November 20, 2005
'Freedom Fighter' May Be Dead
Maybe liberal Kurt Vonnnegut was merely giving a prescient eulogy for Zarqawi when he said that terrorists are ‘very brave people’ who ‘must feel an amazing high’ when killing civilians. His comments basically reveal the true face of anti-war activists.
Yet another case of the left praising those who hate America. They always seem to go overseas to say these things, I wonder why?
Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorismBut in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was "sweet and honourable" to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.
"They are dying for their own self-respect," he said. "It's a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It's like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you're nothing."
Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: "I regard them as very brave people, yes."
He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman's 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.
On the Iraq war, he said: "What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back."
Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an "amazing high". He said: "You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high." theaustralian
Well, I assume Kurt will want to attend the funeral of Zarqawi, who may have died at the brutal hands of our imperial stormtroopers. Kurt is in good liberal company of course. We hear these kinds of statements all the time from the left, seldom with any disavowal at all. Statements by Michael Moore, the hero of the democratic convention, who was seated next to Jimmy Carter, said much the same thing and most democrats refused to to even question it, much less disavow it.
When taken to their logical conclusion it's really just a hop skip and a jump for many on the left to go from 'strongly opposing Bush' to 'defending terrorism' isn't it?
“The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘The Enemy.’ They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.” - Michael Moore, 4/14/2004
So today, I expect the left, including Cindy Sheehan, to ask for a moment of silence for this very brave freedom fighter who was brutally murdered by the Bush criminal gang in this illegal illigitimate war. Surely the high from his sweet and honourable death will speed him to paradise.
On that note we move to what to do after the memorial services are over, namely, stopping this illegal war for oil. But how? Many of the left's best and brightest are of course ensconced in the liberal ivory towers of academia. University professor John Daly has some educated suggestions:
HERNDON, Va., Nov. 18 /PRNewswire/ -- Warren Community College English professor, John Daly, said that "Real freedom will come when soldiers in Iraq turn their guns on their superiors." Rebecca Beach, a freshman at Warren Community College in Washington, New Jersey, received this unexpected reply to a recent email she sent the faculty at her school announcing the appearance of decorated Iraq war hero, Lt. Col. Scott Rutter, on Thursday, November 17 to discuss America's accomplishments in Iraq. yahoo.com
I assume that 'superiors' probably includes the commander in chief. No word yet on what the Pentagon has decided to do on this issue.
I want to ask those who are experts on this, so that I can be sure because I really do want to know... can I question these individuals on their patriotism or would that be going to far?
Posted by Eric Simonson at November 20, 2005 07:40 PMAh yes… the old storyline again… must be a slow day in GOPland. You would think the GOP would have its hands full torturing people but I guess not.
BTW… nice job getting the South Koreans to withdraw their troops next year!!! Bush has been really busy.
Posted by: Aldous at November 20, 2005 07:55 PMI hope that by now Zarkawi is in hell learning that he was wrong about that 72 Virgin thing. But let’s wait to buy the champage.
As for addled old men and out of touch academics supporting Zarqawi, their hate for the U.S. overcomes their human decency. We don’t need to hate them back, but we should be clear what they are.
Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2005 07:59 PMHi Eric,
“Yet another case of the left praising those who hate America.”
David Duke was a Republican and a Nazi. There were a slew of Republicans who supported him. Going by neo-con “logic” Republicans are Nazis.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 20, 2005 08:15 PM
So you’ve proven that Kurt Vonnegut and a random community college professor are a&&holes. La-di-da.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 20, 2005 08:18 PMYou guys notice that there’s no crowing of Victory from Eric? No claims of the insurgency being on its “last throes”? No declaration that a turning point has been reached?
Instead, we get this cheap liberal bashing. Hmmm… could it be that Eric does not believe this is Zarqawi?
Posted by: Aldous at November 20, 2005 08:44 PM“Instead, we get this cheap liberal bashing. Hmmm………”
Funny.
A statement like this from the Sultan of Bashing.
I’m impressed.
Aldous
The Whitehouse is saying that this probably is not him. That is why we should hold the celebration.
Posted by: Jack at November 20, 2005 08:57 PMLouisXIV
David Duke was a Republican and a Nazi. There were a slew of Republicans who supported him.
First of all David Duke was an idiot just like anyone that supported him.
Second, Most republicans DIDNOT support him.
I sure hope Zarqawi is dead. But I’ll save my celibration too.
Woody Mena
So you’ve proven that Kurt Vonnegut and a random community college professor are a&&holes. La-di-da.
It aint a random of college professors. I’t 98% of them that are assholes.
Eric:
re: Vonnegut
“His comments basically reveal the true face of anti-war activists.”
“Yet another case of the left praising those who hate America.”
“When taken to their logical conclusion it’s really just a hop skip and a jump for many on the left to go from ‘strongly opposing Bush’ to ‘defending terrorism’ isn’t it?”
Someday I would love for the Watchblog Manager to explain to me how the majority of Eric’s posts shouldn’t be considered flamebaiting and trolling.
Other people (me for instance) have received very stern warnings for saying a lot less than the above quotes in this blog, yet Eric’s posts almost always contain these kind of disdainful, sweeping generalizations about people on the left, yet no warning is ever given.
Since, finally, enough people, caught on that every time Busholes numbers dropped there was an increase in the terror level, they had to switch to a new tact. Now it’s let’s kill a terrorist leader (Oh, it’s probably not him, can’t prove a lie, can’t indict again, nyah nyah nyah)
Ron,
98% of people are assholes except you? You sure of that?
Posted by: Dave at November 20, 2005 10:29 PMAdrienne:
Don’t criticize Eric for his behavior!!! Odds are I will be next if ever the Manager kicks Eric out!!!
Posted by: Aldous at November 20, 2005 10:30 PMLouisXIV,
David Duke was a Republican and a Nazi. There were a slew of Republicans who supported him. Going by neo-con “logic” Republicans are Nazis.
I don’t recall a slew of Republicans supporting David Duke, in fact I recall David Duke being drummed out of the Republican party and being repudiated by Republicans very harshly.
I do not hear the same from the left. In fact, in the case of Michael Moore, he sits in a place of honor at the democratic convention.
OH Kurt Vondegut you naughty liberal—great point (yawn)
When will those unwashed lefties learn the beauty of republican wedge-issue spin? Until then Mr Eric Simonstone (or whatever) you shall go unappreciated. They will one day value your pointing out of inane and irrelevant items and holding them up to pseudo-conservative scrutiny and in return get eight half-interested posts telling you to shut-up.
MR. Simeonwald your genius is rare indeed in that your point is too pettily trite to mull over and still respect yourself for it.
Fox News has a place for you indeed!
Posted by: Novenge at November 20, 2005 10:36 PMEric-
I know it would just be too easy, but you could ask us first if we agreed with Vonnegut, rather than assume that ALL LIBERALS MUST THINK THIS WAY. For example, had you asked me, I would tell you that Kurt Vonnegut lived through the incendiary bombing of Dresden, and as such he’s not that big of a rallier for American wars abroad.
But me, with a different history could agree with the part about it being a charge to be a suicide bomber, without agreeing that it’s a healthy path to take in one’s life. They actually have interview people who become suicide bomber, and there’s an psychosexual element to what they do. Still, I’d just as soon they went and got laid rather than go violently freudian and burst in the middle of a marketplace full of Isrealis.
I’m sure there are people who agree with Vonnegut, and they would tell you that if you asked them, but you haven’t really asked us, and therefore you don’t have the faintest idea of what we think.
When’s the last time you wrote something to inspire folks to a higher calling, rather than smear them by association with the fringe, as you or they determine it?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 20, 2005 10:48 PMOoh Michael Moore eh? Okeedokey Eric..
Rush Limbaugh
G. Gordon Liddy
Pat Robertson
Ollie North
and loads of others if I had time. Should I continue or can you concede that your point was ill-founded?
