tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post109706395518459951..comments2024-01-11T07:40:01.736-05:00Comments on The Stopped Clock: The Vice Presidential DebateAaronhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1097111867681141282004-10-06T21:17:00.000-04:002004-10-06T21:17:00.000-04:00Hey - I'm flattered. You came by my place before y...Hey - I'm flattered. You came by my place before you even had a new post up at <A HREF="http://www.blogger.com/r?http%3A%2F%2Fpaulcraddick.typepad.com%2F">your weblog</A> (which I continue to highly recommend). Welcome back to "this side of the pond".Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5973827.post-1097106878845371412004-10-06T19:54:00.000-04:002004-10-06T19:54:00.000-04:00Paul, I am not willing to give in to the Administr...Paul, I am not willing to give in to the Administratin's implied argument that "it isn't a lie" because "you cannot prove a negative". In the absence of evidence, with the assertion repeatedly made for political convenience and gain, I think "lie" is a fair descriptor.<br /><br />It's in the same vein as Cheney's comment that Iraq's connection with Mohamed Atta was "pretty well confirmed" ("It's been pretty well confirmed that [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack."), and his subsequent absolute denial that he ever said that during an interview with Paula Borger ("No, I never said that... Absolutely not.") How much "benefit of the doubt" does this man deserve?<br /><br />Additionally, the purpose of the deceit is not to establish that there was some nebulous connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The purpose is to convince voters that the war in Iraq is directly connected to 9/11, and that Saddam Hussein was at least partially responsible for 9/11. Care was not taken in the presentation of the (lack of) evidence, because the Bush Administration found benefit in a dishonest presentation. This is one of many deceptions advanced by the White House, often through Cheney, on the subject of Iraq and Al Qaeda. In that context, it is more than fair to call it a "lie". Yes, it might have been possible for them to advance an honest argument based upon the available facts, but even accepting that the argument can be reframed, the Administration intentionally framed it in the manner presented.<br /><br />Even granting the benefit of the doubt, what would you have us call a conviction firmly held, despite a complete lack of evidence, and despite significant contrary evidence (e.g., Bin Laden's open animosity toward Hussein's secularized government)? An illusion? A delusion?<br /><br />I agree that Edwards wasn't trounced, but I wouldn't declare him the victor on that alone. But perhaps that's because I didn't expect him to be trounced. So far, I haven't really been perceiving "victors" as such, perhaps because as I see it the candidates have performed in a manner consistent with their essential character. I think to "win" one of these pseudo-debates, they would have to exceed my expectations, not meet them. (Or, at times, with all four candidates in mind, live down to them.)Aaronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16523334580402022332noreply@blogger.com