Blankley compared Howard Dean and advocates of withdrawal from Iraq to slaveholders
Tony Blankley compared Howard Dean and those advocating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to slaveholders in the pre-Civil War American South.
Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley compared Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean and others advocating the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq to slaveholders in the pre-Civil War American South.
From Blankley's December 14 Washington Times column, titled "Bad Faith":
What are rational people to make of Howard Dean's statement that "the idea that we're going to win the war is an idea that, unfortunately, is just plain wrong." In what sense does he "want" us not to fail in Iraq? Now, this is where the definition of want comes in. It is technically true that since DNC Chairman Dean says "unfortunately," he can make the argument that he wants victory, he wants the war objectives -- establishing democracy in Iraq and protecting our homeland by so doing. Dr. Dean can make that claim, at the verbally technical level, even as he openly admits that he supports substantive policies (immediate withdrawal of our troops) that will assure the non-attainment of those goals.
There were many slaveholders in America before the Civil War who "wanted" what was best for their African American slaves -- it was just that they thought slavery was their natural condition and that slavery was best for them. We fought and won a Civil War to defeat that pernicious idea.
While such slaveholders may have been subjectively honest when they said they wanted what was best for their slaves, the rest of the world was entitled to assert that objectively, the slaveholder did not support policies that were best for the slave (what was objectively best for the slave -- any slave -- is freedom) It may be true that Howard Dean subjectively wants to protect our homeland and see Democracy reign in Iraq. But others are entitled to assert that the policy he advocates -- loosing [sic] the war immediately -- objectively is not in the best interest of Iraqi democracy and the protection of our homeland.
Blankley -- who also co-hosts Left, Right & Center on radio station KCRW, a community service of Santa Monica College in California, and appears regularly on PBS' The McLaughlin Group -- has previously described post-Watergate Democrats as "fish-eyed sacks of loathsome bile and infamy," and called progressive financier George Soros "a Jew who figured out a way to survive the Holocaust."
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I compare folks who are gung-ho about war but would never put on a unform to cowards. Like Blankley.
Mr. Blankley your analogy comparing Chairman Dean's position on winning or loosing this profit based war stands "blankley" in need of more critical thought! Both Lincoln and the "holders" were motivated soley on the basis of, PROFIT! IF THEY HAD NO SLAVES, THEY MADE NO MONEY! Win, loose or draw in Iraq is firstly based in the Bush administration, or whom ever is in the white House being up front and truthful with the American people! The "goal" of the Bush administration in Iraq has nothing to do with, keeping America safe, we are not threatened by little countries who DON'T HAVE WEAPONS OF MASS DISTRUCTION, and we've known that since before Bush came to the white house. The "war on terror" is just doublespeak for "we get to make war as long as we want to!" So, Why are we there? Well, let me see, we're building the largest and the most fortified embassey in the world in Iraq. We're building 14 small cities that we call ARMY BASES in Iraq! Are we putting all that hardware in that country to start a democratic government and come home next year? I DON'T THINK SO Mr Blankeley, do you? Wake up sheeple, if you are twenty years old, rap your mind around the fact that we will be present in Iraq when your grandchildren are born! One hopes we will not be fighting that long! They want a "lilypad" in that part of the world for the protection of all that oil! After all, it's the cheapest oil in the world! You can damn near get at it with a pick and shovel, it's very close to the ground over there! That's what they don't want to tell us, folks! Start pounding it into your head because that's how it's going to come out.
These lame-o inflammatory accusations serve no purpose but to rile up his converts.
The only connection between Iraq and the 1800s is that the incompetence of this administration is creating a civil war in Iraq. Hopefully they'll be able to dig themselves and Iraq out of this hole without getting too many more of our soldiers killed. But based upon their inept management to date, I'm doubtful.
And if Blankley had a problem with slavery he'd be jumping all over the Republicans (Delay) and their connections to sweatshops in southeast Asian countries, where they enslave women and force them to have abortions, so he can buy cheap clothes.
Dean gave all these blowhards a nice diversion. But Dean isn't mismanaging the war and he doesn't set the policy in Iraq.
The only people Blankley should be focusing his attention on are the brainiacs who put us there. And the President finally admitted today that his intelligence was faulty. If that wasn't damning enough, he still says he would have invaded Iraq anyway.
I wonder if the right wing media will jump all over that. My guess is they'll talk about some missing blonde haired girl or the war on Christmas.
This idiot! I'm speechless.......
that our friends in the right-wing media never said anything about the former DNC chair, Terry McAuliffe?
I dare say that, in light of the media's reaction, Howard Dean must be doing something right.
Funny how the new diablos falsely portray themselves as liberators of the very people they and their ilk oppressed for 500 years. Who does Blanko think he's fooling with his British affect and moonie doublespeak? Certainly not those who have known for generations that his kind speak with forked tongue.