Eric,
I am sad to inform you that in order to stay politically correct you must now see the anti-war movement debate and thus political voice mute. With the House of Representatives clearly voting not to support the GOP’s Immediate Withdraw of Our Troops in Iraq, there should be no doubt where we stand as a Nation and a Society. So on to the next question. What has anmd is President Bush and Company doing that has caused “Events” to soar over the last year. Do we need to reinvade Iraq and start over? Judging from Mr. Rumsfields act today the stay the course message is to blow more smoke up our butt and pray that their luck holds out until November 2006.
Novenge, “Simonstone” and “Simeonwald?”
Nice antisemitic slurs you have going there.
You don’t agree with Eric’s positions so you accuse him of being a JEW??? Is this what liberalism has come to in America?
Posted by: sanger at November 20, 2005 11:08 PM
I wasn’t being anti-semetic I was clearly mispronouncing his name out of spite. Let me give him two others. Mr. Simonfjord and Eric Sominex I apologize if it seemed anti-semetic it’s more anti-Eric. I will take politically correct classes and turn myself into the ADL immediately!
Posted by: Novenge at November 20, 2005 11:24 PMOkay now I accused him of being a norwegian damn-it can’t I do anything right. Anybody?
Posted by: Novenge at November 20, 2005 11:31 PMCalling Warren Community College one of the “ivory towers of academia” surely must be a telling statement on the education of the writer.
Posted by: Burt at November 20, 2005 11:48 PMNovenge, since you deny that you were being antisemtic, I’ll take your word for it. But you’ve got to admit that you gave damned good reason for anybody to think so. Especially with “Simeonwald” which changes Eric’s last name not once but twice (with Simeon and Wald) into something typical for Jewish names. Considering that antisemtism is a big part of the anti-war movement (worldwide less so than in the US), you should be more careful.
Posted by: sanger at November 20, 2005 11:52 PMNot one disavowel or repudiation of Vonnegut’s or Michael Moore’s statements yet.
Stephen, yours comes the closest I’d say, but still… you do not seem to disagree with it. I find that odd.
Novenge, you obviously don’t disagree with Vonnegut or Prof. Daly in the slightest and in fact seem more uncomfortable with the fact that their statements are pointed out than that they said it.
Adrienne,
There was a post here on watchblog awhile back that said republicans were racists. (Ok, there have been a few.)
Some wacko somewhere had re-registered himself as a republican and ran for some city office. He even admitted that he wasn’t a republican, but hey, ‘all republicans are racists’ after all. I contacted the republican party in his county and they eventually got this guy off the ballot. (Not due to my influence of course.) But I also stated in no uncertain terms that this guy did not represent me.
Democrats in congress and the left in general have been making reckless and untrue statements that have no basis in reality or morality and it appears to be the position of a majority of the left.
If it is not your position, then speak up. If every liberal were condemning this kind of statement then we would all know that this is not representative of the left, but as it is… what other conlusion can you come to? This kind of thing is generally accepted on the left.
I cannot tell you how many times I have personally been called a fascist here on this blog. I’m personally called hateful. Obviously, dave and novenge, (probably the same person?) are unclear about the watchblog policy, but I’m certainly not hurt by what they say.
All I have done is quote the statements of respected liberals and made a judgement about what those statements mean. You can do the same with the comments of any conservative and if those statements are disgraceful in my estimation I will disavow and criticize them.
For you Adrienne, I apologize if it seems that it is a personal attack on you. It is not intended as such. Unless of course those are your beliefs, in which case it is a direct attack on your beliefs. i.e. the message but still not an attack on you.
Posted by: esimonson at November 20, 2005 11:55 PMEric, I just finished reading a post in the opposite thread in which Adrienne calls Bush the “Chimp in Chief” and says that Republicans act like fascists. So save your apologies.
Again and again we see the left wing resorting to vitriol and then turning around and crying crocodile tears if Republicans don’t “inspire people to a higher calling.”
Your post hardly points out the actions of the Democrat’s lunatic fringe—in fact, the examples you cite are actually pretty mild instances of MAINSTREAM Democratic rhetoric.
People like Howard Dean, Anne Coulter, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh may very well be extremists. The difference is that Anne Coulter is not the Chair of the Republican Party, and the real Chair of the Republican Party is not afraid to sit down and debate the Democratic Party Chair, somebody who loves to throw around vicious rhetoric for the cameras but is too much of a coward to sit down and actually debate his positions with an opponent.
Posted by: sanger at November 21, 2005 12:12 AMSanger,
Could you please arrange me a public debate with “Howard Dean, Anne Coulter, Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh” as well as the “Real Chair of the Republican Party?” What a public debate that would make, huh? Just once is all that I ask for. Than lets see just how extreme they want to play.
The question for the Republican Party is now can they answer the rest of the questions facing them in the next year honestly and open. Democrats having maintained their loyal opposition in the general defense of our society have earned the right to be heard. Failure at this point and allowing the chips to fall were they may might be the only way that the Republicans hold power. Can the party survive the “Total Incompetence” of this administration along with their general lack of imagination?
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 21, 2005 12:35 AMThough your e-mail seems laced with concentrated sarcasm. I will answer the questions you’ve posed, directly as well as indirectly, but before doing so, I admonish you to ask more bluntly in the future what you want to know.
Patriotism Ah yes a wonderful thought in theory. I’m sure when Jeffrey Dahmer ate his victims he saw him self as very patriotic, He was just cleaning the dirt up off the streets. And the Oklahoma Bomber I sure he felt he was doing a form of community service by ridding so many people of their tedious lives.
Patriotism sir can only be judge by the measure of what theindividual holds dear or represents.
In our society we believe that the truest form of patriotism is to fight and die for the continuation of our lively hood “The Great U.S.A.”
and all that we hold sacred. Or you could go for the second truest form lighting sparklers on the 4th of July. Either way we get the point across that Hey! I’m American and By golly I’m proud.
Whereas in their culture they believe the biggest form of patriotism is to die for the continuation of their way of life.
This outlook appears barbaric, How can some one kill so many innocent people. How could some one put so many people to death all for their views?
Well before we jump to judgementally down the throats of our supposed advisaries throats, Lets acknowledge our hands in suicide bombing.
Not the few home grow killers we have helped to cultivate here in the old good U.S of A., but the tremendous droves of killers we spew out every year.
Ladies and gentelmen Let’s not forget that Baghdad was a market place. This televised destruction in retaliation against the enemies of American didn’t even destroy some possible assailants involved in the twin towers. It involved young men; old men; women; and children.
And just like the messgae we sent them of our undying patriotism. They also sent us a message of theirs!!!
So I pose a question whether you’ll look back to answer it is entirely up to you.
How can one form of patriotism be considered barbaric, if the same outcome is obtained?
And How can one of miniscule cultural diversity understand or even begin to grasp the ideas of anothers patriotism, without knowing the culture of the district to be examined??
Oh and by the way Mr. Simonson that is sarcasm at it’s best
Thanks
Posted by: Rhonda at November 21, 2005 02:07 AMhttp://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,17256664%255E32542,00.html
Here is the interview Eric refers to:
“WERE you a brave man in war?” I ask him.
Vonnegut’s old back stiffens noticeably. “I didn’t disappoint myself, no,” he says firmly. “I didn’t do anything that I was ashamed of afterwards.”
For some reason the steely resolve that seems to accompany the answer strikes me as unusual. But there’s no reason it should. Men who hate war are often proud of their military service.
It’s quite legitimate for Vonnegut, a decorated soldier, to feel the same, whatever anti-war positions he may have adopted later in life. But there are genuine surprises ahead.
“Do you or did you bear any ill will towards your captors?” I ask.
Not at all,” Vonnegut says. “And I regard anybody who is a soldier in any army that is at war as a brother of mine. I’ve been back to Dresden three times now and when I go there, I’m treated as a hometown boy.”
