(Jonesy) wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote...
(Jonesy) wrote:

If you were to write a book about someone who fired you, why would I
believe it would be balanced?

See, here's what is a classic case of ad hominem commentary. By
questioning the character and honesty of a person, rather than the
actual content of his writings.

Bringing up the fact that he's writing about someone who fired him
(and by all accounts, a firing he's still quite upset about) is hardly
an "ad hominem" commentary. That should be obvious.

Resorting to ad hominem commentary is a sure sign that you have lost.
Someone said that - I can't remember who...

How about resorting to claiming an ad hominem when there isn't one?
O'Neill's book has been thoroughly discredited by those who were
there.

It's well known there was a contingency plan for Iraq

There's a difference between some plan on a shelf (invasion of Mexico,
for instance) and the private foreign policy focus of "we need to take
that ******* down." (A paraphrase of Bush's quote "**** Saddam.")

[ad hominem snipped]

Heh. This is your day for accusing me of ad hominem (this accusation
must be VERY weak if you can't even leave the original quote).

I notice you don't actually address my point.

O'Neill's account of that era doesn't coincide with any other member
of the cabinet.

Explicitly, no (I've said as much) Implicitly, well, you'd have to be
a total idiot, or have you head firmly up your ass not to see ANY
implication.

Heh heh heh. So point one out.

Already have. If you have a problem with the logic presented, you may
wish to bring up which part is not logical.

Show me the quote that forces people
to believe there is a direct connection.

Look up the definition of "implication," Mr. Strawman.

Heh heh heh. So you can't point out anything that Bush said that led
anyone to the conclusion, but remain firmly convinced that somehow he
managed to do it - with words that don't support the conclusion.

So which is he, a dupe or an evil genius who can say things and yet
convince the majority of those listening (or even those not listening
since more than 30% don't even bother to listen) that Iraq was
directly connected to 9/11?

It's not an ad hominem argument. It's a direct insult. They are two
different things.

Either indicates you're nasty when backed into a corner.

I agree that ad hominem commentary is a losing game. Insults are only
opinions, and have no bearing on the logic of the argument.

While you being an asshole is my opinion, you being pedantic is quite
obvious. Hingeing your whole case on what was or was not implied
means that you really don't have much of a case. And real world data
suggest that you are in a small minority in your belief.

I have no case ? - and you can't provide a single quote to prove your
point. Heh.

I have already proved my point logically. Maybe you just don't
understand what the conversation is about.

Let's look at your logic...

1) Bush never actually said anything to support the conclusion that
Iraq and 9/11 are directly connected.
2) 70% of the US population believe there is a direct connection
3) Therefore Bush is responsible for the belief

I don't consider that "logic". But you remain convinced so I think we
are wasting our time discussing it - don't you agree?

snip
The fact that near 70% of Americans at one time thought as
much proves this point.

I rest my case.

[snip Liebermann quote]

If two people, one from the Republican party, the other from the
Democratic party, say that the moon is made of green cheese, does that
make it true? Is it a fact then?

You really like strawmen.

This is called an "analogy." Look it up. Just because Bush and some
Democrat(s) think something doesn't make it true. Plenty of folks
used to think the world was the center of the universe, for example.

Your definition of a strawman doesn't seem to agree with the textbook.
That is, a hypothetical situation that is concocted in such a way to
be easy to destroy (like your "green cheese" example).

Do you really think that there's only one
Democrat who believes there was a connection between Iraq and Al
Qaeda?

This is the perfect example of a strawman. Oh, I get it, you think I
like them, so you keep constructing them. Not the sharpest knife in
the drawer, are you?

Shall we compare sharpness in this drawer? Asking whether you believe
only one Democrat believes there's a connection between Iraq and AQ
consitutes a strawman in your mind? Heh heh heh.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame