Echoing retracted Bush administration characterization, Limbaugh labeled Gitmo suicides a "PR move"
On the June 14 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh described the recent suicides by three prisoners at the Pentagon detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, as "a PR move," echoing a State Department official's characterization of the incidents from which the department quickly attempted to distance itself.
After three detainees at Guantánamo Bay committed suicide, Colleen Graffy, the deputy assistant secretary of state for public diplomacy, characterized the suicides on June 11 as "a good PR move." Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the State Department, responded to Graffy's comments on June 12, stating, "I would not characterize this as a PR stunt," and adding, "We have serious concern any time anybody takes their own life."
Limbaugh, who frequently refers to the Guantánamo facility as "Club Gitmo," suggested the President Bush's surprise appearance in Iraq was not a public relations move but rather, "the PR move was the three suicides at Club Gitmo."
From the June 14 edition of The Rush Limbaugh Show:
LIMBAUGH: [W]e're in the midst of a lot of optimism, and here is this story from al-AP [Associated Press]. The headline: "Pentagon to Disclose Interrogation Tactics." So I saw that headline. I said, "What the hell is this? Why are we going to start disclosing our interrogation tactics?" By the way, somebody wrote that this is a "PR move," the president to bop into Baghdad and bop back out.
It was a PR move? Right. PR move: flying into Baghdad where a missile could kill him. The PR move was the three suicides at Club Gitmo. That's the PR move, folks.
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
black is white.
evil is good.
And round and round, upside down.
So what does that say about someone's convictions if they are willing to kill themselves as a public relations move? Did some evil liberals sneak into G'mo and talk these people into comitting suicide to make Bush look bad? To what end was the pr move exactly? Will Ann Coulter claim that she never saw anyone so happy that they killed themselves? These people are severely warped.
Rush's ratings have continually declined... Perhaps, he should indulge in said "PR" move.
..for his career. Come on Rush kill yourself for the good of the country!
For the good of all mankind.
... On Bush's gaffe in challenging the blind reporter about wearing his "shades" while daring to question THE PRESIDENT?
Ann has made clear that her view of this incident would be (1) the reporter just wanted to make Bush look bad, (2) he placed himself in the arena, so deserves any personal insult or crassness that comes his way, (3) he is attempting to USE his handicap in order to be immune from being ridiculed by the Right: this will NO LONGER WORK!, and (4) the man is USING his handicap to promote himself, and is ENJOYING being sightless.
Did I leave anything out? That he should be killed and/or converted to Christianity? That his friends should be killed to give him "an example" of what can happen to him? That he is a shrill and GODLESS Warlock who has no right to speak?
The FORMULA is quite clear, now.
are you talking about?
didn't get the info to you. Bush called on a reporter and gave him guff about his sun glasses. Bush was unaware and/or too stupid to figure out there might be a reason for that. The reason, the reporter is blind, literally. Unlike Bush who is figuratively blind.
To read Tex and bigbingtheory you'd THINK Bush DELIBERATELY picked on a person who was BLIND to be an asshole...BTW the reporter is NOT blind-- as Tex & BBT have suggested. He does have vision problems that could lead to blindness.[read story below]
A faux pas to be sure, BUT there are people with 20/20 vision that wear sunglasses almost constantly AND have been known to keep them on --even when there's no sun OR they are indoors. Some think they LOOK cool in them. Whatever.
Bush apologized profusely, but of course SOME here are putting this "sin" along side multitudes of REAL sins Bush has committed.
Come on people STAY FOCUSED on the IMPORTANT STUFF!!!
Wonder WHY Tex brought THIS up in the first place? Has diddley to do with THIS thread. Mmmmm IF you or I did THAT[went off topic] we'd be called....TROLLS ;-)
Here's a snippet of the story PLUS a link....so we can ALL move on.:
Bush Apologizes to L.A. Times Reporter Jun 15 12:42 PM US/Eastern
By NEDRA PICKLER Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON
President Bush, who often teases members of the White House press corps, apologized Wednesday after he poked fun at a reporter for wearing sunglasses without realizing they were needed for vision loss.
