Last night on PBS’ The NewsHour, New York Times columnist David Brooks compared 9/11 mastermind Osama bin Laden’s latest video message to “lefty blogs,†saying the al Qaeda head is like “one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom of the page.†He then went to describe why he drew such a comparison:
You read this thing, and it’s like he’s been sitting around reading lefty blogs, and he’s one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom the page, you know, Noam Chomsky and all this stuff.
********
Considering bin Laden’s threat yesterday to “escalate the killing and fighting against†America, Brooks and his fellow conservatives’ attempts at humor  and that’s a charitable reading of their words  are especially insulting, as it impugns not only the patriotism, but also the character and intelligence of literally millions of daily participants in the progressive blogosphere.
Patriots, like George Soros.
Comment #4:
“Just proves one thing: OBL is a hell of a lot more astute than the fools spouting off about him. At least he can recognize the problems in the world even if his solutions may be a little harsh. He doesn’t run around with his head firmly implanted in the bushco rectum as most of the right wing-nut clowns do.”
I didn’t see anyone repudiate him.
“Patriots, like George Soros.”
Why don’t you give us your best definition of patriot?
Why don’t you give us your best redefinition of patriot?
“Progressive” blogs?
What’s progressive about surrendering and/or hoping your country loses?
I guess I’m just not enlightened enough to “get it”.
The post above was echoed at 41, 45, 47, and 115. All the rest were mocking Brooks et al, questioning the timing or truther insanity. No one repudiated or even seemed to notice the contradictions. Absolutely no sign of intelligent thought to be found.
As Dan’s and B Moe’s quotes show, the Bin Man gets an A+ in “Propaganda And Group Psychodynamics.”
He’s very astutely made the repudiation of his message a destruction of the leftist self, i.e., a psychological impossibility — and so the show of repudiation is always only an attack on his enemies.
Dude knows his shit.
[mild applause]
psychologizer–
Interesting inference. Send me your long-hand version, and I’ll post it.
That’s what I thought. Friendly material is gettin’ thin making postings incrementally scarcer. Time for a sabbatical?
Bin Laden has been borrowing from our “loyal opposition” since the very beginning when he delivered a speech cribbed from Michael Moore’s film.
Anyone who thinks that he’s doing anything other than pandering to our opposition is a fool. He still says what *he* wants which is an end to democracy and Islam over the whole world. And that means an enforced morality that makes *our* radical fundamentalists look like hippies during the summer of love.
Time for a sabbatical?
Sure, go ahead.
“That’s what I thought. Friendly material is gettin’ thin making postings incrementally scarcer. Time for a sabbatical?”
We need a translator, anybody here speak pinhead?
You know, Semanticleo, you’re very tiresome. Let’s see. Well, for starters, the more divergent from Osama’s prescriptions one’s own are, the more patriotic, as a general rule of thumb.
But beyond that, I’d say that, as much as he differs from my religious views, this is pretty well stated:
Bite me.
I think it’s more that he’s feeling that AQ’s appeal has attenuated a bit. Think about his recruiting… I think he wants to embrace Western leftism just enough that the river of leftist propaganda can feed into the tributary that motivates potential recruits. When CNN International’s message is an extension of his own, it’s one of them there force multipliers that people who understand things like force multipliers talk about.
What’s a “force multiplier”?
I mean, isn’t the whole point that when Jihadi Boy Jr. puts down his copy of Newsweek Int’l, he’s thinking, “That’s exactly what Osama’s been saying. I may not agree with some of his tactics, but he’s definitely right about some things.”
Here’s one example.
Puppies!!
“more divergent from Osama’s prescriptions one’s own are, the more patriotic, as a general rule of thumb.”
A bold prescription indeed. Are you in favor of a strong American economy? Do you favor Apple Pie and applaud Motherhood?
I think you’re just tired.
Liberals have less kids than conservatives. You can google that. And they are quite concerned about the transfats in pie crust.
Tired? I’ll tell you what I am, Semanticleo: I’m sick of your shit. You bring nothing constructive to the table at all. Let me see YOUR works. Let me see YOUR arguments. Let me see YOUR thought. I wouldn’t be surprised at all to find that there is none, none, none. Because you are nothing, nothing, nothing, and all you believe in is nothingness.
You are a veritable banquet of squat.
Is there a problem?
A rational discussion of the meaning of the word ‘patriot’ is beyond the pale of your patience?
Even if it were true that I believe in ‘nothing’, that would be something, wouldn’t it?
There you go. Give me your definition, clown.
Give me your definition.
A ‘patriot’ is a guardian of the principles upon which this country was founded. A patriot seeks not allegiance to any man, but the lofty ideals which elevate ALL human spirits, as they inspire the shaky elements of society with the leadership and personal example which exemplifies the good citizen. That entails, for OUR country, allegiance to the US Constitution, and the Bill Of Rights, not some temporary occupant of the WH.
Wow. That’s a real game-changer there.
Semi Concious continues to play the chortling eccentric, wine chiller firmly in hand, silk scarf carefully folded over the overstuffed chair, while he/she awaits the fundamental change in the world so that it aligns with her/his delusion.
Here’s a good first crack: A patriot recognizes the fundamental truth in this statement: The Home of the Free Because of the Brave.
Feel free to entertain us with your patriotic descriptions of economic apocalypse, socialized health care and the certain loss in Iraq.
You big patriot you…
And a Patriot recognizes that there is at least some imperative to give some support to the guy in the White House during wartime. Not blind loyalty but not sneering derision either.
Nuance, the other white meat.
Oh, I forgot. Except when the occupant is BushMcChimpyBurtonHitler. Sorry about that. I’ll go ahead and take out a sub prime mortgage as personal penance.
You mean like limited government, Federalism, enumerated rights, states rights, individual liberty and responsibility, limited taxation? ‘Cause the welfare state didn’t get much talk during the Constitutional Congress.
Then again, I’ve fortgotten that the Constitution is a “living” document, complete with beating heart, working digesive system and a bladder that pisses out new “implied” rights like a race horse after a lake swim.
Do tell.
It kinda bugs me that he’s questioning my patriotism, but HOW DARE HE call me stupid. I are smart. And super nice too.
Waiting for the other clown,
waiting for an independent clause
“Waiting for the other clown,”
Look in the mirror
Wow. A better characterization of Harry Reid one could not come up with.
You know, even the most jaded would rarely have the temerity to suggest there is no conservative definition of ‘patriot’, just
some vague, ephemeral reference to ‘Soros’ or Reid as metaphorical
‘traitor’ which will also remain undefined. Is it conscience which intimidates, or is it the subliminal fear, ‘could I be unpatriotic’?
I guess we’ll only be able to guess, because there’s nothin’ goin on here.
The professional bore crashes the party, drives out the interesting people, and then complains because the party isn’t any good.
I can’t believe they keep making this movie.
Like slavery? Puritanism? Shootin’ injuns?
I wanna be your other clown. I gots the red nose and big feet.
You can check out the dictionary, Semi. We “conservatives” don’t need special definitions, so the definition of “patriot” and “patriotism” most commonly used by the culture needs no special partisan massaging from us.
Of course, if you want more — or feel I haven’t covered the topic enough here for your tastes — you can do a site search for my debate with Greeeeeeeenwald(s) entitled, I think, “On Patriotism”. There were a couple follow-up posts, too.
Semanticlown,
Those rights and principles are being defended and, we hope, spread right now in Iraq by people who understand the idea of personal sacrifice–unlike people like Congressman Murtha and his imaginary $10 million pump. George Soros, a man who made a killing through capitalism, and those like him, wish to burn the bridges behind them, like so many bravely vainglorious professors who want identitarian hiring quotas, AFTER they’ve been granted tenure.
I want you to go read that article by Kuntzel that I pointed out earlier, and tell me why, under any circumstances, we ought to tolerate–much less condone or coddle–such facist idiocy in the name of diversity of any of the other bizarre shibboleths that the proggs regard as articles of faith. And I’m still waiting for your works and essays. And waiting, and waiting.
As are most of the jaded, you are very self impressed on extremely flimsy bases.
What’s the Democratic definition of defeatism?
oh. It’s the same as the Democratic definition for “patriotism.”
I asked you a simple question, and you have to muddy-up your response with what seems to be a seething hatred. That can’t be good for a heart which is already burdened with toxic white-blood cells, pussed-up with an infection that appears to be swelling your brain beyond the confines of your concrete skull. See a doctor about that anger.
I’m eating peanut butter cookies.
Semanticlown,
I’m so angry that I listen to The Archies when I respond to you. Also, Shocking Blue.
Semanticleo,
We don’t need a definition; we have an existential one.
If two people both say and believe the same things about the same subjects, either both of them are “patriotic” (or religious, or atheistic, or…) or neither is.
What you are telling us is that Osama bin Laden is a patriotic American. Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.
Regards,
Ric
Honey honey, ah sugar sugar, you’re my candy girrrrl..
Seriously, though–while you were fulminating here, I planted three rosebushes, went grocery shopping, and cooked dinner.
What’s so wrong about questioning your patriotism, given that your favorite pastime is questioning our basic humanity? It’s awfully hard explaining patriotism anyway, to people who can’t even think the term without mental sneer quotes. Assuming that you’re serious, and not just amusing yourself with a simple jape, consider this assertion from Dr. Johnson:
Get it? It’s as much a matter of the heart as of the intellect, hence the phrase, “love of country”. That’s why we were all flying our flags at moments of crisis these past six years, while your set were soul-searching in the liberal slickzines, trying to apportion blame and decide which side to take.
I finally had a chance to watch OBL’s video, and it was creepy to say the least. If his audience is in fact lefties, at least for me, his robotic co-opting of the tired rants against “major corporations” and his chastising tone toward the Dems for failing to undermine the mission because HE put us in power after all, is all very grating. But I also see a paradox: if I flat out denounce his shit, then by extension I would be abandoning some of the principles that I do believe in. But it’s either that or be in league with TERRORISTS!!!! He’s playing all kinds of games here.
