White House: You are all stupid

[chet]

Dealing with criticism that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wouldn't testify in public before the 10-member commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained last month that when she testified in private, "only five members showed up" to hear what she had to say.

What McClellan didn't tell reporters was that on Nov. 21 — long before Rice met with the five commissioners in February — the White House counsel's office had sent the commission a letter saying no more than three commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's rank.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-04-06-white-house-criticism_x.htm

Chet

[noun]

They're not only liars, they're exceptionally bad liars. I'm still trying to decide if it's due to total incompetence, or the result of trying to use age-old Republican flim-flammery techniques in the Internet age.

[Squirrel Killer]

If only three were allowed to attend, then how did five attend? Sounds like what happened was that the administration tried to limit it to three, the commission didn't play ball, and let in all the members who wanted to attend.

Felzenberg said the commission never agreed to the terms in the November letter, which said that for a meeting with an assistant to the president, either the chairman or vice chairman of the commission must show up with no more than two other commissioners.

So the commission never agreed to the terms...

Only five members actually showed up, despite the fact that it was scheduled for the entire commission...

And the meeting was eventually scheduled for the entire commission.

Hrm...looks like the administration changed its mind. So while it's a bit hypocritical to ask for only 3 attendees and then criticize that only 5 showed, it's still a valid point to raise.

[Bullhajj]

Why do you say the commision never agreed to the terms? Is it somehow important what the commision agreed or disagreed with?

Simply having five from the commision show up is not the same as the White House agreeing to meet with the entire commision and then criticising low attendence numbers.

So we have the WH asking for 3 and the commision disobeying and sending 5. Fine. But for the WH to then turn around and criticize low attendence is bizarre.

[Squirrel Killer]

Commission want to meet with Rice.

Administration says "Ok, but only send 3 members."

Commission says "No, we don't agree to those terms, we'll send as many as want to go."

Adminsitration send Rice to meeting. Commission sends five (half) of their members.

Commission says they want Rice to testify publicly.

Administration says "Why, when you met privately, half didn't bother to show up?"

Sure it's a little hypocritical, but not bizarre.

[Ben]

That the commission never agreed to the "only 3" terms makes the WH request completely irrelevant, as it was never policy.

[extarbags]

Commission want to meet with Rice.

Administration says "Ok, but only send 3 members."

Commission says "No, we don't agree to those terms, we'll send as many as want to go."

Adminsitration send Rice to meeting. Commission sends five (half) of their members.

Commission says they want Rice to testify publicly.

Administration says "Why, when you met privately, half didn't bother to show up?"

Sure it's a little hypocritical, but not bizarre.

Actually, it seems to have gone more like this, from the information in this thread given by you:

Commission want to meet with Rice.

Administration says "Ok, but only send 3 members."

Commission says nothing.

Adminsitration send Rice to meeting. Commission sends five (half) of their members.

Commission says they want Rice to testify publicly.

Administration says "Why, when you met privately, half didn't bother to show up?"

[Squirrel Killer]

I fail to see how whether the commission formally refused or just ignored the terms proposed by the administration makes any substative difference.

[extarbags]

I fail to see how whether the commission formally refused or just ignored the terms proposed by the administration makes any substative difference.

Well, you make it sound like they got all up in W.'s face, and said "Man! Fuck you, man! We don't take orders from you, pig! We'll send as many guys as we want, and you can't do shit to stop us!" and then only sent five.

[Jason McCullough]

Argumentum ad headcountem?

[Squirrel Killer]

I fail to see how whether the commission bravely stood up to the "man" and refused or just did as they had planned and ignored the terms proposed by the administration makes any substative difference.

The administration asked for a limit, but one way or another the commission was not held to it. Half the commission didn't bother to show up. That's a legitimate, if hypocritical, point to raise when the commission asks for a second bite at the apple.

[extarbags]

I fail to see how whether the commission bravely stood up to the "man" and refused or just did as they had planned and ignored the terms proposed by the administration makes any substative difference.

The administration asked for a limit, but one way or another the commission was not held to it. Half the commission didn't bother to show up. That's a legitimate, if hypocritical, point to raise when the commission asks for a second bite at the apple.

Hypocritical and legitimate?

[Squirrel Killer]

Hypocritical and legitimate?

A smoker telling you that you shouldn't smoke has a legitimate point, although he's being hypocritical.

[Bullhajj]

I fail to see how whether the commission formally refused or just ignored the terms proposed by the administration makes any substative difference.

Perhaps the commison was attempting to comprimise by sending half its members.

But that's not even the point. The point is you don't know. You can't know becasue there is no record. All you can know are the facts, which are:

1) the WH limits attendence to three
2) five commision members attend
3) the WH criticizes low attendence

[Jason McCullough]

Don't forget 2a), commission complains they can't get a public hearing.

