According to Peck, an evil person:
- Projects his or her evils and sins onto others... scapegoating behavior
- ...
- Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints.
- displays intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
My favorite lie was commenter Van's attempt to claim that waterboarding wasn't torture by describing it as "pouring water on them", as if it was a shower or something. This is obviously a well-practiced justification. It's not original to Van, but a meme that has been circulating on the right for a few years. The right is an echo-chamber of lies.
Speaking of torture, a couple of recent items that are worth noting: The torture of Abu Zubaydah, which came up in the dialog, turns out to have revealed nothing of value and it appears that he was not very highly placed in al-Qaeda in the first place:
Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.Hm, turns out this was revealed as early as 2006, but that didn't stop Bush from using Zubaydah's worthless intelligence as justification for further use of torture.
And a Spanish Court (same judge, Baltasar Garzón, who brought charges against Pinochet a few years back) is contemplating issuing arrest warrants for a set of high-level Bush administration officials, including John Yoo, Doug Feith, and David Addington (who by reputation seems to have been one of the main sources of abuse of power in the Bush administration) . Good. It turns out the US has prosecuted foreign officials for torture, so the precedents are in place.
I don't suppose any of that will change any opinions over at One Cosmos. Those folks have too much at stake to ever acknowlege that there might be some evil on their side of the fence they've erected in their minds. That would require not just a political change of heart but a revolution in their metaphysical picture of the world, and no such revolution is forthcoming. "And you never ask questions / When God's on your side." I admit to being a little disappointed; I thought these people had a spark of intelligence (or something) that is generally missing from the right.
MTraven sneered, People of the Lie is a book by the late Christian psychotherapist M. Scott Peck. How ironic it is that the Christian psychotherapist Gagdad Bob and his crew of howler monkeys are exemplars of what he talks about
ReplyDeleteDr. Scott Peck wrote a very interesting book that is well worth a read; as is “Hostage to the Devil: The Possession and Exorcism of Five Contemporary Americans”, by one of Dr. Peck's mentors, Fr. Dr. Malachi Brendan Martin.
One must also note MTraven's continuing campaign of “dehumanization” of a handful of people with whom he disagrees, a handful of more erudite liberal souls.
.
Mtraven thinking highly of himself goes on about the “howler monkeys”: ...are exemplars of what he talks about -- people who lie to themselves to mask evil, in this case, the political evil of unlimited government torture. My efforts to get them to face the facts and to acknowledge the inconsistencies in their own belief systems were met with a ridiculous slew of personal insults, culminating in labeling me as "palpably satanic" or just plain "a bad man". Oh well, I don't know what I was expecting -- spirited debate? A respectful exchange of views? In my dreams.
Ahhh, is this is one of those moments when one would do well to invest some time reflecting on one's own behavior, reflecting upon a mirror so to speak.
.
MTraven continues: According to Peck, an evil person: Projects his or her evils and sins onto others... scapegoating behavior ... Is unable to think from other people's viewpoints. displays intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury
Does this accurately reflect Dr. Peck's views? A page and paragraph reference might be helpful here. Scapegoating is a ubiquitous human behavior and sadly scapegoating seems to be overwhelming the civic discourse of American democracy. Saul Alinsky has more than a few disciples in places of power.
.
MTraven targets a “howler monkey” who goes by a pen name Van: My favorite lie was commenter Van's attempt to claim that waterboarding wasn't torture by describing it as "pouring water on them", as if it was a shower or something. This is obviously a well-practiced justification. It's not original to Van, but a meme that has been circulating on the right for a few years. The right is an echo-chamber of lies.
One might do well to review the actual exchange between MTraven and Van. I expect that readers will find that MTraven employs a Straw Man against Van. If MTraven can provide a link one can search Van's response for the word “shower”.
.
MTraven continues Speaking of torture, a couple of recent items that are worth noting: The torture of Abu Zubaydah, which came up in the dialog, turns out to have revealed nothing of value and it appears that he was not very highly placed in al-Qaeda in the first place
One must approached the Washington Post with considerable caution because it often acts like a front organization for the DNC. I know because have worked to plant “reportage” in the Washington Post reportage which was intend to validate DNC and Democrat Congressional staff talking points.
This is what the Washington Post actually said: Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots
Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say
By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, March 29, 2009; Page A01
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Notice how MTraven misrepresented what was actually reported. The Washington Post did not say that Abu Zubaida was tortured. The Washington Post said “harsh interrogation methods” were used. Moreover, the Post does not say that the harsh methods “have revealed nothing of value” only that “nearly
NOTE that the Washington Post reported that the harsh interrogation WORKED. “The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads”. However, as one might expect, “the value all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated”. Clearly some leads paid off. Most other leads seem to have been valuable too, however they were untimely. The CIA apparently dithered too long about the application of harsh methods as its window of opportunity closed. A nuanced reading of this Story in the Washington Post might suggest that on occasion that the CIA might do well to employ harsh methods without delay.
One should of course read the original as it seems that MTraven did not convey the information accurately.
.
BTW; the CIA “dithered” over a lead provide by Czech intelligence for months after 9/11. To my knowledge Czech intelligence still stands by its lead that the AQ terrorist 9/11 team captain met with Iraqi intelligence in Hamburg Germany in the Spring of 2001. The CIA's failure to follow up on this lead on a timely basis resulted in a similar loss.
One must also note MTraven's continuing campaign of “dehumanization” of a handful of people with whom he disagrees, a handful of more erudite liberal souls.
ReplyDeleteWhat in the world are you talking about? The folks at OneCosmos are neither liberal nor very erudite, although I'll give their Dear Leader some points for style.
And btw, I am not "dehumanizing" them. Maybe I shouldn't be using animal metaphors, but my intent is to humanize them, not dehumanize them.
Does this accurately reflect Dr. Peck's views?
I'm not sure, actually. I'm using Peck's title and my dimly remembered reading of it from decades ago (and the Wikipedia summary) as a jumping off point for my own thoughts.
One might do well to review the actual exchange between MTraven and Van.
Please do, that's why I provided a link.
I expect that readers will find that MTraven employs a Straw Man against Van.
Why do you people have such trouble with the meaning of rhetorical tropes?
If MTraven can provide a link one can search Van's response for the word “shower”.
I said "as if". Van is clearly trying to minimize the actuality of waterboarding, which is pouring water into a person to cause "simulated" drowning.
Notice how MTraven misrepresented what was actually reported. The Washington Post did not say that Abu Zubaida was tortured.
The International Commitee of the Red Cross said he was tortured, and I've repeatedly provided links to articles describing their findings. Here's another. If you can't be bothered to read and answer the evidence I provide, then stop wasting my time.
I'm not really part of this debate, but as I understand it, waterboarding is not "pouring water into a person to cause 'simulated' drowning."
ReplyDeleteThe descriptions I have read indicate that piece of cloth is placed over the face of the 'patient,' and water is poured over it - onto, in other words, and not "into" him.
This is to be distinguished from the real water torture, as used in the "Question Ordinary" under the ancien régime of France. In this, the nose of the 'patient' was pinched shut, a funnel was placed in his mouth, and water poured into it. He then had either to swallow or to aspirate it, frequently both.
It was to this torture that suspects in the "affaire des poisons" were subjected by the Chambre Ardente. Likewise François Villon was subjected to it at the fortress of Meung, when there impisoned by order of Thibault d'Auxigny, the bishop of Orleans. See his sarcastic references to this episode in his "Epistre en forme de ballade, à ses amys":
"Après pain sec, non pas après gasteaux,
En ses boyaulx verse eaue a gros bouillon."
and again:
"Peu m'a d'une petite miche
Et de froide eaue tout ung esté"
as well as in the "Grant Testament":
"Dieu mercy et Tacque Thibault,
Qui tant d'eaue froide m'a faict boire,
Mis en bas lieu, non pas en hault,
Mengier d'angoisse mainte poire..."
Whatever may have happened to Abu Zubaida and others it does not appear that their treatment was of the same nature.