But, I think I’ll flatly dismiss everything he says anyway. I just don’t respond favorably to psychotic wackos stealing my ideology to play the wounded schoolmarm. Note to Osama: next time, wear paisley; it just might work.
Though the mountains divide and the oceans are wide…
liberals is the same all over:
Alas, but for a vigorous information campaign they sigh.
The ideas, they do permeate.
Semanticlown
What’s really funny is he did it to himself.
Someone should tell Osama not to waste his time addressing the American people anymore. You never get a second chance to make a first impression.
“Seriously, though–while you were fulminating here, I planted three rosebushes, went grocery shopping, and cooked dinner.”
Oh, that’s classic JG, alright, but where do we find you? Hanging on with a ‘get tuff’ attitude?
Is this really the time of the year to plant rosebushes?
They were 70% off, hf.
BTW, I don’t know how I could be classic JG, as I’m Dan. Also, we disagree from time to time, you know: Believe it or not!
“we disagree from time to time, you know: Believe it or not!”
Balderdash. Prove it.
I think John Cole’s an ass for specious reasons, whereas Jeff thinks so for valid reasons.
“Faustus had signed his life away, and was, ipso facto, incapable of repentance.” (re: Marlowe, Dr. Faustus.)
John Cole’s ass is spacious?
So, in your view, Faustus better represents a Catholic than a Progg? Interesting reading.
Will you shog off? (re: Shakespeare, Henry V)
Semanticleo doesn’t know the difference between Dan Collins (out planting rosebushes all afternoon) and Jeff Golstein (primary host). Or perhaps he thinks Jeff uses sockpuppets, like Glenn Greenwald? Or maybe he just can’t be bothered to read posts before replying to them?
Those designer trousers are very expansive.
John Cole’s an ass spelunker?
I like cynn, who should re-read psychologer’s comment #6 for an explanation of what OBL is doing.
But what I really wanted to point out is this.
Dan wrote:
Semanitclown gets his panties in a twist, but later defines a “patriot”:
And here is the philosophy of George Soros:
By this account, Soros may change his any of his beliefs, including his political beliefs. He may abandon supporting the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or anything else about the ideals of America he decides are wrong, at any time.
In sum, by the Semanticlown definition, Soros is not a patriot.
Pwn3d.
Semanticlown?
Think Progress has a point: you can’t impugn the patriotism of leftists. It’s the same as trying to prove a negative.
Why is patriotism a debate? Does it gain a single life, or further the hybrid “democracy” this shaministration is touting in Iraq? Why care about or try to define a shifting construct?
Because it isn’t a “shifting construct”, cynn. And the fact that you are able to define it as such is what creates the problem.
It used to be that, as the saying went, politics stopped at the water’s edge. There was a reason for that. When somebody from outside the U.S., and possibly the more sophisticated parts of Canada, looks at the United States they see a monolithic object with a leader, the President. Don’t give me the bullshit about stolen elections, either — compared to the world standard, which is machine-gunning political opponents in the streets to attain office, an ambiguous election result is straight-arrow to the point of wimpiness. When you attack the President, and the Administration, in such consistently vitriolic terms in foreign venues… you are not attacking Chimpy Bushitlerburton; you are attacking the President of the United States and, by synecdoche, the United States itself. And if you are attacking the United States you are not a “patriot”, no matter how jiggly wiggly shifty you make the definition you want to go by.
If two people believe the same things, say the same things, approve the same things, define the same policies and acts as good things, we say they are in agreement; it’s the definition of the word. If you are saying, shouting, shrieking from the housetops the same thing that Osama bin Laden is saying, excoriating the same people in the same terms, vilifying the same activities on the same basis — which you are — then either Osama bin Laden is an American patriot (just like you), or you are not (just like him), or the word “patriot” is another one to be tossed in the dustbin, made useless by leftoid “deconstruction”.
That’s all there is to it. That’s all there ever was to it, and all there ever will be to it, and you can squirm and protest and get all huffy from being insulted, and it won’t make a belch in a boiler factory.
Regards,
Ric
I’m not reading anything else tonight.
Tratriot: One who is devoted to an America that could only be realized by acknowledging how much better the all rest of the world is and surrendering to it.
cynn,
Aw, but then you’ll miss the parts where Bu$hco has made us less safe and we’re creating more terrorists!!1!” and Iraq is the best al-Qaeda recuiting tool evah!!!1!eleven!”/i>
If you ask me, those are the best parts. The video is pretty weird. Reanimator at work? Or Vulture Chow and video manipulation software?
Pablo: O.K.
Ric: Fine, fall into the rathole that I am equivalent to Osama’s argument of convenience. You fell for it. Plus, he’s not even alive, is he?
I don’t know whether Osama’s dead or not, and frankly, Scahleyatt, ah doahn’t give a dayumm. Original, impostor, or the latest baddie from World of Warcraft, he represents the considered opinion of the leader(s) of a group that has announced itself implacably hostile to the United States — not, please note, to Chimpy McBushitlerburton; to America in its entirety — and, as such his comments are worth noting, even if only to sneer at them.
And I didn’t fall down any ratholes. I’m not a member, contributor, or supporter to the party he could run for Congress as a member of without changing a word of his platform. President, even. Forged birth certificates are cheap at the World Congress of Nutbars level.
Regards,
Ric
Semanticlown? Where’d ya go?
Oh, Ric, I just closely reread your little huff. You are essentially claiming that I am assailing this Hindenburg of our administration, while hitching my wagon to this Columbia of foreign relations.
F-you. If you are so heavily invested in your politics that you can’t unmire yourself enough to step ashore, you are lost. Bad metaphors be damned.
Unh huh. Go ahead and flail, cynn. Stay away from Kos — they’re getting incoherent over there — but I’m sure Yglesias can come up with a comforting set of sophistries for you.
I have never been a person who considers enemies stupid. This is part of being “conservative”. If you assume you’re battling Moriarty and it turns out to be Jed Clampett, you sweated a little harder than necessary. If the situation is reversed, you end up getting your ass back by return of post.
The leadership council of al-Qaeda is composed of intelligent, clever, hard-working, dedicated people. What they are dedicated to, as announced by them long before George Bush was anything but a medium-fair baseball team owner, is the destruction of Western civilization and the elevation of themselves as bosses of the entire planet.
It is the considered opinion of this bright bunch of guys that the arguments they present are useful tools in the furtherance of their goal, which is the destruction of the United States as a cohesive force. Whether or not they believe those arguments is totally beside the point — they see them as a weapon they can pick up and use to club America. Their arguments are almost identical, point by point, to the ones you and your Party make. Repeat: very bright, implacably hostile people are picking up what you toss them, gleefully congratulating themselves for acquiring new weapons. And that’s what it looks like from whatever angle you view it.
Hurt your feelings? Boo hoo. I’ve got a quarter; maybe Pablo will give you the other one to use the pay phone.
Regards,
Ric
“A ‘patriot’ is a guardian of the principles upon which this country was founded.”
Says the idiot who has no fucking clue what those principles are.
“Their arguments are almost identical, point by point, to the ones you and your Party make. Repeat: very bright, implacably hostile people are picking up what you toss them, gleefully congratulating themselves for acquiring new weapons. And that’s what it looks like from whatever angle you view it.”
I am normally very hesitant to argue with Master Locke, but the latest post by Perfesser Caric makes me think there may be viewing angles we haven’t considered:
“I think it’s more likely that one of Rove’s protege’s is consulting with bin Laden on his current publicity campaign. Maybe Dick Wadhams is trying to get his mojo back after the failed George Allen re-election campaign.
Whoever is consulting bin Laden, we can be sure that neither Rove nor his proteges would have any ethical objections to helping bin Laden out.”
Like by reading Democrat talking points to him.
“You can’t make this shit up” just don’t even come close to mocking this kind of insanity.
I certainly doubt OBL or AQ truly believe any of the lefty/prog cant they regurgitate.
I just don’t fully appreciate the angles.
Do he/they view it as part of a divide and conquer approach to the west?
By so closely aligning his own public commentary with the words and deeds of his most useful idiots aren’t they risking the potential ostracism and marginalisation of the prog-left from the rest of the body politic?
Does he think marginalizing the left will result in an expansion of the WOT and bring about something closer to an apocalyptic struggle that would mobilize all of the muslim fence sitters?
I still see it as a very desperate gambit with low odds of a positive return.
Ric,
Jed was the smart one–you’re thinking of Jethro.
All:
Patriotism is somewhat like pornography–I know it when I see it.
However, there is one universal descriptor that I am quite comfortable in offering; it never is founded upon any relative of this bit of rhetoric: “Osama has a point.”
Down that road lies, “Hitler was just too extreme in his methods.” Or “Perhaps Robert Mugabe is just a victim of the white man.” Or even “Castro has a lot of doctors.”
You lefties have paid a high price for all that relativism. Try a little introspection and get back to me.
Patriotism is somewhat like
pornographyart …So now I’m an internet blog editor.
But the left has nothing to introspect with.With which nothing, the left, to introspect, has.
you can’t impugn the patriotism of leftists. It’s the same as trying to prove a negative.
Stolen, with credit. Should I happen to remember to give credit, that is…
Why don’t you give us your best definition of patriot?
Someone who doesn’t give aid and comfort to the enemy by undermining a duly elected official, in a time of warby falsly accusing him of plotting to kill his own citizen’s, or tolerating their deaths, in order to enrich a corporation.
Someone who doesn’t blame his own country or a third party when a hostile organization or country that has no love or use for freedom and liberty declares war and attacks. Nor does a patriot excuse the attack, saying we had it coming. Nor does he tolerate or associate with those that do.
A patriot is someone who can recognize the difference between the ideas of Americas founders and those of Karl Marx, Joseph Engels and other 19th Century European collectivist political philosophers and their supporters and acts accordingly.
A patriot doesn’t adopt the political philosophy of an avowed enemy, or excuse those that do.
A patriot doesn’t say they support the troops and then compares them to Nazi’s.
The below applies as well to my notions of patriotism.
“I am not fooled, when you partisans spew propaganda that helps our enemies and harms our soldiers, then tell us you support our troops.
