[lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 13:32:03 -0700
You aren't taken responsibility for your poor argument. You switch to
something different - a spin.
But your spin is also untrue (I'll skip the illogicality of it since logic
is obviously not one of your interests):
1) Pollack discussed the pros and cons of invading Iraq in great
detail. His knowledge can be said to be the knowledge available to the Bush
administration inasmuch as he was in the intelligence community until Bush
took office and knew what those knew who advised Bush. Since you haven't
read Pollack, you can't know that the cons he discussed didn't come true.
2) Your perception of the situation in Iraq is faulty. We are now
facing the insurgents made up of Sunni's who supported Saddam's regime and
Islamists who realize that a success in Iraq would cause their cause
tremendous harm. As the Iraqi government comes into being and as the Iraqi
security forces become more competent they will be able to deal with their
own insurgents.
3) Your statement about ignoring the consequences of invading Iran is
false. I have indeed posted the downside of invading Iran. Eric and I
posted several things and discussed them. I suspect you don't read long
articles, Irene; else you would know this.
4) Your statement that I just want war because I want a war is, well,
the sort of personal attack that the inarticulate seem to find irresistible
after a failed argument.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 12:23 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up
Lawrence, you never post the down side of invading Iran. Surely there are
downsides? Did you or did you not support invading Iraq? Apply some of
your logic to starting a war. Negative consequences were addressed for Iraq
before the invasion, and they came to fruition. Worse negative consequences
are predicted for invading Iran and you ignore them completely. I therefore
stand by my statement that you do not have the best interests of the U.S. in
mind. You just want a war because *you* want a war.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 5/6/2006 3:07:59 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up
Irene,
You have a serious problem with logic. Let me illustrate: You argue
a) Eric was a huge proponent of Mylroies conspiracy theories.
b) Lawrence (all of a sudden a false statement btw) doesnt like
conspiracies theories,
c) therefore (presumably) Lawrence is being inconsistent.
Rebuttal: Eric and Lawrence are not the same person. I dont recall Erics
comments about Mylroie so Ill let him respond to them. Nevertheless, I
repeat, I am not Eric and it is not logical of you to insist that I am.
Another problem with your Logic is
a) Mylroie wanted to invade Iraq.
b) You wanted to invade Iraq.
c) Therefore you supported Mylroies conspiracy theories
This is a logical fallacy. Although it is clearly a fallacy and I dont
want to detract from its fallaciousness, I will add that I never cited
Mylroes book as reason for invading Iraq. I cited the Clinton CIA expert
on the Middle East, Kenneth Pollack (The Threatening Storm, the Case for
Invading Iraq, as well as Sandra Mackeys The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy
of Saddam Hussein.
Did you read the article I posted Irene? How about responding to that?
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Andy Amago
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 10:25 AM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up
Lawrence, where were you on Annie Myelroie's conspiracy theories? Eric was
a huge proponent of her book as justifying invading Iraq, and you wanted to
invade as well. Her's was the evidence cited. Now all of a sudden you
don't like conspiracy theories. Also, viewing only one side of the evidence
for invading Iran is tantamount to a conspiracy theory. I wonder that
you're not considered unamerican, luring the U.S. into another cudda wudda
war so it can have its already black and blue butt kicked even harder.
----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence <mailto:lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> Helm
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: 5/6/2006 1:05:50 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article.asp?aid=12105047_1
This is another interesting article from the current issue of Commentary.
Since we lived through it, at least I did, we havent realized that not only
do the Conservatives of today hark back to the Liberals of 40 & 50 years
ago, but the Liberals of that time have morphed into something resembling
the Conservatives of those days especially the interest in Conspiracy
Theories. When I first went to work for Douglas in 1959, one of my most
memorable experiences was arguing with a member of the John Birch Society
who regaled me with conspiracy theories and almost turned me in as a
security risk for not accepting them. My contempt for conspiracy theories
arose during that period. But now it is the Left who is enamored of
Conspiracies. James Piereson discusses this interest shift.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
