Re: A Question of Time

In article <r34fg1toh4f4h45o1jhvhtn6m4f6udq2ef@xxxxxxx>
Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 20 Aug 2005 20:00:18 -0000, Eagle Eye
><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>In article <b07eg11nsarekbvfv6f269h1ariv7lbrrt@xxxxxxx>
>>Galen Hekhuis <ghekhuis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>On 20 Aug 2005 05:42:55 -0000, Eagle Eye
>>><Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>>More importantly, why do you assume that he would be denouncing
>>>>Bush, calling Bush the worst terrorist, joining common cause
>>>>with Palestinian terrorists, etc.?
>>>Using *fear* (of an imminent danger) as a tool to encourage war
>>>is indeed an act of great terrorism,
>>Terrorism is the act or attempt of killing or injuring civilians,
>>or, in some cases, the threat to do so, as a means to effect
>>political change.
>Right, and in this case it was the threat of imminent harm from
>Iraq, a threat we now know didn't exist, but seemed real at the
>time.

No. It was a warning.

>I think it was Cheney who threatened we might suffer some grievous
>harm if we voted the "wrong" way in the past election.

No, it was a warning.

>Bush might not have been as direct, but he has threatened the
>American people that "terrorists" might attack time and time
>again.

No, he has warned.

You're equivocating on the use of the word "threaten" and you're
being a total jackass about it.

If you threaten to kill your neighbor, then you are the one who is
going to be committing violence.

If you warn your neighbor that his bookie is planning to kill him,
then the bookie, not you, is the one who is going to be committing
violence.

Why did you think you could get away with that nonsense?

[snip]
>I'm not sure what distinguishes a "pre-emptive" strike from
>terrorism if there is indeed imminent danger, but in the absence
>of that danger it is certainly terrorism, especially when done for
>political reasons.

Attacking a military target is not terrorism. Terrorism is only
one subset of morally unjustified aggressive use of force.

Incidentally, there are more things to consider with respect to
justifying the 2003 invasion of Iraq than the imminent threat of
attack by WMDs. There was the invasion of Kuwait, the use of WMDs
against Iraqi civilians, treaties, resolutions, and such. History
didn't start in 2001.

>>>>EVEN mothers don't get to speak for grown men. Being an adult
>>>>means being autonomous and responsible. Death doesn't cancel
>>>>that.
>>>I have said repeatedly that she is not speaking for him.
>>Google up the previous article and look at exactly what I was
>>responding to above, when I wrote "EVEN mothers ...."
>>
>> >>>so why not his mother?
>> >>Why would she have the right to speak for a grown man who
>> >>made choices quite in contrast to what she's pushing now.
>> >Because she's his mother?
>>
>> EVEN mothers don't get to speak for grown men. Being an adult
>> means being autonomous and responsible. Death doesn't cancel
>> that.
>How do you know?

The point of the above cite is to refute your claim that all you
have done is say "that she is not speaking for him." You directly
answered my question about why Cindy should have the right to speak
for Casey. You wrote, "Because she's his mother?"

If that was a misunderstanding, you could clear that up easily.

But ignoring the whole point of the cite to start a new discussion
is evasive and counterproductive.

As for your new question: how do I know that mothers don't get to
speak for grown men? One of the attributes of being a competent
grownup is that you're able to make up your own mind about things,
without someone else making your decisions. One of the attributes
of being dead is that you cannot do anything else. You cannot
grant someone else the authority to speak for you. You cannot change
your mind. Your mind and your reason are gone, forever.

>Obviously this is a two sided question to which neither side can
>supply any proof at all, only blatant assertion.

Assertion? Look above at my explanation and you tell me how that
is nothing but assertion. On the contrary, I've taken basic
definitions, and demonstrated logically how they support my
argument.

>Death may well cancel it. Suffice it to say we disagree on this
>point.

You may disagree, but you cannot honestly dismiss my argument as
"only blatant assertion."

On the other hand, I'd like to see your argument for why you think
a mother has the authority to speak for her dead son, even though
his own actions suggest he did not feel the same way about Bush,
the invasion, the occupation, etc. that she now does.

>>[snip]
>>>>Millions of people have been asking those questions for years.
>>>>Surely there are hundreds of family members of those killed or
>>>>greviously wounded who have been asking such questions for some
>>>>time now. Why is she any different? Why is she in the news?
>>>>Why are you bothering to ask about her, but not about these
>>>>others?
>>>She seems to have captured the public's attention by going to
>>>Crawford.
>>This all goes back to the "news coverage [doing] a pretty
>>piss-poor job of presenting [her agenda]."
>If there is some kind of "agenda" at all.

Are you daft? Her expressed agenda is to have American forces
leave Iraq right away. Her choice of actions demonstrates an
agenda to embarrass Bush and to sway public opinion by gaining
attention. She's also made idiotic comments about Israel and other
matters, which puts her on the fringe, to say the least.

With all these facts available to you, you STILL want to throw up
your hands and act like maybe there's no agenda?

>>[snip]
>>>And I suppose you think a Secretary of Defense who let his own
>>>office building be attacked by terrorists has good advice about
>>>fighting terrorists?
>>Wait a minute, are you asserting that Rumsfeld knew of the plot
>>to fly an airplane into the Pentagon, and intentionally allowed
>>it to happen?
>>
>>Or, are you arguing that he didn't do a good enough job to
>>prevent it from happening?
>He didn't do nearly a good enough job. In the seventies my
>brother flew me (and others) in a helicopter up the Potomac River
>past the Pentagon and on up to where 495 crossed the river. We
>asked and were assured that any deviation from our filed flight
>plan would be disastrous for us. We thought there were missiles
>and guns sighted in on us during the flight up the river. My
>father used to work at the Pentagon, and though he always prefaced
>his remarks with something like "I'm not free to discuss exact
>security details" he always assured us that the Pentagon was
>especially well protected from any attack. You can't tell me that
>"no one thought of it." Obviously, Rumsfeld didn't prepare for
>it. Doesn't look like anyone did.

Your last sentence is key. It establishes a context in which your
remark above, singling out Rumsfeld, that he "let his own office
building be attacked" seem a bit misleading. Rumsfelds
predecessors didn't handle the matter, either. Also, the airport
security didn't anticipate the possibility or didn't do anything to
address it. The FBI screwed up. Immigration screwed up. The
Saudis screwed up, etc..

That doesn't get Rumsfeld off the hook, mind you. He owns a piece
of the blame, though not as big as your comment suggests.

>>The latter may be true, though the full list of fuckups by those
>>in government, including the recent revelations about Able
>>Danger, would suggest, as far as I can tell, that Cohen and other
>>Clinton-era officials are more at fault than their successors.
>One screw up does not excuse another.

I didn't say it did.

>You can damn Clinton all you want, but Bush is in charge now.

Bush is not responsible for Clinton's lapses. Clinton's people
don't get off just because they're no longer in power.

>Rumsfeld is his (not Clinton's) Secretary of Defense. Bush (not
>Clinton) presented Tenant with a medal after he presided over the
>two biggest screw-ups in intelligence this country has ever seen.
>I could go on and on.

No, those were definitely NOT the two biggest screw-ups in
intelligence. I'd put them WAY down the list, somewhere below
Clinton's major fuckup of not taking Osama bin Laden from Sudan,
Pearl Harbor, and several events in the Vietnam war, for example.

Even so, Bush covering the ass of Clinton by pretending that
Tenet was a great guy doesn't lessen Clinton's or Tenet's
respective culpabilities.

[snip]
>>>>If not, why the pretense? If someone calls you the worst
>>>>terrorist ever, why would you take them seriously if they asked
>>>>to sit down with you and ask you questions? A rational person
>>>>would conclude that there is no point to it.
>>>That's where you and I differ. I think any rational person
>>>would want to know why,
>>Cindy Sheehan has said enough to the cameras for a rational
>>person to understand why, and to realize that it's just a
>>political stunt, not an earnest request for a meeting.
>That's your opinion, I disagree.

I can justify my opinion by citing her very own words.

Can you justify your denial of same?

>>>and perhaps a meeting might clear all that up.
>>Gosh, let's all pretend that we can't infer the motives of
>>Sheehan or Bush from the available information, wring our hands
>>in mock confusion, and say, "Golly, maybe a meeting might clear
>>all this up."
>Even you have to admit even an unsuccessful meeting would be much
>better than what is going on now.

A useless meeting is a useless meeting. Concocting some comparison
to justify it makes no sense. It won't be made less useless.

>If nothing else, it would take some of the wind out of protesters'
>sails.

That's a POLITICAL calculation, which, if I'm not mistaken, you've
been attempting to deny up to this point.

So, would you like to change your story and admit that this is
about politics?

>>>The most you can say Cindy has used her son's death for is that
>>>she has "used" it to suggest that she has paid her dues, as it
>>>were.
>>Which implies that anyone else who hasn't "paid [their] dues"
>>doesn't have her SPECIAL STATUS. That's exactly what I've been
>>arguing here.
>I firmly believe that any citizen, at any time, can demand answers
>from the President of the United States.

You're shifting context, once again.

If Cindy Sheehan is just like any citizen, then why is she
newsworthy?

>I am not at all comfortable with the notion of an "imperial
>presidency."

Who is? I'm not even comfortable with the job itself.

>I believe the President is just a person, like you or me.

OK. Take note of this.

[snip]
>A compassionate man would find the time to meet with her and try
>to answer her questions, even though he might fail at providing
>satisfactory answers.

Why HER? There are thousands of family members of people who have
died or been seriously injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why aren't
you jumping up and down about THEM, suggesting a make-or-break
test of Bush based upon how he responds to THEM?

[snip]
>An arrogant man would [...]

"I'm the representative of 300,000,000 people! Look at me!"

If you expect ANY President to not be arrogant, you're out of
touch with reality. That's inherent to the position.

We could abolish the office itself, allowing people to run their
own lives on their own terms. Then, you wouldn't have to worry
about arrogent men running the country.

>Bush should be able and willing to answer any American's questions
>about the war,

So you want him to meet with millions of people, in person? If so,
why do you focus on Cindy Sheehan, instead of alloting her
one ten millionth of your attention?

>certainly when posed by the mother of someone who died in that
>war,

There you go again, asserting special status. Bush has met with
the mothers and fathers of some of the soldiers who have died in
these wars. Why is Cindy Sheehan so special that you would judge
Bush solely based upon whether he met with HER?

>and especially when he was able to find time to interrupt his
>vacation and fly (on a Sunday night, no less) to Washington for
>Terri Schiavo.

Cindy is not scheduled to be killed if Bush doesn't meet with her.
Also, Bush didn't meet with Terri Schiavo. He didn't sit down and
have a chat over the matter. He signed legislation.

The only thing these two cases have in common is that there is a
highly-politicized media circus around both.

>If that is granting her some kind of special status in your eyes,
>so be it.

Above, you complained about a person being given secial status.
Remember your remark about the "imperial presidency"?

That is one instance of the special pleading fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

[snip]

=====
EE
.

Loading