Worse than Nazis?

Liberal cartoonist Ted Rall weighs in on how Israel (and Bush) are acting like Nazis. You know that’s precisely what President Ahmadinajad said as well. Coincidence? Or just another example of the toxic anti-western bias of the left?

Neither the United States nor Israel is equivalent to Nazi Germany, yet both countries have adopted a Nazi-like obsession with collective punishment. Israeli Defense Forces, which subject centers of Palestinian resistance in the occupied West Bank to curfews and encirclement by barbed-wire fences, taught their techniques to U.S. occupation troops in Iraq. After Islamist suicide pilots killed 3,000 Americans in the September 11 attacks, the U.S. government justified the killing of 200,000 Afghans and Iraqis as an act of "self-defense."

George W. Bush exceeded Hitler's 50-to-1 ratio.
Anybody get that? 'The U.S. and Israel are not equivalent to Nazi Germany'-- no, in fact, they surpass Nazi Germany in the brutal use of 'collective punishment'. Rall is actually saying that Bush and Israel are worse than Nazi Germany!
Now Israel is "reacting" to the capture of two of its soldiers by the Palestinian resistance organization Hezbollah by invading and bombing Lebanon. Death tolls that fall disproportionately heavily upon Palestinians have long been a hallmark of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. During the 2000-03 intifada, for example, at least seven Palestinians were killed by Israelis for every Israeli killed by a Palestinian. Now, as of this writing, more than 500 Lebanese civilians have been killed by Israeli bombs. On the Israeli side, 15 civilians have died in Hezbollah rocket attacks and 14 soldiers have been killed in combat.

Current ratio: 30-to-1.

"Israel has a right to defend itself," Bush said at the start of the current Middle East crisis. No doubt. But the Israelis aren't defending themselves any more than the Bush Administrative is defending us. Each is using a crime--the kidnapping of two soldiers, the 9/11 terrorist attacks--as an excuse to wage war against innocent people who had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile, the criminals--the kidnappers and those behind 9/11--are allowed to get away scot-free. ~news.yahoo
Yes, for the left, America and Israel are Nazis waging war against innocent people. Is it any wonder then why some of the party faithful might feel that Democrats and their priorities are 'misunderstood'? As these college students opine:
...at the three-day College Democrats National Convention, several students expressed frustration, saying voters simply don't understand the Democratic Party and its priorities. ~news.yahoo
I think the real problem for Democrats and the left is that voters do understand them and their priorities. It's not as though Democrats haven't been getting their message out. After all, no one has been able to silence all the 'patriotic dissent' from those like Ted Rall, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Michael Moore, or Howard Dean et al. In fact, they have been quite vocal in articulating a great many things about what their priorities are.

But a dozen years of Republican control of the House and six years of White House rule have left young Democrats dismayed. They complained that Democrats have been unable to explain themselves to voters and Republicans are perceived as the party of moral values.

"I still believe Democrats are right on the issues," said Andrew Gordon, 20, a junior at the University of Wisconsin. "I don't think we've had an election on the issues for a while. I just never feel that Republicans are very honest with voters." ~news.yahoo

What are these Democratic issues that have yet to be communicated?

There is no war on terror...
Republicans are Nazis...
Coal is 'Nazi Oil'...
Republicans stole the election...
Republicans can only win by lying...
The GOP is 'a white Christian party'...
Terrorists are freedom fighters...
Three thousand people were murdered on George Bush's watch...
Bush lied, people died...
...etc etc etc...

The only sense in which Democrats haven't explained themselves well is in hiding the extent of their anti-americanism and extreme leftism. They have to continue dodging and weaving to avoid admitting things that they know will be unpopular. We can only hope and pray that they will soon drop the facade and explain themselves to voters fully. Perhaps by demanding a fully socialist health care system, or full social justice and equality through strong state action via redistribution of income. Or perhaps a new new deal for the 21st century. Posted by Eric Simonson at July 21, 2006 9:19 PM
Comments
Comment #169676

Eric,

I am can’t understand what mental blinders would be necessary to see Israel as the aggressor in this conflict. It seems that liberals are always disappointed that Jews don’t voluntarily die for the good of everyone else. It’s like they are not team players.

The subtext of that article implied that Nazis weren’t so bad after all. They were killing Jews, gypsies and other troublesome minorities. This acceptance of violence against Jews is a muted reflection of the raging anti-semitism that is currently flourishing in Europe. The Old World never liked Jews and, one country, Germany, no longer has a Jewish problem.

American liberals aren’t as out front in their anti-semitism, but it’s right under the surface. Astonishingly, most American Jews vote Democratic and overlook the frequent cultural slurs expressed by their Democratic brethren.

If there are any Democratic Jews out there, please comment on this conundrum.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 22, 2006 4:39 AM
Comment #169683

ROGER:

If I remember right, Lebanon shot over one hundred missles into Israel.

What do you think The United States would do if { lets say Cuba } shot just one missel into the United States?

What do you think the United States would do if they shot just two or maybe three or four or five or or or or over one hundred?

So…. is it wrong for Israel to do what almost any country in the world would have done if the same thing had been done to them.

WHAT DO YOU THINK RUSSA OR CHINA WOULD DO?

ROGER

Posted by: Roger at July 22, 2006 6:46 AM
Comment #169688

Eric:

At some point, Israel must decide to stop its offensive. What starts out as self defense can become more than that. But that time has not yet come, in my opinion.

Hezbollah wants to be like the criminal who shoots at a cop until his weapon is empty, and then wants to simply lay down the weapon and end the matter. Problem is, the criminal keeps reaching for new guns, emptying them, and then crying cease fire. That’s what Hezbollah has done through the years.

At this point, Israel cannot simply sit back and allow Hezbollah to walk away from the engagement. Doing so in a cease fire will simply embolden Hezbollah for the next time. Israel is trying to prevent a next time.

A successful cease fire only works if both sides truly mean it. If one side uses the cease fire as a cessation of fighting that allows them to re-arm, then its not a successful cease fire. Its just a lull between battles.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at July 22, 2006 7:37 AM
Comment #169691

Why can’t the left understand the simple facts to dealing with terrorists? The Nazis murdered innocent, and unarmed men, women and childen with equal prejudice. The terrorists murder innocent and unarmed men, women and children with equal prejudice. The president of Iran wants to murder innocent and unarmed men, women and children with equal prejudice. The Nazi’s could not be bargained with, the president of Iran can’t be bargained with, the terrorist organizations can’t be bargained with. For years the Israelis have given into the terrorists, to no avail. The only alternative is to wipe out the terrorists with extreme prejudice. The bleeding heart liberals don’t understand that even God says there is a time for war. That we should not keep evil in our presence. How can the left be so stupid?

Posted by: Wayne at July 22, 2006 8:04 AM
Comment #169695

Wayne “How can the left be so stupid?”,

Am I to believe you expected anything else? This is the left we’re talking about. These are the people who tried to appease Hitler, gave aid and comfort to our enemies in Vietnam, and still believe that the answer to poverty is a universal government butt-wiping for everyone in the country, with the toilet paper made from the “wealthy, elite, evil entrepreneur, big business” people’s money. It’s become typical.

Posted by: Duane-o at July 22, 2006 9:25 AM
Comment #169696

One thing I think is always amusing about the left comparing the current administration to the Nazis is that they feel no fear about doing so in a completely public forum like here or on any news program or paper. If this really was like the Nazis, these idiots would be either in a gulag or an unmarked grave somewhere.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 22, 2006 9:39 AM
Comment #169697

We should (and will) work very hard to establish peace in a couple of weeks.

It is important that this not go on very long, but it is also a good idea to let Israel destroy as much as Hezbollah as possible.

The door is already open and whatever price must be paid is already reckoned. If Israel stopped this minute, it would not lead the “Muslim street” to change its mind even a little. It would be a waste not to get the benefit(as in destruction of Hezbollah).

Posted by: Jack at July 22, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #169698

The Democratics will not explain themselves clearly. To do so, would bring great harm to the party. They want to impose a fascist society where they would control every aspect of our lives. They want to impose their idea of love, peace, and happiness. Dems think they are superior to everyone else. They have all the better ideas to solve our problems. We, the common people, cannot understand the complexities of the social fabric and need the Dems to take care of us. One way they help us is with affirmative action. If you are black, hispanic, or perhaps a JEW, then you are obviously of an inferior race and need the Dems to lift you up and help you be equal. Dems also think we are stupid. They think that they can talk out of both sides of their mouth and we won’t notice. They will tell us what we want to hear to keep us happy, even if it contradicts what they said before. We are too stupid to remember. Are they racist? Not exactly. They more likely believe they are of a different species. Super sapiens, perhaps. The truth is, with all the advances in technology, people are living longer and healthier. We are smarter and more sophisticated than before. The best way for humanity to thrive is to allow them their life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. We have done great things in this country with our freedom. A comparison can be made with the cold war. The US is still doing great, long after the USSR has expired. The Democratic Party has disenfranchised many true Liberals that miss the days of JFK. Even as a right-winger, I agree with some of the ideas of the old time Liberals. One person that Liberals and I both admire was Muhatma Ghandi. He was once asked what he thought of western democracy. He said, “I think that would be a great idea.”

Posted by: JoeRWC at July 22, 2006 9:43 AM
Comment #169699

Anti-American bias is growing around the world. The appropriate question to ask is, WHY! Can it all be the result of propaganda and leftist perspective? Or, could it be that ill-fated invasion of Iraq, a country which had not attacked our own?

And the bigger question is, what if anything, should we do about it?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 22, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #169700

I wish everyone would learn that evoking Nazis ALWAYS backfires. Having said that, Ted Hall’s point that innocents have disportionately suffered at Israeli and American hands is irrefutable. We do it all the time — we learn that an enemy might be at a certain location in Iraq, and so we flatten the building — and kill scores of children, women, and others who just happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. Disregarding the ruthlessness of these tactics, they are not designed to win the hearts and minds of Iraqis. Rather, they serve as a terrific recruiting tool for our enemies.

Yes, I know, War is Hell, and It’s Not Our Fault, and anyone who protests Hates American, and all the other mantras. The fact is, we are in a poorly conceived war for the wrong reasons and it’s directly the result of failed leadership.

And for those who say I Hate America or am Not Patriotic, I say Grow Up.

Posted by: Trent at July 22, 2006 10:22 AM
Comment #169705

Eric is using a typical approach. Find one liberal who says one thing and use it as a generalization for all things “liberal”. If the Democrats were smart they would do the same thing. After all, we are fighting radical conservatism around the world. The war on terror is a war on the far right not the radical left.

Posted by: 037 at July 22, 2006 10:35 AM
Comment #169706

Liberals are comparing Bush and Republicans to Nazis? Why, I haven’t heard of a liberal doing that since, well, last Wednesday.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s genius. The parallels are, well, none but what a cut-down! I mean, heck, 1939 Poland … Al Qaeda …it’s all the same, right? Good for Nazi name-calling liberals … sounds like those liberal college professors are doing a superb job of teaching some excellent details of a fictitious past.

BAFSLA LIBERALS UNITE!!
(Blame America First / Self-Loathing Americanism)

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 22, 2006 10:36 AM
Comment #169707

P.S. “Disneyland” is just a euphemism for “Death Camp”.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 22, 2006 10:38 AM
Comment #169708

I think the deal here is that we’re externalizing casualties, using airstrikes as a default method of attack instead of sending in soldiers to a potentially bloody firefight. A soldier can discriminate between a civilian target and a military one, though, while a bomb just kills indiscriminately. The unfortunate fact here is that we might have to let more of our soldiers get killed to save more civilians. That willingness to shelter innocent life, though, might help us by developing an implicit picture of Americans as less indiscriminate wagers of war.

The Politicians have to learn that sometimes the avoiding body bags in the beginning means being faced with more later. Our soldiers should not be maded to die needlessly, but they are prepared to take risks, and if those risks buy us the assistance or at least the neutrality of the populace, the added casualties may be worth it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #169709

Hey, lets check out Ahmadinajad calling Bush a leftist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/09_05_06ahmadinejadletter.pdf

Posted by: 037 at July 22, 2006 10:42 AM
Comment #169710

For every extreme statement from the left, one can easily counter with an extreme one from the right, and then we go off willy-nilly characterizing each other with broad brush strokes, yadda yadda yadda. What’s the point? Persuasion? Or preaching to the choir? Whatever the goal, it has nothing to do with substantive debate. This is a point that some here understand. Jack, for instance, I can respect even when I disagree with, because you can clearly have a conversation with him. Eric and others who engage in demogogeury (wish there was a spell checker here), I have no respect for. Need I say my point is not political? The left is just as guilty.

I am so sick of being called unpatriotic or ignorant simply because I disagree. The arrogance is overwhelming, and, good grief, no, I am not saying that all on the right are so arrogant or that some on the left aren’t equally arrogant.

Here’s a suggestion for a future blog entry, one that (perhaps) avoids the the diviseness of blog entries such as this one. Which political columnists are worthy of respect? Here are a couple of right-wing ones I respect: James Kilpatrick and William Buckley.

Posted by: Trent at July 22, 2006 10:48 AM
Comment #169712

Ken Strong-
One of the consequences of living in the GOP echo chamber is that you start assuming that what people like Eric say is actually true. We could just as easily say to you folks that you blame Americans first for America’s failures(that is, the liberals), and that you loathe the American system with its values, even as you claim to be it’s missionaries to the world.

I’m sure, though, most Republicans are merely misguided about us, and that they find the problems with human rights and the bill of rights that Bush has stirred up equally troubling.

Our point is not to blame America first, but to have America act blamelessly from the start, if at all possible, and if we’ve screwed up to admit that instead of wasting credibility and the opportunity for correction by going into denial.

You know, I don’t think these cranks you folks are constantly citing would get half as much attention if you weren’t dragging them out to embarrass us with.

Which brings me to another point: Why would you think that bringing these folks out was actually effective if it weren’t for the fact that most liberals already found such views objectionable to start with?

If that’s the case, you’re wasting your time beating up on us. You should just enlist our cooperation instead, as your fellow loyal Americans. We could do a hell of a lot more good together than we could apart.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2006 10:55 AM
Comment #169713

I’d say you’re missing the point of Rall’s article but that that’s not really the case is it? In typical Republican manner you selectively quote him in order to misrepresent his message knowing full well most readers won’t bother clicking thru to read the whole thing. BTW Jerry Nadler is a Democrat. These paragraphs show what Rall’s getting at:

In response to criticism that Israel was using “disproportionate” force against Lebanon, its ambassador to the United Nations told a cheering mob in New York: “You’re damned right we are!” Rep. Jerrold Nadler (news, bio, voting record) (D-NY) chimed in: “Since when should a response to aggression and murder be proportionate?”

Congressman Nadler ought to catch up on his reading. Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which has been signed and ratified by both Israel and the United States and was drafted in response to the kinds of Nazi atrocities described at the beginning of this column, specifically prohibits collective punishment. As a treaty obligation, it is U.S. law. It is Israeli law.

Nothing prevents a nation from defending itself or going after those who commit heinous crimes—which include kidnapping—against its citizens. Understanding the difference between self-defense and collective punishment is what separates Israel and the U.S.—on paper, anyway—from the Nazis.

Initially most Arab nations lambasted Hezbollah for starting this fight. Sunni Arabs like Iranian backed Shiite terrorists even less than they like Israel. But thanks to Israel’s policy of collective punishment and it’s huge overreaction not only are Sunni and Shia siding together but Christians and everybody else in Lebanon and the middle east are siding with Hezbollah.

What is the point of destroying all the roads in the south first and then ordering the entire populace to get out of the war zone? How exactly are they going to do that now that the roads are gone?

Collective punishment is not only illegal, it’s just plain evil and worst of all it’s counter productive. It makes more terrorists not less.

