Friday, July 23, 2004
Losing Arguments 2
Continuing my hubristic process of rhetorically demolishing winning argument, I now turn to their argument that the white house is politicizing the "war on terror." As before, I reprint their argument in its entirety and then respond. I'll also be cross-posting this in their comments.
The White House is politicizing the "war on terror"
Why you're right:
1. White House officials encouraged the Pakistani government to capture high-ranking members of al-Qaeda during the Democratic convention in July. According to a well-sourced article by The New Republic, a White House aide told a Pakistani general last spring "'it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT [high value target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July' – the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston." Another intelligence official explained "'no timetable[s]' were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt."
(The New Republic)
2. The White House has timed political events to coincide with dates that evoke memories of 9/11.
In March, the president paired the ground-breaking ceremony of the 9/11 memorial with a fundraiser that raised $1.6 million for his re-election campaign. He has also pushed back the Republican political convention to lead up to the 3-year anniversary of 9/11.
(The Journal News, New York Times)
3. The president has sold photos of himself on 9/11 to raise money for his re-election campaign.
In May 2002, the National Republican Congressional Committee offered pictures of Bush on 9/11 talking on the telephone aboard Air Force One. The photo was available only "to donors who contribute at least $150 and attend a fund-raising dinner with Bush and the first lady next month." (CNN)
Why they're wrong:
1. The New Republic article is not a baseless conspiracy theory. It is triple-sourced and coauthored by two respected journalists and a correspondent on the ground in Pakistan.(New Republic)
2. The timing of the campaign and political fundraisers is not "coincidental." The New York Times reported that scheduling the GOP convention back-to-back with the 9/11 anniversary "complete[s] the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combating terrorism." (New York Times)
3. The use of the photos is not harmless. It is a slap in the face to the families of the victims of 9/11. The value of the photo to campaign contributors is derived – at least in part – from the thousands of people who lost their lives on the day the photo was shot.
A better idea:
When issues of national security are at stake, decisions should not be made in order to gain a political advantage.
Why it's not a Winning Argument
Before I respond to the specific points, the whole premise of this argument is absurd. Of course there are political aspects to the War on Terror (WoT). As a nation we are in the process of deciding a) if we should be engaged in a WoT, b) what should be done in the War on Terror, c) who should lead us in the WoT.
c) is entirely political. Should Bush lead or should Kerry lead? That's a political decision and a political process. Of course, both political candidates are putting their best foot forward to show that they have the “right” vision and that they should be the one to lead while decrying the leadership (or potential for leadership) of the other. Bush and Kerry would be stupid and be doing a disservice to their arguments and to the country if they didn't represent their cases in the best possible light (while still being truthful).
As Bush’s abilities to conduct the WoT can be measured on his past accomplishments, he must bring up his past accomplishments. It is silly to suppose that Bush cannot toot his own horn in this regard. Further, one of the wonders of democracy is that it places demands on leaders to produce results. So of course Bush feels pressure to produce results in the WoT - the fact that he feels pressure is a good thing.
As Kerry does not have accomplishments in the WoT (nor should he be expected to have any, other than any results he may have produced as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - what results would those be? I don't know. However, I do know of his winter soldier testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee from before he was a Senator.), Kerry must question Bush’s ability to prosecute the WoT and suggest ways in which he would do better. Hence the partisan, i.e., political, attacks that the Dems launch at Bush daily from the BUSH LIED!! canard to the QUAGMIRE!! charges.
On the one bit that might bit that might be relevant to Kerry's capacity to lead the WoT, Kerry did serve in Vietnam. A point that he brings up ALL THE TIME. So one could say that Kerry's politicizing the Vietnam war - one of the most tragic times in our country's history. ;)
Indeed, it would be every bit as accurate to say that virtually everyone in this country, including the folks at winning argument and the folks here at polyscifi, is politicizing the WoT. But so what? The WoT is the largest issue facing our country and it is right that we are having a politicized debate on the topic.