Next I ask him about terrorism. It’s not for any particular reason. It just seems a relevant thing to ask a writer who has seen war, who has written of war and who lives in New York City, where terrorism’s horror is understood so well.
“What about terrorists? Do you understand where they’re coming from? Do you regard them as soldiers too?” I ask.
Vonnegut’s reply is startling. “I regard them as very brave people, yes,” he says without a moment’s hesitation.
“You don’t think that they’re mad, that, you know, anyone who would strap a bomb to himself must be mad?”
“Well, we had a guy [president Harry Truman] who dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, didn’t we?” he says.
“What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back. Peace wasn’t restored in Vietnam until we got kicked out. Everything’s quiet there now.”
There’s a long pause before Vonnegut speaks again: “It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in.”
This borders on the outrageous. Is the author of one of the great anti-war books of the 20th century seriously saying that terrorists who kill civilians are “sweet and honourable”?
I ask one more question: “But terrorists believe in twisted religious things, don’t they? So surely that can’t be right?”
“Well, they’re dying for their own self-respect,” Vonnegut fires back. “It’s a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It’s [like] your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you’re nothing.”
There’s another long pause and Vonnegut’s eyes suggest his mind has wandered off somewhere. Then, suddenly, he turns back to me and says: “It must be an amazing high.”
“What?” I ask. “Strapping a bomb to yourself,” he says. “You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation … must be an amazing high.”
At this point, I give up. I can’t be bothered asking him about any of the things I’d thought about: his mother’s suicide, how he raised his sister’s kids, the great writers he knew and partied with, how he looks back on Dresden.
Vonnegut has been many things: a grandmaster of American literature; a man who worked hard to support his family; a soldier who fought for his country.
But now he’s old and he doesn’t want to live any more. You only have to read his book to understand that. And because he can’t find anything worthwhile to keep him alive, he finds defending terrorists somehow amusing.”
The interviewer, David Neson, seems to conclude the 83 year old Vonnegut may be suicidal. One possible interpretation is that Vonnegut is contemplating his own death as an amazing high. That’s sad, but it is a reasonable interpretation.
Another interpretation is that Vonnegut dislikes Neson, and pulls his leg. Neson says that Vonnegut finds “defending terrorists somehow amusing.” More likely, Vonnegut finds Neson “amusing.” Read the linked interview in its entirety.
Anyone who has read Vonnegut’s work will recognizer this interviewer was bound to end up being disrespected by Vonnegut.
Vonnegut is profoundly anti-establishment. Always has been. Sorry. Anyone looking to him as a defender of the Bush administration, Clinton administration, Islam, Christianity, terrorism, or any ‘ism’ you’d care to name will be looking for a long, long time. Vonnegut identifies with soldiers as individuals, regardless of which side they fight for:
“… I regard anybody who is a soldier in any army that is at war as a brother of mine. I’ve been back to Dresden three times now and when I go there, I’m treated as a hometown boy.”
The interviewer asks if Vonnegut believes terrorists are mad. Vonnegut does not say one way or another. He answers the interviewer’s question with a question, referring to Truman’s decision to drop the bomb.
The next passage of the interview seems to refer to Iraq. It does have an anti-administration feel; again, not surprising. Vonnegut is not a person likely to come out in favor of governments which prosecute wars:
“What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back. Peace wasn’t restored in Vietnam until we got kicked out. Everything’s quiet there now.”
The next passage ends with the interviewer making an unwarranted conclusion. Note that, in the following, Vonnegut does not refer to terrorists:
There’s a long pause before Vonnegut speaks again: “It is sweet and noble - sweet and honourable I guess it is - to die for what you believe in.”
This borders on the outrageous. Is the author of one of the great anti-war books of the 20th century seriously saying that terrorists who kill civilians are “sweet and honourable”?
No. He is not saying that. He tosses off a psychological analysis of suicide as a way of maintaining self-respect. I’m not sure I buy that. I suspect he’s being purposely obtuse. But the psychological motivations of suicide bombers are beyond this thread’s topic.
The last question, and final exchange, sounds like Vonnegut and the interviewer are not getting along. I cannot prove what tone colors the final exchange, but it would be a reasonable interpretation to suggest Vonnegut is making fun of Neson by talking about the high that comes with spontaneous human combustion.
At this point, the interviewer “gives up.” That’s certainly a peculiar way for an interview to end.
I wonder if Vonnegut laughed at him.
Rhonda,
Although the personal belief of an individual or group may matter in the big picture to maintain, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is that of aim and control. After all the words Freewill and Freedom are inseparatable (sp) are they not?
I hope that by now Zarkawi is in hell learning that he was wrong about that 72 Virgin thing.
Maybe there’s also 72 Virgins in hell. After all, who know?
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at November 21, 2005 07:02 AMHi Ron,
“Second, Most republicans DIDNOT support him.”
That’s true. Most Democrats don’t agree with the postitions they are accused of taking in the article that started this thread.
Going by the “logic” of that article Republicans are Nazis. Going by proper logic, as opposed to neocon “logic”, Republicans aren’t Nazis.
Hi Esimonson,
“I don’t recall a slew of Republicans supporting David Duke”
I think it’s safe to say he had thousands of supporters.
“In fact, in the case of Michael Moore, he sits in a place of honor at the democratic convention.”
Rush Limbaugh gets preferential treatment from the White House…Cheney is on the show frequently. Rush Limbaugh goes in for far more lies and far more distortions than Moore does.
Eric,
“Maybe liberal Kurt Vonnnegut was merely giving a prescient eulogy for Zarqawi when he said that terrorists are ‘very brave people’ who ‘must feel an amazing high’ when killing civilians. His comments basically reveal the true face of anti-war activists.”
If one person says something idiotic and is against the war, everyone who is against the war should be held responsible for what was said?
How is Kurt Vonnegut the “Face of the anti-war activists?
You support the war. I should warn you that there have been some pretty stupid statements made by those who support the war, should I attribute those statements to your point of view, to your side?
Typical GOP argument.
Yikes! Kurt Vonnegut? What happened to Cindy Sheehan, Eric..? Oh you did mention her, didn’t you. I’d have been disappointed if you hadn’t.
Eric, I’m tempted to say, There they go again. Republicans are always crapping on our brave veterans and dishonoring everything they fought and died for…
Hmm. I did say it. Anyhow, this is just a dumb article.
The day President Bush finally gets Zarqawi, I’m breaking out the champaigne. I’m not holding my breath though. Bush could have killed him three years ago, but purposefully let him slip away just to score some political points at the UN.
LouisXIV
You want to back that statement about Rush up with some evidence? Here is one for you on Moore….
Have fun….
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
I have yet to see the “Democrats” in this thread really comment on what Vonnegut had to say. So allow me to ask directly:
Do you agree with Vonnegut’s comments? Do they represent the left fringe or the mainstream of the Democratic party, or do they not represent the Democratic party at all?
I ask this so that all will have an opportunity to respond directly to what Vonnegut had to say, as opposed to anything else. That is the direct point of this thread, is it not?
So…..who’s first? Adrienne, you are usually outspoken in your opinions….how about you telling us whether you agree or disagree with Kurt? Or Aldous…. you often have comments to make. Step right up folks, don’t be shy.
Posted by: joebagodonuts at November 21, 2005 08:06 AMJBOD,
Since you asked… I think Kurt Vonnegut is washed-up old windbag. Eric wants him to represent the “the Left” because he is a crazy old coot. He certainly doesn’t represent the Democratic Party. As we have all learned recently in this column, many Democrats authorized Bush to go to war.
Do they represent the Left? Let’s see. Islamist suicide bombers blow themselves up for religious reasons. They are nationalistic and believe in strict religious observance (as they see their religion). They think women should cover themselves. (They certainly wouldn’t want Justice to have a boob showing…) That doesn’t sound like any “left” I’m familiar with.
The comparison to David Duke is telling. Duke won the Republican nomination for governor. Kurt Vonnegut won Eric’s nomination for representative of the Left.
Posted by: Woody Mena at November 21, 2005 08:39 AMHi New Man,
“You want to back that statement about Rush up with some evidence?”
It’s astounding that anybody thinks Limbaugh provides anything but lies and distortions.
One of his most frequent distortions is when he gives the impression that we’re growing our way out of debt due to the tax cuts….only a complete idiot would believe that at the debt has been going up quite rapidly as have the interest payments (352 billion/year last year).
Here’s a few lies from his book:
“In Chapter 15 titled “Sorry but the Earth is not Fragile” Rush says that “The Sierra Club wants to limit the number of kids you can have to two” and that “They are into power and controlling peoples lives.”
“.) Later in chapter 15, Rush states that environmentalists are actually socialist/marxists.
But once again he failed to back up his claim with any facts or examples. Actually, this is a good sign. It means that Rush can’t find any ulterior motives or anything legitimate to criticize environmentalists about so he has to make things up. This time he resorted to the old lie that anyone who disagrees with him is a communist.”
“8.) Here is another example of Rush selectively omitting facts from a story:
In Chapter 16 of “The Way Things Ought To Be” Rush talked about how Willie Horton brutally raped a woman after he was allowed out of a Massachusetts prison on a furlough program while Michael Dukakis was governor. Rush, of course, refers to this as the “Dukakis furlough program” and blames Dukakis for the whole affair.
What Rush failed to mention was that the furlough law he is talking about was passed when Dukakis was not even governor of Massachusetts. It was signed into law by the REPUBLICAN governor who preceded Dukakis. Dukakis’ biggest involvement with that law was that he repealed it. But you would never hear Rush mention this. He doesn’t want you to hear the whole truth.”
“9.) In chapter 24, Rush said this about the media, “How about the myth of heterosexual AIDS? Despite endless predictions of an epidemic, it has not happened, yet each year we are hit by The Media with alarming new predictions.”
“10.) In chapter 20, Rush said this about the media:
“Our liberal media kept telling us that Gorbachev was unpopular in Russia because he was too good - he was trying to change the communist system and the Russian people didn’t like that.”
Once again, Rush is so eager to convince us of the “liberal bias” in the media that he has to fabricate this story to support his claims. In fact, the media said no such thing. When the news media showed the protesting in Russia during Gorbachev’s era, they interviewed people on the streets and the people said over and over that they hated communism and that it had to go. The Soviet people were protesting in massive numbers for the first time because Gorbachev gave them the freedom to protest and for the first time in their lives they could say out loud that they hated communism.”
http://members.aol.com/Falconnn/Rushlie2.html
Did you think that Rush didn’t engage in an inclredible amount of lying and distorting? You don’t trust the fellow with facts do you?
Hi joebagodonuts,
“Do you agree with Vonnegut’s comments?”
No.
Do you agree with everything every Republican says no matter how stupid?
Do you agree with Tom Delay’s statement about teaching evolution in schools causing the Columbine massacre? Going by the “logic” of neocons all Republcans are complete idiots because of what Delay said.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 08:51 AM
I can stand up for the moment JBOD;
I don’t agree with alot of what Kurt said and I can only speak for myself, not for all or most liberals. I also need to say that, IMHO, that was one of the worst written interviews I’ve read, even for waht seems to be the Aussie version of a FOX webrag.
(BTW: I actually know the man slightly. He is a walking example of living with PTSD for 60 years)
Do I think it honorable to die for what you believe in? In general terms, yes. Do I think murdering innocents while doing so honorable? Absolutely not, and Kurt never said he did either.
Do I think suicide bombers get a ‘high’ before their self-imolation? How should I know, but there have been interviews with the unsuccesful ones. Read those, or perhaps ask a survivor of the fourth worst bombing in human history; after hiroshima/Nagasaki and the tokyo fire bombing. You do know he was POW in a basement below Dresden while the city was incinerated, right? If not, read Slaughterhouse 5, maybe you’ll understand a bit more of who Kurt is and what a turd the interviewer is.
Posted by: Dave at November 21, 2005 08:59 AMRon,98% of people are assholes except you? You sure of that?
Posted by: Dave at November 20, 2005 10:29 PM
I wasn’t talking about people in general. I was talking about college professors.
But sense you brought it up, Yeah, Including me.
Heh. Most of my college professors were assholes. Really smart assholes, though.
JBOD, frankly I have no idea what Vonnegut is talking about in that snippet Eric provided. But terrorists are evil. Hope that helps.
Interesting how the lefties don’t even acknowledge that Zarqawi may be dead. Instead, the left (on this site) has ignored that; been on the defensive; and tried to change the subject by talking about torture or how the Repubs are challenging (the left calls it attacking him) Congressman Murtha’s call to “cut and run”.
What’s the matter lefties, did you complain and point fingers at the Repubs too long that you can’t even participate in the celebration of a (possible) terrorist capture (and kill)? Ha!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 09:33 AMThe way I figure it, Eric, Vonnegut is an adult and can take care of himself. That includes doing all the stretches he needs to do so he doesn’t pull a muscle sticking his foot in his mouth. I don’t agree with what he said, but that doesn’t mean I want to dignify your attack, and your tactics of using people with extreme beliefs(whether in our eyes or yours) to make us ashamed of our moderate or centrist ones.
I figure, that like Vonnegut, most Americans can take care of themselves and see for themselves that Vonnegut doesn’t speak for a whole lot of them. I don’t feel, like you do, that all these people you talk about are really that influential, and that it will be the end of the world if I don’t join you in surpressing them.
As for Cindy Sheehan, I don’t have all the problems you do with what she believes about the war, so I don’t feel the need to bash her, even for her calls for withdrawal, which I figure I can respectfully dissent from without getting in her face about it.
In short, I don’t have much I feel I have much I feel compelled to prove to you, and neither do most of my colleagues on the Blue Column. We don’t believe that we should dignify this kind of rhetoric we get every time we don’t snap to and denounce Eric the Red’s latest ideological punching bag. You might think you’re demonstrating the limits of our character, but in reality, you’re just testing the limits of our patience.
Sanger-
The only evidence that your folks have for anti-Semitism is the use of the word cabal describing the Neo-Cons, who happen to have a greater than average concentration of ethnic jews. However, the word cabal is in modern usage fairly divorced from notions of religion or ethnicity The dictionary definition on Cabal on Merriam Webster’s site only hints at that usage by the etymology, not even mentioning it in the definition. This, however, has lead you to this huge conclusion that the anti-war protestors are anti-semites from the start. The reality is, the word Cabal is used far more often to describe occult or sinister conspiracies of a secular nature.
As it is, the word Cabal fits these people:
the artifices and intrigues of a group of persons secretly united to bring about an overturn or usurpation especially in public affairs
The Neocons secretly united to overturn the more diplomatic and peaceful policies towards Iraq and lead us to a war our evidence really didn’t justify.
The charges of anti-semitism are merely the product of fevered imaginations trying to find any way to smear the left wing so they can avoid answering the tough question: did this government or those within it usurp America’s right to informed consent on matters of war, taking the power to wage war by illegitimate means from the congress and senate? Unlike your charges of anti-semitism, we have more to go on than a choice of words here. We have records of many of these people taking the position long before there was “new” evidence to justify it. We also have records of a number of the members of this “cabal” suggesting a strategy for pre-emptive action against Iraq, with WMDs as a pretext in 1997. Wisely, this suggestion was turned down by the Israeli government. We have the 1998 letter to Clinton, with the signatures of a significant number of current Bush advisors and cabinet secretary, we have many reports of pressure and warnings to toe the line on giving the Bush administration what it wants. We have the Bush administration fighting tooth and nail, even revealling a CIA agents identity in order to conceal or discredit the failure of a key piece of evidence.
