McLellan book & the GOP reaction...chance to wake up JWs?

by sir82 17 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  sir82

  Don't want this thread to turn political, but...

  Have you noticed that just about every administration response to Scott McLellan's new book attacks the messenger? "He's disgruntled"..."It's not like him"..."We're disappointed he chose to do this"....etc. Not one word (that I have seen or heard) disputing the actual contents of the book.

  Sound familiar? What do you read in the Watchtower? "Apostates have allowed pride to overcome them"...."Satan has overreached them"...."They bitterly 'beat' their former associates"...etc. Once again, nary a word contesting the actual arguments apostates promote.

  If you are "working" on reasoning with a JW, perhaps the McLellan book & the Bush team response is way to broach the logical fallacy of "attacking the messanger".

  Mention the book, the Bush team's response, and how they are vilifying the author without refuting his arguments. Ask if they think that is fair or reasonable..."why don't they refute his arguments...or is their silence a tacit admission that what he says is true?" A halfway-reasonable JW should be able to see the point.

  Then, the next time (shouldn't have to wait too long!) one of the Watchtowers goes into one of its foaming-at-the-mouth diatribes against "wicked apostates", you could mention, "hey that reminds me of what the Republicans did with McLellan's book...I wonder why the Watchtower doesn't make the effort to refute the specific arguments, rather than attack the motives, of its opposers?"
• 

  snowbird

  That's a good approach, Sir82.

  Sylvia
• 

  drew sagan

  I wouldn't expect any events in American politics to really have much pull on a JW. They typically look at the news as a way to verify their own beliefs (any earthquakes today?). I understand your point but most JWs are lost when it comes to politics and have such naive ideas about what goes on I doubt you could ever get a good conversation about it.
• 

  drew sagan

  Just wanted to say that I did do ok with this approach once, but the comparison was not political. I showed Mormon and Seventh day adventist literature that vilified their ex-members as filled with demons among other things to a JW Elder. He was forced to agree that the same kind of things are in the Watchtower and seemed uncalled for. I think the religious comparison would go much farther than a political one IMO.
• 

  Dorktacular

  I think that some things in the book might be false, but more likely than not, there's enough truth in there to be damaging to the Bush administration. Benjamin Franklin once said that "the sting in any rebuke is the truth". We'll find out in the comming weeks how much the information in the book "stings" the Bush administration.
• 

  Gopher

  The JW's won't be woken.

  It's interesting to see what their own magazine said about propaganda -- http://www.watchtower.org/e/20000622/article_02.htm

  Name-Calling

  Some people insult those who disagree with them by questioning character or motives instead of focusing on the facts. Name-calling slaps a negative, easy-to-remember label onto a person, a group, or an idea. The name-caller hopes that the label will stick. If people reject the person or the idea on the basis of the negative label instead of weighing the evidence for themselves, the name-caller's strategy has worked.

  So this WT magazine talks about the diversion of attention away from facts, and onto the supposed "motives" of a truth-teller. Ironic, isn't it? Whatever Scott McLellan said has been said before by other insiders. So the propagandists turn their guns on the messenger, as if that would make any difference.
• 

  Carlos_Helms

  Hmm. Doesn't seem to be much of an "attack" on Messenger McClellan.
  
  McClellan didn't have the clearances necessary to make the inferences he made. I believe that's the point the Bush administration is trying to make. There is also some peripheral chatter going on about McClellan's connections to billionaire George Soros...a man whose reputation as a Bush-hater precedes him.
  
  I'd have to say that McClellan is most likely motivated by a fat paycheck. As a droll press secretary, he wasn't very popular...and his termination I'm sure left him high and dry. An "insider expose" is the ideal remedy for a Beltway has-been. Even a disloyal huckster needs some quick cash sometimes.
  
  The WMD thing is old news. Both of the last two administrations were convinced that Saddam was in possession of biological and chemical weapons (the US provided them, for cryin' out loud) and was actively working on nuclear weapons. I have little doubt that they're sitting in Syria (along with several billions in American currency) as we speak.
  
  Carlos
• 

  Gopher

  Hmm. Doesn't seem to be much of an "attack" on Messenger McClellan.

  Then exactly what would an "attack" look like? The neo-cons and conservatives are harshly criticizing McLellan and questioning his motives. The current White House press secretary all but called him a liar.

  McClellan didn't have the clearances necessary to make the inferences he made. I believe that's the point the Bush administration is trying to make.

  Then why don't they say it that way? Nobody has said that, they're saying he changed, implying he should have written a book full of warm fuzzies about the lot of them.

  There is also some peripheral chatter going on about McClellan's connections to billionaire George Soros...a man whose reputation as a Bush-hater precedes him.

  In the quotes I've seen from the book, I don't see Bush "hating" here. Unless someone calls disagreement with themselves "hatred". I know Bush treasures loyalty above all else -- if you're not "with" him you must be "against" him.

  The WMD thing is old news. Both of the last two administrations were convinced that Saddam was in possession of biological and chemical weapons (the US provided them, for cryin' out loud) and was actively working on nuclear weapons.

  But which of the two administrations went in there, eschewing any diplomacy or futher sanctions (or any other options that could have been worked out), and tried to force democracy on an unwilling people there?

  I have little doubt that they're sitting in Syria (along with several billions in American currency) as we speak.

  Just like the administration had little doubt about so many things before the war (the war would be easily won, the WMD's were there, the people would welcome America as saviors, and wanted democracy).
• 

  5go

  Bush Administration = Watchtower

  Scott McClellan = Ray Franz

  Goes to show the corporate/cult mindset permeates other parts of society.
• 

  ColdRedRain

  If he wanted to release the book and blow the whistle, why didn't he do it around the time he was terminated rather than around an election cycle? I'm not asking because I'm a Republican, I'm asking because I value truth and motive over everything. This seems like a money backed betrayal. But I will read the book.

  "But which of the two administrations went in there, eschewing any diplomacy or futher sanctions (or any other options that could have been worked out), and tried to force democracy on an unwilling people there?"

  Umm, Bill Clinton sent missiles into Iraq, Bush Sr. bombed Iraq, and even Reagan wasn't that big of a fan of Iraq. Iraq shot some of our planes during the Reagan administration. Nobody remembers that. Iraq's alliance with the USA was more of an alliance of convenience rather than a true friendship. Iraq was at war with Iran, who was seen as a greater threat.