Dean is angry. He’s angry about the same claims being repeated over and over again:
I’ve really had about enough. From this point on, I automatically brand anyone who says the Bush administration lied about WMDs in Iraq as liars themselves. There is -zero- credible evidence to support this vicious, pernicious and hateful lie. John McCain was absolutely right when he said that anyone who accused the President of lying on this issue was in fact lying themselves.
I don’t know whether Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. I honestly don’t think that he did but that his adminstration did mount the best possible case that they could must for doing so. I also don’t care about that right now. There will be plenty of time later to worry about that.
Right now our only prudent, moral, or legal course is to complete the task in Iraq by creating an environment in which a decent, stable Iraqi government can take over there. I don’t know what that will take. It may require increasing the force strength in Iraq so that we can control the borders there (not to mention the borders here) and so that we can do more simultaneously. And that, in turn may require levying a draft. I honestly don’t know. But if constant carping, criticizing, and feces flinging weakens the President’s political hand it should stop now. Sure, it’s your right. But it’s the wrong strategy. It’s the wrong thing to do.
Anyone who thinks that Democrats can take a mulligan on the 2004 election and impeach enough sitting officials that a Democratic administration will take over in Washington before 2008 is just engaging in self-stimulatory fantasies. That’s just not going to happen. And maintaining a constant turmoil in Washington until 2008 just brings division at a time when the country really needs some unity.
I was going to comment on a similar post from Don Sensing on Winds of Change. Check out the comments section. The differing sides or factions aren’t engaging each others’ arguments at all. The positions have hardened and most of what’s going on is hurling accusations and insults. And WoC is one of the most civil sites in the blogosphere.
Let’s stop the insults and start engaging the arguments rather than attacking the people who are making them. Try it. It’ll be good for you.
The assumption in your last 2 paragraphs is that arguments are being made. What you’re seeing is in part the result of a growing belief that American liberalism is not making any arguments, and has none – only attacks and viciousness that will be repeated regardless of whether one demonstrates their falsity or issues appeals to civility.
There is some justification for such a view, and the latest “white phosphorous” buls—t did not do any favours for the argument against this characterization.
At that point, there is no argument to be had. One can no longer debate, only prevail against and subdue. That involves a very different kind of engagement (polemic). Which still requires one to make arguments, but again, it’s a different kind of argument.
My stance is that the Bush administration was intentionally misleading about the certainty of WMDs. For example, there was a debate within the administration about the possible purposes of the aluminum tubes, but they often pointed to those tubes as evidence without mentioning this.
I don’t personally consider this lying, but it’s a pretty fine distinction.
I disagree, Joe. There was plenty of substantive argument on both sides (interspersed with an enormous number of red herrings, strawmen, and ad hominem attacks). And there was also a tiny pit of responding to the substantive arguments but that was completely overwhelmed by the insults being flung back and forth.
Just look at comment #2, for example. It has a number of substantive arguments (as well as a couple of red herrings and strawmen). Comment #5 rebuts one of the substantive arguments but embeds the response in a mild ad hominem. And so on.
I think that’s a distinction so fine as to be non-existent, fling.
Main Entry: lie
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugI, Old English lEogan to lie
1 a : an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b : an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2 : something that misleads or deceives
3 : a charge of lying
Bush & Co. should be glad they are not little wooden boys (and girls). 😉