Thursday, May 29, 2008

Bush Logic And The Great Non-Sequitur

“Speaking on Thursday to reporters in Sweden, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Bush was honest about the reasons for the war and remains convinced now that toppling Saddam was right and necessary.”  Associated Press, May 29th 2008


There are many quotes from Condoleezza Rice, Dana Perino, George Dubya Bush and others that repeat the sentence above. This is the line used by the White House. Any teacher of logic in the Western World would reject this reasoning as a non-sequitur. A does not lead to B.

Let us start with A:
The reasons given by the Bush Administration for attacking Iraq and toppling Saddam were the presence of weapons of mass destruction and the involvement of the Hussein government in the planning and execution of the events of 9/11/01.

Now lets look at B:
The reasons that they give to explain why the invasion was the proper thing to do are that Saddam was a brutal dictator and that the invasion led to democracy in Iraq.

Back to A (the reasons we attacked Iraq):
George Bush has admitted that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; in fact he made a big joke about it at a gala event. The White House has stated that there is no “clear evidence” that Saddam’s regime had any dealings whatsoever with Al Qaeda. So the reasons that we invaded Iraq were erroneous and the White House admits it.


Back to B (the reasons the conquest is worthwhile):
Even if you believe that democracy has been achieved in Iraq and that toppling Saddam, the evil dictator, are reasons that would justify the war, they were NOT the reasons that we attacked Iraq. So the reason that justifies the conquest and occupation of a sovereign nation can become clear after the attack has already occurred. With that in mind, we might as well attack Mexico too. Something positive will probably become apparent after the re-conquest of our southern neighbor. Or we could attack and conquer Sweden, or Nigeria, or maybe Borneo. Some good result should appear that would show that the conquest was “right and necessary”.


The reasons that The Bush people use to explain to us why the conquest of Iraq was worthwhile have nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons that justified the invasion of a sovereign country without a declaration of war.

Why does the Major Media let the White House state these non-sequiturs without calling them on it? Why do they repeat these lame justifications for unjustifiable acts as if they were news. The only thing newsworthy about any of this is the cheek of the White House that continues to lie to the American people.

1 comment:

Qong said...

Hello there, interesting blog you have here.

This comment is off-topic, hopefully that's alright; I just wanted to reply since you zinged me at the end of your Digg comment.

I have heard that saying before, of course, and I agree with it in general. I'm not necessarily afraid of terrorists and I have an apartment in New York and I lived there on 9/11; I've seen terrorism, right here in our very own country; I saw the reactions to it, and I saw the actions that we have taken to prevent it. They're not right, but that are understandable for now. Surely you don't think that our freedom has been permanently jeopardized due to actions taken after 9/11?

As for the "insurgents" in Iraq, well you can call them whatever you wish. The fact remains though, that the Iraqi people were living under tyranny and deserve to be free. Whether it was our place to free them or not is a matter of foreign policy. Personally, I care about the Iraqi people, though I wouldn't have invaded their country to liberate them. But now that we have invaded their country, I strongly feel that it is our responsibility to keep the innocent people of Iraq safe in their own homes: A goal that will not be achieved by a withdrawal of our troops.

I feel strongly in responsibility and handling the consequences of ones actions. This applies to life in general, to both the individual and country.

As for the currency: The falling dollar is as you said, a result of the rapid lowering of interest rates by the Fed; which is an action that a group of intelligent men, whom we give such power to, decided to take because they saw it as being best for our economy. I'm not an economist personally, but they are. As such I'm going to have to take their word for it.

Don't worry about the falling dollar possibly not being stoppable though. I do work in finance and inflation can easily be brought back down.