The only really subjective part of the term is the connotation of evil, and I think that can be justified in the light of a wrong done and not only unrepented of, but reinforced.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 21, 2005 09:36 AMJBOD,
You want a direct answer about whether we agree with Vonnegut? Okay, all you had to do was ask, although it’s still not obvious what you’re asking…
“They are dying for their own self-respect,” he said. “It’s a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It’s like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you’re nothing.”I agree. It’s a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. However, I think it’s unlikely that suicide bombers die for thier self-respect. Note here, that Vonnegut did not say whether he approved of suicide bombers doing so.
Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: “I regard them as very brave people, yes.”I partially agree. On a basic level I think you must be brave to die for what you believe in. However, since twisted muslim fanatic suicide bombers believe that a great reward is due them upon death it is not quite altruistic in their cases. Note here, that Vonnegut did not imply any other similarity between suicide bombers and soldiers other than that he considers them both brave.
He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman’s 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.He did not equate their actions, he implied their was a connection. The connection he was implying was, in my opinion, that it takes a certain degree of madness to do either action. I agree. Note here, that Vonnegut did not say that he disagreed with the decision to bomb Hiroshima, or that he supports suicide bombers.
On the Iraq war, he said: “What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back.”I agree.
Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an “amazing high”. He said: “You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high.I agree, it probably is a “high” for them. Note here, that Vonnegut did not say that he approves of their actions. He is trying to get into their head, nothing more, which is what I wish more people in this administration would spend time doing.
Now, does that answer your question, JBOD? If not, please be more specific about what you want to know. Overall, I agree with the assessment that Vonnegut and the interviewer were not getting along, and Vonnegut was deliberately trying to be obtuse and to mess with the interviewer’s head. It looks like the interviewer struck back by publishing a very negative piece. I doubt Vonnegut cares.
As to that email from the professor, it was a response to a person that he was having a disagreement with. She got pissed off by the reply, sent it to Fox News (I was watching that day), and Fox News made sure it was aired repeatedly all day long and spun to “demonstrate” how all liberals are elitists and hate our soldiers. I don’t agree with what he said, but note here that he did not say that our soldiers should actually turn against their commanding officers (although I’ll grant that it could be implied). This professor is a nobody, but Fox News is treating it like he’s a somebody….while letting someone like Bill O’Reilly get away with even more hateful comments on the air (San Francisco, for example). Was that email important news? No, not even remotely…it simply serves as an excuse to spread their anti-liberal propaganda. I come across examples of much more hateful email all the time, from people arguably at least as important as this adjunct professor, but none of those will ever get read live on Fox News.
Oh, and Eric, I agree with the sediment that the premise for your article was weak and it was entirely intented to bait people and stir up anger.
Interesting how the lefties don’t even acknowledge that Zarqawi may be dead.
Maybe you missed it, rahdigly. Here it is again:
The day President Bush finally gets Zarqawi, I’m breaking out the champaigne. I’m not holding my breath though. Bush could have killed him three years ago, but purposefully let him slip away just to score some political points at the UN.
Interesting how the lefties don’t even acknowledge that Zarqawi may be dead.
Maybe you missed it, rahdigly. Here it is again:
U.S. doubts Mosul attack hit al-Zarqawi
Ron,
I think the percentage is closer to 36%.
Posted by: Dave at November 21, 2005 10:18 AMAnd, no. AP and I are not the same person.
I just liked the format…
I think the reason the Pentagon doubts it was Zarqawi is that he was reported to have moved from Anbar to Baghdad in October.
Debka says his main motivation for moving “is to cast the Iraq capital into such a state of turmoil and dislocation as to make it impossible to hold parliamentary elections as scheduled on December 15. This would bring to a halt moments before its consummation the entire democratic cycle on which Iraq has been moving forward this past year.”
Posted by: George in SC at November 21, 2005 12:10 PMbush has not shown the “commander-in-chief” mentality with the same level of intensity as he did immediately following 9/11. at that time, he pronounced his indignation, formulated a plan, kept the american people abreast of what was happening and then followed through with his plan by attacking afghanistan. glorious!!! he soon followed that up with an attack on irag. that’s where he lost his backbone. attacking is one thing, staying the course with a PLAN of ACTION is another. we either give the u.s. military the necessary support to get the job done or we need to get out. i say stick to our guns and stay the course, but provide the artillery to git ‘er done. we’re playing too many games. it’s well past time for some more “let’s roll”. bush has gone soft. he needs an exit strategy—-an you can’t exit til the job is done.
Posted by: titus at November 21, 2005 12:26 PMIf I truly believed as fact that I would be jamming with 72 hotties if I blew myself up I would do it in a second.
Posted by: Desperado at November 21, 2005 12:41 PMJbod,
The fact that I arise on Pacific Standard Time often means that others in this blog have the chance to articulate similar replies to what I would give. So, while I was still busy sleeping, showering, feeding my dogs and telling them how wonderful they are, eating my breakfast, and doing everything else I do every morning, you were asking and others were replying to:
“Do you agree with Vonnegut’s comments? Do they represent the left fringe or the mainstream of the Democratic party, or do they not represent the Democratic party at all?”
Woody, and LouisXIV, and especially Dave and Charles Wager’s posts all contained things that I would have said — but since they’ve already said them, I’ll just say this:
Kurt Vonnegut represents Kurt Vonnegut.
I represent myself.
The Left is comprised of many individuals — and while this may seem really confusing to you guys on the right, we actually like it that way.
I don’t agree with everything that I’ve heard Kurt Vonnegut say (I don’t know what the hell he’s saying in that interview that Eric presented us with — it sounds to me like he hated that interviewer and was playing games with him), but I do agree with some of the things I’ve heard him say. I also consider him to be a very good writer — whose body of work displays him as a man who is both uniquely American and anti-authoritarian.
From a lecture Vonnegut presented for the Mark Twain House (Vonnegut loves Twain and considers him an American saint) in 2003 in Hartford, Connecticut:
I note that construction has stopped of a Mark Twain Museum here in Hartford —behind the carriage house of the Mark Twain House at 351 Farmington Avenue.Posted by: Adrienne at November 21, 2005 12:48 PMWork persons have been sent home from that site because American “conservatives,” as they call themselves, on Wall Street and at the head of so many of our corporations, have stolen a major fraction of our private savings, have ruined investors and employees by means of fraud and outright piracy.
Shock and awe.
And now, having installed themselves as our federal government, or taken control of it from outside, they have squandered our public treasury and then some. They have created a public debt of such appalling magnitude that our descendants, for whom we had such high hopes, will come into this world as poor as church mice.
Shock and awe.
What are the conservatives doing with all the money and power that used to belong to all of us? They are telling us to be absolutely terrified, and to run around in circles like chickens with their heads cut off. But they will save us. They are making us take off our shoes at airports. Can anybody here think of a more hilarious practical joke than that one?
Smile, America. You’re on Candid Camera.
And they have turned loose a myriad of our high-tech weapons, each one costing more than a hundred high schools, on a Third World country, in order to shock and awe human beings like us, like Adam and Eve, between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers.
The other day I asked former Yankees pitcher Jim Bouton what he thought of our great victory over Iraq, and he said, “Mohammed Ali versus Mr. Rogers.”
What are conservatives? They are people who will move heaven and earth, if they have to, who will ruin a company or a country or a planet, to prove to us and to themselves that they are superior to everybody else, except for their pals. They take good care of their pals, keep them out of jail—and so on.
Conservatives are crazy as bedbugs. They are bullies.
Shock and awe.
Class war? You bet.
They have proved their superiority to admirers of Abraham Lincoln and Mark Twain and Jesus of Nazareth, with an able assist from television, making inconsequential our protests against their war.
What has happened to us? We have suffered a technological calamity. Television is now our form of government.
On what grounds did we protest their war? I could name many, but I need name only one, which is common sense.
