Firstly, arguments from authority are a known fallacy. It doesnt matter what the source is, if the facts are correct. Anyone edit, but there are talk and discussion forums for corrections and debate.
The Basic facts is you didnt like the FACTS presented so you gave us a litany of your opinions instead.
Wait a minute. First of all, your last two entries contained a lot and I was just wondering which part you believed supported your allegation. Second of all, I was trying to be nice about your using Mansoor Ijaz and the Drudge Report as “credible” resources. Thirdly, I thought you’d be pleased that I’m not ignoring you.
Mansoor who? None of those links are to the Drudge Report and if they were that is certainly a valid source. Just because he sometimes posts things you do not like does not make him unreliable. The argument is over. Several people have produced solid facts that prove you wrong and you have produced nothing but polls and opinions. Your refusal to face facts and your continued support of propaganda that is harmful to our country and which undeniably endangers our troops does not justify any further effort on my part. I am ending this before it becomes uncharitable and will pray for you. Be well.
Not that I have to get in the last word, but you are the one who listed something from Mansoor Ijaz. He’s a FOX News opinion giver. And your second link is definitely a link that copies off the Drudge Report.
I didn’t make an argument from authority. I stated a matter of fact. Their own disclaimer validates this: Another error of fact. There is no Iraqi debacle, unless you’re describing things from the Baathist position, of course. 25 million people have been freed from a dictator. They can now vote in free elections and have been doing so in huge numbers each time. There’s another election on Dec 15th. Debacle? Not even close, IMO.
Fallacious argument. Because Ijaz is a contributor to Fox News doesn’t, by itself, invalidate what he has said or written regarding the Clinton refusal to take OBL when he was offered.
As it appeared in the L.A. Times, an blatantly left wing Bush-hating source.
It is a link in Sudan that covers Drudge’s commentary on the Vanity Fair article which was absolutely correct and factual as can be seen here:
If you originally commented on Clinton’s failures why do you attack anyone who mentions them as nothing more than “Clinton Haters” and make comments like “Then I thought that it just never ends with the Clinton haters; 5 years out of office and they still can’t let go. Move on, my friend”?
Yes, you are wrong about that too as several people have proven.
You can think that about me if you want to but you have presented no facts to ignore. As I and others have pointed out, polls and opinions are not facts. You are welcome.
2shelbys had written “Mansoor who?” I was just telling him/her who his/her source was.
While I remain puzzled over the argument here, I’ll continue to forge ahead. Let me remind you that my reason for identifying Mansoor Ijaz has to do with the fact that you wrote, “Mansoor who?” after listing him as a source. It appeared that you didn’t know the author on one your links. The same goes for Drudge.
I didn’t know that we were supposed to be demonstrating that President Bush lied. I’d post my own contention, but someone informed me earlier that we were supposed to be commenting on the original editorial.
IMO, that reason has to be “Bush lied” in order for the liberal/leftist view of the world to be valid.
Flashback to 9/11 – there were minor bits of evidence here and there that al Queda might try to hijack planes, and in other places where Muslims were taking flight lessons, probably in separate places where the government wasn’t allowed to share information, and the Left’s background music was “Bush knew and didn’t do anything to stop it!”
And there’s the rub. Critics of the President feel justified in making all sorts of claims without actually having to provide proof (and, no, Thekla, opinion polls aren’t proof). These critics then sit back and demand that others prove the negative of their evidence-less contention.
The Dems decided this is the way to go, i.e. Bush lied, and they have done a very good job of saying it often enough that the majority now believe it. But that’s a subject for another day–why so many folks who do not read the newspaper, do not watch news casts or who really have no clue of what is going on in the world, latch on to a sound bite on tv and take it as gospel. I have never understood this irrational hatred of Bush.
Now there’s an interesting comparison, the Dems have said that Bush lied so often, the public now believe it. If this is the case, that repeated offerings eventually convince the public that something that is wrong is right, does this explain why the public believe that the Iraqi’s had WMD’s when they didn’t, that Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11, when they weren’t. Could it actually be that Bush (et al) has said things so often that the public now believe him? Did he lie, NO, was he guilty of uttering truthless inexactitudes? Almost certainly.
President Bush never claimed Iraq was directly responsible for 9/11. The claim that he did so is yet another lie propagated by the Democratic Party.
Yet another untruth. Saddam Hussein’s regime did have WMD. Now it doesn’t.