Cheney: I know more about Donald than you

Dick Cheney is on the offensive, only this time it's not against Democrats.  In an interview with ABC News, the Vice President criticized John McCain for calling Donald Rumsfeld "one of the worst secretaries of defense in history."

Cheney's defense: I was there, so you don't know anything:

"I think Don's a great secretary. I know a little bit about thejob," said Cheney, a former defense secretary. "I've watched what he'sdone over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms ofmanaging the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances."

Cheneyalso countered McCain's assertion that the vice president misled Bushwhen it came to Iraq. "John said some nasty things about me the otherday, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized,"Cheney said. "Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld."

Under Cheney's logic, if you think Scotty Pippen is better than Michael Jordan and someone disagrees, all you have to reply is that you know Scotty Pippen, so that makes your opinion more valid than theirs.  That line of argument is one of many logical fallacies that the Vice President has used to justify his Administration's policies.

Comments

[Tony]

there's a whole lot of apology requests going around on the Hill, and very few apologies (and rightly so in 'some" cases)

[George]

This whole Administration is based on them "knowing more". They know more about the intelligence, more about the terror threats, more about each other...

[Administrator: Todd]

That's right, George. They are the gate-keepers of the information, therefore that makes them more informed than all of us. As long as they remain secretive and above the law, they can claim the logical and moral high ground.

[ted K]

Todd, your analogy is faulty (again).
Do you Liberals even deal in logic?
Nancy Pelosi for brains and Reid are prime examples of your ilk.

Chenney's opinion is more valid than the interviewers and infinitely more valid than the likes of you guys.
He isn't saying "I know this guy and you don't.'
He is weighing his experience vs. what Rummy did and is giving an expert opinion.
Saying he obverved what Rummy did and knows a little bit about the job.
You guys are so politically hacky it is amazing.

And what may I ask do you want them to divulge to you yahoos?
They are supposed to know things we don't especially in a time of war.
I am sure you would love every secret detail of what they know about terrorist dealings and what the next move may be.. so would our enemy.

Just go on crying like Pelosi.
Maybe you can call the President ''demanding'' he distance himself from the V.P.'s comments too.

[George]

Ted is saying this: "The more information we have, the more vulnerable we are."

[Administrator: Todd]

Ted, I just want to get this on the record: do you think Rumsfeld was a great Secretary of Defense? If so, was he one of the best ever?

[ted K]

Todd, way to avoid the logic in my post.

I too think he made a mistake in not going full throttle at the beginning, but he had Generals on both sides of the isle on the More troops/less troops debate.
He went down the wrong isle.
Rummy was good, not great.

Certainly no Bill Cohen (and I THANK GOD for that!)

McCain is a once revered (for me) Republican who has morphed into a typical politician that will say whatever he needs to, to get the nod.

Much like Hillary.
What a sickening race that would be in 08.

[George]

How was he good? Specifically, what did he do well? I understand some people may have agreed with him way back when but he's the leader - and when you're in charge sometimes people just agree with you because it's easier. You can't give him a pass for stuff like that.

[The Mexican]

Ah, a post I can excel in: logic.

It seems, to me, that Admin Todd's statement: "They are the gate-keepers of the information, therefore that makes them more informed than all of us," is really just that; a statement. There is no fallacy in statements, as fallacies only occur to perpetuate an illogical aspect of an argument. However: "As long as they remain secretive and above the law, they can claim the logical and moral high ground," seems to be trying to discredit Cheney's argument by pointing out the circumstances of the opponent, which would violate a rule of relevance and commit the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy--by meaning the arguer presents other arguer as predisposed to think or to argue this way. To be noted, Cheney certainly does keep things from coming out like the Scooter Libby trial is extrapolating and Cheney's unfortunate shooting an old man in the face, when he tried to suppress it, then admitted it, then tried to conceal his drinking amount which wasn't corroborated by his spokeswoman, then he admitted to drinking more than he initially acknowledged. So, even having having