Hi Esimonson,“I donⴠrecall a slew of Republicans supporting David Duke”
I think it’s safe to say he had thousands of supporters.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 07:42 AM
Yeah he had a whole heap of supporter. ALL of them KKK. And just about every KKK member at that time was a registered Democrat. Specially here in the South.
Adrienne,
Great post! I quoted some of the interview at length, but I guess my post was too long. Afterwards JBOD asked if liberals would address it. Oh well.
In a way, I regret posting it, because really it isn’t up to me to defend Vonnegut. I’ve read 5 or 6 of his books, many times, and the idea that Vonnegut supports terrorism contradicts everything he has ever written, and is laughable.
But it’s a depressing interview & article if you read it in its entirety. The theme of death arises repeatedly. Clearly mortality is on Vonnegut’s mind.
But in a way, the interview is funny, too. An Aussie wanted Vonnegut to re-confirm the interviewer’s patriotic worldview- preferably in a no-smoking arena, thank you; and Vonnegut drives the interviewer off by musing about the incredible high a suicide bomber must experience the moment before detonation. Sick, but funny.
Posted by: phx8 at November 21, 2005 01:26 PMAdrienne,
Nice job, and thanks for that reference link. Of course it just reinforces my confusion as to why everyone with at least half a brain and half a soul isn’t a liberal.
Ron,
The only reason southerners are Democrats is because Lincoln was a republican. Clearly, not relevent to today, as Lincoln would not be a Republican. Not even a Logcabin one.
Posted by: Dave at November 21, 2005 01:29 PMDave,
Correction, Were Democrats.
WE’VE SEEN THE LIGHT! AND IT IS RIGHT!
I don’t think Lincoln would belong to either major political party today.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2005 02:29 PMEric,
Nice flame baiting. I tip my hat to you.
Posted by: Karl Rove at November 21, 2005 02:31 PMHi Ron,
“Yeah he had a whole heap of supporter.”
He many Republicans sided with him. Going by the “logic” in the article that started this thread Republicans are Nazis.
Do you think all Republicans are complete idiots because Delay said that teaching evolution caused the Columbine shootings?
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 02:38 PMRob Brown,
about every KKK member at that time was a registered Democrat. — Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2005 01:04 PMDo you have a source for this information? Or is it your opinion?
Posted by: ElliottBay at November 21, 2005 02:43 PM
Karl,
There’s no original thinking behind the Eric’s post. If you listen to right-wing talk radio today, they’re repeating exactly the same stories as Eric, re Vonnegut & some obscure teacher. In other words, they are told what to say, they are offered a menu of talking points, and they repeat those points, pretending the ideas are their own.
Eric, please save us time and post a link to the points you copy. And please don’t pretend posts like this represent your own original thinking or research. It’s a sad pretense, and fundamentally dishonest.
In my opinion you’re intelligent, and do well in your discussions with Stephen. It’s time to stop listening to what other people are telling you to post. Nothing wrong agreeing with people of like minds, of course. In some sense, we all borrow knowledge, synthesize it, and so, make it our own. Re-presenting it helps us develop common interests with each other, and enjoy the validation of common perspectives.
Find your own issues, rather than borrow them. Add your unique and capable voice to your Party, rather than a hollow echo of someone else’s points.
Don’t follow them. Let them follow you.
ElliottBay
When you stop to concider that the KKK was most active in the South. And throw in the fact that the South up to the 1980’s was strong Democrat, as in Republicans were scarce as hens teeth, the only conclusion anyone could come up with is most KKK members were Democrats.
When I was growing up in South Georgia I knew several KKK members. None of them even liked the Republican party. All were “PROUD TO BE DEMOCRATS.” They viewed Republicans the same way they viewed Blacks. Yeah, that bad. That’s one of many reasons that no Klan members were friends of mine. Even if I had wanted one to be, which I didn’t.
David Duke was an exception, he was a Republican. And as I recall the Republicans threw him out of the party. As they should have. To bad the Democrats didn’t throw the rest out of their party.
True, they had chapters in the rest of the country, and still do. But not like in the South.
phx8
Find your own issues, rather than borrow them. Add your unique and capable voice to your Party, rather than a hollow echo of someone else’s points.
Don’t follow them. Let them follow you.
That’s good advice for BOTH sides of this blog.
Ron,
I’m with you. It cuts both ways, no doubt. People from both left & right read partisan sites and adopt the information into their own point of view all the time. Note I never mentioned the word ‘plagiarism!’ There’s nothing wrong with integrating information with one’s own personal experience, and presenting a thoughtful or emotional article. S
Sometimes it can be aggravating, watching someone parrot a party line, without responding to another person’s comments. It becomes an exchange of monologues, rather than a dialogue following an original article.
Someone once said something to this effect: maybe there is no such thing as a dialogue, just exchanges of monologues.
But I digress. Personally, I thought this article crossed a line. Mentioning something as obscure as an interview of Kurt Vonnegut and a loony professor’s e-mail in the same article, while talk radio presents the exact same today… it is just too much.
One reason I don’t listen to gab radio phx8.
Posted by: Ron Brown at November 21, 2005 05:06 PMphx8:
“Adrienne,
Great post!”
Thanks (you too Dave)!
“I quoted some of the interview at length, but I guess my post was too long.”
No. It wasn’t too long. I liked your post.
“In a way, I regret posting it, because really it isn’t up to me to defend Vonnegut.”
It isn’t, but then, that’s always the position that Eric tries to put us all in when he lumps us lefties together.
“I’ve read 5 or 6 of his books, many times, and the idea that Vonnegut supports terrorism contradicts everything he has ever written, and is laughable.”
Me too. And yes, I too think it does contradict, and is laughable.
“But it’s a depressing interview & article if you read it in its entirety. The theme of death arises repeatedly. Clearly mortality is on Vonnegut’s mind.”
Yeah, seems to me that interview isn’t saying much to people like you and I who love his writing, but it should be saying plenty to his family. In other words, they might want to keep a close eye on him. (Vonnegut’s mother committed suicide, and he has made at least one serious attempt himself — so there’s some history there.)
“But in a way, the interview is funny, too. An Aussie wanted Vonnegut to re-confirm the interviewer’s patriotic worldview- preferably in a no-smoking arena, thank you; and Vonnegut drives the interviewer off by musing about the incredible high a suicide bomber must experience the moment before detonation. Sick, but funny.”
I know what you mean. It seemed very obvious to me that he really hated that guy.
“Sometimes it can be aggravating, watching someone parrot a party line, without responding to another person’s comments. It becomes an exchange of monologues, rather than a dialogue following an original article.
Someone once said something to this effect: maybe there is no such thing as a dialogue, just exchanges of monologues.”
I don’t know about that. l feel I’m capable of both — but I also feel that Eric isn’t interested in any dialogue with the likes of you or I. But he was definitely putting up a monologue in his article — which is why I put up that snippet from that lecture — it seems like the perfect answer to Eric’s post. As though Vonnegut himself was replying.
“Personally, I thought this article crossed a line.”
Yeah, as I said yesterday, it seems like nothing but flamebaiting and trolling to me.
“Mentioning something as obscure as an interview of Kurt Vonnegut and a loony professor’s e-mail in the same article, while talk radio presents the exact same today… it is just too much.”
The thing about Eric dissing Vonnegut (or Sheehan) as un-American or hateful of America is really very telling. I think Vonnegut is about as American as you can get. As American as Mark Twain is.
Clearly Eric’s (and other Republican’s) trouble is that they completely reject any liberal voices in America, and it’s actually they who want to deny us our patriotism and citizenship whenever they insist we hate this country.
Eric
I just enjoy a good right-wing echo chamber rant. They’re so predictable, so smarmy, so snarky, and devoid of anything like argument or logic. Emotional tripe served as red meat for the semilucid masses they cultivate to win elections and out-shout the competition. Really, it’s a lovely era in US politics, and I, for one, am finally learning to love it and live with it.
