Lies, damn lies, and Krugman

Well, it’s Tuesday so it’s time for crazy Paul to unravel another string of logical fallacies. It’s fun and easy – follow along.

“There is no loner any serious doubt that Bush administration officials deceived us into war.” = Begging the Question – the truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises

Paragraphs 3 & 4 = Fallacy of distraction from ignorance – because something is not known to be true, it is assumed to be false (e.g. presence of WMDs, Hussein’s link to Al-Qaeda)

“For example, some commentators have suggested that Mr. Bush should be let off the hook as long as there is some interpretation of his prewar statements that is technically true.” = “Straw Man” – the author attacks an argument different from (and weaker than) the opposition’s best argument

“So why are so many people making excuses for Mr. Bush and his officials? Part of the answer, of course, is raw partisanship.” = Fallacies of Explanation – Non-support & untestability & limited depth (not to mention raw partisanship).

“One important difference between our current scandal and the Watergate affair…” = False Analogy – the two objects or events being compared are relevantly dissimilar

“Yet if we can’t find people willing to take the risk – to face the truth and act on it – what will happen to our democracy?” – Appeals to motive: Prejudicial Language – value or moral goodness is attached to believing the author.

The overarching flaw in Krugman’s house-of-cards argument is that if it’s reasonable to believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, then Bush’s motivation to protect the country (esp. post-9/11) is completely defensible. And as many have noted, the intelligence on Iraqi WMDs was considered valid long before Bush took office. Sorry, Paul, try again Friday.

(Borrowed from the Safety Valve)