Hanson, deconstructed.
POST HOC, ERGO PROPTER HOC>>>>>>that is Hanson's and your position?
http://www.answers.com/topic/logical-fallacy-2
It is convenient to believe that which follows actions is because of them. Unfortunately, the examples Hanson presents are not simply the results of bush's invasion of Iraq.
If you delve deeper into each example he presents you will find other reasons for the events that decrease the likelihood that bush's policies are the ultimate reason why those things happened.
Who would have believed a year ago that there would now be headlines reading, "Was George Bush Right?" in the European left-wing newspapers, or admissions in the New York Times, Washington Post, and The New Republic that the removal of Saddam Hussein and the efforts at democratization of the Middle East might have been right all along?
No, George Bush was not right. He went to war and invaded a country that was no
imminent" threat to the US. He used bogus intelligence data that dismissed all alternative views other than those, which supported his plans to invade Iraq. He as not even right for the wrong reasons.
You and Hanson have bad memories. No one was preaching a crusade for bringing democracy to the Arabs in the run up to the war as a primary reason to invade Iraq. Cheney et al. were using imagery of mushroom clouds over American cities within 45 minutes of the Iraqi military launching nuclear weapons. Over the past 24 months the Busheviks have changed their reasons for war like teen age girls change clothes, and none of them stand up to scrutiny, except to blind ideologues like Hanson, and yourself.
We are at the crossroads of history, thanks largely to the resoluteness of the United States military and its commander-in-chief. Contrary to the advice of D.C. pundits, CIA apparatchiks, and the beltway brain trust, the president grasped that Islamic fascism was not a criminal justice matter.
Here Hanson purposely is confusing al Quida with Baathist Iraq under Hussein. No one I know was against invading Afghanistan and my own brother served in that invasion in 2001-2. Therefore, Hanson is deliberately trying to link the two when there is no linkage. In fact, there is more Islamic fundamentalism in Iraq today than before the invasion. Ands anyone with even the sense that god gave a gopher knows that under Hussein, Iraq was the only secular country in the Middle East.
So how has bush's grasp of Islamic fascism dictated his actions on attacking the only secular government in that part of the world?
Nor was the plague of fundamentalism to be redressed through a Marshall Plan of American largess. Stopping bin Laden was certainly not grounds for appeasing Yasser Arafat or Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.
Actually , in Iraq, a 21st century form of the Marshall Plan is exactly what is in play now with the reconstruction efforts by the US, and is directly related to fears of just such a movement by Iraqis towards Islamic fundamentalism
Rather, al Qaeda was best understood as an inevitable symptom of a larger Middle East disease, endemic to the region's failed autocracy and cured only by real transparency that follows from democratic reform.
The same can be said for the liberation movements of Central America circa 1980; failed plutocracies, autocracies gave rise to armed opposition from the general populations that were overcome only by the promise of free elections and self-determination. So there is no unique understanding required to see what has occurred in a region that is run by autocracies.
.
So, what have we in Iraq today? Months after the Iraqi election there is still no government to speak of, the US government can not tell us how long the American military will have to stay there; at least 5 years is what many generals on the ground say, at costs that boggle the mind at a time of massive federal debts. The UN and NATO countries have refused to get involved, precisely because the Americans have so screwed up the country and feel that that those who broke must pay to fix it.
Even the elections are suspect since there is increasing evidence that the Shia won the election outright, but are being forced by the Americans to include the minority Kurds and Sunni to prevent outright civil war. So much for democracy and self-determination on the march in the lands of Mohammedanism.
Yet after the president's successful reelection, and the stunning news of the Iraqi voting and its encouraging aftershocks in the region, George Bush enjoys little more than a 50 percent approval rating. Unemployment is low. Inflation remains moderate. Interest rates are affordable, and real growth is strong, Why, then, the discontent?
Actually, Bush has less than 50% approval in the America. It is precisely because the majority of American now sees, even if Hanson and you do not, that we were lied to in the run up to the war, and the majority of the American people do not trust what Bush says.
