The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

Brand X wrote:

I don't think he's around here enough to keep up with the thousand or so posts per day... :wink:

Yes - Thank You and Sorry.

0 Replies

Now, to just beat the ad hom subject securely into the ground before the stroke of midnight...........

Craven,

Yes, I would have been "in error" had you read my complete post. And I know you acknowledge that you did not read it. I know you're busy and don't have time to read every little thing. But for your edification here's my complete post:

Quote:

The point seems to be, Tarantulas, that you attacked Dean's character rather than address his argument. That's ad hom.

True Joe did point to John Dean's integrity. Even though John Dean did go to prison for Richard Nixon's sins and for his own part in it, for some, he did demonstrate integrity in spite of all that. And a person's integrity does affect the believability of their claims. Still the points Dean makes were not addressed, rather his character was discussed. It seems you're simply saying that since he is a convicted felon, his argument doesn't warrant consideration, and you decline to comment on his points.

Craven wrote:

Quote:

nimh,

Did Joe Nation not make an appeal to integrity?

Sure, you can say Tarantulas avoided some other arguments but Joe made a clear appeal to integrity and Tarantulas response was not a fallacious ad hominem.

Now it can be criticized for not addressing the points you guys would like him to address but calling it an ad hominem is to bandy around the term without knowledge of what it means to critical thinking.

Joe made a direct appeal to integrity and Tarantulas response in that context was not fallacious unless it can be shown to be a falsehood or a false premise.

While I agree with you whole heartedly on your minor point here, as you can see by what I said in my above post from earlier today, I can't disagree more on the more relevant point. nimh is correct here, IMO. Let's talk about the arguments and less about the characters of the arguers.

True, the character of the person presenting an argument is relevant. For instance if I hear something on Fox news, I am more suspect of the report than if I hear it from the Lehrer Report, for instance. However, the real matter is in the argument. If I hear it on Fox, then I do expect to be able to see the logical fallacies........but more than that the distortions of fact than if I hear if from another source I consider to be more reliably attempting to understand and interpret the facts. But it still has to come down to the arguments of John Dean (or Dick Clark or George Bush, etc.) That's the real point.

Let's all try to get past freshmen year logic and move on to talk about the issues. Thanks

0 Replies

Lola,

I happen to agree with you in that this is tangiental but I also object to your decision to "beat" your, IMO, false ad hominem accusation into the ground.

0 Replies

Well I came back late, but the argument here is really easy.

John Dean didn't make any arguments in this thread. So anything I say about John Dean is by definition not ad hominem, since ad hominem is attacking a person's argument.

Joe Nation said that John Dean had integrity. I pointed out that John Dean is a felon. The implication is that a felon by definition is lacking in integrity. People with integrity aren't convicted criminals.

0 Replies

I hate to be pedantic (not that it's going to stop me now) but Tarantulas you've now redefined ad hominem's as well.

It's not true that anything you say about John Dean is not an ad hominem.

If the subject is, say, a policy Dean favors and your response to the validity of the policy is to opine about Dean's character then you will, indeed, have constructed a fallacious ad hominem.

It wasn't an ad hominem because the comment about integrity addressed a claim about the man's integrity (which made his integrity a topic for discussion).

But if you intend to write off Dean's point of view based on his perceived integrity then you are creating an ad hominem argument.

0 Replies

Well, this is very interesting. When I set to Tarantulas in this particular case, I recognized that my charge had the weakness which Craven has pointed to, and I should have thought that through better than I did. Or at least acknowledged that weakness.

Yet I still think that Craven's formulation of the matter ends up putting us in a less reasonable position than does mine. Please follow me along this stilted path.

First, I jumped on Tarantula's "he's a convicted felon" post because of what I suspected was his motivation in bringing up that point at all...to minimize or derogate the credibility of anything negative Dean might say about this administration - the classic 'abusive' instance of the ad hominem fallacy.

But as Craven points out, Tarantulas' response follows on Joe Nation's claim that Dean had "integrity". If the claim made is about character, then a response such as Tarantula's response is, formally, not irrelevant.

