Condi Rice is either irretrievably stupid or bugfuck insane. From this morning's Meet the Press:
- The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda ... or we could take a bolder approach.
Let's say somebody murders you. Let's say the murderer then announces to the whole world that he did it. Let's say a comprehensive investigation confirms his guilt. And let's say the police then decide the best way to see justice done is to arrest his nextdoor neighbor while letting the actual killer go along his merry way. Now, if you were asked to choose a word to describe that situation, would "bolder" be the first term to spring into your head?
Of course, if you're a particularly dim bulb then the police might be able to divert you by telling you the neighbor is a crack dealer or a wife beater or a pimp, and therefore they were right for going after such an awful fellow. If you're dim enough, or if you simply don't give a shit about justice, you might be convinced to forget that they're arresting the neighbor for a crime he did not commit while knowingly allowing the real perpetrator go free.
19 Comments:
What if the neighbor paid for the gun with full knowledge of the intended crime? What if the neighbor also built a shooting ranger and gave the murderer lessons on how to commit the crime? If that were the case, would going after the neighbor, in addition to the murderer, be "bolder" than just going after the murderer?
CF
1. There is no compelling evidence that the neighbor was actually involved in the murder.
2. What is this "in addition" bullshit? Bush has specifically stated that he's not thinking about Osama any more. The military have explicitly told us Osama's not a priority. Even if Iraq was somehow involved in "buying the gun" (which doesn't appear to have been the case), we still are letting the actual perp off the hook.
3. Buying/selling weapons, building/renting shooting ranges, and giving/receiving shooting lessons are not illegal. Indeed, Bush's party is the very party that most strongly opposes any kind of restriction or regulation of those practices. Going after somebody for those "crimes" could only be called "bolder" if you redefine that term to mean "unConstitutional." Which, of course, the wingnuts appear to be doing...
Author, do Democratic Talking Points go so far as to actually tell you that Saddam wasn't behind the September 11 attacks? Good Heavens! You're certainly no wolf. Or a fox.
Oh here I go prejudging based on past performance again, as if such a depressingly consistant track record were a fair indicator.
CF, please indicate Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks that you consider equivalent to having "paid for the gun with full knowledge of the intended crime?" Naturally this is an excellent opportunity for you to display those positive qualities you keep claiming to have but have been so modest about displaying. Don't be shy, this is your big chance!
False dichotomy.
The bitch is both, and a complete waste of raw materials to boot.
hugs,
Shirley Knott
1. Regardless of who was running Iraq in 2002, we are fighting Al Qaeda in that country today
2. The "actual perp" could mean only two things: 1. the guys who flew the planes into the building, who are dead. 2. Al Qaeda, which we are engaging in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. I don't see how it should mean one individual who was not exclusively responsible for the act and is merely a figurehead who most feel is no longer running the show.
3. If that neighbor conspired to commit the murder, the neighbor is guilty of a crime.
CF
CF, please indicate Iraq's involvement in the 9/11 attacks that you consider equivalent to having "paid for the gun with full knowledge of the intended crime?" If repeating something made it true, you'd have reordered the world completely many times over by now, but I'd like to think you're capable of a little more.
CF, you have crossed the line and become guilty of the One True Sin of the Church Of Zombiedeathkoala: you are now, officially, boring as all hell.
"1. Regardless of who was running Iraq in 2002, we are fighting Al Qaeda in that country today."
Yeah, Al Qaeda is all over the place these days. Might have something to do with the fact that we decided to go fight an irrelevant war, diverting our efforts away from catching bin Laden, and have now helped to enable the greatest terrorist recruiting system in our lifetimes.
"2. The "actual perp" could mean only two things: 1. the guys who flew the planes into the building, who are dead. 2. Al Qaeda, which we are engaging in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily. I don't see how it should mean one individual who was not exclusively responsible for the act and is merely a figurehead who most feel is no longer running the show."
Well, see, there's this thing we have called "the laws." A person who commits a crime is the "actual perp." A person who may or may not have at some point hung around with the perp is not the "actual perp." A person who sold legal goods to the perp is not the "actual perp." A religious or secular leader whose work indirectly influence the criminal actions is not the "actual perp."
If you want to say Iraq, the country, is the "actual perp," then the burden of proof is on YOU to establish the supposed link. Your hypotheticals are worthless, and your repetitions are bordering on pathetic.
"3. If that neighbor conspired to commit the murder, the neighbor is guilty of a crime."
As Aleks pointed out already, you are completely and utterly failing to back up a single one of your idiot hypotheticals. Put up or shut up.
This is for your own good, CF: if your next post does not contain clear, factual support for your claims, we will consider it your admission of failure and your surrender in this discussion. If you cannot stop being a broken record of unfounded claims and outright lies then we will simply have to stop enabling you.
Aleks, if CF fails to put up, please proceed to ignore him. There's no point in "debating" with make-believe.
I'm not going to try to prove Iraq helped plan 9/11 because I don't think they did. I don't think the Taliban helped plan 9/11 either. I think that as long as the Taliban was in power that they were going to support Al Qaeda and any other terrorist organization that shared some of their views. For that, they had to go. Are you saying that we should have allowed them to stay in power just because they weren't the "actual perp"?
CF
This is not a conservative blog. I understand that. I am in the visiting clubhouse, so I have to play by the home teams rules. Still, there some things I don't understand. There was a post that seemed to say, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seemed to say that after 9/11 we should have gone after ONLY Al Qaeda, and not attacked state sponsors of terrorism. Now, while attempting to speak in the analogy of the original post, I posed a simple question: Is it not bolder to go after the state sponsors of terrorism to try to attack funding and logistical support sources for terrorists organizations? The response I receive pretends I was talking about Iraq. I didn't mention Iraq. Then I'm asked to provide evidence of something I don't believe is true. Was Iraq a state sponsor of terrorism? Of course. Saddam paid suicide bombers to kill Isrealis. Saddam plotted to Assassinate one of our former presidents. Of course he was a state sponsor of terrorism. But I didn't say that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. I was talking about the overall approach the adminstration has taken as a means to attack the fascilitators, sponsors, and perpetrators of terrorism, as opposed to only putting individuals on trial. That includes removing the Taliban from Afghanistan. I'm not on my home turf, so this is your game and you can play it or not play it however you want. I just don't see why I would be asked to provide evidence of that that I don't believe in order to make a point that I'm not trying to make.
"If you want to say Iraq, the country, is the "actual perp," then the burden of proof is on YOU to establish the supposed link."
Well, I don't want to say that, I didn't say that, and I don't know how the country even got into the conversation. If you don't want to respond to what I actually said because it's boring or because you have nothing to say on the matter, that is 100% acceptable. This is your home turf. If you do want to tell me why it is not "bolder" to attack state sponsors of terror in addition to the actual terrorists, I'd be happy to have the discussion.
CF
Condi Rice*: "The fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda ... or we could take a bolder approach."
Author: "Let's say somebody murders you. Let's say the murderer then announces to the whole world that he did it. Let's say a comprehensive investigation confirms his guilt. And let's say the police then decide the best way to see justice done is to arrest his nextdoor neighbor while letting the actual killer go along his merry way. Now, if you were asked to choose a word to describe that situation, would "bolder" be the first term to spring into your head?"
The Wolf: "What if the neighbor paid for the gun with full knowledge of the intended crime? What if the neighbor also built a shooting ranger and gave the murderer lessons on how to commit the crime? If that were the case, would going after the neighbor, in addition to the murderer, be "bolder" than just going after the murderer?"
I guess I just don't see the no-spin interpretation of that which could begin to justify your extreme accusation that anyone "pretends" you have said something you have not. But for a year you've been telling us that you're intelligent and honest, so I certainly eagerly await it.
Author, shame on you. You know us "leftists" are all about welfare, social promotion, the "soft bigotry of low expectations", etc. etc. Why not give him yet another chance to finally show his announced worth?
Aleks,
I wasn't talking about any specific country in my post, but rather the "bolder approach" the administration has taken, which basically says that we should go after states that sponsor and/or harbour terrorists, not just the actual terrorists. The response I received said "Even if Iraq was somehow involved in 'buying the gun'..." I didn't speak specifically about Iraq, but that's OK. Obviously Iraq was part of that "bolder approach" I was talking about so it was reasonable to address that specific situation in the context of the discussion. I didn't respond to your comment because I didn't say that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. I didn't even mention the country. For some reason you asked me to provide evidence about that anyway, but I didn't repond because I assumed you just misunderstood me.
Now, because Iraq was mentioned in ZDK's post, my response included Iraq, but its reference was limited only to my actual feelings on the current situation and not the justification for entering the country initially, since I didn't know that's what we were talking about. Otherwise, I still spoke of the overall approach, not the policy in that theatre exclusively (ZDK's initial post didn't mention Iraq).
Now I didn't mean to be offensive in using the term "pretends". I'm sorry if it came out wrong. I meant that the response I received applied my words only to that specific country, even going so far as to ask me to prove a country I didn't mention was responsible for an attack I didn't mention. "Pretends" implies something intentional, so it was a poor choice of words. I understand why you'd feel that was an extreme accusation and I apologize.
In ZDK's last post she asked me to provide actual evidence of my claims. I don't even know what claims she was talking about. All I had said, as I look back through the thread, is:
1. That the guy who finances a murder and arms the murderer is guilty of murder in my mind.
2. Al Qaeda is in Iraq today.
3. We engage militants in Iraq and Afghanistan almost daily.
I can't see any other claims that I made in the posts. What evidence is requested? Does someone disagree with even one of those claims?
So, in conclusion, it is VERY unclear to me what claims I'm suppose to be supporting with facts. I don't even know what claims I've made in this thread that anyone disagrees with. If you or ZDK don't want to respond, don't respond. I'm not trying to complain about you not responding or whine about you asking me to support my claims. If you seriously think I haven't provide evidence for some claim I've made, tell me what the claim is so I can support it.
Or don't. Do whatever you want.
CF
So you were answering Author's Iraq-centric response to Rice's Iraq-centric comments, but did not mean Iraq but rather the Taliban, when noone's contested the justice and necesity of overthrowing them? Is that an unfair summary, and if so why?
It is an unfair summary because I specifically stated that my comments included Iraq policy, but did not include only Iraq, but instead the entire "approach" of the administration, as was the topic of the original post by ZDK, which did not mention Iraq specifically.
Now is there a claim I've made that requires more support or not? If everyone believes the "bolder approach" was the right tactic in terms of attacking the government of Afghanistan, which has not been proven to be the "actual perp", I see a little inconsistency in the arguments presented here.
CF
So your belief is that Rice was defending and Author was attacking going after the Taliban? I guess that's to be expected.
Since you used this as an example of where you used "facts" and I hid from them, please use some facts. If you tell yourself that you have used facts, please indicate what they are so I can stop hiding from them.
You seem to be having some trouble so I'll make this easy by breaking it down.
At issue: The fairness of your summary of my position, which read as follows:
"So you were answering Author's Iraq-centric response to Rice's Iraq-centric comments, but did not mean Iraq but rather the Taliban, when noone's contested the justice and necesity of overthrowing them?"
Contention: That your summary of my position was unfair.
Facts presented:
1. I stated that my comments included Iraq policy.
"I specifically stated that my comments included Iraq policy, but did not include only Iraq,"
2. I specifically stated that my comments included the entire approach of the administration
"but the entire "approach" of the administration"
3. That this was the topic of the original post because that post didn't mention Iraq.
"was the topic of the original post by ZDK, which did not mention Iraq specifically."
Does that clarify?
CF
Oh good! So what of it applied to Iraq, and what did not? What was Sec. Rice defending, since it apparently wasn't the Iraq War? What was Author attacking, since it wasn't the Iraq War?
Glad to see you addressing my facts. Rice was defending the administrations approach to defending the country against terrorism. *Fact: Rice said, "We could decide that the proximate cause was al Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al Qaeda ... or we could take a bolder approach."" *Fact: After 9/11 we attacked Afghanistan before Iraq. The "approach" of the administration that is "bolder" is to attack governments responsible for terror rather than just "go after al Qaeda". My position is that Iraq and Afghanistan both fall under the "bolder approach" that Rice is describing because *fact: in both instances we went after the government rather than just the terrorists in the country. If you disagree, provide evidence that I'm wrong.
As for author, she was attacking the Iraq war, but her post didn't initially indicate that. Her post attacked the "bolder approach". If you disagree, show me evidence that she did not attack the approach.
CF
Post a Comment
<< Home