Klarinet Archive - Posting 000536.txt from 2004/06

From: Bill Hausmann <bhausmann1@-----.net>
Subj: RE: [kl] The Bush Junta
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 23:33:38 -0400

At 09:12 PM 6/30/2004 -0400, Jeremy A Schiffer wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jun 2004, Bill Hausmann wrote:
>
>>At 12:41 PM 6/30/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>If you figure that questioning the guy's motives, ability, and logic to
>>be ad hominem, then I guess so. (I read it days ago, too.)
>
>Um, Bill, that IS the definition of 'ad hominem' according to most
>sources. From dictionary.com (sorry, I already left work, and can't access
>the OED from home) "The phrase now chiefly describes an argument based on
>the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case: 'Ad
>hominem attacks on one's opponent are a tried-and-true strategy for people
>who have a case that is weak'. Ninety percent of the Panel finds this
>sentence acceptable [meaning that the usage is correct]."

OK. I will give you attacks on his ABILITY as possibly ad
hominem. However, poor logic and extreme bias (motive) are DIRECTLY
related to the merits of the case.

>And here's what Hitchens says about Moore and the film (from
>villagevoice.com - Richard Goldstein):
>
>"Dishonest . . . demagogic . . . a piece of crap . . . an exercise in
>facile crowd pleasing . . . a sinister exercise in moral frivolity . . . a
>spectacle of abject political cowardice . . . a big lie [sustained] by a
>dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods beefed up by wilder and (if
>possible) yet more contradictory claims . . . loaded bias against the work
>of the mind . . . so flat-out phony that 'fact-checking' is beside the
>point." As for Moore himself, Hitchens calls him "a silly and shady man"
>and "one of the great soggy blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten
>culture."
>
>Sure looks like intelligent discourse to me!

Some ad hominem at the end, maybe. But the rest of it mostly attacks his
CASE as lies and demagoguery, which it is.

>>>Additionally, if you follow the link (and read it) for the article where
>>>Richard Clarke supposedly took full responsibility for the post-9/11
>>>Saudi flights (the one area where the facts are in dispute), you
>>>discover quickly that Clarke didn't say what Hitchens claims he said.
>>>Even the headline on that story is rather misleading, given what it says
>>>several paragraphs in.
>>
>>Clarke's exact words were, "I take responsibility for it. I don't think
>>it was a mistake, and I'd do it again." and "It didn't get any higher
>>than me. On 9-11, 9-12 and 9-13, many things didn't get any higher than
>>me. I decided it in consultation with the FBI." Only later did he try to
>>weasel out of those statements.
>
>You have the timeline backwards. The "I take responsibility" line was
>given for the first time, according to that article, on May 24th of this
>year. He had previously claimed, in *sworn testimony* in March, that "'The
>request came to me, and I refused to approve it,' Clarke testified. 'I
>suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names
>of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that
>they approve it or not. I spoke with the - at the time - No. 2 person in
>the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then
>approved ... the flight.'"
>
>The fact is, no one knows what the facts are (or if they do, they're not
>talking). But Hitchens was being a little less than honest in his usage of
>the quotes...

Either way, the guy should pick a story and stick with it. Apparently he
can't decide which story makes HIM look better. And this is the guy Moore
holds up as a "hero."

>>What is NOT in the movie is just as important as what IS. Can you play
>>Mozart leaving out the rests and just playing the notes? Leaving OUT
>>truth that contradicts your point is just as much lying as making up stuff.
>
>A lie of commission versus a lie of ommission, if you'd like to be precise
>about it. I agree with your point in the abstract - anyone with a passing
>familiarity of formal logic would have to agree.
>
>However, in this case, Hitchens is yammering about the lack of context
>that Moore provides in regards to the Baathist history of violence and
>repression in Iraq. But who cares? Perhaps Moore didn't go into extreme
>detail about Iraqi history because it's NOT RELEVANT to 9/11 and the
>Bush/Bin Laden family entanglements? If you've read a fair amount of
>Hitchens' work, it all starts to look the same, since he grinds the same
>axe over and over and over again.

Gee, does that sound like anybody named MOORE that you have heard of
lately? Get Bush, with anything you can, whether it is contradictory or
not, true or not, keep throwing stuff hoping something will stick. Iraq
was friendly territory to terrorists, without a doubt. Remember how
everybody said, "Right on!" when President Bush said we would treat those
who HARBOR terrorists as being as guilty as the terrorists
themselves? What has changed?

>He doesn't as much accuse Moore of leaving out contradictory evidence as
>he excoriates him for not broadening the context of the film, an utterly
>irrelevant point if there ever was such a thing.

If he broadened the context to include THE REST of the evidence, his house
of cards would come tumbling down.

Bill Hausmann

If you have to mic a saxophone, the rest of the band is TOO LOUD!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org