Josh says in backchannel that he is angry. From the context it is clear that he is angry that Bush is in power and wants to debate the issues in public. He articulates the challenge thus:
no discussion about the pros and cons of the bush administration will be without a discussion of domestic issues as well as international ones. the crucial difference between the way you think now and the way i think now has nothing to do with intellectual dishonesty or low iq, (fucker) but that i care deeply about the actual domestic state of this country,
Since, in our discussions, my focus has been almost exclusively about Iraq, I interpret Josh as saying that he is not really interested in whether taking out Saddam was a good policy but rather whether George Bush is a good or bad President. Since abstract goodness or badness are metaphysical questions and metaphysical questions are not really coherently answerable, I’d like to constrain this discussion to something more manageable. If Josh wants a debate about whether Bush or Kerry would be a superior President over the next four years, that is an option, but even that seems overly broad without agreement about what would make one superior to the other. So I challenge Josh either to provide some basis of comparison between the two possible future Presidents or to constrain the discussion to respective mertis of Bush and Kerry’s policies on some specific issue.
But before we do any of that, I would like to resolve the question of intellectual honesty. Josh, do you believe that the Bush administration claimed that Saddam was an imminent threat to the United States.
(Josh, if you want to have this debate in the comments section, that is fine. Personally I would prefer if you responded in your own blog because MT does not allow links to comments.)