Unemployment you say. Are you going to use the dept of labor stats that focus on unemployment figures based upon filings for unemployment insurance? You might recognize how illiterate it is to use such figures because it does not account for those who no longer can draw unemployment insurance. And are no longer counted as being unemployed. A more accurate picture of US unemployment would be to take the number of people who are of working age and subtract from that the number of people who are on a payroll, then divide by the total number of employable people in the economy. You will find that number approximately TWICE the boasted level of unemployment.
Inflation? I run a business, and the price of everything that I buy that must be shipped over any distance is increasing, drastically.
Real purchasing power has decreased over the last few years for the majority of Americans and job growth has occurred only be replacing higher paying jobs with lower paying ones.
Interest rates? Has Hanson actually reviewed the latest remarks from the Fed lately?
Perhaps the wear and tear of being targeted by elites for nearly five years, from Michael Moore to the New York Times, has taken its toll. Or perhaps the casualties from the Iraq war and hysteria over Social Security reform explain the discontent. It is said that the Terri Shiavo matter did not win the president American support either.
Calling Michael Moore a member of the elite is high comedy, and anyone who actually read the NY times in the run up to the war would know that the Times with its publishing of Judith Miller's lies about Iraqi military prowess and having them publish no alternative views was as big a cheerleader for the Iraqi invasion as anyone on the right.
Maybe Hanson does not think casualties of war are important, but I do. I was 14 when my uncle died in Viet Nam and think his death was a waste, as I do the deaths of 1,500 of our soldiers and marines, and the 11,000 severely wounded, let alone the estimated 100,000 dead Iraqis.
The only hysteria found in the social security debate has come from the Busheviks, and Bush in particular. He has lied in public about the problem, used fuzzy math and has yet to lay on the table his actual intentions. Instead, he has decried his opposition for not producing a detailed plan when he and his republican minions have not presented any details themselves, and they hold the reins of the government.
Discontent? By the truckloads.
Perhaps. But I think the answer lies instead in a strange paradox of George W. Bush and the optimistic prospects he has raised about solving problems of the first order. The President has shown himself so resolute in matters of foreign policy that he has raised the bar of his expected performance on the home front
Bush's optimism is based entirely upon being autonomous in relation to the facts.
Tax cuts will stimulate the economy and increased revenues will make up for the decrease in tax revenues? Did that happen? Certainly not, and we stand today in debt up to our eyeballs and beholden to other nations who if they begin to cash in their dollars for euros will cause a financial crisis unseen in 75 years.
Bush did not solve any problems, he created the worst this country has seen since Pearl Harbor.
There is a word of being resolute while ignoring the facts. It is called insanity, and is par for the course for the likes of Busheviks who dismiss $600 BILLION trade deficits as merely the way of "free trade."
That is, by standing nearly alone in the Middle East, by never wavering in the face of unprecedented venom, and by weathering everything from Abu Ghraib to the televised beheadings, Bush has established himself a man of principle who welcomes the chance to offer unpopular but needed solutions to real crises.
And apparently, unwavering in the face of the facts, too.
Hanson again, by mixing Abu gharib and beheadings obfusticates the situation. The former was done by the Americans, who invaded Iraq, and set about by a policy instituted by a sovereign nation to torture and kill scores of unarmed Iraqis. Beheadings were done by bandits. You find in these some sort of equivalence?
Hanson mentions "real crises." What was the crisis in Iraq? The charges of Iraq holding weapons of mass destruction has devolved to having weapons of mass destruction programs, then to having the intent of such programs. All in all a three card monty scam that constantly changes the reason why the US invaded Iraq.
One nice thing though. At the start of the Iraqi invasion, Halliburton was trading at $5 a share. Now it is traded at $45 a share. Who said war is not good business?
If you and Hanson are serious about domestic problems, you are ignoring the 2-ton elephant in the room, health care policies that cripple individuals and prevent businesses from growing. American financial vitality is undermined by the total lack of enforcement of international trade agreements that serve only to line the pockets of multinational corporations with no allegiance to the US. Such policies, or lack thereof have caused the $600 BILLION yearly trade deficit, and your buddy Bush has done nothing positive to deal with it. Instead, because of the 2001-2 tax cuts, the US government must beg and borrow from nations who do not have our best interests at heart. How can we put pressure on the Chinese in trade, Taiwan, or human rights when they are our bankers?