It is not at all hard to find descriptions of waterboarding. Here is Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteWaterboarding is a form of torture.[1][2] It consists of immobilizing the victim on his or her back with the head inclined downwards, and then pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. By forced suffocation and inhalation of water the subject experiences drowning and is caused to believe they are about to die.[3] It is considered a form of torture by legal experts,[4][5] politicians, war veterans,[6][7] intelligence officials,[8] military judges,[9] and human rights organizations.[10][11] As early as the Spanish Inquisition it was used for interrogation purposes, to punish and intimidate, and to force confessions.[12]
And here is Christopher Hitchens' account of being voluntarily waterboarded.
Sorry if this isn't torturous enough for you. No doubt François Villon would have laughed it off.
Right off the top MTraven's March 15th post appears to be founded upon a serious misreading of law. The Geneva Conventions do not apply to unlawful combatants such as Al Queda jihadi. As such the status of capture Al Queda jihadi in American custody comes under the United States Constitution and the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which codified the legal definition of this term and invested the U.S. President with broad discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant under United States law. The findings of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in the Celebici Judgment do not contradict US law on this point.
ReplyDeleteNow three NGO don't like this situation and wish to restrict US sovereignty in this regard. Two of these organizations are anti-American and anti-Israeli front groups financed by George Soros: Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. The third, International Committee of the Red Cross, may very well have violated its neutrality having entered into partisan dispute in the US. See below.
.
MTraven's source, Mark Danner, has a long history of producing aggi-prop, enough to earn him an expose' at Discover the Networks:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1947
Front Page published its own critique of Mark Danner in 2005
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=1B9FD15E-2663-482B-AE51-A9B07793FABC
Moreover, Mr. Danner has received personal funding from a radical left-wing foundation. So it would seem that any prudent thinker should approach Mr. Danner's work with considerable care.
From the page that MTraven links for us, it is clear that the primary and perhaps sole source of information about beatings of unlawful combatants (alleged instances of torture) is reported solely by 14 AQ operatives who, as I have demonstrated earlier, are trained and instructed to make false charges of abuse much as described in Mark Danner telling of the story. AQ terrorists are not "impeccable" sources and neither is Mark Danner. I for one am unwilling to dismiss these ICRC reports. However based upon experience and the information provided so far it seems wise to approach third party reports about this document with considerable caution until the document itself has been released in full and subject to thorough critique. I will note that if such beatings occurred it would appear that they occurred under the CIA's rendition program set up by the Clinton Administration. Nonetheless, it is hard to understand why the CIA would employ beatings to extract information when effective methods, which do not involve torture such as waterboarding, are available. Is this another CIA screw up? Maybe, but for the moment I put my money on: THE GENOCIDAL Al Queda SAVAGES are lying. They hate us Kaffirs you know...
One also would need to worry whether the ICRC has abandoned its policy of neutrality by leaking this report. Leaks from other possible sources such as the CIA or by the Obama Whitehouse would also be troubling and no less likely. My guess is that one of those three organizations was stung by former V.P. Cheney's recent warnings about backsliding on terror. It seems clear that this report was likely leaked by one of those three and therefore we must presume that the ICRC's neutrality has been compromised in one way or another.
*
Further, despite his protest MTraven did indeed misrepresent the story in the Washington Post which he linked for us above at Speaking of torture, a couple of recent items that are worth noting: The torture of Abu Zubaydah, which came up in the dialog, turns out to have revealed nothing of value and it appears that he was not very highly placed in al-Qaeda in the first place http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/28/AR2009032802066.html
And not surprising this story in the Washington Post also misrepresented the facts: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=
*
I've got to good. A long day of labor aways.
Perhaps MTRaven you can come with a page and paragraph citation from Dr. Peck's book. I've got a copy in my personal library stateside that I can access when I return.
I already posted this 2006 article at OneCosmos, as part of a lengthy discussion which I have no wish to repeat:
ReplyDeleteThe Bush administration has agreed to apply the Geneva Conventions to all terrorism suspects in U.S. custody, bowing to the Supreme Court's recent rejection of policies that have imprisoned hundreds for years without trials.
Being listed in pathetic wingnut attention-seeker David Horowitz's "Discover the Networks" is a badge of honor. Not quite as good as making Nixon's enemies list, but up there. It's pretty entertaining though -- you can learn there, for instance, that ultra-homophobe pastor Fred Phelps is part of this shadowy leftist conspiracy, as are individuals and groups from the Ayatollah Khomeni to Medicins Sans Frontieres. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously is a fucking moron.
Mtraven, I was wondering whether you would distort my remark, which was merely trying to draw a distinction, into some sort of approval of waterboarding. You did not disappoint.
ReplyDeleteI do not endorse torture. Nonetheless I have to acknowledge that it is one of the things governments do, and always have done. There are gradations of wrongdoing. That's why the law distinguishes between misdemeanors and felonies, for example. As tortures go, waterboarding is, at most, one of the milder varieties. It is certainly not rack, rope, or red-hot pincers. It is not the "water treatment" the U.S. armed forces practised on the Moros in the Philippines, which was the classic water torture of Roman law, as used in France during the period mentioned.
I find it interesting that one of the faults you find with the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida is that the statement he made in consequence of it "turns out to have revealed nothing of value." If it had, would it have been all right with you?
You appear not to have thought very clearly about the questions involved. They are:
1) Is torture morally justifiable?
2) Does torture work?
3) Is waterboarding torture?
4) Does waterboarding work?
If your answer to question 1 is no, then it is no quite indepedently of your answer to question 2. It would be moral relativism of a most peculiar type to say that torture is wrong only if it doesn't work.
As for question 2, it has become a liberal truism that the answer to it is no, but there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. Torture worked for the French in Algeria, and worked for the British in Kenya. France and Britain did not lose those colonies because of its lack of efficacy, but because of the lack of political will to take the steps necessary to retain them, including the use of torture.
It is a hard and nasty business to govern without the consent of the governed. This is one of the problems of empire. As I have often told you before, I agree with Pat Buchanan that this country should be the republic its founders intended, and not an empire.
Question 3 is part of a much larger question about what constitutes torture.
A recent article in the New Yorker commented about the rise in the use of protracted solitary confinement in prisons and its psychologically damaging consequences, raising the question of whether it could be considered torture. Yet what if the alternative is to allow violent sociopaths the run of a general lockup in which they can victimize other prisoners and prison guards?
I have seen itemized as one of the alleged tortures to which unlawful combatants captured in Iraq or Afghanistan were subjected, that they were compelled to listen to loud hard rock music. If this be torture I suppose there are a great many bars and restaurants committing it.
If torture consists in doing almost anything to a person that is against his will, then the word has been deprived of significant meaning.
As to question 4, there appears to be enough disagreement that I, at least, must say that it remains open. But whether or not it works has nothing to do with whether it is torture, or whether torture is morally acceptable or is not.
I was wondering whether you would distort my remark, which was merely trying to draw a distinction, into some sort of approval of waterboarding.
ReplyDeleteWell, I apologize in that case. I am arguing with a great many people on this issue and their opinions tend to blend together.
I do not endorse torture. Nonetheless I have to acknowledge that it is one of the things governments do, and always have done.
There are many things that governments have done that they no longer do, or are no longer supposed to do, or that we as citizens of the modern era have an obligation to get them to stop doing (such as supporting slavery or instigating wars of aggression).
It's notable that the people at OneCosmos, where this discussion originated, believe themselves to be classical liberals and that the US is unique among nations in embodying these ideals. Maybe so, but if that's the case, you can't justify US torture by saying that everybody else does it.
I find it interesting that one of the faults you find with the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida is that the statement he made in consequence of it "turns out to have revealed nothing of value." If it had, would it have been all right with you?
No.
Torture worked for the French in Algeria, and worked for the British in Kenya...
You have an odd definition of "worked". Those regimes are no longer in place, and their employment of torture played no small part in delegitimizing them among colonized and colonizers alike.
If torture consists in doing almost anything to a person that is against his will..
