News Editorial from the Washington Post . . . .
This is perfect for the next time I give a "Critical Thinking" lecture on logical fallacies . . . . .
----------------------------------
Bush's Imaginary Foes
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; 12:48 PM
President Bush's angry nonanswers to two straightforward questions yesterday were among the best illustrations yet of his intense aversion to responding to his critics' actual arguments.
Rather than acknowledge and attempt to rebut the many concerns about his policies, Bush makes up inane arguments and then ridicules them.
Let's take a close look at the president's answers to two questions. I've highlighted key passages:
"Q Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?"
"PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.
"Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe."
OK, that's straw-man number one. Nobody I've heard of is suggesting that going on the offense against terrorists is bad. The question at hand is whether going on the offense against Iraq -- which had nothing to do with 9/11 -- made us less safe. By using this absurd straw-man, Bush leaves that issue unaddressed.
Bush: " The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason : They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq."
Here, Bush makes it sound like the fight in Iraq is between the United States and terrorists. But of course the vast majority of fighting is now sectarian in nature, with U.S. troops caught in the middle.
Bush: "You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience."
Here, Bush paraphrases his critics somewhat accurately. But his ensuing argument is bizarre.
Bush: " We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. "
David E. Sanger addresses that one in the New York Times this morning -- in the last two paragraphs of his story: "Mr. Bush has grown increasingly insistent that nothing he has done in Iraq has worsened terrorism. America was not in Iraq during the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, he said, or during the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole or embassies in Africa, or on 9/11.
"But that argument steps around the implicit question raised by the intelligence finding: whether postponing the confrontation with Saddam Hussein and focusing instead on securing Afghanistan, or dealing with issues like Iran's nascent nuclear capability or the Middle East peace process, might have created a different playing field, one in which jihadists were deprived of daily images of carnage in Iraq to rally their sympathizers."
And yet Sanger is being too gentle, because this is perhaps the ultimate Bush straw-man argument, this one so absurd is almost defies description.
No one is suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was responsible for terrorist act that predate that invasion! The argument is that invading Iraq has made the threat of terrorism since then worse than it otherwise would have been. Reciting past terrorist acts is almost laughably nonresponsive. And yet it's a staple of Bush's argument. Let's return to the transcript:
Bush: " My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. "
But was it a mistake to give them such a powerful and motivating excuse? Bush won't address that one.
Bush: "They kill in order to achieve their objectives. You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.
"This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war."
And here, of course, Bush is planting the idea that his critics -- whose arguments he has refused to face head on -- are succumbing to the lies and propaganda of the enemy.
Later, Bush was asked this question:
"Q Thank you, Mr. President. Former President Clinton says that your administration had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after he left office. Is that factually accurate, and how do you respond to his charges?"
This time, Bush simply refused to answer at all.
"PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, look, Caren, I've watched all this finger-pointing and naming of names, and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country. And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 Commission, we had the look back this, we've had the look back that. The American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything that we can to protect them. So I'm not going to comment on other comments."
But he used the question as a springboard to some familiar talking points -- and some more straw men.
Bush: "But I will comment on this -- that we're on the offense against an enemy that wants to do us harm. And we must have the tools necessary to protect our country. On the one hand, if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why. "
For the record, Bush's critics are not suggesting that the U.S. shouldn't eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. They are simply suggesting that he get warrants to do so. And when they ask him why he can't achieve his goals within the law, he refuses to explain.
Bush: "And so Congress needs to pass that piece of legislation. If somebody has got information about a potential attack, we need to be able to ask that person some questions. And so Congress has got to pass that piece of legislation.
"You can't protect America unless we give those people on the front lines of protecting this country the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution. And that's where the debate is here in the United States. There are some decent people who don't believe -- evidently don't believe we're at war, and therefore, shouldn't give the administration what is necessary to protect us. "
But of course that's not where the debate is in Washington. Bush's critics acknowledge the battle against terrorists and want to give him the tools to win it. The debate is over how to conduct the war, and how to provide the executive branch with the necessary tools without violating the law and the Constitution.