If Jimmy Carter, Bush I, or Bill Clinton were president, most Americans would shrug that these are impracticable problems. But not with George W. Bush, whose forcefulness abroad makes us think he will similarly swagger in and solve equally unpopular dilemmas at home.
No, each of the aforementioned men was not an ideologue who practiced wishful thinking while the world went to hell in hand basket as bush (the lesser) has. Each of those men dealt with the real world and did not ignore the facts when administering policy.
Bush the lesser is not solving problems, he is piling up more for us. Think not? What is the national debt now? What is the yearly deficit now? What was it the year before he took office?
Soaring energy costs? What is bush doing about that? In 2000, Bush called for Congressional investigations when gas prices increased in the summer of 2000. Anyone hear him calling for that now, when gas prices have increased dramatically more than then? That is a reflection of Bush's swagger? Or is it cowardice?
No doubt, free-market economists are right in the long run that tax cuts will free up and grow the economy. I concede that their controversial, though often unspoken idea of "starving the beast" of spiraling entitlements through deficits might have a perverse logic as well. Who can disagree that a weak dollar helps U.S. imports, or that the export economies of China and Japan have little choice but to keep lending us money to buy on credit their plethora of consumer goods?
No, it is doubtful that anything positive will occur since we have begun to eat our seed corn to cover the loss in revenues due to the tax cuts for people who already live better than 90% of Americans, and as mentioned, such tax cuts have produced such massive deficits, we can not function without borrowing money from our economic and political competitors.
A weak dollar means that Americans cannot buy as much imports and decreases the standard of living for the average American. Such a race to the bottom of economic vitality should bring shame to Bush, not adulation.
No, it is not "all fine and good." And anyone who thinks so is not paying attention or is one with a value system antithetical to representative democracy
You see, we are all creatures of the heart as well as of the mind. Thus, at a time of war, we wish for our country to appear as strong financially as it appears militarily, and for our tough president to be backed as much by a respectable dollar as by our singular military.
If so, for what reason have the Busheviks sought to reduce taxes during times of war? Can anyone present evidence that an empire has ever done that before? Hanson cannot have it both ways. Either we are strong financially and taxation policy reflects our military needs, or there is no real war, and taxation policies reflect our domestic economic needs to stimulate the economy. One cannot do both simultaneously.
Perhaps we wish to believe that the USS Abraham Lincoln is the reification of a fat trade surplus, or that a country that can take out Saddam and the Taliban in mere weeks can do so because it prefers surpluses to deficits and is as disciplined with its checkbook as it is with its soldiers.
No, only idiots and Busheviks wish to believe that flying an airplane onto a carrier helps the American economy by boosting "patriotism." Since we spend more money on "defense" than the rest of the world combined, one would expect a military victory grounded not upon discipline but by sheer throw-weight.
Once again, Hanson blithely wishes to make reality disappear when it impinges upon his ideologies and mixes an era of embargoes with an era where there is none. The former case was defined by the decision of the OPEC precursors to affect the world/western economies for political purposes by decreasing oil supplies with what is today merely the reflection of free market supply and demand.
Yes, it would be nice if we could tell the Arabs to go pound sand and shove their oil up their a$$es, but I do recall jimmy carter in 1979 calling for a US energy policy that was the moral equivalent of war. Moreover, in each case, multinational oil corporations have stifled through their lobbying efforts in congress any such national energy policies.
Everyone from the Wall Street Journal to the National Council of La Raza assures us that open borders offer a cure for the demographic crisis of an affluent West, ensure cheap laborers, and reflect a confident multicultural society. Once again: Perhaps.
Ah yes, of course, "cheap labor" is the way out of the problem, instead of using our advanced technological prowess to generate energy, jobs and economic growth. You should note that only those who actually gain from cheap labor advocate open borders.
