Saturday, November 26, 2005
They dumbed down the argument: Hub Blog missed a good Scot column the other day on whether the president 'lied' or 'misled' the American people about WMD in Iraq. Isn't it amazing how we're still debating the pre-war debate?
... My own preferred description is 'exaggeration.' Exaggerations usually contain elements of both truths and lies -- meaning the Bush administration was both telling the truth and fibbing at the time. Let me explain. I was discussing/arguing/babbling about the pre-war debate with a group of friends the other night. I relayed the simple argument of a Hub Blog brother that the problem with the Bush administration wasn't that it lied or misled Americans per se, but rather that it dumbed down the arguments for war. The WMD and Al-Qaeda points were supposed to be the emotional 'slam dunk' clinchers that would put the case for war beyond dispute, my brother said. The administration treated the American people as if they couldn't handle purely complicated arguments. Sure they brought up the geopolitical need to get to the core problems of oil, terrorism, Saddam, troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraq sanctions, Middle East despots and other issues. But they had to add more to garner enough support to get done what they sincerely believed needed to be done -- and they did add more. At that point they were talking down to us. Now they're reaping the rewards of their simplistic 'slam dunk' arguments that they believed in but had to garnish with exaggerated images of mushroom clouds and terrorist street battles in Kansas. ... After I said all this, I looked around the table and everyone was nodding in agreement: Dumbing down of the argument was the administration's greatest sin and foible. ...
Now for my own extra bonus Hub Blog condemnation: The guys in the White House are bad businessmen! There, I said it. The ultimate insult to Republicans! An entrepreneur who has a good business idea but who has a bad business plan is not a good businessman. The White House had a good argument for going to war -- minus the overselling -- and botched its implementation. Make fun of the Mass. pols all you want for backtracking on the war issue. But is there anybody in their right mind who would do everything all over again exactly as it played out? Is there anyone who would reinvest with a crazy entrepreneur after he blew the first big wad?
... My own preferred description is 'exaggeration.' Exaggerations usually contain elements of both truths and lies -- meaning the Bush administration was both telling the truth and fibbing at the time. Let me explain. I was discussing/arguing/babbling about the pre-war debate with a group of friends the other night. I relayed the simple argument of a Hub Blog brother that the problem with the Bush administration wasn't that it lied or misled Americans per se, but rather that it dumbed down the arguments for war. The WMD and Al-Qaeda points were supposed to be the emotional 'slam dunk' clinchers that would put the case for war beyond dispute, my brother said. The administration treated the American people as if they couldn't handle purely complicated arguments. Sure they brought up the geopolitical need to get to the core problems of oil, terrorism, Saddam, troops in Saudi Arabia, Iraq sanctions, Middle East despots and other issues. But they had to add more to garner enough support to get done what they sincerely believed needed to be done -- and they did add more. At that point they were talking down to us. Now they're reaping the rewards of their simplistic 'slam dunk' arguments that they believed in but had to garnish with exaggerated images of mushroom clouds and terrorist street battles in Kansas. ... After I said all this, I looked around the table and everyone was nodding in agreement: Dumbing down of the argument was the administration's greatest sin and foible. ...
Now for my own extra bonus Hub Blog condemnation: The guys in the White House are bad businessmen! There, I said it. The ultimate insult to Republicans! An entrepreneur who has a good business idea but who has a bad business plan is not a good businessman. The White House had a good argument for going to war -- minus the overselling -- and botched its implementation. Make fun of the Mass. pols all you want for backtracking on the war issue. But is there anybody in their right mind who would do everything all over again exactly as it played out? Is there anyone who would reinvest with a crazy entrepreneur after he blew the first big wad?