The exchange occurred at a news conference in the Rose Garden.
Bush called on Los Angeles Times reporter Peter Wallsten and asked if he was going to ask his question with his "shades" on.
"For the viewers, there's no sun," Bush said to the television cameras.
But even though the sun was behind the clouds, Wallsten still needs the sunglasses because he has Stargardt's disease, a form of macular degeneration that causes progressive vision loss. The condition causes Wallsten to be sensitive to glare and even on a cloudy day, can cause pain and increase the loss of sight.
Wallsten said Bush called his cell phone later in the day to apologize and tell him that he didn't know he had the disease. Wallsten said he interrupted and told the president that no apology was necessary and that he didn't feel offended since he hadn't told anyone at the White House about his condition.
"He said, `I needle you guys out of affection,'" Wallsten said. "I said, 'I understand that, but I don't want you to treat me any differently because of this.'"
[link to www.breitbart.com]
i knew you would bring proper context and perspective. and i agree with your comment about trolls and off topic. but, hey, all the cute liberals live by a whole new set of rules here than the rest of us. it's all good, makes for life more interesting.
Is that whining I hear rightie? I'm still waiting for some intelligent debate from you. I was just trying to point out what Tex was talking about because it seemed you missed it.
try somebody else for intelligent debate. i don't respond to people who can't discuss without personal attacks. enjoy the discussion.
hey, all the cute liberals live by a whole new set of rules here than the rest of us.
Nope, no sarcastic personal attack here!
Believes the standards they expect others to live by apply to them. They think by dint of right alone the exclusive franchise on personal attacks belong to them. Also they have no sense of irony so whenever they accuse you of doing what they have just done it really doesnt sink in that its total hypocrisy.
Calling you rightie?
You are so right ALL OF US LIBERALS here live by a different set of rules than the rest of you. Thank God you're here to show us the error of our ways; and you are so reasonble. Like your desires to abolish income taxes in lieu of a sales tax for revenue generation is by far the mose reasonable thing I'v ever read. Thanks Again
You're correct, he's not blind as a bat, but the incident has a small significance because it illustrates how insensitive Bush is and how unaware of his surroundings. Agreed it was off topic. I used to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, that he was a good person. I no longer think we have that luxury so I will gladly take any oppurtunity to point out how evil I think the SOB is. nuff said.
According to one of his old professors, the college Bush liked to make snide remarks about other students and brag about his family connections. He was a snotty brat, bad at his studies, knowing full well Daddy would take care of him for life, high on his sense of "superiority" to the "lower orders". He was also in charge of hazing at his fraternity....he liked to burn pledges with red-hot coathangers.
Classic psychopath. He even used to get a kick out of blowing up frogs as a child. Textbook symptoms.
I think y'all are misreading Tex's original post. He didn't criticize Bush; he made fun of Coulter.
While I don't think that GWB intentionally belittled someone with a handicap. I do believe that he was insensitive. Given his and his families history, it doesn't surprise me. But, like you said a minor incident compared to what else is going on around us.
When did this occur? I would love to see a transcript/video/hear audio of it and Ann's response.
Jihadists are warped.
They have no problem with killing themselves to be martyrs.
Why should they fear suicide if they are willing to strap suicide bombs on them.
This was obviously a tactic in their war against the U.S. The couldn't suicide bomb women and children so they committed suicide.
The despair angle is just to drum up sympathy. These people are Jim Jones Kool-Aid whacked cultists. They are on a jihad against you and think they are going to get 72 virgins. Read up on the enemy and you will see why the suicides were a form of terror operation.
[link to www.thesmokinggun.com] [link to www.usdoj.gov]
when they wipe out entire families? What do our Air Force boys get when they blow up homes full of children? Do they get 72 virgins who all look like Britney Spears? Do they get a pat on the back from that God who blesses America and a guaranteed spot in Patriotic Heaven?
The US has killed FAR more women and children than all the kamikaze attacks combined. And yet you justify it in the name of YOUR religion. Sad.