Posted by: Mark Garrity at July 22, 2006 10:56 AM
Comment #169714

“Anybody get that? ‘The U.S. and Israel are not equivalent to Nazi Germany’— no, in fact, they surpass Nazi Germany in the brutal use of ‘collective punishment’. Rall is actually saying that Bush and Israel are worse than Nazi Germany!”
—Eric Simonson

“It seems that liberals are always disappointed that Jews don’t voluntarily die for the good of everyone else. It’s like they are not team players.”
—GoodKingNed

“This is the left we’re talking about. These are the people who tried to appease Hitler, gave aid and comfort to our enemies in Vietnam, and still believe that the answer to poverty is a universal government butt-wiping for everyone in the country, with the toilet paper made from the “wealthy, elite, evil entrepreneur, big business” people’s money.”
—Duane-o

“They want to impose a fascist society where they would control every aspect of our lives. They want to impose their idea of love, peace, and happiness. Dems think they are superior to everyone else.”
—JoeRWC

Hey! Slow down … I want off! I think I’m gonna puke!

Seriously, lock-step-thought-soldiers like yourselves are what’s really wrong with this country, not what some cartoonist says, or what some young sponge-brained college student thinks. And I don’t even care which way our government’s ass wind is causing you to sway, I’m just pointing out an obvious entrenchment in someone elses ideology that you fellas seem to share.

With all the world coming down right now, what really concerns you is somebody exercising their right to free speech in a way that you disagree with? Talk about blinders…

Posted by: Bill C. at July 22, 2006 11:00 AM
Comment #169715

Stephen:


Your long critique is so well-written and direct that I can’t imagine any of the Cons here making a convincing argument against it. You have clearly actually read a book, which is more than I can say for most of them. Can any of you Cons counter his points about history and Republican spending?

And I would add OBL to the list of “leaders” that we have backed and had to “deal with” later.

Posted by: davidL at July 22, 2006 11:04 AM
Comment #169718

Ted Rall is a spiteful, hateful, anti-American psychopath. He has made a career of spewing vile filth about his country and those that serve her, comparing them to Hitler, Stalin and other pyschopathic butchers.

In a Dec. 6, 2005 column, Rall made his case for “not” supporting our troops.

In the column, Rall responded to an article by Joshua Frank on antiwar.com. Frank wrote the following:

“Supporting our troops while opposing their actions may seem contradictory. The duties of U.S. soldiers in Iraq are wrong and many may be committing horrible crimes against humanity.

“True. But soldiers are mostly not bad people (though, of course, some are).”

Rall’s response?

“How is a person who voluntarily commits
horrible crimes against humanity not a bad person”?

“If personal responsibility is to have any meaning, the men and women of our armed forces have to be held individually accountable for the carnage.”

“Do our government’s poorly paid contract killers deserve our support for blindly following orders?” (A smug, but clear, reference to the Nurenburg Trials and the Nazis.)

In that same column, Rall went on to explain that there was no reason for “antiwar types to feel guilty over the treatment of Vietnam vets—there’s no evidence of any kind that anyone ever spat on a Vietnam veteran or called one a “baby killer.”

I guess that substance on my uniform in the St. Louis airport that August day in 1969 was just my imagination.

If Rall was just one lunatic voice crying in the wilderness, he could be ignored. But sadly, he represents a large segment of the American population.

That makes him a dangerous psychopath.

Posted by: vietnam_vet at July 22, 2006 11:11 AM
Comment #169722
[Democrats] want to impose a fascist society where they would control every aspect of our lives.
I get it. It’s OK to compare DEMOCRATS to fascists, but wrong to do the same thing to REPUBLICANS.

Pardon me, but your hypocricy os showing.

Posted by: ElliottBay at July 22, 2006 11:20 AM
Comment #169724

Vietnam Vet,

Rall represents the radical fringe of the left. I generally find it difficult to wrap my head around the concept of supporting the troops while opposing the war for the simple fact that the troops are the war in this case. I do however recognize that there are people out there on the left who do support the troops while disagreeing with the war. Stephen Daugherty, whom I often disagree with, is one of these people.

Rall, on the other hand, is largely as you describe him and a poster boy for radicals who hate the military in general and look down on all aspects of it and hate the people who serve. I’ve always found this amusing as the military in America has been a model for positive race relations and is egalitarian in its pay structure, two things I thought liberals liked. Its also very easy for someone like Rall, who I’ll bet my life has never served, to criticize an institution he doesn’t understand. Its just sad that the best way he can find to take advantage of the freedoms we and all American soldiers in our history have fought to protect is to badmouth the people that provide them.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 22, 2006 11:48 AM
Comment #169725

as an american liberal jew, i can tell you why many of us keep voting democratic: it’s the issues. many of us have seen the extremist religious right taking control of the republican party and fear the continuation of this trend. there is anti-semitism everywhere, no matter what end of the political spectrum or part of the world you look at. what we, from my experience and own opinions, fear from the republicans is the enactment of legislation that would ban abortions, homosexual marriage, flag burning, etc. and would move this country towards a christian controlled, theocratic faux democracy. now, of course, this is jumping to extreme conclusions on smaller facts, but i can tell you that what i fear is the government restricting my right to get an abortion (it applies to men as well as women, because the child is as much the man’s as a woman’s), my right to be involved in a same-sex marriage, my right to express my feelings/opinions through burning a flag, etc. (i’m using these three as examples because of their recent popularity and action). this is along the same lines as many conservatives’ (true fiscal/governmental ones) fears of a government having too strong a hand in the economy, social life, and too much power in general. they have just a little right to mess with my money as they do with my choices about actions that some find morally abhorrent, usually based upon their religious leanings.
eric, what i find so insulting and frustrating about your articles (yes, every single one of them, and most of your responses to others posts) is your blatant, blind hatred for anything ‘liberal.’ you are pasting the face of the extremist radicals onto the head of anyone who considers themselves liberal and often onto any who speak out in any way against current government policy. one of the biggest issues for me in recent years is the fact that anyone who speaks out against the government is slandered as anti-american, unpatriotic, socialist, and evil. part of the american ideal, dream, and political system is that we are all allowed, encouraged in fact, to speak our minds, opinions, and out against anything we feel anyone, especially the government, does wrong. you need to take a step back, a couple of chill pills, and try to look at everything a bit more logically and without your burning, blinding anger. (of course, this holds true for those on the left who do the same for the right; they are just as wrong and just as foolish) all you are doing here is distracting people from the real issue at hand: hundreds are dying and being wounded over age-old conflicts that, in my opinion, have no real solution in the forseeable future.

Posted by: alefnought at July 22, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #169729

1LT B, I am one of those that support the troops but not the war(wait the war ended when Bush landed on the Lincoln). Reason, I had two son’s in Iraq at the beginning of the conflict(one was in the 8hr firefight under the road that made tv). They were following orders and doing what their contract said, but since then the Army has decided not to honor their part of the contract, but that is another discussion.

Now for Rall, well if he never served during Nam he was probably in BFE, and never saw a military person and how they were scorned, spit on,and looked down upon, as Vietnam Vet was, or myself or the thousands that were.

Bring back the Draft and let everyone serve at least 2yrs, then you have a right to bitch and complain, until then, just say Thank You to the men and women who work for pay that is at times poverty level, and who provide your protection.

Posted by: KT at July 22, 2006 12:16 PM
Comment #169731

“If Rall was just one lunatic voice crying in the wilderness, he could be ignored. But sadly, he represents a large segment of the American population.

That makes him a dangerous psychopath.”
—vietnam_vet

Same goes for Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Al Gore, Ray Nagin, and Hannity/Limbaugh/Rhodes/Franken, but these people are only dangerous (kindof a strong word though) when people take them seriously - for OR against. People need to learn to just ignore these kinds of fools. I mean, I’ll go along with the sentiment that the things Rall says make him an asshole, but it simply doesn’t have any bite. Not in the middle of world war 3 anyway.

If you’re a troop or a vet, I can empathize. However, that shouldn’t excuse anyone for thinking divisively toward their fellow Americans. A segment of the American population, no matter what their beliefs are, is still a group of Americans. None of us here are politicians; we’re citizens, and we’re all on the same side.

