* * *
My first post is now posted here regarding the smear by Chris Matthews in which he said that mass murderer Osama bin Laden, in his new videotape, sounds like Michael Moore. Since then, there has been a slew of commentators making the same point with regard to anyone who opposes Bush's policies on war and terrorism. Newt Gingrich said this last night on Hannity & Colmes:
"I think it's quite clear as you point out, Sean [Hannity], that from this tape, that bin Laden and his lieutenants are monitoring the American news media, they're monitoring public opinion polling, and I suspect they take a great deal of comfort when they see people attacking United States policies."
So now it constitutes giving "comfort" to the enemy simply to be "attacking United States policies." And as my C&L post demonstrates, the White House has clearly embarked upon a strategy of expressly equating opposition to Bush's war and terrorism policies to treason.
A President burdened by an unpopular war and horrible approval ratings has no choice but to engage in gutter tactics like these. It's one thing for him and his followers to do this, but it's another matter entirely for our "journalists" to operate from this premise. It was all the rage on the cable shows in the days before the 2004 election to assert that bin Laden had released a new video in order to "endorse" Kerry, and they also claimed back then that bin Laden had lifted his talking points from the Kerry campaign.
There is no doubt that 2006 will be replete with these sorts of attacks. It is imperative that journalists not be permitted to get away with equating anti-Bush criticism with pro-terrorist subversion. That should go without saying, but it clearly doesn't.
It is still amazes how the very people who claim so solemnly that terrorism is the overarching problem of our generation play such cynical and self-serving games with it every chance they get.
* * *
My second post, relating to the new wave of fear-mongering provoked by the latest bin Laden message, and the need for Bush opponents to formulate a strategy for addressing and undermining this hysteria, is now posted here.
Glenn, now that you are posting frequently at CrooksandLiars would you please tell John over there that there are folks who are not able to access the site due to a message Server Stops Responding (when i use Safari) or Connection Timed Out (when i use Firefox). Commenters on other blogs have reported the same situation.
ReplyDeletei e-mailed John and so has someone else with no response. This has been for the last month and very disappointing.
I use a powerbook very up to date and airport (wireless) so i dont think the issue is due to my machine.
Skaterina - I passed that on to John.
ReplyDeleteSurely bin Laden found his greatest comfort in W’s reelection. Bin Laden knew then that he, too, had been granted four more years.
ReplyDeleteSkaterina, I can access C&L with both Safari and Firefox.
Nice blog and keep getting the word out. i 've been saying for awhile on my blog now that chris matthews has changed..he's been bought out by nbc and has turned into a republican zombie, the dark side.. his comments hare not new, i've heard this same type stuff from others for sometime now, online and on tv.. we need important ppl with names and recognition to speak out and be our voices..
ReplyDeleteit has become a policed state, illegal searches, now trying to force google to give up records.. shame on yahoo, aol and msn for caving so easily .. everyone should boycott them..
let's remember bush was denied this search by the supreme court and he went over their heads..
this is insane what is happening to our country..stolen elections, corruption, and a moron in the white house along with a cutthroat manipulating lying bastard near by as vice pres..
we need strength to fight these corrupt assholes..
How do we force the press to report honestly, or afterwards to admit errors and correct the recond? I think we have to launch onslaughts like were leveled against the WaPo.
ReplyDeleteIn this latest video OBL does sound like Moore. That can be argued (and you don't argue, you merely dimiss) as representing mere coincidence but it cannot be refuted on more substantial grounds, perhaps that's why you resort to a sweeping dismissiveness in lieu of an argument?
ReplyDeleteIt's an iditoic form of argumentation. Adolph Hitler didn't like communists and gave lots of anti-communist speeches. Ronald Reagan did, too.
So, according to you, I guess it's perfectly legitimate and "apt" to say that Ronald Reagan sounds a lot like Adolph Hitler, and then put the burden on Reagan supporters to prove that it's just a coincidence, right? And I'm sure you wouldn't object at all to the comparsion.