So yes, the debate is politicized – and it’s a good thing. This "winning argument" is premised on the supposition that politicized debate is a bad thing, which is never demonstrated - again an assumption of self-evidence to a point that I think can be made powerfully to the contrary.
Similarly, the debates on education, social security, national defense, energy policy, and every other national issue are politicized and should be. Determining the direction of a democratic country is necessarily a political process. Why should the most important debate on the direction of in our nation’s recent history not be political? Not to mention, how is a nonpolitical debate on the direction of our country possible?
What’s not a good thing is when truth and accuracy are sacrificed as part of the debate, ala Fahrenheit 9/11. That Bush is using “trickerations” to sway the debate – which would be a bad thing - is not even being alleged in this argument, so again, what’s the point of this "winning argument"?
1. White House officials encouraged the Pakistani government to capture high-ranking members of al-Qaeda during the Democratic convention in July.
Umm, no they didn’t. The New Republic article cites an anonymous sources within the ISI – a group not exactly known for their love for the Bush administration (Musharraf yes, ISI no). But let’s see what happens. As a side note, it would be far better timing for the admin if such things were announced the day after the Democratic convention to make the Democrats look like fools (Expected Dem charge - "Bush is a failure." Bush's reply - "lookie who we captured").
I will note that of the three, this is the only charge that is actually worthy of discussion. In this charge, there is an underlying allegation that Bush is not doing everything possible and security would have been sacrificed for political gain.
Certainly there's political gain to holding a later convention, but so what? It's been done before, and the Republicans were sort of forced by the timing of the Democratic convention, and it's a good thing for the country to try to maximize the effectiveness of your message.
3. The president has sold photos of himself on 9/11 to raise money for his re-election campaign.
The horrors! A candidate selling a photo of himself as a fundraiser! Even more so, a photo of him on the day remembered by his supporters as his day of greatest leadership! The horrors, I say.
Next you’ll tell me that John Kerry constantly brings up his Vietnam service where I hear he won three purple hearts – his greatest accomplishment - and prominently uses a photo of fellow servicemen in his campaign and photos of himself in the war for political gain, even using war photos to help friends sell books! The horrors!
Really, the premise of this argument is stupid.
Consider if I wrote the following. The constant reminder of Vietnam is not harmless. It is a slap in the face to the families of the thousands injured or killed in the war. The value of this is derived – at least in part – from the thousands of people who lost their lives in that war. Kerry has appeared in front of Vietnam veterans on MEMORIAL day – timing that was surely intentional. Kerry has used a photo of himself with his fellow servicemen for political gain – something most of the people in the photo have decried.
I can go on, but you get my point – the argument is just silly. It's a perfectly acceptable thing for Bush (and Kerry) to use photos for political gain.
In response to the little follow up, people did die on 9/11, but their death is given meaning and purpose by a successful prosecution of the WoT. To deny the use pictures of Bush responding to 9/11 is to deny meaning to the victims of 9/11. A side note, I wonder how the folks at winning argument feel about Moore's extensive use of footage from Bush's response to 9/11 - also for political and fiscal gain. Moore, of course, is making the charge that Bush is not successfully prosecuting the WoT, but if Moore shouldn't be denied the footage, why should Bush? (Here's a hint, neither should be denied use - a political debate is a healthy thing as long as it's truthful and doesn't distract from more important issues, like umm, my work that I should be attending to.)
A better idea
With relation to national security, decisions should not be made in order to gain a political advantage when that decision sacrifices national security nor should willful deceit be used. Otherwise, who gives a flip if it's politicized?
Comments(0) |
The White House is politicizing the "war on terror"
Why you're right:
1. White House officials encouraged the Pakistani government to capture high-ranking members of al-Qaeda during the Democratic convention in July. According to a well-sourced article by The New Republic, a White House aide told a Pakistani general last spring "'it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT [high value target] were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July' – the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston." Another intelligence official explained "'no timetable[s]' were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt."
(The New Republic)
2. The White House has timed political events to coincide with dates that evoke memories of 9/11.
In March, the president paired the ground-breaking ceremony of the 9/11 memorial with a fundraiser that raised $1.6 million for his re-election campaign. He has also pushed back the Republican political convention to lead up to the 3-year anniversary of 9/11.
(The Journal News, New York Times)
3. The president has sold photos of himself on 9/11 to raise money for his re-election campaign.
In May 2002, the National Republican Congressional Committee offered pictures of Bush on 9/11 talking on the telephone aboard Air Force One. The photo was available only "to donors who contribute at least $150 and attend a fund-raising dinner with Bush and the first lady next month." (CNN)
Why they're wrong:
1. The New Republic article is not a baseless conspiracy theory. It is triple-sourced and coauthored by two respected journalists and a correspondent on the ground in Pakistan.(New Republic)
2. The timing of the campaign and political fundraisers is not "coincidental." The New York Times reported that scheduling the GOP convention back-to-back with the 9/11 anniversary "complete[s] the framework for a general election campaign that is being built around national security and Mr. Bush's role in combating terrorism." (New York Times)
3. The use of the photos is not harmless. It is a slap in the face to the families of the victims of 9/11. The value of the photo to campaign contributors is derived – at least in part – from the thousands of people who lost their lives on the day the photo was shot.
A better idea:
When issues of national security are at stake, decisions should not be made in order to gain a political advantage.
Why it's not a Winning Argument
Before I respond to the specific points, the whole premise of this argument is absurd. Of course there are political aspects to the War on Terror (WoT). As a nation we are in the process of deciding a) if we should be engaged in a WoT, b) what should be done in the War on Terror, c) who should lead us in the WoT.
c) is entirely political. Should Bush lead or should Kerry lead? That's a political decision and a political process. Of course, both political candidates are putting their best foot forward to show that they have the “right” vision and that they should be the one to lead while decrying the leadership (or potential for leadership) of the other. Bush and Kerry would be stupid and be doing a disservice to their arguments and to the country if they didn't represent their cases in the best possible light (while still being truthful).
As Bush’s abilities to conduct the WoT can be measured on his past accomplishments, he must bring up his past accomplishments. It is silly to suppose that Bush cannot toot his own horn in this regard. Further, one of the wonders of democracy is that it places demands on leaders to produce results. So of course Bush feels pressure to produce results in the WoT - the fact that he feels pressure is a good thing.
As Kerry does not have accomplishments in the WoT (nor should he be expected to have any, other than any results he may have produced as a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - what results would those be? I don't know. However, I do know of his winter soldier testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee from before he was a Senator.), Kerry must question Bush’s ability to prosecute the WoT and suggest ways in which he would do better. Hence the partisan, i.e., political, attacks that the Dems launch at Bush daily from the BUSH LIED!! canard to the QUAGMIRE!! charges.
On the one bit that might bit that might be relevant to Kerry's capacity to lead the WoT, Kerry did serve in Vietnam. A point that he brings up ALL THE TIME. So one could say that Kerry's politicizing the Vietnam war - one of the most tragic times in our country's history. ;)
Indeed, it would be every bit as accurate to say that virtually everyone in this country, including the folks at winning argument and the folks here at polyscifi, is politicizing the WoT. But so what? The WoT is the largest issue facing our country and it is right that we are having a politicized debate on the topic.
So yes, the debate is politicized – and it’s a good thing. This "winning argument" is premised on the supposition that politicized debate is a bad thing, which is never demonstrated - again an assumption of self-evidence to a point that I think can be made powerfully to the contrary.
Similarly, the debates on education, social security, national defense, energy policy, and every other national issue are politicized and should be. Determining the direction of a democratic country is necessarily a political process. Why should the most important debate on the direction of in our nation’s recent history not be political? Not to mention, how is a nonpolitical debate on the direction of our country possible?
What’s not a good thing is when truth and accuracy are sacrificed as part of the debate, ala Fahrenheit 9/11. That Bush is using “trickerations” to sway the debate – which would be a bad thing - is not even being alleged in this argument, so again, what’s the point of this "winning argument"?
