Thursday, November 17, 2005

Cheney Is in His "Last Throes."


MSNBC News Services
Updated: 9:00 a.m. ET Nov. 17, 2005

WASHINGTON - In the sharpest White House attack yet on critics of the Iraq war, Vice President Dick Cheney said on Wednesday that accusations the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to justify the war were a “dishonest and reprehensible” political ploy.

Cheney called Democrats “opportunists” who were peddling “cynical and pernicious falsehoods” to gain political advantage while U.S. soldiers died in Iraq.

GOI: Oh yeah right. And I suppose that the President using Veterans Day to attack Democrats wasn't "dishonest and reprehensible" opportunism? Or how about constantly using 9/11 during the election to scare people into voting for him? Or how about Cheney saying if you vote for the "other side" the terrorist will hit us again? Or how about Bush STILL trying to tie 9/11 to Iraq???

Can you say, "pot calling the kettle black?"

I think you can.

Come on Darth, Oops I mean Dick.

Stop trying to play spin the wheel on the donkey.

You know you blew it.

These attacks are the desperate "last throes" (to use Cheney's own words against him) of a administration spiraling out of control.

---End of Transmission---

16 comments:

Isabella di Pesto said...

James,

I hope you're correct. I'm tired of looking at this overstuffed, privileged neocon warhawk. 5 deferments? He had other things to do.

Underground Logician said...

James, you certainly are an open-minded liberal! You have yet to wrap your mind around this issue. Just because the administration is finally fighting back, you immediately react by calling this a "pot calling the kettle black?" What would you prefer? That Bush keep quiet like he has for the past year and three months and let the liberals just hammer away?

Your sounding like the liberals who act like little wimpy schoolgirls who cry when they don't get their way on the playground! Honestly, how was Bush dishonest and reprehensible? I'd like to know how YOU define these terms. That would be an interesting sociological study. The only tie of 9/11 to Iraq, and it's quite clear, is that Saddam harbored and traded with the terrorists; he was a part of a network of states that provided safe-haven for these criminals. You keep alluding to the media lies that GWB links 9/11 to Saddam directly, as if that is the ONLY reason we should be in Iraq. Liberals have NO substance in this debate and only get more shrill and abusive when they've been found out; patriotic woosies.

james said...

UL:

Just look at the poll numbers. I guess all us Americans are being "patriotic woosies."

Spin, spin spin AWAY some more!!! Haha..hehe.

james said...

Isabella:

Yeah, the 5 deferment chickhawk is squawking again.

Chris said...

I do beleive that this is the last throes too James. And I can't believe that logician is still trying to link Iraq to 9/11. But finally the public is buying Bush's garbage anymore. According to logician's logic, we should have invaded Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and North Korea long before we ever invaded Iraq.

Chris said...

Sorry, that should read: finally the public isn't buying Bush's garbage anymore.

Underground Logician said...

James:

You look at poll numbers as proof that you're right? What does a poll number tell you? If the average American does not have the time or desire to analyze the political landscape and only watch CNN or ABC for their news, of course they're going to come away with negative attitude towards Bush!

Your appeal to the polls as proof is an ad populum fallacy. You can poll an entire prison to see if the inmates think the Prison Warden is fair, of course the majority will say no. Does that mean the Warden in unfair? If you poll children to see if they think the bedtimes their parents set for them is fair, of course, you'll have a majority who'll think it's unfair. Does a child's reaction have anything to do with fairness?

So in your case, you appeal to a low approval rating to show that what...a majority of Americans can't be wrong and therefore, can't be political woosies? I'm sure it's possible that they can be! It also proves that a majority of Americans do not think clearly enough to see what the media is doing; I think the media is taking advantage of the regular guy and gal in this country and that REALLY toasts my cookies!

Now as to you, I'd like to run some personal questions to you to think about only. No need to respond.

1. Do you care that you rely on fallacies?

2. Do you know why fallacies don't prove anything true, and do you care that they don't?

3. Could you identify fallacies if one were put before you?

4. Do you have a passion to know the truth, or do you think you already have it?

5. What really drives you, the truth, getting your own way, or looking good in front of others?

james said...

UL:

Wow, you're really willing to go down with the ship! You certainly are a persistant conservative who isn't bothered with drinking the kool-aid.

As for the polls, I'm not just refering to the approval ratings of Bush. I am also refering to the negative approval rating of the war in Iraq. You can't deny that they are negative by a large number. Not even CLOSE to the margine of error. And blaming it all on the media is quite convenient.

Another point on the polls. Are you suggesting that the majority of Americans are similar to convicts and children? Sounds like a freudian slip so I'll let it pass.

As to your questions:

1). We are both fairly partisan so I don't think that either one of us believes that we rely on "fallacies." I believe you rely on them and you believe that I rely on them.

2). I do know why a fallacy wouldn't prove something to be true. I did graduate with a college degree after all. I'm not THAT dumb. Try again. ;)

3). Yes, I believe that I could indentify fallacies that would be put in front of myself. I think that I am a fairly intelligent person who looks at issues with the best information that I can. Am I biased from time to time? You betchya, and so are you my friend.

4). I have a passion for truth indeed. It is what I search for everyday. I don't think that I (or anyone) will ever know EVERYTHING.

5). The truth drives me in everything that I do and live. In my search for truth in religion, life in general and politics. I think you really underestimate me and my integrity.

Now let me ask YOU a question. It's a question that I have already asked you.

Do you agree with ANY liberal position? I can tell you that I agree with the conservative position of wanting to seal our borders tighter and immigration control.

Isabella di Pesto said...

I have a question for UL, too.

If the country approved of the job Bush were doing by say, 90%, would you think that the public was unduly influenced by the media? That they were part of an ad populum fallacy?

Did you denigrate those people who were elated when Bush's numbers were in the 80s right after 9/11? Did you think he earned those numbers or were the American people just dumb?

Isabella di Pesto said...

"...Bush WAS doing..." Why does posting make me stupid?

Underground Logician said...

James:

I have so little regard for post-modern liberalism, I'm hardly going to touch that one. I agree only with liberals when they swerve mistakenly into a principled position which all I can describe on their part is a true opinion.

Let me see if I can give you an example...okay, you said sealing the borders is a conservative position you agree with. I see that sealing our borders doesn't fall into a conservative/liberal scenario. I think it's an issue of common sense. I think NAFTA was a big mistake; I think CAFTA is an even bigger mistake. I feel for the worker in this country who gets upended in this country and, my reaction as a former union steward, I wonder if this is a ploy to break unions. I believe in a fair wage for a honest days work and that unbridled capitalism undermines the justice due to workers. Before the industrial revolution, there were numerous trade and worker's guilds that governed themselves and their business practices to ensure fair prices and fair wages. I think there needs to be something like that instituted again. With global unfettered capitalism, this would be next to impossible. I'm not in favor of a marxist control of business; NO WAY. However, the market is not built on justice, it's built on greed and the little man gets runover by the big boys.

Underground Logician said...

Isabella:

An ad populum fallacy in your example would be if I said, "See! Bush is doing a good job! 90% of the people think so." I would equally be guilty of it. Taking a poll is not the fallacy; relying on polls to prove that something is true is the fallacy. The majority opinion in favor or against a viewpoint tells me nothing of the truthfulness, moral nature or goodness of that viewpoint. You see what I saying? I'm not against polling, as long as it's a fair poll, and it's used in a proper manner: to know what people think.

As to high poll numbers themselves, it might FEEL GOOD to Repubs that 90% of the country is in favor of Bush. That would mean tremendous political capital...in other words, power for Bush and the Repubs. Yet these numbers wouldn't be able to show me if Bush is doing a good job or the right thing or not. He might be kissing a lot of arses or giving away the farm like some Texas Santa Claus, giving to whatever group has their hand out. Even if 90% of Americans are highly moral people and see Bush as a very moral man. Yet, it's still opinion. There is a higher test...it's whether he IS a moral man according to moral principles or not. That's not to hard to discover; just watch and listen if you can spend time with the mean and soon you'll soon see. This is where I think the media does a great disservice to us all. They project an image that they want us to buy and it insults our intelligence.

As I pop in on this site from time to time, I see very intelligent individuals who WANT the best in life, for yourselves and for others, and for our country. I don't doubt that for a minute. My concern is the manner of argument you all have bought that pays so little dividends to you that your time, energy and decisions are corrupted. I never mean my statement that challenge you to be a slam to you personally. My wish is that you can see that there is a means to identify and deal with reality so that you aren't hoodwinked by powermongers who want to use you for their own ends. I too, must be on guard, especially by conservative Pollyanna's who think that everything that Bush does is great. I don't buy that either.

So, where do you all fit in?

Underground Logician said...

James:

You twist the intent of my analogies. I'm not saying that Americans are like convicts or children. I'm using extreme examples to make the ad populum approach obviously absurd. The nature and effects of the fallacy have no political boundaries. Let's take a conservative approach. If the American Family Association says to Hollywood that 72% (I'm creating a figure for my point) of Americans think they have too much sexually explicit material in movies, they cannot say "therefore, Hollywood is immoral." One does not take a poll to find out if Hollywood is immoral or not. One would take a poll to show Hollywood where to place their efforts if they want to improve the movie business. In this case, the "what" of the poll findings (what 72% of Americans think) does not imply an ought morally (you all are evil, you must change). Universal moral principles determine that; moral principles aren't subject to any poll.

james said...

UL:

You also can not legislate decency. Morals change depending on a persons beliefs and convictions.

Underground Logician said...

James:

When you say you can't legislate decency, are you saying you can't legislate morality? Those may be construed differently. As to morality on the law books, we do it all the time.

The more laws reflect a relativism, the more barbaric the culture who hold such laws. Mussolini's Italy comes to mind.

james said...

UL:

I'm saying that some people view morals differently. Differences of perception. For example, homosexuality. Some believe that it is o.k. and other people believe that it is immoral.

The view of the matter changes upon your upbringing, religion, etc.