Or how about this: Adolph Hitler talked a lot about the importance of national security and building up the military in order to fight off external threats. George Bush talks a lot about that, too. Therefore, Bush sounds a lot like Hitler. Let's hear from his supporters: coincidence, misleading, or "apt"?
And oh - OBL loves to talk about how this is a long, arduous war that will be fought over many years and in many places. George Bush says the same thing. So Bush and OBL sound a lot alike. I guess OBL is using Bush's talking points. Coincidence?
The newest tape sounds like Michael Moore?
ReplyDeleteThe words to me sound like a bitter, anti-neo-con Republican.
I bet you right-wingers believe the Zawahiri-Zarqawi letter, too.
It is simply patently absurd to believe that Zawahiri wrote to Zarqawi in Iraq (it wasn't sent by regular post, remember) to ask if he'd seen him on the Jazeera. The Jazeera is _banned_ in Iraq, and Zarqawi doesn't sit in front of a satellite TV all day. Why on _Earth_ would Zawahiri not be able to find plenty of other people to tell him what they saw on the Telly?
In fact, UBL has complaints. Rational or not, they exist. This whole new "caliphate" strain of thought, pushed by morons and/or neo-cons. By the logic of the right wing now, to even mention them makes you sound like a terrorist.
I'm 100% positive most American conservatives would accept foreign occupations every bit as readily as they expect the Iraqis to do it.
It's just as I've said many times before, the Bush administration has a two-pronged approach to retaining power: fear and shame.
ReplyDeleteThe first "prong" is to trot out the fear of terrorism wherever and whenever possible. The more fear they can instill in Americans, the more likely we are to fall in line, seeking protection and comfort from our leaders.
And when fear doesn't work, then they employ shame by accusing the dissenters of being traitors, unAmerican and giving comfort to terrorists. They attempt to shame people into submission. If we don't support Bush, then we must be supporting the enemy. Shame on us!
Fear and shaming in America. That's what our society has devolved into. How pathetic is that?!
michael b...
ReplyDeleteWhere did you learn to write? Your style is full of pretension yet completely lacking coherence. You use a lot of words, but they say virtually nothing. Perhaps you think you're saying something important, but the result is pure nonsense from a substantive standpoint. I've read your posts several times and they still make no sense.
Hmmmm. Sounds like a certain presidential administration we all know. All style and no substance.
Setting aside for a moment that the Constitution defines treason ... if dissent against the policies of this regime is treason, then I AM A TRAITOR, AND I AM DAMN PROUD OF IT.
ReplyDeleteSay it loud, say it often.
I AM A TRAITOR, AND I AM PROUD OF IT.
“In this latest video OBL does sound like Moore.” –Michael B.
ReplyDeleteHow? Lay some substance on us, Michael. Give us some analysis. And please try to avoid using your “rhetorically over-burdened style.” Us anonymous don’t follow too good sometimes.
Setting aside for a moment that the Constitution defines treason ... if dissent against the policies of this regime is treason, then I AM A TRAITOR, AND I AM DAMN PROUD OF IT.
ReplyDeleteI must take issue with this rhetorical strategy.
I am not a traitor. I've been an American since before this corrupt administration took office, and I intend to still be one after they are impeached for dereliction of duty and jailed for their crimes.
The traitors are those who place loyalty to their crooked party above loyalty to America and its Constitution.
Hell, I'll even vote Republican again if they ever start acting like conservatives again, but I ain't holding my breath.
You know, I don't get it. The Repub.'s spin and use of the latest bin Laden tape is not hard to counter. They just have to point out that the Repub's talking point of tying bin Laden's speech to Dem's and the anti war positions is exactly what bin Laden wants?
ReplyDeleteAll the Dem's had to do was note that of course bin Laden will use such talking language. It is what terrorist do. And they do it to cause a division in the population they are terrorizing. Terrorist want us to fight among our selves. Thus, the Repub.'s have actually fallen' right into march for bin Laden with their rhetoric of "with us or against us". The Repub.'s response is doing just what he wants. With their spin they are enabling bin Laden. I mean come on! He's a terrorist. What else would you expect for him to say?
No hysteric. Just confidence that bin Laden's latest message is exactly what would be expected in such a war. Unfortunately, the Repub.'s reponse is not what we would expect from stronge Americans.
That is what the Dem's need to say.
Honestly, Glenn, you will learn nothing, or less, and gain nothing, or worse, from allowing morons like Hypatia and Michael B post here.
ReplyDelete_IF_ they are adding substantive, logically intriguing, or particularly well put points into the debate, let it ride.
But you are now, even if you haven't been before, a publisher.
People come to your site and want to read both your intelligent prose and, perhaps, productive commentary.
Having Hypatia repeat, over and over, every made up claim about Michael Moore helps no one. Moore does not hate America. The same goes with Michael B. _Could_ you have more facts, and be a dry dictionary or an encyclopedia article, instead of a blog? Sure. And Michael B could get his own blog.
As the owner/publisher of a blog, you hurt your own readers by letting such low level trash as comments by Hypatia and Michael B linger here.
Hypatia, Michael B,
Maybe you do make some points, somewhere, about something, but you could have fooled me.
Invading Iraq was what UBL wanted, and Bush invaded Iraq.
I would disagree, Josh. While many may disagree with the comments of some, or some may disagree with the comments of many, I think it's important to hear others' opinions on matters. We don't have to agree with them or believe them, per se, but it can be instructive to see/hear where others are coming from. Some comments will be more helpful or instructive than others.
ReplyDeleteBush doesn't listen to others. He is shielded from hearing dissent. That's dangerous. I think all sides of the political dialogue should guard against hearing only what they want to hear and not listening to what others may be saying. Let's not make the same mistake that Bush is making.
I detect a distinct rise in Mr. Greenwald's anger level recently. That's a good thing. The way I figure, if you're an American and you're not angry right now, it means you're stupid, asleep, or paid off.
ReplyDeleteUnclaimed Territory has become without a doubt one of my three favorite individual blogs along with Wolcott and Digby.
Honestly, Glenn, you will learn nothing, or less, and gain nothing, or worse, from allowing morons like Hypatia and Michael B post here.
ReplyDeleteThis is the best argument for what is wrong with attracting a pro-Moore crowd and defending Michael Moore's views as equal to those of Democrats in general, a better argument against that than I could myself articulate.
Well, Josh Narins, you do remind me of why Whittaker Chambers first refused to join the staff of National Review, and then gave them fits when he finally (briefly) did in 1957. For he was a fierce anti-Communist who also would not endorse McCarthy and had profound disagreements with the then-popular Ayn Rand. Wrote Chambers in NR in '57:
ReplyDeleteTherefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: "To a gas chamber — go!"
To a gas chamber -- go! Glenn, please, no.
josh narins:
ReplyDelete"Invading Iraq was what UBL wanted, and Bush invaded Iraq."
Really? Is that what the Pig-Fucker wanted?
How do you know?
And what have you to say now that the Pig Fucker wants us OUT of Iraq?
I think you just tripped headlong over your own rhetoric there, bubba.
Regards;
drewl,
ReplyDeleteI spend most of my time dealing with the political opposition. I never am even remotely comfortable sitting around with a bunch of people who agree with me. To battle, I must know my "enemies."
I must laugh at myself here, because I used to think the majority of the political opposition were well-meaning but less-informed types who were simply adopting a different political philosophy, and that debate might change something.
Instead, Bush's support comes from the same exact 40% of Americans who believe in the literal truth of the Bible and Christian supremacy. There is no debate, outside exegesis, and there is no Jesus around to put the kibosh on their End of Days messianic nonsense.
