Does Bush actually believe that he can impose “democracy” on a country that’s never had one? How long could an artifical democracy last in a country composed of Shittes, Kurds and Sunni?

I’ve seen no evidence that Iraq has produced any “weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam may have chemical weeapons, but there’s no reason to think they pose any threat to the US since he’s had ten years to use them on us — i.e., plently of time.

This little escapade is going to end up costing US taxpayers upwards of $50 billion just to create more Osama bin Ladens and tension in the middle east, for the short term gain of the US.

The alternative to going to war with Iraq is not to go to war with Iraq.

And if Lawrence Auster wants war so bad, lets see him enlist in the army and fight.

“The alternative to going to war with Iraq is not to go to war with Iraq…. And if Lawrence Auster wants war so bad, let’s see him enlist in the army and fight.”

Thanks to Mr. _garett for confirming what I’ve been saying all along, that much of the antiwar right has no arguments and is not even engaged in this national debate. All they have to contribute is emotion and ad hominem comments.

Lawrence Auster writes:

“Thanks to Mr. _garett for confirming what I’ve been saying all along, that much of the antiwar right has no arguments”

Oh no you don’t. You conveniently skipped past my previous comments, wherein I presented my case against invading Iraq.

Here they are again:

Does Bush actually believe that he can impose “democracy” on a country that’s never had one? How long could an artifical democracy last in a country composed of Shittes, Kurds and Sunni?

I’ve seen no evidence that Iraq has produced any “weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam may have chemical weapons, but there’s no reason to think they pose any threat to the US since he’s had ten years to use them on us — i.e., plently of time.

This little escapade is going to end up costing US taxpayers upwards of $50 billion just to create more Osama bin Ladens and tension in the middle east, for the short term gain of the US.

Was that (as you so often say) so hard to understand?

1) Yes, Bush probably does believe that. He is foolish to believe it but he probably does anyway. That observation has no direct bearing on whether or not the destruction of Saddam Hussein is wise policy.

2) Someone’s failure to see evidence or denial of its existence does not magically make an objective threat disappear.

3) Independent of whether or not garet_garrett’s post contained substantive points it is clear that it did in fact contain ad hominem. If he feels he has substantive points to make he might find that leaving the ad hominem out will work better.

1) Of course Bush’s belief that we can transform Iraq into a democracy has a bearing on whether or not this war is a good idea. Bush has committed the US to rebuilding Iraq after we’ve disarmed the country through a regime change effected by an invasion. If we think Bush is mistaken, this weighs against this war.

2) Someone’s insistence that a threat to the US exists despite the absolute lack of evidence should not be enough to push us into war.

3) The obsession with ad hominem arguments, particularly as stated in point by matt, is itself a kind of ad hominem argument: an attempt to rule out a position and ignore arguments by focusing on the bad character of the arguer.

Matt has pretty well handled Mr. _garret’s questions but since I was directly challenged here are my own answers:

“Does Bush actually believe that he can impose “democracy” on a country that’s never had one?”

He and his administration offer a range of possibilities on this. Sometimes they sound as though they do believe it; other times they speak much more realistically and modestly, as when Condoleeza Rice said the other day that we’re not hoping to achieve democracy per se, but a government that is freer, more decent, and less threatening.

“How long could an artifical democracy last in a country composed of Shittes, Kurds and Sunni?”

That’s really not the issue. The issue is removing the threat represented by Hussein’s regime and its weapons capabilities.

“I’ve seen no evidence that Iraq has produced any “weapons of mass destruction.””

Mr. _garret has apparently not been following the issue. We already know Hussein has chemical and biological capabilities, and is still working on improving them and creating delivery systems for them. We know that he’s actively at work on enriching uranium that could serve in a bomb. However, I doubt that will be convincing to Mr. _garret. As has been pointed out, there are people for whom the only satisfactory proof that this is not a neocon plot would be a mushroom cloud over lower Manhattan (unless they would blame that on the neocons, too).

“Saddam may have chemical weapons, but there’s no reason to think they pose any threat to the US since he’s had ten years to use them on us — i.e., plently of time.”

Already answered. Moreover, the issue is the total pattern of Hussein’s behavior, as Bush laid it out last night. Hussein’s well established tyrannical, aggressive, and no-hold-barred mass murderous conduct, even his willingness to set an entire country on fire as he did when retreating from Kuwait in 1991, combined with his continuing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems, combined with our knowledge of the mass destruction that Muslim terrorists are eager to commit on this country (terrorists who could very possibly receive weapons clandestinely from Hussein), add up to a strong case that he must be stopped now, before he can acquire them. Even if he doesn’t use them immediately, the prospect of his possessing them and holding them over us as a threat is intolerable. The burden of proof is really on the war critics to demonstrate that this is a threat that does NOT require a decisive response.

“This little escapade is going to end up costing US taxpayers upwards of $50 billion just to create more Osama bin Ladens and tension in the middle east, for the short term gain of the US.”

Whether it will create tensions or remove tensions is an open question, but I think there’s reason to believe the removal of Hussein will lessen tensions throughout the region and take a lot of the élan out of the bin Ladens and potential bin Ladens. Look how the Muslim “street” was pacified by our victory in Afghanistan.

Matt wrote:

“Yes, Bush probably does believe that. He is foolish to believe it but he probably does anyway. That observation has no direct bearing on whether or not the destruction of Saddam Hussein is wise policy.”

If that’s the case, then I’m surprised you granted my opening remarks. If Saddam is ousted by the US, they’ll just appoint another dictator, albeit one approved by the US. Now, imagine post-war Iraq with a US-friendly dictator. It’ll be populated by the same warring factions of Kurds, Shiites and Sunni that hate the US even more. The newly appointed Iraqi dictator will have to use even greater force than Hussein did in the past to keep them in line, coupled with the fact that they’ll see him as a stooge for the US, leaving his tenure (and “democracy”) on extremely shaky ground.

“Someone’s failure to see evidence or denial of its existence does not magically make an objective threat disappear.”

If Saddam had nuclear weapons, and if his possession of them posed an “objective threat” to the US, then they wouldn’t be a “threat” — they would be _history_.

The fact that he hasn’t used “weapons of mass destruction” on the US already somewhat negates the objectivity of the alleged threat. Saddam himself has shown no evidence of being a suicide bomber, so any talk of “objective threats” is just pure speculation on your part.

If an extremely unlikely worse case scenario emerged, and terrorists smuggled nuclear devices into the US that were given to them by Hussein, the devastation a retalitory US strike would wrought on Iraq would be unimaginable, and Hussein knows it.

“The obsession with ad hominem arguments, particularly as stated in point by matt, is itself a kind of ad hominem argument: an attempt to rule out a position and ignore arguments by focusing on the bad character of the arguer.”

According to Antiwarrior, if you call someone out for using an ad hominem argument, you’re engaging in an ad hominem argument yourself. This view of things would make it impossible ever to identify and criticize an ad hominem argument as such. It’s a further demonstration of the fact that many people on the right, following in the footsteps of the dominant leftist culture, have lost the ability to understand even the minimal requirements of rational discussion.

I think that assuming we know what would happen if we killed Hussein and just left is presumptuous. It is possible that exactly the same sort of enemy would arise to replace him, and attempt to rebuild once again Iraq’s WMD infrastructure from its newly-destroyed state. We might have to kill him too and destory the WMDI yet again, although I think there is a possibility that a more circumspect regime would arise. If it were clear what logical conclusions garet_garrett were drawing from these possibilities I might be able to say something about them.

garet_garrett’s post suffers from other basic problems. Saying that any true objective threat has to be already a part of history seems to presume that it is not possible in general to make predictions about threats and responses to them. If that is the case I suppose we can just build our huts and wait for the volcano to blow. But I am not sure why we have to assume it to be the case that we can’t anticipate threats in general, particularly in the face of massive historical evidence against this rather peculiar epistemic proposition.

I think there is some merit to arguments from deterrence, but I wouldn’t bet my kids lives on them in current circumstances. If a nuke went off in Manhattan and al Queda immediately claimed on Al Jazeera that they had gotten it from Russia it might be harder for America to reduce Iraq to glass than garet_garrett assumes. In general I would have to adopt a very simplistic “see spot run” sort of view of the world and its possibilities in order to buy into the “deterrence is everything” thesis. My imagination and the world itself are too unruly to allow me to do that without finding a proper blindfold to wear first, and I don’t have one handy. But one man’s destruction is the next one’s deterrence, so I think either way deterrence will play some ongoing role in world affairs.

I’d like to help out more, but I can’t make enough sense of what is being proposed to comment any further without making all sorts of presumptions.

Lawrence Auster wrote:

“He and his administration offer a range of possibilities on this. Sometimes they sound as though they do believe it; other times they speak much more realistically and modestly, as when Condoleeza Rice said the other day that we’re not hoping to achieve democracy per se, but a government that is freer, more decent, and less threatening.”

In other words, it doesn’t sound like our glorious leaders are very confident at the prospect of a subsequent democracy after we’ve made them hate us even more.

“Mr. _garret has apparently not been following the issue. We already know Hussein has chemical and biological capabilities, and is still working on improving them and creating delivery systems for them. We know that he’s actively at work on enriching uranium that could serve in a bomb. However, I doubt that will be convincing to Mr. _garret.”

Use common sense. If Hussein gained nuclear devices, he wouldn’t ignite them in the US because the retalitory strike it would trigger would wipe Iraq off the map. By killing the citizens of one or two major US cities, he would in effect be committing genocide against his own citizenry.

“As has been pointed out, there are people for whom the only satisfactory proof that this is not a neocon plot would be a mushroom cloud over lower Manhattan (unless they would blame that on the neocons, too).”

Better get your fire extinguisher out Auster, your strawman is on fire.

“Moreover, the issue is the total pattern of Hussein’s behavior,”

Which hasn’t mirrored the characteristic symptoms of a suicide bomber.

“as Bush laid it out last night. Hussein’s well established tyrannical, aggressive, and no-hold-barred mass murderous conduct, even his willingness to set an entire country on fire as he did when retreating from Kuwait in 1991, combined with his continuing efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems,”

I’m afraid the evidence doesn’t weigh in your favor. He’s committed such acts against his own defenseless people, not the US, who could reduce his country to a slag-heap.

“combined with our knowledge of the mass destruction that Muslim terrorists are eager to commit on this country (terrorists who could very possibly receive weapons clandestinely from Hussein),”

It’s pure speculation, since Hussein’s government _despises_ Muslim fundamentalists and has no ties with al-Qaida.

To Antiwarrior:

Bush’s belief that we can build a happy democracy in Iraq is clearly wrongheaded, to the extent that represents his actual view and intent. It seems to me that it is possible to evaluate the wisdom of that policy independent of evaluating whether or not destroy-Saddam-and-Iraq’s-WMDI is good or necessary policy. I suppose if I had trouble distinguishing apples and oranges in my head this might cause me some cognitive dissonance, but as it is all cylinders are running smoothly.

I think it is true that one could use an accusation of ad hominem that, if false, would itself constitute an ad hominem argument rather than a refutation. The truth-value of the proposition is critical in evaluating any such argument, though.

I suppose I should also point out that the truth-value I refer to (that is, does an argument have an ad hominem structure or not) depends on the form of the logical arguments being made, not the character or other attributes of anyone involved in the discussion. So clearly it is true as a matter of objective fact that characterizing an argument as ad hominem is not intrinsically itself ad hominem, as Antiwarrior suggests.

Mr. _garrett wrote:

“In other words, it doesn’t sound like our glorious leaders are very confident at the prospect of a subsequent democracy after we’ve made them hate us even more.”

I think it has been sufficiently pointed out that this is not the relevant point.

“Use common sense. If Hussein gained nuclear devices, he wouldn’t ignite them in the US because the retalitory strike it would trigger would wipe Iraq off the map. By killing the citizens of one or two major US cities, he would in effect be committing genocide against his own citizenry.”

This objection has been answered many times. He could use them for blackmail, or he could transfer them to terrorists. Given what he is, his very possession of such weapons would be totally unacceptable.

“Better get your fire extinguisher out Auster, your strawman is on fire.”

Fair enough. If I was setting up a straw man, I retract the comment.

“[The total pattern of Hussein’s behavior] hasn’t mirrored the characteristic symptoms of a suicide bomber… . I’m afraid the evidence doesn’t weigh in your favor. He’s committed such acts against his own defenseless people, not the US, who could reduce his country to a slag-heap… . It’s pure speculation, since Hussein’s government _despises_ Muslim fundamentalists and has no ties with al-Qaida.”

Just as Mr. _garrett requires that Hussein already have a nuclear bomb in hand and be threatening to use it against America in order to support a U.S. military response, he would require that Hussein’s behavior fit an absolutely precise, pre-existing pattern in order for us to decide that his behavior makes him dangerous enough for us to act against him. So this is where our disagreement finally lies. It comes down to saying that Mr. _garrett doesn’t feel we’re in any danger that is serious enough to warrant military action now, while I do. But I must say that this is a vast improvement in the level of the discussion. Now we’re discussing the war issue, not in terms of evil neocons plotting to take over the world, but in terms of a necessary judgment call about objective reality on which we have different opinions. Which suggests that Matt’s and my efforts over the past few weeks to disallow ad hominem comments have been worthwhile.

Lawrence Auster wrote:

“This objection has been answered many times. He could use them for blackmail, or he could transfer them to terrorists.”

Again, this is pure, unwarranted speculation on your part.

“Given what he is, his very possession of such weapons would be totally unacceptable.”

Given what he isn’t (a suicide bomber and al-Qaida partner-in-crime), this argument is totally unacceptable.

“Just as Mr. _garrett requires that Hussein already have a nuclear bomb in hand and be threatening to use it against America in order to support a U.S. military response, he would require that Hussein’s behavior fit an absolutely precise, pre-existing pattern in order for us to decide that his behavior makes him dangerous enough for us to act against him. So this is where our disagreement finally lies. It comes down to saying that Mr. _garrett doesn’t feel we’re in any danger that is serious enough to warrant military action now, while I do.”

Your reasons for invading Iraq are based on flimsy inductive claims about the future.

“But I must say that this is a vast improvement in the level of the discussion. Now we’re discussing the war issue, not in terms of evil neocons plotting to take over the world, but in terms of a necessary judgment call about objective reality on which we have different opinions.”

This whole idea that the anti-war right has nothing to say about US intervention schemes other than they’re propagated by neo-conservatives “plotting to take over the world” is one of the most brazen strawmen mine eyes have ever gazed upon. To say that Pat Buchanan, Justin Raimondo and the columnists at lewrockwell.com have nothing to say about US interventionism other than it receives heavy support from the neo-cons is a flat-out misrepresentation of their positions. This is just your excuse to evade their arguments, because it would expose the weak inductive claim your reasons for entering Iraq rests on. Salvage your credibility and stop saying this.

Since garet_garrett has conceded that at some point the facts would compel him to join with the neocons in favoring war with Iraq, perhaps he can articulate for us the standard of evidence he will use to decide when to start supporting invasion. So far he has characterized actual reasons offered as “unwarranted speculation” and “flimsy inductive claims,” for example. Mr. Auster put a stake in the ground with “mushroom cloud over lower Manhattan” at the other end. Perhaps garet_garrett can tell us specifically where his standard of evidence lies between the two endpoints.

It seems I spoke too soon about getting to a place where a non ad hominem discussion could take place. Since Mr. _garrett accuses me of dishonestly looking for an excuse to evade arguments, when, in fact, it’s obvious that I’ve been trying (to the best of my poor abilities and limited knowledge) to deal with the arguments as thoroughly and fairly as I can, any further discussion with him is out of the question.

If one is interested in getting responses from people, as Mr. _garrett claims to be interested in getting a response from me, it’s not a good idea to accuse them of acting in bad faith.

Lawrence Auster wrote:

“It seems I spoke too soon about getting to a place where a non ad hominem discussion could take place. Since Mr. _garrett accuses me of dishonestly looking for an excuse to evade arguments,”

Precisely what you’ve accused the antiwar right of. You act like they have no arguments to present against US interventionism, except that US interventionism receives enthusiatic endorsement from neo-cons.

“when, in fact, it’s obvious that I’ve been trying (to the best of my poor abilities and limited knowledge) to deal with the arguments as thoroughly and fairly as I can,”

Precisely what the anti-war right has been doing.

“any further discussion with him is out of the question.”

So, you just thrown in the towel when you get a taste of your own medicine, eh? Come on Auster, put up your rhetorical dukes.

Let me rephrase the closing comments from my previous rebuttal: the notion that the anti-war right says nothing about US interventionism except that it receives disproportionate support from neo-conservatives “plotting to take over the world” is utter nonsense. You make it sound as if the columnists at lewrockwell.com, antiwar.com and Pat Buchanan say nothing about the merits of war, just those who support it (who happen to be, by and large, neo-conservatives).

I am not sure how we can get from “the antiwar right’s insistence on ad hominem makes it impossible to engage on the issues” to “the antiwar right has nothing valid to say”. Mr. Auster and I have repeatedly acknowledged that the antiwar right has valid substantive things to say about current events. That isn’t at issue. At issue is whether or not it is possible to have substantive rational discussion about those substantive issues without leaving the rhetorical dukes down and engaging the mind.

If Mr. Auster disagrees with my characterization of the position, and in fact thinks that the antiwar right has nothing whatsoever that is legitimate to say (and which they could say with some hope of legitimacy if the ad hominem were renounced), I am sure he will correct me. Otherwise garet_garrett has merely graduated from ad hominem to straw man.

Matt wrote:

“Mr. Auster and I have repeatedly acknowledged that the antiwar right has valid substantive things to say about current events.”

Read my previous message again — I clearly said “US interventionism,” not “current events.” I have no doubt Mr Auster finds common ground with the antiwar right on “current events” — which could be anything. It is, however, doubtful whether he finds the positions the antiwar right takes on foreign policy valid. In his screed against Buchanan’s new magazine, Auster acted as if Buchanan and company have nothing to say about *US interventionism* — again, not current events, but US interventionism — other than it is often supported by neo-conservatives.

For someone who hangs out at a website all day, you sure don’t read the messages here very carefully.

Matt posted:

“I suppose I should also point out that the truth-value I refer to (that is, does an argument have an ad hominem structure or not) depends on the form of the logical arguments being made, not the character or other attributes of anyone involved in the discussion…”

The so-called ad hominem:
“And if Lawrence Auster wants war so bad, lets see him enlist in the army and fight.”

One acting in good faith could construe the above as a simple admonishment rather than an invective: an admonishment to all those convinced of the need for pre-emptive aggression to get on the front lines…

Here is evidence of Matt’s poor reading comprehension. In the second message on this board, Lawrence Auster wrote:

“Thanks to Mr. _garett for confirming what I’ve been saying all along, that much of the antiwar right has no arguments and is not even engaged in this national debate. All they have to contribute is emotion and ad hominem comments.”

He claims the antiwar right “has no arguments” to contribute to the impending invasion of Iraq, just ad hominem arguments regarding neo-conservatives.

MJK writes:

“One acting in good faith could construe the above as a simple admonishment rather than an invective: an admonishment to all those convinced of the need for pre-emptive aggression to get on the front lines…”

I am not sure what MJK means here. Does he intend to say that if an objectively ad hominem argument is phrased in a mild sort of way it ceases to be ad hominem? Or that if the person making an ad hominem argument means it in good faith and really thinks that it is valid that it ceases to objectively be ad hominem? It has been a while, but I expect that my logic professor would have refused to change a failing grade based on that sort of argument.

garet_garrett apparently has not recently reviewed the meaning of the word “much”. Just as a point of information, “much of the antiwar right has no arguments” is in fact different in meaning from “the antiwar right has no arguments”. If someone were to construe the former as the latter that would in fact be what is colloquially referred to as a “straw man” (that is, characterizing an interlocutor’s argument as more extreme than it in fact is in order to make it easier to refute); and a straw man is, as a matter of objective fact, a flawed argument.

1) Matt is correct that it is possible on a analytic level to separate (A) the destruction of the Iraqi regime and whatever weapons of mass destruction it may or may not have, on the one hand, and (B) the attempt at democratic-nation building, on the other. Such a distinction may even be intellectually important. But advocates of (A) cannot escape responsibility for (B) because (B) is the likely outcome of (A). It’s all well and good that Matt can sort apples from oranges in his head but when they’re all being put in the blender together, we’re going to have to drink both when we drink the punch.

2) There is a serious problem with Matt’s insistence that opponents of the war on Iraq who claim to be open to evidence that could indicate the war is warranted (and not to be pacifistic or unyieldingly opposed to any war whatsoever) need to present an “articulated standard of evidence” that can be used to decide whether or not we should go to war. This is no doubt appealing in an analytic sort of way but it is hardly fitting to the debate. Part of the conservative insight into politics is that not every decision, and particularly the most important ones, can be reduced to articulated standards.

I agree with Antiwarrior that in the event of what appears to be an inevitable invasion of Iraq we’ll end up taking the bad with the good. I think in at least ten or twelve comments in various threads on VFR I’ve mentioned that even if invading Iraq prevents a nuclear attack there will likely be bad side effects as well. So the observation that we have to take the bad with the good and be able to think about them as separate entities is certainly consistent with my position, and I believe is consistent with everything I’ve written on VFR, ever. If Antiwarrior thinks otherwise perhaps he can quote me from where he think’s I’ve been inconsistent.

As to the second point, I asked for criteria because garet_garrett specifically characterized Mr. Auster’s argument (mushroom cloud over Manhattan as garet_garrett’s criteria for invasion) as a straw man. If Mr. Auster’s argument is a straw man that means that it mischaracterizes garet_garrett’s position. So either garet_garrett has to 1) provide an actual position against which we can compare the putative straw man, or 2) concede that he in fact doesn’t have one, which was Mr. Auster’s original postulate that drew so much objection.

If Antiwarrior wanted to characterize his own position by saying that he definitely would have to support war at some point but he doesn’t have anything to say about what that point might be — which again is precisely what Mr. Auster claimed — then I wouldn’t object.

Finally, I suppose it might be possible to claim that rational discussion and logic are inconsistent with traditionalism, but that seems wrong to me. So I suppose I can take Antiwarrior to mean that he doesn’t have an argument but that that should be OK since traditionalists are willing to leave things unexplicit. I don’t necessarily have any problem with that but if it is true it is confirmation of Mr. Auster’s point that there is no rational argument behind the position.

So perhaps in the grand synthesis there is really no disagreement. For Antiwarrior the anti-war right is against an Iraq invasion for some inarticulate ineffable reason (which is why most of the explicit discussion is just arational fire and brimstone), and Mr. Auster merely confirms that fact.

I’m afraid Matt’s missed the point. I never claimed that the reasons to be against this war against Iraq are “inarticulate ineffable” ones (here and elsewhere there are plenty of articulated reasons to be against this war). I said that there is no standard of evidence, short of the obvious “mushroom cloud” extremities, that can be articulated in advance of what it would take convince me that the threat from Iraq is serious enough to warrant a pre-emptive war.

Matt got it right the first time, when he said “If Antiwarrior wanted to characterize his own position by saying that he definitely would have to support war at some point but he doesn’t have anything to say about what that point might be — which again is precisely what Mr. Auster claimed — then I wouldn’t object.” That’s exactly how I would characterize my position! I know it is an annoying to argue with someone who won’t say ahead of time how you can win the argument, but this isn’t a game with goal posts. It is reasoning about the affairs of the commonwealth.

A few questions that might help clear things up. Where would I come up with this standard of evidence? Did Mr. Auster know and articulate what standard of evidence would convince him that we needed to go to war against Iraq before he become convinced? Didn’t it work the other way around (he came across the evidence, and realized that it was enough)?

I don’t have any problem with this. It confirms Mr. Auster’s original contention that the antiwar right is unable or unwilling to engage in discussion specifically on the standard of evidence, and it repudiates the notion that Mr. Auster was constructing a straw man.

I never took Mr. Auster to be saying that the antiwar right has nothing valid to say about anything. I merely took him to be saying that the antiwar right appears to have nothing to say about when we should or should not decide to go to war against Iraq. This discussion has confirmed that he was correct, and that the reaction by antiwar-right types saying that that was incorrect or unfair has been demonstrated conclusively to have been unwarranted. Sure a few feathers may have been ruffled in the process on both sides, but the substance of the matter has been established conclusively.

I suppose I wouldn’t want Antiwarrior to think I have ignored his specific questions, so I guess I’ll try to help out in that way also:

“Where would I come up with this standard of evidence?”

The same sort of process would apply as in any other forward-looking human situation. We’ve already articulated two ends of the spectrum: “mushroom cloud over Manhattan” and “unwarranted speculation”. Coming up with in-between scenarios doesn’t seem so difficult. “Confirmed posession of a nuke”, “confirmed possession and overt threat to use it”, “confirmed ability to refine weapons-grade uranium”, “confirmation of an operating Al Queda camp within Iraq’s borders,” etc. Then of course we can apply a “preponderance” or “beyond reasonable doubt” standard, or some other, to each of those putative factual cases.

Of course I have an unruly imagination so I can postulate all manner of feasible factual circumstances and degrees of certainty about them. It is a personal fault, I know. That is part of why I don’t find the whole go/no-go decision so pat and easy, and of course none of us know (or are likely to ever know) all of the material facts.

“Did Mr. Auster know and articulate what standard of evidence would convince him that we needed to go to war against Iraq before he become convinced? Didn’t it work the other way around (he came across the evidence, and realized that it was enough)?”

Obviously I can’t answer that specifically, but I know that in the past every time I have been involved in formulating a policy or strategy we have gone over all manner of possible factual circumstances and all manner of ways of estimating our certainty about them. If someone simply doesn’t want to engage in that sort of forward-looking discussion that is OK, but all Mr. Auster has claimed is that the antiwar right is in fact refusing to engage in that sort of forward-looking discussion, and that it has engaged in ad hominem as an alternative rather than respectful silence in the face of a discussion in which it does not want to participate.

Matt stated:

“I am not sure what MJK means here. Does he intend to say that if an objectively ad hominem argument is phrased in a mild sort of way it ceases to be ad hominem?”

Matt -
Perhaps: it’s not an ojectively ad hominem argument at all. Though a enjoy reading and engaging in the verbal joust afforded by this forum, I would hardly characterize the tenor of most postings as consistently employing syllogistic logic. Most postings — particularly the lenghty ones — tend to take the form of informative, passionate, ideologically motivated musings and assertions and less that of formal or inform logic.

Well, with each successive post it becomes more difficult to parse MJK’s prose. Does he mean that criticizing the speaker of a speaker-independent argument in some way actually does address the argument? Or does he mean that since prose is informal and jousty we shouldn’t quibble about things like logic and rationality? I really can’t make anything of this.