Blair and Bush: The difference

After hearing a clip from British Prime Minister Tony Blair's remarks Wednesday in Portugal on the BBC, I looked up the speech on Blair's official Web site. Reading it provided a stark example of what is for me the biggest difference between Tony Blair and George W. Bush: Tony Blair disagrees with my position on the war in Iraq.

Blair arrived in Portugal after attending a memorial in Madrid for those who died in the March 11 bombings there. Here is the key section of his remarks:

Let me repeat again my profound condolences to the Spanish people over their loss.  The grief, felt and shared round the whole of Europe and the world, at this atrocity has been intense.

Everyone everywhere condemns without reservation the act of terrorism. However, outside of the shared grief, has been another debate.

Some, like myself, believe that the war in Iraq is all part of the same global threat to our security which we face. Others believe, with equal passion, that the war was an unjustified provocation of the Muslim world or at least a diversion from the true war against terrorism.

This is a disagreement we cannot at present resolve. Perhaps we never can but my plea tonight, here in Portugal, whose Prime Minister with great courage supported our action in Iraq but whose people like the British people were sorely divided over it, is that for now we surmount this division and seek common ground. It would indeed be a ghastly victory for the evil people who committed the carnage of the innocent in Madrid, if in addition to the destruction and death they also caused us to turn in recrimination on each other.

Here Blair demonstrates that he is able to do what George W. Bush is incapable of, and unwilling to consider. Blair accurately and respectfully states the position of those who disagree with him:

Others believe, with equal passion, that the war was an unjustified provocation of the Muslim world or at least a diversion from the true war against terrorism.

That is not a straw man. Blair does not twist the words or the position of those who disagree with him. He does not accuse them of "appeasement" or of being unpatriotic or weak or "soft on terrorism." He does not employ sleazy, dishonest tactics -- "some would say the world would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in power ..." -- to distort others' beliefs. Nor does he question their conviction and the integrity of that conviction.

George W. Bush would never make such a statement. He has never listened to those who disagree with him with enough care or attention to understand their position. He has never entertained the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive.

For all his talk about being "a uniter, not a divider," Bush's inability to make the kind of statement Blair makes here --

Others believe, with equal passion, that the war was an unjustified provocation of the Muslim world or at least a diversion from the true war against terrorism.

-- also means that he is not able to make the plea for unity that Blair makes, the plea to "surmount this division and seek common ground" and not "to turn in recrimination on each other."

Turning in recrimination on those who disagree with him is what George W. Bush is all about. Witness the all-out assault on the character, intellect and sanity of Richard Clarke (all while refusing to acknowledge or engage the substance of Clarke's critique). NBC News has reported that this attack on Clarke was directly ordered by the president:

A senior White House aide told NBC News on condition of anonymity this week that Bush personally ordered his aides to launch a heavy public counteroffensive against what he saw as a political assault.

If all of one's actions are motivated by reasons of pure political ambition, then one will perceive everyone else's actions as arising from the same motivations. Bush is not able to view Clarke's comments as anything other than "a political assault."

As I said, Tony Blair disagrees with the position I take on the invasion of Iraq. And -- like Clarke and Jeffrey Record of the U.S. Army War College -- I disagree with Blair's position "that the war in Iraq is all part of the same global threat to our security which we face." (I opposed the invasion for reasons other than this as well, but this is an important point of contention.)

The point here is that it is possible, in John Courtney Murray's phrase, to "achieve disagreement" with Tony Blair. It is not possible to achieve disagreement with George W. Bush because Bush will not accept the legitimacy of any disagreement. He offers instead only rancor, distortions of his critics' views, and recrimination.

Tony Blair is interested in common ground. George W. Bush is only interested in scorched earth.

UPDATE: In comments below, Josh provides about the closest parallel from Bush to Blair's statement. It's a wonderful example of the kind of I'm-right-you're-evil innuendo that has become Bush's stock in trade. Where Blair praises the conviction and acknowledges the integrity of those who disagree with him, here's what you get from Bush:

I hope they care deeply about the fact that when we find suffering and torture and mass graves, we weep for the citizens that are being brutalized by tyrants. ...

I obviously felt like September the 11th changed the equation to the point where we needed to deal with emerging threats and deal with them in a way that would make America more secure. And they didn't see that ...

I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of September the 11th, 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and war on people who love freedom ... I have an obligation as the President to keep our country secure.

Yes, George W. Bush can be very cordial as he explains that he isn't sure that people who disagree with him care about "suffering and torture and mass graves." As he explains that they are blind to the lessons of Sept. 11. As they demonstrate an insufficient love for freedom and undermine efforts to keep the country secure. But he respects their freedom to be cowardly, apathetic, callous appeasers of the enemies of freedom. And he's such a magnanimous guy, he doesn't even hate them for it.

Comments

[Mike]

Well put, Fred. Maybe Blair is starting to dig himself out from under.

[Marley]

Unlike Blair, bush and the repubs leave themselves nowhere to go ideologically. They define opposition so bitterly that they can never gracefully change their minds. I think this is why many americans stubbornly clinging to bush despite the mountain of evidence. They've also been vehemently trashing liberals and democrats for years. Backed right into a corner.

[drieux just drieux]

Hopefully as a part of this new and improved move towards bi-partisanship, more americans will be able to finally be able to get over their "survivor's guilt" that has turned the 2nd attack on the world trade center into almost a cult of idolatry. Who knows, maybe they will start working out which of their positions that they held about the problems of 'combatting global terrorism' that they held between the first and 2nd attacks are still 'operable'.

[Michael]

Let's remember—not that I think you're forgetting it—that demonizing rhetoric isn't just a Bush trait; it's become the standard of play on the right in the last dozen or so years. The entire country, or a good half of it anyway, has learned to talk like this. It used to be more or less a characteristic of fringe, neo- or crypto-fascist rhetoric (think of Richard Hofstadter on the paranoid style)—now it's the accepted rhetoric of the republic's Chief Magistrate. (Hell, it's even the expected rhetoric: what else is all that praise for Bush's post-9/11 speechifying about?) That, as much as anything else, defines for me just how warped and dangerous this moment of our history is.

Reading A1, the NY Times front page project

[oh]

Fred, you, and those above, did mean all this as comedy right?

Your critique of Bush's rhetoric implies that trying to "achieve disagreement" and finding "common ground" are worthy endeavors. Rancor, distortions, and recrimination are to be avoided.

Have you read your blog recently?

Let’s try a simple reversal on for size:

In the interest of achieving disagreement I’ll state that the rhetoric on this blog proves that Fred Clark is incapable of, and unwilling to consider, my perspective. He has never listened to those who disagree with him with enough care or attention to understand their position. He has never entertained the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive. His inability to understand those who disagree with him is what Fred Clark is all about. It is not possible to achieve disagreement with Fred Clark because Fred will not accept the legitimacy of any disagreement. He offers instead only rancor, distortions of his critics' views, and recrimination. I am interested in common ground. Fred Clark is only interested in scorched earth.

If you go to the White House website and actually read the things Bush says (I’ve selected some of these below) you'll find that no one would seriously dispute whether you or Bush use a rhetoric more full of rancor. Even this post, disguised as a celebration of achieving disagreement, manages to include a wealth of rancor - certainty of which (incapable, unwilling, inability, never entertained, never listened, etc.) would require omniscience. If you apply the standard you act like you are celebrating in this post to your own blog you’ll find that you are self-incriminated. George Bush sounds a lot more like Tony Blair than your persistent rhetoric - even in this superficially open-minded post.

Josh

****
Here is the actual rhetoric of President Bush in this regard to be compared with that suggested by the blog:

Reporter: Why do they hate you, Mr. President? Why do they hate you in such numbers?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I don't know that they do. All I know is that it's -- that people in Baghdad, for example, weren't allowed to do this up until recent history. They're not spending a lot of time in North Korea protesting the current leadership. Freedom is a wonderful thing, and I respect that. I fully understand people don't agree with war. But I hope they agree with peace and freedom and liberty. I hope they care deeply about the fact that when we find suffering and torture and mass graves, we weep for the citizens that are being brutalized by tyrants.

PRESIDENT BUSH with Vicente Fox: A democratic, free Iraq is in the national interests of our country. A free country in the midst of the Middle East will make America more secure, and matter of fact, make any country more secure. And the decision I made was a tough decision.

We've had discussions prior to the decision and after the decision. Vicente Fox is a good enough friend for him to be able to express his opinion to me without the loss of friendship. And he didn't agree with the decision I made. But the decision I made was the right one for America.

PRESIDENT BUSH: We had a disagreement on this issue about Saddam Hussein and his threat. I obviously felt like September the 11th changed the equation to the point where we needed to deal with emerging threats and deal with them in a way that would make America more secure. And they didn't see that, they didn't agree with that point of view. I can understand that. And we are now reaching out to them, by the way -- Jim Baker, as you know, will be going to both those two countries tomorrow, I think it is, to encourage them to work with us on debt relief, all aimed at encouraging the development of a free and peaceful Iraq.

So I don't agree that this is a dividing line. I think this is a disagreement on this particular issue. And I know that we can work together on a variety of other issues, and I'll cite one example -- Iran. I was most pleased that the French and Germans, as well as the Brits, delivered a very strong message to the Iranian government about the development of a nuclear weapon. It was a message that we agree with, and that is, don't do so, otherwise there will be international consequences at the United Nations. And it was a very important message to be delivered. We agreed on that. And working together, it made it easier for us to send that -- to send that message.

PRESIDENT BUSH: There were good-faith disagreements in your country and mine over the course and timing of military action in Iraq. Whatever has come before, we now have only two options: to keep our word, or to break our word. The failure of democracy in Iraq would throw its people back into misery and turn that country over to terrorists who wish to destroy us.

Reporter: And will you ever be able to forgive Jacques Chirac and Chancellor Schroeder for their actions in undermining the second resolution?

THE PRESIDENT: Of course. It's like I can understand why people express their disagreement with the policy. I understand not everybody is going to agree with every decision the I make or others make. But I've had meetings with Gerhardt Schroeder and Jacques Chirac since then; they've been very cordial meetings. Gerhardt Schroeder has now committed German troops to Afghanistan, which is a very important mission, to help stabilize that good country as it not only enacts a constitution, but heads toward elections. And I appreciate the contribution of the German government toward Afghanistan. I'm proud to say that it is a vital contribution. And I appreciate their willingness to work with us. Again, we're not going to agree on every issue, but a Europe which works closely with America, and an America which works closely with Europe means the world will be better off.

Reporter: What would be your message to those protestors?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and aren't you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind. And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say. Secondly I would say that I understand you don't like war, and neither do I. But I would hope you understand that I have learned the lessons of September the 11th, 2001, and that terrorists declared war on the United States of America, and war on people who love freedom, and I intend to lead our nation, along with others like our close friends in Great Britain, to win this war on terror; that war is my last choice, not my first choice, but I have an obligation as the President to keep our country secure.

[oh]

p.s. Having read the quotes by Bush above I believe it is obvious who is really creating a "straw man."

Josh

[RickinVa]

Josh has said it best...

The sanctimony in Fred Clark's post is palpable, exceeded only by his false humility...

Incredible is the hypocrisy.

[mondo dentro]

Josh, I take your points, and your selective quotes from Bush illustrate what you are trying to say quite nicely.

But can you admit that it is normal for the President to "take the high road" as a rhetorical strategy, even while letting subordinates speak in a diametrically opposed fashion? When we speak of the President, we are speaking beyond him or her as a person, but as a leader of a party and even a movement. What is the the actual tone of the Bush administration? Is he really a "uniter and not a divider"? Do you understand the tactical style of Karl Rove? Do you know what a "wedge issue" is? Do we need to actually show you statements from administraiton and GOP officials that imply (no one would actually say such a thing in such a way as to avoid deniability) disagreement is tantamount to treason?

Well, so you're unhappy now that the shoe is on the other foot. Are you seriously trying to tell us liberals that you see no reason why, after decades of "liberal bashing", often of the most vile sort, we might have our hackles up? Do you take no reponsibility for Drudge or Rush or Coulter or Hannity? Are they really disonnected from the GOP? If so, by how much?

Or are you simply going to retreat into a "your side started it" kind of dialogue? I hope not.

Come on, lay some truth on me.

[alsafi]

You know, I think it's just slightly more important that GWB be willing and able to treat those who disagree with honor, fairness, respect, and dignity (even if they're not as polite about it as they ought to be) than that Fred do so. GWB, after all, is the president of the USA, in a position of great responsibility that requires the utmost maturity, diplomacy, and willingness to be respectful of other views, and Fred is, well, not.

The president has to represent all of us, even those of us with which he disagrees--that's what the job is. Blair is managing to do that, but GWB can't as long as he regards anyone who disagrees with him as having a totally invalid viewpoint. At least Blair seems to be listening to his people, and saying to them, "Well, we don't agree, but we can get past this issue." Bush seems to just write off anyone who doesn't agree with him (focus groups, anyone?). Even in the quotes Josh posted, I see nothing to challenge that statement--he seems to me to imply that being against the war means not caring about mass murder in Iraq, not loving freedom, and not caring about the security of the nation, which marginalizes the anti-war movement as some kind of craziness. This is the president, and what he says and how he says it affects our lives in ways that can be felt in every facet.

Fred, on the other hand, has a blog, and represents no one but himself on it. He doesn't have to give a d**n about anyone else's views, and if we don't like it, we're free to go start our own blogs. We can avoid this place entirely with absolutely no impact on our own lives if we don't like what he says. Fred is not answerable to us for what he says or how he says it, and we are completely free to go on with our own lives unaltered and unaffected, whether we agree with him or not.

[Marley]

Uh oh...the police have arrived at the scene of the crime...people criticizing the president. I knew we were just a bunch of hoodlums.

I have an idea. Don't patronize Fred's blog if you don't like what you read. Go to some thoughtful conservative blog, where they discuss the wonderful job George W. Bush is doing leading America.

[drot signur]

Bashing Bush like this doesn't help and won't help. He remains popular because people know what he is doing. All the liberal HATE and invective is just that.

[mondo dentro]

Bashing Bush like this doesn't help and won't help. He remains popular because people know what he is doing.

No, they think they know what he's doing. He's going to go down hard when the people finally understand what he's really doing. Even you will abandon him, once the scales fall from your eyes.

[Charlie]

fred -- totally agree w/ your update -- josh selected quotes that actually prove your point if you actually think about them.

[oh]

Three things, for the sake of clarity:

The quotes really are not that selective. I just typed "disagreement" into the White House site and found the Bush talks using that word. I have seen no Bush quotes toward those who protested the war that sound even vaguely as close-minded as any number of quotes from Fred in the post above.

I'm not a big Bush fan. I'm more focused on the suffering of those who are oppressed by totalitarian governments. As a result I do defend the decision to oust Saddam. Lately, it's beginning to feel like you can only be a good liberal if you feign concern for the poor at home and ignore the oppressed overseas.

My point is really not to support Bush so much as to challenge Fred, my friend from college, to stop pandering to the lowest denominator. I know Fred is capable of writing that will serve the interest of the country even as it critiques Bush, Kerry, or any number of others (including me). There may be an audience out there for this type of rancor - but Fred's mind and skills deserve better.

ps - I completely agree that Blair is almost always more articulate than Bush. I think he is perhaps the national leader I have the greatest respect for at this time. Did anyone remember he's from the left?

[Nick Kiddle]

Blair from the left? Hmmmm. Like most leaders these days, he owes his primary alleigance to whichever causes look like winning him more votes.

He has a nice line in rhetoric, it's true. But mostly he uses it to make as many people as possible believe he agrees with them, which is one way you could read this quote.

[Fred]

I think, Oh-J, that we need to keep in mind the difference between starting points and conclusions. (As well as the difference between insults and ad hominems.)

Every time I reach an unflattering conclusion about our dear president you cry foul, as though certain conclusions are out of bounds.

The post above quotes from Tony Blair and shows him respectfully and accurately stating the position of those who disagree with him.

I argue that GWB -- based on the fact that he has never, to my knowledge, made such a statement even once, let alone established a pattern of doing so; and the pattern he has established, as in the examples of Clarke, Plame, Wilson, O'Neill, DiIulio, etc., is rather to distort the positions and reputations of those who criticize him even slightly -- is not capable of this kind of disagreement.

The post arose from a kind of eureka moment when I heard the Blair speech driving home.

The "eureka" there was: "Aha! That's an important distinction between the way Blair and Bush deal with opposition." It was not, as you strangely seem to think, "Aha! What a great opportunity to pander to the lowest common denominator by quoting John Courtenay Murray!"

If I resort to ad hominem attacks (Bush's statement is untrue because Bush is a liar) then I hope you'll challenge me on that.

But I reserve the right to reach unflattering conclusions when the facts and the argument lead to such conclusions (Bush's statement is untrue, and he ought to be aware of this, therefore Bush is lying.)

[oh]

Fred, I think you can legitimately make the case that you’ve recognized “an important distinction between the way Blair and Bush deal with opposition." I'm uncertain that Bush has ever stated the opposing point of view as well as Blair does. One more reason I’d likely vote for Blair if he was the candidate of the left in the U.S. - rather than leading the Labor party on the left in Britain. Contrary to Nick’s statement, when he suggested that, “like most leaders these days, [Blair] owes his primary allegiance to whichever causes look like winning him more votes” we can be reminded of another reason for respecting Blair – he actually took on a cause that he believed in knowing that it would likely have a high political cost.

I certainly think that you’re right to, “reserve the right to reach unflattering conclusions.” I’d even go so far as to say that it appears the conclusion that Bush has not as effectively characterized the opposing position as Blair seems accurate to me. It’s the often rancorous tone in which these conclusions are expressed that I take issue with. I’m simply attempting to hold you to the same standard that you say the President should be held to.

I think this sentence illustrates my central point well as it directed toward me, rather than the President:
Every time I reach an unflattering conclusion about our dear president you cry foul, as though certain conclusions are out of bounds.

The first thing anyone trying to assist people to find “common ground” will insist upon is the elimination of universal statements. These statements, characterized by, “you always” or “every time” or “you never” typically are false because almost no one responds identically in every single situation. Your statement is false because I’ve read any number of your unflattering conclusions about the president and I did not always cry foul (or think they were out of bounds). You lack of nuance leads you to become guilty of making a false statement about me – I think you often lack similar nuance toward others.

The classic solution to make your false accusation true – and foster communication - involves adding the phrase, “I feel (or ‘believe’ or ‘think’) that…” to the front of the statement. Then we’ve got room to work toward common ground. In the absence of such nuance I’m left seriously doubting that common ground is the true goal – I’m left to speculate what purpose such communication is really intended to serve. Honestly – I think your gifts are worthy of the sincere quest for common ground. (The use of nuance in this way is just one tool for finding common ground [or at least engaging in civil discussion] - kind of like how Blair’s ability to show he listened closely was rightly held in high regard. Anyone earnestly working toward common ground would rapidly discover the value of reflective listening regardless of the impact that listening has on their position.)

If I wanted to hold you to the standard you seem to often hold Bush to I would say that your false statement was a public lie about my character. Of course calling it a “lie” tends to assume, as you recognize, not only that the statement is untrue, but that you were aware that it was untrue when you made it. Of course most people are aware that almost every critical statement about an individual’s behavior beginning with the words “every time” is likely to be untrue. Still there is room here for you to claim ignorance rather than having actively engaged in public lying about my character. (I believe you call this “Reagan’s bind.”)

This illustrates my second concern about the tone of your blog. For me to be certain you are lying about me requires either your confession, or my certain knowledge that you were aware that your statement was untrue. Unless you tell me that it was a lie I cannot be certain of it without overwhelming evidence or omniscience to assist me. Claiming certainty of a lie, without overwhelming evidence or confession, makes the claim of certainty a lie – regardless of the merits of the stated accusation.

On a regular basis (not only in your false statement about me) you seem to imply that you are gifted with remarkable mind reading skills. These assertions are not direct – rather they are implied by the repeated use of your gift. When you say “every time” I react a certain way it assumes your have knowledge of how I react every time.

These implied claims of mind reading capacity, when combined with the regular use of universal statements (which are really a byproduct of the mind reading) make it very difficult to develop a civil conversation. If I say:
- Fred Clark is incapable of, and unwilling to consider, my perspective.
- Fred has never listened to those who disagree with him with enough care or attention to understand their position.
- Fred has never entertained the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive.
- Fred’s inability to understand those who disagree with him is what Fred Clark is all about.
- It is not possible to achieve disagreement with Fred Clark because Fred will not accept the legitimacy of any disagreement.
- Fred offers only rancor, distortions of his critics' views, and recrimination.
- I am interested in common ground. Fred Clark is only interested in scorched earth.

I believe, on the basis of your repeated use of mind reading and universal declarations, and on the basis of your defamation of my character (I’m really just joking about the defamation part) that I have a stronger case for the validity of these sentences then you have against Bush.

So here’s the challenge. Bring in the nuance, eliminate the assumption of successful mind-reading, and bash away. At least seek to elevate your rhetoric to the standard of Tony Blair - who you rightly have commended. Seek common ground - or, alternatively, openly admit that such seeking is not at all your purpose.

p.s. Do others at least find some humor in the launch of Fred’s rancorous antirancor campaign?

p.p.s Here is a prewar Bush quote that both proves and disproves portions of your argument:

Reporter: I wonder why you think so many people around the world take a different view of the threat that Saddam Hussein poses than you and your allies.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I -- I appreciate societies in which people can express their opinion. That society -- free speech stands in stark contrast to Iraq.

Secondly, I've seen all kinds of protests since I've been the President. I remember the protests against trade. A lot of people didn't feel like free trade was good for the world. I completely disagree. I think free trade is good for both wealthy and impoverished nations. But that didn't change my opinion about trade. As a matter of fact, I went to the Congress to get trade promotion authority out.

I recognize there are people who -- who don't like war. I don't like war. I wish that Saddam Hussein had listened to the demands of the world and disarmed. That was my hope. That's why I first went to the United Nations to begin with, on September the 12th, 2002, to address this issue as forthrightly as I knew how. That's why, months later, we went to the Security Council to get another resolution, called 1441, which was unanimously approved by the Security Council, demanding that Saddam Hussein disarm.

I'm hopeful that he does disarm. But, in the name of peace and the security of our people, if he won't do so voluntarily, we will disarm him. And other nations will join him -- join us in disarming him.

And that creates a certain sense of anxiety; I understand that. Nobody likes war. The only thing I can do is assure the loved ones of those who wear our uniform that if we have to go to war, if war is upon us because Saddam Hussein has made that choice, we will have the best equipment available for our troops, the best plan available for victory, and we will respect innocent life in Iraq.

The risk of doing nothing, the risk of hoping that Saddam Hussein changes his mind and becomes a gentle soul, the risk that somehow -- that inaction will make the world safer, is a risk I'm not willing to take for the American people.

[Fred]

Oh-J:

I feel/believe you are being deliberately obtuse. But since I cannot read your mind, I am open to the possibility that this obtuseness is not deliberate. (Does this satisfy your ever-evolving criteria for civility? And isn't all this "I" talk and declaring of subjectivities a little, well, French?)

You again present a Bush quote in which he poses a false dichotomy between his view and a straw man caricature. Keep trying. I have indeed set the bar extremely low. You still haven't cleared it. Does this suggest anything to you?

Blair demonstrated a character and skill in his speech that I do not remember having seen Bush demonstrate. Ever. You don't seem able to recall any such incidents either. It is not "mind-reading" to draw conclusions from this. I am sorry if you don't like those conclusions. I am sorry if you don't like Occam's razor [I feel/believe/find-it-probable based on the pattern of behavior that I feel/believe you have demonstrated that it seems/appears to me that you tend not to agree that the simplest and most obvious answer is probably correct].

Your oh-so clever substitution of my name for Bush's in my statements above are an odd tack. This isn't an argument, it's a madlib. Consider:

Fred Clark bought a ranch in Crawford, Texas, in 1999.

Fred Clark stopped flying in the TANG after he failed to show up for his medical exam.

George W. Bush is 6' 2" tall.

Based on his record -- the public record -- I made a series of statements about GWB. I don't care if you consider these rude, I care whether or not they are true. They seem to me to be true.

Readers of this blog have encountered numerous instances that refute the madlibs you've constructed about me. You still haven't refuted -- or dealt with -- the substance of the statements I made about Bush.

Why not?

[oh]

Fred,

No comment on your false attack on my character? No resolution of Reagan's bind? Have you become someone who can act with casual disregard after making false attacks against friends?

I think I have dealt with the substance of your claim that it is hard to find Bush speaking in the same tone as that exhibited by Blair. I agree with you.

To leap from recognition of a difference to statements that imply you have comprehensive knowledge of the president's entire past and future seems to me an unworthy tactic in the same way that you disapprove of Bush's rhetorical tactics. To say, "George W. Bush would never make such a statement. He has never listened to those who disagree with him with enough care or attention to understand their position. He has never entertained the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive." implies that you know everything he has ever done in this regard and, (in the first sentence) everything he will ever do. Are you really claiming such knowledge or simply using divisive rhetoric (which is exactly what you claim the president is doing).

As you seem to be incapable of, or unwilling to, consider my concerns for a tone of dialogue that truly seeks common ground it looks (to me) like you're often living up to the accusations you level at Bush. I have no problem with you recognizing that Blair has spoken better than Bush on these matters - but by the same standard one can recognize that you often speak in a fashion far more rancorous than that of Bush.

[Fred]

"Have you become someone who can act with casual disregard after making false attacks against friends?"

Ah.

Sorry. I was too busy reading the text to notice the subtext.

You are not a victim here. If you feel like one, please believe me that this was not my intention. Please believe me also that, no disrespect or lack of affection intended, I wasn't thinking about you at all when I posted the above. Really, it's just what it appears to be -- a post commending Blair and condemning Bush.

You're correct, of course, that you don't literally cry foul EVERY time I reach an unflattering conclusion about the president. But good Lord dude, if hyperbole constitutes "lying" then Jesus Christ and the prophets were black-tongued devils.

Can I read your mind? No. But I can read your posts. You have a pattern here of responding -- at length and length and length -- to posts critical of GWB and/or polemical in nature.

(You don't seem to think polemics are ever appropriate. I do. That's really the beef here, isn't it?)

It never occurred to me that anyone would interpret the post above as the launching of an "antirancor campaign." It's not. It's a bit of a jeremiad based on Blair's illumination of one of the president's serious shortcomings.

My main quarrel with the president in the post above is not that I think his tone is impolite or uncivil. My quarrel is that he seems uninterested in the actual arguments, opinions and motives of those who disagree with him. I wouldn't mind him employing a bit of rancor if I thought he had any idea where he was aiming it.

And pleasepleasepleasepleasepleasepleaseplease consider, with this post and in the future, that some essays are just that -- essays. One takes a position and argues it. Vigorously. One says: Here is a claim, buttressed by supporting illustrations, appeals to history, and/or arguments that seem to endorse this conclusion. Refute it if you will.

This is one way that essayists search for the truth and, yes, for common ground.

Final note here, because I'm at work (so please don't take additional offense if I've failed to respond in sufficient detail): I believe that hyperbole, irony and sarcasm are legitimate rhetorical tactics. You have argued that they are not. Yet we both employ them. Interesting.

[oh]

Fred, would it be correct to summarize your position as one in which you find it unnecessary to hold yourself to the same standard you hold others to? Reagan's bind is a bind only when it applies to others?

I have no problem with you vigorously arguing your position. In fact, you've persuaded me to agree with you on the specific reference.

Still, unless you are claiming to be all-knowing, I think I've successfully refuted all of these sentences below:
- George W. Bush would never make such a statement. (You have to be all knowing of Bush’s past and future to make this claim.)

For these you just have to be all knowing of Bush’s past and/or present:
- He has never listened to those who disagree with him with enough care or attention to understand their position.
- He has never entertained the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive.
- Turning in recrimination on those who disagree with him is what George W. Bush is all about.
- It is not possible to achieve disagreement with George W. Bush because Bush will not accept the legitimacy of any disagreement.
- He offers instead only rancor, distortions of his critics' views, and recrimination.
- George W. Bush is only interested in scorched earth.

So are you all-knowing, unaware that you cannot know all you need to make these claims, or simply twisting information you know you do not possess? How do you escape the bind - or do you believe you transcend the standards you apply to others?

I genuinely believe that you’ll be more persuasive in your essays if you find a way to write that eliminates the kind of statements that place you in the bind. Anyone with a high school logic class can recognize that you do not have the knowledge necessary to credibly make the assertions you’ve made in the statements I just listed above. How did you come to believe that such credibility damaging assertions actually strengthen your arguments?

[Fred]

And anyone with an elementary school literacy recognizes hyperbole. Cut the crap and stop playing dumb.

[oh]

Ah, again with the mind-reading...

So you're saying I should read these false statements as creative exaggerations (hyperbole) on your part? Once again you're choosing to write in a manner that is "deliberately unnuanced" to such a degree that the resulting statements are untrue. Would that mean that your response to the bind is to admit to, "simply twisting (exaggerating) information you know you do not possess?"

Do you really lose that much by being careful about nuancing statements in such a way that they remain true? Would you mind noting which statements are "deliberately unnuanced" and which you actually believe are true to help the less sophisticated among us readers? Maybe a small asterisk or something.

And what about my final paragraph strikes you as "crap"? I'm genuinely challenging you to be a better writer - in keeping with the challenge you issued to Bush to be a better speaker.

[oh]

p.s. I'm defining "better" in that last sentence as more able to "surmount this division and seek common ground" and not "to turn in recrimination on each other."

[Fred]

Josh,

Seriously, you've wandered into that weird realm of people who keep careful track of every sleight because Jesus told them to forgive others "70 times seven times" and they're waiting for payback on sleight No. 491.

Your noticing that hyperbole is hyperbolic does not amount to your "refuting" anything. (Although it might refute the claim that literacy and fluency consist entirely of phonics.)

I'm not violating any rules I've set up for others here, but again, the rules you're suggesting would absolutely render Jesus, Paul and all the prophets as hideous liars. Shall we rip all the hyperbole out of our Bibles for failing to live up to your standard?

The statements I made about Bush are, indeed, sweeping. That should make them easier to rebut factually if you are inclined to do so. I said Bush is "incapable" of making a statement like Blair's. Thank you for noticing that this is a broad, hyperbolic, aggressively sweeping way of stating the case.

Now, your job here is not to offer sarcastic sermons against sarcasm, but to provide a counter-example. The bar is, as I said, extremely low. You need provide only one.

I'm still waiting.

[Nick Kiddle]

Fred,
Can I just say at this point that you rock? You've got me in stitches here, and whatever oh likes to say, I find your arguments eloquent and persuasive.

[Nick Kiddle]

"we can be reminded of another reason for respecting Blair – he actually took on a cause that he believed in knowing that it would likely have a high political cost. "

I'm not sure which cause you're referring to, but the majority of his record doesn't show much evidence of this. In fact, to someone as cynical as me, it shows pretty much the opposite. He never comes down firmly on one side of an issue; he sits on the fence trying to offend as few voters as possible.

[Marley]

Dear Oh,
Since you're so concerned about the rapidly diminishing conduct of civil discourse, may I thoughtfully suggest you search out some other blogs for your sermon? Perhaps you might, after careful searching I'm sure, find a conservative blog or perhaps two that does not meet your standards of civility. Or, better yet, maybe you could tackle talk radio. Now there's a place that could use some guidance on civil discourse! I've frequently heard things by Rush Limbaugh and others, if you can imagine, that have offended my tender sensibilities. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

[oh]

Fred,

You wrote: "You're correct, of course, that you don't literally cry foul EVERY time I reach an unflattering conclusion about the president. But good Lord dude, if hyperbole constitutes "lying" then Jesus Christ and the prophets were black-tongued devils."

So you acknowledge that you statement is untrue - but not lying. Maybe an asterisk next to those statements would help.

Oh, and have you noticed that Jesus and the prophets claim to be speaking on behalf of God? Is that the claim you’re making? Should I be prepared to worship in the presence of the divine?

The tone of Jesus and the prophets is certainly an interesting one to justify your own by - particularly when partnered with the easy dismissal, "You are not a victim here."

You wrote: "You have a pattern here of responding...to posts critical of GWB and/or polemical in nature." I agree with you - that is my pretty consistent pattern. Was it painful to make that statement without including the words "never" or "every time." In the absence of those words you’ve elicited my agreement! You successfully found common ground.

You wrote: You don't seem to think polemics are ever appropriate. I do. That's really the beef here, isn't it? As should be obvious I’m always up for a constructive argument. I think we have that in common. (By the way, great use of the word “seem” in your first sentence and a question - rather than a statement - in your second.)

You wrote: My quarrel is that [the president] seems uninterested in the actual arguments, opinions and motives of those who disagree with him. Excellent! Does it really damage your argument to use the word “seems” in that sentence rather than the word “is”? And can you see how using the word “is” would have implied an omniscience we generally grant only to those like Jesus and the prophets?

You wrote: I believe that hyperbole, irony and sarcasm are legitimate rhetorical tactics. You have argued that they are not. Your second sentence is false. I never argued against these tactics. I’m basically arguing that if you hope to seek common ground using the word “seems” in the sentences above - so that the statement remains one you can credibly claim – is tactically better than using the universal “is.” The principle is: Don’t make a universal claim unless you intend to claim universal knowledge. Don’t use the rhetoric of Jesus or the prophets unless you believe you are speaking with the voice of God.

The same principle can be applied to all of the sentences I’ve highlighted previously:

- I doubt George W. Bush would ever make such a statement.
- He seems unable to listen to those who disagree with him with enough care or attention to understand their position.
- He does not seem to entertain the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive.
- I believe that turning in recrimination on those who disagree with him is what George W. Bush is all about.
- It seems impossible to achieve disagreement with George W. Bush because I’ve never seen an example of Bush accepting the legitimacy of any disagreement.
- Does he every offer anything except rancor, distortions of his critics' views, and recrimination?
- I think George W. Bush is only interested in scorched earth.

Look dude – no bind! (Obviously you could write better sentences then these revisions without discarding the principle.) While I might still disagree with these sentences the ensuing debate would center on Bush’s character – not on your exaggerated implied claim to know that which only Jesus and the prophets knew. Opportunities for common ground, or at least for achieving disagreement, will, I believe, be increased without any cost to the force of your arguments.

[Fred]

Josh --

Ah, yes, obviously I was claiming to be divine. It's not a logical conclusion, or a probable one, or one that could be reached by arguing in good faith, but don't let that stop you. What better way to illustrate your case for civil persuasion than non-sequitur sarcasm and the Chewbacca offense?

If your whole point, buried in the thousands of words it has taken you to get there, is that you'd like me to say "seems" more often, well, okay then. Although that doesn't get you anywhere near the claim that the post above is "refuted" only that it is less persuasive to people like yourself than it might have otherwise been. (Any luck with that counter-example? You've clearly had time to look.)

Re: Reagan's Bind. I honestly cannot figure out whether you honestly can't figure this out. But since you keep bringing it up in situations where it doesn't apply -- situations not even remotely analogous to those few in which I've used it -- I must conclude, assuming you are arguing in good faith, that you just don't get it.

Sigh.

One more time -- S-L-O-W-L-Y:

Reagan's Bind applies to a situation in which both of the following are true:

A. A person's statements or actions can be accounted for by one of two, and only two, options: 1) malicious intent, or 2) credulousness/carelessness.

and

B. The statement or actions were such that either motive/cause -- malice or credulity -- is equally damning.

You seem to think any instance of dishonesty or inaccuracy, however trivial (or actual), would invoke this situation. No. Read it again.

Dishonesty, in fact, isn't even a requirement. Take for example the statement, "But officer, I paid some guy $50 for this stereo -- I didn't know it was stolen." That statement may be true, but the officer won't care whether you deliberately or unwittingly came into possession of the stolen goods.

He won't use the term, but when he slaps the cuffs on you will nonetheless be caught in Reagan's Bind, whether you pretend to understand the concept or not.

[oh]

Fred,

How is the statement: Every time I reach an unflattering conclusion about our dear president you cry foul, as though certain conclusions are out of bounds. not an example, among others, of Reagan's bind? You acknowledge this statement is untrue - but have not yet made it clear if you acted with malicious intent or were simply careless. I think either motive/cause should feel at least a bit damning.

You've attempted to shift the burden of proof to me. But I'm not the one making the universal claims. I think the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. I'm happy to say that I do not know if Bush has ever "entertained the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive." You are the one claiming that Bush has never done this - I'm just asking for proof of how you know Bush has never done this.

My claim is that I do not think you have the knowledge required to credibly make a number of claims you make in this post and in some of the comments - whether about me or the president.

My secondary claim is that I think you hurt your credibility by making claims in the tone of Jesus and the prophets.

How about I'll offer proof of my claims and you offer proof of yours.

[Fred]

Can you really not distinguish between the emphatic and the literal? Do you really need an asterisk next to all non-literal statements?

And is this really the crux of your complaint -- that I sometimes use language that cannot be interpreted according to the hamfisted literalism of backwoods fundamentalism?

