Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Helen TKO Thomas vs. Scotty McTalkpoint McClellan
Whenever I find myself with bloggers block, linking to whitehouse.gov and searching for the latest press briefing by Scott McClellan oft times proves a source of material for a (hopefully) decent post. Today's press briefing did not disappoint.
In this exchange, Scotty finds himself being pummeled by the lioness of the white house press corps Helen Thomas.
When he says "if we weren't fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be planning and plotting to attack America" he apparently is under the dangerous assumption that since the enemy is so wrapped up with us in Iraq that they have given up any unpleasantness they would possibly have brought to us on the home front. Nevermind that we have conveniently presented them an extremely target rich environment smack dab in a hostile land. Evidently Scotty and the gang do not consider that when our troops are dying and being maimed by the dozens each week, that the terrorists are being given exactly that which we profess to be taking away. Opportunities to attack America! I'm certain that some wizard of white house public relations thought up this talking point, and they brought this sadly lacking logic into the public discourse to buttress their argument. Even a cursory glance at their reasoning soon points to the illogic of the argument. I mean do the American family members of the dead and wounded soldiers not believe that they are American? They are attacking us there because there is where we are... DUH.
Let us consider the absolute revision of history given by Scotty when Helen shoots his argument down in flames.
Then comes another revision of history. Scotty in one sentence says that the Iraq quagmire is stopping the terrorists from carrying out attacks against us because we are fighting them over there. Then he says that proof of the intent of terrorists to attack the civilized world is demonstrated by the bombings in Madrid and London. HELLO!?! Both of these attacks happened well after the invasion of Iraq, and both have been linked directly to Spain and Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. In a classic example of having your cake and eating it too, Scotty claims that the Iraq war has disabled the terrorists ability to strike the civilized world, while pointing to cases where our allies have been struck as proof that the terrorists are determined to strike the civilized world. It seems to me the logic presented by the administration would not survive a fourth grade level debating society.
In this exchange, Scotty finds himself being pummeled by the lioness of the white house press corps Helen Thomas.
MR. McCLELLAN: The Iraqi people have made tremendous sacrifices. Our troops have made enormous sacrifices to lay the foundations of peace for generations to come and help transform the broader Middle East, which has been a dangerous region of the world that has been a breeding ground for terrorism. That's why it's so important --Note the standard talking point delivery of Mr. McClellan which is eviscerated by the on point and pertinent questioning by Ms. Thomas. Quite simply we are witness again to the beautiful work of this wonderful lady. But let us consider the talking point expressed by Mr. McClellan.
Q It wasn't a breeding ground before we went in.
MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, if we weren't fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be planning and plotting to attack America.
Q How do you know that?
MR. McCLELLAN: Because they attacked us on September 11th, they attacked us -- they attacked people in London, they attacked people in Madrid, they have attacked people across the civilized world.
When he says "if we weren't fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be planning and plotting to attack America" he apparently is under the dangerous assumption that since the enemy is so wrapped up with us in Iraq that they have given up any unpleasantness they would possibly have brought to us on the home front. Nevermind that we have conveniently presented them an extremely target rich environment smack dab in a hostile land. Evidently Scotty and the gang do not consider that when our troops are dying and being maimed by the dozens each week, that the terrorists are being given exactly that which we profess to be taking away. Opportunities to attack America! I'm certain that some wizard of white house public relations thought up this talking point, and they brought this sadly lacking logic into the public discourse to buttress their argument. Even a cursory glance at their reasoning soon points to the illogic of the argument. I mean do the American family members of the dead and wounded soldiers not believe that they are American? They are attacking us there because there is where we are... DUH.
Let us consider the absolute revision of history given by Scotty when Helen shoots his argument down in flames.
"Q How do you know that?Sigh... Yet again, it is well established that Iraq had no part in the 9/11 attacks. So when Mr. McClellan says "they" in the above quote, they were in Afghanistan, not Iraq. So we kicked them out of power in Afghanistan in a widely supported military action. Iraq really should not be a part of this equation. Yet this administration saw fit to try to make it so, and have continuously made statements that erroneously tied Iraq with 9/11.
MR. McCLELLAN: Because they attacked us on September 11th, they attacked us -- they attacked people in London, they attacked people in Madrid, they have attacked people across the civilized world.
Then comes another revision of history. Scotty in one sentence says that the Iraq quagmire is stopping the terrorists from carrying out attacks against us because we are fighting them over there. Then he says that proof of the intent of terrorists to attack the civilized world is demonstrated by the bombings in Madrid and London. HELLO!?! Both of these attacks happened well after the invasion of Iraq, and both have been linked directly to Spain and Britain's involvement in the Iraq war. In a classic example of having your cake and eating it too, Scotty claims that the Iraq war has disabled the terrorists ability to strike the civilized world, while pointing to cases where our allies have been struck as proof that the terrorists are determined to strike the civilized world. It seems to me the logic presented by the administration would not survive a fourth grade level debating society.
Comments:
<< Home
You're twisting his words. He didn't say Iraq was involved in 9/11, he said terrorists were.
And America is a place. It is obvious that when he said "they would be planning and plotting to attack America" he meant our homeland. You argue that attacking our soldiers is a form of attacking America, but you know that is not what he meant, and also technically, you are incorrect.
And America is a place. It is obvious that when he said "they would be planning and plotting to attack America" he meant our homeland. You argue that attacking our soldiers is a form of attacking America, but you know that is not what he meant, and also technically, you are incorrect.
I say in my post: "he apparently is under the dangerous assumption that since the enemy is so wrapped up with us in Iraq that they have given up any unpleasantness they would possibly have brought to us on the home front." By pointing out the fallacy of this reasoning (we are giving them targets over there so thats where they are hitting us) I have not twisted his words. I've acknowleged them!
I'm incorrect in pointing out that attacking our soldiers is attacking America? How do you technically come to that conclusion? Are they attacking Martians? Or are the Suranamese using their tax dollars to replace our blown up equipment and what not? Of course they attack America when they hit our military. Technically.
I'm incorrect in pointing out that attacking our soldiers is attacking America? How do you technically come to that conclusion? Are they attacking Martians? Or are the Suranamese using their tax dollars to replace our blown up equipment and what not? Of course they attack America when they hit our military. Technically.
You wrote "Sigh... Yet again, it is well established that Iraq had no part in the 9/11 attacks." McClellan didn't say they did. By bringing up this connection, you are implying that he did. I call that twisting his words.
What part of "America is a place" don't you understand? Attacking America's assets overseas is only attacking America in an abstract sense. And you know McClellan meant our homeland.
Sheesh, I'm repeating myself. I get the feeling that you didn't read my comment completely, so you had to ask how I came to my conclusion. I explained it the first time, so if you don't understand, I don't know what else to say.
Post a Comment
What part of "America is a place" don't you understand? Attacking America's assets overseas is only attacking America in an abstract sense. And you know McClellan meant our homeland.
Sheesh, I'm repeating myself. I get the feeling that you didn't read my comment completely, so you had to ask how I came to my conclusion. I explained it the first time, so if you don't understand, I don't know what else to say.
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