It doesn't, and nobody has claimed it does.
MIke:
ReplyDeleteI know Raven doesn't care about facts, but you'll be interested to know that the Washington Post story has been thoroughly fisked.
Normally I wouldn’t bother coming here, but Dupree notified me of the goings on here.
ReplyDeletemtraven has already demonstrated himself to be a practitioner of evasion, equivocation, and using straw men arguments… and his single method of answering those charges is to accuse others of being in error and then quickly replying to something else, never once dealing with the original issue, having been called on it.
mt has nothing of interest to say himself, he only specializes in being a mere parasite on other peoples ideas. I’ve no interest in attempting to prove the truth of the matter further, he’s demonstrated his nature to my satisfaction already, and anyone who would like to see the full context, can do so and judge for themselves.
I’ve no interest in seeking to digest the material for them, mt would just vomit it back up beyond recognition. For those interested, the context can be found,
here,
here,
here,
and here.
Ta.
Torture "worked" against the Algerian rebels and against the Mau Mau in the sense that the French and British forces in those colonies were able effectively to suppress the respective insurgencies. However, the civilian politicians at home became queasy about the methods they had to employ to do this, and pulled the plug. That is why those "regimes are no longer in place." The parallel to the situation of the United States is obvious.
ReplyDeleteWhat you say about things governments did but no longer do, etc., puts too much faith in human nature. Those governments that lose the will to do what is necessary to maintain their authority will lose that authority. They will be succeeded by governments that have no such scruples. The present rulers of Algeria and Kenya do not have such delicate stomachs as the French and British did. In fact, those places have reverted to their native savagery, and their populations are worse off than they were sixty years ago.
At some point in the history of most empires there has been a comparable failure of will on the part of the imperial power - whether from this kind of queasiness or from a lack of willingness or ability to bear the cost in blood and treasure. It is arguable, for example, that the decline of the Roman empire began when Hadrian withdrew Roman forces from Mesopotamia, whither his predecessor Trajan had extended the eastern limits of the empire. Hadrian was an able commander and concluded the position could no longer be maintained - and ever thereafter the territories of the empire shrank. Certainly Rome continued to be a great power for a long time thereafter, but this was the point of inflection between its rise and its decline.
There is, as Adam Smith said, a lot of ruin in a nation; but the decline and fall of empires seems to happen at an accelerated pace today compared to that of antiquity. The United States not only lacks the will to maintain an empire (which it never should have attempted), but lacks the will to secure its own borders.
Perhaps we had better start learning Chinese and Arabic, the better to fit ourselves for the service of masters whose coming suzerainty we have become too effete to resist.
Time's been tight so I haven't had a chance to follow up on the “target rich environment” our host MTraven offers in this thread. However, before I turn in for the night I'd like to prescribe a dose of corrective...
ReplyDelete.
Mtraven wrote above: Speaking of torture, a couple of recent items that are worth noting: The torture of Abu Zubaydah, which came up in the dialog, turns out to have revealed nothing of value and it appears that he was not very highly placed in al-Qaeda in the first place:
Yesterday Mark Theisen wrote published the following observation, “Since I posted my rebuttal here [url]http://corner.nationalreview.com
/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdi
MmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=[/url] on Sunday to the front-page story in the Washington Post about the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, I’ve been contacted by several reporters from MSM outlets. One after another, they’ve told me what an awful story the Post ran, and that my piece taking apart the Post’s reporting was a lot closer to the truth that what appeared in the newspaper.
As one reporter put it to me this morning: Have you seen any other mainstream news outlet pick up or follow up on the Post story? There’s a reason for that.
Indeed, the silence of the MSM has been a deafening indictment of the Post -- and a more effective rebuttal than anything I wrote.”
[url]http://corner.nationalreview.com
/post/?q=ZDIxNzc5YTE0NTYxNDkyOWVmODEx
MjExOTUzZTcxZmY=[/url]
.
Mtraven wrote above: And a Spanish Court (same judge, Baltasar Garzón, who brought charges against Pinochet a few years back) is contemplating issuing arrest warrants for a set of high-level Bush administration officials, including John Yoo, Doug Feith, and David Addington (who by reputation seems to have been one of the main sources of abuse of power in the Bush administration) . Good. It turns out the US has prosecuted foreign officials for torture, so the precedents are in place.
Yes the US has indeed “prosecuted foreign officials for torture” at Nurnberg, which returns us to my point on my points above about unlawful combatants. “(T)he precedents are in place” as demonstrated but FDR's treatment of “unlawful combatants” who were often summarily executed on the battlefield because “unlawful combatants” are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, notwithstanding any foolishness of today's court and the generosity of President Bush.
Most telling of our host's character assassination of members of the Bush Administration is the fact that John Yoo, Doug Feith, and David Addington did not engage in a “harsh treatment” of unlawful combatants. They were personally unaware of or involved in such “torture”, or they conducted internal legal analysis and internal policy debate about how to handle captured genocidal jihadi. Our host, MTraven, and Judge Baltasar Garzón seek to criminalize and punish policy difference not actual criminality. In doing so both are anti-democratic and engaged in vicious political vendetta.
Also telling is that Judge Baltasar Garzón has yet to indict Fidel and Raul Castro, nor the notorious Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir ... nor any Chinese Communist officials for the practice of torture of Buddhist monks and nuns in occupied Tibet ...
.
Regarding Discover the Networks says: “But in the 1980s Phelps won several civil rights-related cases, earning him three awards from civil rights organizations, including a local chapter of the NAACP. He also supported the 1988 presidential bid of Al Gore, whose campaign used Phelps' family office space.
In 1990, 1994, and 1998 Phelps ran for the Democratic nomination for governor of Kansas, getting 15 percent of the primary vote in his last try. In 1992 he ran for the Democratic nomination for U.S. Senate, receiving nearly 31 percent of the primary vote. He also ran unsuccessfully for mayor of Topeka in 1997. ... Phelps also demonstrated at the funerals of Frank Sinatra, Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William Rehnquist, children's program host Fred Rogers, and Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Whenever he demonstrates at funerals, Phelps openly claims that his targets are now justly in hell.
In 1998 Phelps, who opposed U.S.-led sanctions against Iraq, wrote to Saddam Hussein and offered to visit Baghdad. Saddam welcomed him, but Phelps and his entourage surprised the Iraqi dictator by marching in the streets of Baghdad with placards denouncing anal sex. Phelps has also commended the anti-homosexual policies of Fidel Castro, who declined Phelps' offer to come to Havana.”
hmmm, 31% of the Democrat primary vote in 1992 hmmm...
I ran into Phelps back in the 1990s when Phelps and clan were protesting a “gay rights” march. Based upon my observations I suggest that our host look up another Democrat Party activist and minister, the Rev. Jim Jones and his Peoples Temple.
.
BTW: If you find a factual error in Discover the Network's information contact them. They will correct any error you can substantiate MTraven.
Mark Thiessen is a former Bush administration speechwriter, so his credibility on this issue is zero. His article offered no evidence for his claims. Further rebuttals here and here.
ReplyDeletemtraven said: Mark Thiessen is a former Bush administration speechwriter, so his credibility on this issue is zero.
ReplyDeleteLOL! and this is not another logical fallacy? Is this not a circumstantial ad hominem argument?
Besides it seems that our host's defense of this particular character assassination (see above) may well contradict and refute earlier character assassinations, such as that posts on March 15th. I'll have to re-read the particulars as time become available as I'm traveling and I have limited time to post.
.
I took a quick look at out hosts two links pointing to "rebutals" of Marc Theisen's claims. The 9/11 Commission report relied upon in the the first, while useful, is a deeply flawed and now stale document. For example we now know of Saddam's material support for the Taliban, Saddam's support for the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center and Saddam's material support for AQ in Somalia(Black Hawk Down) in the post Gulf War I years.
Moreover the "rebutals" of Theisen appear to fail and seem to support my argument above. Unfortunately I've got to go for the night and I do not have enough time now to address such in detail.
Happy Easter all!
He is risen!