Who is president now? Who control Congress? Who is responsible for enforcing the nations' laws? These are all Bush's gang, and yet they have done nothing to solve the problem. Perhaps this is why Americans do not think bush is doing such a great job?
Here's a quarter, go buy a clue. Bush IS the status quo, and there is no evidence that he is worried about anything but his own ruling class. For if he was, he would not have lowered taxes in a time of war, cut spending on R & D for alternative energy sources to make the US energy independent, nor have allowed the US to be driven into so much debt that our economic adversaries hold our bank notes.
History will note that while the American republic began to crumble, Bush was out cutting brush in Texas
The Social Security remedy was perhaps not the proper arena for the president's resoluteness, because for all the logic of his much-needed correctives, the national debt will soar even more in the short term under his proposed reforms.
Resoluteness? Where? Bush offered no details and had proposed NO details for his reforms. Instead, he wants the Democrats to initiate policy; a bizarre display when his party runs the government. A significant portion of the problem with social security could be resolved by raising the limit on taxable income. but Bush, irresolute as ever, will not even broach that as it is considered taxation. That is not the actions of a leader, but of a moral coward.
However unfairly, personal accounts are seen as an addendum rather than as an alternative to a flabby and inequitable present system: We are all promised more borrowed money rather than asked to tighten our belts and either pay more in or take less out. That is the image of old-style, 1960s Democrats, not conservatives.
Whom is Hanson asking to tighten their belts? The old, infirm and poor. That is who. In addition, he dismisses having those with the most chipping in to stabilize the nation for the good of us all.
Hanson wants to us to believe that Americans like to play ostrich, and it appears such a remark towards the American people is merely transference since it serves his own position not to face the facts.
You might note that Jimmy Carter made just such statements in his (in)famous "Malaise" speech, and was excoriated for it by the right wing in America. The same folk who admire Bush now. Now Bush, according to you recognizes this attitude in Americans, but fails to met this head on like Carter did. That is your definition of "leadership?"
All Hanson has said is that the American people have been coddled into believing that American can do no wrong, but IF Bush is the leader Hanson describes, why is he is not facing this problem head on?
Hanson can not have it both ways, viz., proclaiming Bush as a fearless, visionary leader, yet at the same time decry the state of the American mentality that brooks no discomfort. A real leader leads, he does not hide out, afraid of the repercussions of his policies to strengthen the nation. Bush is not leading precisely because he has no plan based upon logic, reason and the facts that can persuade. Instead, Bush has lied about the state of America and its future.
Instead, we all wish to rise to the occasion to restore American financial credibility, to reestablish the autonomy of our energy supplies, and to recapture the ideal of legal citizenship that entails unique rights and responsibilities within definable and recognized sovereign borders.
Wishing will not bring about such things when manufacturing is being decimated in America, and sacrificed at the alter of "free trade." Wishing will not discover alternative energy sources when Bush has cut funding for these things. Wishing will not re-establish an ethos of citizen responsibility when the rich make no sacrifices during a time of war while the rest of the nation does.
Bush and the Busheviks have strangled in its crib any major policy initiatives to promote alternative energy sources. Instead of taking the hard road, he has taken the easy way out. Moreover, Dick Cheney has publicly denigrated energy conservation as goofy.
Bush is not closing the borders; he has put scant resources into protecting our borders and ports. He could, but it will take money and he is afraid to tax the wealthy to do so. That is not moral or political courage in the service of the nation. It is plain and simple moral cowardice in the service of ideology.
Risk taking? You mean Bush allowing North Korea to build nukes while he stamps his feet and calls Kim Il Jung a madman instead of negotiating. That is a risk I would not be willing to take and it is doubtful any thinking American would.
Hanson's explanation as to why Americans are skeptical of Bush's leadership is wrong. It arises because Bush has shown a leadership style that it has been based upon ideologies that dismiss inconvenient facts, poses wrong assumptions, presents poorly crafted initiatives and exhibits an and amazing adolescent inability to take the blame when things do not work out as planned.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace