Search Episodes (Determinism and Morality)

Kerry Kennedy "Speaks Truth to Power" at NTD Banquet

Added 09/29/11
2 Views

Moral Markets: Paul Zak discusses Oxytocin, Trade, and Human N...

Added 04/26/11
3 Views

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

Added 02/12/11
5 Views

Tim Pawlenty Echoes the Bush Years in His CPAC Speech

[LESS INFO] 5 VIEWS | ADDED 16:00:53 02/12/11
Although this year's CPAC convention has been strangely void of any formal discussion about the events unfolding in Egypt or jobs for unemployed Americans, Tim Pawlenty did manage to remind us all of what these last three weeks would have looked like if George Bush had been in office. In his speech today, Pawlenty slammed President Obama for allowing Egyptians to determine Egypt's future in their way and their time. > "Bullies respect strength, they don't respect weakness," Pawlenty said in a speech to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. "So when the United States of America projects its national security interests here and around the world, we need to do it with strength. We need to make sure that there is no equivocation, no uncertainty, no daylight between us and our allies around the world." Pawlenty called it a simple principle that the White House "doesn't seem to understand." "We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, Czech Republic, Colombia, amongst other of our friends," Pawlenty said. "Meanwhile, we appease Iran, Russia, and adversaries in the Middle East, including Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. "Mr. President, with bullies, might makes right. Strength makes them submit. We need to get tough on our enemies, not on our friends. And, Mr. President, stop apologizing for our country," Pawlenty said in one of his speech's biggest applause lines. "The bullies, terrorists and tyrants of the world have lots to apologize for. America does not." It's worth contrasting that with President Obama's speech made shortly after TPaw's spew: (More follows) > And above all, we saw a new generation emerge -- a generation that uses their own creativity and talent and technology to call for a government that represented their hopes and not their fears; a government that is responsive to their boundless aspirations. One Egyptian put it simply: Most people have discovered in the last few days -- that they are worth something, and this cannot be taken away from them anymore, ever. This is the power of human dignity, and it can never be denied. Egyptians have inspired us, and they've done so by putting the lie to the idea that justice is best gained through violence. For in Egypt, it was the moral force of nonviolence -- not terrorism, not mindless killing -- but nonviolence, moral force that bent the arc of history toward justice once more. And while the sights and sounds that we heard were entirely Egyptian, we can't help but hear the echoes of history -- echoes from Germans tearing down a wall, Indonesian students taking to the streets, Gandhi leading his people down the path of justice. As Martin Luther King said in celebrating the birth of a new nation in Ghana while trying to perfect his own, There is something in the soul that cries out for freedom." Those were the cries that came from Tahrir Square, and the entire world has taken note. For TPaw, respecting Israel et al means showing force, shaking our guns at whoever they call enemy instead of respecting the right of people to determine their government. How is it disrepecting democracies to support democracy? When I read what he said, I was whisked back to the days of George W. Bush. In 2002, he gave a speech where he called for Palestinians to enact true political reform, including free and fair elections. He promised that if they did so, the United States would support them. In 2006, the Palestinians elected Hamas in elections supervised by the UN and deemed to be free and fair. In a press conference following the elections, Mr. Bush paid lip service to the democratic process and then refused to acknowledge the Palestinians' duly elected representatives. Juan Cole, writing for Salon: > In a mystifying self-contradiction, Bush trumpeted that "the Palestinians had an election yesterday, the results of which remind me about the power of democracy." If elections were really the same as democracy, and if Bush was so happy about the process, then we might expect him to pledge to work with the results, which by his lights would be intrinsically good. But then he suddenly swerved away from this line of thought, reverting to boilerplate and saying, "On the other hand, I don't see how you can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform. And I know you can't be a partner in peace if you have a -- if your party has got an armed wing." So Bush is saying that even though elections are democracy and democracy is good and powerful, it has produced unacceptable results in this case, and so the resulting Hamas government will lack the legitimacy necessary to allow the United States to deal with it or go forward in any peace process. Bush's double standard is clear in his diction, since he was perfectly happy to deal with Israel's Likud Party, which is dedicated to the destruction of the budding Palestinian state, and which used the Israeli military and security services for its party platform in destroying the infrastructure of the Palestinian Authority throughout the early years of this century. As Orwell reminded us in "Animal Farm," some are more equal than others . Which is precisely what TPaw said in his speech. Some are more equal than others. Poland, the UK, Columbia, Israel. Those democracies are just fine. But in Egypt's case, we should have been strong, firm, unequivocal in our undying support for the dictator. Because THAT would somehow have protected our national interests. Democracy is democracy, regardless of whether this country likes the outcome. As President Obama said, the way forward for Egypt won't be easy, and I expect it also won't be pretty, because democracy means letting everyone have a voice, even when you don't like what they say. This is what conservatives and TPaw really don't understand at all. In their minds, we should undermine and starve any democracy that isn't aligned with our express (white, Anglo-Saxon, conservative Christian) ideals, because we don't like it. This clip with The Nation's Katrina VandenHeuvel puts an exclamation point on it: Click here to view this media TPaw's speech is nothing more than a living example of that. From the day Barack Obama was elected, they have worked to de-legitimize his presidency. Birthers. Glenn Beck. Fox News. They work with one goal, to undermine a democratically-elected president that they don't happen to agree with. Who are the real dictators here?

Sam Harris: Can Science Determine Human Values?

Added 01/01/11
34 Views

Sam Harris: Can Science Determine Human Values?

[LESS INFO] 34 VIEWS | ADDED 00:55:27 01/01/11
Atheist author and cultural critic Sam Harris discusses his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This program was recorded in collaboration with Berkeley Arts and Letters, on November 10, 2010. In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science. The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now. Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).

Sam Harris: Can Science Determine Human Values?

Added 01/01/11
32 Views

Sam Harris: Can Science Determine Human Values?

[LESS INFO] 32 VIEWS | ADDED 00:55:27 01/01/11
Atheist author and cultural critic Sam Harris discusses his book, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values. This program was recorded in collaboration with Berkeley Arts and Letters, on November 10, 2010. In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science. The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now. Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).

'We Find Genocides Boring': Sam Harris on Moral Illusions

Added 12/22/10
56 Views

'We Find Genocides Boring': Sam Harris on Moral Illusions

[LESS INFO] 56 VIEWS | ADDED 02:45:17 12/22/10
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values Author Sam Harris explains that despite humanity's general desire to be moral, our ethical compasses and biases frequently produce "moral illusions." As an example, Harris points to the developed world's neglect of genocide in regions like Darfur. "We find genocides boring," he says. ----- In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science. The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now. Morality, Harris argues, is actually an undeveloped branch of neuroscience, and answers to questions of human value can be visualized on a "moral landscape" -- a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks and valleys correspond to human states of greater or lesser wellbeing. Different ways of thinking and behaving -- different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc. -- translate into movements across this landscape. Such changes can be analyzed objectively on many levels, ranging from biochemistry to economics, but they have their crucial realization as experiences in the human brain. Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).

'We Find Genocides Boring': Sam Harris on Moral Illusions

Added 12/22/10
27 Views

'We Find Genocides Boring': Sam Harris on Moral Illusions

[LESS INFO] 27 VIEWS | ADDED 02:45:17 12/22/10
Complete video at: http://fora.tv/2010/11/10/Sam_Harris_Can_Science_Determine_Human_Values Author Sam Harris explains that despite humanity's general desire to be moral, our ethical compasses and biases frequently produce "moral illusions." As an example, Harris points to the developed world's neglect of genocide in regions like Darfur. "We find genocides boring," he says. ----- In this highly anticipated, explosive new book, the author of The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation calls for an end to religion's monopoly on morality and human values. In The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Sam Harris tears down the wall between scientific facts and human values to dismantle the most common justification for religious faith -- that a moral system cannot be based on science. The End of Faith ignited a worldwide debate about the validity of religion. In its aftermath, Harris discovered that most people, from secular scientists to religious fundamentalists, agree on one point: Science has nothing to say on the subject of human values. Even among religious fundamentalists, the defense one most often hears for belief in God is not that there is compelling evidence that God exists, but that faith in Him provides the only guidance for living a good life. Controversies about human values are controversies about which science has officially had no opinion. Until now. Morality, Harris argues, is actually an undeveloped branch of neuroscience, and answers to questions of human value can be visualized on a "moral landscape" -- a space of real and potential outcomes whose peaks and valleys correspond to human states of greater or lesser wellbeing. Different ways of thinking and behaving -- different cultural practices, ethical codes, modes of government, etc. -- translate into movements across this landscape. Such changes can be analyzed objectively on many levels, ranging from biochemistry to economics, but they have their crucial realization as experiences in the human brain. Bringing a fresh, secular perspective to age-old questions of right and wrong, and good and evil, Harris shows that we know enough about the human brain and its relationship to events in the world to say that there are right and wrong answers to the most pressing questions of human life. Because such answers exist, cultural relativism is simply false -- and comes at increasing cost to humanity. And just as there is no such thing as Christian physics or Muslim algebra, there can be no Christian or Muslim morality. Using his expertise in philosophy and neuroscience, along with his experience on the front lines of our "culture wars," Sam Harris delivers a game-changing argument about the future of science and about the real basis of human cooperation. - Berkeley Arts and Letters Sam Harris is an American non-fiction author, and CEO of Project Reason. He received a Ph.D. in neuroscience from UCLA, and is a graduate in philosophy from Stanford University. He has studied both Eastern and Western religious traditions, along with a variety of contemplative disciplines, for twenty years. He is a proponent of scientific skepticism and is the author of The End of Faith (2004), which won the 2005 PEN/Martha Albrand Award, Letter to a Christian Nation (2006), a rejoinder to criticism of his first book, and The Moral Landscape (2010).

Esat Tv Ethiopian Satellite Television Ecadf Ad

Added 08/13/10
17 Views

Esat Tv Ethiopian Satellite Television Ecadf Ad

[LESS INFO] 17 VIEWS | ADDED 15:45:01 08/13/10
www.ethsat.com , www.ecadforum.com It is no secret that the Ethiopian Satellite Television, ESAT, has become the most popular television program in Ethiopia and around the world. Despite the continuous jamming of ESAT by the Ethiopian regime, ESAT has stolen the hearts of millions in such a short time. Tens of thousands have called ESAT television station when it went off the air twice.The emails and the numerous telephone calls ESAT's office recieved seem to indicate a solid moral backing for this free media. And ESAT is a must-have for our people in Ethioipa who at this time are denied access to free television and print media. That is why our people need ESAT more than anything else. They want to be informed and they like to know what is actually going on in their country. Knowledge is power. Informed people can and will change their circumstances. They will bring, on their own, the changes they seek.But we have to give them the chance to determine their destiny. ESAT is that chance. And it is the means to our people to establish peace, demorcacy, and freedom in Ethiopia. And the burden to provide this chance to our people lies totally on Diaspora Ethiopians. It is a historical duty and a patriotic obligation to support ESAT financially at this critical moment. If we say we love our country and if we mean what we say, then let us prove it. Let us keep ESAT on air for the sake of our people and Ethiopia.Our people are forced to live in total darkness. They have nowhere to go and nobody to ask. That is why they continously call ESAT to resume broadcasting. They tasted ESAT. And now they can't live without it. ESAT is the only hope our families and relatives rely on for reliable information. ESAT is their guiding light. ESAT is their torch to brighten the path showing their future. A bright and promising future. We have to be there for them if we say we love them.We need to subscirbe to ESAT and keep it on the air. It does not cost an arm and a leg to help ESAT. Nobody goes hungry or gets behind morgage payments by supporting ESAT. All it costs is 50 cents or a dollar a day. Is there any Ethiopian in the Diaspora who has any job that could not afford this much for the country or people he or she claims to love? If we love our people and our country, let us show it. Let us not say it. Forget the big speeches. And the empty promises. Just show it. Quietly and courageously. Bragging is enough. We have bragged for too long. Almost for twenty years now. Ethiopia and Ethiopians are bleeding. Bleeding to death. They are not looking for empty words. They want real help. Help they can touch and see. They want action from the Diaspora Ethiopians.There are thousands of us here in the Diaspora. The fate of our people is really in our hands. The power to save our country squarely lies on our shoulder. Where are we? What are we doing? Do we want to be free? Do we love to see our families and relatives to live in freedom like we do here in the Diaspora? If our answer is no, then you can kiss freedom for us and for our people goodbye. And we have chosen to live in shame and humiliation. If our answer is yes, then Ethiopia, Ethiopians, and ESAT need all of us. And we have chosen freedom, respect, and hope. For us and for our people. Don't make the enemies of free media happy. Don't help the enemies of freedom by not helping ESAT. Subscribe to ESAT now. You will be glad you did. It does not cost much. Not at all.Please go to www.ethsat.com as soon as you can and subscribe to ESAT on line using PayPal. You can also send money order for any amount directly to ESAT using the following ESAT's address:ESAT( Ethiopian Satellite Television)P. O. Box 60008Washington, DC 20039You can also call toll free to ESAT at 1-888-772-3728 ;

Are Liberty and Equality Compatible?

Added 08/03/10
8 Views

Are Liberty and Equality Compatible?

Added 08/03/10
0 Views

Determinism And Morality

Added 12/13/09
0 Views

Parental Abuse Comes From Ethics

Added 11/20/09
0 Views

THE NEWEST PHARAOH REACHES OUT

Added 06/05/09
1 Views

THE NEWEST PHARAOH REACHES OUT

[LESS INFO] 1 VIEWS | ADDED 13:51:00 06/05/09
An Egyptian vendor displays a copper plaque in Cairo's Khan el-Khalili market a few days before the newest pharaoh's arrival yesterday. The inscription reads, "OBAMA, New Tutankhamen of the World". Photo: AFP / Khaled Desouki N o, I'm not making an incendiary wingnuttist joke, as can be seen by the photo here. Cairo souvenir vendors have been selling a range of 'New Tut' paraphernalia (the t-shirts are big sellers) in anticipation of the American Messiah's arrival in the Land of the Pharaohs yesterday. If his hosts are receiving him with this attitude, who am I to judge? Just go with the meme, I say. The President evidently felt the same way during a visit to Giza after his big speech at al-Azhar, pointing out a depiction of his own likeness on one of the pyramids. His earlier arrival in Riyadh went without a gaffe — unlike his previous meeting with King Abdullah at Buckingham. It was interesting watching the raw video feed here, with several cameras offering close-ups as he appeared at the door of AF-1, and as he descended the stairway. But at the moment he approached the king, and as I watched intently to see how much of a bow would be performed this time , the view switched to a long distance shot from behind the monarch. Not a hint of a bow could be detected though, not even a slight dip. Just the customary Arab/French double kiss. I could practically hear Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (who makes even Bush's Scott McClellan seem like a competent straight-talker by comparison) heave a sigh of relief. He won't have to come up with any more creative excuses . After the deep royal bow at Buckingham, Gibbs said it was absolutely necessary in order to shake hands, because the King is so very much shorter than The One. Yet this time, the handshake and the kisses could be accomplished without it. > "Greetings, Your Majesty. My, how much you have grown since our last meeting!" A better message could have been delivered if this had been Indonesia's S.B. Yudhoyono instead of Egypt's President-for-Life Mubarak. Photo: AFP / Khaled Desouki After a few hours of meetings and sight-seeing (and receiving some heavy-duty gold bling from the king), it was a short hop to Cairo and the long awaited and over-hyped "outreach to the Muslim world" speech. Excuse me for saying so, but this was the wrong venue for him to be proclaiming the hope and change message to the world's Muslims who hunger for democracy and freedom. Not all of them do, of course, but for those who are hungry for those things, a much better example of the possibilities could have been selected. And some Egyptians with those very aspirations agree with me on this .> "It is a disaster," said Wael Abbas a renowned journalist and blogger. "He shouldn't be coming to Egypt. It's not a free Muslim country. "He should speak in a Muslim country where they respect the rule of law." The most populous Muslim majority country on earth, Indonesia, would have been a much smarter choice. It would have sent a far more powerful message to "the Muslim world" had Obama been seen embracing the democratically elected President S. B. Yudhoyono rather than the Egyptian 28-year-long autocracy of Mubarak who jails, and yes, tortures his critics. Prior to his arrival Obama hailed his Egyptian counterpart as a "stalwart ally" — not exactly the change many are hoping for. All that said, the major focus of the world's interest was the speech itself. As I watched it yesterday (conveniently timed at 5 pm here), I marvelled at his ability to appeal to everyone . Human rights defenders had parts to cheer, and the anti-Israel folks had other parts to cheer. People who believe America is a force for good could cheer at some points, and those who blame America for everything that's wrong in the world could cheer at others. It