This was from the Bush speech in Ohio the other day:Q Mr. President, at the beginning of your talk today you mentioned that you understand why Americans have had their confidence shaken by the events in Iraq. And I'd like to ask you about events that occurred three years ago that might also explain why confidence has been shaken. Before we went to war in Iraq we said there were three main reasons for going to war in Iraq: weapons of mass destruction, the claim that Iraq was sponsoring terrorists who had attacked us on 9/11, and that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger. All three of those turned out to be false. My question is, how do we restore confidence that Americans may have in their leaders and to be sure that the information they are getting now is correct?
THE PRESIDENT: That's a great question. (Applause.) First, just if I might correct a misperception. I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein. We did say that he was a state sponsor of terror.
GOI: True, he never said that there was a direct connection but he has said as much so to connect the too in the public's mind. Remember this?:
"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations [Iraq], organizations [al-Qaeda] or person [Osama bin Laden] who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." [President George W. Bush, Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
GOI: Think about this section from an article written in 2003 right before the start of the Iraq War:
WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.
GOI: If Bush wasn't trying to connect Saddam Hussein and 9/11 then why did he mention the two so much and often in the same breath? Hmmm???
Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.
Sources knowledgeable about US intelligence say there is no evidence that Hussein played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks, nor that he has been or is currently aiding Al Qaeda. Yet the White House appears to be encouraging this false impression, as it seeks to maintain American support for a possible war against Iraq and demonstrate seriousness of purpose to Hussein's regime.
"The administration has succeeded in creating a sense that there is some connection [between Sept. 11 and Saddam Hussein]," says Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland.
[...]
In the end, will it matter if some Americans have meshed together Sept. 11 and Iraq? If the US and its allies go to war against Iraq, and it goes well, then the Bush administration is likely not to face questions about the way it sold the war. But if war and its aftermath go badly, then the administration could be under fire.
"Going to war with improper public understanding is risky," says Richard Parker, a former US ambassador to several Mideast countries. "If it's a failure, and we get bogged down, this is one of the accusations that [Bush] will have to face when it's all over."
GOI: You'd have to be an idiot not to realize that Bush was trying to connect Saddam Hussein and the attacks on September the 11th to whip up support for his war.
---End of Transmission---
5 comments:
Spin is my job. I work as a sort-of technical writer in a manufacturing field. I have to answer complaints from customers. I have to communicate with outside auditors. I have to write audit reports and corrective actions.
I am an absolute genius at using language to shift responsibility onto people who don't exist. And to mitigate the whole idea of responsibility. Or I can use my power for good and hold the mirror up to management (they don't like it when I do that - it's called an internal audit.)
So you know, on the one hand, I have to respect the spin doctors. It takes a lot of time and talent to maintain these levels of plausible deniability. It's just that even the folks who usually don't bother to pay attention now are scratching their heads and saying, "what was that he just said? i coulda sworn a coupla years ago that they was some wmd's in iraq, you know?"
i just hate to see so many talented people out there wasting their gifts for the Black Arts, you know? ;)
andi:
Spin is your job. I see that. So you're saying that Bush meant the Iraq 9/11 connection, but didn't say it so that he could manipulate others to think that Saddam had connections, but in case things go bad in Iraq he could say he never made an Iraq 9/11 connection.
Spin includes "begging the question." I don't know if that means anything to you. But, like you said, spin is your job.
underground logician:
ok educate me here (i was always lousy at the logic problems, which i'm sure doesn't surprise you.)
"begging the question" = circular reasoning? at least that's the first thing that came up in a google search.
so could you walk me through this like i'm a five-year-old - if you have the time, that is. i'm trying to figure out what part of my comment is circular.
i just went back and re-read the SOTU in january 2003, and it makes the case much more strongly for WMDs as a trigger for invasion (or forcible disarmament, what have you) than specific references to 9/11. (and WMDs were really what i was talking about to begin with - kind of moving away from the 9/11 connection question in james' original post.)
there is, however, a paragraph that makes my skin crawl:
"Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes."
So is there an attempt here to link Saddam Hussein with not the original 9/11, but a 9/11 in the future? Pre-emptive strikes, right?
I suppose if anyone else had made the statement I might have gone along with the argument. But I just don't have the confidence in this administration to manage a peaceful solution to anything, let alone a situation as complex and incendiary as Iraq is today. It's a matter of faith in competence. And yeah, I suppose it's a gut reaction - the opposite of logical reasoning, perhaps.
Oh but while I've got you here, could you give me your impressions of this article? It discusses the use of the straw man argument, which originally got me interested in fallacies to begin with. (I find myself using this a lot at work and it always leaves a bad taste in my mouth.)
(this link will take you to the E&P article about the article.)
now that my head is... er... spinning (NPI), i have to get back on the carousel and catch up with the spin. or something.
let me clarify:
"manage a peaceful solution to anything" - strike "peaceful." obvious a war isn't peaceful. i don't know what i was thinking.
andi:
I'm sorry, but I was incorrect. This is not a matter of begging the question. Your definition of it is right on. This is a matter of a hypothetical argument.
James, the smarty-pants that he is, has put forth a rather sophisticated hypothetical argument in the form of a question.
James said: "If Bush wasn't trying to connect Saddam Hussein and 9/11 then why did he mention the two so much and often in the same breath? Hmmm???"
To make this a valid hypothetical statement, we have put it in a valid form. I hope James doesn't mind me making his argument stronger.
1. If Bush mentioned the two so often and in the same breath, then he was trying to make a direct connect Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
2. Bush mentioned the two so often and in the same breath.
3. Therefore, he was trying to connect Saddam Hussein and 9/11.
A simple modus ponens that affirms the antecedent (the part in #1 that follows "if"). Now, in logic if you have a valid argument (one that is structured to prove the conclusion) and if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.
So, #2 is true. We know Bush mentions 911 and Saddam's support for terror quite often. The problem is the word "connect" in #1. Is this "connect" one of association, then may be so. If connect means Saddam is the cause of 9/11, then the consequent ( the part of #1 that follows "then") is false. Saying two things together by association doesn't prove a cause/effect relationship. This is a problem of equivocation.
It also assumes that one can read Bush's mind, that we know he wants us to see Saddam as the cause of 9/11 by our associating Saddam and and 9/11. One can only assume this, as James does. The conclusion of his argument cannot be true.
Bush certainly is being rhetorical. Why not? He's got to prove that his actions, present and future are going to be judged worthy in order to protect us from terrorists. If you don't want America to have another 9/11, then let's go after Al-Qaida and those nations who want us to have another 9/11. This is a fair approach that is found to be repugnant by those who hate him.
Post a Comment