Amanpour Explodes at CNN Syria Panel: Stop Spewing ‘False Moral Equivalence!’

[babylonsister]

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/amanpour-explodes-at-cnn-syria-panel-stop-spewing-false-moral-equivalence/


Amanpour Explodes at CNN Syria Panel: Stop Spewing ‘False Moral Equivalence!’
by Josh Feldman | 10:57 pm, September 12th, 2013 video 329


CNN Chief International Correspondent Christiane Amanpour flipped out on the AC360 Later Syria panel Thursday night, calling out the “false moral equivalence” of anti-interventionists. She clashed with blogger Andrew Sullivan over the emotion in the case, shouting down her fellow panelists to get a word in edgewise.

After Anderson Cooper and Sullivan brought up the need to separate the emotion from the policy, Amanpour sighed and said, “I can barely contain myself at this point.” She proceeded to go on a rant about the “false moral equivalence” in arguing against going in.

“How many more times do we have to say that weapons of mass destruction were used, and as bad as it is to decapitate somebody, it is by no means equal. We can’t use this false moral equivalence about what’s going on right now. They tried to do it in the second World War, they tried to do it in Bosnia, they tried to do it in Rwanda, and they’re trying to do it now. There is no moral equivalence.”

When the others tried to jump in, Amanpour shouted, “Wait just a second!” She firmly argued that Obama simply cannot allow Assad to get away with using chemical weapons, noting how Bill Clinton is still apologizing for Rwanda. Sullivan jumped in to say, “This is not reason, this is emotion.” Amanpour fired back, “It’s not emotion. This is history coming out.”

They clashed over whether turning away from such terrible crimes is sometimes in America’s national interests, while Charles Blow accused Amanpour of painting a “false choice” about not caring about dead kids and not wanting to bomb Syria. She cried, “Nobody’s saying that! You’re playing rhetorical games!”

Watch the video below, via CNN:

[DURHAM D]

1. Andrew Sullivan is a total shit head.

Women are emotional and explode while men simply make strong arguments.

This has now been posted on DU about 6 times and the sexist take is obvious. Amanpour just does not know her place.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

2. I truly dislike Andrew Sullivan. I liked the CSPAN interview with him and Chris Hitchens

Hitchens totally spanked him on religion, etc. Priceless.

[JI7]

12. their criticisms of her do come off as sexist, i'm saying this regardless of the actual positions

to attack her for being emotional ........

[gopiscrap]

3. Andrew Sullivan is a shit head!!!

[KoKo]

4. RT had some excellent discussion today and reporting. No Commercials

and interesting views that are often more Global than CNN.

But, thanks for heads up for CNN watchers of Amanpour. I just find the news there all about the "Personality" and not the Issues. It's different on RT.

[joshcryer]

5. Haha! Gaddafi shill wants to now deliver freedom to Assad!

[JI7]

10. who is that ? sullivan ?

[joshcryer]

14. Amanpour

I agree sometimes false moral equivalence is used in these arguments but it is not black and white either.

[Turborama]

47. Amanpour wants to deliver freedom to Assad?

And she was a "Gaddafi shill"?

[joshcryer]

48. Yeah, remember her reports from Rixos Hotel?

And I'm being cheeky, but she does think "Obama simply cannot allow Assad to get away with using chemical weapons."

Remember her My People Love Me interview?

She interviewed Saif too.

The Gaddafi regime really liked her because she basically reported anything they wanted from Rixos and didn't know what was going on outside.

[Motown_Johnny]

6. I always liked her, now I like her more.

Couldn't have said it better myself. That is true in a literal sense because I have been trying to express similar thoughts lately and have fallen short of the mark she has achieved.

[babylonsister]

9. I like her more, too.

She's concerned about humanity; imagine that!

[arely staircase]

18. yes nt

[dgibby]

7. Sullivan notwithstanding,

Amampour, who I respect, has been making an ass out of herself all week, histrionic, demeanding that other members of the panel agree with her, yelling, interrupting. Very out of character for her, I must say. She also has a bad habit of asking permission to speak, then when she's ignored, goes off on a tangent. Anderson Cooper told all of them to calm down and stop talking over each other because the viewers were complaining. It was almost unwatchable.

[marew]

27. I agree!

I had always respected her but now... I have never seen her like this.

[JI7]

8. ugh, why accuse her of being emotional and without reason ?

how is their point any more reasonable than hers ?

[sabrina 1]

11. She lost her soul when she married Jamie Ruben.

Now she's for the Empire. She apparently forgets how opposed she was to the Iraq War and as a result was attacked by Fox and dropped as a foreign correspondent more or less, by CNN.

I really think there is something in the water in DC that seems to turn former intelligent human beings into radical pro-war interventionists.

[KoKo]

13. Bubble....

Fighting for their lives...new media and secrets being exposed by NSA has them all in a tizzy.

I happened to catch some morning report with Cokie Roberts and "other usual" on MSNBC I think (or maybe CNN) the morning after POB's speech to the Nation. And, I only caught part but seemed to be some discussion about how other Presidents "handled War" and there was some blather going on...but Chris Matthews said something about how FDR had to deceive the people for a good purposeand Cokie cackled...and said: "But then they could keep their secrets." They went to commercial break or something intervened...but, all I could think of was that NSA Revelations had put the "pox" on their "Secrets" and that Cokie...found that worth a cackle.