Posted by: Bill C. at July 22, 2006 12:20 PM
Comment #169732

I personally like Israel’s foreign policy. It’s simple and to the point. Mess with us and we mess back harder. The US needs one like that.
Anyone that thinks that Israel is just going to lay down and die for the good of all man kind is sadly mistaken. They ain’t about to do it. It’s time that the folks that don’t like the Jews get it through their thick skulls that they have as much right to live as anyone else.
Also anyone that thinks that there’s going to be peace in that part of the world is sadly mistaken. It ain’t gonna happen either. If Israel wasn’t there then the Arabs would be fighting each other.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 22, 2006 12:44 PM
Comment #169735

“If Israel wasn’t there then the Arabs would be fighting each other.”
—Ron Brown

Very good point. Imagine if these radical nuts actually did blow Isreal from the face of the earth … who’s the next most hated culture? What about after that? It’s completely insane.

Posted by: Bill C. at July 22, 2006 12:50 PM
Comment #169736

In this post I’m going to ignore the moronic messages preceding my comment. I just want to make one point that the average American can agree with.

First, I’ll define “average”: the citizen that is neither extreme Left nor extreme Right.

I find it sad that our politics have sunk so low. Ted Rall, et al DO NOT represent the average liberal. On the flip side, the neocons DO NOT represent the average conservative.

Sure, there are differences within the averages (and within themselves), which is what makes this land America. But those differences are not nearly as radical as what you see in the blogosphere. The problem is that the Left is perceived as a screaming psycho while the Right is perceived as an oil warmonger.

We can shout our criticisms at each other from the rooftops until we’re hoarse, but America will never be America again until the neocons are toppled. That will set off a chain reaction of peace within; the foreign wars will be over, the news will be news (not editorial), and no one will take the screaming psychos seriously.

Then we will again be free to protest in the White House press room, and free to worship God by whichever name He inserted into your culture, or to not worship anyone.

Speaking of worship, shut off your TV! The average American stares at the idiot box up to four times longer than they interact with their children. And we wonder why America is in the state it’s in now?

Posted by: ChristianLeft at July 22, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #169739

Ron Brown-
What good are simple and to the point methods if they produce complicated and difficult to manage consequences? I’d rather get a little more sophisticated for the sake of keeping the results simple, to the point, and positive!

The hawks in the Israeli and American governments are letting this situation get out of control, thinking that somehow, when they finally decided to put the brakes on that they’ll be able to avoid unforeseen complications. Unfortunately, when you give things in the real world time to develop under conditions like this, the opposite usually happens. By the time these people get around to wanting to calm down the situation, the situation itself might have other ideas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #169740
American liberals aren’t as out front in their anti-semitism, but it’s right under the surface.

This is a cheap and reprehensible accusation. Liberals rarely, if ever, say anything anti-Semitic.

True, many liberals criticize Israel, but to equate that with anti-Semitism is irresponsible and devoid of logic. Can you criticize Iran without being anti-Muslim? Can you criticize India without being anti-Hindu? Can you criticize the Black Panthers without being a racist? Of course. Israel is no different.

Your claim that liberal anti-Semitism is “right under the surface” is impossible to disprove, but is baseless nonetheless.

I would wager that the vast majority of anti-Semites in the country have conservative political beliefs. Which political party nominated a Jewish veep candidate? How many Jews does Bush have in his cabinet?

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 22, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #169741
In that same column, Rall went on to explain that there was no reason for “antiwar types to feel guilty over the treatment of Vietnam vets—there’s no evidence of any kind that anyone ever spat on a Vietnam veteran or called one a “baby killer.”

Again the left is trying to make like innocents. And again they’re trying to deny something that serveral returning GIs have reproted happened to them. But then that helps them make the Military that they hate look bad.


I guess that substance on my uniform in the St. Louis airport that August day in 1969 was just my imagination.

No that was just you drooling at your first glance of round eye girls after a year of not seeing one.

Welcome home Bro.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 22, 2006 1:00 PM
Comment #169742
No that was just you drooling at your first glance of round eye girls after a year of not seeing one.

Ah, nothing like a racist comment to undercut your complaints about anti-Semitism…

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 22, 2006 1:04 PM
Comment #169743

What a great post today! Aside from the usual distractions of lefties going off the handle and right wingers slam dunking them, its been smashing!
Mr Daugherty and 1LT both make excellent points, even if from different angles. We really should pull together as a country…it would be flat out amazing what could be done should a leader charismatic enough to do that arise.

Posted by: HardHatHarry at July 22, 2006 1:06 PM
Comment #169745

Woody
That wasn’t racist. Every Vietnam Vet knows what I mean. And in this case that’s all that counts.
And where did I complain about anti-Semitism?

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 22, 2006 1:18 PM
Comment #169753

Ron Brown,

Your comment was mildly racist, IMHO, but I understand what you meant. Variety is the spice of life.

My point is really that that is the kind of thing you look for if you are going to start shouting about bigotry. Ted Rall doesn’t even refer to the fact that Israel is a Jewish nation, much less talk about big noses or something of that sort. As much as possible may disagree with Ted’s analysis, there isn’t a shred of anti-Semitism in it. (Now you can try to read his mind, but that’s another matter…)

The complaint of yours I was referring to was

It’s time that the folks that don’t like the Jews get it through their thick skulls that they have as much right to live as anyone else.
Posted by: Woody Mena at July 22, 2006 1:34 PM
Comment #169756

One of the things that people seem to be forgetting is that Lebanon did not attack Israel, Hizbollah did. People make the comparison of Cuba attacking America, but it isn’t the same. A more appropriate comparison would be the US attacking Germany because the 9/11 terrorists operated there before coming here. At the time, Germany was unable to prevent the attacks, just as Lebanon is unable to stop Hizbollah. The price the Lebanese people are paying is not proportionate to their crime, because they have committed none.

Imagine living in a neighborhood that is controlled by the mob. They carry out their criminal business, and you are powerless to stop them. In fcat, they even have the local police outgunned. Now imagine that, in order to stop the criminals, the government decides to blow up the entire neighborhood. Doesn’t make much sense, does it? Is that going to make you trust the government, or hate them?

Posted by: David S at July 22, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #169765

How convenient it is to skip over the hate that emanates from the entire surrounding areas of Israel. Pooh, pooh on all you that think that the “Palestinians” have the right to try to take land that is not now, nor has ever been theirs. “Kill the Jews”, is the slogan of the Middle East. Their leaders have expressed, loudly and repeatedly, that they will never rest until Isreal is destroyed and all the Jewish population is either dead or gone. That certainly doesn’t leave any opening for diplomacy. How many times will you allow someone to punch you in the face before you strike back and escalate to prevent it from ever happening again? Easy to talk peace while you sit home comfortably watching the world on your TV. How would you like to fear going shopping or to school because there is a very good chance some jerk with a bomb is willing to commit suicide just to take out a few ‘Jews’. Screw the bullshit about giving the Palestinian people land and peace. It is not possible. There may not be any peace till either the entire Middle East is wiped out, or religion, all religion, is dumped by humans and we grow up and take responsibility for our actions without saying it is for God, Allah, Jesus. Religion is the bane of the world. Causes more hate than any other ideals. Grow up human race. Get a grip and accept that there is not any God that watches over us or cares one lick who we are or what we do. Go Israel. Tell the rest of the world to either help or get the hell out of the way.

Posted by: tatoo49 at July 22, 2006 2:43 PM
Comment #169772

joebagadonuts,

At some point, Israel must decide to stop its offensive. What starts out as self defense can become more than that. But that time has not yet come, in my opinion.

The way it looks to me is a great opportunity to put Iran and Syria in a reactive mode. More pressure is better than less at this point.

Hezbollah wants to be like the criminal who shoots at a cop until his weapon is empty, and then wants to simply lay down the weapon and end the matter. Problem is, the criminal keeps reaching for new guns, emptying them, and then crying cease fire. That’s what Hezbollah has done through the years.

You’re exactly right.

Posted by: eric simonson at July 22, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #169773

David,

Anti-American bias is growing around the world. The appropriate question to ask is, WHY! Can it all be the result of propaganda and leftist perspective? Or, could it be that ill-fated invasion of Iraq, a country which had not attacked our own?

