Maikimo.net taxonomy tags

Melanie alerts me to DOD transcript Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz remarks at Georgetown University (October 30, 2003) —

Q: Hi, Mr. Wolfowitz. My name is Ruthy Coffman. I think I speak for many of us here when I say that your policies are deplorable. They’re responsible for the deaths of innocents and the disintegration of American civil liberties.

We are tired, Secretary Wolfowitz, of being feared and hated by the world. We are tired of watching Americans and Iraqis die, and international institutions cry out in anger against us. We are simply tired of your policies. We hate them, and we will never stop opposing them. We will never tire or falter in our search for justice. And in the name of this ideal and the ideal of freedom, we assembled a message for you that was taken away from us and that message says that the killing of innocents is not the solution, but rather the problem. Thank you. [Applause and jeers]

I’m with you, Ruthy. A compassionate, courageous, and reasonable message — one I note is entirely consonant with Jesus’ teaching, which can hardly be said for the Christian Right’s pro-war cheerleading — forcibly told to Mr. Wolfowitz. To which he immediately replies:

Wolfowitz: I have to infer from that that you would be happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power. [Applause] …

What an unfounded inference that is. I therefore have to infer that Mr. Wolfowitz is a sinister abuser of logic. (I can logically insert the adjective sinister because Wolfowitz’ neoconservative logic has led directly to thousands upon thousands of deaths.)

The magic continues —

Q: I’d just like to say that people like Ruthy and myself have always opposed Saddam Hussein, especially when Saddam Hussein was being funded by the United States throughout the ’80s. And after the killings of the Kurds when the United States increased aid to Iraq. We were there opposing him as well. People like us were there. We are for democracy. …

Wolfowitz: I don’t know if it was just Freudian or you intended to say it that way, but you said you opposed Saddam Hussein especially when the United States supported him.

It seems to me that the north star of your comment is that you dislike this country and its policies.

Of course, to any thinking person the “north star of the comment” is specifically and only that the questioners dislike this country’s policies — that’s what they said. There is no basis for Wolfowitz to insert “that you dislike this country”; he’s being belligerent and intellectually dishonest.

Noteworthy Kos commentary that speaks for me:

[Proposed question: Mr. Wolfowitz,] how can you be so despicable to say that I would be “happier if Saddam Hussein were still in power” simply because I oppose your disastrous pre-emptive war which has made the world so much more dangerous for us all? (Major6th)

I’ve rarely seen so many logical fallacies rolled into two comments. Let’s see: straw man, ad hominem, non-sequitur … (Jonathan)

The widespread use of fallacious reasoning by individuals in the administration (such as Wolfowitz) … points to an alarming trend. It is almost as if these individuals, who are probably bright and certainly have mastered principles of rhetoric — including use of common fallacies — have decided that the public will swallow any sequence of statements which sounds like an argument. (CSTAR)

“Then you would be happier with Saddam” is … an appeal to the pre-analytical, the stupid, the emotional, the fearful. It is emblematic of this administration’s systematic impoverishment of political discourse. (C S McCrum)

Yes, this administration’s systematic impoverishment of political discourse is something I will never tolerate and cannot forgive. If we accept this low level of discourse in which coherent thinking is displaced by black-and-white, reactionary nonsense, then why do we bother educating ourselves to think at all? PhD, my ass.

2003-11-05 update: On a related note — that is, on the conservative right-wing tendency to use fallacious reasoning — Atrios skillfully and amusingly pinpoints “four tools in the arsenal of wingnut arguing” [via Body and Soul].