user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I'd just like to add for general interest, that the quote: "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11" by Rice was used in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie, and he took the quote out of context so as to make it look like she was indicating something else.
No, the woman spouts nonsense like a horse pissing.
No, I disagree.
Unless she can prove that there was a connection, there wasn't.
According to HER definition, there was but in reality there wasn't. It's like saying "The Russian government of 1930 was anti-semetic, therefore there is a tie between Russia and what happened in the Holocaust." That's called post hoc ergo propter hoc or affirming the consequent. She basically saying that if Saddam Hussein was anti-American then he's somehow tied in with 9-11. In that case there is a tie between Cuba & Venezuela and 9-11. It's a cheap tactic but it's been used in the past. It's an easy way to get excused for your mistakes. She's just twisting her previous words.
'I'd just like to add for general interest, that the quote: "Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11" by Rice was used in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 movie, and he took the quote out of context so as to make it look like she was indicating something else.'
That wasn't taken out of context. Based on the sentences prior and after that quote, that is what she was trying to say. She was in fact trying to say that there is a connection between Iraq and 9-11. Therefore, he wasn't taking it out of context.
habeas_corpus - Okay. It wasn't Michael Moore's fault at all. It was my fault. When I watched the movie and he presented the quote as such, and I got the impression that she was indicating that Saddam was somehow himself and his regime physically behind the 9/11 plot. That was not what she was saying. But I thought it was. I got very angry at her. But it was all my fault for misinterpreting. Michael Moore had no agenda. All my fault.
She's damn close to beingright in that assessment. TO be totally right, all she has to do is to include the statement, "After we invaded Iraq without reason or provocation..."
After all, without te U.S. (US) being parked in their country, they wouldn't have had a reason to forge an insurgency.
Truth, no. But the insurgnecy doesn't have to blow up it's own citizens, now does it?
by aya on Sun May 21, 06 12:33pm
[+]
I agree. There is much unrest in the middle east. This leads to violence. But really this situation can be twisted to look however anybody wants it to look.
Gee Condie, when was it that you sold your soul for political power? Lying sack of shit.
...oh, and could you be a little more vague?
"But the insurgnecy doesn't have to blow up it's own citizens, now does it?"
Wouldn't you agree that the insurgency would have never happened if the US hadn't invaded?
aya, IMO, real lunatics don't mind collateral damage. In Iraq's case, it only makes the U.S. look bad, because they can point and say, "If *they* weren't here, we wouldn't have to be doing this!"
I'll complete the rest of the quote made on CBS on November 28, 2003:
And the Middle East is, after all, a place that is increasingly without hope and without prosperity, where these ideologies of hatred are being born. So there’s a very, very close connection. Saddam Hussein, of course, had been a supporter of all kinds of terrorist organizations, but it’s really the broader point that, as the president said in his speech at Whitehall in London, we have got to take this on, the war on terrorism, as an opportunity to change the very nature of the Middle East, and partnership with those in the Middle East who want a different Middle East. And then you’re going to see that the terrorists will have been very much wounded because their myth that Islam and the rest of the world cannot live together in harmony, and democracy will have been exploded.
Saddam Hussein has definitely supported terrorists. In that sense, she is certainly correct. I would agree with her, but not on the methods used to fight it (terrorism), ie, Iraq war, etc.
If anything, Saddam is less Islamist than his neighbors. That's why he had a bad relationship with the mullahs of Iran. He was more socialist but he added some "Islamic" characteristics to the republic because he needed to gain support from the religious majority.
She was clearly implying that Iraq was harboring the same ideology which al Qaeda was, and considering that Iraq actually used to be a secular nation under Saddam (not to mention the fact that Osama and Saddam were actually enemies), that means that if we wanted to change the regime of a country which clearly supported the al Qaeda terrorist network, we clearly aimed wrong.
"Oh, indeed there is a tie between Iraq and what happened on 9/11. It's not that Saddam Hussein was somehow himself and his regime involved in 9/11....."
**pulls off face mask to reveal herzog in all his glory**
Supreme neo-con reasoning.
You bet there's a link! I mean he wasn't involved and neither were any of his people but yep, he was involved!
When you put it all together it's just a cheap straw man argument by Condaleeza. The conservatives always resort to the strawman argument when they need to save face.
More feeble stretching that is not labeled an outright lie only by the most tortured definitions.
|
|
