiving himself/herself", isn't that more of a figure of speech, a way of rationalizing their behaviour in our own minds. We think we know the truth, and we see this person doing and saying things that aren't true or that we think aren't true--yet they seem to believe them with all their heart! So to convince ourselves that we're right and they're, at best not crazy, we say things like, "he/she must be lying to themselves."
All that to say...philosophically, I don't believe you can calculate a lie out of even the most blatant self-deception, since the pattern of belief suggests that the self-deceiver really does believe what is or may be untrue.
I'm rambling--philosophy at 1am always makes me unreadable. Sorry...
"The White House can't be considered an unbiased source of information about the White House's statements?"
Well, the whitehouse website *has* been noted to have removed or redacted information on its pages from time to time. So perhaps in a literal sense, the answer is no!
But I really don't think you're getting it. The issue here is that the rationale for the invasion of Iraq _has changed_, a great number of times. This has been noticed and noted by lots of commentators. I believe someone worked out that the Administration's rationale for invading Iraq has changed 27 times since they first broached the issue.
I hardly think that Whitehouse is going to admit to this. They are going to present seemingly ironclad arguments that support their propositions and acknowledge none of those of the critics, or, as your quotes demonstrate, dismiss them. They aren't going to admit their rationale has altered, or that Bush 'waffled'. According to the whitehouse website, the rationale for invading Iraq was always the one currently being espoused by the President, and every decision made by the Administration was absolutely justified.
To that extent, one would rather analyse their statements thru the intermediary of an objective political commentator or source.
Perhaps we're arguing at cross-purposes. In any event, my point was that the whitehouse can't be trusted to present the truth about the current administration's tides of change over Iraq, at this juncture. To you, it appears to suggest that a government *may lie* (shock! horror) is some kind of conspiracy theory. To me, it is a fact established by record of events.
O'Reilly insists, of course, that the President did not lie (such a thing is not possible in his particular view of the universe, it seems), but that the Administration's actions were based on flawed evidence; it was a mistake. Moore insists that the Administration lied its ass off from day one, and is hideously corrupt.
Whatever side one takes, really voters are given the choice simply to believe either that the Bush Administration is a bunch of corrupt lying fuckwads, or that they are unbelievably incompetent. Either way, to support them looks like foolishness.
All that to say...philosophically, I don't believe you can calculate a lie out of even the most blatant self-deception, since the pattern of belief suggests that the self-deceiver really does believe what is or may be untrue
Is this that "moral relativism" stuff I always hear conservatives railing against?
that was tongue-in-cheek, honest!
Does this mean I don't have to answer the question ;-)?
Maybe Moore is acting like a devout Catholic - taking seriously his Church's dogma on charity and good works.
There is something (And I am going to get a little esoteric, and boring, because it's history, so please don't feel obligd to follow) that people have suggested, that there was a very different sense of what constitutes a community in the pre-Reformation church, as opposed to the Protestant view. It had an absolute inclusiveness. Modes of religiosity were also often group oriented, such as the formation of religious guilds. I don't think that the Protestant church eliminated all of this (They kept festivals, for a time), nor did the preReformation church lack solitary contemplation (far from it), but it has still stuck in me that there was a kind of division between how important the two modes were to the sects. Now the Catholic Church has gone through much change in worship and dogma since then - it's own Counter Reformation, etc - so I don't know what it maintains (since I know the 15th cent best), but I do wonder if that continues to influence people. In many Protestant sects, one must conciously choose to confirmed, even to be baptised. Whereas I gather that in even the modern Catholic church, there is a sense that when you are born a Catholic, you will always be one. Of course, I think all this might have a bearing on your views on the wider world, or I wouldn't be saying it. I couldn't help but be struck by how very Calvinist Victorian social reformers were, as fixated on the saving of souls as the feeding of the poor - but the poor must changed to have soul saved or be fed. I'm sure that Catholic Charities are just as interested in souls, but might they be more willing to accept souls in any condition?
Well, the whitehouse website *has* been noted to have removed or redacted information on its pages from time to time.
Like when, exactly? Cards on the table, please, Nostril.
The issue here is that the rationale for the invasion of Iraq _has changed_, a great number of times.That is not true, Nostril. Your opinion of what you think the case for war was may have changed, but the actual case for war, the actual message, hasn't shifted an inch from the 2002 State of the Union address: "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror."
If you think the White House has changed its position, show us. Back your assertion, which I'm saying is contradictory of the facts, with citations. Don't give us this "commentators say" stuff. Show us what documentary evidence you've got in your pocket so we can settle this.