And the bigger question is, what if anything, should we do about it?

Yes, David, it is in fact a leftist mentality that fuels anti-americanism. You stand in the majority in the world. Conservatism is a minority view.

Posted by: eric simonson at July 22, 2006 4:04 PM
Comment #169775

Stephen,

The Republicans were against aiding the allies in WWII before Pearl Harbor brought it home. Some on the far right even joined elements supporting the fascist axis powers. Appeasement of Hitler was a mistake on both the Left’s and the Right’s part, but given the isolationist mood and the wish to avoid a repeat of the incredibly nasty first war, many saw that as the better choice. They were wrong.

It’s interesting that you brought this up. For one thing it was both left and right who were against getting into another war in Europe. I wonder at your revisionism here.

But more importantly for such arguments is that Roosevelt not only secretly began preparing for war he authorized illegal wiretaps and surveilance of those same fascist elements in the US. Was he right or wrong?

Elements in Roosevelts own administration praised the economic planning of fascism. Let’s get the history correct.

Posted by: eric simonson at July 22, 2006 4:10 PM
Comment #169779

037,

Eric is using a typical approach. Find one liberal who says one thing and use it as a generalization for all things “liberal”. If the Democrats were smart they would do the same thing. After all, we are fighting radical conservatism around the world. The war on terror is a war on the far right not the radical left.

One solitary example is in fact the kind of straw man you say I am constructing. However, many examples across the spectrum of the left begins to transcend the level of mere anecdote and approaching a survey of opinion. We can not only look to the reiteration of the same statments but we see tacit and implicit support for those making the statements that I single out. Michael Moore sat next to Jimmy Carter at John Kerry’s Democratic Convention.

If the Democrats were smart they would do the same thing. After all, we are fighting radical conservatism around the world. The war on terror is a war on the far right not the radical left.

You’ll have to explain this to me, it makes not a lick of sense that I can see.

Posted by: eric simonson at July 22, 2006 4:19 PM
Comment #169790

Eric:
Language is a complex thing. Not only do people use logic and reason, more often persuasion is built into in the way something is presented. You take one person who calls himself a liberal and ascribe his view to this group you call “Liberals”. But the reality is it works both ways. Republicans and conservative like to call liberal the “enemy within”. But look at who the terrorist are. Even our home grown terrorist, Tim Mcveigh was a conservative.

For years the right wing pionted to groups like Earth First, PETA and Green Peace and painted that as the picture of “Liberals”

What is wrong with lumping The right wing in with Eric Rudolph?

http://alternet.org/blogs/themix/39322/

But your post was about the concept of collective punishment. I guess I didn’t get my liberal news letter to tell me what to think. Thank god their are people who can tell me my position without having to ask.

And yes, by the way collective punishment is illegal by US law and international law, And I hope Isreal doesn’t stop short of gutting Lebanon of Hezballah. But that doesn’t rule out that collective punishment is taking place. Yep, its a complex world our President has to deal with. You folks pick Bush, thats on you.

Posted by: 037 at July 22, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #169795

The right also regularly accuses the left of being Nazis. When Al Gore released An Inconvenient Truth, someone on Fox News compared him with Hitler’s chief of propoganda.

The Democratics will not explain themselves clearly. To do so, would bring great harm to the party. They want to impose a fascist society where they would control every aspect of our lives. They want to impose their idea of love, peace, and happiness.

So when Democrats voice their opinion, it’s equivalent to fascism, but it’s not when the right violates the constitution and engages in character assassination on its opponents.

OMG, those evil, despicable democrats, valuing things like love, peace, and happiness instead of intolerance, bigotry, and fear! I can’t imagine them being any more like Nazis!

Posted by: mark at July 22, 2006 5:46 PM
Comment #169798

oh, Ahmed Chalabi sat next to Laura Bush at the State of the Union. With friends like these….

Posted by: 037 at July 22, 2006 6:05 PM
Comment #169803

Let the Liberals encourage their Islamo- Nazi murderers to wipe out Israel and then attack the USA the same way. The truth is that Liberals will never win an election or gain any civilised following with this type of crying. All they will gain is Terrorist sympathy from all terrorists and the American media. If the Liberal wing of the Democrat party ever won an election, it will quickly be subdued the same way the Nazis took the Weimar government before WW2. Let them spew anti- American rubbish, they will never get a majority. They will get millions killed, but they won’t win any elections.

Posted by: George at July 22, 2006 6:52 PM
Comment #169805

Hey George,

Opinion, meet facts.

You don’t even come close.

Next.

Posted by: Rocky at July 22, 2006 7:13 PM
Comment #169809

Those who have the power of the pen and use it to distort, rewrite or IGNORE recognized facts about history condemn their readers and adherents to a repeat of a bloody, deadly time in world events. Ignoring obvious similarities between Nazism and current Islamofascism to place the Bush administrations actions in the same cesspool as Hitlers Third Reich is not only disingenuous, it it an exercise in self immolation. What Bush policy has ended in beheadings? What Bush policy translates into death to all who disagree? What bush policy dictates the teaching of the beauty of martyrdom to elementary school children? What Bush policy demands women be servants, isolated and uneducated? What Bush policy would ignore the deaths of 6 million ethnic persons as a lie? What Bush policy demands followers to fly commercial airliners into buildings? What Bush policy calls for citizens to blow up commuter trains and themselves? What Bush policy coerces people into storing guns, bombs and rockets in their home for safe keeping? What Bush policy is as evil as any one of the above? None. Read Mein Kampf and compare Hitlers vision of the world with the stated intent of Islamofascists world wide, the similarities are stunning.

Examples of ideas about Jews:

M K - 82 “they are seducers who comdemned truth and denied the word. They are not to be pitied, but to be given their due - to smash the seducer and corrupter against the wall.”
Surah/Ishaq:248 “Allah increases ther sickness. A tormented doom awaits the Jews. Allah said, they are mischief makers. They are fools. The Jews deny truth and contradict what the Apostle has brought. I will mock them and continue to let them wander blindly”
M K - 66 “When I came upon the word Jew I felt a slight dislike and could not ward off a disagreeable sensation which seized me whenever they were in my presence. Their external appearance had become human, but they had a strange religion” They are called halfwits, nags and dangerous disgusting liars by Hitler.
Muhammed said Allah turned Jews into “apes and swine” they are deaf, dumb and blind and a people whose heart is a disease.

Get more from the book Prophet of Doom by Craig Winn.

Posted by: JR at July 22, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #169815

“American liberals aren’t as out front in their anti-semitism, but it’s right under the surface.
This is a cheap and reprehensible accusation. Liberals rarely, if ever, say anything anti-Semitic. …”
“Your claim that liberal anti-Semitism is “right under the surface” is impossible to disprove, but is baseless nonetheless.”
Posted by Woody Mena, 12:36 p.m.

To the above comment, sir, I reply BULLSHIT.

I have had the pleasure of sitting incognito in a room of rabid liberals at play. It was not pretty. Although most comments start from a base of opposing Zionism, it is but a hop skip and a jump to a general dislike of Jews. In terms of the elected liberal representation, Cynthia McKinney comes to mind. When her anti-semitic comments came to public attention, Liberals largely ignored or excused them. Jesse Jackson, a vaunted Liberal spokesperson, was called on the carpet for his semitic slurs, yet Liberals still support his organization. It is true that Liberals don’t routinely broadcast their true feelings about Jews, but when someone slips up and is their prejudice is exposed, the Liberal stance is to downplay, excuse or ignore the incident.

How many examples of acceping anti-semitism are required to illustrate the anti-semitic strain in the Democratic Party?

You continued …
“I would wager that the vast majority of anti-Semites in the country have conservative political beliefs. Which political party nominated a Jewish veep candidate? How many Jews does Bush have in his cabinet?”
Posted by Woody Mena, 12:36 p.m.

Regarding your wager, I’ll take that bet. Jews, like Conservatives, are both under attack from the “no-religion” crowd. Politically active Liberals use the despised Neocon label as a code for Jewish elements and agenda. Liberal antipathy for Judiasm is obvious. The only thing Liberals want from Jews is money and votes.

