A place for Liam to post essays, comments, diatribes and rants on life in general.

Those fond of Liam's humor essays, they have been moved here.

Friday, November 02, 2007

More on Rhetoric (Moron Rhetoric?)

And while I'm up writing and posting tonight... When will we, as a nation, stop falling for the cheapest of rhetorical tricks? It's amazing to me how readily so many of us fall into the trap of letting the President (and others) misdirect us with debating tactics which would be disallowed in any Logic and Argument 101 class or debate club in any high school in the nation.

Today, in specific, I'm talking about President Bush's response to the hold up on the confirmation hearings for Attorney General nominee Mukasey. General Mukasey has been asked a fairly simple question: Does he believe the technique known as “water-boarding” is torture? So far, he has refused to give a definitive answer to this question.

President Bush's response to this is that it's unreasonable for Congress to expect General Mukasey to comment on the tactic because he has not been fully briefed on whether we're using it or not, and that if he had been briefed on it, it wouldn't be reasonable for him to give away state secrets by testifying about it.

But think about the question that was actually asked, and let's change it slightly. If General Mukasey were asked “Is putting a prisoner's eyes out torture?” does he need to know whether we have a policy of blinding people in our custody in order to render a legal opinion on the topic? Heck, if he were asked “Is this a nice tie?”, does he really need to know whether we ever intend to wear it before he can give his opinion on the aesthetics of the tie?

President Bush goes to every length he can to make Congress appear unreasonable, but if you actually pay attention to the logic, it is HE who is unreasonable, expecting Congress to rubber stamp yet another Presidential nominee who refuses to answer an important question.

And by the way, while we're sort of on the topic of water-boarding, to those who don't think it's torture, would you feel the same way if it were done to our soldiers? Would it be just hunky dory with you if we found out that when our soldiers were captured they were held down and had water poured over their faces to simulate drowning? What about extreme temperatures, being subjected to very cold temperatures naked, or sleep deprivation for days on end? And if you STILL think all that's OK, do you mind if we do it to you?

Don't fall for the rhetoric. When the President says that without the immediate passing of the supplemental funding bill, soldiers will go without armor, remember that this is the same armor his own Defense Department has been woefully inadequate in supplying over the course of this war, and that far from immediate, the supplemental funding won't kick in until the current funding actually runs out, which isn't likely to be until the second quarter of next year. And when the President demands that Congress send him a “clean” bill without any attachments, remember that in his forty plus billion dollar request there's at least two billion of unrelated spending, so it's not just Congress attaching things to war funding.

And really, when the President says that it's unreasonable for Congress to expect a legal opinion out of a nominee for the position of Attorney General, wonder if he also thinks it's unreasonable to ask him if he likes pizza before he's been briefed on whether you plan to offer him any.

If you learn nothing else from my blog, learn to see through the rhetorical tricks and think for yourself. Learn to go beyond the mere mantra that politicians can't be trusted and actually try to see through their words and think for yourself. Don't let anyone do your thinking for you. Not Rush Limbaugh or MoveOn.org. Not Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann. Not news outlets or bloggers. Not even me. Think critically, and don't let lying tactics win by being too lazy to give even the most cursory examination into the veracity of the things you're told.

Liam.

5 Comments:

Blogger Liam said...

The title of this post is a subtle tweak at someone, and the fun part is, I'm not even sure who.

My wife let slip in passing that someone of her acquaintence says that I'm "mean" or "mean spirited" and "hateful" and "name calling" or some such on this blog. She wouldn't tell me who said it, though, which is kind of cool because it means I can tweak them a bit without feeling like a personal attack.

I admit I have some pretty strong opinions, but anyone who knows me knows I don't begrudge others the right to disagree with me.

Still, apparently the person who made the comment still supports (in contradiction to all of the evidence) this President, and so I'm guessing the title will be seen as more meanness.

And that's funny to me.

Liam.

Friday, November 02, 2007 12:23:00 AM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Y'know, as I think more about it, the idea that Mukasey can't comment on the legality of a practice without first being fully briefed on whether we're doing it is a lot more insidious than I first thought.

Initially I just thought it was President Bush trying to put Congress in a bad light, perhaps to score some cheap political points or to force them to capitulate and confirm Mukasey.