In any event, my point was that the whitehouse can't be trusted to present the truth about the current administration's tides of change over Iraq, at this juncture.
And my point is that unless you can back up your accusations that the White House is destroying documents in the public record, you're just talking out of your ass.
Whatever side one takes, really voters are given the choice simply to believe either that the Bush Administration is a bunch of corrupt lying fuckwads, or that they are unbelievably incompetent.
Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of Americans who have listened to what the President and his staff have said, have kept up with the news, have read the reports, and have concluded that the President was right.
Was Saddam in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions? No. Did the UN Security Council resolutions authorize war? Yes. Did Saddam provide material support and safe harbor to terrorists? Yes. Was Saddam a threat to the people of the United States and to our national interests? Yes.
And finally, at the end of it all, we hold the trump card. Invading Iraq and toppling Saddam's regime made the world a safer place. Iraq is no longer a source of material support for terrorists. During the period immediately following the major military campaign, Iraq acted as flypaper for Islamists; they flocked to Iraq in vast numbers from Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, and parts even farther removed. They have been captured or killed in staggering numbers. These are not farmers driven to take up arms against an oppressor, no matter what the Workers World Party says. They are trained, dedicated terrorists who, if they had not been captured or killed in Iraq, would have been attacking US or allied targets. And now they're not.
Oh, and by the way, Libya. Libya. One of the most notorious state sponsors of terrorism in modern history rolled over to have its belly scratched, because Qadhafi knew that American and British diplomacy was backed by American and British might and the willingness to use it. Libya has abjured terrorism as a tactic and has surrendered its proliferation programs. The equipment Libya had procured for processing uranium now sits in a warehouse in Tennessee. Because we invaded Iraq.
You want to see the President as either a liar or a fool. That's fine; that's your right as a voter. But don't be misled into thinking that the majority of Americans accept that dichotomy.
During the period immediately following the major military campaign, Iraq acted as flypaper for Islamists
Its a pity they couldn't have been attracted away from Madrid, and Istanbul...
I think it was just as much economic reasons (or maybe even more so) that forced Libya hands - it desperately wanted the sanctions to end.
And considering Britain is quite eager to re-arm the country, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they slipped back into their less than pleasant ways sooner rather than later
America is a safer place
And I don't think see the president as either a liar or a fool.
No, I see him as a liar and a fool.
Well, the whitehouse website *has* been noted to have removed or redacted information on its pages from time to time.
Like when, exactly? Cards on the table, please, Nostril.
It's called Webscrubbing. According to researchers, the White House has used the technique of 'webscrubbing' to make embarrassing comments or gaffes quoted on their website disappear from the pages. For example, on April 23, 2003, the prez sent the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, Andrew S. Natsios, on national television to reassure the public that the cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq would be modest. He said that taxpayers wouldn't have to pay more than $1.7 billion to reconstruct Iraq - a massive underestimate of the tens of billions of dollars the government later had to project. These offending comments by Natsios were purged from the Web site. The transcript of the appearance, and all links to it, disappeared.
Instead of admitting that he misled the nation about the cost of war, the president got the State Department "to purge the comments by Natsios from the State Department's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished." (The link where the transcript existed until it caused red faces was http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html).
'When confronted with the dishonest whitewash, the administration decided to lie. A Bush spokesman said the administration was forced to remove the statements because, "there was going to be a cost" charged by ABC for keeping the transcript on the government's site. But as the [scooping source Washington Post] notes, "other government Web sites, including the State and Defense departments, routinely post interview transcripts, even from 'Nightline,'" and according to ABC News, "there is no cost."
This was not the first time the government had used the technique. After the Iraq insurrection proved rather more tenacious than the Neocon Naifs had predicted, the site editors took the headline title of George W. Bush's May 1 speech, 'President Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended' - and added the word 'major' before the word 'combat'. Minor? Maybe. But the import of the headline was altered significantly, and history was revised to the administration's benefit. The Washington Post also reported that the "Justice Department redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site."
"If you think the White House has changed its position, show us."
Step one: go to google and type in 'iraq war rationale' & you'll have a bevy of hits, from all sorts of sources, listing how the rationale has shifted, both as perceived rationale & actual administration position. You can choose from partisan commentary, non-partisan, news articles, weblogs, or whathaveyou.
You say "show us" but in reality, most readers who have gotten this far (or care) already are well aware that the reasons for war changed a lot, and don't find this assertion surprising. If *you* really want to read on this issue, then here's a bit of a pointer.
