Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Quote from KymarFye:
You don't really expect anyone to believe that you evaluate Bush from a Kantian perspective, do you?
Uh, no - it was kind of a joke.
Kant would be open to fact and possibility, clearly you are not.
He was not said to have much of a sense of humor, however.
The evidence for the main case on the war was overwhelming, without any resort to secret intelligence or any speculation as to Bush's "inner intentions." Specific items can be questioned, and one may or may not find the explanations put forward by the Administration or its supporters satisfactory, but how would anyone be able to prove for you the general proposition that Bush isn't or wasn't lying?
No one could prove it, unless they could record his comments via recording device where he clearly said something other than what he told the American public.
We could get a witness who will swear he heard Bush say something other than what he said to the American people, and people would then have to decide if such a witness was credible or not.
It is only your opinion that the main case on the war was overwhelming in support of the immediacy of war, clearly not a fact, or a set of facts that would convince any an all men or reason.
There you go again. "Immediacy" - when not "imminence" or "urgency" - is your bugaboo, not mine. It's a shifty bugaboo, too, as bugaboos go, I might add. Sometimes, it's an open question for which you don't have an answer - as in what degree of urgency and what specific kind of urgency would be urgent or immediate or imminent enough for you. Sometimes it's the ONLY issue that matters.
I spoke to the "main case for the war," not the "main case... in support of the immediacy of war." I have several times outlined what I understand to be the larger case for the war both as argued by the Administration and as I think of it from my own perspective. I have spoken to timing and logistical issues, which are separate matters, but which do also bear - in very real, practical, life and death ways - on the preferability of acting at one time over another. I have also spoken to the particular nature of the threats being addressed, and how, in my opinion and in the opinion of the Administration, they force one to think of urgency and just cause in a somewhat different light than has been customary for the US in the past. The last time I discussed this issue specifically, just a few pages ago, focusing on the kind of pre-emption being attempted in Iraq, instead of responding, you chose instead to make a comment implying that I was merely posturing as a "military strategist."
I have also c&p'd articles on the subject. We have discussed the nature of judgment and opinion, and recognized that there is no objective standard, but always an element of judgment in any decision on war. At other times, I have cited specific statements - such as the clear and unequivocal statements in the SOTU address in which
Bush explicitly argued that imminence was not the proper criterion.
And, after all that, you slip in this immediacy thing again, and a request for some mythical and impossible set of facts that would in and of themselves justify war.
Most of the rest of your comments continue to rely on this one idea - that only the discovery of deliverable WMDs in Iraq would retroactively justify the war or prove that Bush wasn't lying. Suppose, for instance, that the truth turns out to be, as the captured Tariq Aziz is reported to have said, that the last of all deliverable WMDs were destroyed on the eve of the war - for reasons having to do, apparently, with Saddam's political strategy. Or suppose that they were securely hidden beyond discovery. Then there would be no way, ever, for the Administration, in your view, to prove it's case (assuming one uses the unjustifiably narrow version of the case that you prefer). Indeed, it seems that the only thing that would have proven the case for you would have been if WMDs had actually been used in America or the rather unlikely event of some Iraqi or Iraq-connected terrorist being caught in the act: seized in mid-throw while hurling a Sarin grenade at a swap meet or something...
The administration doesn't need to fake evidence now, they have already engaged the war. They got their way, didn't they?
Should the opinion polls suddenly show that people think Bush did in fact lie to the people regarding WMD, and if his approval goes down accordingly, I will wager we will sudden and miraculously find WMD.
With such statements you merely confirm the depth of your hostility to the Administration - or perhaps to its supporters. Apparently, you are like some of the anti-war types who within hours of the fall of Baghdad were predicting that WMD evidence would be planted. As the story advances, there will be plenty of opportunity for people to make judgments on the believability of whatever information comes forth. Undoubtedly, there will be many who are now so committed to disbelief that nothing will sway them. Should we expect you to be among them?
Should we just blindly assume the president is innocent until proven guilty?
Blindly? Of course not. We can only apply our judgment to the evidence as it unfolds.
Oh you mean the way the Republicans treated Clinton and company and gave them the benefit of the doubt in every case where fact could not decide a case. Afford the president the benefit of the doubt, right? That is their M.O. when it comes to their political opposition, right?
I'm not sure whom you mean by "the Republicans," but, generally speaking, I don't think either side exactly covered itself in glory during the Clinton years, or provided a very good model for going forward, least of all on questions of national security.
