You might just as well say, that “I like what I get” is the same thing as “I get what I like”

Just in case you missed it an excerpt from How to Win a Fight with a Conservative by Dan Kurtzman

False Choice: Offering only two options for consideration when there are clearly other valid choices.

Example: “If we give up the fight in the streets of Baghdad, we will face the terrorists in the streets of our own cities.” —George W. Bush

Strawman: Oversimplifying, exaggerating, caricaturing, of otherwise misrepresenting your position without regard to fact. In doing this, your opponent sets up a figurative strawman that he can easily knock down to prove his point.

Example: “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” —Karl Rove

Shifting The Burden of Proof: Presenting an argument as commonly accepted truth, failing to support it with any evidence, and then forcing you to prove otherwise. This tactic is employed out of laziness or to mask the reality that the facts are not on your opponent’s side.

Example: “I think the burden is on those people who think he didn’t have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.” —[Former White House press secretary] Ari Fleischer, on Saddam Hussein’s alleged WMDs

Slippery Slope Leaping to wild, sometimes inexplicable conclusions—going, say, from Step One to Step Two and then all the way to Step Ten without establishing any discernible connection. By using this kind of leapfrog logic, a person can come to any conclusion he damn well pleases.

Example: “All of a sudden, we see riots, we see protests, we see people clashing. The next thing we know, there is injured or there is dead people. We don’t want to get to that extent.” —Arnold Schwarzenegger, on the dangers posed by gay marriage.

Probably the most often heard unsupported assertion we here is that Iraq is not only the front in the war on terror, a misleading statement and ultimately part of what fuels the Bush cycle of defeat, but the often shrill assertion that extracting ourselves from that quagmire will result in members of the “greatCaliphate” coming to America. The consequences,

And then we will have to be Muslims and “our women” will be forced into burkas and there will be no more music or gay bars or churches or blogs. This is an actual fear that they have — not a theoretical fear but one that is pressing, urgent, at the forefront of their worldview.

And their key political beliefs — from Iraq to Iran to executive power and surveillance theories at home — are animated by the belief that all of this is going to happen. The Republican presidential primary is, for much of the “base,” a search for who will be the toughest and strongest in protecting us from the Islamic invasion — a term that is not figurative or symbolic, but literal: the formidable effort by Islamic radicals to invade the U.S. and take over our institutions and dismantle our government and force us to submit to Islamic rule or else be killed.

This serves to remind us of some of the many contradictory accusations that the Right regurgitates regularly – liberals are communists or liberals are the rich intellectual elite. We’re neither and damn close to impossible to be both. Much like the constant accusation that liberals are hostile to religion, but they sometimes in the very next breath accuse liberals of loving jihadists. Some of the Right is well aware of the contradiction, but what counts in that they push the maximum amount of demonizing into the debate in as few barely intelligible words as possible i.e “Oversimplifying, exaggerating, caricaturing, of otherwise misrepresenting your position without regard to fact.”

Chris Floyd adds up Bush’s record in Iraq and the latest round of administration hyperbole and actions directed at Iran. Chris draws conclusions. They’re disturbing, but at this point what actions have the Bushies taken that were not maliciousness mixed with arrogance, Project Management: Bushists Through the Looking-Glass on Iran Charges

..that the Bush Administration has been fomenting sectarian and political violence in Iraq by arming – and in some cases, creating – militias, factions, terrorist groups, death squads and overt and covert “security forces.” [See Appendix below.] Based on reports taken from the publicly available sources, most often from Pentagon and White House officials, it is clear that over the course of the war, the groups thus supported and empowered by the Bush Administration have included practically every side in the kaleidoscopic conflict that has torn the conquered nation apart: Baathists, Shiites and Sunnis of various stripes, Kurds, tribes, spies, even a group of exiled Iranian cultists that Saddam Hussein had employed as brutal muscle in repressing his people.

The only thing that Bush has succeed at is the intensification and prolonging of the violence and sectarian divisions in Iraq. All the while of course using the boots on the ground as expendable pawns – something of a well established standard operation procedure of the Mayberry Machiavellis.

How good lawyers sprout whiskers and top hats after drinking too much national-security punch

Early in the argument in the first case, Hepting v. AT&T, Judge McKeown asked Deputy Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre whether President Bush still stood behind his statement that the government does no domestic wiretapping without first obtaining a court warrant. Garre said yes. McKeown wondered aloud how it can possibly be “a state secret” that that the government is not intercepting millions of customers’ communications illegally. How can the absence of an illegal program be a secret?

In a rhetorical flourish that would impress even the March Hare, Garre responded that if the appeals court allowed that issue to proceed to trial, the plaintiffs would be “forcing the government to prove a negative … that takes us precisely into the heartland of state secrets.” Follow along, little children: If the government had to prove that something that doesn’t happen, doesn’t happen, it would have to divulge everything that does happen. Um, how’s that?

March Hare: You might just as well say, that “I like what I get” is the same thing as “I get what I like”!
The Dormouse: You might just as well say, that “I breathe when I sleep” is the same thing as “I sleep when I breathe”! – from Alice in Wonderland