Amigo wrote:What is the outcome of the people that find logic in the intended argument in the title post. Thats what i'm asking myself.
Clue #1: The title is taken directly from the AFP newspaper article, so perhaps it would be logical to direct your question to whomever wrote it. They obviously thought it was "newsworthy" enough to be published, maybe hoping to enlighten those wishing to learn the chronological sequence of certain historical events. Or, maybe the person who wrote it has issues with Clinton. That bit of paranoia didn't occur to me one way or the other, so I'll leave all the heavy pondering to you.
dlowan wrote:It's a common enough strategy.....we all do it...left and right and brindle.
It's a kind of attempted tu quoque, I guess...
"You have no right to say .......... is bad, cos this ....... that you support is just as bad."
It works as an argument when accusation about the other side's favoured person/country/institution is true, AND the other side will not similarly judge their side's actions/words etc. to be undesirable.
It doesn't make the originally condemned action correct, but it lessens the weight of the condemnation.
Thing is, here, when debate runs so hot, many people DO tend to be reluctant to criticize "their" side...at least publicly.
The obvious response is "Yeah that's wrong, too>"
Clue #2: The name you see directly below the word "Author" (upper left-hand corner of each individual post) merely indicates the person who "found" the article and posted it on A2K for us to throw darts at, or laugh at, become hysterical over, or whatever. In this case, it was some poor by-lineless soul at some publication known as AFP. In light of current events surround this very subject, I thought it was interesting enough to warrant sharing, and it wouldn't have mattered whose presidency started the polcy.
And, for the record, I was never a Clinton-hater. I've mentioned this before, I think, but I just pretty much think of him as a somewhat crummy husband and father, but I'm pretty sure I've made no moral judgements of the man, and I'm quite willing to let history judge his public accomplishments (or lack thereof).
This reminds me of a "Fox News Going to Canada" article I posted a while back. Holy cow - y'all went nuts
