Thursday, August 03, 2006

F.T. Rea --- Moonbat Redux

F.T. Rea really hates it when someone turns the tables on him, and identifies his tactics and uses them on him. Of course, he fails to substantiate his claim that the President called Iraq an "imminent threat," but never mind that. Now he just attacks me, among others:
One angry defender of Bush’s Iraqi war policy writes on his blog: “...When F.T. [Rea] is called out for his lies, he engages in ... more lies!”
By “lies” the defender means that I disagree with his version of the run-up to the war in Iraq. This lathered up Bush defender claims the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction.
To suggest otherwise hurts Bush, so it simply makes one a liar.
****
Sadly, the lack of civility and lack of common decency illustrated above aren’t all that unusual today. It seems screaming insults at opponents has become acceptable in many circles. And, you know what -- none of this childish behavior has anything to do with making the world a better place.
None of it is really about candidates, or ideas, or the future. No. It has to do with self-promotion and meanness. It’s about brats being brats.
Perhaps when the heat weave passes, some of this will go away like bad air. But I'm not holding my breath.
A few pertinent points: (1) Nothing in my post "defend[s] ... Bush’s Iraqi war policy"; it merely notes that opponents based at least one element of their argument on a misrepresentation; (2) my comments do not illustrate a "lack of civility and lack of common decency," unless you count among those virtues the practice of couching in euphemism base and intentional misrepresentations of fact; and (3) it is amazing that someone who chooses to call the President of the United States and his Administration liars is now accusing someone else of "childish behavior."

Now, at least one thing F.T. gets right: "By 'lies' [I] mean[] that [F.T.] disagree[s] with [my] version of the run-up to the war in Iraq," to-wit, I "claim[] the administration never ever said there was an imminent threat being posed by Iraq’s huge stores of weapons of mass destruction." Now, reading that, you might conclude that the debate was about a matter of opinion, e.g., the merits and demerits of a policy of preemption, which is an eminently debatable point.

But this isn't about opinion; its about the fact that F.T.'s allegation that the President and his Administration advanced the notion that Iraq constituted an "imminent threat" is an utter, absolute falsehood. It's fact, and notwithstanding numerous opportunities to do so, F.T. persists in his failure to offer a countervailing fact. I can only conclude that he knows that there are none, since there would doubtless be numerous sources on the far Left happy to substantiate such an occurrence, had it ever occurred. In short, F.T. clearly indicate that he has suspended any pretense of relying upon evidence, instead preferring to rely upon a far Left urban legend. And since I assume that he is smart enough to know the difference, I can only conclude that he is engaging in an intentional mispresentation of fact, i.e., a "lie."

F.T.'s arrogance would be astounding, if it were not so pathetically unjustified in his inability to actually address the issue.

And BTW, I suppose that F.T. will try to dismiss the above as ad hominem argument. That would be incorrect. Ad hominem is like Mark Levin referring to Hillary Clinton as "Her Thighness" (a pretty funny line, truth be told). It's dismissing someone who demonstrates that you have been lying a "brat," or accusing them of "self-promotion and meanness." The above addresses F.T.'s misrepresentations of fact, and identifying a knowing falsehood and calling attention to its purveyor is hardly an ad hominem argument.

But --- getting back to the silly suggestion by F.T. that the President was involved in "Newspeak" and Orwellianism --- dismissing my argument as mere ad hominem would be so much easier than F.T. admitting that his attacks on me, like the major premise of his attack upon the President, are "designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." Orwell, George, Politics and the English Language (1946).

UPDATE: F.T. has childish decided to delete my comments. Here's one that I have since posted, but as I expect it to be deleted, I'll reproduce it here:

You see, there you go again, F.T. You claim to not use the term "liar" lightly, implying that I do. In fact, I don't. I use it when it fits, and it manifestly fits when applied by those who set themselves up as authorities, make elaborate claims of presidential prevarication, and then fail to make their case. As you do. "Liar"? Absolutely.

And once again, you misrepresent the disagreement. It is not about politics. It is about the facts upon which you purport to premise your politics. Since one of those facts is so demonstrably false, it is difficult to imagine how you expect to have a civil conversation with those of us who are conversant with the facts.

Of course, with your childish decision to simply delete my posts, it is utterly clearly that you simply want to purvey your bilious myths, free of the bother of those who want to bring facts to the conversation.

Another far Left champion of free speech, and vigorous debate!
F.T. also offers some interesting comments about what he expect of lawyers, simply seeking to denigrate me. Of course, what he really seems to expect is that I will roll over and play dead for him.

4 comments:

republitarian said...

Is this the same Mr. Rea that didn't like my analysis of his Weekend Without Echoes.

Who is he anyway? Does he run a blog?

James Young said...

Check the links, Republitarian. It's appropriately called "Slantblog."

Triscula said...

Oh good grief! So much silliness with semantics. Here's a link to a list of quotes of Bush administration officials (who are obviously representing the administration and its policies) commenting on the "threat" that Iraq supposedly posed to the US:

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24970

Here's a sampler:
"There's no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States."
• White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03

Iraq was "the most dangerous threat of our time."
• White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03

"Absolutely."
• White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an "imminent threat," 5/7/03

"Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
• Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03


Did George Bush actually use the words "imminent threat" to describe the Hussein regime? I don't know. But it's pretty plain that the pre-war public relations campaign from the administration was to push the idea of Iraq and the regime's weapons as a threat to America. Any suggestions otherwise are just plain dishonest.

Perhaps a better debate would be about whether or not it was worth it.

James Young said...

Semantics, Triscula? It's language, and while I recognize how little regard the far Left has for language (witness their effort to call perversion "marriage"), none of the quotations you cite --- save one, from Ari Fleischer, responding to words a reporter tried to put in his mouth --- calls Iraq an "imminent threat." Did the Administration make the argument that it was a potential threat? Of course. That's the whole idea of a policy of preemption, which you seem to want to avoid.

So you "don't know." Once again, a lie from the far Left. You know, and apparently, you don't like the answer.

As for whether "a better debate would be about whether or not it was worth it," sure, it might be. You can start by telling us how the liberation of 25 million people, the shutdown of the rape rooms, and end of a regime which had used weapons of mass destruction against Iran and the Kurds was not a noble cause.

If the far Left wasn't so busy trying to discredit those who believe it was by misrepresenting the arguments made by the Administration.