But suppose he actually believes it? Maybe what he's really saying is an extension of what I hear when he says "we don't torture". See, whenever I hear an assurance by the Administration that "we don't torture" or that "we behave entirely within the law", I remember that this Administration fully believes that the President makes the law. So when they say "we don't torture" but won't comment on whether waterboarding is torture, it means that if we are waterboarding (as has been widely reported) then somewhere they have a document in which they've defined waterboarding as not torture. And when they say "we act entirely within US law", to them that is a tautology. If you believe that if the President orders it, it's the law, then it becomes less of an assurance of proper behavior than a statement of their view of Presidential power.

So perhaps what President Bush is really saying about General Mukasey is that he can't KNOW whether waterboarding is torture until he finds out whether we're doing it, because perhaps in Bush world, if we're doing it, and we say we don't torture, then water-boarding must not be torture and must be legal.

But that's insane. The Attorney General's job is not to tell the President what he wants to hear and find legal justifications for everything the President wants justified. The Attorney General's job is to render impartial advice on legality so that the President can alter his plans if something he plans isn't legal.

The previous AG got into trouble in large part for a clearly partisan attempt to replace an objective and fair Justice Department with partisan loyalists. This is at the very heart of why Alberto Gonzales eventually had to go.

If that's the subtle meaning behind President Bush's recent comments on the topic, then it's even more important that General Mukasey prove that he's independent and mindful of the law first and loyalty to the President second, and if he's unwilling to do that, he absolutely must not be confirmed as Attorney General.

Liam, who clearly isn't sleeping tonight.

Friday, November 02, 2007 1:01:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In what little I saw of the hearings Mukasey seemed to understand what is torture, he was just being wimpy and skittish and likely wishing he'd not gotten out of bed those days. ... I admit that upon hearing the term water boarding, I didn't know what it is and it doesn't sound bad, sounds like something you do with a skateboard in water. But I was listening when Mukasey was told the meaning of the term. He could have commented on the basis of the definition.

Doncha kind hear Bush thinking "I am not a crook, I am not a crook!"? News reports early on said that Mukasey was likely to have a relatively easy confirmation. (How do they know these things?) But I guess Bush is paranoid enough to have Mukasey admit no personal opinions before Congress. (Afterall, Bush likely had trouble finding someone who had NO personal opinions.)

What do we expect from a Attorney General nominee? Don't we expect him to firmly and loudly state that he will uphold the law and bring the bad guys to a fair justice? We want to hear that even if he doesn't mean it. I think it's horrible that this wimp is what we get for a nominee. At first I puzzled why he would give wimpy answers when he's already been chosen as the Bush nominee. Maybe he's afraid history will judge him as a liar if he has to support Bush's tactics. We can only hope that the guy really does have morals and is only acting this way to get the job.

...Bet he ends up in the hospital too.

Saturday, November 03, 2007 5:19:00 AM

 
Blogger Liam said...

Yeah, but the problem with that thinking is that it's what gets us into rubber stamp Congress.

I have the same problem with Hillary Clinton, and with arguably a far better reason. I'm pretty sure I've detailed this on here before, but basically my guess is that Hillary's true opinions are a lot closer to what the majority of the voting public wants right now than she's saying, but she's having to walk a very fine line so as not to be cast as "weak" or "emotional" or any of the other ways she could be hit merely for being a woman. (Y'know they'd do it after they managed to turn a hoarse voice into the complete ruin of the Dean campaign for years ago).

But in neither case can we or our Congress afford to assume. We need to know, and in the case of an Attorney General, we need it stated in front of Congress in testimony, so that he can be held in contempt of Congress and even impeached if he goes back on his word.

If we merely trust that he thinks it's torture but won't say it because Bush instructed him not to, then if he stands by that position there's nothing technically that he's done wrong (or at least, nothing actionable).

Plus, again, the whole idea that someone whose job is to be independent and render independent counsel would take such an order from the President is itself scary. How can you not be just another Alberto Gonzoles if you're already ceding your independence and you don't even have the job yet?

There can be lots of reasons why Mukasey hasn't answered the question. But there's not one of them (or at least, not one of the ones I've come up with or heard posited from anyone else) which doesn't disqualify him (IMO) from the job.

Liam.

Saturday, November 03, 2007 9:36:00 AM

 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree. What I saw of the hearings was pretty sad and scary. And pathetic.

Today I gave a friend a tour of Washington D.C. We visited the Holocaust Museum and I pointed out the White House. Bet you Bush has never set foot in that museum. There's gotta be a torture museum somewhere, perhaps there's a brochure we can send to him and Mukasey.

Sunday, November 04, 2007 12:36:00 AM

 

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Career Education