I’m starting to get a bit irritated with inconsistency in arguments these days. Somehow it bugs me more than even the flipflopping and outright lying. If your position is factually incorrect, at least make it internally consistent.
On the day Obama ordered the death of Osama, a facebook friend of mine posted the following:
So Im going to go ahead and post this because Obama seems to be giving him self the credit……Hey Obama….BUSH GOT OSAMA….If YOU would have been in office when 9/11 happened…you would have attempted to sit down with the terrorists over a cup o tea to talk about why they did what they did. You CANNOT fight terrorism with diplomacy.
Needless to say I was extremely confused given that Bush’s intel had nothing to do with the death of Osama and the fact that Bush even refused to take Osama from Al Qaeda way back in 2001. Of course I had to question how he arrived at the conclusion that Bush got Osama.
It turns out that his reasoning was that since Bush laid down the infrastructure that got Osama, Bush should get the credit. Startling inaccuracy aside, I was in shock from the inconsistency. Let’s go with his premise for a bit using actual facts.
If you remember your recent history, you’d know that Al Qaeda wouldn’t be much of anything at all if it were not for Ronald Reagan since he funded and trained the Mujahideen that would become Al Qaeda. Yes, I’m going there; Reagan laid down the infrastructure for 9/11 attacks. That means, being consistent, if Bush got Osama because he laid down the infrastructure, he killed the wrong man, because Reagan was the one responsible for the 9/11 attacks-not Osama. Bush should then issue a public apology to Bin Laden’s children and wives.