Great Speech if you have the time

Abookamongstthemany

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=945405493000735497&q=Arundhati+Roy%27s++Come+September&hl=en

B nice

pearljam featured her in one of the newsletters(when they were good(pearl jam and the newsletter))

trappedinmyradio

(1) that was very good...thank you for posting...
(2) she is very "cute"

Purple Hawk

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=945405493000735497&q=Arundhati+Roy%27s++Come+September&hl=en

Whether or not it's a great speach...in terms of content, depends on your world view...she is articulate and very personable though

El_Kabong

there's also a nice documentary you can get pretty cheap on her site and myspace

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

Whether or not it's a great speach...in terms of content, depends on your world view...

was there something you thought was incorrect?

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

was there something you thought was incorrect?

"To fuel yet another war - this time against Iraq - by cynically manipulating people's grief, by packaging it for TV specials sponsored by corporations selling detergent and running shoes, is to cheapen and devalue grief, to drain it of meaning"

Yeah, nobody cynically manipulated people's grief. Like the throw in of corporation though...that's the word that keeps liberals interested in a conversation when it's veering off....corporation...YEAHHH!!!! FUCKING BASTARDS!!!!

Truth is, as I see it, that Iraq is what it is...Both Clinton and Bush saw the defiance of the worthless, joke of an organization that is the UN was a problem...what's wrong with enforcing resolutions?

"Now that the initial aim of the war - capturing Osama bin Laden (dead or alive) - seems to have run into bad weather, the goalposts have been moved. It's being made out that the whole point of the war was to topple the Taliban regime and liberate Afghan women from their burqas, we are being asked to believe that the U.S. marines are actually on a feminist mission [laughter, applause]. (If so, will their next stop be America's military ally Saudi Arabia?) [Laughter] Think of it this way: in India there are some pretty reprehensible social practices against "untouchables", against Christians and Muslims, against women. Pakistan and Bangladesh have even worse ways of dealing with minority communities and women. Should they be bombed? Should Delhi, Islamabad and Dhaka be destroyed? "

the initial aim of the war was not to capture Osama bin Laden. And no, I don't think anyone said it was a feminist cause. Seriously? where is she getting this crap? But seriously, it's a zinger. My problem with most of this stuff is that it's so simplistic. "yes, I totally think that Delhi should be bombed....and Islamabad....

In a way, she makes arguments that 8 year olds make. Yes, we want to bomb everyone...yes, we are blood thirsty and really LOVE to bomb. Do you have ANY idea how old this gets? It gets us nowhere.

She also seems to be obsessed with being labled as 'anti-american.' I always find it amusing when people who completely ignore what side A's enemies do, and SAY, and completely focus on all the faults of side A, i find it amusing when they look down upon anyone who questions their motives against side A.

But my main point is...is that the speech doesn't represent anything more than someone pontificating about their world view. All the people that agree think it's great, and those that don't, don't. So really, who cares?

trappedinmyradio

you are defining this in a very black and white fashion...you are right, in a way, but there are people out there that agree with some of what she is saying...and disagree with other things she is saying...it's not all agree or disagree...nothing is that cut and dry.

Purple Hawk wrote:

"To fuel yet another war - this time against Iraq - by cynically manipulating people's grief, by packaging it for TV specials sponsored by corporations selling detergent and running shoes, is to cheapen and devalue grief, to drain it of meaning"

Yeah, nobody cynically manipulated people's grief. Like the throw in of corporation though...that's the word that keeps liberals interested in a conversation when it's veering off....corporation...YEAHHH!!!! FUCKING BASTARDS!!!!

Truth is, as I see it, that Iraq is what it is...Both Clinton and Bush saw the defiance of the worthless, joke of an organization that is the UN was a problem...what's wrong with enforcing resolutions?