How many Jews in Bush’s Cabinet? I don’t know Woody, how many? I looked on the White House site but they, unlike you, apparently, don’t break the cabinet members down by religious affliation. My estimate is 2 to 3. Feel free to enlighten me if I’m wrong. I think you’re on thin ice though because the Bush cabinet is one of the most diverse in history.

How dare you bring up Poor Old Joe as a sign of Liberal tolerance for Jews! You are aware that the Democratic Party is dumping Joe like a cat peed couch.

Sincerely,
Good King Ned

Posted by: goodkingned at July 22, 2006 7:53 PM
Comment #169857

JR-
Prophet of Doom, eh? Didn’t I see Harrison Ford in that a while back?

Ishaq, as far as I’ve been able to determine is Hadith, and not particularly reliable on its own.

The thing to keep in mind is that Islam is critical of Judaism, but so is Christianity. Each has their critique of the other. Despite all that, there are major strains of confluence between them. They all honor the Mosaic and Abrahamic tradition and appeal for their credibility to the revelation there.

Each brings its predecessor into its fold; Christianity weaves a web of references as justification for Jesus’s status as messiah, and for the manner in which he taught and lived his life. Jesus in turn is incorporated into the Quran, along with this mother, Mary.

From what I understand, though the Quran establishes clear lines in terms of military alliances, marriage and other things, it advocates that all peoples of the book be treated with respect.

In the end, each religion has its rough edges undeniable and open to critics who want to claim them to be agents of evil. But each religion carries within it the seeds of peace as well, for those willing to look past their own personal emnity. Human beings are creative creatures in my experience, able to extract justification for evil behavior from even the most peaceful and innocuous things. But it runs both ways, if we allow it: we can turn evil to good, curses to blessings, hatred into love. This is not some fuzzy-head dream, but rather a difficult affair that requires hard work, and therefore intense commitment.

Craig Winn is not such a person. His work has unfortunately served as a means of inflaming the situation.

As for the apes and swine? Sabbath Breakers, in a particular instance.

Eric-
Leftist? According to Henri Benard-Levy, it is not a left-wing but a right wing reaction that defines Anti-Americanism, with it’s hatred of America’s radical promise, transcending language, gender, race, and all those other things that so many countries founded themselves on. Your problem is that you’re confronting a conservatism that doesn’t seek to conserve American market values, but instead tries to conserve generations of rules about religion, language, and race. What do you think you face in the Middle East, with the Kings and the Clerics? You may think you’re conservative, but you’re an American conservative, and that puts you to the left of many people in the world!

As for WWII, I never said the left wanted to get into the war anymore than the right did. I’m just saying the left were the political leads on the war, and we won. Is that revisionism? Was it Warren G. Harding who lead that war, or Roosevelt?

As for the Wiretaps, the question is whether one could get a FISA warrant for those people nowadays. You have to remember the reason for FISA in the first place, it’s context: to clear up the legal quandary about legitimate uses of intelligence wiretaps.

As for Michael Moore sitting right next to Carter, we must investigate this further. I mean, Lord forbid that Charlton Heston, who once sat beside Moore, might share his values. Did Bush sit beside Carter? Did Clinton? Did any of the Republicans? Just how communicable are these liberal cooties?

The problem with arguing about tacit and implicit support this way, is that you can’t prove the degree of closeness. physical proximity does not necessitate the philosophical kind.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 22, 2006 10:18 PM
Comment #169863

Disproportionate response is a good thing. The only way to keep terrorists from attacking is to make the price they pay far worse than any damage they can inflict. Even for suicidal fanatics there is a price that’s too high.

Posted by: traveller at July 22, 2006 10:52 PM
Comment #169870

Before you start saying how the far right loves Jews, remember most Jewish-Americans are Democrats.

Fundamentalist Christians (like George Bush I reckon) think that Jews and anyone not like them will burn in hell for all eternity. Jews reject Jesus and for fundies, their only hope is to convert. Bush may support Israel but it more has to do with setting up the world for the second coming, than a rational way to find peace.

Posted by: mark at July 23, 2006 12:09 AM
Comment #169880

Stephen

What good are simple and to the point methods if they produce complicated and difficult to manage consequences? I’d rather get a little more sophisticated for the sake of keeping the results simple, to the point, and positive!

The problem with getting things sophisticated is that they get complicated. The results aare never simple.


Woody
I don’t think you do get at what I was saying about round eye girls. But that’s beside the point.
I don’t know anything about Ted Rall wxcwpt what I’ve read here and I’m not trying to read his mind. He may not be anti-Semantic. Then again he might be. I don’t really know one way or another haveing never read anything he’s wrote.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 23, 2006 1:17 AM
Comment #169908

WHAT IF:

What if… a group of anti Mexicans decided to shot missels into Mexaco… WOULD THAT BE OKAY?

What if… a group of anti Mexicans decided to shot missels into Mexico… WOULD THE UNITED STATES BE HELD RESPONSIBLE?

So… why is it okay for a group of anti Israel to shot missels into Israel?

So… why should Lebanon not be held responsibel?

ROGER

Posted by: ROGER at July 23, 2006 8:33 AM
Comment #169910

Goodkingned,

Politically active Liberals use the despised Neocon label as a code for Jewish elements and agenda. Liberal antipathy for Judiasm is obvious. The only thing Liberals want from Jews is money and votes.

These three sentences mean nothing because they are impossible to prove or disprove. It is certainly not “obvious” to me that liberals are against Jews, and I fit in both categories.

If liberals despise Jews, we must be the dumbest people on earth, because we haven’t figured it out yet. According to this reference, Kerry got 76% of the Jewish vote:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html

Actually, as you can see from the link, Democrats have been cleaning up the Jewish vote for decades. I guess we just can’t see this seething hatred you are talking about.

How dare you bring up Poor Old Joe as a sign of Liberal tolerance for Jews! You are aware that the Democratic Party is dumping Joe like a cat peed couch.

I dare bring it up because liberals supported him for vice-president. He is facing heavy opposition now because he is a staunch supporter of Bush’s disasterous foreign policy, not because people belatedly discovered that he is Jewish.

I checked and I must admit, there are in fact two Jews in Bush’s cabinet. What I remembered was that the cabinet he initially appointed did not have any Jews. Clinton apparently had five or six Jews in his cabinet at various times.

I know this accounting is tiresome but it is the standard answer when a political group is accused of bigotry. If I were to accuse the GOP of being racist I can guarantee that Powell and Rice would come up.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 9:15 AM
Comment #169914

Goodkingned,

As far as I can tell, no anti-Semitic comment has ever been attributed to Cynthia McKinney. The comments you are thinking of were made by her dad.

If you think that comments by fathers count, then Mel Gibson is anti-Semitic, too.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 23, 2006 9:28 AM
Comment #169922

Stephen,

Good posts, but I was a bit concerned about the first point of the first one you made about the right. Don’t forget that many of the war’s opponents on the left were communists who remained against the war until Hitler attacked Stalin. Only then did they clamor for an end to Nazism. The same thing was seen in France, where the communists didn’t form the famous Maquis until after Stalin told them to after the Soviet Union was invaded.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 23, 2006 10:47 AM
Comment #169931

TERRORISTS ARE FREEDOM FIGHTERS?! If that is true (when hell freezes over), why would they attack the U.S?

If that is true, then…..
We are TOTALITARIANISTS!!!

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 23, 2006 12:09 PM
Comment #169954

David, you made the comment Lebanon did not attack Israel, but Hezbollah did, and you are correct, but where was Hezbollah at when they did, inside Lebanon. A country letting a known terrorist group occupy and run their terror out of their country. So what was Israel suppose to do, say ok Hezbollah, we are going to a netural country and fight it out.
Maybe using US and Cuba was not correct, so let say the cuban’s finished their plan in gernanda before we invade it, and started lanching missiles from Gernanda, would be not be within our powers to defend the US, to take out infrastructer that was being used to help and support the cubans?
Unfortunately, Lebanon is still kow toeing to the Syran’s and until they actually cut the ties somehow. It will only be a puppet government.
Also unfortunately innocent people get killed.

