[lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up
- From: "Andy Amago" <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 15:23:17 -0400
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 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 Mylroie?s conspiracy theories.
b) Lawrence (all of a sudden ? a false statement btw) doesn?t like conspiracies
theories,
c) therefore (presumably) Lawrence is being inconsistent.
Rebuttal: Eric and Lawrence are not the same person. I don?t recall Eric?s
comments about Mylroie so I?ll 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 Mylroie?s conspiracy theories
This is a logical fallacy. Although it is clearly a fallacy and I don?t want
to detract from its fallaciousness, I will add that I never cited Mylroe?s 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 Mackey?s 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 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:
