thatsjuststupid.com

The far Right Wing John Birch Society published a list of purported “fallacies” and “rebuttals”. Here are a few from the list.

FALLACY: If the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq now, the country will collapse into chaos, civil war, and dictatorship, and will almost certainly end up being ruled by a regime hostile to us.

REBUTTAL: That is certainly possible if we pull out now, but we have no guarantee against that same outcome if we remain in Iraq three more years, 10 more years, or 20 more years, after expending thousands more lives of American soldiers and hundreds of billions more taxpayer dollars.

The current unquestioned power and influence of the Iraqi insurgency with its influx of terrorists joining the Iraqi-battlefront from Iran & Al-Qaeda makes JBS’s casual label of “possibility” reprehensibly dishonest. In reality, with the swift withdrawal of American military and influence in Iraq today, the probability of the infant government of Iraq collapsing into militantly anti-US disarray is virtually a mathematical certitude.

FALLACY: The huge turnout of Iraqi voters in the January and December 2005 election proves President Bush’s hopeful vision that this “is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East.”

REBUTTAL: It “proves” nothing of the sort. Iraq has no history of “democracy,” constitutional or otherwise, and it is the height of imperial conceit to expect a couple of elections under a military occupation to change thousands of years of cultural, religious, and political tradition.

While it is indeed naive to claim that 2 successful elections in a country experiencing Democracy for the first time “proves” a solidly positive future, it is more than naive and increasingly insulting to ignore the massive regional impact and significance of both events. The terms “imperial conceit” and use of “military occupation” are dead giveaways that this list of rebuttals is not seriously grounded in fact or relevancy, but is rather a crackpot ideological attack.

The word “imperial” is nonsense in its serious application, as no accepted definition of the word applies to the current American military forces overseeing action in Iraq. The word means to “have supreme authority” or rule. JBS uses this term despite successful formation of an Iraqi government and Constitution achieved without US force or influence.

Likewise, the context of “a couple of elections under a military occupation” is an insidious and unfounded accusation.

FALLACY: But we must support democracy if we hope to stop terrorism. As President Bush said in his second Inaugural Address: “So, it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.”

REBUTTAL: If “democracy” is our Holy Grail, then President Bush will have to be willing to accept majority votes that may be unpalatable. After all, Venezuela’s Communist leader, Hugo Chavez, was democratically elected. As was his pro-terrorist, anti-American Marxist comrade, President Lula de Silva of Brazil.

The use of this response is not a “rebuttal”. A rebuttal refutes a point by proving with evidence, that point to false or erroneous. This response not only does neither, but it ignores statements by Administration officials claiming they will not intervene if radical choices are ultimately made (arguing rather that their position is to foster a society that discourages radicals, but does not forcefully disqualify them from running or winning elected office).

The suppression of this key fact makes this point not only nonsensical, but now disshonest.

FALLACY: We must not lose our resolve because of setbacks and casualties; we must “stay the course” in the war against terror.

REBUTTAL: Stay which course? And for how long, and to what end, and at what cost?

Also not a rebuttal of any fashion. “What course?”, “how long?”, “to what end?” and “at what cost?” are all questions that have been several times addressed by the Bush Administration. If the JBS does not like or agree with their answers, they should attack them in a factual manner. Ignoring them completely as if they don’t exist, when a simple search on Whitehouse.gov (or even google) could fill these gaps of ignorance makes this list all the more pathetic.

FALLACY: George W. Bush did not lie us into war. He made the best decision he could based on the intelligence he had — and the Democrats, using the same intelligence, came to the same conclusion.

REBUTTAL: That “consensus” only proves either bipartisan ignorance or bipartisan treachery. The evidence that was used as the strongest argument for invading and occupying Iraq has been shown to be false, and there is strong reason to believe that elected officials in both parties knew the evidence was false, or at least highly suspect. Those who challenged the phony “intelligence” have been vindicated.

Even if the reader were to assume that the fallacious line of “that consensus only proves ignorance or treachery” is true, it is not proof or even an opposing argument to the fact that there is no factual grounds for the accusation that the President “lied” us into war.

Furthermore, it is a fabrication that ANY evidence in the public record exists (let along “strong” evidence) that any politician or person of power in the American or government or government abroad “knew” pre-war intelligence was false. What there IS evidence of is conflicting reports on facts contained in international memos that were used in the decision to invade Iraq. However, even with these conflicts of information taken into consideration, it is out of form for a leader of a large country to err on the side of trusting an emboldened enemy.