Even if we assume the President has an IQ comparable to the proof of liquor found in his daughters' limosuine, it does not change the fact that he is our president.
We’ve been hearing the same rhetoric from Liberals for six years - President Bush is too stupid to run the country. Well, that may or may not be the case, but the only thing we do know for certain is that his opponent lost and America overwhelmingly voted for the “chimp.” So can we finally get over it, Liberals?
We have yet to read an argument which proves that criticizing the president’s intelligence or past history will lead to the greater good of the country. That’s probably because such an argument does not exist. It is purely an ad hominem attack, a logical fallacy. Instead of debating policies or positions in a cogent manner, these pundits go for the cheap eye-gouge of politics: the ad hominem argument. The real problem with this type of rhetoric is that it debases the person saying it just as much (if not more) as the person to whom it is addressed. Unfortunately, Liberals are sabotaging themselves.
For example, say you were in court, fighting a speeding ticket. When the judge asks for your side of the story, you immediately proceed by saying, “Your Honor, the ticketing officer is a complete moron. He is unfit for his title, a poor public speaker and he can’t even chew solid food.” This strategy will achieve the opposite of your intended effect. The judge will now view you as the moron and will quickly disregard your defense as irrational. Even if all of your allegations were completely accurate, they would still have no impact because you defaced your entire position with your foolishness.
The same goes for political arguments. We want to hear about your policy positions, Liberals, but your attacks discredit the entire Democratic platform. It difficult to find nuggets of wisdom when one has to sift through mountains of ordure.
This is not just an issue with the Democrats. Republicans are just as guilty of making ad hominem arguments. During the most recent Presidential election, Republicans were denouncing John Kerry as weak and out-of-touch in addition to questioning his military record. These implications were both logically fallible and irrelevant.
The most amusing part of the attacks on Mr. Kerry was the degree to which conservatives were firing cannons from their glass house. Mr. Bush, around the same time Mr. Kerry was winning a Purple Heart and testifying before Congress, was likely snorting cocaine in a certainly hedonistic pursuit of his own aimless pleasure, before he flew off to a number of sub-par business ventures. None of it was very Presidential, but Mr. Bush rightly made it clear that his past should have no bearing on his present day behavior in office. Conservatives wholeheartedly agreed. They would go on to later embarrass themselves with a toxic display of hypocrisy, heaping derision and unnecessary energy on vilifying Mr. Kerry's past.
Liberals are consistently falling into other unfortunate rhetorical traps, as well. “Bush lied,” they say, to protect his family's legacy and to help his “Big Oil” friends like Dick Cheney make even more money. Maybe. But do they have the complete picture? (Answer: No.)
Political decisions, particularly those made by the President, involve facts and information in which the general public is not privy to. Some information is so sensitive that only the President and his cabinet members are granted access. Far-reaching decisions are often made based on information unknown to the media, or even Congress. Therefore it is impossible for anyone to determine, for example, that Iraq did not have WMDs before the US deployed troops to the region. Forming conclusive opinions based on incomplete information, as the Liberals recommend, is unsound at best and dangerous at worse.
The "Bush lied" argument also has another gaping hole. Recently captured members of Iraq's Republican Guard indicated that even they thought Saddam Hussein had the alleged stockpiles of WMDs with which he was currently bluffing the world. Saddam orchestrated such a grand deception that even those individuals closest to the man thought the exact same thing that Mr. Bush, the CIA and British intelligence thought, namely that he had the WMDs. So the real liar in the whole deal was Saddam Hussein.
Liberals should put the charge where it deserves, and do their country a favor. "Saddam Lied, Kids Died!" We can see the bumper stickers now. Liberals should learn how to say that in Arabic, go to Saddam's trial and shout it from the courtroom gallery. Now that would be true patriotism.
Liberals and Conservatives both need this lesson. There is never any true value in the ad hominem argument, whether it is challenging the intelligence, character, or intentions of a politician. Attack the policies. If Mr. Bush is as dumb as you all say he is, it shouldn't be any sweat to do it.