[Bullhajj]

Don't forget 2a), commission complains they can't get a public hearing.

Exactly. Another valid reason for low attendence.

And when we say low attendence, it is important to note that the attendence was almost twice as much as the WH intended.

The administration asked for a limit, but one way or another the commission was not held to it. Half the commission didn't bother to show up. That's a legitimate, if hypocritical, point to raise when the commission asks for a second bite at the apple.

What reason would you say they have for not attending the private Rice testimony? Are you trying to imply they're just slackers and need Rice to show up repeatedly to hear what she has to say? Is this your big legitimate point?

[Squirrel Killer]

Perhaps the commison was attempting to comprimise by sending half its members.

But the commission did agree to meet with Rice at her convenience, and the date and time she chose — a Saturday afternoon — limited the number of commissioners who could attend because several live far from Washington.

So, um, no it wasn't a compromise.

But that's not even the point. The point is you don't know. You can't know becasue there is no record. All you can know are the facts, which are:

1) the WH limits attendence to three
2) five commision members attend
3) the WH criticizes low attendence

You missed 2b) So the "limit" wasn't really a limit. I mean if "the attendence was almost twice as much as the WH intended" then it's pretty obvious that what the WH intended didn't amount shit.

[Bullhajj]

You missed 2b) So the "limit" wasn't really a limit. I mean if "the attendence was almost twice as much as the WH intended" then it's pretty obvious that what the WH intended didn't amount shit.

The limit was most definitely what the WH wanted, since the WH set the limit. It's also likely that the WH intended to limit participation by requesting the meeting on a Saturday, since by having the meeting on a Saturday, they are able to achieve their stated goal of limiting commission attendance. If that's what you mean by not really a limit, we're going to just have to disagree.

Since we're discussing the WH setting limits for low attendance, then complaining when there actually is low attendance, I think it odd that you would say the WH intentions don't matter. Sure they matter! If they don't matter, why engage in a discussion defending this bizarre WH behavior?

[chet]

And don't forget the underlying reason they want here to talk now.

They want here to swear under oath and be accountable for what she says. She was not under oath in the private meetings.

Chet

[Ben]

The WH didn't set any limit, Tim. They requested that a limit of 3 be set. It was not. The discussion ended then.

There was no limit, the hearing went ahead and only 5 showed. That's a perfectly legitimate gripe. The limit that the WH wanted before the hearing is entirely irrelevant, making Chet's "A-ha!" ridiculous.

I'd say it's petty/stupid/silly more than hypocritical, but it's definitely valid.

[Bullhajj]

The fact reamains that the WH requested a limit and then held the meeting on a Saturday. For me, this enough to conclude that the WH intended it to be poorly attended. So when they later criticize the commission for poor attendence, I don't consider it a legitimate gripe; rather it seems bizarre to me.

[Bullhajj]

I'd say [WH criticizm of the commission is] petty/stupid/silly more than hypocritical, but it's definitely valid.

I agree that it's more petty, stupid, and silly than it is hypocritical, but it's hardly valid.

Also, let's not be so quick to discount Chet's A-ha! Why do you think the WH is making this comment? Are they trying to expose the commission as slackers attempting to waste Rice's time? Because Chet is correctly pointing out that the commission may have been more interested in hearing Rice publicly under oath, which I think also contirbutes to the low attendence at the private hearing.

But maybe you've got a killer point Chet and I have overlooked?

[Ben Sones]

A smoker telling you that you shouldn't smoke has a legitimate point, although he's being hypocritical.

Yeah, but in this analogy, the smoker isn't saying "don't smoke," but rather trying to undermine the credibility of some third party by saying "hey, they smoke!" In my mind that makes it both hypocritical and illegitimate as a criticism. Especially considering that...

They want here to swear under oath and be accountable for what she says. She was not under oath in the private meetings.

...Chet brings up a good point. Even if the White House had invited all of the members to talk to her the first time around, it's possible that they felt that there was little point in talking to her at all if she wasn't under oath. Now that she's going to testify under oath, they are interested. I see absolutely nothing strange about that, and I don't agree that the White House spin machine is making any valid points--they are just trying to undermine the commission's credibility.

[chet]

Ben, if this just existed in a vacuum, it would be nothing. But for the Whitehouse to go out of their way and attack at the commission for only having 5 members at the original meeting is ludicrous when they themselves requested fewer.

*Moves Ben next to Rywill, Koontz and Bob.

Chet

[Ben Sones]

Eh?

[chet]

The other Ben, just Ben, not Ben Sones. Sorry.

[Ben]

So now I'm next to: Rywill, a perfectly reasonable individual. Koontz, who is insane. And Bob Cherub, an idiot.