Posted by: KT at July 23, 2006 2:05 PM
Comment #169974

We cannot be worse than Nazis. They were a conquering people. America never conquers. We occupy to root out opposition or to help rebuild a country.

A lesson for the Libs that spew the word “Nazi” at everyone they don’t agree with: Republicans aren’t pro-war. America always strikes in defense. It is good to support war that is in good cause. Being blood-thirsty isn’t human. Most Republicans hate war as much as a level-headed person. Sometimes you must do what you hate to survive.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 23, 2006 3:12 PM
Comment #169999

Stephen Daugherty,

I very much appreciate your post on 7/22 at 1055. The vast majority of my military career was in the 90’s serving under the commission of and at the pleasure of President Clinton. I disagreed with most of his party views but that emotion didn’t come within 1% of the fervor I have for our great country. I thought Bosnia was/is mostly a waste of money. It was right next door to a wealthy Western Europe. I don’t think Western Europe would be the main force in a Central or South America issue, why were we the mainforce there? All that said, I served 2 tours in, over, and around Bosnia and proudly served my country and her President to the best of my ability. Despite my viewpoint on the decision to send the large number of forces, despite the fact that I laughed out loud when I heard Clinton say early on that “we would be there only a year”, our mission was noble. We (our elected President) took on the mission, enough said. You’ll notice my feelings were echoed by a super majority of elected republicans.

But I don’t see the left that way. People like you, moderate and middle of the road liberals are great Americans. But your extreme left is frightenly anti-American.

The extreme right is obviously no picnic. 100% No Abortion laws and other minority viewpoints … you know them all. But despite some of their unpopular thoughts, they are predominantly pro-America. They don’t equate their President to Hitler or Polpot or Khan. They have less power too. They don’t have the huge mouthpiece of the media like the extreme left and make movies watched by hundreds of millions (mostly foreigners) suggesting their President orchestrated the death of 3000 Americans. They don’t shout stupid things in times of war like “No Blood For Oil”. The extreme right also doesn’t have their spokespeople go and cuddle up with anti-American people like Chavez or Castro.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that the reason I support the American Right more than the American left is that I hate the extreme Right much less than the extreme left. I’m pro choice (to a point), I’m pro-environment, but the left has too much hatred of the military … too much hatred of the country when decisions they don’t like are made.

Thus, the repeated absurdness of equating republicans or Bush to Hitler needs to come to bear. Moderate and middle left, have at it. But I din’t want extreme leftists to have one iota of say in this country. The greatest freedom we have is not freedom of the press, freedom of speech, or the right to bear arms. The best freedom we have is to be able to leave whenever we want. A line has to be drawn somewhere and these leftist extremists should partake of that freedom straight away. If we’re intentionally and indiscretionately “murdering Iraqis by the thousands” … if they really feel that way, they should go live in a country they don’t think does such a thing. I know I would.

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 23, 2006 4:34 PM
Comment #170025

Woody:

Your comparison of Mel Gibson and Cynthia McKinny is flawed for two reasons.

It is true that Mr. Gibson SR is touched in the head and has had anti-semitic comments attributed to him, however, as I said, he is not a well man. Mel G. has indicated that his dad is not competent. Furthermore, Mel is not a politician representing other citizens and is not on the public payroll. The situation with the Gibsons is that a public figure sadly has a incompetent relative who was sought out by the press to discredit Mel.

On the other hand, Cynthia McKinny has given her dad a publicly funded official position in her administrative staff. Part of his duties are to communicate with the press on her behalf. The crux of the biscuit is that Cynthia IS an elected politician and should be held to a higher standard than a movie star.

As I stated earlier, Democrats routinely downplay any allegations of anti-semitism about McKinney and you are doing just that.

Posted by: goodkingned at July 23, 2006 5:50 PM
Comment #170122


I was becoming delusional about my overview of these epics of American history for our future children to learn and mold their charactor likewise.

I noticed even in Iraq at the beginning, when most true citizens of Bagdad were being slaughtered, in what has become verbilized as collaterial damage, while searching for Saddam and family, to eradicate from history. I believe that a token used to measure the evil in Iraq at the time was a deck of cards. 53 cards to a deck and that is if you use the joker. I guess Saddam was the Joker, I can’t remember, it’s been so long ago.

Getting back to the subject. thousands and maybe a million, since so many lies have been inserted into our lives, since 9/11! However, just counting the casualities as what was reported; never an exact number, but thousands were admittedly slaughtered. Ratio; hundred for one, thousand for one, thousands for one. There were five members of Al-Queda in the 9/11 suicide bombing by the different Arabs from several different countries in the Middle East, none from Iraq. I truely don’t know if they were Al-Queda as they didn’t claim to be from any group. Osama claimed they were after the fact. We all know groups who have claimed the glory or notoriety for something they weren’t aware of until it happened. However it fit the Bush/Blair and henchmen motives; just fine.

Hitler, Stalin, Attila, Alexander The Great, Nepoleon or Lincoln will all drop behind, if this continues for any longer.

Peace and friendship for all global brothers and sisters who don’t have any control over these heathons!

Babble

Posted by: Marvin Cotter at July 24, 2006 12:26 AM
Comment #170131

Ken Strong,

You pretty much said it all. The radical left hates the idea of the American nation as they hate the idea of the nation state in general as they tend to get in the way of the world revolution. They scream at America for the accidental deaths of Iraqi civilians but don’t seem to raise so much of a stink about the deliberate attacks on civilians we’ve seen in terrorism. They’re hypocrisy is staggering, espeically since, as I pointed out in my first post, in a truly totalitarian regime, they’d have been imprisoned or killed long ago. The fact of their continued aggravating existence just proves how far off point they are.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 24, 2006 2:05 AM
Comment #170136

1LT B and Ken Strong:


It is a sad day when you subvert the very values you claim to protect in an effort to actually protect them. To elaborate, pointing out that in a totalitarian regime our citizens wouldn’t be able to speak out—and to that point *shouldn’t* speak out because of that—is hypocritical, and frankly, frightening and totalitarian!

Ken Strong has what seems a valid and measured point about the extreme right and left, but I would add this: the extreme right is what is committing us to war in the first place, and no amount of criticizing the commander in chief makes up for his squandering the lives of our bravest young men and women.

The mission in the former Yugoslavia was very late in coming because of isolationist resistance here. We could have saved many more lives if we had inserted peace-keepers much earlier. Iraq is different in so many ways. And don’t try to bring up Saddam gassing his own people—we were mute during that whole time as he was the enemy of our enemy.

In any case, don’t tell me to shut up because I am free to speak. And if you do that (as so many Cons have done), don’t be surprised when you get compared to fascists.


Posted by: davidL at July 24, 2006 2:43 AM
Comment #170156

davidL,

My comments were not aimed at all dissent, just Rall in this case. However, I do still stand by the idea that in a truly totalitarian regime, the editorial board of the NYT, as well as many bloggers here, would probably already be dead or imprisoned. Do you think Rall really feared for his safety when he published that nonsensical tripe of his? I thought I was clear with my meaning, but if I wasn’t, allow me to restate. It is a shame to me that someone like Rall, who uses the freedom of expression guaranteed by the Constitution and defended by our military to an extent far greater than most people, to bash and make senseless and hateful comments about the very people who protect his right to do so.

Posted by: 1LT B at July 24, 2006 7:02 AM
Comment #170172

And that, my friend, is why *this* is America and *that* is Saudi Arabia or Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany. This is America because we protect the rights of people who want to bash it.

Love it or leave it.