1. White House officials encouraged the Pakistani government to capture high-ranking members of al-Qaeda during the Democratic convention in July.
Umm, no they didn’t. The New Republic article cites an anonymous sources within the ISI – a group not exactly known for their love for the Bush administration (Musharraf yes, ISI no). But let’s see what happens. As a side note, it would be far better timing for the admin if such things were announced the day after the Democratic convention to make the Democrats look like fools (Expected Dem charge - "Bush is a failure." Bush's reply - "lookie who we captured").
I will note that of the three, this is the only charge that is actually worthy of discussion. In this charge, there is an underlying allegation that Bush is not doing everything possible and security would have been sacrificed for political gain.
Fortunately for us, this particular charge is falsifiable. So let’s wait for the Democratic convention and see what happens (I’m betting nothing).
On the election being a deadline, well duh. That's called democracy. Results produced after the election are not useful for an incumbent. As we all recognize that earlier results in the WoT are a good thing, why is this a problem? Pushing off trying to capture al Qaeda members until October would be a bad thing, but that's not what's being charged.
2. The White House has timed political events to coincide with dates that evoke memories of 9/11.
Again, so what? Bush is primarily running on his record in the WoT so why should he not? Of course he’s going to hold political events at times related to the WoT. Are the folks at winning argument seriously arguing that Bush should not attempt to maximize the effectiveness of his arguments, including the “Elect me as I’m the best man for the job argument?” Similarly, should I have written this in Swahili in
On the specifics of the Republican convention – the site was chosen for two reasons. 1) Because Bush is running on his record in the WoT, and a NYC backdrop reinforces that message, and 2) NYC needed tourist dollars and this was seen as a very visible way to help revive the tourist industry in NYC. Were the specific charge related to the site, instead of the timing, a case that “politicizing” had occurred could’ve been made, though it still would’ve been absurd.
Certainly there's political gain to holding a later convention, but so what? It's been done before, and the Republicans were sort of forced by the timing of the Democratic convention, and it's a good thing for the country to try to maximize the effectiveness of your message.
3. The president has sold photos of himself on 9/11 to raise money for his re-election campaign.
The horrors! A candidate selling a photo of himself as a fundraiser! Even more so, a photo of him on the day remembered by his supporters as his day of greatest leadership! The horrors, I say.
Next you’ll tell me that John Kerry constantly brings up his Vietnam service where I hear he won three purple hearts – his greatest accomplishment - and prominently uses a photo of fellow servicemen in his campaign and photos of himself in the war for political gain, even using war photos to help friends sell books! The horrors!
Really, the premise of this argument is stupid.
Consider if I wrote the following. The constant reminder of Vietnam is not harmless. It is a slap in the face to the families of the thousands injured or killed in the war. The value of this is derived – at least in part – from the thousands of people who lost their lives in that war. Kerry has appeared in front of Vietnam veterans on MEMORIAL day – timing that was surely intentional. Kerry has used a photo of himself with his fellow servicemen for political gain – something most of the people in the photo have decried.
I can go on, but you get my point – the argument is just silly. It's a perfectly acceptable thing for Bush (and Kerry) to use photos for political gain.
In response to the little follow up, people did die on 9/11, but their death is given meaning and purpose by a successful prosecution of the WoT. To deny the use pictures of Bush responding to 9/11 is to deny meaning to the victims of 9/11. A side note, I wonder how the folks at winning argument feel about Moore's extensive use of footage from Bush's response to 9/11 - also for political and fiscal gain. Moore, of course, is making the charge that Bush is not successfully prosecuting the WoT, but if Moore shouldn't be denied the footage, why should Bush? (Here's a hint, neither should be denied use - a political debate is a healthy thing as long as it's truthful and doesn't distract from more important issues, like umm, my work that I should be attending to.)
A better idea
With relation to national security, decisions should not be made in order to gain a political advantage when that decision sacrifices national security nor should willful deceit be used. Otherwise, who gives a flip if it's politicized?
Comments(0) |