Welcome to the 14th Crusade, folks.... the US is slaughtering moslem babies for Jesus and Jerusalem. Our crusaders don't do the kamikaze bit though...they like to go back for more bombs and do it again and again and again.
Jesus said "do unto others as you would have done unto you." He NEVER said "go wipe out their children just because you want to".
chicken jihadi friends wouldn't fight from behind women's skirts and baby's diapers we wouldn't have any collateral casualties.
We do everything we can to minimize civilian deaths. Your side tries to maximize the killing of women and children.
Get your reality straight! It was the USA who broke down the door to their country, guns blazing, bombs dropping. Iraq had NEVER attacked us! We attacked an entirely INNOCENT nation and have killed at least a hundred thousand CIVILIANS in the process. This crap about trying to avoid civilian casualties is a LIE!
You want to avoid civilian casualties? Don't blow up houses!Don't destroy cities! Don't attack countries!
But then I doubt you care. What's a few tens of thousands of dead Iraqi children to you? Just "collateral damage", right? Just subhuman savages unworthy of life, eh?
Here's a buck....go buy a soul.
Civilian casualties. We bombed civilian neighborhoods. Fallujah we shot at ambulances. We are indifferent to civilian casualties. If we think there is someone we want and we think we have to kill a dozen or so civilians to get him we go for it. We dropped a MOAB bomb on a civilian neighborhood in HOPES of getting Saddam because we thought he MIGHT be there. Your assertion is pure propaganda you only believe it because you WANT to and despite all evidence to the contrary. We have killed VASTLY more civilians than fighters in Iraq, is that because we try so hard NOT to kill them? Wake up and smell the reality
Wait a minute. So, according to Rush:
Putting yourself in a situation of potential danger is the REAL DEAL. Actually doing the ultimate danger, however, is simply PR.
Rush fills me with rage.
He man is not worth the time to report. He is an entertainer and a political hack.
I wager you know somebody who swears by him. All of us do.
Who swears by him , and I have some CON friends.
They feel he is entertaining to listen to but they dont believe him.
I feel his opinions are irrelevant, its news when he does his biased snowball interviews with Dick Cheney however.
just as the right uses michael moore and moveon.org to marginalize and characterize liberals, the left uses coulter and limbaugh for the same reasons against the right. it is much easier to debate the other side when you first automatically link them in with extremes on that side. fact is, both sides have their far fringe elements that get more press and speak outrageously. intellectually honest people don't blur them with reasonable people with whose opinions differ from them.
Like him or not he does research and presents what he's learned in an obviously biased manner. Limbaugh and Coulter on the other hand villify any one who questions their dubious assertions. I'm not a huge Moore fan, but his style has more truth than truthiness.
Thanks Ben for the laugh of the day!
First you call us useful idiots and use a link from the freerepublic, fraught with errors, to prove your point. Now you are back trash talking.
I would like to know specifically where Michael Moore or moveon.org have called someone's suicide "a bood pr move."
''The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not 'insurgents' or 'terrorists' or 'The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.''
I think you are projecting that Michael Moore or liberals in general find comfort in this statement. I don't and I doubt he does either. A viewpoint no doubt shared by higher ups in the military who have no choice but to face the reality on the ground, that our presence is creating a resistance. History has shown that resistance usually prevails. Nothing outrageous about the comment.
Most conservatives have tremendous difficulty comprehending any point of view other than their own. It appears to be some sort of heresy to them.
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. -- Aristotle
But then again, we all know in what high regard the average conservative holds for education.
Most conservatives have tremendous difficulty comprehending any point of view other than their own. It appears to be some sort of heresy to them.
really? try selling to some of the absolute closed minded liberals on this site.
I'm a liberal, a pragmatist and very open minded. But I'm no fool either. Give me a good argument and you might win me over. So far you haven't offered much.
I don't presume everyone on this site is really a "liberal". Many self-proclaimed "liberals" on this site are actually just partisan Democrats.
To my view, you cannot be both a partisan and a Liberal. Liberals are anti-partisan, anti-group-think and anti-authoritarian.
Anyone who is closed-minded is not really a Liberal to begin with as any dictionary would tell you.