But, anyway, my point is that I think you'll have a hard time finding anything thought-provoking or informational about the comments above to which I refer.
If someone were to come to my blog and declare that I was un-American (I served in the US Marine Corps, as an aside) or even that Michael Moore was, I'd simply delete it.
It makes no sense, to me, to debate unsupported (indeed, unsupportable) assertions.
It clutters up a blog and it degrades the level of discourse.
Maybe in person Hypatia and Michael B make their points more effectively. I'm not for banning them, I'm just for an aggressive "Useless=Delete" comment policy.
Look at Hypatia's 1:52AM comment, for example. There's no argument. No points. Nothing even witty or artistic which might excuse the lack of substance. It is simply an assertion that my comment proves everything she's ever said about "the Michael Moore crowd."
In any event, I'm my own d*mn crowd, and Michael Moore doesn't speak for me. That's why I have my own damn blog... which happens to link back here.
steve-o;
ReplyDelete"What's your evidence that he wants us out, anyway? Oh, because that's what he SAYS? My, you're a clever one."
Gee, that's what he seems to have SAID, so I at least have something attributed to the Pig Fucker as basis to make that assumption.
I am still waiting for what evidence Brother Narins has to offer to support his assertion that Pig Fucker was doing back flips because we invaded Iraq.
You may recall that throughout the '90's, the Pig Fucker's minions had a few go's at our people over in various locations in the Arab and Muslim world.
Even Slick Willie took notice of the fact,(when it suited him to do so).
"Wag the Monica"
In fact, Pig Fucker is on record as being rather irate about us "Crusaders" being in the land of the two mosques...
Now he offers a truce if we go away.
Call me crazy, hotshot, but I ken it's a pretty far reach to hold that Pig Fucker wants us to STAY.
Especially when he's generating so much popularity for himself in the Arab world by killing innocent Arabs and Muslims in his little "Jihad" against "us".
Regards;
See, that post, although it doesn't actually say a damn thing, doesn't add one fact, or one intelligent observation to the milieu, at least says it in such an artsy-fartsy way that a delicate mind might appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteBut before you break your arm patting yourself on the back, Michael B, why not look at your first post.
No content, just assertion.
You assert Moore sounds like OBL. You argue that any refutation needs more reasoned argument.
Why don't the asshats who make up this crap in the first place have to make their case? The silence, like your arguments, is more than simply telling, it is damning.
The top General in Iraq (and you are free, Michael B and Hypatia, to say that General Casey sounds a lot like Usama bin-Laden, any day you damn well please, but do us both a favor, and do it to his face, you spineless cowards) has said that presence of US troops is fueling the insurgency.
There are Generals who've said publicly we can't win. Others who say this is worse than Viet Nam. Others who declared, after campaigning for George W Bush in 2000 and Dole in 1996, that Bush is a "national disaster."
Tell them they are like Usama, because they sure sound a lot more like Moore, Kerry and the other Democrats mentioned at Editor & Publisher than a bunch of over-educated, apparently worthless poltroons.
Want a list of quotes with links, asshat? Try Republicans For Humility.
I quoted several Generals who pointedly sound a lot more like Moore and the Democrats than Bush. You say I provide no content.
ReplyDeleteYou lie.
Mr Greenwald was incorrect to use the word "decree" on that other site. What an amazing point. You really are a star, a shining beacon. You fully recognize that the establishment press has been decisively ignoring (and never repeating) what might be called "irresponsible" comments, and only focussing on legitimate policy questions raised about billions of dollars of misspent funds, that the top General in Iraq said the troops are fueling the insurgency, that the President's definition of victory has absolutely nothing whatsoever upon which to hang a hat.
What the President says, and Glenn quotes, is that _any_ questioning of "the mission" hurts the troops. Any questioning at all. This not friendly suasion. It is not artful. It is blunt, direct, and unqualified. To suggest otherwise is a great feat of derring doo-doo.
I've never suggested banning you. I'm only saying that most of what you say, especially your first post above, is entirely content free, or, worse lies. Your first comment above is illogical, because it asserts that those that suggest a hypothesis (Moore=OBL) must be disproven (e.g. by Mr Greenwald) rather than having them prove their claim in the first place. If the rules of logic, which you not only ignore but reverse, are not valid here, if they don't count as "content", then you live in a logic-free world, and you should stay there.
I can tell you were never in uniform, because if you think what some actor or filmmaker makes a damn bit of difference when the bullets start flying, again, you live in a fantasy world. Enjoy yourself. Be there. Be there now. I'd suggest you _not_ be here, though.
You can be sure that Bush's "Champagne Unit" was never in any danger. The plane they flew had been withdrawn from Viet Nam (and the entire Pacific Theatre) before Bush's bottom ever sat in one.
Your first comment says nothing.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it exists outside any frame of reference I knew about at the time. Maybe you had already built a rock-solid case which _proves_ the (false) statement that Moore sounds like OBL. In which case, you have failed miserably in this medium for not having earlier provided a link.
When you did, later, provide such link, it was to a comment of yours. If you had intended me to scroll up, any number of comments, you failed to do so, and so fell flat on your face in your duties to this medium, yet again.
In fact, you assertion in the comment you linked to, that it was suasion, and not an unqualified LIE, is offensive. On the night of D-Day, in 1944, the radio shows were indicating that the US was _short_ of medical officers. Were Allied Forces in Europe, or General Eisenhower, offended? Did the General rush back and criticize the _radio_ for pointing out weaknesses in the American war effort?
Of course not, you hot-air filled balloon. I got your stick right here, buddy, and the point is sharp.
McLuhan you ain't. Not that I was particularly impressed by him.
Not that it is important, but I believe that people who say "the medium is the message" are the people who can't say "these are the facts which lead to those inevitable conclusions."
ReplyDeleteIf you don't have the facts on your side, if taking things in "at face value" isn't working for you, it's probably because you are relying on some meta-physical flim-flam.
I like facts. The facts say that there has been billions of dollars of corruption in Iraq. That the Bush administration shit-canned their much-needed Arabic translators if they thought they were gay, or too "pro-UN". That they put a Polish Iraqi car dealer in charge of over the billion dollar effort to supply Iraq with arms, and the money can't be accounted for. That the TOP GENERAL IN IRAQ says that the presence of US troops there is fueling the insurgency.
The facts also point to the fact that the US military has never acknowledged that there were more than 20,000 insurgents, and the US military claims to have killed or captured more than 55,000, and claims there are roughly 20,000 insurgents out there still.
I don't blame the Generals (although Boykin is obviously psychotic, and Bush promoted him) I blame the civilian, utopiam leadership at the Pentagon.
I've read Strauss. Not all of it, of course. I think Strauss had some ideas. I think the general cluster fuck in Iraq reminds me nothing so much as every kid chasing the soccer ball. Ooh, Iraq. Ooh, Iran said "boo!". Ooh, Venezuela... Oooh, Haiti. Oooh... bash France and Germany. If you don't like me, I'm going to reserve 100s of billions of US taxpayer funded contracts for my friends, like "Boil-em-alive" Karimov.
People without facts talk about the medium.
josh narins:
ReplyDelete"People without facts talk about the medium."
You seem to be proving your own point, bud.
I asked of you earlier:
"Really? Is that what the Pig-Fucker wanted?
How do you know?"
And mentioned it in my post to Steve-O:
"I am still waiting for what evidence Brother Narins has to offer to support his assertion that Pig Fucker was doing back flips because we invaded Iraq."
Yet, you either didn't read it or chose not to respond.
Y'see, if you really ARE on the circulation list for Pig-Fucker's inter-office memoranda, well, we could use that information.
And you might even be so kind as to slip a few messages for He who Fucks Pigs from some of us.
Regards;