Katie Couric’s Cluelessness
On the eve of the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 Muslim terrorist attacks Katie Couric on 60 Minutes decides not to cover any one of these very important topics:
• Why have Muslims not issued a fatwa (i.e., religious edict) against Osama bin Laden (OBL) for the 9/11 terrorist attacks
• Why are moderate Muslims not more successful at combating the Muslim terrorists on Islamic grounds
• How Muslim terrorists like OBL are an existential threat to the West
Instead she cover this comparatively inane story. This is akin to discussing the environmental impact caused by the burning fuel on the 5th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
Islamic Empire was one the biggest empires on earth. It is true that Muslims are a big threat to the American nation. But at the end, all of the Muslim nations that USA are supporting and maintaining good relations with, because of economic interests, will go against USA.
The big threat is Iran and Korea, not Bin Laden or Iraq.
And Bush.
Oscar,
You are implying that there is a moral equivalence between Bush and the leaders of Iran, North Korea, and Al-Qaeda (e.g., Iran’s support of Muslim terrorists and Al-Qaeda purposefully murder innocent women and children). That is manifestly false. Can you back up your moral equivalence position with any evidence?
I can and I will. Bush is against the Geneva Convention, he approves of outsourcing torture, and he sent thousands of our troops to die for “weapons of mass destruction” lie.
A tyrant is someone who lies to his people and gets them to sarcrifice their lives for oil, opinion polls, and other hidden agendas.
I don’t hate Bush. I’m just opposed to liars like him and Lonelygirl15 and Enron, etc.
P.S. I came here from Chartreuse blog. I do agree with you that Katie Couric is a brain dead zombie idiot. I so wanted a woman to kick butt on the news. She is not the one to do it.
Steve e. streight,
It is easy to utter an assertion without any evidence.
So let me summarize your position: you believe that the purposeful atrocities committed by Muslims around the world such as sawing people’s heads off, purposefully murdering innocent women and children, stoning adulterers to death etc. is morally equivalent to seeking legislation clarifying the language of the Common Article III of the Geneva Convention to protect our citizens and acting on the consensus in the intelligence communities of, among others, the United States, France, and Britain that Saddam had WMD? Jeez, this is the type of argument that will continue to hurt Democrats.
I have a strong suspicion that you are a moral relativist and if so you have another major problem backing up any moral equivalence argument as you have absolutely no objective basis to stand on. You should read my posts on the matter.
Kaite Couric is not on 60 Minutes.
> It is easy to utter an assertion without any evidence.
Yeah, you seem to be able to do it by regurgitating whatever you heard on talk radio, post it here, add crap buzzwords like “moral relativist”, “manifestly false” and any other BS you pull out of Debating for Dummies and call it “evidence.”
> So let me summarize your position:
It was more a statement, really. Besides, you “summarized” a seven-word statement with a 74-word “argument.” Aren’t summaries supposed to be shorter?
>Jeez, this is the type of argument that will continue to hurt Democrats.
What Democrat made this “argument?” I don’t think steven e. streight ever said he was a Democrat.
nunya bidnis,
You are incorrect. She is a 60 Minutes contributor:
It certainly seems that ad hominem attacks such as yours come from folks who are unable to substantively address anything I say. I hope you realize that this type of attack does nothing to weaken anything I’ve said.
Indeed, one which was not backed up by any evidence for it being true. Recall that I issued a challenge by asking ” Can you back up your moral equivalence position with any evidence?” and he wrote “I can and I will” yet he did not provide any evidence.
Ted Kennedy compares our liberation of 25 million Iraqis to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and he said that “Saddam’s torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management.” There also appears to be one Democrat in this colorful gallery.
1. Evidence??? The US goverment has openly declared that they were wrong, and there where NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
If liberating countries is the bussiness of USA, then we should start by liberating Cyprus from the ilegal occupation of Turkey, the friend of USA.
2. What other countries do, do not lower the standard of Moral conduct of US.
for example:
If my neighbor throws trash at my lawn it is not bad that I spit on his car.
Both neighbors are doing bad, it does not matter who is worst.
Oscar,
Yes, that is what I asked for. You implied that there is a moral equivalence between Bush and the leaders of Iran and Al-Qaeda (e.g., Iran’s support of Muslim terrorists and Al-Qaeda purposefully murder innocent women and children) and I asked you if you could back up your moral equivalence position with evidence.
So let me clarify what appears to be your position: you believe that the purposeful atrocities committed by Muslims around the world such as sawing people’s heads off, purposefully murdering innocent women and children, stoning adulterers to death etc. is morally equivalent to the authorization to use military force granted by Congress and articulated in this legal document.
I agree, but how is that even germane to this discussion?
>It certainly seems that ad hominem attacks such as yours >come from folks who are unable to substantively address >anything I say. I hope you realize that this type of >attack does nothing to weaken anything I’ve said.
No, what was said is aleardy weak.
BTW, isn’t your gallery an ad-hominen attack that weakens eveything you say? And who was the Democrat in it?
>>The US goverment has openly declared that they were >>wrong, and there where NO weapons of mass destruction in >>Iraq.
>So let me clarify what appears to be your position: you >believe that the purposeful atrocities committed by >Muslims around the world such as sawing people’s heads >off, purposefully murdering innocent women and children, >stoning adulterers to death etc. is morally equivalent to >the authorization to use military force granted by >Congress and articulated in this legal document.
So let me clarify what appears to be your position: evading
the point about the US admitting they they invaded Iraq on false pretenses.
Speaking of atrocties, is Abu Ghraib a moral equivalent to the authorization to use military force?
nunya bidnis,
Another unsubstantiated assertion.
Nope. It is simply a set of photographs taken at rallies and other political events which show, among many other negative things, the absurd positions these people adhere to.
There is a person who appears to be a Democrat about 3/4ths of the way down since they are wearing boxers which say “Proud to be a Democrat”. Here is the URL to the picture – http://www.zombietime.com/hall_of_shame/IMG_2381.JPG
I have not evaded “the point”. Steven implied that Bush lied and I provided evidence that his claim was false. Oscar implied that there is a moral equivalence between Bush and the leaders of Iran and Al-Qaeda (e.g., Iran’s support of Muslim terrorists and Al-Qaeda purposefully murder innocent women and children) and he has not backed up the moral equivalence position with any evidence.
Do you want to take a shot backing up what Steven or Oscar said with evidence?
Of course not. It is not even an apples-to-apples comparison.
talk about important topics about the 5th anniversary !!
let us start with the complicity of our government with those events. wake up ! do ur homework !
this might help you without being offended since a neo-con demolition enthusiast did this wonderful research.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11+mysteries&hl=en
> Do you want to take a shot backing up what
> Steven or Oscar said with evidence?
Nah, but this thread is making me laugh to the point of being [sic]
BTW, [sic] goes AFTER the error, not before.
uzer, Here is an Al-Qaeda training video for the 9/11 attacks which shows Osama Bin Laden with some of the 9/11 hijackers. Believing that 9/11 was an inside job is a credibility-damaging position in light of the overwhelming evidence against that position.
i can’t say those arabs are innocent… but to assume that our government had nothing to do with it is very naive.
if this is a blog about truth, then this would be a great topic.
btw.. where is that overwhelming evidence supporting the government fairy tale of the boogeyman ?
better wake up son. the truth is out there… you just need to look for it.
i recommend that u stop watching fox news and the other corporate media propagandists.
with your response i can tell that u did not even to watch the documentary i posted that was made by the neo-con demolition enthusiast. if you are a person that understand science and has common sense, you will be disturbed. but you will be closer to the truth than where you are right now.
i think somewhere in the bible says: “the truth shall set you free”.
You are the conspiracy theorist having stated that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job so the burden of proof is on you to make your case.
the proof is written on comment #17. there is no worst blind than the one who wishes not to see. i doubt that your basic reasoning skills and common sense are absent.. my guess you are just another brainwashed sheep and that is VERY unpatriotic.
like Ben Franklin said.. you deserve neither security nor freedom.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. Benjamin Franklin.
PS thank you for ignoring my past posts. may the lord open your eyes one day. farewell, adios, aloha