You begin with:

1. All use of hyperbole is lying.

I disagreed, and reached for examples of some who used hyperbole for emphasis in the service of truth. I might've said Mark Twain, or Cicero or Lincoln or Thoreau or some other secular voice, but -- unfortunately it turns out -- I said Jesus and the prophets. You thus asserted:

2. It's okay for them, because they speak for God. Lying/hyperbole is to be expected/accepted from those who speak for God.

and

3. All others who use emphatic, nonliteral language are therefore blasphemously claiming to speak for God.

I disagreed with No. 1, and I think No. 2 and No. 3 are full of shit,* but the momentum of your argument is admirable.

Here's Webster's:

hy per bole n exaggeration for effect and not meant to be taken literally (Ex: He's as strong as an ox)

You -- and you're pretty much alone in this among non-Asperger's English speakers -- would say that the dictionary's example is a lie (and also blasphemous, or something like that).

The rest of us would point out that your inability to distinguish between the literal and the emphatic leads you to all sorts of strange and illegitimate conclusions.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

* A figurative idiom suggesting equivalent worth or repugnance. It is not intended or interpreted generally as meaning that something is literally filled with excrement. While the idiom is not literally true, it is not a lie. You asked for asterisks.

[oh]

Fred,

Thanks for the asterisk. I'm still smiling about it. While I may not agree with it your footnote is classic humor.

So I think you're saying that you recognize that none of your seven statements below are literally true?

- George W. Bush would never make such a statement.
- He has never listened to those who disagree with him with enough care or attention to understand their position.
- He has never entertained the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive.
- Turning in recrimination on those who disagree with him is what George W. Bush is all about.
- It is not possible to achieve disagreement with George W. Bush because Bush will not accept the legitimacy of any disagreement.
- He offers instead only rancor, distortions of his critics' views, and recrimination.
- George W. Bush is only interested in scorched earth.

Maybe it's just me but I don't immediately recognize that these statements were not meant to be taken literally. It's easier to see hyperbole when the statement includes some clear sarcastic exaggeration or a nonhuman metaphor (ox, excrement). As a friend I'm letting you know that my inability to readily distinguish between your statements of belief and your use of hyperbole diminishes your capacity for persuading me to your position. If I am not the only one who has difficulty in this area (which seems to be the case given some of the other comments on your post), and if being more careful in your use of hyperbole would assist you to find common ground with others (it certainly would with me), and if you can communicate your argument just as forcefully (and even more persuasively) in other ways, it seems to me that there is a pretty compelling case for a more cautious use of hyperbole.

And cautious doesn’t necessarily mean less forcefully. I think it’s better (in the sense defined previously) to say, “Bush is full of shit” (it’s clearly hyperbolic) than, “Bush will not accept the legitimacy of any disagreement.” I think it's even better to say, “Bush does not seem to accept the legitimacy of any disagreement” - simply because "does not seem to" recognizes that this is a perception - not a proven fact. If your goal is common ground it makes sense to minimize – or at least clearly delineate - the hyperbolic. Of course this is all stuff you know – and I know that you are more than capable of. Knowing your abilities I’ve been left to wonder what motivates you to write in ways that diminish, rather than increase, opportunities for common ground. You may have a good argument for doing so – as may Bush.

This truly is the core of my argument. Modify the statements that you say imply are hyperbole and I basically agree with your assertion that Blair uses a better strategy in speaking on this topic than Bush does. And I think your speculation that this says something about Bush’s character is interesting – worthy of recognition and reflection upon by citizens. In fact, if Bush is not as close-minded as your hyperbole suggests, I think it would be wise for a friend to show Bush your post. I think your post points out some type of weakness – of course Bush might have a compelling argument as to why he chooses such rhetoric. I didn’t know your argument was “hyperbole” until I asked – and you seem to feel justified in that choice of rhetoric despite my pointing out that I, for one, am left feeling that in almost all of your responses:
- You are not listening to those who disagree with you with enough care or attention to understand their position.
- You do not seem to entertain the notion that those who disagree with him may do so with integrity, conviction and, yes, patriotic motive.
- You do not seem to accept the legitimacy of my disagreement with you.

You did come closer to addressing my feelings when you wrote, If your whole point, buried in the thousands of words it has taken you to get there, is that you'd like me to say "seems" more often, well, okay then. Generally however you seem to have a suspicion that my goal is something other than suggesting that you communicate in a manner more likely, I believe, to assist you in finding common ground and to maximize your persuasive influence. We do have political disagreements – but I think all of my comments here, and many elsewhere, have been focused on challenging your rhetorical strategies rather than your political instincts. This post was a classic opportunity to raise this challenge because, more or less, I am raising the same type of questions about your strategies that you are raising about Bush’s.

Josh

[Fred]

Still waiting for that counter-example ...

[alsafi]

Not to interrupt the nice little argument, but nowhere has been addressed my contention that Bush has a duty and responsibility to fairly represent all the people of the US (even those he disagrees with--it is, in fact, a duty inherent in the position he holds), and Fred does not have that duty and responsibility, since he's not president. It seems ridiculous to me to argue that everyone must be held to the exact same standards and cannot criticise unless they are perfect themselves. May we not criticise the failings of, say, priests who break their vows of chastity, simply because we ourselves have sex?

[oh]

I think I've argued pretty effectively for my central claim. My claim is that if I am not the only one who has difficulty in recognizing your use of hyperbole (which seems to be the case given some of the other comments on your post), and if being more careful in your use of hyperbole would assist you in your implied desire to find common ground with others (it certainly would with me), and if you can communicate your argument just as forcefully (and even more persuasively) in other ways, it seems to me that there is a pretty compelling case for a more cautious use of hyperbole.

When I disregard the statements you acknowledge are not literally true, I think the distinction you've noticed between Bush and Blair is probably accurate and helpful. I never claimed I could find a counter-example of your literally true statements. I claimed that some of your statements could not be literally true, and tended to undermine your implied desire to find common ground. You’ve now acknowledged the validity of the former claim, and perhaps “well, okay then” acknowledges the validity of the latter.

It seems like we might be close to common ground.

[Fred]

... still waiting ...

[oh]

Fred,

Does this "waiting" tactic imply that you're avoiding responses to my recent comments? Are you actively avoiding common ground?

