3 ms·
"attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuti
by CoolGuySteve 10y ago
"attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position, without directly refuting or disproving the opponent's initial argument."
Sounds exactly like whataboutism.
Look, Bush knew confidential information that no one outside the government could and still made those decisions.
Stop trying to deflect this with some unrelated person who wasn't in the government, had no security clearance, and had nothing to do with the invasion. It's simply irrelevant.
- gozur88 10y ago>Sounds exactly like whataboutism. Nope. This is simple inductive reasoning. > Look, Bush knew confidential information that no one outside the government could and still made those decisions. Yes, and they were probably reasonable decisions, given what he knew at the time. >Stop trying to deflect this with some unrelated person who wasn't in the government, had no security clearance, and had nothing to do with the invasion. It's simply irrelevant. It would be irrelevant if people who also don't have information no one outside the government could are using the Iraq war to draw conclusions about Bush's intelligence.