was striking to see this back-and-forth, "on the one hand... but on the other hand..." construction play out with the audience — cheering the "one hand" but sitting absolutely silent on the "other hand" in most cases. If you're wondering how to write your own Obama speech, see here . There's a definite pattern. He seemed to be showing off his knowledge of Islam quite a bit, recalling the azan (call to prayer) he heard blaring from mosques during his youth in Indonesia, "at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk" (leaving off the mid-day one, the afternoon one, the night-time one, and the extra ones during Ramadan). He spoke of the zakat , and the hijab (but not the burqa). That last was troubling for me, and only one of the numerous instances of false moral equivalence that are easily spotted in the speech . There was implicit criticism of those who would deny women the right to wear hijab in his country, yet nothing to criticize those who would force women to wear it (or the burqa) in others. As the courageous author of "Infidel", Ayaan Hirsi Ali once said , "The veil is to show that women are responsible for the sexual self-control of men." And, by the way, he actually said "hajib" in the speech rather than "hijab". I'll bet you won't find that in any transcript, but that's what he said. There were many clever lines, well delivered (I especially liked, "Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons..."), but I was left with an uneasy feeling I couldn't put my finger on. It felt too much like pandering, to everybody at once. And if he could get away from those darn teleprompters and just speak with his heart from bullet-point notes, he could avoid the dizzying ping-pong head effect. And somebody needs to tell him to avoid that constant looking down his nose, jutting out the chin pose after applause lines. Way too much like Mussolini. The moral relativism was just too thickly planted in those 55 minutes, and new policy or initiatives were absent. I had expected at least one solid new announcement among the platitudes, but I can't find any. There were far more apologies than there were policies. The esteemed Dr. Charles Krauthammer puts this very well, far better than I will ever do ( wai AllahPundit for the clip). It would be great if at least a few of the establishment media personalities could manage to climb out of the Messiah's tank, or even poke their noses out, long enough to exercise their journalism degrees. What follows, if you have twelve minutes to spare, is a delightful instance of a very smart, well-spoken woman (Liz Cheney) figuratively pulling one of these personalities (Andrea Mitchell) up for a moment of air. Andrea was down pretty deep, and after a breath or two fights to get back down into the depths of that tank. Toward the end she pleads for time to "do my homework", so determined not to accept the truth is she. One doesn't skate around Liz Cheney that easily, as you will see. The hardest truth here is that Liz knows her stuff, and Andrea unfortunately doesn't. They discuss yesterday's speech, then a couple of other very important subjects which most Americans still don't seem to have a clue about. Truth Teaser: Liz' father never linked Saddam Hussein with the attacks of September 11, 2001. Strangely, most Americans apparently recollect exactly the opposite. Saddam's contacts with al Qaeda went back at least 10 years, and strangely, most Americans apparently recollect exactly the opposite. The intel services have never recanted this established fact (Liz misspeaks "recounted" rather than "recanted" I believe here). Saddam paid for terrorist attacks against Israel. I'm sure most Americans still don't get that either. Saddam could have easily given his known WMD technology to other terrorist-supporting regimes or terrorist groups. But Barack says the overthrow of Saddam was an unnecessary "war of choice" after September 11, 2001. He really did. (Oh, but also that the Iraqis are far better off now without Saddam, so at least there's that.) Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News , World News , and News about the Economy Again, wai AP at Hot Air for the clip. .