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!”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."
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.
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.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.
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!