While, of course, this study does not say 'Bush Lied' (because at this stage there is no absolute truth that he did *actually* lie, rather than, say, believe some acutely unrealistic delusion, viz f8x's tortured attempts to define lying 'philosophically') it does quite adequately list the changes, variations and shifts in rationale for the war that issued from the Administration.
"Actually, you'd be surprised at the number of Americans who have listened to what the President and his staff have said, have kept up with the news, have read the reports, and have concluded that the President was right."
-- I wouldn't be surprised at all, Jeffy. I personally know people that support Bush, and I'm well aware that they are morons.
Thanks.
You say "show us" but in reality, most readers who have gotten this far (or care) already are well aware that the reasons for war changed a lot, and don't find this assertion surprising.
"My mind is made up, dammit. Don't try to distract me with facts."
I personally know people that support Bush, and I'm well aware that they are morons.
God almighty, what an ass you are.
If anybody wants to talk about this without being an arrogant, condescending jerk, y'all know where to find me.
If anybody wants to talk about this without being an arrogant, condescending jerk, y'all know where to find me.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
Actually, let me add a little addendum to that...
Perhaps the reason people seem "condescending" and "arrogant" to you is because despite pages and pages of arguments rebutting yours, you still stick by your story and refuse to concede that you know, maybe you could be wrong.
And that line about minds being made up can just as easily apply to you.
I understand 9/11 apparently traumatized you, but did it so turn you against Islam that you can just pretty much write off the whole religion like that?
shit, why do I *always* miss these threads?
*ahem* mi mi mi mi mi miiiiiiii . . .
the actual case for war, the actual message, hasn't shifted an inch from the 2002 State of the Union address: "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror."
That's so broad as to be useless. "Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America" Do we really need to list the countries that applies to - with examples? Can't we just limit it to the western democracies we've traditionally had strong ties with France, Germany?
"Iraq continues to . . . support terror." Does Iraq continue to support a mother's right to be hungry about 3:30am? Supporting terror is a case for war? If that's all it is, we're in for a busy day! No, that's rhetoric. REH - TOH - RIK: A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject. Intended to whip up support for the war from patriotic and well-meaning but incorrect people.
A case for war is a point-by-point reasoning of why we'll spend billions in tax money - our money to attack and kill foreigners. War dictates that we will put our own people in harms way. 907 is not dictated, but that's where we are. The case for war includes
A) Iraq has weapons of mass distruction (click here for examples of how this point was used)
B) Iraq harbors terrorists (click here for examples of how other countries with more/less money & power harbor terrorists)
C) Iraq is hostile to America and ready to attack (click here for examples of at least one other nation a little further along that sanction-ridden backwater Iraq was. If you want two, I hear the Alabama to Iraq's Mississippi is itchin' for a fight. Egypt ain't about the pyramids either, and there's more - Yemen, Syria . . .)
D) Iraq was behind the Sept. 11 attacks (click here for examples of people who believe this to be the case and here for examples of the Bush administration doing their best to allude to it and backing off of it)
E) Because Saddam Hussein is a threat to our country, invading and toppling him will make America safer. (click here for examples of how the change in leadership has left the country open to more terrorist activity and therefore has made America less safe)
The 'click here's aren't linked but they can easily be. Pick your favorites and I, or someone, will find the evidence. All of this is to say that the administration's case for war is a crock of shit. And if defeating countries who "continue to flaunt [their] hostility toward America and to support terror" causes us to go to war, we're going to be a *very busy* and weakened great nation for the next twenty years.
All because some half-wit cowboy with a rich daddy he hates can't get jesus to come down soon enough.
Finally I just want to say - Nostril - I take back all the terrible things I've posted about you in the past. You can borrow my bike to ride down to the corner store.
Yes, it may be a cheap emotional ploy, but isn't it also an excellent way to remind us that soldiers are precious human lives and more than just casualties of war?
Sure, our soldiers volunteer to serve in our armed forces, but ultimately it's the guy we elect on our behalf who determines when and if they are actually put in harm's way. I think that the thrust of Moore's argument, however hamfisted it may have been made was, as DaveJay so beautifully clarified it, that we have a commander-in-chief who refuses to take responsibility for getting people killed on false pretenses. It would have been interesting to see O'Reilly respond to that question.
Also, Jeff Harrell makes a very interesting point: how do we determine the value of the life of an American solider? Are some citizens of the world worth dying for more or less than others?