I don't usually watch that stuff..but, was glad I caught that.

[Oilwellian]

16. It has everything to do with...

money.

[ProSense]

17. So they're

"I really think there is something in the water in DC that seems to turn former intelligent human beings into radical pro-war interventionists."

...all "former intelligent human beings"?

Many members who voted for tough stance on Syria now oppose military action
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023662378

Why is it the U.S. responsibility to prevent Iran pursuing its nuclear program?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023587381

[babylonsister]

21. Are you kidding me? What level of 'radical' are you? nt

[arely staircase]

15. she is absolutely right

And a very smart woman.

[sabrina 1]

20. I've met her. She has changed, radically.

[babylonsister]

23. You MET her, so she is not a friend, yet she has changed radically?

Sure. Good luck with that.

[pkdu]

28. I've met Tom Hanks...

Once , for 3 seconds.... Why wouldn't I know how his whole personal philosophy has changed.

/sarc off

[sabrina 1]

32. I have met her, several times. BEFORE Jamie Rubin. She HAS changed.

I'm not sure what your point is.

[joshcryer]

36. I'm shocked that poster is defending her.

She basically all but said she wants to bomb Syria.

[polichick]

19. Wow! I haven't watched CNN in many years...

She used to be one of my favs.

[ozone_man]

22. A death is a death, bullets or gas.

Besides, the U.S. is and has been the largest user of WMDs ever, something that Obama did not talk about, but which Lawrence O'Donnell did the other night. He was great!

[pkdu]

30. Wow , do you ignore everything that women say...read/ listen to what she sad about (lack of )

Moral equivalency . Then respond to that.

[GeorgeGist]

24. I'm not exceptional.

I don't see the moral difference between gas or bombs or bullets when it comes to homicide.

[marew]

29. Exactly!

People who are victims of bombs, bullets, or machetes can lay alone in pain for days before they die.

[Behind the Aegis]

25. An incredibly sexist article!

I saw the piece and it sounds like someone is project (not you, OP). Oh and Andrew "ML" Sullivan is a twit!

[Turborama]

45. I'm not sure if it was the article that was sexist, but I thought Sullivan was when I saw it on TV

He was also very patronizing, as usual.

[Behind the Aegis]

46. Sullivan makes me ill.

Yes, I know he has changed his positions on some things, but he really is nothing but trash. The reason I said the article was sexist was because of the wording:

After Anderson Cooper and Sullivan brought up

Amanpour sighed then proceeded to go on a rant (Normally, not sexist, but I saw what she said and how she said it...hardly a "rant.&quot

She cried

To me, it is how the piece was written. I know it is subjective, but after seeing the piece, the article makes it sound like she was some crazed, hysterical 'dame.'

Oh, and Sullivan patronizing? He was breathing, right? LOL!

[UTUSN]

26. I love that human. n/t

[eissa]

31. War correspondent upset she won't cover another war

She was completely unprofessional.

[stevenleser]

35. Amanpour is much more than a war correspondant. That is a ridiculous attack on her.

She is wrong about Syria, but that doesnt mean we have to make things up about her.

[eissa]

39. I believe her anger in this case stems

from her role as reporter. I can't buy that a person with her knowledge of the region doesn't understand that the power vacum left if Assad falls will be immediately filled with ruthless extremists. And then what will she say? Exholt us to once again intervene when the rebels start slaughtering minorities and women, as they are certain to do?

[JaneyVee]

33. She gets it.

[LittleBlue]

34. Poor Christiane, can't control herself

so she substitutes emotion for logic. Outbursts for reasoned response.

The mark of weakness, not only of argument but also of mind.

[Hekate]

42. That was certainly the sexist take on the incident. Shut the little lady up, talk over her, then...

... accuse her of getting emotional when she takes her rightful place in the conversation.

[LittleBlue]

43. Sullivan is right though

"WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!" is undeniably an emotional response to the situation. It totally ignores the consequences of such actions, or even whether those actions will accomplish anything.

Put plainly, it is pure emotion without reason. "BUT SEXIST!" isn't a reasoned response, either.

[malletgirl02]

37. Does this mean she is for humanitarian bombing?

nt.

[Hekate]

38. Good for her. She certainly has the journalistic chops to know what she's talking about

It's an old trick to keep talking over the woman on the panel -- just keep talking over the little lady until time runs out. I'm glad she jumped into the fray and said her piece.

[JI7]

40. and acccuse her of getting emotional rather than arguing her points

[Cha]

41. I know.. that's like trying to shut down the conversation because

they don't have anything better to contribute.

[fadedrose]

44. She lacked self-control and had very bad manners...

I saw the program that night, and was amused by the startled look on Anderson Cooper's face, like, what should I do?

Anderson has such lovely manners it must have pained him to stop the fight...

Pros and cons about going into Syria. The UN is looking into it, Putin wants an agreement that there be no attacks since Assad is giving up chemicals, we're already helping rebels, and I don't know what's right or wrong anymore..