I am not fooled, when you focus on, highlight, and exaggerate the negative things that happen in Iraq, while ignoring our positive accomplishments, then tell us you support our troops.
I am not fooled, when you focus attention on American soldiers killed and wounded in Iraq, to use these brave patriots as an anti-Iraq-war political football, then tell us you support our troops.
I am not fooled, when you keep criticizing why and how we invaded Iraq – that is done; our troops are there – then tell us you support our troops.
I am not fooled, when you engage in constant, carping criticism of what the U.S. has done and is doing in Iraq, then tell us you support our troops.
I am not fooled, when you search for and trumpet to the world anything that will diminish respect for our soldiers and their leaders – even when it endangers greatly their lives, then tell us you support our troops.
I am not fooled, when you tell our soldiers and the rest of us that they are stuck in a “quagmire” and will suffer a Vietnam-type defeat, then tell us you support our troops.
I am not fooled, when you spout propaganda that undermines the morale of our soldiers and the American public and boosts the morale of our enemies, then tell us you support our troops.
You are giving aid and comfort to our nation’s deadly enemies! They know they cannot defeat us militarily in Iraq. However, you cause them to think they can win here politically by breaking our will, if they kill and wound enough of our soldiers.
You despicable partisans! You are stimulating our enemies to attack our soldiers and the people working with them. The blood of many Americans and Iraqis is already on your hands. And your hands collect more blood every day!
You are determined to regain the political power you have lost, and you believe your presidential candidate and congressional candidates will win, if the U.S. fails in Iraq.
If your anti-American propaganda contributes to the deaths of many Americans and Iraqis, that is a price you are willing to make them pay. You are pathetic and dangerous!
I am not fooled, when you contemptible politicians and other political partisans, including many in the media, tell us you support our troops. I know that is a lie!
I am not fooled, when you claim spreading your pernicious, divisive, anti-American venom makes you patriotic. I know it does not – and I know you are not!”
Is that clear enough for you?
#84 relax, klrtzl.
Once in a while it’s good to carefully and judiciously split an infinitive, and a preposition is a fine thing to end a sentence with.
Regards,
Ric
Jeez;
I thought it was just Collins who pandered with a lustful eye toward the host. The place is crawlin’ with cephalopods who manage to squeeze through the tightly closed sphincters of the one they long
to be. Hope you reach your goal, whatever that may be. Holy moly.
So, you’re leaving then?
Cleo – “Hope you reach your goal, whatever that may be.”
Rick – Hope you die in a fire.
I confess I like Cynn too, and lines like this are a big part of it:
Pandered what?
So, Murtha’s 37 years as a Marine of inferior to your one year as Mr. Goldstein’s blog-wife?
By the way, Mr. Locke, I think cynn handed your hat to you. You are basically claiming because a crazy man believes the sun rises in the East, then ipso facto>anyone who believes the sun rises in the East is crazy. A fallacy of the most basic type.
More offensively, your argument paints the 60 percent of Americans who oppose this silliness in Iraq as unpatriotic and un-American. That’s balderdash.
Cynn #69:
By declaring the word “patriotism” to be out of bounds the Left has managed to evade a valid argument.
May we stipulate that an international cult of fanatics has declared war against us as a people?
Some of us hear the Left saying, of our enemies: Their political grievances are valid! Their anger is justified! Our own policies brought these chickens home to roost!
Without using the loaded term you don’t like, I say:
1. You’re wrong.
2. Most of the political issues that you have taken to be our enemies’ “root causes” are actually projections of your own political grievances. The true “root cause” animating our enemies is cult religious fanaticism.
3. Whether or not you happen to agree with our enemies on some arcane policy points, this historical moment that we, as a people, are under attack would be an ideal time to come to our common defense rhetorically, articulating whatever case you could make for our paradigm, rather than piling on with our enemies and using their arguments against our system as a stalking horse for pursuing your own policy agenda.
The sense people have that compels them to use the word “patriotism” is that you are a member of this society that is under attack, and yet you are so bitter at living with an administration of the other political party that you yell: “Yes! We are a rotten society! Burn us down!”
While we tolerate this, because we value free speech, we cannot resist pointing out that it is hysterical and unhelpful.
If you are uncomfortable sharing a talking points memo with Osama Bin Laden, maybe you should re-examine your beliefs.
If you lie down with dogs….
All you have to do to decipher the link between our enemies and the American Left is to substitute “you” with “we.”
Enemies: You are killing millions, slaughtering babies and are only concerned with oil profits.
Am. Left We are killing millions, slaughtering babies and are only concerned with oil profits.
Enemies: You need to leave Iraq.
Am. Left: We need to leave Iraq.
Enemies: Your President is Satan and Hitler all rolled into one.
Am. Left: Our President is Satan and Hitler all rolled into one.
Enemies: You are creating more terrorists by fighting them.
Am. Left: We are creating more terrorists by fighting them.
Enemies: You are capitalist, greedy, ignorant, uneducated morons who destroy the world.
Am. Left: We are capitalist, greedy, ignorant, uneducated morons who destroy the world.
