Reply #6: You purported to smash an argument that wasn't made

[DirkGently]

And with that, all the overreactive, anti-Gibbs shit is blasted into oblivion.

The thrust of the discussion and criticism is not that Mr. Gibbs never criticizes the right. While it's possible someone might have hyperbolically stated that, or may have noted he has seldom been as vicious to the right as he was to the left in the comments discussed yesterday, the issue here was what he said about the left.

Therefore, stating the obvious -- that he has indeed criticized the right -- is off the point to begin with, and further does not "blast" the argument about his vicious attack on liberals "into oblivion."

Mischaracterizing your opponent's argument so that you can more easily destroy it IS a strawman argument. Ironically, that is exactly what Mr. Gibbs did when he characterized progressive critics as wild-eyed, drug-addled crazies who "want to get rid of the Pentagon." That's hardly the critique leveled at the administration from the left, now, is it? So that too, was a strawman. It's always easier to beat an argument you made up for your opponent.

If you'd like to make an argument that what Mr. Gibbs said was defensible, please do. But trying to either claim he was only speaking to the ridiculous charicature of liberals that he himself painted, or attempting to switch the argument to one over whatever he has said about the right, is a canard, fallacy, rhetorical trick -- however you'd like to put it.

You are more than welcomed to your point of view, but it would be more persuasive if you stopped trying to slip past the fact that Mr. Gibbs broadly attacked progressives who have criticized the administration. That is what happened. He did not limit his remarks to "people who want to eliminate the Pentagon." He mischaracterized the administration's critics on the left as idiotic charicatures of liberals who would make such an argument.

Sorry, but there's just no way to spin this one. Why try so hard? If you think left-leaning critics of the administration deserved to be blasted, just make the argument. Why try to pretend that's not what he did?