I watched a bit of Canada AM this morning and Gordon O'Connor was being interviewed. He was defending the mission in Afghanistan...fair enough, that's his job.Toward the end of the interview though, while explaining why we are in Afghanistan, he suddenly said, "remember, the terrorists that blew up the twin towers, came out of Afghanistan". (video)
Now I'm quite sure that this man knows that is incorrect, but the question is why would he say that? Is it just easier to explain our NATO role in Afghanistan by simplifying it in this ridiculous way or is it meant to mislead and bolster support?
Thoughts?
21 comments:
Alzheimers.
Unless of course he's a pathological lier which could be justified by nearly everything he has said.
Not of the people that Harper has in Cabinet has a clue how to perform in their portfolio.
Rona didn't, Baird still doesn't but he's also doing Rona's intergovernmental bit. Then you have Gary Lunn doing Baird's current portfolio.
Its as though they need at least three people working on a single portfolio in order to get the brain power to get it half done.
It's tragic and sad because its our country they are messing up.
Yes, that’s precisely the reason. Casting the conflict it as fighting the War on Terra makes it much more appealing to the uninformed. There’s still a lot of confusion in many people’s minds about this issue.
Far be it for me to defend this incompetent nitwit, but if what he meant was that they were trained and their mission was contrived and planned in Afghanistan and THAT is why we went to Afghanistan... well, frankly, he's right. Along with three or four dozen other countries and a nice UN backing, to boot.
The problem is of course that who knows what he really meant to say, being such a garbled speaker and incompetent that he is.
Hi everyone:
I've listened to the
O'Connor interview on the ctv website and he is right . The people who did the 9-11 was planned to a T in
Afghanistan and we all know
it whether you like it or not sorry but these are facts. When he say's "remember, the terrorists that blew up the twin towers, came out of Afghanistan". C'mon be serious i know that you don't like the conservetives,but c'mon we all know what he meant
the training the know how
and the marching orders came from there and that's a fact. I know 10
year old who knew what he meant when he listened to it.
John
Ted, I understand that you are not defending him, but I think you're being too kind.
Like RT, I think it's an attempt to conflate the issues or at the very least, apply the KISS priciple to something that is very complex.
It's his damned job to be clear on this issue. (That's aimed at him, not you:).
The reason it struck me is because so many seem to have so little factual information of what happened, around Afghanistan and of course Iraq.
Wasn't there a study that showed a huge percentage of Americans believe that the "terrorists" came from Iraq?
To me, that is down to people like O'Connor making foolish comments.
Jay: It's tragic and sad because its our country they are messing up.
You'll get no argument from me.
John, don't tell me indoctrinating 10 yr.olds with this conservative bafflegab.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
Forget what O'Connor said for a second, are commenters here suggesting we did not start a war against the Taliban and Al Quaeda in Afghanistan as a direct result of the terrorist bombings in New York and Washington in September 2001?
No Ted, that is not what I'm saying. Yes, we went into Afghanistan because the Taleban were sheltering bin Laden.
Yes, the terrorists met with bin Laden in Afghanistan in 1999 and that is where the plan was hatched.
But the terrorists were not from Afghanistan and their story, origin and training is far more complex than O'Connor's comment would have you believe.
By suggesting that they came from Afghanistan, wrongly implies that they were Taleban and that's the group we're "fighting there, so they don't come here".
I'm not outraged or anything, I'm just tired of this government throwing out sentences that mislead.
OK.
I don't know whether O'Connor really thinks they resided and were born Afghanis or was just referring to where this operation was hatched. He's got an obligation to be clear about this and he isn't. I don't think he's bright enough to be manipulative with language, frankly, and I do think his basic point was that we went into Afghanistan because of 9/11 which is true and was appropriate.
Now what we and the US has done about Saudi Arabia, where they did "come from" and were born... there is something that is an outrage.
there is something that is an outrage.
Indeed.
There is still the annoying habit of conflating the Taliban with Osama bin Laden and his coterie.
Certainly the Taliban sheltered bin Laden but they have no designs on any country accept Afghanistan.
So although a Taliban takeover of Afghanistan would be bad news for Afghanis it would not automatically result in a greater terrorist threat to the West. Indeed, I think they would be more circumspect in supporting terrorist organizations after their recent experiences.
Ted: Yes the original reasons why the West invaded Afghanistan were valid. Unfortunately, those reasons were abandoned very shortly after the invasion was completed. Now, there is alot of confusion over why the West is there because the reasons tend to change with who ever is asking and/or answering the questions.
Hi:
KNB it doesn't imply that they were Taleban's.
What it say's is that they were protecting and a complice to the terrorists.
Now if that isn't a terrorist organization then i don't know what is it even what they did to there own people. What would you have Nato do leave and have the Taliban control the country over again?
But KNB it's funny that you hang on to every singe words that this Goverments does or say's.
But you never talk about
the Liberal Party only to say how good that they are,you must have forgotten when the Liberals took power in the early 90's they promissed to get rid of the new GST TAX not only they did not get rid of it they increased later.I did vote for them believe it or not soley on that purpose. Second never criticize Stéphane Dion even though 1997 he signed the Koyoto accord and did nothing about it afterwords. But but have the gaul about the Cons. so called broken promisses!! We are still paying for Liberals broken promisses it's called GST
and SPONSORSHIP SCANDLE.
John
Ottlib: There is still the annoying habit of conflating the Taliban with Osama bin Laden and his coterie.
Quite so. That is not to say there wasn't sympathy between the two groups. bin Laden sought it out and gained it as far as I can tell, but the motives behind each group, quite separate.
You know, there is so much recent history being ignored and I find that frustrating. I've said many times, I'm no expert on the subject, but the information is right there at our finger tips. It eludes me as to why so many choose to not suss it out.
John: But KNB it's funny that you hang on to every singe words that this Goverments does or say's.
No, it's not funny John, it's reality...they are the government now. They and you seem to not realise that. We are not in the 90's or the early 2000's. The government in power now will be scrutinized.
There is not one Liberal or liberal, who condoned AdScam. That's a canard.
Dion and Kyoto, stop listening to con ad's and get your fact's straight. If you don't want to look it up, he DID have a plan, the con's killed it and if it were in place today, (oh, some of it is because Baird re-named plans), we'd be doing better and I'm quite sure Dion would be modifying it as time went on.
Finally, did the Lib's do everything right? No. I've never claimed that.
The point is, the Con's are in power now and they deserve to be challenged on what they do.
That's it, that's all.
No knb:
The Conservatives are campaigning not governing and they still have the opposition mind-set.
You can see this in the Party and amongst its supporters in the blogsphere. They are much more comfortable when they are on the attack, like an opposition party, as opposed to actually taking the decisions that are required of governing.
They talk like an opposition party and they act like one and it is only a matter of time before Canadians get tired of it and put them back where they are most comfortable.
Hi KNB:
First don't take
my comment personally it's not meant to be. Second the goverment should be scrutinized i don't disagree with that but i sure wish that you at least
be balanced about it. Even you can't possibly believe that everything is bad. Example when the Goverment cut the GST by 1% the critics were all saying that this was bad for the economy that the goverment would be hard pressed of having a surplus remember that ? Since then we still had a big surplus the latest www.Statcan.ca unemployment figures 6.1% all time low. There is more good news but you will have to go to the site and read it. Our dollar is at 0.95 cents not seen from the 70's. Now don't take it as an insult it's just that we have a profound disagreement when it comes to politics. I can go and read the blogs on the right but that would be boring for me because i agree with them on i would say over 95% of the time.Some of my friends are on the right and some are on the left and i'm still friends with them.So don't take it personaly ok thanks!!
John
ottlib: it is only a matter of time before Canadians get tired of it and put them back where they are most comfortable.
From your lips (fingertips) to... :)!
John, I don't take your comments personally, but it is highly doubtful we'll agree politically.
You brought up the GST. I consider that move to be one of the dumbest made by this government. No one sees an appreciable difference in their daily lives and it was nothing more than a vote buying stunt. All parties pander, so I don't limit that comment to just the Con's.
Yes, our dollar is at .95, but the Bank of Canada is likely to raise interest rates and our dollar is hurting sectors of the economy, specifically in my province and Quebec.
The point is, for many reasons too lengthy to get into here, I abhor this government and that will never change. For the record, it's not conservatives I'm against, it's this particular brand of conservatism that Harper represents that I'm against and it's the man himself.
Hi:
I disagree with you.
Sure sectors of the economy
is hurting just like in my home province(Quebec) ,but you have to look at the over all picture even in my
province unployment went down,more full time workers found jobs 6.9% lowest in 33 years statscan says full time jobs. When the dollar was around the 0.70 cent mark
our inport companies were hurting big time. Not just inport companies even companies that export i know i worked for one the reason was that they were having a difficult time to modernize their plants,because the machinery would cost them a arm and a leg because of our low dollar. Now you said about the GST going down by 1% "no one sees an appreciable difference in their daily lives and it was nothing more than a vote buying stunt,"maybe so but you have to start somewhere to bring it down where it would make a big diffrence you start from 1 then go to 2. That was a promise that Stephen Harper made during the last campaign.If he wouldn't have respected this promise,you and all the LIB blogs the oposition party's would all say see another promise broken from this goverment you know i'm right. About the Bank of Canada that may raise interest rates. If they do this is because our economy is RED HOT !!! What is it you want a weaker economy so that
the Bank of Canada wont raise their interest rates?
John
John, you're in Quebec. Are you a PC or a "new" Conservative?
Provincially who do you support?
Could I be so bold as to ask your age, in decades?
I ask these things, because they bring more context to discussion.
Obviously, you can answer none of the above, but because I'm from Quebec originally too, I'm just curious. You are the anomaly to what I left.
Hi KNB:
You ask me if i'm a P.C. or "New" Conservative!
Here it goes i was a P.C. before now i'm a "New" Conservative because i'm on the right of politics. In the mid 80's i had to vote
P.C. because it was the only party to the right. In the 90's when we had 2 right wing party's example P.C. party and reform and Canadian Alliance well i voted for reform first then Canadian Alliance, because i'm on the right of politics.
Provincially i support
the Liberal party of Quebec,because i don't really have a choice.The ADQ is on the right of center but it is a new party with no experience.
thank God that the Liberal Party of Quebec is on the right more so then the federal liberal's just take a look at last budget and you will see 950 million tax break.
Now for my age i'm 40 years old exactly.If you look at the last election here in Quebec there was a big bounce of the right . With Jean Charest a former PC bringing the liberal party more to the right.That is why there is no problem with Charest and Harper and has of Mario Dumont Campaigned for Harper in Quebec. The only left wing party is in third place now the PQ.
John
knb i gave you my age may i ask yours?
John
Older, ;)!
Post a Comment