Enemies: You deserve everything that happens to you, especially 9-11.
Am. Left: We deserve everything that happens to us, especially 9-11.
Get it yet, lefties?
“The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
“You are basically claiming because a crazy man believes the sun rises in the East, then ipso facto>anyone who believes the sun rises in the East is crazy.”
So count you on the side that thinks Osama may be crazy, but he speaks The Truth?
“Pandered what?”
‘Who, me?’
‘Huh?’
‘What, me worry?’
(multiple choice)
The principals enumerated in the Bill of Rights, but not limited to it, are the birthright of everyone on this planet. Because they don’t exercise those rights does not mean they don’t have them. It means they are prevented from doing so.
Except if you’re middle eastern, or brown, or just not, you know, hip.
Semanticleo, I don’t want to further enable the threadjack you’ve got going, but do you count federal election laws as part of the lofty principles or ideals a patriot should uphold? If so, I’d like to remind you that Soros was just slapped with the third-largest fine in FEC history for illegally sourcing $137 million in contributions, and that’s for the 2004 cycle alone. Sounds more like he’s happy to undermine foundational principles of democracy if it suits him.
… adnd blarkin, you and ‘cleo really should get together and discuss how Murtha having been a Marine somehow immunizes him from negative judgment when matters of corruption are concerned.
“Soros was just slapped with the third-largest fine in FEC history for illegally sourcing $137 million in contributions, and that’s for the 2004 cycle alone. Sounds more like he’s happy to undermine foundational principles of democracy if it suits him.”
And your admiration for his chutzpah is, somehow, another conflicted source for your identity crisis?
Identity crisis? I’m still not dicentra, if that’s what you mean.
Idiot.
That’s not what I mean.
>genius>
“… and blarkin, you and ‘cleo really should get together and discuss how Murtha having been a Marine somehow immunizes him from negative judgment when matters of corruption are concerned.”
Duke Cunningham would probably be interested in that discussion, also.
Cleo, you would probably have a better chance of understanding what is going on if you would pull your dress down from over your head.
Comment by Semanticleo on 9/9 @ 9:56 am #
That’s not what I mean.
Then say what you mean.
blarkin #93: No, my hat is precisely where it should be.
Step 1: You and your friends posit a set of conditions and propose actions based on those assumptions.
Step 2: A person known to be crazy (your interpretation) posits the identical conditions and proposes the same actions.
Can you complete the syllogism? I have no trouble.
And in fact I don’t think Osama and his circle of advisors (or substitutes, if that turns out to be the case) are crazy. I think that they are perfectly sane, but have goals and intentions that are hostile to America, to Americans, and to the entire structure of Western civilization, and that they pick their statements and actions carefully in order to further those goals. So my version of Step 2 above reads:
Step 2: A person known to be implacably hostile to the United States posits the identical conditions and proposes the same actions you and your friends do.
You may flop and wiggle and protest and cry “hate!”, but that won’t change the facts on the ground. Loudly claiming that you are not traveling East at sunrise while simultaneously bitching about the glare in your eyes is not convincing.
Regards,
Ric
Would that Mr. Murtha had quit Congress before he became a querelous and senile man who confuses his desires with the good of the country. He cannot dishonor the Marines, but he dishonors himself daily.
You are correct: Mr. Murtha’s background is excellent. All the greater shame that his foreground should be so ugly.
– I see the “Theist pig farmer expert” is back at the old stand, trying vigorously to defend his sides right to shit where they eat, and then throw a hissy fit when they get called on it.
– It would be poetic justice if the loyal opposition got their chance to welcome their Jihadist hero’s, unknowingly fighting to be first in line for the beheadings. But they are confident it won’t happen, and so they are safe in playing out their hate for our Republic, and all that it stands for. Democracy. The eternal bitter enemy of all Socialisms, be they Nazi or Marxist.
– Yes, sadly we are thereby forced to protect their unpatriotic asses.
“So, Murtha’s 37 years as a Marine of inferior to your one year as Mr. Goldstein’s blog-wife?”
Murtha’s Marine credentials were erased forever when he willingly and knowingly lied about the Marines of Haditha and refused to apologize or even acknowledge his error.
So, the answer to your question is, yes.
GMG – I agree, but the argument seems to have less force in the absence of an outspoken challenger for his seat. Anyone know what’s going on in the district there?
I don’t think that I’m going out on a limb here when I say that Cleo would be the first to spring the length of his chain if a President actually tried to govern America in strict accordance with the principles upon which it was founded.
And anyway, when was aping the pronouncements of its mortal enemies one of those principles?
“if a President actually tried to govern”
There’s a ton of kinetic energy in that chain, current Presidunce notwithstanding.
Great Mencken’s Ghost: So, when the Sergeant in the Haditha case plead out that was because he was innocent? I seem to recall Staff Sgt Wutterich and Lt. Col Chassani (sp) are still undergoing Article 32’s. We should make them stop, because the people at this website already have exonerated them.
Ric: So, anyone who makes an argument similar/identical to yours makes you similar/identical to yours?
So, let’s play: Tancredo says we should nuke Medina and Mecca. You must agree (actually, you probably do). The KKK opposes illegal immigration and wants to build a fence and use the National Guard.. I’m listening for the sounds of your disagreement with their plan. Lastly, bin Laden says Iraq is the main front of “The War on Terror.” You say that too. So, you are bin Laden. QED
See how foolish your assertion is?
Lastly, Dan, a man’s sacrifice and career are only worth something as long he meets your stringent, “anti-majoritarian” political philosophy. ‘Cause I got to wonder what you say about Colin Powell, Jon Stolz, then 7 airborne men who just wrote an op-ed for the NYT, or any of these people (http://www.ivaw.org/view/profiles). If they knew that loyalty to the President and his Iraq policy meant more than their actual service, well, they should have asked the folks at this site first.
Jon Stolz tries to play way out of his league. He should be giving speeches to Lion’s Clubs and Rotary and stuff if he wants to use his talents to their fullest.
I appreciate the validation, Cleo. Now go pry Binny off your hip.
. “Now go pry Binny off your hip.”
I’m usually fairly adept at assisting autists make a connection
to the corporeal world, but I must admit your ‘derogation’ escapes me.
Is ‘Binny’ the giant rabbit you are frequently not seen with?
He does?
I thought you guys were into nuance. Seems to me he has said we shouldn’t take the option of the table, or that we shouldn’t be afraid to let Islamic fundamentalists know that some kind of WMD attack on the US will be met with a reprisal against one of their holy sites.
Agree or disagree — me, I say you never take any weapon off the table, even if you have no intention of ever using it — but that doesn’t seem to be the same thing as calling for the bombing of Medina or Mecca. It is a potential response to a potential threat. Why not let your enemies think you’re just crazy enough to do something like that should they unleash, say, a biological weapon in the US?
Maybe you are simply daft, but nobody is saying that those you don’t agree with can’t hold ideas you believe in. Instead, what’s being argued here is that Bin Laden is mouthing progressive policy positions, and is criticizing America in precisely the same way progressives do.
Yes, I agree with bin Laden that Iraq has become the central front in a larger war. That doesn’t make me bin Laden. But it does put me in agreement with him.
Now, in what ways are you in agreement with UBL’s statements?
Finally, Murtha’s service is not in question. Bu his service doesn’t make his opinions about policy any more valuable per se than a host of others who wildly disagree with him. You can argue that his service puts him in a more informed position, but that’s different than granting him some kind of moral authority, or get-out-of-jail-free card for political machinations that have nothing to do with his service.
Or should we give OJ and Michael Vick a legal pass because they could really charge up an NFL offense?
Here’s a hint: you want to build up some intellectual muscle? Try fighting something with a bit more heft than the straw mans you’re jabbing at here.
But back to football!
By all means, let us put every major policy decision to referendum. Including, oh, I don’t know . . . gay marriage.
No. The issue at the core is intent, i.e. whether the the intention of the speaker is to see America’s interests advanced or obstructed. Agreeing that the sky is blue or the sea is deep has no bearing on the discussion. Many of the anti-war herd are very open about the damage a withdrawal would do to America and its interests. It’s actually their goal. Now Osama has chimed in and he’s behind you 100%: getting out of Iraq is a setback for the Great Satan and a victory for the jihad.
Don’t like the comparison? Reconsider your position.
I’m stealing this comment from here because I like it and I can’t see how you link to comments there.
It’s worth remembering too that AQ followed the Russians home. This is why Chechnya does not have a Tourism Board.
That’s excellent stuff, hf. But it’s almost like accusing bin Laden of being a militarist.
Or a building to put it in.
I’d like to hear what others think. I’m pretty ensconced in the “Osama bad. Al Qaeda bad. We kill them.” analytical school.
The war in Chechnya continues apace, by the way, though it’s generally spoken of in the past tense. Can’t remember the last AP story I saw from there. I think it would be timely to examine the press blackout on Chechnya and how that might relate to the media’s preferred narrative for Iraq. I have to travel this week so I can’t take a stab at that, but I think it would be a worthwhile thing to examine.
That’s from 2003. Wonder why there’s no update since then.
Not enough Jew to blame, ‘feet. Make that Israeli artillery and watch the press snap into action.
[…] ***Must credit Bride of Protein Wisdom!*** […]
[…] psychologizer noted in a prior thread: (T)he Bin Man gets an A+ in “Propaganda And Group […]
It is amazing how the left has sopped up this jihadist propaganda gravy, spitting it back as “we trained and equipped bin Laden and his minions in Afganistan.” Nothing could be further from the truth:
1) Any credible account of that war states emphatically that bin Laden’s “Holy Warriors” had very little real involvement in the fighting. They were considered so inept that the muji’s used them to hold trenches and act as a strategic reserve. Occasionally they would be gloriously sacrificed in some delaying action but the tall tale that they “made the difference” is completely false.
2) The holy warriors, for the most part, refused American arms and material preferring to arm themselves through the several Pakistani based agencies set up by bin Laden and others. Special forces and CIA paramilitary officers were repeatedly warned to stay away from the foreigners, especially bin Laden’s people, for fear of an incident. They were told that those people “hated” westerners.
3) Bin Laden’s greatest contribution to the struggle was infrastructure, not military power. He financed the building of roads, caves, fortifications, communications and other structural systems that allowed freer movement and sanctuary for the Muji’s. This sort of thing is not very sexy for jihadist recruiting videos but accurately represents his greatest contribution.
This whole “we created the battle hardened terrorists in Afganistan” thing needs to die from utter irrelevance.
“…Bin Laden’s greatest contribution to the struggle was infrastructure, not military power.”
– Actually, prior to Afghan, when the Saudi royal family declined his insane ideas of taking on Hussein, disowned him, and tossed him out, he fled to the Sudan. After something a little less than 2 years, the sudenese had enough of him, and so he moved to Afghanistan, where he was not greeted with warmth. It was only after his “gifts” of infraastructure that he was able to achieve a sort of uneasy quid pro quo with the Taliban tribal leaders. With the recent revelations that he was unaware of the 9/11 actions until after the fact, (the idea he gave the hijackers “prior” permission” seems to be a Leftwing invention, since no positive proof exists at this point), points more and more to the entire involvement of himself and his holy warriors as more a case of Al Jizeera agitprop than anything else.
– The remaining Taliban leadership is so dismembered they will take anything they can get for the time being, as they attempt to regroup, even the fairytail of the Bin Ladin mystique. Usama’s problem is time. How long he can count on Pakistani North Western tribal leaders to court disaster just to cover his ass.
– Al Jazeera is announcing yet another taped appearence to be released soon, supporting the idea that UBL sees his “empire” slipping.
BB: That was the one mistake in the original comments posted by happyfeet (Osama going straight to Afganistan.)
What he did with infrastructure in Sudan and Afganistan is what originally endeared him (for a time) to both countries. It is shocking that dirt poor third world countries would welcome a badass foreigner who wants to spend wads of cash in your country. After a while the bright glare of world attention and drying up of other monies started to grate on the nerves of the hosts. Even the Taliban was trying to sell a “send Osama to a Muslim country to be tried” concept and this is from the people whose traditions of guest protection are unparalleled.
It has become clearer that bin Laden and Zawahiri are the spiritual/ideological/financial leaders of the network. They have relied for years on others to do the grunt work of planning and execution. As far as Osama’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks don’t forget that on the same video referenced in my comments above Osama talked about his predictions (as an educated civil engineer) of the effects of the planes hitting the towers and his “surprise and joy” that the results exceeded his expectations.
– Agreed BJT. Its hard to know the truth of his knowledge simply because that comment during the visit of the lessor cleric in that video is after the fact. He certainly may have just been reacting to press information that had been widely disseminated by the time the video was made. The evidence is simply not there to support either contention, and I do not ascribe to either camp. What the testimony of many who have been there in the theaters does suggest heavily is UBL’s playing “catchup” in terms of propeganda efforts.
– It was interesting to watch the steady efforts of the Dems to set the tone of Patreous’s testimony this morning. also the comments leaking out that the Dems are very concerned about the negaative effects on their position re Iraq by the moveon.org NYT ad, and over the top public dissplays by other rabid antiwar groups prior to the generals appearence.
– Why someone in the Congress doesn’t simply state c;ear;y that all Americans should weigh the comments coming from a party that desperately needs Iraq to be shoveled into the “resolved” column prior to the upcoming presidential election cycle to stand any chance, is simply beyond me. Why do the Reps continue to give the Dems a pass on this aspect of partisan politics the Dems continue to engage in?
– Overall, I think Patreous will drop a piano on the feckless position of the Dmes though, so I suppose in one way or another the process will be self adjusting.
– Petraeus – PIMF
aaaaaaaand propaganda! (heh!)
We can but hope. I was astonished that my local all news station (KYW1050) had a lengthy interview with Patraeus’ former #2 who laid out the program and progress in great detail. Then it was back to normal when the reporter started quoting some Iraqi citizen poll that indicates the surge isn’t working. Great journalism now required the refutation of a distinguished General with an Iraq civilian poll. Un – freakin’-believable.
I have confidence in Patraeus’ ego.
– The Dems have painted themselves into an impossibly small corner from which I doubt theres any sort of viable egress, short of an all out collapse in Iraq. Since I trully believe that the switching of alliegence by the Iraqi cleric is the bell weather indication that the AQ and Iranian insurgency forces have already lost, I fully anticipate a ratcheting up of the Dems “American insurgeny” to excalate, to the point where we will see them reduced to all out bitterness, sitting in the witness chair, clicking steel balls, and offering to respond to any questions the Americaan people would like to ask them. (They will answer with Geometric logic of course.)
– All in all I say every day I wouldn’t want to be them at this moment in history.
d3npj1 shwwwekdidge, [url=http://komdpcbckidm.com/]komdpcbckidm[/url], [link=http://gmawujeqzuli.com/]gmawujeqzuli[/link], http://dzwecpvdrdfa.com/
purchase viagra, xhhmp, , xgefr, viagra online without prescription, 8-OO, , :P, cheap cialis, %[[[, , ika,