parados wrote:Tico wrote:
The problem referenced in the question he was responding to was the problem of radical Islamic terrorism and Iraq being the center of it, and the following apply:
That presupposes that Iraq is the center of the war on terrorism and Murtha accepts it as such. ...
No, it does not presuppose that. The question presented was:
"[i]MARGARET WARNER: But may I ask you, sir, if you believe -- he says -- for whatever reason, Iraq has become the center of terrorism - that if the U.S. appears to retreat in the face of that, that it will be a blow to the American fight against radical Islamic terrorism? What do you say to that?"[/i]
The question presented presupposes nothing, but clearly sets up the question with reference to what Bush has said. It does not follow that in order to answer the question Murtha must agree with the President. But the question certainly did pertain to the problem of Iraq being the center of radical Islamic terrorism -- which I correctly pointed out. It makes absolutely no sense for you to claim that presupposes acceptance by Murtha of that fact. Clearly, Warner does not assume agreement on the part of Murtha, and is simply asking him to respond by giving his thoughts on the matter.
Quote: Lets look at the section with some highlighted sections that point to a theme.
Quote:You have got to remember, Margaret, there was no terrorist activity in Iraq at all before we went in there. There's been an increase. The State Department said there's been an increase in terrorist activity in the last couple of years, before they stopped putting the report out.
MARGARET WARNER: Okay. But the president does say, as you know, that for whatever reason Iraq --
John MurthaREP. JOHN MURTHA: But the president said a lot of things, and they turned out not to be true. The president said there are weapons of mass destruction. The president said oil would pay for it. The president cut taxes at a time when we're in a war.
MARGARET WARNER: So do you reject -
REP. JOHN MURTHA: Just because he says it doesn't make it so. The American people don't believe this president.
MARGARET WARNER: But may I ask you, sir, if you believe -- he says -- for whatever reason, Iraq has become the center of terrorism - that if the U.S. appears to retreat in the face of that, that it will be a blow to the American fight against radical Islamic terrorism? What do you say to that?
REP. JOHN MURTHA: Well, I say that the fight against Americans began with Abu Ghraib. It began with the invasion of Iraq. That's when terrorism started. It didn't start when there was criticism of this administration. This administration doesn't want to listen to any ideas.
This is an idea of how we can save lives, of how we can be on the periphery of Iraq and send troops back in, in case there is an increase in terrorism that we need to go back in.
There are 2 ways to read the question that Murtha was just asked.
Do you believe that Iraq has become the center for the war on terror?
Do you believe if we leave Iraq it will be a blow to the war on terror.
Warner starts to ask the question 3 times only finishing it on the third attempt. There is a clue to the question based on what Murtha has just said about Bush's credibility in interrupting the question the first and second times. Now lets look at the question again.
But may I ask you, sir, if you believe -- he says -- for whatever reason, Iraq has become the center of terrorism - that if the U.S. appears to retreat in the face of that, that it will be a blow to the American fight against radical Islamic terrorism?
Murtha has made it clear he doesn't trust the President or his statements. The only way to accept your reading of the question is that Murtha does trust the President in that Iraq is the center of the war on terorrism and he trusts the President on the idea that leaving Iraq is a blow to the war on terror.
What on earth do you think "my reading of the question" is? Why are you struggling to analyze what you believe is "my reading" of it to decide whether it can be "accepted"? The question is what it is, and I've not tried to alter it one iota. Honestly trying to follow your analysis is painful.
Parados wrote:Tico wrote: (A) If Murtha responded to that question by saying this is a problem -- radical Islamic terrorism -- that was created by the US invading Iraq, then he is stupid.
He didn't say that. You can only ignore the context of what had been said previously to think that. He said the terrorism in Iraq didn't start until the US invaded it right before this question was asked.
He certainly
did not say that terrorism
"in Iraq" started when the US invaded Iraq. That's what you think he
meant.
The direct question being asked of him -- by Warner, not by Tico -- was to respond to whether Iraq had become the center of radical Islamic terrorism, and whether retreat would be a blow to that fight. You -- and others in this thread who are insistent that what Murtha said was not stupid -- are necessarily arguing that his responding to that question by pointing out his belief that "terrorism started" with the US invasion of Iraq and Abu Ghraib (*a classic "blame America first" tactic so beloved by leftists), is limited to Iraq .... in other words, you are saying that his response was, in fact,
completely nonresponsive to the question being asked.
Parados wrote:Tico wrote:(B) If Murtha is criticizing the fact that the center of the fight against radical Islamic terrorism is in Iraq, then he is stupid.
You start with the supposition that Murtha accepts that Iraq is the center of the fight. We don't know that. We only have the President's word on it. A word that Murtha has said he doesn't trust.
Well you start with an erroneous statement of supposition, so you're wrong
ab initio.
Parados wrote:Tico wrote: Would he prefer the fight be on the streets of America?
Nice try Tico. But there is no evidence that if the US had not invaded Iraq that the terrorists would have come to the US. An appeal to emotion seems to be your only argument on this one. I think Murtha is saying that Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until we invaded but that in no way leads to his preference to fight them here. You are building a strawman. The choice was not one of invade Iraq or have terrorists on the streets of the US. Iraq had nothing to do with terrorism until the US invaded it.
Appeal to emotion is hardly my only argument. The fact is, Murtha was unresponsive to the issue about whether Iraq is -- "for whatever reason" -- the center of radical Islamic terrorism.
And your statement of what you
think Murtha intended to say "presupposes" that you know what Murtha intended to say. <---
This is an example of your logic. Yes, I know it makes little sense.
Parados wrote:Tico wrote:(C) If Murtha is blaming the US for the use of terrorism by radical Islamics, then he is stupid. Terrorism is a technique used by radical Islam for many years prior to the invasion of Iraq, and it will be used by radical Islamics for many years after the US leaves Iraq.
Murtha is doing no such thing. Only if you read it out of context does can it be forced to try to mean that. The question is specifically about Iraq and leaving Iraq. It is not about radical terrorism in general.
Really? kelticwizard indicated he believes Murtha was pointing out that the terrorism in Iraq was a problem of our own making -- that was the question I was responding to ... remember? So, perhaps you need to check with kelticwizard to find out what he meant exactly.
Parados wrote:Tico wrote:In any case he's stupid, and what he said was stupid.
Your arguments are pretty weak there Tico. See if you can find something to argue that doesn't ignore the context.
As I have said many, many times now ... you Murtha apologists are forced to make amazing and impressive contextual contortions to support your theory that Murtha meant something other than what he said (pretty stupid of him to say something he didn't mean, if you ask me). Beyond that, you are forced to argue that what he said -- if he meant what you believe he meant to say -- even though nonresponsive to the question being asked, is not indicative that what he said was stupid.
And you claim that my argument is pretty weak?
