Loose ends and loose minds: The Bill Strong saga.

Oh, yawn. I'm not sure if I ever got around to dissecting wanker Bill Strong's latest flailing in my direction but, if you need the entertainment, this is my favourite part, where Mr. Strong quotes me as writing:

Mr. Strong has repeatedly referred to (and continues to refer to) a "Democratic resolution for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq." There is no such resolution, as you can read here.

To which Mr. Strong responds, in that savage, right-wing, smackdown kind of way:

Technically, he's right ...

Ouch. I feel so upbraided. If you have a strong stomach, feel free to read the rest and marvel at the semantic contortions of those who had the nerve to chide Bill Clintion for his careful parsing of the word "is."

(If you need any help with the semantics, just take note of how often Mr. Strong starts using interchangeably the words "proposal," "resolution" and "issue", and how he insists on co-mingling the contents of Murtha's resolution with the contents of Murtha's press conference. Tap dancing at its finest. You expected any better?)

SOME EXTENDED PONTIFICATING: Don't you folks have something better to do on a Saturday morning? Just got a private e-mail, expressing still a little confusion about Mr. Strong's observations on Rep. Murtha's subsequent press conference at which Murtha spoke of, as my e-mailer wrote, an "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq, and how did this square with Murtha's resolution and doesn't this mean that Mr. Strong is actually correct?

In a word, fuck no.

Let me explain, not so much to further humiliate Strong in front of his children and adoring groupies, but to demonstrate the sleazy way that so many wankers play semantic games in order to win their unwinnable arguments. So, even if you're tired of the whole Bill Strong idiocy, be patient. There's something here worth learning.

As my long-suffering readers may remember, this all started back here, where the point of contention (and pay attention now, this is important) was whether the Republicans voted on, as so many wankers liked to describe it, a Democratic resolution for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq.

Quite simply, they didn't. Rep. Murtha's resolution called for (and I quote) a withdrawal "at the earliest practicable date". That resolution was rejected and replaced with a Republican resolution that did call for an immediate withdrawal, and that resolution was soundly thrashed. Therefore, when the residents of Wankerville went dancing in the streets about how the GOP defeated that hideous Dem resolution, they were lying. Period. End of discussion. Got that? Is that clear? Good. Onward.

The above was the sole issue that was at the heart of this entire debate -- the contents of those two separate resolutions. There was no other issue on the table. None. Zip. Squat. That was it. Capische?

So ... with me having made this point several times and trying to pound it into Strong's impermeable skull, we ended up here, with Strong quoting me as writing:

Mr. Strong has repeatedly referred to (and continues to refer to) a "Democratic resolution for immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq." There is no such resolution, as you can read here.

To which Strong replies (emphasis added):

Technically, he's right that no Democratic resolution was put to a vote, but ...

Freeze! If you wanted to, you could stop reading right there. Strong has finally admitted I'm right, and that's it. There is no need for further discussion. I'm right. Thanks very much. Hasta la vista, baby. Argument over. Drive safely. But you know it's not going to be that simple since, as you can see, Strong spends the rest of his article now dodging, weaving and tap dancing, trying to establish that, even though I'm right, well, I'm not really right. Or some such rot.

Strong first conflates the resolutions we were discussing with the general "issue" of a withdrawal from Iraq. But we weren't talking about the "issue," were we? So Strong's reference to an "issue" is meaningless misdirection. My argument concerned only the resolutions -- I don't give a fuck what Strong thinks of the "issue." That's not even remotely relevant to the discussion and can be ignored. But that's not the worst of it.

In a breathtaking example of meaningless drivel, Strong then quotes Murtha in a press conference thusly:

"The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target."

This is one of the oldest tricks in the rhetorical book -- changing the subject. See, we weren't talking about what Murtha said elsewhere. We weren't talking about what was said at a press conference, were we? No, we weren't. We were discussing the resolutions that were presented on the floor of the House of Representatives, which means that whatever happened at any press conference doesn't mean fuck all. It's just not relevant to the discussion.

