[lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend

  • From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 16:38:05 -0800

Hah!  I was wondering if some logically challenged Leftist was going to do
that.  I accuse Andreas of lying because he uses the false figure of 600,000
Iraqi dead.  Simon jumps in with the illogical "maybe even just 30,000, and
that amount of innocent Iraqis surely doesn't matter at all," he says
ironically.  Since he doesn't believe in Logic he will have no idea what I'm
talking about, but I'll explain just for the record.  If I say Andreas has
lied by using the false number 600,000 as the number of Iraqis killed since
the beginning of the invasion and Simon disputes that by saying even 30,000
killed would be a bad thing, he has said nothing to dispute my assertion
that Andreas has lied.  His response does not relate to my assertion that
anyone claiming that 600,000 have been killed since the invasion is lying.  


Here, I'll help.  A legitimate response might be, "Andreas meant 60,000 and
misplaced the decimal; therefore he wasn't lying.  I would have to accept
that.  Another legitimate response would be Andreas was just confused.  He
heard 600,000 some place and didn't bother to check it out.  But now he
stands corrected.  I would accept that as well.  I can't of course accept
Simon's irrelevancy.


Simon expresses befuddlement about what I mean when I accuse Leftist of
Lying by using the false figure of 600,000.  I'll demonstrate by accusing
Simon of lying.  Notice in his note that he implies that all the Iraqi dead
are "innocent."  Simon's implication is that none were enemies of American
or the Iraqi government.  None were Baathist holdouts.  None were Saddam
supporters with no place else to go and nothing to lose.  All were innocent
civilians.  This is false.  This is a lie.  Simon is lying.  


Yes, some innocent people are in that 30,000 number: those killed by the
insurgents; the Iraqi policemen, and the civilians and soldiers blown up by
IEDs and suicide bombers.  But the larger number I suspect are of the
guilty, those who supported Saddam Hussein and now support Al Quada's
attempt to disrupt the Iraqi government, throw Iraq into turmoil, incite
civil war and perhaps acquire a new Islamist state or region from which to
launch terrorist attacks - perhaps even a new home for Osama bin Laden
himself.   Leftist arguments are in support of bin Landen's goals for Iraq,
and that's no lie!






From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:37 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend


"You can strongly disapprove of Bush without all this hyperbole. It
undermines your arguments."


A mantra that surely should be applied to what ever political crede you're
attacking or indeed whoever is doing the attacking.


Take this from Lawrence (recently back from the land of allegory): 


"Do Leftists just like to lie?  Is that behind their preoccupation with
lying?  Is lying for a good (i.e. Leftist) cause okay?"


Just whether Lawrence's vision of Leftists like to lie we should leave to
Lawrence to sort out, he's the [only] authority on just what makes up his
fiction, but we should perhaps dwell on whether those on the right need to
lie. Certainly, Bush et al (surely representitive of that political faction)
could only get the US to war by deceiving Congress and the people. Whatever
they knew about what weapons Saddam had, they knew that the '45 minute
claim' was a lie and they knew that what intelligence they had need to be
'sexed up' before it could approach what was necessary to make a case for a
war that was never reliant upon intelligence, never reliant upon the UN,
never reliant upon the actions of Saddam, but was always the fruit of the
Bush administration's desire to wage war in Iraq. And didn't the right
(doesn't it still) just love it. You can hear it in the tone of their
ranting. They just love meating out a bit of death and destruction where
it's easy and they just love shouting down whoever tries to tell them that
it isn't right. 


And the justification? Well that's only just coming out. It was so they
could gather all the nasty people in one place and vaporize them. And
perhaps a few hundred innocents might get vaporized at the same time, but
what does it matter, after all, we're not talking about 600,000 are we. Just
a couple of hundred thousand, maybe even just 30,000, and that amount of
innocent Iraqis surely doesn't matter at all. So that's alright then. What a
relief, for a moment I thought the US government had done something really


See Eric, absolutely no hyperbole. None at all. 


Seriously though what's the point. If the right can't accept as fact the
views of 2,500 scientists from 130 countries, what hope is there in
establishing facts elsewhere. We might as well all just mythologise and
enjoy it.


----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Eric" <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>

To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 7:42 PM

Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: comments the DEMs must defend


> Andreas: 600,000 Iraqi will still be dead because of lies.
> 4,000 Americans will still be dead because of lies.
> The US economy will still be wrecked because of lies.
> If we cannot agree on basic facts, we won't be able to fix the blame. 
> (Granted it's better to fix the problem than the blame.)
> The major cause of Iraqi deaths is not American force, but you want to 
> blame Bush so you do so with dubious numbers. The major cause of 
> American deaths is the action of the groups we collectively label 
> "insurgents," but you want to blame Bush so you ignore the actual 
> murderers. The US economy is far from wrecked* but you want to blame 
> Bush, so you pin the economy to his war policy, rather than, say, 
> Clinton's ridiculous trade deals with China, current oil prices, or the 
> nearsighted US automotive sector.**
> You can strongly disapprove of Bush without all this hyperbole. It 
> undermines your arguments.
> ____
> * http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8N8BQR02.htm
> The Treasury Department reported Monday that the deficit for the budget 
> year that began Oct. 1 totals $42.2 billion, down 57.2 percent from the 
> same period a year ago.
> Petroleum, China and automotive products account for about 85 percent of 
> the trade deficit, and no solution is possible without addressing issues 
> particular to these segments.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: