Moneyguy -
I haven't labeled you here; although I will observe you've pulled a Kerry in claiming I have (he loves to accuse others of questioning his patriotism when they haven't, in order to get all self-righteous).

I don't think there is anything wrong with "jumping to conclusions" as you put it, as long as you're willing to reconsider/revise once you've landed (if not in mid-air). Otherwise, every time any issue came up you'd have to go through the relativist calculus of "where am I going to end up on this issue" ab initio; which is an enormous waste of effort. If you apply your education, experience and wit, analogize responsibly and take stock of the logical consequences of where you land (so to speak) you're likely to "jump" to some conclusion anyway.

Knowing now how you define "weak thinking", I agree with your definition (which was not self-evident) but maintain that you cast that very widely. More to the point, seconded David's acutely weak casting of that term, I suppose.

Declaring "weak thinking," as we've seen above, is to me another route to end-run a opposing position. "Well, it's just weak thinking, I don't even have to put forth my argument b/c obviously this here ideologue is just parroting back something so banal on its face that it's beneath me to have to structure an actual response; I'll just condescend to belittle the messenger w/o having to tackle the message."

This, to me, is craven. More to the point, it's craven when employed by either "side" to dismiss another's opinion just b/c it's not your opinion -- "well, if they've come to a conclusion different from my own, it must be 'weak thinking'." This irks me more when those on the Right do it b/c we're supposed to be more about "fact" than "truth"; and, frankly, they cede the opportunity to dismantle the opposing position. OTOH, I'm used to this sort of haughty evasion technique from the Left.

I have no problem with someone declaring "weak thinking" and then proceeding to unpack the flaws, conclusory statements or lies of the opposing side, however.

I do find it interesting, MG, that you refer to constant character assassination from both sides. It seems much more lopsided as far as I can tell.

Having said that, that taking Kerry to task for pathological flip-flops doesn't strike me as character assassination, it's more character elucidation -- this is what the guy does ALL THE TIME and it's important to know that he's seldom met a principle he doesn't like both sides of. Strangely enough, much of it of late has come from the media, and not Karl Rove and the Kerry-created "Republican Attack Machine". Kerry b!tched the other morning after Good Morning America (I think) that b/c they were calling him on his medal story, they (one of the most Liberal packs of bobbleheads on the air) were acting on orders from the GOP -- or something to that effect! So, at least in his mind, anybody that points out his deceits must be ideologically motivated to assassinate his character.

David's ... um ... points are scurrlious as well -- "hiding behind the law" -- name a sitting president called to give testimony on a matter of the public record. This is not "hiding", it's doing exactly what's been done in the past -- as finstone points out in his post. And what "law" exactly is being hidden behind? This is a government of enumerated powers; that which is not proscribed is OK; there would have to be some "law" shielding W or Cheney from being compelled to appear.

I think my guess as to efficacy of the dialogue was borne out in that both sides said W and Cheney provided full, informative answers to all questions. W said they were good questions. Without the distraction of the media fiasco, the blown-dried blowhards agonizing over every inflection, grandstanding by partisan hacks, etc. they got down to business and got ***** done.

JP

Scurrilous - S-c-u-r-r-i-l-o-u-s.
And here's the definition:

1 a : using or given to coarse language b : being vulgar and evil <scurrilous imposters who used a religious exterior to rob poor people -- Edwin Benson>
2 : containing obscenities, abuse, or slander <a...campaign filled with scurrilous charges and countercharges -- A. D. Graeff>

I think "slander" is what you're getting at, which isn't true because they did, in fact "hide" behind the law. Like I said, resolve can withstand public exposure. Bush/Cheney failed to take the high road and testify publicly. They lack character because of this, IMO.

Sitting presidents who have testified openly: Reagan comes to mind for Iran/Contra.

And as far as your illumination about the media - they were there during the open testimonies to the 9/11 commission, and I didn't see them getting in the way of things?

Straw man arguments, JP. Excuses.

The man either has something to hide or can't stand on his own feet.

Oh, and Clinton? Who cares? I'd rather a guy get a blowjob, than make a job of blowing the entire country. :rolleyes:

David -
A typo? c'mon. I hold myself to high standards and all, but a typo? I suppose I deserve hoisting for using scurrilous (got it right that time) in a metaphoric sense, but it is MHO that it's profane to call what was done "hiding behind the law" w/o putting forth what law was being hidden behind. In no small part b/c I believe it's not "hiding behind" any "law".

From a definitional standpoint "slander" is oral defamation; you meant libel, which is a false publication or writing. I'll assume you're thinking touche right now. :D

I'll mention in passing that these are not "testimonies". I believe there are reasons not to have presented public statements. I think W and Cheney have a lot to hide, as they should. There are many, many things that they know that they couldn't disclose in a public forum or for the record. They were able to (not to say they *did*) speak more frankly off the record.

Similarly, I don't know how you'd characterize Clarke's self-aggrandizing appearance and attendant showboating, but I think it was a circus and distracted not only from much of what he actually said, but from other issues at the time. Were the press literally "getting in the way" I don't know, but there is a world of difference between the import of a disgruntled ex-bureaucrat and the current President and VP and I believe they did the right thing... whatever "high road" is supposed to mean in this context notwithstanding.

If memory serves, Reagan testified in 1990 and 1992 -- after he left office, so not while he was a sitting president. I could be wrong on that, but I'm 90% sure.

If you're worried about lying or covering up, how 'bout perjury from your boy BJ Clinton. The tried-and-true "it's about sex" distraction is threadbare even to the DNC Gestapo at this point. And all he was covering up was a tryst with a fat chick; not exactly national security stuff.

These straw arguments and excuses are a bit more stubborn than you'd like to admit. Attempt to dismiss them all you'd like; you can't "wish" them away.

JP

Yeah, JP, you're 90% correct, but 10% wrong...


February 2, 1987: Reagan testifies to the Tower Board for a second time. His testimony is inconsistent and confused. The Board pointed out Reagan hadn’t known about August shipment of anti-tank missiles, but Reagan had said he DID know. When asked for an explanation, Reagan picked up a briefing memo he had been provided and read aloud: "If the question comes up at the Tower Board meeting, you might want to say that you were surprised."

* No, I meant "slander" as I've been voicing my opinion about Bush as much as writing it.

* Clarke? A distraction? Try IRAQ as a distraction. Try an inability to find Bin Laden a distraction. Try the possibility of moving U.S. troops from Korea to supplant needed forces in Iraq a distraction.

Clarke. If he at all compares to the truly big news of the avid lack of infrastructure in Iraq in lieu of a June 30th handover - all caused by Bush's war, then you GOP boys hold him up to some fine earth-shaking standards.

* And alas, BJ Clinton? My boy? Not in your dreams, son. I couldn't stand the SOB - my prior posts have said as much.

As you probably know, the word testify is inaccurate. Ronald Reagan was interviewed regarding Iran-Contra by members of the Tower Commission that he appointed but he wasn’t under oath.

No, I didn't know that. Maybe that's because he indeed did "testify."

Funny how selective memory fades into semantics and word choice, isn't it?

Yes there is lots of material in the public sector that uses the wrong words. Testimony is almost universally used to describe Reagan speaking to the Tower commission as opposed to more correct words. Since in most cases, the author discussing this incident is casting R. Reagan in a negative light, I suspect it may be intentional...but who knows? I think it is a throwback to writing term papers in school. Most folks do not take the time or energy to write for themselves...so they take existing text and change enough words so that the teacher cannot positively identify it as plagiarism. The same thing happens in books and articles. The first author might say "interviewed," the second "a briefing", the third might pull "testimony" from his thesaurus. Often, the more influential person's writing becomes the "record," not the most accurate writer's.

And where does your writing fit in this spectrum? With so large (and poor) a blanket statement, it's only right that I second guess your words and sentences, correct? And for that matter, anyone else on this board, right?

Face it: whether or not you like what the media says, testimony is testimony. Testify is testify.
SmileWavy

I try to make my writing fit standard accepted usage..as precise as my limited skills allow.

I am not sure which "poor" blanket statement you refer to. If you refer to my point that many authors use the word testify imprecisely..particulary regarding Reagan's and now Bush's words to the panels they commissioned...my answer is:
It depends on context. If "testify" is used regarding a court, tribunal, etc...it would generally be considered as under oath as per this Merriam Webster definition:
. to declare under oath before a tribunal or officially constituted public body
You would never call the remarks of anyone in a courtroom testimony unless they were sworn in and on the witness stand. Lumping the words of those under oath and those not both as "testimony" is clearly misleading and implies all are under oath and subject to the authority of the tribunal.

This implication is important, because sitting presidents, "as a rule" historically cannot be called to "testify" regarding matters of state.

You're really on the edge about "voicing" an opinion as much as writing it -- I've got no idea whether you speak to others or this is your only outlet; and proper characterization of your activity hereon is not "slander", whether you feel free to slander in the rest of your life. Your statements here are slander; you may libel or otherwise defame in the balance of your expressions to others. Your defense of your mistake, rather than admitting to it, is particularly weak for someone so demanding of technical accuracy in others' expressions. More on "semantics" below.

"Try Iraq as a distraction"? Neither I nor anybody I know is "distracted" by an inability to find one person. Topic changement, cui bono? We've caught and/or destroyed many terrorist cells since the beginning of the Iraq War; and the State Dept. report that came out today indicates we've had the fewest number of terrorist attacks in thirty years. It Iraq may be a "distraction", but principally to those that would do us (you and me both) harm.

Personally, I think we ought to pull out of Korea and send those troops to where they can kill our enemies. I don't think so relocating them is a "distraction" in any coherent sense of the term.

There are concerns and flaws in the Iraq situation -- to claim that Clarke was not a distraction from those (not to say he was more important, but merely a distraction) is disingenuous. Once again, you're mincing what I wrote to fit what you'd like it to mean. I stipulate we should be paying more attention to the Iraq situation and perhaps changing our tactics, but the focus on Clarke was a distraction from those efforts and contemporaneous analysis during a crucial part of the campaign -- the circus taking center stage, as it were, for next-to-no value added to the 9/11 Commission Inquiry's supposed goals.

Do you actually believe that having cameras rolling in the room when W and Cheney were testifying wouldn't have changed a thing. Not one thing. Nothing; at all. They would've been as candid, given they know ***** that nobody else is supposed to know? And you believe it's a good idea to have them quizzed on what they know or knew (and "when"), on the record, in front of the world. This is your "high road"? If you do believe these things, you wither have a supernatural lack of appreciation for discretion or a soundness of judgment impairment. I can't put it any other way.

I admit I took your invocation of BJ Clinton as someone you'd "rather" have to mean he was your boy. My bad. It's heartening to know you'd "rather" have a convicted perjurer, panderer, seller of influence to the Chinese, philanderer, record of the least efficacy by any executive metric (IMHO) and suck-up to the rest of the world than W ... even though you don't like him. Now we know where you're coming from.

I make my living through precision in expression, whether literal or metaphorical, and I live reasonably well. The intellectual dishonesty and sloppiness in which statements such as "... testimony is testimony. Testify is testify" is abhorrent to me and would get me fired, if not severely sanctioned, but I've come to accept it's endemic in the fetid swamp of mischaracterization in which opinions such as yours fester and reproduce. We can disagree on any variety of issues, but don't tell me that our language doesn't mean what it actually means when it's convenient for you. A finder-of-fact would eviscerate you for such a contrivance; and I don't wish that upon you or anyone else.

Reagan voluntarily spoke to a forum of his own convening investigating potential corruption in his administration -- if you are incapable of distinguishing between that fact pattern and the current 9/11 committee situation, there is no hope for dialogue on these points. Even if I was to stipulate that R. "testified", would that REALLY make a difference in the current situation? You're focusing on the capillaries.

I note with interest you haven't put forth the "law" that you aver repeatedly W is "hiding behind". We await specifics....

D - it's "semantics" as far as you're concerned only when you're cornered. Nobody's fooled by that. Calling me on a typo or a literal defintion of a term of art somehow isn't "semantics" to you. Nor is pulling fintstone through your keyhole. Your tack is obvious desperation. Face it: you have no concern for accuracy in opinion or expression, unless you believe it's a "gotcha" point scored against your opponent. Otherwise, if demands for accuracy or precision are to your detriment, you dismiss it as "semantics". We are not fooled by this.

In the interest of common ground, I couldn't stand the SOB Clinton either. I suspect for reasons other than your own.

The almost complete lack of segues in the foregoing is a function of booze-induced exhaustion. For the lack of stylistic cohesion, I apologize. This'll be a particularly enervating weekend. I'll check in on Sunday evening, assuming this thread is still kicking.

JP

Do that. Maybe by then I'll finish reading your last post. I did see one word: "desperation." Sort of stuck out at me. Hmmm...maybe I did read the gist of your post after all.

Oh well: my work's done here. I'm finished "testifying."

SmileWavy

I thought the war was over last year, we are there in a police action until the new government is formed Iraq.
Oh, you mean the War on Terrorism, hell that excuse to cover up will be used for years to come.

The 9/11 panel is trying to figure out how badly Bush f'ed up after taking the baton from Clinton on Al Queda. I think Bush tossed it aside into the bushes as he had more important issues like a tax cut to work on.



Geoff

High taxes, unresponded to terrorist atacks in Somalia and the Cole etc... most of the offices trashed, etc...yes you are right, GW inherited so many problems from the previous administration that it was hard to fix them all in the few months prior to 911.

Hmm, according to RichClarkes book the PENTGON refused to go after Al Queda after the Cole was blown up. The CIA/FBI couldn't agree/believe that Al Queda did it.
The Pentagon/miltary f'ed up the Somalia crap, since when does a President have anything to do when that. Whoops, maybe now since Rumsfeld is running the show. Heck no ColinP we dont need the 400K troops to take Iraq. What for?

Also, since the stupid GOP's were chasing Clinton to Impeach him for getting a bj in the Oval Office, none of the other branches of the Government would listen to him. So, GOP's lovers ALL your BS chasing Clinton, has caused this mess! Reap what you sow!

Bush is the biggest liar the Oval Office has ever seen! Cheney had to hold his hand while talking to the 9/11 panel.


Geoff

LOL