Strangely enough, I don't view closed-minded "liberals" as different from true Conservatives. They think the same way, but have simply chosen a different team to root for. You are absolutely right to denounce them and I join you in doing so.
BTW, in my remarks above, I could have just as easily substituted partisan for Conservative, but I thought Conservative was more relevant to your previous post.
the content of your arguments is on a par with Fox News. That is why most posters here don't agree with you. You always have Leatherhemet!
>>one of michael moore's more famous quotes.
While you might disagree with this analysis, I fail to see how this is the same as saying someone's suicide is a PR move. That's what I asked you.
Further, you have not cited one quote from moveon.org. You made your claim, so please back it up.
you missed the whole point, which was how the right and the left use far fringe groups/people on the other side to link and lump them altogether to marginalize their views. you can sit there all day long and deny that outrageous statements are made by the left, probably because in your view they are not outrageous at all. that isn't even the point. the point is people speak for themselves and nobody else. coulter doesn't speak for reasonable conservatives as much as some on the left love to say. if michael moore and moveon.org speak for you, fine.
I see your point and I think it's invalid. You are comparing apples to kumquats. Moore's statement(s) are only outrageous because you don't like the content. Where as Rush's PR and club G'tmo schtick are designed to deflect negative feelings towards his pals Bush and Cheney. It would be one thing if there were any merit to his comments, but there is not. It's trivializing something that has world wide reprecussions and puts our troops in greater danger. Not because liberals talk about it but because the torture and indefinite detention happen.
if you want to talk about rush's comments, fine. although he uses his patented hyperbole his point was the suicides by the detainees in their mind is some god loving herioc act - just like the 9/11 hijackers. who knows what the motives were behind their taking of their own lives? all i know is it cannot be viewed similarly as a suicide of an inmate of some other prison.
And he would know this because of his amazing mind reading powers, and you would know he was right because of yours? C'mon. Its just dumb to point to suicides of people we have kept four years without trial and somehow claim it makes US the victims.
Succinct and to the point. Nice post.
Yes, Tommy. You make claims you can't back up and then come back with the infamous "You missed the whole point."
(99 times out of 100 when someone makes this claim on a blog it is because they have either got caught lying or they can't back up their point. See if I am right, fellow bloggers!)
You have no point if you can't back up your claim. Anyone can make a generalization that Michael Moore is part of the fringe. Moore said the insurgents were minutemen. I think this claim is inaccurate. At the same time, I can claim that Bush's claim that the insurgency is in the last throes is equally innaccurate. Does this make Bush part of the fringe?
The Michael Moore and moveon.org are standard rhetorical nonsense from right-wing bloggers who want to excuse the excesses on the right. Where does Michael Moore or moveone.org regulary, almost on a daily basis, make inflamatory wildly inaccurate remarks like Rush Limbaugh?
hahahah... Thanks for the laughs..
funnymanpants wrote: ...(99 times out of 100 when someone makes this claim on a blog it is because they have either got caught lying or they can't back up their point. See if I am right, fellow bloggers!)
You're so big on asking others to provide proof, prove it.
Hahahaha...
What more proof do you need than Right Ons comments.
Your post makes no sense
you linking to a freeper-pants-stain thread LOL
It appears that many do not consider Michael Moore and/or MoveOn as much of a fringe element on the left as you do. MoveOn and Michael Moore have gone over the top in the past IMO, but I think many would take issue with any comparisson to how far Rush goes on a regular basis.
In other words, the length, width and depth of Rush's extremism has no real comparisson on the left. I think they're right.
If the statement was used in the same basic context, but said by a different person, is it really that inflamitory?
An Englishman is trying to warn the King about the uprising in the American Colonies like this:
Sure the King would have taken exception (the Truth hurt just as much back then, I suppose), but he can only kill the messenger (just as conservatives apparently fantasize about Moore). However, killing the messenger does not change that the prediction was true.
The message was the same back then as it is today. It was obviously correct back then and time will tell if it is correct now. Moore is just sharing the Truth as he knows it. It is an opinion and you don't have to agree, just as I am sure George III didn't agree.
Ben who?
AnotherAmerican was just replying to one of his imaginary friends named Ben.
That explains it! thanks ;^}
My apologies. I guess I should put on my glasses.
:-)
what's a couple of vowels between friends. ;^}
The back-and-forth between BigBigTheory and AnotherAmerican in the last few posts was civil, polite, and exactly the way it should be. Thank you both. You've raised the bar and we all should meet it.
The whole last thread could have been much more biting, it wasn't. People who disagree were still polite. I'm certainly not always able to do that, so I'm always impressed when others do.
.....drives the right totally nuts because try as they might, they cannot find any falsehoods or distortions in his movies or statements. MM is clearly a liberal Dem, but he spins truth,not just his version of it.
i am talking about his outrageous comments and how some on the right attribute them to all liberals, which they are not. as for his "facts", check out Farenheit 911 without your bush hatred glasses on and you will see plenty of moore-spin and factless assertions.
Alright....right on. 1st question...have you seen F9/11? And if you have (and really there is no point in debating if you haven't seen it), could you please point out where, in the movie, he actually lied. I'm curious, as I've seen said movie, which part Mr. Moore made up and deliberately lied.
Be specific about what Moore comments you are talking about. I never saw the film/documentary. I hate Bush because he is an enemy of the constitution he swore to protect, and thus an enemy to America. I don't need a pudgy guy with a large baseball cap collection to point that out. I just pay attention, and I don't ignore what I find to be unpleasant facts.
But not in any way wrong. There is plenty of supposition, and opinion in F-9/11. Moore is a polemicist. Moore never CLAIMS his opinions are facts nor diguises the fact he is a polemicist. He doesnt tell people he is a fair and balanced guy giving you the strait scoop. What there ISNT in the movie is lies or incorrrect facts. Virtually nothing in the movie came as a shock to me very most of it was already known to me. He does use facts to back up his opinions some of which I (and I consider myself a pretty lefty liberal) do not agree with. Giving his side, his opinion backed up with facts as to why he beleives them is NOT the same as Limbaugh who lies and pulls facts directly from his substantial derriere.
is right on.
Solon,
A masterful piece of rationalization there my friend.
To say Moore is a polemicist and Limbaugh is not, is pretty funny. A quick check of the definitions from The Free Dictionary says: polemic: 2. A person engaged in or inclined to controversy, argument, or refutation.
With that definition, how is Limbaugh not a polemic?
To say that Moore does not lie and Limbaugh does shows how your partisan viewpoint has skewered your reasoning. Either that or you are sharpening your parsing skills.
As we all know, one can present facts and figures in such a way in such a way as to deceive. Moore is a master at it. The use of cut and paste and editing that Moore uses, is a well worn tactic. But go ahead and be an apologist for Moore. But don't expect us to fall for it.
Having said that, it would be boring if everyone believed the same. God bless Liberals.
>>To say Moore is a polemicist and Limbaugh is not, is pretty funny.
Yes, it would be--except Solon never says that! He says that Moore bases his politics on facts whereas Rush doesn't.
Without coughing up a lie, pretending that he is like Limbaugh in the scale of outright nonsense he spews shows without doubt that partisan tomfoolery has skewed your reasoning abilities beyond repair. Back away from the koolaid it is destroying your cognitive functioning abilities and you cant spare any.
I like that! I'm not big on Moore either, but he really does research what he talks about.
You are making a huge generalization about moveon and Michael Moore. Where has either entity made a similar statement?
Tell me they thought he was a pretty good source of information. I think its progress that conservatives are admitting he is marginal. That they think his conjob routine is grist for the other side since he has so little credibility.
Especially in rural areas with poor education. Limbaugh almost single-handedly caused the Republican landslides of the 90's.
Look at electoral charts. States where the rural population was almost entirely in Democratic control were completely shifted to the Republicans after Limbaugh took to the airwaves there.
The poor and uneducated voter is by far the most fickle. That made them easy targets especially for Limbaughs form of political monologue.
