The Boxing Ring Revived Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (6772)	7/16/2003 11:55:13 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) of 7720

But it was not accurate, even technically. The words in question were: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Bush didn't say it was true, you see -- he just said the Brits said it. This is a contemptible argument in any event. But to descend to the administration's level of nitpicking, the argument simply doesn't work. Bush didn't say that the Brits "said" this Africa business -- he said they "learned" it. If someone tells you something is true and you believe them and pass it on its not a lie, and it isn't normally contemptible, even if it turns out not to be true. In addition to this the idea that Saddam did try to get uranium from Africa is not as solidly established as false as Kinsley and others suggest. If the president can disown anything he says that he didn't actually find out or think up and write down all by himself, he is more or less beyond criticism. Which seems to be the idea here. He certainly is not beyond criticism, Kinsley's article shows that all by itself because it is an example of criticism. However Kinsley is trying to say that what Bush said was a lie. It only was a lie if it is false (which it may be) and if Bush knew it was false. If the CIA said it was true it would be a sign that it wasn't a lie. If the CIA thought it was untrue but didn't tell the president or his speech writers that wouldn't clear the president from the charge of being wrong but it would tend to shield him somewhat from the charge that he lied. The final argument: It was only 16 words! What's the big deal? The bulk of the case for war remains intact. Kinsley has a point that the number or words isn't too important. 16 words out of the speech can be the most important or the least important part of the speech. The presidents defenders try to say it is unimportant because it is only 16 words, but one thing doesn't logically follow the other. Kinsley also is correct that this is not an effective defense of a lie (but of course he hasn't established that there was a lie). It is however a defense for the justifications for the war. If the war is justified by X and Y and Z and Z turns out to be false then there is still the X and Y justifications. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next