Woodward's Ford Interview: Politically Begging the Question

Begging the Question 101:



Ford: Bush made 'big mistake' on Iraq justifications

"I just don't think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security," Ford told Woodward.

(emphasis mine)



I always respected President Ford, but this does directly impact our national security. I haven't heard the tapes, so I cannot judge context or the way in which it was meant, but this is a common error called "begging the question," which presumes the answer in the premise. For instance, if you are trying to prove that all dogs are blue, and include in your premises a statement that anything not colored blue is not a dog. In this case, it renders the conclusion correct by an immediate logical corollary (the contrapositive), but it's still a worthless conclusion based upon a false premise - I have two dogs at home, neither one of them blue. A very common one is made by abortion proponents, when they argue that women have the legal right to do anything to their bodies that they please, and therefore abortions should be legal. I mostly agree with the conclusion, but not the premise. If you could do anything you like with your body, on what basis do we prevent, stop, or medically treat suicides against their obvious wishes? On what basis do we require drugs which the person freely chooses to be prescribed by a medical practitioner or even outlawed entirely? Error, NOMAD, Contradiction! Sterilize!



Nazi Germany did precisely nothing to the United States prior to the declaration of war after Pearl Harbor. Indeed, they were very accomodating in ignoring many actions, such as the sinking of three German subs by US Coast Guard cutters, that would have been valid causes for war (much like the US is currently treating both Iran and Syria, by the way). Why then, did we make defeating Germany in World War II our main priority and only devoted leftover resources that could not properly be used against the Reich to the Pacific Theater of operations, against the Japanese who so treacherously attacked us? Because Germany was the greater threat for many reasons, and President Roosevelt knew that Germany would have to be fought, and if they were allowed to consolidate their gains they would have been a much tougher opponent.



We could abandon the rest of the world to fend for themselves, wean ourselves of dependence on foreign energy sources, and completely abrogate all of our alliances, in effect walling ourselves off from the rest of planet earth, and still the people we are fighting would come after us when they have consolidated their gains. Indeed, such an act would make it immeasurably easier for them to make and consolidate gains, accelerating the day when they felt ready to attempt conquest or destruction of our homeland. They aren't interested in any kind of reasonable accommodation, any more than the Inquisition was. Indeed, the Inquisition was willing to make allowances for the weaknesses of men and women, and foibles and errors of people, whereas the Islamists are not. The Inquisition was given authority only over professed Christians, while the Islamists are after dominion over everyone.



We have the option of fighting them now, on their territory, or later on when they have grown immeasurably stronger when they are ready to conquer or destroy the United States completely. I would like not fighting them at all to be on the table, but the only way to achieve that is to accept the place of the dhimmi, which would be the death of all of those cultural differences that those arguing the hardest against the war would have us celebrate. Gay rights? Women's rights? Separation of church and state? Freedom of expression? The right to choose any religion, or none? The ability to ignore officious preachers of moralism?



Suppose the Bill of Rights were suddenly repealed by our own elected leaders? Not just the unconstitutional abridgements like McCain-Feingold and all of the limits on the right to keep and bear arms, but freedom of speech, political expression, equality under the law, all of those things particularly in the first, fourth, and fifth amendments that gets everybody all excited? The sixth, seventh, and eighth amendments that protect the due process of law? Do you think a Second American Civil War might be justified? The Islamists mean to impose these changes by conquest. Do you think that means it would be somehow better than imposed by the opponents of your favored politics?



Here's one link to the text of the Constitution. Is there anything there, either individually or in the aggregate, that you might consider worth defending, by violence if necessary? What if our next President proclaims the entire Constitution null and void (without the due process of another Constitutional Convention and ratification by the states)? Well, the people we are fighting want to do precisely that, as well as destroy our way of life and kill anyone who does not submit. Actually, they'll kill a lot of those who do submit, as well. I knew some folks who went back to Iran to help overthrow the shah. I've been informed that more than one of them was purged by the Islamist regime.



War is a horrible thing. But it is not the worst thing. Yes, many of us are going to be killed in the fighting, and much treasure spent, even if we win. That's a lot better than the alternative if we don't fight or if we lose: more of us killed, what treasure we don't spend confiscated, and that precious thing known as the United States which allows us all of these freedoms we take for granted gone forever.