"Hawke" wrote in message
...
I would say that since Rove and company thought that invading Iraq was
a
good idea and were too stupid to see it would be a major folly, then
believing anything else he says about Iraq would make me as stupid as
he
is.

Except when he's right, in which case *not* believing it, just because it
was Rove who said it, would make you somewhat more stupid than he is. The
point is not that Rove said it. The point is that he's probably right in
this case.

No, that doesn't follow any more than it's probably right because Rove
said
it.

I didn't say it's probably right *because* Rove said it. I said it's
probably right because it reasonably follows from the facts. I'm saying the
message is likely correct regardless of the messenger. You're saying, ad
hominem, that it's probably not right *because* of the messenger who
delivered it. That's a logical fallacy.

Rove showed his lack of savy about Iraq when he couldn't see that
invading would lead to a whole host of problems for us. He proved his
judgment was not so good.

Regarding war. As for the much simpler and better-evidenced matter of
insurgent behavior regarding oil, and the behavior of oil markets in the
face of uncertaintly, his point looks reasonable based on the evidence we
all can see. This isn't a matter of secret intelligence or unknown cultural
reactions. This is a matter of drawing reasonable conclusions from things
that already have happened.

To believe someone again when they were wrong the
first time means you aren't learning from your mistakes, just like him.

Well, Hawke, we've seen you come out wrong on numerous issues, so does that
mean that we aren't learning from the mistake of having thought you might be
correct? In other words, should we then discount everything you say,
because, for example, you got the arguments for remanding the Heller case
wrong?



This is like a guy telling you to use more lighter fluid on the
briquets
after you have just burned off your eyebrows. You just don't take
advice
from someone who has been proven not to know what he's talking about.

Since he's one of the smartest guys in politics, as well as being one of
the
most successful and generally insightful, assuming he's wrong all the
time
is a very foolish thing to do.

True, no one is always wrong. Of course, Bush tests that proposition. But
I'm not saying everything Rove says is wrong just because of who he is.
I'm
saying I wouldn't trust his word on Iraq based on his prior predictions,
which were totally wrong. I do agree he knows politics extremely well.
He's
out of his area of expertise when it comes to foreign policy though. Which
he already proved.

Bush/Rove etc. didn't know what they were doing when they told us we
should
go into Iraq. Now we're supposed to believe them when they say we have
to
stay there.

I don't necessarily accept his conclusion that this is a valid reason to
stay there. I do think it's quite reasonable that pulling out now will drive
oil prices up even further, which is all I said about it.

Of course, that assumes nothing else changes, but there are certain factual
constraints -- finite amounts of petroleum that can be pumped out of the
ground in the short term, for example -- that suggest any uncertainty in the
market right now is going to spike oil prices, possibly to a new, higher,
and stable plateau.


Except that he's probably right. If you reject it because it comes from
Rove, rather than disbelieving it because you're considered the question
yourself in light of the evidence, then you've let him make you a fool.

No, he's probably wrong. He was wrong the first time even though he and
Bush
acted like there was no way anything would go wrong. You're the fool if
you
trust someone who has already proven himself to be clearly fallible. If
you
don't distrust someone's judgment when it's been shown to be very wrong on
something as big as Iraq then you're gullible.

Well, it's a good thing that I don't trust your judgment, then. d8-)


I'm sorry, once you prove you don't know what you're doing I
quit taking your advice. Apparently, a lot of others don't follow that
path
to their detriment. And proving once again that you can fool a lot of
the
people all of the time.

There are few things dumber than defeating oneself because you refuse to
believe the messenger, regardless of the facts.


I think that is a given. So I'm not doing that. But I heard Rove say the
republicans would win in the 2006 election.

I heard what he said on NPR two days before the election. I believe he was
lying. He knew better. Or else he went temporarily insane, which,
considering the pressure he was under, isn't an unreasonable thing, either.

I heard him say that invading
Iraq was the right thing to do. I've heard him say plenty of other things
that make me question his judgment and veracity. I also know what is going
on in Iraq. When I hear a mouthpiece for the Bush administration say
things
about Iraq I know aren't true I'm not disbelieving it because it's Rove
saying it. Rove is biased so you can't simply trust what he says.

I don't trust a word he says. I do trust a reasonable evaluation of facts I
can validate on my own. I also think he tells the truth more often than not
on most issues, although things he says in public are particularly suspect.
Practically everyone tells the truth more often than not.

He also
has been glaringly wrong about Iraq before. Adding up that he's biased,
he's
been horribly wrong more than once, and what he says about Iraq I know
from
other sources to be wrong all adds up to one conclusion. Rove is wrong
again. If you agree with him then you will be too...again.

That's the ad hominem fallacy.

--
Ed Huntress