Home | About | Donate

Media Make Excuses for Bush Sr.'s 'Cop-a-Feel' Assaults


Media Make Excuses for Bush Sr.'s 'Cop-a-Feel' Assaults

Tegan Jones

"There's something unnerving about the assumptions surrounding the non-coverage of the Bush Sr. 'Cop-a-Feel' story."


Allowing these photo ops to continue is enabling the former prez, whether he’s a perv or suffering from “loss of control.” But, to the author, prefacing each claim with (male) or (female) is simply to court ad hominem circumstantial fallacies.


If the women who were groped had been so startled they whirled around and slapped his face and then walked away, he would probably have stopped it immediately.


Didn’t he start this before he was infirm and in a wheelchair?


Has the pope been behaving himself?


A privilege of rich and powerful men?


Your use of a fancy phrase “ad hominem circumstantial fallacies”) is a way to DISCOUNT FACTS–that MEN EXCUSES groping a wmoan’s rear-end & WOMEN did NOT excuse it. If the photo-ops continue with former Pres.HW Bush–then, ONLY MEN should stand next to him, I wonder if he will try to “put them at ease” as he did women? Probably not…& if he does, no one will make excuses for his behavior


Fancy is in the eye of the beholder; and the claim that I am discounting relevant facts is simply a red herring (and false). Here’s a fact for you: it is always fallacious to discount the claims of a person by reference to their sex/gender (I suppose the one exception would be if, for example, a female were to say “I am a male.”) Best simply to attack the position directly.


I disagree, if the author is making an observation and gender is basic to the observation it doesn’t debase gender. We might have misunderstood the president’s motivation but he actually provided that for us.


Your example is a milder variant of the one I provide in parentheses. But I think the logic remains doubtful. In general, inferences of the following form are clearly invalid:

A male (or female) claims p, a comment involving sex/gender.
Therefore, p is false (or true).


Ok, I think I get what you are saying here.

So there is the observation followed by the substantiated observation that the first observation has been repeated several times over time. How can you not make a logical deduction? This issue isn’t true or false.


Inferences based on observation are never deductive, but only inductive, at best producing probabilistic (probably true or false) conclusions. My only point is that the gender/sex of the observer is not typically relevant to the truth/falsity of the conclusion.


Ok, thanks for patience on this. I’m not sure that is 100% but that is ok. Observation as a stand alone can be deceiving but you can always use other methods to determine a valid conclusion. As, the presidents wife acknowledge the actions with the conclusion the president could be arrested for his actions. The conclusion was inaccurate (in this case) but the observation was not questioned. When the president used inappropriate touching, the women could have question him." what are you doing" but I think he told her before hand what his intent was. Just because there were delayed consequences for the president doesn’t mean there were no consequences. People were advised not to stand next him based on gender.


No doubt people should avoid standing next to the former president (my original claim above). And no one is justified in making excuses for his behavior (whether male or female); however, explanations of his behavior are accurate or not as well, irrespective of the sex/gender of the persons doing the explaining.


How about the great “feminist”, Andrea Mitchell, who defended the great “feminist” Hillary Clinton during the
2016 election campaign by telling Bernie that he was being too “tough” on one said Clinton,
coming to the rescue of Highway George by saying something to the effect that
these women accusers of Highway George should go away/ shut up or something to that
they all seem to protect one another, don’t they?


Ahhhh … they’re just women. Get over it.


Bad as the coverage has been, it pales in comparison to the non-coverage of his war crimes in Panama where 5000 civilians were reportedly killed in the surprise US bombing raid and invasion, all for the supposed purpose of arresting former CIA a set Noriega. Not to mention the thousands of hapless Iraqi conscripts buried alive in their trenches during the Gulf War.