"Now that the initial aim of the war - capturing Osama bin Laden (dead or alive) - seems to have run into bad weather, the goalposts have been moved. It's being made out that the whole point of the war was to topple the Taliban regime and liberate Afghan women from their burqas, we are being asked to believe that the U.S. marines are actually on a feminist mission [laughter, applause]. (If so, will their next stop be America's military ally Saudi Arabia?) [Laughter] Think of it this way: in India there are some pretty reprehensible social practices against "untouchables", against Christians and Muslims, against women. Pakistan and Bangladesh have even worse ways of dealing with minority communities and women. Should they be bombed? Should Delhi, Islamabad and Dhaka be destroyed? "

the initial aim of the war was not to capture Osama bin Laden. And no, I don't think anyone said it was a feminist cause. Seriously? where is she getting this crap? But seriously, it's a zinger. My problem with most of this stuff is that it's so simplistic. "yes, I totally think that Delhi should be bombed....and Islamabad....

In a way, she makes arguments that 8 year olds make. Yes, we want to bomb everyone...yes, we are blood thirsty and really LOVE to bomb. Do you have ANY idea how old this gets? It gets us nowhere.

She also seems to be obsessed with being labled as 'anti-american.' I always find it amusing when people who completely ignore what side A's enemies do, and SAY, and completely focus on all the faults of side A, i find it amusing when they look down upon anyone who questions their motives against side A.

But my main point is...is that the speech doesn't represent anything more than someone pontificating about their world view. All the people that agree think it's great, and those that don't, don't. So really, who cares?

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

"To fuel yet another war - this time against Iraq - by cynically manipulating people's grief, by packaging it for TV specials sponsored by corporations selling detergent and running shoes, is to cheapen and devalue grief, to drain it of meaning"

Yeah, nobody cynically manipulated people's grief. Like the throw in of corporation though...that's the word that keeps liberals interested in a conversation when it's veering off....corporation...YEAHHH!!!! FUCKING BASTARDS!!!!

yeah, the whole wmd thing after months of not enough support for war wasn't manipulating, gotcha.

i'm afraid i don't understand your point about the corporation thing...? a difference, tho, would be ppl's grief over 9/11 and fear of 'mushroom clouds as a smoking gun' was manipulated to go to war w/ iraq...bringing up corporations is equal to this...how? do you see 'liberals' rallying together and bombing halliburton or lockheed martin?

Purple Hawk wrote:

Truth is, as I see it, that Iraq is what it is...Both Clinton and Bush saw the defiance of the worthless, joke of an organization that is the UN was a problem...what's wrong with enforcing resolutions?

would you support this thinking in enforcing the several un resolutions israel has violated?

Purple Hawk wrote:

"Now that the initial aim of the war - capturing Osama bin Laden (dead or alive) - seems to have run into bad weather, the goalposts have been moved. It's being made out that the whole point of the war was to topple the Taliban regime and liberate Afghan women from their burqas, we are being asked to believe that the U.S. marines are actually on a feminist mission [laughter, applause]. (If so, will their next stop be America's military ally Saudi Arabia?) [Laughter] Think of it this way: in India there are some pretty reprehensible social practices against "untouchables", against Christians and Muslims, against women. Pakistan and Bangladesh have even worse ways of dealing with minority communities and women. Should they be bombed? Should Delhi, Islamabad and Dhaka be destroyed? "

the initial aim of the war was not to capture Osama bin Laden. And no, I don't think anyone said it was a feminist cause. Seriously? where is she getting this crap? But seriously, it's a zinger. My problem with most of this stuff is that it's so simplistic. "yes, I totally think that Delhi should be bombed....and Islamabad....

the war in afghanistan was partly to find osama, are you serious?

the 'feminist cause' comment was what some would call irony. how they used pictures of women w/o burqas w/ their purple thumb in iraq...<especially now that some soldiers raped a 14 year old girl and killed her and her family...stop acting like we are doing someone a favor.

the talk of bombing delhi, islamabad and dhaka was also irony pointing out if liberation is your reason for this why do you support regimes that are just as bad or even worse!?