However, Ted K, you commit to many more logical fallacies, as have been evidence in previous entries in some of your replies. When you say "Nancy Pelosi for brains and Reid are prime examples of your ilk," you've violated a rule of grammatical analogy and committed the fallacy of composition, where the attribute is wrongly transferred from parts to the whole, insofar that you would contend to believe two examples would stand as the whole for liberals in dealing with logistics of arguments. Then, you go on to say: "Chenney's opinion is more valid than the interviewers and infinitely more valid than the likes of you guys," which would violate the rule of relevance and commit the appeal to unqualified authority fallacy, where arguer cites untrustworthy authority, because the person might lack the requisite expertise, might be biased or prejudiced, might have a motive to lie or disseminate "misinformation," or lack the the requisite ability to preceive or recall. Furthermore: "They are supposed to know things we don't especially in a time of war," violates two rules of presumption and commits both the begging the question fallacy and suppressed evidence fallacy, where it begs the question, "even if disposed to top secret information, do and should they have such a power that ignores checks and balances, and if they know something else that can commit themselves in a war crime, should they have a power to conceal or to expose purported evidence?," and as far as supressed evidence fallacy, this administration has done many a-things that when first stated have proven wrong and yet they have continued to dodge the question or forcefully rebut until the support has become too big to not accept it, like admitting to mistakes in handling of the war at the beginning, which only took Bush about five years to finally admit a couple mistakes, despite overwhelming evidence; however, by the arguer ignoring important evidence that requires a different conclusion, you've committed the suppressed evidence fallacy, whereby you know what has come back about war intelligence in the Duelfer report and many other instances, yet you continue on a defense for people who have lied openly and conceded only a few grievances. To continue on: "I am sure you would love every secret detail of what they know about terrorist dealings and what the next move may be.. so would our enemy," which violates a rule of relevance and commits the straw man argument, where the arguer distorts the opponent's argument and then attacks distorted argument, which you're claiming that Admin Todd and several others would love to know every secret detail, when he's blatantly asked only for a few key parts of information regarding aspects of information leading up to the war (as seen by reading several posts of this site), which is being called for by Congressional committees, to distinguish the fiction from facts. "Just go on crying like Pelosi" is clearly an ad hominem abusive fallacy on whomever you addressed in that last part (may have been Todd) or any of us reading it; there's no place for attacking people and trying to discredit their position when discussing the content of an arugment. Now, the conclusion you make are very possible, and I wouldn't discredit everything you say based on a false premise here and a false conclusion there, because then I'd commit the fallacy of fallacy, where one discredits an entire argument from one fallacy, when the conclusion may still, in fact, be true.

I say let's wait for some more evidence that turns up, because the war isn't even finished and many things have not yet been unearthed.

[The Mexican]

"So, even having having"
I'm not even sure what I was trying to write there.

[Administrator: Todd]

The Mexican, are you a philosophy major? I almost considered minoring in philosophy, and some of what you mentioned reminds me of what I am missing out on.

If only more people, including myself, spent more time paying attention to their own fallacies. Every now and then, I do a Google search on "Logical Fallacy," and find an informative website in order to re-learn how to conquere some of the analytical flaws that I have from time to time.

Man, if this site was about 100 times more popular, and therefore on the traffic level of Daily Kos, and also if I was more financially well-off, I would think about hiring someone to analyze my blog posts as you just did, and coach me on how to be as logically consistent as possible.

[The Mexican]

I'd like to make a correction, the appeal to unqualified authority fallacy is a violation not of relevance but of weak induction. Labeled the right fallacy under a different category of fallacies. And also, to give Ted K credit, he's admitted to being in a hurry when he replies, so it's understandable that he'll commit more fallacies.

Admin Todd, actually, I'm double majoring in psychology and philosophy--of which, as for the former, I'll be joining the APA within a year or so. My propensity is for psychology, but I have quite an fascination with philosophy, especially considering the affinity psychology and philosophy share. Psychology, by its roots, came from philosophy. Not to give too much about myself away, but I'm attending a community college to get my AALA degree (which I graduate this semester), then I'll be headed to University of Florida to finish off my BA in psychology. From there I plan on going to Stanford University (or Berkeley) to complete my doctorate in Clinical Psychology. I'm still contemplating on whether I'll join the military service or get into politics, or both. By the way, I'm minoring in literature. And yourself, you're a Political Science major, right? What are your plans for that, other than blogging, or is that going to be your occupation and tenure? Philosophy can be boring, especially logic, but the classes are essential. If you haven't taken it, some Ethics courses are really crucial and always very interesting.

[Administrator: Todd]

Good luck with your studies!! I get told all the time (since my sister and mother are both psych majors) about the connections between psychology and philosophy.

Yeah, I graduated in political science a few months ago. I am thinking about getting some experience before heading to graduate school in a few years. George Washington's School of Political Management is not a bad option. Of course, it's such a long way from where I am. So we'll have to see. Then after that, I'll probably go into political consulting, or maybe run for office.

[ted K]

Man I just threw up!

I wonder what rule that violated?