Cavuto teaser: "Are Democratic leaders who criticize the war in Iraq actually aiding the terrorists?"
May 23, 2006 11:44 am ET
On the May 22 edition of Fox News' Your World, host Neil Cavuto ended the show with the following teaser for the next edition of the program: "Are Democratic leaders who criticize the war in Iraq actually aiding the terrorists? Why Nevada Senator John Ensign [R] says, 'You bet they are.' "
From the May 22 edition of Fox News' Your World with Neil Cavuto:
CAVUTO: Tomorrow: Are Democratic leaders who criticize the war in Iraq actually aiding the terrorists? Why Nevada Senator John Ensign says, "You bet they are." And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You'll be surprised at what else he has to say. He's tomorrow on Your World.
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
The same things were being said during the Vietnam War; that's probably one of the reasons why it dragged on as long as it did.
The right is in full panic mode now. They aren't listening to the American people, who are quite tired of Iraq and want us to get out. But Bush has staked his presidency on Iraq, so anyone opposed to Bush's "plan for victory" must be attacked.
They also said that dissent had a demoralizing effect on the troops. They were wrong. The political and military leadership caused the War in Vietnam to last as long as it did. A lot of the troops took comfort in the fact that the media and the people back home cared enough about them that they wanted them to be brought home sooner.
Oh, you mean when the vets coming back from 'Nam being called "baby killers" and spit at it didn't demoralize them? I'm sure it was a great moral uplifter knowing the people from the country you serve called you every name in the book simply because you were patriotic.
has every right to attack the Democratic leaders because of his long military service and Vet ...... wait wait wait I meant lack of military service and his Vetrinary service.
Republican Ensign comes out against the first amendment, thereby helping to further the terrorists' agenda.
Ensign's twist on FDR's great words is apparently that we have nothing to fear but the fear of speaking-out.
Is everything on Fox News nothing more than duckspeak?
- You bet it is.
Doubleplusgood.
I am confused. It's opposition to a bloody, senseless, unprovoked war that is spurring the terrorists. It's not, on the other hand, that we went into Iraq (even though Osama was elsewhere. The devastating event on 9/11 garnered support for us around the world. We've (Bush) just given terrorists more excuses to attack...
Terrorists don't need excuses to attack. They just do it. That's what they do. If you don't give them a reason they will make one up. They justify it in their minds.
Bruce1Ace,
You nailed it.
I cannot think of any more flamboyant examples of terrorism in our world today than our nation’s attack on Iraq in 2003. That attack fits perfectly into your description of how terrorists operate. They pick a target and go after it, and nothing can deter them. Colbert explained Bush’s terrorist ways when he described how resolute Bush is, how he believes the same thing on Wednesday as he did on Monday --- no matter WHAT happened on Tuesday!
Our “war” in Iraq is nothing more than a terrorist act by an outlaw regime that has no respect for our own laws, and certainly no respect for international laws. I can’t think of a scarier terrorist than those sitting in the White House at this moment in our nation’s history.
While I agree that the war turned out to be a mistake, I would not put it in the terrorism category in that we did not target civilians. I think we sacrificed more of our own soldiers to have fewer civilian Iraqi casualties.
I think that there is truth to the fact that there is a segment of the human species that will find any reason to be violent. I think a lot of it has to do with a desire for power and control. Where I think you simplify things is that there is a much larger segment that is drawn to these horrible actions by recent events in their lives, such as oppression, the killing or maiming of loved ones, or being thrust into terrible living conditions. It still does not excuse killing innocent people, but if conditions are made better, the incidence of terrorism decreases. If people are happy in their lives, then the hardcore terrorists will have a hard time recruiting young men to blow themselves up.
I mean this respectfully with a need to understand this thought process. Do you really believe that someone straps a bomb on themselves and blows it up for no reason? Though you didn't ask, I believe that the "terrorists" do have a reason for what they do. Whether or not you or I agree with them, is another matter. I would have to say that that statements like yours are one of the reasons we are losing the war on terror. A gross misunderstanding of what is going on.
Bruce's statement reminds me of a conversation I had with my dad's wife. I asked her if she thought that Arab mothers loved their children. She answered that they don't because they let them blow themselves up for nothing. I was somewhat slack jawed by this. It made think that there is a cultural, maybe racist component to her answer. Haven't many of our service people go on "suicide" missions? Did they not have reasons? Did their mothers love them? Yes, yes, and yes.
There is always an effort during war to dehumanize the enemy. We call them crazy. We presume they aren't even people and don't operate under many of the same basic motivations the rest of us do.
It has happened in every war. One would think that we should be aware of this process and avoid being sucked into it.
I will clarify my earlier post. I responded to a post that said our actions gave the terrorists more excuses to do what they do. My point, and I still believe this, is that no matter what we do, they will come up with reasons to do what they do. They will not be appeased. So saying that OUR actions are giving them excuses, well I think the only thing we could do that they would applaud is to blow ourselves up. Im talking about Al Queda and the Muslim extremists. I mean, if you can't handle a cartoon, how stable are you, seriously?
I agree with your clarification. Extremists from any ideology are almost impossible to turn, and they will always be here. My point was that many of the people that are lumped into this category who should not be. They are drawn to this extreme position because of the circumstances surrounding them. THey are the ones who could be turned around with a more positive foreign policy and support. With smarter policies on our part, we could reduce the number of terrorists to the fringes, those opiginal zealots you are refering to.
It's not like someone made a film parody of someone born on the same day as Jesus and was crucfied at the end of the film (while singing a frankly happy song), or made a fictional film of a fictional book about Jesus being tempted on the cross or did a fictional film of a fictional book about Jesus being married and having a bloodline that continued to the present day which had been covered up by the Catholic Church and one of it'sd secret societies. I mean, anyone reacting badly to those and protesting would be silly wouldn't it!!!!!!!!!!
You can see the difference between voicing your disagreement (peaceful protests) and threatening to kill people. That's why these anti-Christian things, while offensive to some, are still shown and are not censored whereas the cartoons for the most part were censored because people were afraid of the consequences. There's a big difference there. They hid behind this "sensitivity" garbage which they (the media) use in a very selective fashion IMO.
But what about the christians freaking out about davinci code?
I somehow didn't see that someone already brought this up. Belay my last!
Menachem Begin, 6th prime minister of Israel and head of the Irgun (1944-1948) terrorist organisation whose action helped speed up the removal of British rule and also sped up the creation of the State of Israel.
Nelson Mandela, first President of South Africa in fully represented democratic elections is South Africa. 27 years imprisoned in Robben Island and was involved in the planning of underground armed resistance activities. The face and rallying point of the Anti -Aparthid movement around the world and whose struggles, story and eventual freedom was an intergral part of the ending of Aparthid in his country.
Martin McGuinness, joined Provisional IRA in 1970. Spent 6 months in prison in 1973 after being caught with 250lbs (113kg) of explosives and 5000 rounds of ammunition, banned from entering the UK in 1982 under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (but amazingly welcomed with open arms in the USA where he and his fellow terrorists were concidered "Freedom Fighters" by uninformed, misguided and seriously deluded members of the Irish American community, expecially on and around the 17th March EVERY YEAR when he and his fellow terrorists would be seen happily grinning on US tv with Irish American politicians even as their bombs were killing innocent citizens in the UK). Thanks to the Good Friday Agreement he has now been brought back to legitamacy as the Member of the British Parliament for Mid Ulster (even though he has refused to take his seat).
All of the above have been linked to or used terrorist actions and there are thousands more. It is also a fact that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. A blanket statement like yours shows a myopia and a lack of understanding which will only extend conflicts. I cannot say that l am happy with McGuinness being a statesman in the UK but l cannot disagree with the fact that in the end we had to TALK to him and his like to end the terrorism of the IRA.
The US has already done a deal with Muqtada As-Sadr who you called a terrorist leader in 2004 and you have already acquiesced to one of Bin Laden's demands by removing US bases from his family's holy land in Saudi Arabia. Don't think you won't be talking to those you call terrorists now in the future.
...the only way to defend and preserve freedom is to be a complete surrender-monkey and abandon freedom on account of (dun-dun-duunnnn!!!) *TEH SCARY!!!*
(misspelling intentional)
Isn't it just among the heights of irony that the same people who spent decades bitching about the cconcept of a *nanny government* are the same ones who now cower under that same nanny's skirts?
Is it just the Democrats who are responsible for aiding the enemy? I guess if you're a Republican who doesn't support the war you get a pass. God, I just LOVE this fair and balanced stuff! I'm really getting a handle on it now.
The critics of the war are not aiding the terrorists. It's the a******s who got us in this miss in the first place. They are the ones who helped create Iraq as the central front in the war on terrorism. And it's crap journalists like Cavuto who are aiding and abetting the administration in doing their dirty work.
I'm tired of mincing words and being civil towards those who would remain willfully ignorant and espouse divisive and false comments to boost their rating or standing in the neo conservative movement. Cavuto and the rest at Fox should be thrown in jail for the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater. There is an excellent piece in the latest edition of Harper's by Kevin Baker regarding the right wing myths of left wing subversion. Bush's torture policies, failed Iraq invasion and disregard for human decency that aids the terrorists. It's liberals and other opponents of Bush who have kept the world from losing all faith in America. Lock these people up, or better yet let's sue them for defamation of charachter for all they are worth.
Can you build bombs out of criticism?
"You bet they are." And that's just the tip of the iceberg. You'll be surprised at what else he has to say. He's tomorrow on Your World.
No, I won't be surprised.
Apparently the 'journalists' at Fox are either unfamiliar with, or wish to forget, Sen. Robert Taft's comment to FDR during World War II about wartime criticism of the goverment: that forbidding it is far more dangerous than any criticism itself could be.
And since most aren't really journalists, they probably never participated in one of the classic ways reporters while away their offhours: trying to compose the most headlines and lead paragraphs that conform to the truth.
Will giant purple rabbits invade the Capitol? .
Is the president imperilled by hungry octupi in the Potomac? .
Could tidal waves destroy Boise?
Imaginary paragraphs that would also not be false:
The Democrats may not be secretly working with invisible zombies to seize military installations and use them to suck Americans' blood.
When asked if the food chain purchased meat from The Roadkill Recycler, company officials refused to comment.
Scientists can not rule out the possibility that the Mississippi will reverse course, causing billions of gallons of water to rush across Illinois and carry Chicago into Lake Michigan.
At this point, most of us would probably be more surprised if Fox broadcast something that wre accurate, fact-based, and not part of an increasingly difficult effort to keep the wingnut cause alive, than if enormous rabbits did invade the Capitol.
hasn't this all gone exactly as the "intellectuals" on fox like kristol and krauthammer predicted? candy, flowers, in and out in six months.
-Cavuto makes inflammatory teaser. -Cavuto introduces extreme right-wing guest, who pushes radical right-wing agenda and makes ridiculous accusations. -During interview, Cavuto lobs the gentlest of softballs and sycophantically agrees with everything crazy guest says, ignoring the blatant lies he's spewing. -Cavuto blinks a lot and tries to look innocent, pretending that just because the guest is saying everything it's not Cavuto's fault.(Look at him! He blinks a TON every time he lobs a softball!)
Your "teaser" might have had more impact if Ensign himself were a Democrat . . . instead, it just comes off as another ho-hum replay of the Rove talking point of blaming anyone who speaks out against the war for the Bush regime's colossal failure in Iraq.
Neil, just stick to what you do best - fluff pieces on strippers and centerfolds.
fought the japanese the french and the americans. our involvement was predated by the others. it wasn't criticism of our involvement that motivated him. it was always the conviction that he wanted others out of his country. right or wrong, many people who fight tend to do it out of ideological conviction. it's something we should have thought long and hard about before we started this fiasco. like poppy bush did. of course, that isn't the father his son hears.
Neil cracks me up...as if ANYONE is going to 'stay tuned' because they need to know if critizing is the same as AIDING TERRORISTS!!!