But how relevant is it? What if, for example, Joe Nation had said that Dean had integrity, and then Tarantulas had responded (supposing we knew the following to be true) that Dean had been caught by the sheriff stealing a chocolate bar when he was eight? Or if Dean had been convicted of, say, providing marijuana to an aunt who has glaucoma, in a state where such would be classed as a felony? Or if Dean had been convicted of merely a misdemeanour class of crime? Or, as regards conviction and jail, what if we consider the case of Nelson Mandela, who broke laws?

Or, at the other end of the spectrum, what if we knew Dean had a long and rich history of deceit with other serious character failings, like humping insects under the harvest moon?

So, HOW MUCH relevance ought we to grant Tarantulas' factual claim that Dean was convicted of a felony? The implication of Tarantulas' factual claim is that this has enough relevance to put Dean's integrity into question? I don't think it does. Joe Nation's post alludes to the historical record on Dean's infraction. As White House counsel, he initially lied to FBI investigators to protect the White House regarding the Watergate burlary and coverup, but then made himself available to investigators and revealed the truth of what he knew. Without Dean's testimony, it's quite likely that the Watergate investigation would have failed, and the serious crimes it brought to light would have gone unknown. Further, as I remarked earlier, a secretly recorded tape evidences Dean advising Nixon that there was 'a cancer on the presidency'...referring to the Haldeman/Erlichman/Segretti crowd and what they were up to. And also, as I noted, there is no evidence I know of where Dean lied to anyone about anything either before or after this instance.

So, the question is...what was Tarantulas up to when he wrote that factual statement? Certainly, he is attempting an appeal to personal considerations rather than to reason.

What makes this tricky, I suppose, is that we are dealing with opinion rather than quantifiable fact when we speak about 'character' or 'integrity'.

But the net result is that we end up with a character derogation which seems to me to be clearly in contradiction to what the historical record shows about Dean. And that functions as an abusive case.

Craven...personal note to you...as I've told you before, you're a shithead. But I'm terrifically glad I've bumped into you. You've got a fine noggin, which remains only modestly crushed by the ego on top. Guys like you keep guys like me humble.

0 Replies

And here's a couple of good questions:

Who is the John Dean of this administration?

and when will Colin Powell wake up, look in the mirror and call in his resignation?

Love to all,

Joe

0 Replies

More back-up for Clarke.
New Evidence Bush Pushed Iraq War Right After 9/11 - Former Top British Official Confirms Richard Clarke's Allegations

WASHINGTON- April 6 - In the latest issue of Vanity Fair, former British Ambassador to the United States Christopher Meyer says President Bush "made clear at a dinner" with Prime Minister Tony Blair nine days after the Sept. 11 attacks that he wanted to confront Iraq.

Meyer's claim substantiates similar accounts by former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill. But, the White House continues to deny the charges calling them "revisionist history" and claiming Iraq was "to the side" immediately after the attacks.

The assertion is corroborated by the Washington Post, which reported that President Bush personally signed a two-and-a-half page directive on September 17th, 2001, ordering the Pentagon to begin drawing up Iraq invasion plans. It is also corroborated by CBS News, which reported on September 4, 2002, that five hours after the 9/11 attacks, "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq."

As a result of Bush's preoccupation with Saddam Hussein, the Administration diverted critical resources to Iraq and away from the hunt for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. As USA Today reported, "In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Similarly, Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) reported that in February of 2002 a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq."

That has left many dangerous terrorists still at large, and the UN is now reporting that the country is "in danger of reverting to a terrorist breeding ground."

For full citations and links to the cited documents, visit: www.misleader.org.

0 Replies

Craven, you just restated the same thing I said, so we're in agreement. John Dean's character wasn't attacked in response to an argument he made.

Blatham, to paraphrase the discussion, Joe Nation said that Dean had saintly qualities. And I pointed out that, at least at one time, he had been a sinner. And not just a slap-on-the-wrist candy-bar-stealing sinner, either. We're talking about a lose-your-right-to-vote-forever sinner. His halo is quite tarnished.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Craven, you just restated the same thing I said, so we're in agreement. John Dean's character wasn't attacked in response to an argument he made.