Purple Hawk wrote:

In a way, she makes arguments that 8 year olds make. Yes, we want to bomb everyone...yes, we are blood thirsty and really LOVE to bomb. Do you have ANY idea how old this gets? It gets us nowhere.

oh, my bad, i thought you said you thought she was "articulate and very personable"?

yes, to them our history of our actions must be very tiring :(

Collin

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=945405493000735497&q=Arundhati+Roy%27s++Come+September&hl=en

Thanks for posting this, I don't have the time right now but I'll find some time today:)

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

yeah, the whole wmd thing after months of not enough support for war wasn't manipulating, gotcha.

Was Clinton, who expressed concerns over wmd's for the entirety of his presidency in on the manipulation too?

El_Kabong wrote:

i'm afraid i don't understand your point about the corporation thing...? a difference, tho, would be ppl's grief over 9/11 and fear of 'mushroom clouds as a smoking gun' was manipulated to go to war w/ iraq...bringing up corporations is equal to this...how? do you see 'liberals' rallying together and bombing halliburton or lockheed martin?

You don't understand because we are from two completely different points of view. I don't see how anyone can't understand that 9/11 SHOULD instill fear! It was a political act and I don't view it as some random natural disastor (which, i think it's actually OK to use those to make political points, depending on the race of the victims of course) and if we sit around and don't do anything, it's going to happen again and again.

If you believe that Iraq is about halliburton or lockheed martin, then the only responsible thing to do WOULD be to do something about it. But we will never agree because we are so fundamentally far apart in our views of our government and their motives.

El_Kabong wrote:

would you support this thinking in enforcing the several un resolutions israel has violated?

if any of their violations seriously threatened our national security or our self-interest, absolutely.

El_Kabong wrote:

the 'feminist cause' comment was what some would call irony. how they used pictures of women w/o burqas w/ their purple thumb in iraq...<especially now that some soldiers raped a 14 year old girl and killed her and her family...stop acting like we are doing someone a favor.(

what types of pictures are they supposed to use? should they have only showed men? people pointing out that women are better off not living under shari'ah law doesn't mean they support military action because of feminism? I'll be honest, that is a side benefit that comes from military action that seeks to further your self-interest.

Also, aren't you using the rape of a 14 year old girl to produce a 'smoking gun' for your argument? It's funny, prior to Iraq, the media was the lapdog of Bush, eating up all his propoganda. Yet, somehow they have suddenly been able to resist his desire to put forth ANY TYPE of positive developments, or views of troops on the ground.

You want to talk about manipulation, how about Jim Webb? "Even now most of the military opposes the way we are fighting this war." Really? Is this based on a poll? If so, does it say the military is pissed off because they don't believe in the cause, or because we are tying their hands?

If nothing else, this post has made me learn how to respond to different points in one post!

trappedinmyradio

El_Kabong wrote:

the 'feminist cause' comment was what some would call irony. how they used pictures of women w/o burqas w/ their purple thumb in iraq...especially now that some soldiers raped a 14 year old girl and killed her and her family...stop acting like we are doing someone a favor.

let's not take a fringe act and use it to generalize about the entire military or the military action abroad.

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

Was Clinton, who expressed concerns over wmd's for the entirety of his presidency in on the manipulation too?

did close to 3,000 servicewo/men die b/c of his 'concerns'? did he run us from a record surplus to record defict over his 'concerns'? did he ignore the numerous problems here at home to instead spend our money on bombing then rebuilding a foreign countries infrastucture?

