Word police \ truthiness discerner: on John McCain

The McCain quote:  Obama is ‘directly responsible’ for Orlando attack


Logic is that if Pres doesn’t end occupation of Iraq, then ISIL \ ISIS doesn’t metastasize and gain prestige to the point that fanatic fans in the west pay tribute with violent attacks.

Discernment:  I think this can be true as a matter of logic, and still fail / be a lie as a matter of rhetoric.

The lone-ish wolf tribute attacks in the west are basically an externality of a preceding policy choice right.  Even if the etymology to that policy choice is very clear, I think “directly responsible” is not the right word to describe linkage to an externality…. If you get my drift.  Externalities are correlated, not ‘linked’.  I think.

Other thing is… leaving Iraq in 2011 or whatever may have been the wrong choice, but I have a hard time seeing it as a decision made in malfeasance.  We were to leave sometime right, everyone understands that, it’s just a matter of timing.   I dunno, just have some sense to really lay a blame for ‘externalities’ the malfeasance claim has to be greater than ‘wrong timing’.

Other other thing is…. one can say we wouldn’t have had Orlando if we hadn’t invaded Iraq in the first place eh.  That’s true as a matter of logic in this butterfly effect of  history thing we got going on.

Verdict:  Fail, it’s a BS, gaseous claim by McCain.


One thought on “Word police \ truthiness discerner: on John McCain

  1. pm1956

    McCain was completely full of crap. Responsible would mean that he did it or caused it to be done. Directly would make this even more limited, to directly cause it to be done. McCain pulled a Trump here, and has realized he went way to far.

    Yes, you can create a linkage logically, in the sense that a butterfly flapping its wings could n=be said to cause a tsunami, but….

    And I don’t think that it stands to reason that the invasion of Iraq was necessary for the Orlando massacre. The invasion of Iraq was perhaps necessary for Mateen to pledge allegiance to ISIS, but I do not think that pledging allegiance to ISIS was necessary to the attack. The more I read and hear about this guy, the more i think that the pledging allegiance to ISIS was incidental to the attack. I think he did that because he wanted people to think that he was a badass, as opposed to the sorry, conflicted, confused, pathetic person he really was.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s