wkmac
Well-Known Member
Bravo Road, Bravo. Nice job!
I find it telling that in the Bush years when Seymour Hersh for example wrote over 2 dozen stories for the New Yorker exposing the Bush regimes war goings-on and the neo-con cabal in the Pentagon, the anti Bush or let's just say partiarchy democrats proclaimed Hersh from on high as the bringer of truth and now he is claiming issues within the Obama administration, he's a liar and the worst of the worst. Back in them days, it was republicans who were using your current arguments to discredit Hersh.
Hersh may be sloppy, may be a liar, all those things may well in fact be true but picking and choosing when he is and isn't seems problematic to me. And one other thing, you are correct that trusting RT alone is a mistake but then I'd say the same of any media outlet, mainstream or alternative. One should consider, measure and determine the message rather than taking the fallacy of attacking the messenger. It's fun to pick on the mainstream media and some of that is deserved but even they at times can have truth and that goes for Fox as well as CNN, MSNBC, etc.
That said, decrying the means of how the message is relayed, in this case by RT, is not an argument to prove Hersh's claims false nor to point in times past where he is wrong. Being wrong may force the listener to expert a higher level of proof and got no problem there but being wrong in the past doesn't mark one wrong for all time. If being wrong in the past meant any future claims are also wrong, we all might as well pick up our marbles, go home and never come out of the house again.
If the means of delivering the message is the crime, then James Kirchick should be suspect as a contributor to neo-con central in Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard. Or is Kirchick just echoing the political Zionist narrative on Iran in Commentary (legacy of Norman Podhoretz and the Neo-Con ideal) and Hersh is evil for roadblocking that cause? Surely a jewish publication has no agendas when it comes to Iran.
If we are going to question agendas, this becomes fair game. Wonder what we'd find if we started asking who Joe Pompeo is? I noticed he used a number of fallacies but does he have an agenda of keeping the old cold war alive not unlike the neo-con agenda? Gee Road, you seem to be using a lot of neo-con sources or suggestions of closely linked sources these days. I guess like Obama, you've become neo-con too? I mean if we're going to roll in the fallacy gutter!
Whether Hersh is right or wrong, time will tell, but if you are going to argue his claims, you need to address those points specifically and stop moving the goalposts. The cries for complete transparency means everything is out on the table in full view of everyone and then let exposure to light prove a matter true or false. Funny how people claim they want full transparency but only do so when it involves the other guy!
I find it telling that in the Bush years when Seymour Hersh for example wrote over 2 dozen stories for the New Yorker exposing the Bush regimes war goings-on and the neo-con cabal in the Pentagon, the anti Bush or let's just say partiarchy democrats proclaimed Hersh from on high as the bringer of truth and now he is claiming issues within the Obama administration, he's a liar and the worst of the worst. Back in them days, it was republicans who were using your current arguments to discredit Hersh.
Hersh may be sloppy, may be a liar, all those things may well in fact be true but picking and choosing when he is and isn't seems problematic to me. And one other thing, you are correct that trusting RT alone is a mistake but then I'd say the same of any media outlet, mainstream or alternative. One should consider, measure and determine the message rather than taking the fallacy of attacking the messenger. It's fun to pick on the mainstream media and some of that is deserved but even they at times can have truth and that goes for Fox as well as CNN, MSNBC, etc.
That said, decrying the means of how the message is relayed, in this case by RT, is not an argument to prove Hersh's claims false nor to point in times past where he is wrong. Being wrong may force the listener to expert a higher level of proof and got no problem there but being wrong in the past doesn't mark one wrong for all time. If being wrong in the past meant any future claims are also wrong, we all might as well pick up our marbles, go home and never come out of the house again.
If the means of delivering the message is the crime, then James Kirchick should be suspect as a contributor to neo-con central in Bill Kristol's The Weekly Standard. Or is Kirchick just echoing the political Zionist narrative on Iran in Commentary (legacy of Norman Podhoretz and the Neo-Con ideal) and Hersh is evil for roadblocking that cause? Surely a jewish publication has no agendas when it comes to Iran.
If we are going to question agendas, this becomes fair game. Wonder what we'd find if we started asking who Joe Pompeo is? I noticed he used a number of fallacies but does he have an agenda of keeping the old cold war alive not unlike the neo-con agenda? Gee Road, you seem to be using a lot of neo-con sources or suggestions of closely linked sources these days. I guess like Obama, you've become neo-con too? I mean if we're going to roll in the fallacy gutter!
Whether Hersh is right or wrong, time will tell, but if you are going to argue his claims, you need to address those points specifically and stop moving the goalposts. The cries for complete transparency means everything is out on the table in full view of everyone and then let exposure to light prove a matter true or false. Funny how people claim they want full transparency but only do so when it involves the other guy!