Clinton may have expressed his concerns, but that was it. he didn't use those concerns to push for a needless war that has cost far too much in blood and $

Purple Hawk wrote:

You don't understand because we are from two completely different points of view. I don't see how anyone can't understand that 9/11 SHOULD instill fear! It was a political act and I don't view it as some random natural disastor (which, i think it's actually OK to use those to make political points, depending on the race of the victims of course) and if we sit around and don't do anything, it's going to happen again and again.

it shouldn't be used in a manipulative manner

Purple Hawk wrote:

If you believe that Iraq is about halliburton or lockheed martin, then the only responsible thing to do WOULD be to do something about it. But we will never agree because we are so fundamentally far apart in our views of our government and their motives.

and who thinks that? iraq is about control of a region and it's resources. shit, ppl in this administration have been saying this for over a decade! and even if someone where to believe it wa just 'about halliburton or lockheed...' i don't think bombing their offices would the action to take

Purple Hawk wrote:

if any of their violations seriously threatened our national security or our self-interest, absolutely.

so only if affects us? it's threatening the security of lots of other ppl and their self interest, not just that but their existance. the checkpoints make it so they can't even take their kid to the doctor some of the time!

anyway, how did iraq threaten our national security? how did panama? how did nicaragua? how did el salvador? how did iran in the 50's? i guess that's why you threw in the self interest part. i think it's wrong to attack another country and kill a lot of it's civilian populace just because they wouldn't willingly let us exploit their resources and ppl.

Purple Hawk wrote:

what types of pictures are they supposed to use? should they have only showed men? people pointing out that women are better off not living under shari'ah law doesn't mean they support military action because of feminism? I'll be honest, that is a side benefit that comes from military action that seeks to further your self-interest.

no, you brought up the feminist thing...it was sold as liberating these women. her point was if this is one of the reasons why don't we care about all the other women who suffer just as bad or worse, especially in our allies' borders? ya know, kinda like the hypocrisy of talking about rape rooms in iraq while we give colombia over a billion of our tax dollars every year when their military seems to have quite a problem w/ raping their ppl...

Purple Hawk wrote:

Also, aren't you using the rape of a 14 year old girl to produce a 'smoking gun' for your argument? It's funny, prior to Iraq, the media was the lapdog of Bush, eating up all his propoganda. Yet, somehow they have suddenly been able to resist his desire to put forth ANY TYPE of positive developments, or views of troops on the ground.

no, it's not a 'smoking gun' and it's far from the only instance of abuse by our military over there. i guess the opening of a school <that has no stable electricity and no clean water> is kinda outweighed by all the violence and deaths

Purple Hawk wrote:

You want to talk about manipulation, how about Jim Webb? "Even now most of the military opposes the way we are fighting this war." Really? Is this based on a poll? If so, does it say the military is pissed off because they don't believe in the cause, or because we are tying their hands?

even bush said how bad using a militarty for nation building was back in 2000. nothing has changed. tying their hands? didn't bush just recently say they could shoot iranians in iraq?

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

did close to 3,000 servicewo/men die b/c of his 'concerns'? did he run us from a record surplus to record defict over his 'concerns'? did he ignore the numerous problems here at home to instead spend our money on bombing then rebuilding a foreign countries infrastucture?

Clinton may have expressed his concerns, but that was it. he didn't use those concerns to push for a needless war that has cost far too much in blood and $

You are straying from the original point here...i mentioned Clinton's intelligence because it's the truth. All of the intelligence was the truth. The reason I brought it up is because of the "Bush lied people died" crowd. Bush didn't distort any intelligence. I brought it up because Clinton said the same damned thing in 1998. And again, Bush never once said Iraq had anything to do with 911. This is a myth put forth to you by manipulators. People who do a dopey content analysis and find that 911 and Iraq are next to each other in speeches. Big deal. That doesn't mean ANYONE every insinuated that there was a connection. Take a step back, and see where you are getting your info from.

El_Kabong wrote:

so only if affects us? it's threatening the security of lots of other ppl and their self interest, not just that but their existance. the checkpoints make it so they can't even take their kid to the doctor some of the time!

Again, let's get back to the point at hand. Resolutions are useless if they are uninforced. Whether you like it or not, we live in a world of nation states, and those leaders of nations will be held accountable.