You're asking me to provide an example of something I never claimed to be the case. I asked you to prove that your claims were the case. Then you acknowledged that your claims were not literally true. We agree on this. It's common ground.

I feel no obligation to find an example of something I never claimed to be the case (this is the third time I've rejected this disingenuous challenge). Do you feel any responsibility to respond to the comments of a friend? Or are you incapable of, and unwilling to consider, my perspective?

I am interested in common ground. Are you only interested in scorched earth?

Josh

[Fred]

Yeah, clearly you're being ignored and I haven't demonstrated any patience.

What comments haven't I already responded to repeatedly at exhaustive, exhausting length?

You began this thread, btw, with the suggestion that we "go to the White House Web site and actually read the things Bush says."

Now you say: "I feel no obligation to find an example of something I never claimed to be the case (this is the third time I've rejected this disingenuous challenge)."

Yep. Now you're rejecting your own challenge as "disingenuous."

You don't need me to chime in. You've got a vibrant argument going on with yourself.

[Fred]

Josh --

You haven't responded yet. Does this betrayal of our friendship mean you're that thin-skinned?

[Fred]

Josh --

You STILL haven't responded. Aren't you interested in common ground?

[Fred]

Josh--

I can only conclude from lack of response that your claims of seeking common ground were disingenuous.

[Fred]

Josh--

I can only conclude from lack of response that your claims of seeking common ground were disingenuous.

[Fred]

Josh --

I will not be IGNORED David!

(The blogger returns to his kitchen to find something boiling on the stove. He lifts the lid to find ... oh no! -- it's his beloved pet rabbit!)

[Fred]

Josh --

You still haven't responded to my earlier point about the importance of maintaining a disciplined distinction between definite and indefinite articles. I don't need to cite specific examples, but it's clear to me that on several occasions you have said "the" where you ought to have said "a."

This makes you a liar, guilty of every substantive claim you've ever made about anyone else, doesn't it?

(that's a direct question. why haven't you answered it?)

(that's a direct question too.)

[Fred]

Josh --

Well, what have you to say for yourself? (Answer in 25 words or less.)

[Fred]

Josh --

OK, that may have been overkill, but you said that I needed to make sure exaggerations for emphasis were over-the-top enough not to be mistaken for literal statements.

[Fred]

Josh --

At this point, your continued silence can only be taken as evasion and avoidance of my powerfully incoherent effusiveness.

I therefore have license to nurture both an aggrieved petulance and a misplaced triumphalism. Ergo: How could you do this to me? I'm terribly hurt. And also: Neener-neener-neener, I win. You lose.

(None of this makes any sense to me, of course, but I'm trying my best to follow the guidelines for civil discourse you've laid out for me.)

[oh]

Fred,

I'm a bit of a loss for how to respond. Or how to understand your last flurry of posts. I'm sorry if my suggestions simply feel like some sort of triumphalism.

When I said, "go to the White House Web site and actually read the things Bush says" I was assuming that your claims about Bush's rhetoric were meant to be literally true. I wouldn't have suggested it if I had understood your use of hyperbole. I see little reason to challenge statements you are not claiming are literally true.

Let me say as well that I respect what you're doing. And post after post I'm thankful for your take on things and reporting of angles I certainly wouldn't have thought of. I apologize if it just felt like petulance. I was trying, aggressively, to offer some constructive criticism and understand your choice of strategies in writing certain posts like the one above.

So thanks for at least giving it as much energy as you did. Keep up the good work.

Josh

[Fred]

Josh --

I wrote the post above because I believe it to be true. There is no strategy or choice of strategies at work there. I kind of think there oughtn't to be.

I do want to clear up some of the mess from our overheated discussion of hyperbole.

That discussion began as a result of the following hyperbolic statement from me to you here in the comments:

"Every time I reach an unflattering conclusion about our dear president you cry foul ..."

You interpreted the hyperbolic idiom "every time" literally, and therefore construed this as both A) a "false attack on [your] character," and B) a false statement -- an evil lie in violation of Christian probity, civil discourse, Reagan's bind, Heinlein's razor, the Production Code,* the Geneva Conventions* and the rules and regulations of Major League Baseball.*

That reaction strikes me as, at best, petulant nonsense.

(The preceding sentence is not an "attack on your character." It is a critique of your statements.)

The claims in the post above, such as:

"George W. Bush would never make such a statement."

-- are meant literally. I said them because they are true.

No hidden agenda. No strategy. I observed a true thing in the world, recognized the pattern at work, deduced a general rule, and I wrote that general rule down.

You at first objected to the substance of this claim, by seeking to provide counter-examples to this general rule. (This didn't turn out to be easy.)

But you also raised a two-part objection which focused on semantics.

First, you find my use of uncouched, simple, declarative sentences troublesome. You would prefer -- particularly in the case of such generalities -- more cautious language. You recommend prefacing such statements with "I feel" or "I think" or using words like "seems" and "appears" more often. You suggest that this would be more persuasive.

Thus when I say things like, "I said them because they are true." You would recommend instead, "I said them because they seem to me to be true."

This was the notion to which I said/say "okay then."

I see your point here, although I disagree that couching statements in cautious, epistemologically timid terms is always helpful.

But that disagreement is less important than our other point of contention.

The second semantic objection you raise is that general conclusions like those I make above are not provable. So far, so good.

But then you argue that that which is not provable is not true. This is not valid.

My general conclusions about Bush are unprovable. Most things are. (Certainty is, like, sooo 19th-century).

You therefore conclude that these statements are therefore illegitimate. Why? I don't understand that "therefore."

Unprovable =/= Untrue

Nor does the assertion that an unprovable claim is true constitute a claim of omniscience.

Rather than simply attempting to disprove my particular statements, you seem to be attempting to disprove the possibility of statements.

Most things we need to know are unknowable with certainty -- and the character of our elected leaders is one of these things.

My general conclusions about Bush may not be provable, and they may not be pleasant, but they are far from baseless. They are rather, reasonable conclusions based on careful observation and the available evidence.

Please note, however, that while these statements cannot be proved, they can be disproved. Thus my repeatedly prodding you to resume the quest for counter-examples that you began at the start of this thread.

You characterized this prodding as evasion. It is not. It is an attempt to get us back to the central question: "Are the statements in the post above true or are they false?"

It is, perhaps, a measure of how far afield into the ether this thread traveled that such a question could ever seem evasive.