Peace on ya, man.
Posted by: Mental Wimp at November 21, 2005 07:49 PMIt’s just interesting, not to mention down right predictable, to hear the lefties talk about “right-wing noise machines” when responding to a viewpoint that contradicts theirs. As if you lefties don’t recite your own “left-wing talking points”.
If you don’t believe that then, let me just say this, why are you arguing the same talking points that the media and the far left have been saying for years? The war, tax cuts, Bush lies, etc. it’s the same thing every night. Every night! And yet, with all that’s been said about Bush and the Republicans, they’ve been reelected and kept in power; Bush even carried the military vote (by nearly 4 to 1) over the left’s precious “war hero” John Kerry. This is the same military that he “lied” to and he “used” and they still voted for him. Still!
So, keep it up. Keep changing the subject or respond with “right-wing talking” points, you’re just showing everybody that you can’t debate the issues with substance. Substance!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 08:09 PMHi rahdigly,
“Substance!”
OK! Bush’s budgets have resulted in an 8 trillion dollar debt that’s going up very quickly. We’re paying 352 billion/year interest on the debt and that’s going up very quikly as well.
Rapidly rising interest payments on the debt of 352 billion/year are quite shocking don’t you think?
The Prime Minister of Iraq is a member of an Iranian anti-American terrorist group (the “Dawa” party). Do you think it’s a good idea to have our troops fighting and dying to support a fellow with Iranian anti-American terrorist ties?
Can you address these issues head on or were you just kidding about “substance”?
Louis wrote:
Can you address these issues head on or were you just kidding about “substance”?
______________________________
You just proved my point and it’s not even funny. Well, maybe a little funny. Reread my post again and you’ll see where I said that tax cuts, the deficit, the war, etc. were all talked about by the media and the left for years and he’s still the Prez. Reelected buddy. So, all your yapping about the debt means nothing. Nothing!
So, once again, keep it up lefties, just keep showing the American public who you are and what you’re about. Nothing! :)
Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 08:39 PMHi ragdigly,
You just proved my point. You’re completely unable to address the issues that I just brought up.
Can you provide any substance pertinant to the issues that I raised….I doubt it!
just keep showing the American public who you are and what you’re about. Nothing! :)
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 08:43 PM
Hi radigly,
“So, all your yapping about the debt means nothing. Nothing!”
If you think that 352 billion/year interest on the debt means “Nothing!” you might want to get a clue.
Louis,
Yes, it’s true, YOU PROVED MY POINT! Listen one last time: all your complaints, about whatever topic, still didn’t get BUSH OUT OF OFFICE. HE’S STILL THERE! Your points have not been winning at the ballot box. And it shouldn’t!
Have you ever heard the left talk about winning this war? Ever! If so, please send me the link. Because the only one I ever heard talk about winning this war, that’s on the left, is Joe Lieberman; which many lefties don’t even consider a democrat. Oh yeah, and Zell Miller; and we know how the left feels about him. Ha!
rahdigly, you only have a point if the concerns voiced in the media about the deficit and the war are pure spin. They’re not.
You believe they are because — judging from what you write — you don’t know any more about the issues than what you hear from the “right-wing noise machines”.
Over the last few years, Democrats have offered many plans for victory in Iraq — from internationalizing the occupation like we did so successfully in Kosovo to bringing the Sunnis into the political process BEFORE holding elections to doubling the number of troops to organizing Provincial Reconstruction Teams of the type that are so successful in Afghanistan (Dr. Rice finally picked up on that one, but President Bush has yet to support it, or even mention it).
Republicans have only ever offered a constant lack of necessary troops and continued casualties for increasingly meaningless goals. From destroying a terrorist/WMD nexus to creating a liberal democracy and free-market economy in the Middle East to merely holding an election (something Saddam used to do all the time with fewer deaths) and now we’re finally reduced to a costly rear-guard action propping up a corrupt Shiite regime until their troops can run a few obstacle courses and fire an M-16 without shooting themselves in the foot.
Democrats had plenty of plans and advice for the President; he refused to listen.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 21, 2005 09:49 PMHi rahdigly,
You proved my point. You are unable to deal with substance even after you ask for it.
If you’re able to get a clue about this stuff let me know and perhaps we’ll discuss things…….As it is you don’t seem capable of discussing political matters.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 10:34 PM
Hi American Pundit,
“rahdigly, you only have a point…”
The budget and the war in Iraq are Bush’s two main policies. It’s sort of silly to prohibit discussion of them when discussion Bush in a politics discussion group.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 21, 2005 10:41 PM
AP,
As far as your “right-wing noise machines” read (or reread) my Post: rahdigly November 21, 2005 08:09 PM. I already touched on that subject.
Your comment “from internationalizing the occupation like we did so successfully in Kosovo”. What??!! They were “internationalized” b/c they were fighting Christians and helping Muslims. If the shoe were on the other foot, I doubt that the Serbs would’ve had an “internationalized” coalition. And, is “internationalize” code for ask the UN for help? They were useless at the time b/c the UN was knee deep in the Oil for Food Scandal with Saddam. Oops! And, the Sunnis did come to the table and are part of the political process.
However, all this is mute b/c you’re only proving the point that we are doing the right things in Iraq, we just need the “will of the people” to prevail. The terrorists have stated that Vietnam was a result of the people losing their will. That’s what they’re trying to do to us now; in fact, that’s they’re only play at this point.
And, as for your comment ” creating a liberal democracy and free-market economy in the Middle East to merely holding an election (something Saddam used to do all the time with fewer deaths)”????? Just ask the kurds about that “liberal democracy” they had under the “Butcher of Baghdad”. You can ask the Shites how they liked Saddam’s free market economy as well. Jeez! You’re actually making a case for Saddam at this point?! Man!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 10:59 PMrahdigly,
“The terrorists have stated that Vietnam was a result of the people losing their will.”
And they seem to know as much about Viet Nam as you do.
Posted by: Rocky at November 21, 2005 11:20 PMRocky,
And yet some of our people (still) are falling into that “Vietnam” trap; thanks in large part to the media and some of the democratic senators.
Our troops are “all volunteer” they know what they’re getting themselves into and they’re doing it to fight for their country. The left just can’t seem to grasp that concept; maybe that’s why the haven’t been able to garner the military vote in a looonng time!
The terrorists want us to give up and the more they here “let’s get out of there, we can’t win”, they know they are winning. So, let’s stay there and crush the enemy and not give them a chance to think that!
Because, make no mistake about it, we are winning and we will prevail. And, we will not “Cut and Run”. Never!
Posted by: rahdigly at November 21, 2005 11:33 PMLetting the terrorist network gain control of America is unthinkable. I think all American’s can agree to that. What we can’t agree on is how to do it. The Leader we have now (with alot of support) chose a way to go about the war. Bush can’t be blamed for all of the general’s decisions about this war. I’m sure the military does alot of decision-making for itself. What I think is that America needs to get behind the decisions that have been made, and win this war.
If Gore, or Kerry had been elected, we American’s would have no choice but to live with whatever decions they would have made in the in these verry difficult decision making times.
Let’s pull behind the decisions that our leaders have made and stop terrorism. If we don’t attack them as a united nation, we risk attacking and stoping ourselfs. Let’s not self-destruct.
Posted by: rick at November 22, 2005 01:07 AMrahdigly,
“Our troops are “all volunteer” they know what they’re getting themselves into and they’re doing it to fight for their country. The left just can’t seem to grasp that concept; maybe that’s why the haven’t been able to garner the military vote in a looonng time!”
Do you understand what the definition of insanity is?
Here’s one.
Attempting the same exercise over and over, and expecting different results.
Public opinion turned against the war in Viet Nam because the public got tired of having sunshine blown up it’s skirt.