Blatham, to paraphrase the discussion, Joe Nation said that Dean had saintly qualities. And I pointed out that, at least at one time, he had been a sinner. And not just a slap-on-the-wrist candy-bar-stealing sinner, either. We're talking about a lose-your-right-to-vote-forever sinner. His halo is quite tarnished.

Tarantulas

OK. Final comment from me, then we ought to put this particular case to rest, unless you'd like to add one last response following.

What you are logically allowed stemming from the fact of Dean's previous felony conviction (given the full history of those circumstances and his behaviour otherwise) is but one thing...an asterisk level of vigilance as to veracity. If someone says, "Dean never lied", you can counter that with the fact he did and that obviously wouldn't be an ad hominem. If someone said, "Dean's integrity and character are impeccable", you could note that he once lied to the FBI, and that wouldn't be an ad hominem (but if you were REALLY out to forward truth, you'd note the full story, much of which redeems).

But if you use the 'tarnished halo' line to discredit his observations and reasoning, that's an ad hominem. But even more than that, if you suggest that this singular lapse by Dean warrants disregard for what he says because his veracity is forever now seriously in question on all matters, then that is clearly an illogical outcome.

Check you own intention. If you are forwarding this datum in order to place the man's assertions (that you don't agree with) in question, or so as to influence others to avoid or denigrate the claims he makes, then that will tell you yourself whether you are guilty of my charge.

0 Replies

tarantulas said

Quote:

So anything I say about John Dean is by definition not ad hominem, since ad hominem is attacking a person's argument.

Surely you misspoke?

I personally find lola's and blatham's interpretation more compelling, and common sensicle (not a real word, I know).

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Quote:

Lola,

I happen to agree with you in that this is tangiental but I also object to your decision to "beat" your, IMO, false ad hominem accusation into the ground.

Craven,

Yeah, well we all have our bad days. Some of us have more than others. And adding my stroke to the already ongoing activity of beating a point into the ground is not such a great sin, after all. So object if you please and I'll pay as much attention to your objection as you have paid to mine. In the meantime, I'm sure, from my perspective, at least, that it won't interfere with our friendship.

My claim of ad hom, in the much discussed incident, is not false in one sense. I think this has been clarified by me and Blatham enough to make a reasonable case. I did acknowledge that T's response to Joe was not ad hom in the sense that he was responding to Joe's comment about Dean's integrity. But that's a minor point and not at all what this thread is about.

0 Replies

Does anyone remember what Dean said? It would interest me to remember that. Was it even on this thread, Joe? Where is this reference to Dean. What is it that Dean said? That this administration is more secretive and deceptive than even the Nixon admin.?

This is Dean's opinion, but there does seem to be some strong evidence for it. We have O'Neill, Clarke and now the former British ambassador, Christopher Meyer making similar claims.

Where is this Dean article? I can't find it. What did Dean say was the basis for his claim? What was his argument?

What is Clarke's argument? O'Neill's, Meyer's? I'll post this question now and then see if I can speak to Meyer's points. But first, I need to take a short break.

0 Replies

No, it's not. Apparently this thread is about attacking one user, being shown that the attack was wrong, and defending the attack even after being shown the error in the attack.

0 Replies

Quote:

Apparently this thread is about attacking one user, being shown that the attack was wrong, and defending the attack even after being shown the error in the attack.

McGentrix,

What is the basis of this claim? It seems to me we've been talking about two things. One is the subject of this thread and the other is about what constitutes a valid argument. There has been one participant making a certain argument and most of the rest of us making another. I don't see this as an attack. It is rather, IMO, a good, strong discussion of the latter subject. Disagreement is not equivilent to attack. Can we not disagree without being accused of attack?

0 Replies

Lola
Lola, thanks for adding the new info re the confirming info from Meyer.
---BBB

Blair 'dissuaded Bush from attack after 9/11'

Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Friday April 4, 2003
The Guardian

Tony Blair has frequently played a pivotal role in the infighting in the US administration over Iraq, according to the recently retired British ambassador to Washington, Sir Christopher Meyer.

Hawks in the Bush administration, mainly the deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, pushed for an attack on Iraq rather than Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11.

Sir Christopher, in an interview with the US public broadcasting system last night, said that the prime minister, arriving in Washington the week after an inconclusive discussion between George Bush and his key advisers at Camp David, swung in behind the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who saw Afghanistan as the prime target.

In the documentary Blair's War, Sir Christopher, who returned to Britain last month, said that when Mr Blair met Mr Bush in the weeks after September 11, he urged him to deal first with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida network and its protector - Afghanistan's Taliban government - before tackling Iraq.

"Tony Blair's view was, 'Whatever you're going to do about Iraq, you should concentrate on the job at hand'. And the job at hand was get al-Qaida, give the Taliban an ultimatum," the former British ambassador said.

Sir Christopher added that Mr Bush took Mr Blair aside and promised he would keep Iraq "for another day".

Apparently, on becoming president, Mr Bush was content with the then US-British policy of containment. But September 11 changed his attitude to Saddam Hussein and he was no longer prepared to countenance a government that might prove to a risk in the future.

When Mr Bush returned to the Iraq issue after dealing with Afghanistan, the prime minister pressed him to go first to the UN, and offered to sell US policy to other European leaders.

"Blair said, 'If you want to do this you can do this on your own; you have the military strength to go into Iraq and do it, but our advice to you is: Even a great superpower like the US needs to do this with partners and allies'."

Mr Blair allied himself with Mr Powell in the battle to go down the UN route, against hawks such as the US vice-president, Dick Cheney, who in August last year appeared to rule out that option.

It was touch and go: when Mr Bush last September in a speech to the UN promised to take the Iraq issue to the security council, it was not in the text on his teleprompter. He agreed so late there was not enough time to include it.

0 Replies

Lola
Lola, you are a smart woman and know the answer to your question of McGentrix. When you are guilty or wrong, attack to discredit your accuser, not the facts.

BBB

0 Replies

Thanks, BBB.........I agree my question is retorical. I am trying to get McGentrix to consider the proposition that disagreement does not constitute attack.

0 Replies

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Thanks, BBB.........I agree my question is retorical. I am trying to get McGentrix to consider the proposition that disagreement does not constitute attack.

Read these and describe the difference between an attack and a disagreement.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=632473#632473

blatham wrote:

As I've just noted on another thread, Tarantulas' most common failing is recourse to, and forwarding of, the ad hominem fallacy. He apparently doesn't spot it in what he reads nor in what he writes.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=632370#632370

blatham wrote:

Tarantulas wrote:
And his other attribute is that he is a convicted felon.

You REALLY do need to understand the notion of logical fallacy and how this is an instance of it. It's a logical error you continue to make, in your own posts, and in what you paste.

ps...joe, thanks for the headsup on NOW.

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=633241#633241

blatham wrote:

occam

First, if you take a look at Tarantulas' previous posts and pastes, most particularly on the Richard Clarke testimony, it is marked by almost constant use of ad hominem derogations. I suspect, like most folks, he just hasn't been fortunate enough to have enrolled in a first year logic course and so, hasn't yet understood this beast.

But the Dean matter is more specific. Dean was White House counsel under Nixon, and spent four months in jail for his role in the Watergate coverup (if I recall correctly, it was for lying to FBI agents in the initial investigations). But if there was a good guy amongst the bad guys, it was Dean. You'll possibly recall his warning to Nixon that there was 'a cancer on the Presidency'. It was Dean's testimony to Sam Irvin's Senate committee which named Mitchell, Erlichman, and Haldeman as giving approval for the break-in and which clarified that Nixon had approved of the coverup. Outside of this instance of initially lying to the FBI agents, there's no indication that either previously, or after, Dean has been involved in any other such felonious or criminal actions of any sort.

So, how is this history relevant grounds for questioning the veracity of Dean's comments and viewpoints on this White House? Yet that is exactly how Tarantuas uses that history...to discredit. Yes?

0 Replies

The CBS 60 Minutes Richard Clarke Interview

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know