Bush: "And that goes back to Jennifer's question, you know. Does being on the offense mean we create terrorists? My judgment is the only way to defend the country is to stay on the offense. It is preposterous to think if we were to withdraw and hope for the best, things would turn out fine against this enemy. "
And here, Bush muddles the distinction between Iraq and the global war on terror to suggest that those who advocate a withdrawal from Iraq -- a majority of the American public -- are also advocating a surrender to terrorists.
What's even more astonishing than the fact that the president makes a mockery of legitimate criticism rather than confront it is the fact that the press corps routinely lets him get away with it. Aside from a few paragraphs here and there, like those from the Sanger story above, most reporters quoted Bush's statements without putting them in the appropriate context.
-------------------------
Rhetoric Watch
As it happens, just yesterday, Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times took a stab at writing about Bush's rhetorical excesses. But he made an overbalanced muddle of it:
"As the White House intensifies a campaign to paint its opponents as wobbly in the war on terrorism, Democrats say it is engaging in a rhetorical device that subtly distorts their positions to make them seem extreme or misguided, raising phantom positions and implying they belong to Democrats before knocking them down as dangerous.
"Current and former administration officials say some cases cited by the Democrats are legitimate interpretations of Democratic positions through a deductive, if Republican, lens. Other times, they say, Democrats were seeing things that were not there.
"Each side agrees, however, that the White House is seeking to draw as sharp a distinction between Republicans and Democrats on terrorism as possible, something it has done skillfully in the past two election cycles. And so far this year it has lived up to its reputation of being particularly adept at using carefully chosen language to cast its opponents as unflatteringly as possible -- and to define their positions for voters before they can define them themselves."
Rutenberg offers a fascinating, insider's perspective: "Adam Levine, a former assistant press secretary for Mr. Bush, described the process as taking opponents' positions to their logical conclusions.
"'The way that it works is, you take the other side's view, and you articulate what it sounds like to you,' Mr. Levine said. 'It also is effective rhetorically because it at least on its face acknowledges the other side's argument, even if it is an extreme version of it.'"
But Rutenberg basically writes off Bush's behavior as standard operating procedure in the long history of heated political discourse. And that misses the point. What's going on here is not the standard criticism, or even insulting, of opponents. There's something more widespread and deceptive about it.
Here are just a couple more recent examples:
Sept. 15 : "I would hope people aren't trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein -- all of a sudden, he becomes kind of a benevolent fellow."
Sept. 11 : "Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone."
Also see some of my previous " Straw Man Watch " items.
Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press did a better job on this story back in March, when she wrote: "When the president starts a sentence with 'some say' or offers up what 'some in Washington' believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
"The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Mr. Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
"He typically then says he 'strongly disagrees,' conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.
"Mr. Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed 'critics,' is just as problematic."
And here are some wonderful, unfiltered examples of Bush's use of " some people say ," " some say " and " some people in Washington ."
----------------------------------
Bush's Imaginary Foes
By Dan Froomkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Wednesday, September 27, 2006; 12:48 PM
President Bush's angry nonanswers to two straightforward questions yesterday were among the best illustrations yet of his intense aversion to responding to his critics' actual arguments.
Rather than acknowledge and attempt to rebut the many concerns about his policies, Bush makes up inane arguments and then ridicules them.
Let's take a close look at the president's answers to two questions. I've highlighted key passages:
"Q Thank you, sir. Even after hearing that one of the major conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate in April was that the Iraq war has fueled terror growth around the world, why have you continued to say that the Iraq war has made this country safer?"
"PRESIDENT BUSH: I, of course, read the key judgments on the NIE. I agree with their conclusion that because of our successes against the leadership of al Qaeda, the enemy is becoming more diffuse and independent. I'm not surprised the enemy is exploiting the situation in Iraq and using it as a propaganda tool to try to recruit more people to their -- to their murderous ways.
"Some people have guessed what's in the report and have concluded that going into Iraq was a mistake. I strongly disagree. I think it's naive. I think it's a mistake for people to believe that going on the offense against people that want to do harm to the American people makes us less safe."
OK, that's straw-man number one. Nobody I've heard of is suggesting that going on the offense against terrorists is bad. The question at hand is whether going on the offense against Iraq -- which had nothing to do with 9/11 -- made us less safe. By using this absurd straw-man, Bush leaves that issue unaddressed.
Bush: " The terrorists fight us in Iraq for a reason : They want to try to stop a young democracy from developing, just like they're trying to fight another young democracy in Afghanistan. And they use it as a recruitment tool, because they understand the stakes. They understand what will happen to them when we defeat them in Iraq."
Here, Bush makes it sound like the fight in Iraq is between the United States and terrorists. But of course the vast majority of fighting is now sectarian in nature, with U.S. troops caught in the middle.
Bush: "You know, to suggest that if we weren't in Iraq, we would see a rosier scenario with fewer extremists joining the radical movement requires us to ignore 20 years of experience."
Here, Bush paraphrases his critics somewhat accurately. But his ensuing argument is bizarre.
Bush: " We weren't in Iraq when we got attacked on September the 11th. We weren't in Iraq, and thousands of fighters were trained in terror camps inside your country, Mr. President. We weren't in Iraq when they first attacked the World Trade Center in 1993. We weren't in Iraq when they bombed the Cole. We weren't in Iraq when they blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. "
David E. Sanger addresses that one in the New York Times this morning -- in the last two paragraphs of his story: "Mr. Bush has grown increasingly insistent that nothing he has done in Iraq has worsened terrorism. America was not in Iraq during the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, he said, or during the bombings of the U.S.S. Cole or embassies in Africa, or on 9/11.
"But that argument steps around the implicit question raised by the intelligence finding: whether postponing the confrontation with Saddam Hussein and focusing instead on securing Afghanistan, or dealing with issues like Iran's nascent nuclear capability or the Middle East peace process, might have created a different playing field, one in which jihadists were deprived of daily images of carnage in Iraq to rally their sympathizers."
And yet Sanger is being too gentle, because this is perhaps the ultimate Bush straw-man argument, this one so absurd is almost defies description.
No one is suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was responsible for terrorist act that predate that invasion! The argument is that invading Iraq has made the threat of terrorism since then worse than it otherwise would have been. Reciting past terrorist acts is almost laughably nonresponsive. And yet it's a staple of Bush's argument. Let's return to the transcript:
Bush: " My judgment is, if we weren't in Iraq, they'd find some other excuse, because they have ambitions. "
But was it a mistake to give them such a powerful and motivating excuse? Bush won't address that one.
Bush: "They kill in order to achieve their objectives. You know, in the past, Osama bin Laden used Somalia as an excuse for people to join his jihadist movement. In the past, they used the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It was a convenient way to try to recruit people to their jihadist movement. They've used all kinds of excuses.
"This government is going to do whatever it takes to protect this homeland. We're not going to let their excuses stop us from staying on the offense. The best way to protect America is defeat these killers overseas so we do not have to face them here at home. We're not going to let lies and propaganda by the enemy dictate how we win this war."
And here, of course, Bush is planting the idea that his critics -- whose arguments he has refused to face head on -- are succumbing to the lies and propaganda of the enemy.
Later, Bush was asked this question:
"Q Thank you, Mr. President. Former President Clinton says that your administration had no meetings on bin Laden for nine months after he left office. Is that factually accurate, and how do you respond to his charges?"
This time, Bush simply refused to answer at all.
"PRESIDENT BUSH: You know, look, Caren, I've watched all this finger-pointing and naming of names, and all that stuff. Our objective is to secure the country. And we've had investigations, we had the 9/11 Commission, we had the look back this, we've had the look back that. The American people need to know that we spend all our time doing everything that we can to protect them. So I'm not going to comment on other comments."
But he used the question as a springboard to some familiar talking points -- and some more straw men.
