Fact-Checking the President's Speech on Iraq
-
NPR goes through Bush's recent speech point-by-point. "The key question for U.S. leaders is how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile? Is it even achievable? Or does another way, such as partitioning, make more sense?" NPR fact-checks Bush's speech.
I don't think heavily opinionated responses that lack external citations qualifies as "fact-checking".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
I don't think heavily opinionated responses that lack external citations qualifies as "fact-checking".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Obviously, but what has this to do with the link posted?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighist -
Obviously, but what has this to do with the link posted?
We are a big screwed up dysfunctional psychotic happy family - some more screwed up, others more happy, but everybody's psychotic joint venture definition of CP
My first real C# project | Linkify!|FoldWithUs! | sighistIamChrisMcCall referred to it twice as "fact-checking" in his post. I was just fact-checking the "fact-checking".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
IamChrisMcCall referred to it twice as "fact-checking" in his post. I was just fact-checking the "fact-checking".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Bush's speech didn't have any links either, genius.
-
I don't think heavily opinionated responses that lack external citations qualifies as "fact-checking".
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Ha ha, it's a transcript of a radio program, moron? How do you suggest an on-air radio program provide links during the broadcast? Metadata? Did you even read the article?
-
Bush's speech didn't have any links either, genius.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Bush's speech didn't have any links either, genius.
Was it presented as "fact-checking"?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Ha ha, it's a transcript of a radio program, moron? How do you suggest an on-air radio program provide links during the broadcast? Metadata? Did you even read the article?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How do you suggest an on-air radio program provide links during the broadcast?
Can you please "cite" where I said "link"?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Bush's speech didn't have any links either, genius.
Was it presented as "fact-checking"?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
You're right, it was not presented as factual, it was presented as an address by the President of the United States.
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
How do you suggest an on-air radio program provide links during the broadcast?
Can you please "cite" where I said "link"?
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
Which part of the article do you take issue with? Or would you rather play "kill the messenger" like you usually do?
-
NPR goes through Bush's recent speech point-by-point. "The key question for U.S. leaders is how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile? Is it even achievable? Or does another way, such as partitioning, make more sense?" NPR fact-checks Bush's speech.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile
How about 25 millenia?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
partitioning
After the first world war, the Ottoman Empire, as an ally of the loosers, was broken up into protectorates of two countries. France, and Britain. Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile
How about 25 millenia?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
partitioning
After the first world war, the Ottoman Empire, as an ally of the loosers, was broken up into protectorates of two countries. France, and Britain. Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
We just need to send Dr. Phil over there...
[Insert Witty Sig Here]
-
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
how much time do you give the Iraqis to reconcile
How about 25 millenia?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
partitioning
After the first world war, the Ottoman Empire, as an ally of the loosers, was broken up into protectorates of two countries. France, and Britain. Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will bnever live together. It is an impossibility.
Truth is the subjection of reality to an individuals perception
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that.
Bullshit. If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence. Iraq is as much a British creation as anyones.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk. Shia, Suni, and Kurd. As the other formations of the post first world war treaty (Versailles Treaty) have colapsed, Czechokslovakia, Yugoslavia and Romania, then we ought, by all standards of decency, allow Iraq to revert to its tribal divisions. These people will never live together. It is an impossibility.
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it. We're so busy stroking it about how democracy is the best system in the world, that we're blind to the idea that for now, there are some cultures in which it simply cannot work. Democracy is as much a social system as a political one, and a society that is not ready for democracy will never be able to make a go of it.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it.
I agree that Americans refuse to understand but I fail to see how "the British understand". They are the ones that pushed all 3 together into one country 90 years ago. :rolleyes:
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that.
Bullshit. If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence. Iraq is as much a British creation as anyones.
Rob Graham wrote:
If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence.
Well, ok. They understood it better than we apparently do :P
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Rob Graham wrote:
If they had they would have partitioned it when they granted it independence.
Well, ok. They understood it better than we apparently do :P
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
Patrick Sears wrote:
understood
Patrick Sears wrote:
They understood it better than we apparently do ;P
What, precisely, is your evidence for that assertion? As far as I can tell, they were no more insightful about Iraq than America was.
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
understood
Patrick Sears wrote:
They understood it better than we apparently do ;P
What, precisely, is your evidence for that assertion? As far as I can tell, they were no more insightful about Iraq than America was.
As fat boy posted:
Iraq, which becxame a British Protectorate, was formed from three distinct cultural and social regions, Basra, Baghdad, and Kirkuk.
Whereas the US approach seems to be "jam everyone into the same room and force them to work together." Anywho, my only real point was to insult American planners for not thinking of this ahead of time.
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
Patrick Sears wrote:
The British understood that. It boggles my mind that Americans seem to refuse to understand it.
I agree that Americans refuse to understand but I fail to see how "the British understand". They are the ones that pushed all 3 together into one country 90 years ago. :rolleyes:
At the risk of repeating myself.... http://www.codeproject.com/script/comments/forums.asp?msg=2231300&forumid=2605#xx2231300xx
The early bird who catches the worm works for someone who comes in late and owns the worm farm. -- Travis McGee
-
You're right, it was not presented as factual, it was presented as an address by the President of the United States.
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
You're right, it was not presented as factual, it was presented as an address by the President of the United States.
And was countered not with fact...But with heavily biased opinions...Which you apparently confuse with "facts". That certainly explains a lot.
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter
-
Which part of the article do you take issue with? Or would you rather play "kill the messenger" like you usually do?
IamChrisMcCall wrote:
Which part of the article do you take issue with? Or would you rather play "kill the messenger" like you usually do?
Besides the fact that it's a biased attack on the president paid for with my tax dollars...Nothing. They're entitled to their opinions (though I shouldn't have to pay for them). What I take issue with is your confusion between facts and opinions. But I can't blame you as you ripped this directly off of Digg (including the title).
If liberals are not traitors, their only fallback argument at this point is that they're really stupid. -Ann Coulter