Why are talking points allowed to direct debate?
I'm one of those people who does research, as I'd expect TV news hosts to do. Why, then, are talking points never disputed?
One of the recent ones I've been hearing is, "There is a reason the United States has not been attacked since 9-11; it is not an accident." This is used in regard to the press publishing "classified" information about terror tracking programs. Nobody - not the moderator of the program or the other guests - brings up the fact that this argument is faulty. If they are talking about attacks on US soil, attacks weren't frequent before these programs. The last time we were attacked on US soil by foreign terrorists (before 9-11) was the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The terrorists responsible were caught and tried, and not one of our civil liberties was tramped upon in the process. We managed to stay terror-attack free on US soil (barring the Oklahoma City bombing, which was by Americans) without programs that limited civil liberties. If they are talking about foreign attacks on US citizens, they are also incorrect - we have been attacked on a constant basis following 9-11. The attacks have increased exponentially, for that matter, since we invaded Iraq.
Another talking point is that we "elected the Congress and this President to protect us, the citizens of the United States." I've discussed this in a previous post. Our elected representatives, including the President, have several jobs - the most important of which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, the Presidential oath states, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not once does it even mention protecting the citizens of the United States. Without our Constitution, there is no America. There is just another country that claims to have democracy without protection of freedom or equality.
There are numerous other talking points that bother me, but these are the main two regarding national security. Reasonable people need to dispute incorrect or invalid talking points to ensure that the American people are getting the truth rather than the spin of those with power.
One of the recent ones I've been hearing is, "There is a reason the United States has not been attacked since 9-11; it is not an accident." This is used in regard to the press publishing "classified" information about terror tracking programs. Nobody - not the moderator of the program or the other guests - brings up the fact that this argument is faulty. If they are talking about attacks on US soil, attacks weren't frequent before these programs. The last time we were attacked on US soil by foreign terrorists (before 9-11) was the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. The terrorists responsible were caught and tried, and not one of our civil liberties was tramped upon in the process. We managed to stay terror-attack free on US soil (barring the Oklahoma City bombing, which was by Americans) without programs that limited civil liberties. If they are talking about foreign attacks on US citizens, they are also incorrect - we have been attacked on a constant basis following 9-11. The attacks have increased exponentially, for that matter, since we invaded Iraq.
Another talking point is that we "elected the Congress and this President to protect us, the citizens of the United States." I've discussed this in a previous post. Our elected representatives, including the President, have several jobs - the most important of which is to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Indeed, the Presidential oath states, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Not once does it even mention protecting the citizens of the United States. Without our Constitution, there is no America. There is just another country that claims to have democracy without protection of freedom or equality.
There are numerous other talking points that bother me, but these are the main two regarding national security. Reasonable people need to dispute incorrect or invalid talking points to ensure that the American people are getting the truth rather than the spin of those with power.
posted by H. Corbin at 10:53 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home