Now, note carefully that this doesn't mean that we can't discuss what happened at that press conference as part of another argument. If one wants to claim that Murtha is being inconsistent, then, sure, you can make that argument. But that's a different argument. If Strong wants to bring up the press conference, he can do that only after he has unambiguously and unequivocally admitted that I was entirely correct in the original argument. There is no "but" qualifier here. I was right. Strong lied. And only after we have closure for that first discussion is Strong allowed to open another discussion, which he is certainly entitled to do. What he is not allowed to do is conflate the two discussions, which is exactly what he's doing here.

What this is is a warning to anyone who wants to engage a wanker in debate -- make sure you're precise about the issue being discussed because, as sure as Michelle Malkin is a Crazy-Assed Bitch™, as soon as said wanker starts to lose the argument, you'll see a slight but significant shifting of goalposts as extraneous and irrelevant facts and observations start to get dragged in. And it's your job to cut it off right there.

Once Strong admitted, "Technically, he's right ...", the argument was over. If he wanted to argue about other stuff, no problem, but that other stuff had no bearing on the fact that he lost that original argument.

Questions? And if you give me a few minutes, there's one more point I'm going to make here to put a couple more nails in Strong's coffin. Be patient.

JUST A LITTLE MORE WANKER DISHONESTY FROM MR. STRONG: Since I'm in a generous mood this morning, I'm going to demonstrate one more way in which wanks like Bill Strong fudge their arguments. As you can read, Strong tries to salvage his initial dishonesty by bringing up what Rep. Murtha said in a press conference which, as we have already established, is not even minimally relevant to the original debate. But, in fact, it's worse than that.

Note carefully part of Murtha's statements from that conference, which Strong reproduces on his site:

"The United States will immediately redeploy -- immediately redeploy. No schedule which can be changed, nothing that's controlled by the Iraqis, this is an immediate redeployment of our American forces because they have become the target."

(...)

"My plan calls for immediate redeployment of U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces, to create a quick reaction force in the region, to create an over-the-horizon presence of Marines, and to diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq."

So Strong is trying to use Murtha's press conference to bolster his irrelevant argument about immediate withdrawal but ... hold on! Murtha never uses the word "withdrawal," does he? Why, no, he doesn't. He uses the word "redeployment" which, as you can read here, certainly does not mean the same thing as withdrawal, does it?

1. To move (military forces) from one combat zone to another.


2. To shift (something) from one place or use to another for greater effectiveness: redeploy the company's resources.

Is that hilarious or what? Strong, in trying to salvage his now-unsalvageable argument, quotes Murtha saying something completely different from what Strong is suggesting. And how does Strong defend his misrepresentation of Murtha's own words? Why, he now conflates the two words as if there's no difference between them:

The above quote is from the transcript of the news conference last Thursday by Rep. John Murtha and published in the New York Times. Rep. Murtha clearly is proposing a plan for immediate redeployment of troops from Iraq. So again my statement about a Democrat's proposal for an immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq was accurate. CC is caught in a lie once again.

Um ... right. Lying. That would be me, all right.

[ADDENDUM: Note once again how Strong dishonestly redefines the basis of the discussion, referring to a Democrat's "proposal" for an "immediate withdrawal" when, as we've already established, we were talking about the resolution and no such Democratic resolution ever existed, as Strong has already admitted. Jesus Christ, how dense/dishonest can one human being be?]

In any event, the lesson here is that, before you engage any wanker in intellectual discourse, you should take the time to define verrrrrrry carefully the parameters of the discussion. And the instant you hear something like, "Well, OK, technically, you're right but ...", stop the discussion right there and claim victory. If said wanker wants to open another discussion, make it clear that that's a separate issue entirely. Otherwise, well, you've seen the possible end result. And it's not a pretty sight, is it?

BONUS BOOT TO THE NADS: For another delightful example of wanker tap dancing, check out this piece over at Ms. Z's, where Ms. Z describes getting an email with the screaming headline "WMDs FOUND IN IRAQ!" But, if you follow the links, the eventual article is somewhat more restrained and unspectacular. I'm sure you're shocked.