Bush: "But I will comment on this -- that we're on the offense against an enemy that wants to do us harm. And we must have the tools necessary to protect our country. On the one hand, if al Qaeda or al Qaeda affiliates are calling somebody in the country, we need to know why. "
For the record, Bush's critics are not suggesting that the U.S. shouldn't eavesdrop on suspected terrorists. They are simply suggesting that he get warrants to do so. And when they ask him why he can't achieve his goals within the law, he refuses to explain.
Bush: "And so Congress needs to pass that piece of legislation. If somebody has got information about a potential attack, we need to be able to ask that person some questions. And so Congress has got to pass that piece of legislation.
"You can't protect America unless we give those people on the front lines of protecting this country the tools necessary to do so within the Constitution. And that's where the debate is here in the United States. There are some decent people who don't believe -- evidently don't believe we're at war, and therefore, shouldn't give the administration what is necessary to protect us. "
But of course that's not where the debate is in Washington. Bush's critics acknowledge the battle against terrorists and want to give him the tools to win it. The debate is over how to conduct the war, and how to provide the executive branch with the necessary tools without violating the law and the Constitution.
Bush: "And that goes back to Jennifer's question, you know. Does being on the offense mean we create terrorists? My judgment is the only way to defend the country is to stay on the offense. It is preposterous to think if we were to withdraw and hope for the best, things would turn out fine against this enemy. "
And here, Bush muddles the distinction between Iraq and the global war on terror to suggest that those who advocate a withdrawal from Iraq -- a majority of the American public -- are also advocating a surrender to terrorists.
What's even more astonishing than the fact that the president makes a mockery of legitimate criticism rather than confront it is the fact that the press corps routinely lets him get away with it. Aside from a few paragraphs here and there, like those from the Sanger story above, most reporters quoted Bush's statements without putting them in the appropriate context.
-------------------------
Rhetoric Watch
As it happens, just yesterday, Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times took a stab at writing about Bush's rhetorical excesses. But he made an overbalanced muddle of it:
"As the White House intensifies a campaign to paint its opponents as wobbly in the war on terrorism, Democrats say it is engaging in a rhetorical device that subtly distorts their positions to make them seem extreme or misguided, raising phantom positions and implying they belong to Democrats before knocking them down as dangerous.
"Current and former administration officials say some cases cited by the Democrats are legitimate interpretations of Democratic positions through a deductive, if Republican, lens. Other times, they say, Democrats were seeing things that were not there.
"Each side agrees, however, that the White House is seeking to draw as sharp a distinction between Republicans and Democrats on terrorism as possible, something it has done skillfully in the past two election cycles. And so far this year it has lived up to its reputation of being particularly adept at using carefully chosen language to cast its opponents as unflatteringly as possible -- and to define their positions for voters before they can define them themselves."
Rutenberg offers a fascinating, insider's perspective: "Adam Levine, a former assistant press secretary for Mr. Bush, described the process as taking opponents' positions to their logical conclusions.
"'The way that it works is, you take the other side's view, and you articulate what it sounds like to you,' Mr. Levine said. 'It also is effective rhetorically because it at least on its face acknowledges the other side's argument, even if it is an extreme version of it.'"
But Rutenberg basically writes off Bush's behavior as standard operating procedure in the long history of heated political discourse. And that misses the point. What's going on here is not the standard criticism, or even insulting, of opponents. There's something more widespread and deceptive about it.
Here are just a couple more recent examples:
Sept. 15 : "I would hope people aren't trying to rewrite the history of Saddam Hussein -- all of a sudden, he becomes kind of a benevolent fellow."
Sept. 11 : "Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone."
Also see some of my previous " Straw Man Watch " items.
Jennifer Loven of the Associated Press did a better job on this story back in March, when she wrote: "When the president starts a sentence with 'some say' or offers up what 'some in Washington' believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
"The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Mr. Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.
"He typically then says he 'strongly disagrees,' conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.
"Mr. Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed 'critics,' is just as problematic."
And here are some wonderful, unfiltered examples of Bush's use of " some people say ," " some say " and " some people in Washington ."