I Call, Show Your Hand

From Beck:

[Howard Dean] — and all like him — have been playing a game of studied ignorance ever since about three days after 9/11, in order to not grasp the facts and implications of a stridently anti-American Saddam’s Iraq in the wake of everything that made up 9/11. The fact that George Bush made a bloody hash out of the problem in his pre-war arguments as well as in having anything to do with post-Saddam Iraq politics does not relieve Howard Dean — or anybody else — of the responsibility to grasp the facts that added up to nothing but the imperative to destroy Saddam.

(emphasis his)

Let’s see those facts that made it an imperative for me to be compelled to assist in attacking Iraq.

26 thoughts on “I Call, Show Your Hand”

  1. Beck said it was imperative to destroy Saddam, which does not strictly imply it necessary to compel you or anyone to assist.

    My thoughts when I read that entry by BecK were: Imperative for whom? Was it an imperative for Beck? If so, what did he do to destroy Saddam?

    For myself, I never thought I needed Saddam destroyed.

    I don’t see how Beck’s own individual life was improved by the toppling of Saddam. Isn’t that supposed to be the standard of a rational egoist?

  2. Statement 1: “It is imperative that you help destroy Saddam.”

    Statement 2: “It is imperative that you be compelled to help destroy Saddam.”

    There’s an important difference here.

  3. 1. Since Beck explicitly and repeatedly rejects the sort of compulsion Holmes is talking about, this is, to say the least, a non-issue.

    2. Beck is not “courting” anyone if he sincerely believes that Saddam Hussein needed to go. What is he supposed to do – conceal this belief so that he can never be accused of collaborating with or “courting” the hated conservative revisionist running dogs? Solidarity forever!

  4. John,

    People do make arguments that contradict other positions they hold, even Beck. Josh’s conclusion is reasonable. Consider this line of reasoning:

    1) There was an imperative to destroy Saddam. (Beck’s premise)
    2) Thew was only one agency that could do so.
    3) Therefore it was imperative that the agency be employed to destroy Saddam.
    4) By it’s nature that agency compels Josh.
    5) Therefore it was imperative that Josh be compelled in order to destroy Saddam.

    Else how is the imperative achieved?

    As to courting, conservatives like Martin McPhillips and Kim DuToit go off on Beck when he engages them on foundational principles. Entries like the one Josh has noted are great for mending fences with them – they get to conclude, by a plausible chain of reasoning very like the one I gave above, that when push comes to shove Beck is really on the same page with them.

  5. Kennedy, you insolent drip: if you knew anything about my correspondance with the people you’re talking about — which in the case of du Toit has been non-existent for months now — then you might know what you’re talking about, but you don’t, so shut the fuck up.

  6. Beck,

    Saddam’s destruction was imperative for whom? That’s the question on the table.

    Of course I don’t know what goes on in your private email. And I didn’t mean to imply that you were continuing to beg Kim with this particular post. Du Toit is just an example of a conservative who will eat this stuff up as long as you pipe down about principles , because it seems to imply that when push comes to shove they’re right about needing this state – the only existing agency that can satisfy your imperative.

  7. “I don’t see how Beck’s own individual life was improved by the toppling of Saddam. Isn’t that supposed to be the standard of a rational egoist?”

    As certainly I oppose the war in Iraq and the excuses made for it -lies all-, I wonder…what if Mr Beck considers his life was improved by toppling of Saddam? Or you pretend to define what is “improving life” for Beck, Mr Kennedy?

  8. (Sorry to be off-topic, but this is what happens when you include fabulous pin-up models on your home page.)

    So, um . . . who is the fabulous pin-up model on your home page?

  9. I think it’s possible to claim that one judges something to be of value in some fuzzy, ill-defined way. After all, few of us indeed are rational ubermenchen like Kennedy. The problem with that sort of admission though is that it’s essentially copping to emotional satisfaction, and Beck is fronting like he’s offering a rational argument for Saddam’s disposal.

  10. Micha> Why does Beck get his own category? I want one!

    Jst n cs Jhn’s vwl-rmvng rtn dsn’t nrf thm frm th jmp, ‘ll d t fr y’ll:

    Bcs Knndy’s bldy scnd-hndr, tht’s why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *