The invaluable Tom Maguire rightly heaps scorn on this idiotic post by Ed Kilgore (filling in for the Josh Marshall). From Mr. Kilgore:
Not having any particular
AdvertisementTired of holding meetings the old fashioned way? Improve your conference calls or Web conferences with GoToMeeting. It has a flat rate with no overage charges or other mysterious fees. You’re in luck: GoToMeeting provides a FREE TRIAL.
thing to say about the happy contingency of the apparent collapse of the pro-Syrian government there, I didn’t worry about it much, until I got an email referring to this event as part of a “democracy domino.” And then I got it: those insistent correspondents were suggesting that I, as a Democrat, was indifferent to the latest triumph of Bush administration foreign policy.
Now I am aware the State Department made the appropriate noises, as its predecessors would have done, after the Hariri assassination, about Syrian dominance of Lebanon, and I also know the Bush administration has been generally hostile towards the Syrian government, as has been U.S. policy for as long as I can remember. But it literally never crossed my mind that Bush’s fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.
This is the kind of thinking, of course, that has convinced God knows how many people that Ronald Reagan personally won the Cold War. It’s the old post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this) logical fallacy. This is a president and an administration that chronically refuse to accept responsibility for the bad things that have happened on their watch–even things like the insurgency in Iraq that are directly attributable to its policies. Barring any specific evidence (provided, say, by Lebanese pro-democracy leaders)that Bush had anything in particular to do with Syria’s setbacks in Lebanon, I see no particular reason to high-five him for being in office when they happened.
The Bush Administration is helping to re-shape the entire Middle East, and Democrats are reduced to explaining why a dead man should get no credit for events that happened 20 years ago (and impressively, I might add, arguing on the wrong side of the issue). To be fair, the Washington Monthly is now on the ball and arguing that Bush doesn’t deserve any credit for anything.
At any rate, Mr. Maguire artfully defuses Mr. Kilgore’s post hoc fallacy non-fallacy, noting:
Hugh Hewitt rises to the defense of Reagan, which makes him a better man that I, since I tend to avoid arguing with others about articles of their religious faith. I also steer away from strawmen – whom might Mr. Kilgore be rebutting when he suggests that Reagan did not “personally” win the Cold War?
Go read the rest of Tom’s comments if you want a good laugh. Perhaps, of course, the joke is on us. This may all be part of Josh Marshall’s grand scheme- have someone more partisan and much dumber fill in for you, and by comparison, you seem genius.
I Used Latin in My Post, But I’m Still StupidPost + Comments (9)
