Logic Lessons on Iraq and Terror for Bush and McCain
The Palm Beach Post editorial on Bush's illogic does what newspapers are supposed to do. It questions the logicality of a politician's assertion. Last week Bush gave a news conference in which he was asked why Bin Laden hadn't been caught. He said, "because he is hiding." No one in the vaunted White House press corps replied to him, "Mr. President, that is a tautology."
So here is the logic lesson from Palm Beach:
'See if you can follow this argument: The United States has to be in Iraq to fight the terrorists who are in Iraq because the United States is in Iraq. '
Hear, hear.
Meanwhile, John McCain thinks Bin Laden will follow us home from Iraq if the US withdraws its forces from that country. Note to the senator: Bin Laden is not in Iraq and is unlikely even to be in much contact with it.
posted by Juan Cole @ 5/27/2007 12:10:00 AM
|
Facebook
7 Comments:
I've always admired DH Rumsfield's tautological prowess myself. Just add circumlocution until it makes one want to scream, a sprinkle of disingenuity, and presto, someone or something got bombed, shot, or waterboarded/disappeared:
The Poetry of D.H. Rumsfeld
Recent works by the secretary of defense.
"Happenings
You're going to be told lots of things.
You get told things every day that don't happen.
It doesn't seem to bother people, they don't—
It's printed in the press.
The world thinks all these things happen.
They never happened.
Everyone's so eager to get the story
Before in fact the story's there
That the world is constantly being fed
Things that haven't happened.
All I can tell you is,
It hasn't happened.
It's going to happen.
—Feb. 28, 2003, Department of Defense briefing"
There's more... much [More]
Also see: Rumsfeld Fighting Technique
You may have defeated my Southern Hook Palm technique, but can you defeat the 1000 styles of Rumsfeld?
Twin Cobra Fist!
Grimace Palm!
Pressing Palms Style!
Oh... Sorry... It's a photo-essay
Well the Palm Beach Post makes a factual error in assuming that those we are fighting in Iraq are terrorists. They are not! They are nationalists that just want the US out of their country.
As to the logic of the Palm Beach editorial:
What causes terrorism?
Robert Pape, from the University of Chicago, argues convincingly that military occupation causes suicide terrorism, a case laid out in full in his book “Dying to win.”
What are the hidden premises of the Bush (or for that matter McCain) argument? That some country in the region will be under U.S. military occupation, and so terrorism is inevitable. From their perspective, we might as well fight them in Iraq.
The real question is whether or not the U.S. (and really just a few of George Bush’s “base”(al Qaeda is the Arabic for base no?) of mega-billionaire mercenary/oil men) has any right to dominate and exploit the oil resources of the Middle East: something that can only be done under military occupation. Until and unless the (evil) empire draws back, the American people will be under threat from bin Laden or his ideological clones. This is entirely in keeping with the logic of large corporations: externalize risks and costs, and privatize gains.
We need to be careful about the term “withdrawing from Iraq”, because the Aspergers neocons will hear this as an invitation to invade Iran (simultaneously withdrawing from Iraq.)
Tens of millions of people can’t general the war from 8,000 miles away. But they can renounce the logic of empire, and they can demand that the people who started this criminal invasion be punished.
That’s the logic we need to focus on.
Bin Laden as such will not "follow" us home. But it is true that when the US military finally leaves the Iraqi cities (unless we get a real liberal in office -- not likely -- the US military won't be leaving its bases in Iraq), some of the thousands of Salafi Jihadis who have been mobilized by Bush's policies will try attacks on the US mainland. And then the McCains and the Roves will say: "You see, we told you the US had to keep fighting them in Iraq!", blaming the inevitable results of their disastrous policies on those sane enough to stop them. And if the past in any indication, a lot of Americans will accept that argument and vote another demogogue back in.
Re: Rumsfeld fighting technique. Finally, someone is able to levitate the Pentagon.
To discuss the logic of the immature George W. Bush is as problematic as it would be to discuss the humanity of Joseph Stalin or Pol Pot (or Heinrich Himmler), the science of creation or the nature of victory in Iraq. Such discussions beg the question Petitio Principii , aka tautology. Has George W. Bush ever demonstrated that he is willing to place reality above his narcissistic will? To argue against W's illogic is a bit like fighting terrorism over there. W still gets to choose the battlefield and to define the issues.
It is better, I think, to re-establish our guiding principles such as the belief that all humans are equal before God (or the law, take your pick), meaning that Iraqis have rights equal to US citizens, dual nationality or not, and that murder is murder regardless of who commits it.
Our premise for being in Iraq, Version 4.2, that the Iraqi people want us there, has been diminished by the petition calling for a withdrawal timetable. We should encourage our media to report this news and to ignore W and Co.s misdirection.
At 8:27 PM, William Glad said...
Re: Rumsfeld fighting technique. Finally, someone is able to levitate the Pentagon.
It happened the first time... I saw it... turned purple, vibrated, evil fled. Really!
But you know what they say: "Turn your back on the bastids and they're back at it again".
That's because no one ever pays... none of these umn... people... ever get buried so deeply in a 5x8x5 hole at the Marion Ohio SuperMax that they forget what it's like to stand up straight.
It was fun the first time, but now, I'm just one Ticked Off Buffalo.
Post a Comment
<< Home