El_Kabong wrote:

anyway, how did iraq threaten our national security? how did panama? how did nicaragua? how did el salvador? how did iran in the 50's? i guess that's why you threw in the self interest part. i think it's wrong to attack another country and kill a lot of it's civilian populace just because they wouldn't willingly let us exploit their resources and ppl.!

Put your Zinn and Chomsky aside for a minute and figure out where we live today. Again, Iraq broke several UN resolutions. They had WMD's that undoubtedly reside in Syria and Iran today. Clinton knew it and Bush knew it. I think it's wrong to attack another country and kill a lot of it's civilian populace just because they won't let us exploit their resources and peopole too. hey, we have that in comon! But that's not what's going on.

El_Kabong wrote:

no, you brought up the feminist thing...it was sold as liberating these women..!

Sorry, that's just not accurate. I NEVER EVER heard once afghanistan being "sold" as that. And no, it wasn't brought up by me, it was brought up by Hanoi Roy.

El_Kabong wrote:

no, it's not a 'smoking gun' and it's far from the only instance of abuse by our military over there. i guess the opening of a school <that has no stable electricity and no clean water> is kinda outweighed by all the violence and deaths

No, but it would be nice to hear stories of Iraqi's who are braver than us, who are threatened on a daily basis, yet are committed to building their army and police forces. Hearing these stories, and their accomplishments are news. Not as sexy as death tolls I suppose.

El_Kabong wrote:

tying their hands? didn't bush just recently say they could shoot iranians in iraq?

You honestly have a problem with that? Finally, we are untying their hands.

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

You are straying from the original point here...i mentioned Clinton's intelligence because it's the truth. All of the intelligence was the truth. The reason I brought it up is because of the "Bush lied people died" crowd. Bush didn't distort any intelligence. I brought it up because Clinton said the same damned thing in 1998. And again, Bush never once said Iraq had anything to do with 911. This is a myth put forth to you by manipulators. People who do a dopey content analysis and find that 911 and Iraq are next to each other in speeches. Big deal. That doesn't mean ANYONE every insinuated that there was a connection. Take a step back, and see where you are getting your info from.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

'As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq....

'And Cheney's spokesman pointed to a 2002 letter written by CIA Director George J. Tenet stating that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression." Cheney's office also pointed to a 2003 Tenet statement calling Zarqawi "a senior al Qaeda terrorist associate."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the commission finding of long-standing high-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq justified the administration's earlier assertions. "We stand behind what was said publicly," he said.....

In late 2001, Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, in April 2000 in Prague; Cheney later said the meeting could not be proved or disproved.

Bush, in his speech aboard an aircraft carrier on May 1, 2003, asserted: "The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda and cut off a source of terrorist funding."

In September, Cheney said on NBC's "Meet the Press": "If we're successful in Iraq . . . then we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11." ...

In January, Cheney repeated his view that Iraq was tied to al Qaeda, saying that "there's overwhelming evidence" of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection. He said he was "very confident there was an established relationship there."


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_iraq_911_challenged/

But Cheney left that possibility wide open in a nationally televised interview two days ago, claiming that the administration is learning "more and more" about connections between Al Qaeda and Iraq before the Sept. 11 attacks. The statement surprised some analysts and officials who have reviewed intelligence reports from Iraq.

---

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A15019-2003Jun4&notFound=true

Vice President Cheney and his most senior aide made multiple trips to the CIA over the past year to question analysts studying Iraq's weapons programs and alleged links to al Qaeda, creating an environment in which some analysts felt they were being pressured to make their assessments fit with the Bush administration's policy objectives, according to senior intelligence officials.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,81148,00.html
Ex-CIA Accuse Bush of Manipulating Iraq Evidence

also
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Cooked_information

which has an extensive link section including the ny times, AP, washington post, knight ridder, guardian, reuters, time...

Purple Hawk wrote:

Again, let's get back to the point at hand. Resolutions are useless if they are uninforced. Whether you like it or not, we live in a world of nation states, and those leaders of nations will be held accountable.

except countries like israel, colombia...basically the ppl we aren't selling weapons and giving 'aid' too

Purple Hawk wrote:

Put your Zinn and Chomsky aside for a minute and figure out where we live today. Again, Iraq broke several UN resolutions. They had WMD's that undoubtedly reside in Syria and Iran today. Clinton knew it and Bush knew it. I think it's wrong to attack another country and kill a lot of it's civilian populace just because they won't let us exploit their resources and peopole too. hey, we have that in comon! But that's not what's going on.

undoubtedly? can you prove this? did the un resolutions say if broken the us gets to bomb you?

Purple Hawk wrote:

Sorry, that's just not accurate. I NEVER EVER heard once afghanistan being "sold" as that. And no, it wasn't brought up by me, it was brought up by Hanoi Roy.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011117.html

Good morning. I'm Laura Bush, and I'm delivering this week's radio address to kick off a world-wide effort to focus on the brutality against women and children by the al-Qaida terrorist network and the regime it supports in Afghanistan, the Taliban. That regime is now in retreat across much of the country, and the people of Afghanistan -- especially women -- are rejoicing. Afghan women know, through hard experience, what the rest of the world is discovering: The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists. Long before the current war began, the Taliban and its terrorist allies were making the lives of children and women in Afghanistan miserable.....

Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment. Yet the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries. And they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.

Purple Hawk wrote:

No, but it would be nice to hear stories of Iraqi's who are braver than us, who are threatened on a daily basis, yet are committed to building their army and police forces. Hearing these stories, and their accomplishments are news. Not as sexy as death tolls I suppose.

you find death tolls sexy??

Collin

I'm half way. I will watch the other half this afternoon!

Collin

haven't finished it yet. But it's been a very beautiful and powerful speech so far.

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

'As recently as Monday, Cheney said in a speech that Hussein "had long-established ties with al Qaeda." Bush, asked on Tuesday to verify or qualify that claim, defended it by pointing to Abu Musab Zarqawi, who has taken credit for a wave of attacks in Iraq....??

All of these quotes you post ARE interesting...I'd like you though, in your own words to describe HOW it provides evidence that The Administration in anyway said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. This is my problem with the speech posted. It's intellectual dishonesty. It's throwing out ideas, all of which are interesting and they are good for discussion. But what you're doing is putting up articles that show that Bush and Co. talked about probable relationships with the Iraqi government, and then taking a HUGE leap to the conclusion that they used 9/11 to drum up support for Iraq. Do you see the logical gap here? Again, the ORIGINAL claim in this speech by Roy is that Bush used 9/11 to drum up this support. Everything you posted (that were written before the war) suggests that Bush was concerned that there may be possible ties. The claim I hear all the time is "Bush manipuated everyone to think Iraq was behind 9/11." Again, I ask you again to post ANYTHING that suggests that. As far as the link's that quote the administration about the presence of al-queda AFTER the initial invasion, I have no idea how that's relevant. OF COURSE Iraq became part of the war on terror after we went it. To debate that is ignoring reality. Again, I think I can learn a lot more if you put forth your own argument, and connect the dots for me instead of throwing up a bunch of disjointed pieces of "evidence." I'm not even being a jackass here (i know that's hard to believe)...I really am interested in hearing how all this ties together.

El_Kabong wrote:

undoubtedly? can you prove this? did the un resolutions say if broken the us gets to bomb you?

Does any UN resolution have teeth? He broke 17 resolutions...Way I see it, we were 16 resolutions too late.



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/11/20011117.html

El_Kabong wrote:

Good morning. I'm Laura Bush, and I'm delivering this week's radio address to kick off a world-wide effort to focus on the brutality against women and children by the al-Qaida terrorist network and the regime it supports in Afghanistan, the Taliban. That regime is now in retreat across much of the country, and the people of Afghanistan -- especially women -- are rejoicing. Afghan women know, through hard experience, what the rest of the world is discovering: The brutal oppression of women is a central goal of the terrorists. Long before the current war began, the Taliban and its terrorist allies were making the lives of children and women in Afghanistan miserable.....

