I’m probably supposed to say schtuff about schtuff. What good is a political blog if I can’t do that?
It’s an apocalyptic election. We have two sides that believe that if the opponent is elected, the world is going to turn on its axis. This goes for us anti-Bushers. And, if you will direct your ears past am talk radio, this goes for the other side as well, who will tell you that — yeah, Bush is spending like a drunken sailor, but you can’t talk with the terrorists, and Bush is the only one who will Go Right At Those that Hit Us on 9/11…
… even if it means going right at those that didn’t hit us on 9/11… see, terror is terror, and we need to beat up the bad guys all over the world wherever they be…
Getting back to needing to say schtuff about schtuff, the current news cycle which for some reason is getting on my nerves: at first blush, the spin that Bush never claimed he said Hussein involved himself with Al Qaeda on 9/11, my thought was “No. That was Cheney’s job.” But…
Recall that the bill that Congress passed to allow the president to use force against Iraq required him to send Congress a written statement of purpose.
At the time, I felt the need to keep a mental booknote of that statement, particularly the most frustrating sentence which follows.
Dailykos.com just drudged it up. Key line:
I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
That is from the official statement, which I guess makes that an official reason.
Schtuff.
………
Worthy reading: a section of reader comments breaking up the semantics of the statement:
Mark G Maybe Bush did connect Saddam and 9-11; but not in this quote. The word “including” in its ordinary sense does not limit what goes before.
Illustration: “All Rebublicans should be tarred and feathered, including Rove, Bush, and Rumsfeld” does not mean “only” Rove Bush and Rumsfeld.
I second the notion that someone, somewhere, must have posted a thorough answer to this question.
Seamus: disagree (none / 0)
and here is why.
Take your illustration. You are saying that Rove, Bush, and Rumsfeld should be tarred and feathered. Including in its usage here means that is part of the whole. You are NOT saying that ALl Republicans should be tarred and feathered, possibly including Rove, Bush, and Rumsfeld. This is what you would have to be saying in order to conclude that Bush’s letter wasn’t claiming a connection.
There are two statements here. One is that the use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the US fight against “international terrorirsts and terrorist organizations.” If Bush didn’t intend to make a link then it should have stopped here or used a different qualifier than “including”.
By using “including” the way he has Bush is saying that the use of arumed forces against Iraq is consistent with both the larger effort against “international terrorists” and the component of it that is against “those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
The way you are parsing “including” you are changing its definition to either “possibly including” or “potentially including” or “excluding”. It just doesn’t work without those other qualifiers.
Pyewacket : Imagine it this way. (none / 0)
Imagine the final clause as paranthetical. To wit:
“I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations (including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001).”
This would suggest Irag was “central to the War on Terra” (as they deceitfully do ad nauseum but not necessarily complicit in 9/11.
As I said above, I’d love to hear Bush forced to make the distinctions we’re haggling over here.
You get the idea…