Saturday, February 17, 2007

Myths, Fallacies and Dishonesty in a time of War.

The DNR is once again lost in the web of Myths and Fallacies. First of all let's make a false assumption concerning the Congressional debate about stopping the war in Iraq.
"They (Democrats) are engaging not just in dishonesty and deceit, but in behavior dangerous to American troops."

Now let's set up a false choice.
"If they (Democrats) think the war is unwinnable then they should cut off all funding immediately, period. No strings. No attachments."

Restating myths as truth or demanding false choices is the height of dishonesty, yet in today's editorial our fearless, feckless DNR editor proclaims them loudly and with a sincere conviction as absolute truth.

The myth in question is stated and elaborated eloquently by William E. Odom, Washington Post. Read the entire article here.
"We must continue to fight in order to "'support the troops.'"

Everyone supports the troops. NO ONE has ever advocated stranding troops in the field, depriving them of equipment, armor, ammunition, or field support. De-funding wars is how Congress exerts control and oversight, a normal part of a working democracy. A working democracy is a good bit less efficient than an all powerful Leader who can simply issue an executive order or attach a signing statement.

Congress is simply following the will of 70% of Americans who want the war to end. Dude! It's not just the Democrats! It's Democrats, Republicans, Historians, the Military, the State Department, and ALL of the Intelligence Agencies.

Then, as Mr. Odom also points out,
"(The) strangest aspect of this rationale for continuing the war is the implication that the troops are somehow responsible for deciding to continue the president's course. That political and moral responsibility belongs to the president, not the troops."

Telling Congress to wave it's magic wand to stop all funding and then say that it's undercutting the troops in doing so is a myth, dishonest and a little silly. Myths belong in fairy tales not in editorial journalism.

No comments: