Surprise! Breitbart's Big Government doesn't understand pop culture
December 26, 2009 5:37 pm ET by Eric Boehlert
Just add it to the laundry list of topics Breitbart and his bloggers know nothing about.
In case you missed it because of the holiday, you really should read the Christmas Eve take-down that the Los Angeles Times' Christopher Knight delivered, as he thoroughly dismantled Breitbart's recent inanity about a White House tree ornament.
From Knight: [emphasis added]:
On Tuesday, Andrew Breitbart's Big Government blog got its knickers in a twist over one of the Obama White House's myriad Christmas trees...The blaring "EXCLUSIVE" led with a blurry photo of a decoupage Christmas ornament adorned with the face of Chinese Communist dictator, Mao Zedong.
"Of course, Mao has his place in the White House," Big Government wailed about the [Great Christmas Ornament Scandal], taking the Obama-as-socialist meme out for a yuletide spin.
Except, it wasn't exactly Mao. It was Andy Warhol's "Mao."
The image is one of a very large series of silkscreen paintings and prints the late Pop artist made of Mao. Warhol's parody transformed the leader of the world's most populous nation into a vapid superstar -- the most famous of the famous. The portrait photo from Mao's Little Red Book is tarted up with lipstick, eye-shadow and other Marilyn Monroe-style flourishes.
...
The precise source of the Warhol ornament is not known. But Warhol's Maos are in art museum collections from coast to coast, including the Museum of Modern Art in New York, the Art Institute of Chicago (whose painting most resembles the ornament image) and both the County Museum of Art and the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles. Not surprisingly, Pittsburgh's Andy Warhol Museum has several.
Oh, and at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House, the National Gallery of Art has 21 different versions of Warhol's "Mao." Twenty-one. Wait until Big Government bloggers find out about the Communist takeover of the National Gallery.
A random White House Christmas tree ornament, of unknown origin, featured a world famous image of Mao as interpreted by Andy Warhol. But because Breitbart and his bloggers are so clueless about pop culture and art (they seem to have no idea what Warhol's "Mao" is), they wrote up a blog post in which they proudly advertised their ignorance. Again.
Behold "conservative journalism."
UPDATED: Read Breitbart's incoherent response to Knight, here.
UPDATED: More Breitbart incoherency, also in response to Knight. Gee, think the LA Times hit a nerve when it pointed out that Breitbart and his crew seem to have no understanding of pop culture?
UPDATED: Breitbart earns bonus points for hypocrisy while swinging wildly in his Knight rebuttal. Breitbart claims the LA Times is losing so many subscribers because it's so darn liberal:
And that in its grand transparency multiplied across a newsroom is why you and yours are in perilous financial straits. Every lost subscriber has a poignant straw that broke the camel's back story on how their local paper went too far to the left too shamelessly.
The punchline? Breitbart's a columnist for the Washington Times, the right-wing daily that has so few readers that it's basically in the process of going out of business. Breitbart writes for a money-losing, and thoroughly failed daily newspaper that has hemorrhaged more money (in its blind partisan pursuit) than perhaps any other daily in the history of American publishing.
Yet he lectures an LA Times journalist about "lost subscribers"? Thanks for the laugh.
UPDATED: Wrote Andrew Sullivan re: the latest right-wing car wreck:
Andrew Breitbart's Big Government site does an expose on commie, homo, trannie themes buried in three White House Christmas tree ornaments. It's like McCarthyism revisited as farce.
UPDATED: In response to this critique, Breitbart posted even more senseless ramblings. Maybe he's still smarting from the collapse of the ACORN story. (Or the Gladney story. Or the they're-praying-to-Obama story....)
UPDATED: Or maybe Breitbart just hates the Christmas season.
The "leftist" L.A. Times is owned by the notoriously right-wing Tribune Company. And while the Times endorsed Obama last year, it was the first Democrat EVER endorsed by the Times for President. Real liberal, aren't they?
We should also note another conservative newspaper failure, Rupert Murdoch's New York Post. It has lost about $50 million a year for the past decade.
I thought everyone knew that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'But if you go carryin' picture of Chairman Mao,
you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow!'
This is ridiculous, and simply shows the lengths that the right must go to to in order to smear Obama - there aren't enough REAL examples of malfeasance for them to use!
I don't suppose the fact that they are not "members" of the administration means anything?
Not in Wingnut World it doesn't! Anyone controversial who can be even remotely associated with Obama is naturally (at least to them) a "member" of the Administration...
I notice that one of the NOers' were around to give everyone a thumbs down. Like I said Twilght Zone.
Follow the link and read the comments from the people there.
Since only the far right seems to visit this site, you can take a guess at the vitriol.
My 2cents:
Since I consider myself more of a centrist than anything.
I find that I am considered a leftest, since most of these type of folks are so far to the right.
What's wrong with America?
Nothing, well, other than the fact we seem so divided over what everyone considers right or wrong, and whose view should hold sway over the rest.
Then again it is a pagan symbol at the wrong time of year
Don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Then again it is a pagan symbol at the wrong time of year
Mao, or the Christmas Tree?
This is opinion, pesonal taste and not something you can refute. Undoubtedly you will tell me im stupid, clueless or hopefully some new insult. But taste is personal and I find mao as bad as joe stalin, pol pot, papa doc, baby doc and yes hitler. Mass murder is wrong.
That doesn't change the FACT that this was NOT any kind of honoring of Mao. It was an homage to Warhol. And that fact debunks your screed about Mao!
This isn't about Mao. It's not my fault that your brain cavity is apparently so distressingly empty that you still can't grasp this concept.
We know (well, those of us who educated ourselves before we started talking on the subject by reading articles about why and how the ornaments were chosen this year) that they were to honor local institutions and organizations, like museums. And we know that many museums house art by Andy Warhol, since he is a greatly respected artist (even if his art and the subjects of his art don't entertain you, rrastro).
Despite what you and Breitbart have said, this is NOT about Mao and it's certainly not about any admiration of Mao from Obama - the Obama's have NOTHING to do with the ornaments chosen for the tree, and the ornament with Mao on it was given to honor the artist, NOT Mao! The artist mocked Mao in his depiction.
This is not rocket science, yet you attempt, in your feeble way, to mock ME for being informed! That's lame. And you whine about being told that you're lame and stupid and ill-informed. Only you can change that, dunce.
I said I understand those being offended and I do. Obama could have been more careful, more thorough. But then again maybe he just doesnt care of some are offended and that would be a good choice.
as you show dell, personal critics attack and the ones with ill will use names like somone is supposed to care.
Who among you means anything for me to worry?
Obama had nothing to do with the choices that someone made to include a picture of a piece of artwork by Warhol that caricatured Mao.
You're still wrong, 100% wrong, and that's what I am mocking here - your insistence on repeating debunked talking points!
The rest of your post is unintelligible, not that it suprises any of us.
And the ornament was an homage to Andy Warhol, not to Mao.
And that's the information that Breitbart and you seem incapable of understanding.
They were reusing older ornaments with the task of honoring local institutions and monuments, right? And I suspect that ONE of the local institutions that was honored by one of the people who repurposed the "Mao" ornament was honoring a local museum that houses an exhibit of Andy Warhol silkscreens.
You continue to have an unblemished record - you fail at every attempt to make a point, rrastro.
it doesnt matter what obama puts on his tribute to germanic and/or seltic druids at the wrong time of year, but it is understandable why some might consider a caricature of a mass murderer as improper for a holiday celebrating the prince of peace
Tens of thousands of people certainly qualifies as mass murder.
Top that off with the fact that NO deification of Mao was happening, and again we see that you have NO clue what you're talking about! It was an homage to Warhol, and his silkscreen of Mao made FUN of Mao - it didn't deify him in the least!
I do know what Im talking about: Mao has no business connected with christmas; a celebration of peace and hope. Nor is christmastide the time to make fun of people.
Justifiable war is not mass murder.
See, I understand the difference. It's YOU who is lost here. Congress did NOT give Bush permission. Congress told Bush that he had to try everything short of invasion FIRST, and he had to be sure that there was NO OTHER OPTION. And when Bush invaded, he had been told by the inspectors that they'd looked in all the likely places and talked to all the Iraqi scientists and politicians and military leaders who would know, and there were no WMD's, so Bush did NOT have "permission" to invade.
Again, another subject that you don't have a clue about! Whoever dragged you out of paid troll retirement should send you back.
I haven't see you make a single post where you knew what you were talking about, rrastro!
This is NOT about ANY admiration for Mao. The artist who is being honored made a parody of Mao - he depicted the man with eyeshadow and lipstick, for cripes sake!
And there was no fun being made of anyone (besides YOU, that is). Warhol made FUN of Mao years ago. Today, it's just an homage to Warhol.
YOUR opinion about the choices someone else made don't matter.
Now, all these facts have been explained to you countless times. Why is it that you still don't grasp these simple facts?
I dont grasp the siomple fact that once authorization is given control is lost? I dont understand that bad intelligence changes nothing? I dont understand the difference between war and repression?
Yes I understand.
I never said that all wars have participants involved in mass murder - your thinking is really screwed up, but that's no surprise to any of us either!
And no, bad intelligence should have been supplanted by REAL, ACTUAL evidence. Did I EVER say or imply that asking for permission to go to war was inappropriate? Nope. But the problem is that Bush failed to do what he needed to do, and he ignored the real, actual evidence!
You are such a dunce it's pretty amazing.
To my way of thinking, either he's lying about his previous displays of intelligence, or he's done too many drugs and he's seriously damaged his brain since those high scores were acquired, or he's pretending to be dumb in an attempt to derail threads with posts that appear to be from a dunce who doesn't understand that he's a dunce.
I suspect the third choice is the charm.
Failure to agree with you dell is not proof of low intelligence nor is failure to agree with George will a failure of intelligence. Until you can get past the idea of group think with you is intelligence you will be....not persuasive to some like me.
Its partisan faux-outrage of which the right engages in at every opportunity. Nothing more.
He puts eye shadow and lipstick on a fat foreign guy and he's deifying him, making him like a God?
I don't know about YOUR God, but if someone did that to MY God, I'd say that they were mocking him and ridiculing my God, not making him MORE of a God!
You have absolutely NO common sense or reasoning ability, do you?
I do not care about mao or the pagan symbols chosen by obama. Few people who understand Christ would fall that way.
This is not rocket science. How can you possibly not understand it? How can you possibly think that it's good for you to keep proving you don't get it?
So, in your opinion, the Mao ornament was put on the tree under the direction of Obama, or one of his minions?
if its a white house christmas tree it is under obama care, custody and control. Obama could certainly remove it if he liked
Again, you have no common sense or reasoning power, apparently. Don't you know that we can read ALL of your posts? We don't look at them individually without taking them into context!
I know you read my post to make obnoxious insults and to be deliberately difficult. My reasoning wont improve in your eyes since no one, especially a leftist chimera will tell me what to think and say.
If it's not honoring Mao, then Breitbart is wrong in criticizing the ornament for honoring Mao.
This is not rocket science!
And again, your opinion of that artwork is totally irrelevant here.
It wasn't an ornament honoring Mao. It was an homage to Warhol. Regardless of your opinion, Warhol IS a highly regarded artist.
It was honoring a museum that houses artwork from Warhol.
And since it was, it was totally off base for Breitbart to criticize the ornament for praising Mao, as it didn't do that! It was an homage to Warhol, not Mao.
And it was totally off base for YOU to claim that it was an example of deification since the silkscreen actually ridicules Mao!
YOUR opinion about what example of Warhol's artwork they chose (or what artwork of some other artist they didn't choose) doesn't matter. It didn't matter the FIRST time I explained this to you, and it STILL doesn't matter.
Why do you insist upon continuing to expose your lack of intelligence for all to see? Why do you need something explained to you over and over again?
Asking if Eric Boehlert got a free dental damn from the School Safety Czar as a secret Santa Gift? How petty of a person do you have to be to result to these kinds of tactics?
sounds like dell if anyone disagrees with him
I have never made fun of anyone simply because they disagreed with me. It takes nonsensical posts before I claim that they're nonsensical posts. I only call dishonest posts dishonest.
Obama was lying so no wilson is not a victim.
White House Won't Hang Christmas Impeachment Ornament
Those who would sacrifice essential liberty for a certain degree of security deserve neither liberty nor security--Benjamin Franklin
Tell you what, dementedinsf--since you're so willing to sacrifice any semblance of privacy to the great god National Security, why don't you wire your whole house with webcams so we can be sure you're not making bombs (or molesting kids, smoking dope, fornicating with someone not your wife, etc. etc. etc.)? After all, Mr. Gutless Wuss, it's a very small price to pay to save one of your kids or siblings...at least if the whole thing was not one the biggest g#dd*mn red herrings in the history of American discourse. Every time the right wing wants to be able to play Peeping Tom with us, it's all about "saving the kids," and it's nothing but a stinking pile of horses**t!
And tell me, Gutless, how are you going to react when some enemy of ours starts waterboarding a cative GI because we do it too? Even John McCain once opposed torture on the grounds that "it's not about them, it's about us." Do you so despise our troops that you would subject them to a world in which they could be tortured and the world looks the other way because we torture too?
Since you have no love of liberty in you, tell you what you can really do--get the sheol out of my country! Find some nice totalitarian dictatorship that makes you feel safe because they can watch everything you do, you gutless traitor...
The argument that there was not enough evidence to arrest this guy, argues for Bush doing nothing wrong in 01
"Her" system? Isn't James L. Jones the current National Security Advisor? A United States Marine Corps four-Star General? Perhaps you meant Janet Napolitano who is the Homeland Security Secretary?
Of course the truth is always so much better, don't you think? What was the complete context of what she said?So as you can see in the context, she was refering to the system that is in place to react to these types of incidents, not the system in place for prevention of these incidents. Now I know many of you have your panties in a twist over this comment, so I am looking forward to your response.
The rest of your post is hyperbolic nonsense, so I won't be commenting on those.
It's okay... from time to time a Major League baseball player likes to just swing away at a t-ball.
This is really an assumption on my part, and one I freely admit. I'm just a layman in the best of circumstances.
So many fallacies! Where to begin? Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded over 100 times in a single month. Before he was subjected to this torture, he was cooperative, and naming names and providing useful intel. Subsequent to being tortured, he stopped. So, the idea that torture saved anyone would be hysterical. Except, torture is not funny.
Who cares? Well, every American who believes we are a nation of laws should care. You seem to think that revenge is more important than following the law. You seem to think that revenge is more important that the Constitution, or democracy, or what the founding fathers believed. You seem willing to give up on the very idea of the United States for the sake of seeking a little emotionally satisfying and completely illegal and unethical payback. Way to be small minded, petty, and completely unpatriotic.
Torturing people never has and never will keep us safe. It merely provides a pretext allowing our enemies to torture captured Americans because they can now legitimately claim that we do it, too.
The principles that this country is founded upon are more important than the individual lives of American citizens. If you are so concerned about Americans meeting untimely ends, then you support a single payer health care system, yes? Because under such a system, costs would be about half of what they currently are, and 45,000 fewer Americans would be liable to dying from lack of coverage. These principles extend to the Bill of Rights, including freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Wiretapping the entire nation with no legal authority to do so is clearly an unreasonable search, regardless of how 'necessary' those breaking the law in this widespread fashion claim it to be. It saved no one. Would you like to know how I know? Because, had one legitimate plot been foiled, had one American life been saved as a result of this surveillance, Dick Cheney would've leaked it to the press.
A small price to pay? You honestly believe that turning the United States into Stalin's Russia, or Mao's China is a small price to pay to save a life? Then I suggest you pack your bags. Freedom is messy. Freedom is not safe. But, freedom is one of the very few things that make life worth living. If you have ceased to believe this, perhaps you should find somewhere more... fascist, to spend your remaining days. Somewhere where you will have no privacy, and, truth be told, only the barest illusion of safety.
It matters to me. Watch the siege, even if it is fictional. The goal of terrorists is to reduce us to them.
Any people. Human beings should not torture other human beings. Americans are not supposed to torture other people.
It doesn't matter WHO the other people are. It's not about them, and what they've done or what we suspect them of doing. It's who WE ARE and what Americans citizens committing torture in the name of our nation says about US!
You being scum, you don't care. Go live in a nation that doesn't mind if they support torture. Your kind isn't welcome here any more. The voters spoke, and we don't want your kind stinking up our nation.
What would be the penalty for a soldier who revealed information under waterboarding interogations... since its not torture... that resulted in the deaths of American soldiers?
Should waterboarding receive special legislation so that the information revealed by this technique... since its not torture... be entered as evidence in criminal trials?
Do we only waterboard foreign enemy combatants... or can we extend this technique... since its not torture... to say domestic crimes? You know... forced confessions and the like.
How about using it as a way to curb what you may perceive as bad behavior? You know... because its not torture.
you are mean by reflex!!
Are you aware that the unsuccessful bomber boarded the airplane in Denmark? Are you suggesting that Obama is responsible for Danish airport security? The failure to include him on the no-fly list was because of the standards that were put in place several years ago under WPE Bush and were being used until now. It's not as though any previously existing procedures were being disregarded or short-circuited.
So, the answer is yes, I feel fine with Obama in charge of our nation's security. Probably a bit better than I did under WPE Bush.
We cannot protect everyone from every risk.
For you to think that we can is ludicrous and truly one of the most ignorant things I have ever read here!
There are tens of thousands of people on the list that this guy was on - it's not reasonable for us to demand that every nation agree to never allow any of those people to fly ever again.
I am not surprised...........
How pathetic.
I can't imagine why anyone would have taken offense at your earlier insults--er, excuse me: comments:
abnormal libbies
leftists are masochists
they not care about their own family members safety
astonishing freaky things liberals seem to endorse
tiny little brains
detached from the preciousness of life
you liberals are not normal
throw your own family under the bus
And all of that in a relatively short two paragraphs. It's a virtual vitriol-fest. Is it really fair of us to expect him to squeeze substance in between all of those insults?
abnormal libbies
leftists are masochists
they not care about their own family members safety
astonishing freaky things liberals seem to endorse
tiny little brains
detached from the preciousness of life
you liberals are not normal"
Show me where I am wrong about ANY of the above observations regarding Leftists.
Never mind. Only 20% or so of the electorate ID themselves as Liberals nowadays. The rest of us are indeed normal Americans.
But then, that's your entire reason d'etre isn't it.
henceforth by virtue of magic, massive spending with no taxes will balance the universe.
If your comment was blocked, we understand it's frustrating, but it wasn't anything personal. Yet you feel personally violated and abused anyway.
Too bad, so sad. Get a clue.
You truly ARE pathetic - you got one thing right.
And if you think that you aggravate us, you need yet another clue. And if you think you know what you're talking about after having your arguments thoroughly debunked over and over again here, then you're beyond help and totally clueless.
Well partner, I am just the messenger. Liberals have shown time after time you really could care less about the wellbeing of you and yours. Let me know if you want me to list everything that proves this.
Regarding my guts, I have yet to meet a leftist who doesn't wimp out when confronted one on one (I will admit I have ran into a group of lefties who were brave enough to challenge me - you know, like the ones who beat up an old man at a Teabag rally.)
And even though I'm well over 60 I will meet you any time, any place NF. Just let me know where and when.
Off topic, but just have to ask you how many times you've wet your pants in cowering, abject fear the past couple of days. Hmmmm, hmmmm, hmmmm??
This 'inside' report was published by Wayne Madsen Report .COM [ WayneMadsenReport.COM/articles/20091226 ] (subscription req'd), whose namesake investigator is a former N.S.A. intelligence analyst and now a paragon journalist, impeccably credentialed, and Dec.14,2007 runner-up contesting the election for president of the National Press Club. [ WayneMadsenReport.COM/sitemap ]
To be sure, the following flourish of detailed facts is lengthy and tedious reading -- well reflecting the intrinsic reality of intrigues across Brzezinski's 'geopolitical chessboard' -- but I snipped away more than half of the original article to leave this. And until observers and pundits manage understanding the political power scenes even in a limited scope such as the following, the 'mainstream' is going to continue flowing full of only innuendo, insult, inaccuracy and incoherence.
So ask yourself how (who what when where why) the latest breach of air passenger security occurred, and probably -- reading Breitbart, et al. -- discover the answer is you haven't a clue. Compare and consider:
(all emphases added)
... extending the laundry list of topics Breitbart and his bloggers and readers know nothing about.
Answer: Because far too many people put skin color above substance.
What the 'wingers miss, because they live in a black and white world, is that some security is of course necessary. But it must be balanced against what is reasonably necessary. Government will intrude into private life; this is the nature of the beast. However, the depth and latitude of that intrusion must balance the need of society and the right of the individual. Anarchy says the individual is supreme. Fascism (or any absolutist political ideology) insists that society is supreme. It is rare that either extreme prevails completely, so a balance must be struck.
Those on the right seem to want no balance. Totalitarian authority is the only way to go. Unless we're talking about getting wealthy, of course. Then there should be complete freedom instead. It almost seems a form of schizophrenia, at times. This is the more ironic, since it is mostly 'wingers who claim the 'progressive' mindset is a mental illness. Just more projection, I suppose.
About arming pilots: I think it might be best if everyone who flies must take mandatory firearm training and be carrying some form of weapon when they get on the plane. Even half a dozen hijackers would think twice if they knew everyone else on the plane was armed as well. I realize this is somewhat hyperbolic, and I offer it as a counterpoint to those that say no one should go armed on a plane. Both viewpoints are extreme, and neither is workable. Funny how no one goes armed is treated as a viable solution by the 'liberal' media just the same, is it not? If you are licensed to legally carry a concealed weapon, meaning you have no violent felonies, and have passed scrutiny by the state and federal government, you should be allowed to carry on a plane.
In sum, the 'wingers seem to have let their fear get the better of them. It makes them shrill, and renders them incapable of rational thought.
So, explain this to me, please:why is the recognition of situations like that classified as "fear"? How is the understanding that the inability to pay for a five-thousand dollar nuclear stress test means that you can't get that test a lack of "rational thought"? Does it occur to you that the stress of not being able to do anything about a potential heart problem serves to create an actual heart problem?
I suppose people are supposed to just think happy thoughts, and ignore health concerns that they can't afford to investigate. Otherwise, they're just shrill cowards, right?
Truly excellent news, pilotx. I was hoping it was so, but I am not an optimist by nature. More of a realist:
An optimist sees a glass half full of water.
A pessimist sees a glass half empty.
A realist sees a dirty glass, and knows only that it will need to be washed.
More Monty Python is always a good thing!
Jerks that they are.
Are you seriously suggesting that your local police department will only respond to calls from fellow union members? That firefighters will only come to burning homes or businesses owned by fellow union members? That air marshalls only guard flights peopled by fellow union members? That ambulance drivers and nurses will only care for fellow union members?
Or were you just trying to remove any last trace of doubt that you have no capacity for rational discourse or intelligent thought?
And here on this link someone actually said Leftists aren't masochistic!
But of course the system worked, huh libbies?
Well now! It seems all your gratitude should go to the guy who was President at the time they were released. Thanks, George.
GWB was FORCED into releasing terrorists by Leftists and the ACLU. If he'd have had it his way these two dirtbag cowardly Muslim terrorists would still be at Gitmo along with dozens more. You types also rallied against the Patriot Act and the wire-tapping of phone calls of terrorists. And are insisting on the release of Gitmo pictures that cast America as a bad Country. And published, to the delight of our enemies, classified documents of our spy techniques. Etcetera. Etcetera. Etcetera.
This is why I think folks like you are either masochists or stupid. You be the judge of which. But it is definitely one of the two - or both?
BTW: I gotta give a "shout out" to you folks for being good sports by not deleting my posts and such. I do appreciate this so give all of you an "atta boy / girl". I realize I am occasionally caustic. :o)
Noone had a problem with the wire-tapping of phone calls of terrorists... the problem we had was with the intrusion the Patriot Act had on private citizens who were not terrorists.
How do we hold other countries accountable for their actions if we are not willing to hold ourselves to the same high regard?
You seem to have alot of insight into the mindset of our enemy regarding the documents that were released then hacked to reveal otherwise redacted material. Funny how you guys want to support things like FOIA when justifying the hacked e-mails from Climate Research Centers.
I figured you for a lot of condescension, and I was right.
Btw: it's hilarious that the steely-jawed warrior who declares that water-boarding isn't torture is feeling "uncomfortable" at having to type on a keyboard.
Good morning, Worm your honor.
The crown will plainly show
The prisoner who now stands before you
Was caught red-handed showing feelings,
Showing feelings of an almost human nature.
This will not do.
Call the schoolmaster!
I always said he'd come to no good
In the end your honor.
If they'd let me have my way I could
Have flayed him into shape.
But my hands were tied,
The bleeding hearts and artists
Let him get away with murder.
Let me hammer him today?
How did 'they' force Bush to release detainees? Push him down on the playground? Call his mommy names? So, what you're basically arguing is, nothing is Bush's fault? Even actions he took of his own free will?
What kind of American are you supposed to be, exactly?
And of course it did not occur to you, retiredinsf, that to mirandize him meant that he was treated like a common criminal, which, in the eyes of most of the world, he is. Rather, you would have him treated as a warrior, honorably. A warrior who just happens to be on the other side. You would elevate him to the status of our soldiers, who serve out of patriotism and duty and love of country, spending years at a time away from their family. Do you really think a suicide bomber is the same, or should be treated the same, as an American soldier on a field of battle, retiredinsf? Do you really think a suicide bomber has earned that honor?
Because I don't. Cuff him, stuff him, and book him. Then try him, and either let him rot the rest of his life in jail, where the U.N. bombers from '93 are (thanks to Clinton and the American justice system), or execute him.
As has been pointed out by others, his cohorts were released by Bush, so you've thanked the wrong president.
You completely miss the point of treating terrorists as criminals instead of POW's. If they are POW's, as they should be and were under W, then we could interrogate them without all the requirements an American citizen has the privilege of (you know, having a lawyer present and stuff like that). It is much better for our safety to consider terrorists POW’s so we can use more aggressive interrogation methods. The more we learn from these cowardly filth the more we are able to combat their attacks. For example look at how much we learned from the guy who masterminded 9/11. Thousands of American lives were saved because we were able to deprive him of sleep, water boarding, loud music. Etc.
Under Bush, a bunch of people were rounded up, some of them were tortured, then some of those rounded up were let go. KSM wasn't given his trial until what? seven, eight years later? And under the next administration.
It's Bush, and those on the right like you, who have no faith in America or it's criminal justice system. Bush didn't want terrorists caught or tried. He wanted to use it as a political tool. That makes him a terrorist, too. Or, has the definition of terrorism escaped you?
We didn't learn anything from KSM after he was waterboarded. No lives were saved by those who tortured him. Rather the reverse. Lives were endangered once our enemies found out that we tortured captives, because now they are free to do the same. "Look," they can now say, "America tortures, too. It must be okay." You can call them aggressive interrogation methods, but that is just a euphemism for torture. And torture is wrong. Period. Always wrong. For anyone. Regardless of motive, regardless of situation. Wrong. That you do not understand this means that you do not view your fellow human beings, and that includes KSM, as human beings. It means there is something missing in your soul.
The one I like best from your post is KSM should be treated humanely. In case you've missed what these guys want to do to you, as an infidel, is saw your head off ASAP - unless you are a Muslim.
And my soul is just fine thank you. I do not pray to Allah as you apparently do.
It makes no sense to treat humans humanely? How does what they want to do to me affect how they are treated? You have no proof that they want to saw my head off. You only have an anecdotal example of them sawing somebody else's head off.
This is America. We have a Constitution. We have freedom. We will not let those who are so terrified of the idea they might live in an unsafe world take our freedoms from us any longer. We will not be terrified by those elected to lead us, those simple minds who use terrorism as a pretext to institute fascism in the country, and try to turn it into a police state, where people can be summarily disappeared and tortured just because a bed-wetting coward like Dick Cheney says so. If that's what you want, go back in time to Hitler's Germany. They had it down to a science. Or Stalin's Russia. Both are closer to Bush's vision for Amerika than Obama's, not that you seem able to grasp this simple idea.
As a Christian, I believe all things are in God's hands. If my head is to be sawed off, that is what will happen. I also believe that Islam is a false religion, and I have nothing to fear from people who worship a false god. I do need to be watchful of my fellow countrymen, who would deny anyone liberty and civil right (such as a trial) in the name of 'safety', however. Bush did more harm to this country than a thousand bin Ladens could accomplish in a hundred years.