The continued exposure of crisis after crisis in America has demonstrated a very sad reality that I never realized was part of American culture: the refusal to use logic. Maybe this is a human trait. I am still trying to understand how the French could detest immigrants so much that they would elect someone who wants to be Bush's next lap dog, even though only 15% approve of Bush and his policies. However, I am ignorant of what the president-elect campaigned on and would feel presumptious to declare that the French used no logic in their decision-making process.
Yet, I see how we Americans refuse logic on a daily basis. They say that liberals, on the whole, are more intellectual than conservatives. I can clearly see this when I compare the arguments of liberal blogs or Opinion/Editorial pieces or when I watch "liberal" television personalities such as Colbert, Olberman or Stewart. The difference, it seems, is that we value our premises more than the other side.
All of the conservative pundits, journalists and Bush apologists seem to treat the premises of their arguments as troublesome superficialities to their iron-clad conclusions, while liberals (or reality-based persons) honor our premises to the point where we analyze, inspect, compare and look for any devil's advocate to challenge them before coming to any conclusion (Okay, we normally challenge our premises. Who's perfect?)
Now many a Democrat, or Bush detractor, would be tempted to argue their own case in response to the conclusions presented by Busheviks. This plays into the hands of these delusional "patriots". Their premises are now given cover by conclusions that we decide to challenge. Let’s forget about our premises and conclusions for a second and analyze some of their premises as we do for our own.
The Iraq war is a perfect example of how Bush apologists espouse ludicrous conclusions based on weak and fallible premises.
Conclusion: "We have to fight them over there so that we do not have to fight them over here".
Really?
Premise: "Stabilizing" Iraq, something that they seem incapable of defining, with an "American-friendly" government, will prevent, or reduce the probability of, future terrorist attacks.
"Stabilizing" Iraq may indeed prevent future terrorists attacks. I must say "bravo" for this statement due to its undeniable veracity. However, the problem with this premise is not the goal of stabilization, but our ability to stabilize. Given that we have been in Iraq for 4 arduous and deadly years by people in every category, how can one believe that this goal is even attainable? Wanting something does not make it so.
Premise: It is possible to contain the threat through military force and by having a "democratic" voting process (with the Busheviks in charge, this is a big oxymoron), Iraqis will settle down and stop fighting each other.
Containing the threat through military force and "democratization" is hardly a recipe for reducing terrorists threats. Killing Iraqis indiscriminately, and then shrugging off that loss of life as collateral damage is not the best way to get friends and reduce threats to America. In fact, many would argue (with logical premises, of course) that it is doing just the opposite. Obvious? Um....yes, it is. Forced "Democratization" of a country may look like a winner for reducing terrorism, but what happens when we ignore the will of the Iraqi people (democracy) and continue to occupy the country? How does this reduce the threat of terrorism by those who see no other way to make us listen to their will?
Premise: Bush & Co. have no nefarious plans to take over Iraqi oil or build permanent military bases there; never did, never will. So fighting them over there is a no brainer. Even IF this is a possibility,the Iraqis joy of liberation will trump any concern of being slaughtered by the thousands, having clean drinking water or reliable electricity.
Although I disagree with this administration having no nefarious plans, I will concede this point in order to move on to the next. What liberation are we talking about that brings Iraqis joy? As an occupying force, they do not feel "liberated". Given that there is little chance of feeling liberated during an occupation, then taking over their oil and building military bases (another sign of lack of liberation) may set them off to the point of becoming terrorists, since again we do not listen to their will. Fighting them over there with these issues in the background does not prevent terrorism, it encourages it.
Conclusion: Republicans Support the Troops, Bush detractors do not
Premise: The speeches that Bush makes in front of the troops confirms the fact that Bush has their best interests at heart.
Bush using the troops as backdrop for his speeches do not necessarily mean he supports the troops. Being "fair & balanced", I cannot claim that it means the opposite either. But how many of these people would argue that a speech by Nancy Pelosi in front of the troops signifies her support of these brave men & women?
Premise: If the Commander in Chief claims that anything done contrary to what he sees fit is not supporting the troops, then, by golly, it is not supporting the troops. End of discussion.
How can we take this premise seriously when they would not make the same argument with a President Hillary Clinton. Would they really argue for her unfettered decision-making in matters of war and peace? Even if they did, how would they resolve mistakes that she made, but having no means of forcing her to correct them? If there is even the slightest possibility of hurting our troops with her decision, but she refuses to allow anyone to mention her mistakes, let alone take advice about these mistakes and use them, how can this be supporting the troops?
Premise: Showing no fear in using the troops to protect our country, regardless of whether they are actually being used to protect us and regardless of whether we see our fellow countrymen die in a foreign land with improper training or equipment, demonstrates that Bush and Cheney support our troops. In essence, acknowledging our troops by sending them off to war is a great sign of support, whether the war has a plan for success, exit strategy or adequate troop rest time and pay.
Sigh, do I really need to examine the flaws of this argument? Am I wrong to interpret this as an argument of Bush apologists? Let’s assume I am wrong because even this is too idiotic for these people, right? (why do I hear crickets?)
Conclusion: U.S. Attorneys work at the pleasure of the President
Premise: the law clearly states that the president can fire U.S. Attorneys for any reason whatsoever. This law overrides any concern for politicization of the Justice Department because politics can be a reason for firing U.S. Attorneys. This election fraud nonsense is bullocks, as they say across the pond, because everyone knows its Democrats who are the elections cheaters. Look at all the open cases against them!
When they examine the ever-changing reasons given for the dismissals of the attorneys in question, do they not wonder why the president chose to do so and why they give different accounts for the same action? Again, the intellectual hypocrisy for them to think that we would believe that they would react the same way to President Hillary Clinton and Attorney General John Edwards giving the same song and dance is so glaring that I am now reaching for my sunglasses.
Premise: Gonzales is also considered an attorney who works at the pleasure of the president, so Congress has no right to question the way he performs his duties. If he says nothing improper happened, then we should take him at his word (never mind the fact that there is evidence to the contrary and that they would not take Clinton’s word about not having sex with that woman)
Intellectual hypocrisy: Attorney General John Edwards making the same claims under the same circumstances.
Premise: The White House has every right to evoke executive privilege because the president or his staff could have discussed sensitive information with people outside the White House. Whether they ignored the Hatch Act by using RNC email accounts cannot be proven because of executive privilege.
My brain starts to hurt when I have to think about this one. No, you can’t see what I am doing for national security reasons. Using a non-White House email account for national security issues is not strange. No, you can’t prove that I am using an illegal email account for national security issues, breaking the law of the Hatch act, because of executive privilege so no crime has been broken since it can’t be proved. Ouch!
I would love to have a Bush apologist thoroughly examine the premises of our conclusions in order for them to possible enlighten themselves, and who knows, possibly us! ...nah. But their fear of these required examinations, required at least for the sake of logic, will prevent them from doing so.
[Note: I am a John Edwards supporter and by no means meant to imply that he cannot nor should not win the Democratic nomination. However, he was the only attorney I thought was despised enough by the right that would serve the purpose of this diary]