The one major rule of war is that young men and women die, everyone knows and acknowledges that fact. The American people want results, not sunshine. We don’t need to hear 20 different stories, of which one might be true.
What we have seen concerning Iraq is a lot of CYA.
I want to know when the Iraqis will be able to fend for themselves. I heard a lot about how we were going to be welcomed with open arms, and yet the Iraqis have taken an awful long time to come to their own aid. Not to mention that some Iraqis are helping those that we are there to defeat.
It’s time to stop cutting bait and start fishing. The Iraqis need to be thrown in the pool to sink or swim.
The budget and the war in Iraq are Bush’s two main policies. It’s sort of silly to prohibit discussion of them when discussion Bush in a politics discussion group.
Louis, you’d be right if that’s what I said. It’s not.
Your comment “from internationalizing the occupation like we did so successfully in Kosovo”. What??!! They were “internationalized” b/c they were fighting Christians and helping Muslims…
Judging by this response and all of your others, I’m assuming you have no idea that Kosovo was not a unilateral US operation. It was actually a NATO operation under the auspices of the UN — an internationalized occupation — and it’s successful, unlike Iraq.
The terrorists have stated that Vietnam was a result of the people losing their will. That’s what they’re trying to do to us now; in fact, that’s they’re only play at this point.
Of course. And the longer President Bush refuses to commit the number of troops necessary to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq, the better chance they’re going to win. President Bush needs to change course and commit to victory. Otherwise Congressman Murtha’s right, we might as well leave now.
Just ask the kurds about that “liberal democracy” they had under the “Butcher of Baghdad”.
I never said Iraq was a liberal democracy under Saddam. I’m getting the feeling that I should use short sentences, small words, and avoid complex ideas when I reply to your posts, rahdigly.
My point is that President Bush’s reason for sending our soldiers to Iraq has gone from noble to pointless. The only reason to be there now is to defeat the al Qaeda forces Bush let take root in Iraq since the invasion. But Bush isn’t committing the military or diplomatic resources necessary to win.
Posted by: American Pundit at November 22, 2005 09:37 AMRocky,
“The American people want results, not sunshine. We don’t need to hear 20 different stories, of which one might be true.
What we have seen concerning Iraq is a lot of CYA.
I want to know when the Iraqis will be able to fend for themselves.”
_________________
Well, if that’s how you feel then you need to stop blaming Bush and look no further than the media; they’re the problem. They are the ones reporting all the bad and not much of the good. There have been elections, voting on the constitution and some the of victories from the Iraqi forces; especially the one where they saved that hostage who was going to get his head cut off. Instead it’s the car bombs and US soldier count. It’s just ridiculous!
Now, as far as your comment “The Iraqis need to be thrown in the pool to sink or swim.”, if the sink we sink. So, when the generals on the ground and the Iraqi gov’t say it’s time, it’s time.
And, as far as “insanity” you might want to look that up and actually read it again if you want to continue with the tired old arguement of cutting and running. A difference between Iraq and Vietnam is with the draft versus non draft. How can people honestly sit there and try to say “we lost”, “there’s no hope”, “sink or swim”, etc. when our troops volunteered to go in there and accomplish this mission. Not only that, but the troops that were deployed there are reenlisting, so they definitely deserve the respect and “stomach” for their cause.
Posted by: rahdigly at November 22, 2005 12:11 PMSeveral people have noted, quite correctly, that the misguided, fanatical statements of people like Vonnegut and M Moore do not represent the liberal mainstream. This point has been repeatedly illustrated by the fact that most Democratic members of Congress do NOT believe we should pull out or Iraq too soon, ie before the job is done.
However, the fact of the matter is that most mainstream Dems continue to countenance the outrageous statements by people like Vonnegut, Moore, Gore Vidal, Cindy Sheehan, etc. Treating Moore as a guest of honor at the Democratic convention and a general reluctance to repudiate the Dems lunatic fringe creates a strong impression that they are sympathetic to them. This “guilt by association” continues to hurt the Dems image and prevents them from being taken seriously on national security issues. A smart move for Kerry last year would have been to repudiate the lefty nutcases…use Michael Moore, for instance, for a “Sister Souljah” moment.
On that point, I wouldn’t mind seeing more Republicans distance themselves from the Pat Robertson’s of the world when they say outrageous things. Can’t speak about Limbaugh as I haven’t heard his show in about 12 years.
From reading liberal blogs and columns, I am frequently left with the impression that many on the left think Bush is the real enemy, not al Qaeda, and that is going WAY too far. Most liberals have hated Bush since before the 2000 election and have woken up each day searching for reasons to hate the guy. Fine to disagree with him, but don;t reflexively hate every initiative he makes.
Posted by: boojum at November 22, 2005 01:03 PMA comment regarding Iraq….The main problem there is not al Qaeda, or non-Iraqi’s who have traveled there to fight. It is mostly an indiginous fight among Sunnis who want power back and are afraid of how they’ll be treated as a minority, and Shiites and Kurds who are the majority. Only about 2% of the people detained so far have been foreign born.
The main issue is how to carve out a political & economic system that accommodates the various factions. That’s a challenge in every democracy, more so in a new one emerging from 30 years of tyranny and decaying infrastructure. Yes, that oversimplifies the issue, but that’s its essence. Once Sunnis believe their interests have sufficiently been addressed, most of the impetus for their resistance will, hopefully, evaporate. (Easier said than done, I know.)
Our role there right now is to maintain some semblance of order while the political mechanisms grow and mature. Some evidence of that happening in 2 elections so far and the emerging deal among factions announced today. Once this happens, al Qaeda in Iraq will be toast. They can’t continue to operate without the help of indigenous populations and it’s in the long-term interests of Sunnis to reach a political accommodation and avoid all-out civil war since they are outnumbered and outgunned.
Posted by: boojum at November 22, 2005 01:15 PMboojum-
Check out Andre’s post in the blue column and it will confirm your point about Bush being the enemy.
Posted by: George in SC at November 22, 2005 01:30 PMMy, my. Why are warhawks so afraid of people learning what makes the other side tick? I’ve always been an anti-war conservative, and that’s not a contradiction in the least. There’s nothing conservative about hawking war, especially ones like these that are clearly about Haliburton and ideology of a select few.
People who try and analyze the thinking of the enemy should be congratulated, not called terrorist-lovers. Isn’t it becoming more and more clear that trying to kill as many terrorists as we can isn’t getting rid of them? I’m not saying we should stop fighting them, but I AM saying that we need to understand them and figure out what their motives really are — because people don’t go around killing themselves just because they get an idea in their head that the last thing they’d like to see are the scared faces of America sympathizers that are about to eat C4.
Posted by: Michelle at November 22, 2005 02:12 PMrahdigly,
“And, as far as “insanity” you might want to look that up and actually read it again if you want to continue with the tired old arguement of cutting and running.”
You might have noticed that, like Congresman Murtha, the words “cut and run” never crossed my keyboard.
As far as my insanity statement is concerned, if you don’t get it, no amount of explaining it will help.
Posted by: Rocky at November 22, 2005 04:54 PMrahdigly
look no further than the media; they’re the problem. They are the ones reporting all the bad and not much of the good.I can just see the headlines now:
(Apr 14, 1912) Dozens don’t die on Titanic
(Dec 7, 1941) The weather’s still beautiful in Pearl Harbor
(Nov 22, 1963) Jackie Kennedy lives!
(Apr 20, 1999) Hundreds of students not killed at Columbine
(Sep 11, 2001) Business as usual for most of NYC
(Sep 1, 2005) Hurricane Katrina misses 45 states!That’s right, blame the media. Posted by: ElliottBay at November 22, 2005 05:28 PM
Hi American Pundit,
“you’d be right if that’s what I said. It’s not.”
I know, rahdigly said it. I was just commenting on it….sorry for the confusion.
Posted by: LouisXIV at November 22, 2005 08:00 PM