Because of our recent military gains in much of Afghanistan, women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. They can listen to music and teach their daughters without fear of punishment. Yet the terrorists who helped rule that country now plot and plan in many countries. And they must be stopped. The fight against terrorism is also a fight for the rights and dignity of women.

So again, my original point was, and what the posted speech suggests, is that this was SOLD as a feminist thing. This speech you posted happened AFTER the war. I would be interested in seeing an article BEFORE the invasion, since selling an idea implies that it's talked about BEFORE the idea actually comes to fruition.

El_Kabong wrote:

you find death tolls sexy??

Of course! I'm a war monger! The more blood, the better!!!! You know that I'm all about killing in order to line the pockets of filthy rich businessmen, no matter how many people are slaughtered! Talk about HOT! *eye rolle*

El_Kabong

Purple Hawk wrote:

All of these quotes you post ARE interesting...I'd like you though, in your own words to describe HOW it provides evidence that The Administration in anyway said that Iraq was responsible for 9/11. This is my problem with the speech posted. It's intellectual dishonesty. It's throwing out ideas, all of which are interesting and they are good for discussion. But what you're doing is putting up articles that show that Bush and Co. talked about probable relationships with the Iraqi government, and then taking a HUGE leap to the conclusion that they used 9/11 to drum up support for Iraq. Do you see the logical gap here? Again, the ORIGINAL claim in this speech by Roy is that Bush used 9/11 to drum up this support. Everything you posted (that were written before the war) suggests that Bush was concerned that there may be possible ties. The claim I hear all the time is "Bush manipuated everyone to think Iraq was behind 9/11." Again, I ask you again to post ANYTHING that suggests that. As far as the link's that quote the administration about the presence of al-queda AFTER the initial invasion, I have no idea how that's relevant. OF COURSE Iraq became part of the war on terror after we went it. To debate that is ignoring reality. Again, I think I can learn a lot more if you put forth your own argument, and connect the dots for me instead of throwing up a bunch of disjointed pieces of "evidence." I'm not even being a jackass here (i know that's hard to believe)...I really am interested in hearing how all this ties together.

how do you explain the large number of ppl that think iraq had a part in 9/11? where did they get the idea from?

Collin

Thanks for posting this.

bump

Purple Hawk

El_Kabong wrote:

how do you explain the large number of ppl that think iraq had a part in 9/11? where did they get the idea from?

Probably the same reason that half of the population can't name the majority party in the House of representatives? Pretty sad when a coin flip is as accurate as actually asking people.

My point is...is that speeches like this, as is typical of the left, is frought with intellectual dishonesty. Throw out bits about Cheney talking about al-queda and Iraq in the same sentence long enough, then obviously the war was based on lies....keep telling yourself that long enough, it becomes the truth....the left has a long tradition in this because they know emotion trumps ardent attempts to unveil facts.

You people float so many myths out there and Coulter is right, it is your religion. Just like 2004 was decided by moral values and religious zealots, right? (don't bother posting ANY media bullshit b/c consult ANY published political science article and you'll find that moral issues had no effect). pm me for pdf files. Science points to views on Iraq and the economy. But labeling and presenting stereotypes helps subdue the pain, right?

today's new myth is that the people have spoken. yeah? because we ALL know webb won b/c of his stance on Iraq...or was it his opponent said the word "macacca." too bad his opponent wasn't plugs biden. and we all know missouri was all about iraq, not a lying ad that said republicans want to criminalize "the very promising, which it is not" embryonic stem cell research. Ohio, yeah, that was ALLL about iraq. Didn't most of the left win b/c of conservative Dems like heath shuler?

It would be nice to be presented with a logical argument on how Bush and company sold this war as Iraq being responsible for 911. This "truth" has become so embedded...so just tell me, in your own freaken words. Don't think that's asking too much.