I just read the transcript of his speech — classic Gore. The cliched references to the Founding Fathers, the reference to a Supreme Court case, the excursions into Greek and Roman history — Al Gore the pedantic pseudo-intellectual at his usual standard. But here’s the catch:
« But now the extensive independent investigation by the bipartisan commission formed to study the 9/11 attacks has just reported that there was no meaningful relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda of any kind. »
Talk about artful
He doesn’t say the commission reports. He says the investigation reports. I wasn’t aware that an investigation was the kind of entity that can report. In fact, I’m rather sure that an investigation is metaphysically limited to, well, investigating. Why this strange « categoty mistake » (to borrow an expression from Gilbert Ryle)? It’s quite simple: the Commission hasn’t reported anything. Those were staff statements, not endorsed by the Commission. As Commissioner Bob Kerrey put it, we (the Commissioners) don’t have anything to do with that click this over here now.
« And that’s understandable, because if Iraq had nothing to do with the attack or the organization that attacked us, then that means the President took us to war when he didn’t have to. »
Earth to Gore: we didn’t invoke the self-defense articles of the UN charter when we went into Iraq. We cited UN Security Council resolutions. Had we proof that Iraq had collaborated, we would have cited the self-defense articles. We didn’t cite the self-defense articles, therefore we didn’t have proof of collaboration on 9/11. Modus Tollens, the contrapositive. Tomorrow, Al, a lesson on football. A sneak preview of tomorrow’s lesson: « This, Al, is a football. Am I going to fast for you? »
Mr. Mahan 1) « Regardless that you think your tax accountant is, “morally accountable for misleading” you, it is you that is legally liable that your tax return is accurate. »
2) « If you contend that in the past 50 years presidents have always, “used their rhetoric to make the public believe something while utilizing methods of persuasion that are factually correct, but misleading,” then why is GWB’s alleged deception outstanding? Upcoming election? »
I do not believe I made that claim that it is outstanding, although I do believe that the consequences of going to war with Iraq is a little more consequential than a healthcare bill, or some other piece of legislation. However, I do believe that the upcoming election has little to do with it. Whether it is selling a budget to Congress, or pushing for some other piece of legislation, or rallying support for a war, presidents use the tools at their disposal. My claim is a counter to the contention that the president has no moral obligation beyond being factually accurate.
3) « According to the preliminary findings of the 9-11 commission the claim that you are, “suggesting that he mislead the American people into believing that there was a connection between them when he knew that no evidence supported such a contention” is patently false. The evidence SUPPORTS a connection. »
If you re-read my post, I believe it was made clear that the connection in question was between Iraq and the attacks of 9/11.
Both the president as well as the 9/11 commission agreed that there was NO evidence of such a connection
4) « I take it your position is that you don’t have any proof that GWB lied about an Iraq/9-11 connection yet you just think you haven’t uncovered it. Ooo that’s rich. »
You « take it » wrongly and it has become clear to me that everything I have written since that start of this debate has been totally ignored by you. I will say it yet again, as clearly as I can: The administration mislead the American people by suggesting that Iraq was connected to the attacks of 9/11 when they knew no evidence suggested such a link. As for me thinking I haven’t uncovered proof yet, I am not really sure where this statement comes from. Proof of what, I have already conceded that the deceit I have been referring to is not connected with overt lies.