Posted by: DavidL at July 24, 2006 8:21 AM
Comment #170782

Ken: personally, i think we should fear both extremes equally. they both shout policies and ideas that are abhorrent to people as a whole and swell the ranks in each other’s parties simply by existing. but your claim that the american right is more ‘pro-america’ than the left is completely erroneous; it’s simply the image that they have projected and want you to believe. yes, the radicals are all anti-war, shout ‘bush lied and people died,’ and are genuinely angry at the government, bush and the american people for being concieted, violent, and greedy. but, when you look at much of what the reactionaries do/want to do it is just as dangerous to america and the american ideal as the actions/beliefs of the radicals. the extreme religious right would like to take away everyone’s rights to an abortion, to freedom of religion (this is not towards all religious people), to privacy and much else. behind many of the controversial moves made by the current administration (nsa wiretapping, etc.) is the hand of the reactionaries. these actions and beliefs are just dangerous as any made by the exteremist left.
also, i wuold like to point out that the right accuses the left of being ‘hitler/stalin -esque’ just as often as the left accuses bush/republicans: just look back at many of the responses to this post and (obliquely) in the post itself.

Posted by: alefnought at July 26, 2006 11:18 AM
Comment #170905

DavidL,

You had your pre-prepared answer before you ever read my post. I never said people with extreme leftist views had to leave the country, but the hate and vitriol they exude towards the Nation in general … saying were worse than terrorists/Nazis/(insert universal inflammatory group name here) is grossly UnAmerican. So, let me clarify the 2 major points of my last post:

#1. IMO the extreme left speaks a much louder, hateful anti-American message than the extreme right. I happen to generally love the USA, thus I could never be a liberal. That position, even a moderate liberal would be like living next door to a sexual predator.

#2. While they obviously don’t have to leave for speaking and apparently honestly feeling the way of these horribly unpatriotic diatribes, I find it stupid that they don’t leave.

If I hated something as much as I hear from left field wackos I’d be in Australia or Sweden or South America so fast it’d make your whole neighborhood spin. People like Garafalo who says the USA has been “grotesquely horrible” (exact words if I remember correctly) for the last 5 decades. (There were no qualifiers, she meant it as generally as I wrote it.) Murtha now thinks we’re worse for the world than Iran or Al Qaeda. The Nutty Colorado Professor. Moore. Sheehan & Belafonte visiting Chavez (who proudly declared his desire to take down the US). The Hitler analogies, not just of Bush, but the administration and Congress in general. (Note: More democrats voted for the Iraq War than the now -thank you God- acceptable war to free Kuwait. So it’s not all of the “Bush Wackos” like Marvin Cotter above would like to believe. Note 2: We don’t own Kuwaiti oil fields as predicted by the thousands of extremist anti-Gulf War protesters delusionally claimed we were there for. “No Blood For Oil” claims are now -thank you God again- deemed trifle and situationally unaware.)

So, just go already if you feel as removed as these left of left field nut jobs. You don’t have to go, but why wouldn’t you want to? Should America lay down to Islamist Fascists? How about the Socialistic goals of Chavez?

So, you see, the USA isn’t going to change all that much even if the Democrats take back all of the Executive and Legislative. Why? Because they’ll still have a duty to protect the country. Remember, Clinton went to Bosnia without being attacked. Johnson ignited Vietnam without being attacked. Kennedy almost took us to Nuclear War. Truman went to Korea and dropped 2 Atom Bombs. FDR headed to Germany after being attacked by, um, Japan. Were they wrong calls? Obviously not. But if I was a right field looney in the form of a left field looney, I’d had my signs a-wavin’, my Hitler effagies a-burnin’, my “No Blood For Wine” t-shirts a-sellin’ … all anti-Americanism for the sake of extreme politics.

So here’s to Johnny Depp. At least he put his feet where his mouth was. I’ll watch his movies anytime!

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 26, 2006 5:54 PM
Comment #170966

Ken Strong:

And what you don’t get is that there’s a difference between the government and the country. You *can* be a patriot while staunchly disagreeing with your own government’s policies.

Your sense of history is striking, but it’s a typical narrow-minded response. You can’t see past “right and left,” and “Democrat and Republican.” Because Clinton was a so-called liberal and a Democrat I am assumed to agree with all of his actions? It’s weird to me that I am admonished from criticizing Bush because you perceive that Clinton did something similar—as if “your guy did it, so it’s OK that my guy does it.” Neither, by the way, is OK, though Johnson inventing the incident to lead us to war in Vietnam stands in stark contrast to Clinton’s multilateral peace-keeping mission in the former Yugoslavia.

And what the hell does this sentence mean?

“#1. IMO the extreme left speaks a much louder, hateful anti-American message than the extreme right. I happen to generally love the USA, thus I could never be a liberal. That position, even a moderate liberal would be like living next door to a sexual predator.”

If it’s English, I’m surprised. But if I understand it correctly, you are talking about the “hateful” extreme left and then comparing its constituents to “sexual predators?” Does that grab you as hypocritical?

Probably not. Some people just see black and white.


Posted by: davidL at July 26, 2006 9:27 PM
Comment #170976

DavidL,

I obviously don’t see just black and white. My initial post to Stephen Daugherty welcomed different viewpoints from my own. I welcome many liberal or democrat-based debates … and I’ve said so many times. I’ve also said, many times, that even though I commonly vote Republican, I like our 2 party system for the most part. The 2 party system has inherit checks and balances. UNLIKE my counterparts on the left, I would never want to see my party dominate Congress or even the White House indefinitely. I think for either party to do that would be harmful to our great nation. (Change, for the lack of a longer and better description, is usually a good thing.)

I can’t state my position more clearly . In my heart of hearts I feel the extreme left has serious disdain for this country. All of the horrible mantras previously mentioned by the extreme left are definitely not constructive criticism. It’s hateful, mean, lacking regard for our history, our men & women in uniform, and our future as a world-leading country.

Yes they obviously have a right to say it. I have an equal right to say “If you feel that way, and you think yourself at least halfway intelligent, why wouldn’t you leave the country you just described in excruciating & life-hating detail?!” Indeed, why wouldn’t they want to leave a nation of little Hitlers running around? Or if not leave it, do they plan to attack it like insurgents attack Baghdad? They describe this country as a great enemy to the world. 2 options with an enemy: Fight or Flee. Yet the extremist left choose to do neither, nor constructive discourse, nor anything at all.

And that’s why I support the Right. I regard mainstream democrats, but I choose to be politically as far from the extreme left as possible. It’s just that simple.

P.S. I know our media hasn’t said word one about it, but after we left Vietnam it was a world disgrace. Communism didn’t do it one single favor. Despite our tactical successes, our strategic buffoonery in Vietnam allowed it to drag out too long. Having a Free Vietnam or at least a free South Vietnam would’ve been as honorable as securing a free South Korea. Unless you think S. Korea and N. Korea are the same, perhaps you could agree with me on that.

Indeed, 66% of the US in 1962 thought helping a Democratic Vietnam was the right thing to do. It was. But unfortunately the Johnson Administration & especially his SecDef (you’ll forgive me for not typing his name) micromanaged the way to our first strategic military defeat. Thank God we at least learned our lesson and we have leaders saying things today like “We will not fight this war via political maneuvering but based on what the Generals need on the ground.”

Here’s to learning from mistakes!!! Thank you Vietnam for at least that!

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 26, 2006 10:01 PM
Comment #174114

We once again have the spectacle of the Jews getting away with murder as we have seen in Lebanon during the past month. The Israelis invade a soveign Nation, Lebanon, killing everyone that they can, destroying all essential services that people need to live on, and preventing humanitarian aid from reaching people who are now destitute. Out of all of this, the Hezballah gets blamed for trying to protect civilians in Lebanon from this Israeli on- slaught.

I get so sick and tired of hearing about the holocaust that was perpetrated against the Jews over 60 years ago, as justification for allowing Israel to do whatever they want against anyone or any nation. “It was Nazi Germany who performed the holocaust against the Jews, not the Palestinians or any other Arab state”. Instead of making Germany responsible for what they did to the Jews and creating a large area of land from Germany for the creation of the State of Israel, the Palstinian people were kicked out their land and sent elsewhere so that Israel could take over their land and call it: Israel. What kind of decency and justice was that for the Palestinian people…..that they should have to suffer for the crimes that Germany committed against the jewish people during WW II ? Israel continues to get away with murder and the brainwashed American people seem to be too dumb enough to see who the real aggressor is in the Middle East.

Posted by: Bill O'Neill at August 8, 2006 9:02 PM
Post a comment