Reply
Wed 16 Aug, 2006 04:42 am
Check out this clip form MSNBC's Countdown where they admit that Bush uses terror alerts to cover his ass when he's in political trouble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=az7yl-UnsQQ
Welcome reaper66
I saw this bit on MSNBC last evening. But we ought to be precise with our language here. This isn't really an "admission", rather it is a "charge" or "criticism" or "indictment" etc. For it to be an admission, it would have to originate from the White House or perhaps some White House or administration supporter.
And the democrats don't?
This whole "war on terror" is one giant political game of chess using the lives of our soldiers as pawns.
Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.
woiyo wrote:And the democrats don't?
This whole "war on terror" is one giant political game of chess using the lives of our soldiers as pawns.
Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.
Here's a post that demonstrates it isn't merely words we need to pay attention to if we'd wish careful and logical debate.
Woiyo seems to be suggesting that if some negative political behavior is perpetrated by both US political parties then both are equally guilty or equally justified. This is a very common rhetorical move and logical error because it avoids any look at differences either in magnitude or in importance.
blatham wrote:This is a very common rhetorical move and logical error because it avoids any look at differences either in magnitude or in importance.
It also ignores that Democrats are just as subject to the pressure of hysteria, as in the rush to war and the Patriot Act. It also ignores who sits in the cat bird seat, which is the most pertinent observation.
blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:And the democrats don't?
This whole "war on terror" is one giant political game of chess using the lives of our soldiers as pawns.
Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.
Here's a post that demonstrates it isn't merely words we need to pay attention to if we'd wish careful and logical debate.
Woiyo seems to be suggesting that if some negative political behavior is perpetrated by both US political parties then both are equally guilty or equally justified. This is a very common rhetorical move and logical error because it avoids any look at differences either in magnitude or in importance.
Actually, I believe Woiyo is simple pointing that both parties do it, not that it justifies either parties actions, but the post Woiyo refers to only concentrates on a single party. To those of us that support the party in question, we prefer to remind people that though our backyard may be filthy, other backyards are equally filthy and instead of concentrating your energy only criticizing one, you could be criticizing all of them.
Perhaps it would make one appear less partisan to do so.
Yuppers. Good point, set.
Yeah, how perceptive of you to realize that there aren't really a lot of terrorists actively plotting to kill our citizens.
blatham wrote:woiyo wrote:And the democrats don't?
This whole "war on terror" is one giant political game of chess using the lives of our soldiers as pawns.
Both parties should be ashamed of themselves.
Here's a post that demonstrates it isn't merely words we need to pay attention to if we'd wish careful and logical debate.
Woiyo seems to be suggesting that if some negative political behavior is perpetrated by both US political parties then both are equally guilty or equally justified. This is a very common rhetorical move and logical error because it avoids any look at differences either in magnitude or in importance.
Bullshit!
There are mostly sheep in both parties who follow their leader without question. There are 2 extremes at work and with no middle ground, there can be no nogotiation to a reasonable conclusion to this dangerous situation. The only thing being neded are the lives of our soldiers and innocent civilians.
McG
Woiyo's post is a defensive move (in support of his party/president). Thus, it is a partisan argument itself. So we are left in the same position of no discernment.
That's why differentiating magnitude and relevance make us a bit smarter rather than indiscriminately stupid.
And set's point re 'catbird seat' (position of power) points to probably the most important aspect of 'relevance'. Holding power entails much greater consequence to the country.
Brandon9000 wrote:Yeah, how perceptive of you to realize that there aren't really a lot of terrorists actively plotting to kill our citizens.
Perhaps your post would be relevant in some discussion, but it wouldn't be this one.
The argument here (as voiced by Olbermann) is that this administration has used terror alerts for domestic political reasons rather than something more helpful to citizens.
blatham wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:Yeah, how perceptive of you to realize that there aren't really a lot of terrorists actively plotting to kill our citizens.
Perhaps your post would be relevant in some discussion, but it wouldn't be this one.
The argument here (as voiced by Olbermann) is that this administration has used terror alerts for domestic political reasons rather than something more helpful to citizens.
No, there's an implication that the threat indicated by the alerts does not represent a real, awful, potentially catastrophic danger that we absolutely must be alerted to.
Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:The argument here (as voiced by Olbermann) is that this administration has used terror alerts for domestic political reasons rather than something more helpful to citizens.
No, there's an implication that the threat indicated by the alerts does not represent a real, awful, potentially catastrophic danger that we absolutely must be alerted to.
What are you two arguing about. Seems to me that you are both saying the same thing.
The political reality is that all politicians utilize every event and condition they can to strengthen their own power base. Thats politics, and the game can't be played effectively any other way that I know of. The Democrats have repeatedly tried to play the War on Terrorism to their own advantage by labeling it un-necessary, illegal and far too costly in money and lives. They love to point to "failures" just as the Republican Party tends to emphasize the "successes". No big deal ... business as usual all around.
Now the accusation that the Administration has knowingly lied and manufactured out of whole cloth an incident, or incidents that will gain public approval is a slightly different horse. All political parties and leaders manipulate events and news in support of their own interests. The differences is that the accusation should require some solid proof that the Administration (in this case) entered into a conspiracy with foreign agents to stage a scripted drama with knowledge and intent to deceive the world into believing that a terrorist plot existed. That's a tall order. Only the lunatic fringe believes that there are no terrorists ready, willing and able to commit suicide in order to murder large numbers of "infidels". One of the problems with conspiracies is that they are almost impossible to keep secret. The more people who know a secret the less secure it is, and as a conspiracy grows so does the danger that someone will be recruited into it that will betray the secret. There is a mob saying, "two can keep a secret, if one is dead". It would take really, really extra ordinary proofs to establish the that a vast criminal conspiracy like Pearl Harbor or Al Quida, were/are fabricated fictions. Sorry about that F4F & gang.
Perhaps you folks ought to watch the clip.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace