• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is Condoleeza Rice Less Than Truthful?

Solitaire

Neoclinus blanchardi
Joined
Jul 25, 2001
Messages
3,097
Location
Tennessee
Here's one of those stange Bill Moyers interview with Marilyn B. Young.

There are a number of places where the deception is really quite extraordinary. But it's deception always with a half truth, which is the best kind of lie, the most persuasive lie. So she says, "It wasn't just our intelligence service that talked about weapons of mass destruction." That's true. The Germans looked into it and said, you know what? You information is wrong, it's useless. So there were other intelligence services involved, but the disagreed with ours, which she didn't say.

Then she said the U.N. thought there were WMD's. But that's for people with really bad short term memory loss. Because Hans Blix, who was in the U.N. as inspector, was quite persuaded that in fact, there were no weapons of mass destruction. The most extraordinary one, though, the really one that just takes my breath away, is where she says we're in Iraq because the Iraqi government invited us there. And we're there under a U.N. mandate. Saddam Hussein certainly didn't invite us in. And the U.N. mandate that she refers to, it's a resolution, it's not a mandate -- it says, after all, we're all agreed that everyone should help in the reconstruction of Iraq. That's all. It's not a mandate for occupation, at all.

The funniest idea was that the United States might invade Iran.
And, the strangest idea was that we live in a media twilight.

P.S. How many people here still hang on her every word?
 
Are there really people that believe her? It doesn't get better than the outright lies enumerated above but the following, quoted in a CNN article on the new House Bill on war funding, comes close:

"Yet here we are, playing political games while our troops are fighting for our freedom and our safety in Iraq."...Representative Boehner

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/11/congress.iraq/

Boehner, a Republican, is House Minority Leader. I wish he would expand on how being in Iraq protects our freedom and safety.
 
Last edited:
MARILYN B. YOUNG: Oh, yeah. There are a number of places where the deception is really quite extraordinary. But it's deception always with a half truth, which is the best kind of lie, the most persuasive lie

Yes, calling a UN Resolution a Mandate in an ad hoc interview is so obviously an intentional deception thats the best kind of lie since its a half truth. That's definitely occam's razor at work. This Marilyn B. Young needs to apply for the JRef prize with those psychic powers.

The big question is, why did you post a Moyers interview about another interview uncritically? You could easily post a link to the Rice transcript and critique it for us.
 
People who don't like the conclusions always attack the weakest piece of evidence in isolation, as if none of the rest of the evidence exists. It's a pattern of behavior, intended to deceive- like Rice's. You can see it other places on this forum, too, in evolution denialists, global warming skeptoids, audiophools, and other individuals who are interested not in the truth but in their agendas.

If you actually wanted to prove anything, you'd attack ALL the evidence, instead of one piece in a sound bite.

Try not to be quite so transparent.
 
It's a pattern of behavior, intended to deceive- like Rice's. You can see it other places on this forum, too, in evolution denialists, global warming skeptoids, audiophools, and other individuals who are interested not in the truth but in their agendas.

If you actually wanted to prove anything, you'd attack ALL the evidence, instead of one piece in a sound bite.

Try not to be quite so transparent.

The premise that Moyers/Young/Solitaire are asking you and I to believe is that Condeleeza Rice is not truthful. Now, my first reaction is "politician and lips are moving". My second reaction is the contrarian one where I look at what Young is saying and judge it on its merits. You could say, looking at it with skepticism. Young basically splits hairs, nits, correct an error and calls it "Smooth and slick and full of deception".

Her assertion lacks corroborative evidence in the space where she provided it.

Instead of examining this yourself, you attack me for attacking just one of the criticisms. You compare me to a evolution denialist? You accuse me of trying to deceive people?

I have time for reasoned arguments but not for insults, disrespect, and ad homs. I won't be reading any more of them from you though. Welcome to my ignore list.

(this is quite sad since I don't disagree with the basic premise that Rice is dishonest, next time that knee jerks Schneib, try crazy glue on the bottom of the foot)
 
Heh, I'll point out that you decided to do that based, according to your own words, on one data point. Which is precisely what I said about you.

Me, I've been watching you for quite a while. Welcome BACK to my ignore list. No skin off my nose.
 
I would suggest Rice is being a "team player" to the bitter end. Is that good? Per se, yes. But is the team worthy of that loyalty? Different question entirely...
 

Back
Top Bottom