You'll need to connect the dots for me here.


The WH's request is entirely irrelevant. That's my point, and I think it's pretty damn solid. It's not ridiculous at all for them to complain, but it's kind of a meaningless point because A)It's an important issue and Rice can make the time and B)Put her under oath.

However, the accusations of hypocrisy are absurd. You say, "3", I say "More", then I show up with 5, well, why was I so opposed to three? The commission wanted to hear Rice so badly half of them didn't show up. It's whining, but not some great example of catching the WH in a lie. They wanted 3 months ago _BUT DIDN'T GET IT_.

Tim- Uh, no. That's so wrong it troubles me you said it. If X is bad and you say Person Y does X, then Person Y is bad whether you do X or not.

[chet]

Just curious Ben, have you been following the whole rice thing or is this your first day reading about it?

Chet

[Anaxagoras]

So now I'm next to: Rywill, a perfectly reasonable individual. Koontz, who is insane. And Bob Cherub, an idiot.

You'll need to connect the dots for me here.

We usually do need to connect the dots for you. That's nothing new.

Throwing Rywill out of the equation for the moment, we have Koontz and Bob. Neither of which is actually insane... they're just both very, very stupid. Each in his own way. *That's* the group he's putting you in, although I'm surprised that Chet waited until this exchange to put you in that group.

As for Rywill being in that group, Chet's putting him in that group because of his Iraq + Vietnam = offensive stance, which Chet (and several other people on the board) think is incredibly stupid. Personally, I think one badly argued and simplistic position doesn't even begin to put you in the Ben/Koontz/Bob group... I think it just means you had a bad day. And for some reason won't admit the bad day. And thus you barrel on, looking rather foolish. However, that's happened to just about everyone on this board in the time I've been here... it's kinda embarrasing, but not that big a deal.

Anyways... are the dots connected enough for you, or would you like a picture? We could do a Venn diagram.



Tim- Uh, no. That's so wrong it troubles me you said it. If X is bad and you say Person Y does X, then Person Y is bad whether you do X or not.
Well, at least you didn't try naming a fallacy. I'm thankful for small mercies. However, your characterization isn't what Tim said. The WH's actions appear to be designed to undermine the commision's credibility... thus, Tim is claiming that X is bad and that Person Y is in fact doing X. Thus, Person Y is doing a bad thing. You can argue that X is not actually happening, but Tim never said "X may or may not be happening"... he's claiming X is indeed happening.

edit- hopefully cleared up confusing language. changed "You can argue if X is actually happening" to "You can argue that X is not actually happening"

[Bullhajj]

Tim- Uh, no. That's so wrong it troubles me you said it. If X is bad and you say Person Y does X, then Person Y is bad whether you do X or not.

Ben, once again I have no idea what you're talking about. Would you care to flesh it out a little, or should we just assume that Anaxagoras is correct and that you should not be criticizing me?

[Rywill]

I'd just like to chime in to say that I wasn't actually having a bad day. I actually did, and do, think it's prettly lame for someone to say "Iraq is my generation's Vietnam" as a way of saying "I think we were lied to and shouldn't be there." I realize pretty much everyone disagrees, but I just got sick of arguing about it, especially since the only folks actually discussing it were Jasons McCullough and Levine (IIRC). But it is actually what I think, not some result of a bad day or being unwilling to abandon a foolish and untenable position.

Thanks, back to dog-piling on Ben.

[Qwijybo]

Since we're all just guessing about what everybody's agendas were, let me join in with a bad analogy. When I was a kid and my parents would tell me I should be home by 11 I would often stay out until 11:30 or 12, knowing that while they'd give me a tsk-tsk, it wouldn't be any big deal. So a year or two later if I asked for my curfew to be extended to, say, two, would it be legitimate for them to say, "Well, you only wanted to stay out until midnight before, why do you want two all of a sudden?" Well, I always wanted two (or three, or four), but I knew there was no way I'd get away with bending the rules that badly.

I agree with the previous argument that when the commission did not agree to the three-person limit, the White House conveniently scheduled the hearing at an inconvenient time. But its also possible that the commission was trying to get as many people in the room as they could without precipitating a major objection.

[Ben]

That was supposed to be a "Ben-," not a "Tim-". I ended up combining my responses to Chet and Tim and didn't proofread.

Anax- I can't believe a great poster like you, who has such a unusually sterling education and who has studied so many issues in such profound depth, can't come up with any better insults than "U R DUM". Am I? Well, crap.

Though I'd note that in trying to connect the dots for me, you disagreed with Chet by lopping off 33% of his comparables. Maybe another undergrad sociology class will open your eyes about not speaking out of turn.