President Bush's surprise visit to Baghdad — a trip that was kept a secret even from Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki until the last possible moment — was an unwitting demonstration of United States domination in Iraq. In what other country could an American president land his plane without the knowledge of that country's leader? The answer is that it could happen only in a state "occupied" by the United States military. Only in a state whose airspace we control. Only in a state without real government autonomy or authority — like Iraq.
Doesn't make it outrageous or untruthful. This is a con. Comparing liberals to conservatives in this manner assumes that the left thinks like the right. We do not. Listen to Randi Rhodes and Rush Limbaugh. Randi has a free website and encourages listeners to do their own research while Rush tells his ditto heads to pony up a fee and to just trust him. Don't confuse unpleasant facts with dubious ideology.
...strange when you start using facts the cons run for cover. Like cock-a-roaches.
if you don't think comparing iraqi terrorists/insurgents to freedom fighters is reprehensible, there is no point in discussing it further. enjoy.
>>if you don't think comparing iraqi terrorists/insurgents to freedom fighters is reprehensible, there is no point in discussing it further. enjoy.
No, I don't. For one thing, you limped the terrorists and insurgents together. The insurgents who shoot at American troops are like freedom fighters. They are fighting an unpopular and occupying army--exacly like the Minutemen did the American colony. The terrorists or course are completely different than the Minutemen, since the Minutemen did not target civilians.
But as I said before, just because Moore's claim is wildly inaccurate I don't think it is inflmatory. Did he denigrate someone's death by calling it a PR stunt? For example, he believes the insurgents are freedom fighters. Did he claim the American soldiers are fascists, that they enjoy killing, that they have every right to die? That would be the equivelent.
Now I would like to know where moveon.org made a similar comment. Please. You say they are the fringe so it should be easy to find at least one comment. Just one.
The insurgents who shoot at American troops are like freedom fighters.
this quote of yours says it all. i respect anyone who disagrees with the war in iraq. but i have no respect for anyone who cheers on our enemies.
the minutemen of America were the enemy, the terrorists. Now I understand, right on
>>this quote of yours says it all. i respect anyone who disagrees with the war in iraq. but i have no respect for anyone who cheers on our enemies
No, your quote says it all. Iraqis are not my enemy. They never threatened me in anyway. I don't know why you think they are your enemy.
You still have yet to quote moveon.org. C'mon, Tommy. Just one quote.
it wouldn't matter how outrageous it was because you have already shown that michael moore is correct in your mind. so what is considered outrageous by reasonable, sensible people is viewed as understated in your far left fringe view.
and it's really not evasive with you as much as it is indifference. enjoy the discussion.
In other words, you can't even come up with *one* quote! In other words, you are totally fabricatin. Same 'ol Tommy.
You mock what you fail to understand. You have only illustrated my earlier point. That what you don't want to hear is outrageous, facts are irrelevant. Don't worry Tommy, if that's your real name, as a "far left, fringe" liberal I will fight to uphold even your right to be an idiot.
There is the disconnect between right and left. Pointing out an unfortunate truth is not the same as desiring it. You are projecting and pretending you know why someone is saying something instead of concidering the merit of the claim. The reality is poor decisions have created this atmosphere in Iraq where citizens for whatever reasons are taking up arms against our troops because they are viewed as occupiers and not liberators. Ignoring this or trivializing for political purposes won't solve the problem.
Good post. The thinking by Tommy/righton is that if I don't unconditionally damn anyone who shoots at American troops, I must be cheering the so-called enemy--who Tommy doesn't even define. Imagine that the world might be more complicated than stating that the good guys are always Americans and the bad guys are always Iraqis.
You just don't get it.
I'm sure the people who are supporting the insurgents think of them as freedom fighters. I'm sure they think of the Americans as an occupying force. The Vietcong were considered freedom fighters to a lot of the Vietnamese and we were considered invaders. From our perspective we are not occupiers and invaders, but try telling that to a population under occupation or people who see foreign troops in their country fighting.
It's all a matter of perspective.
You just don't get it.
I'm sure the people who are supporting the insurgents think of them as freedom fighter
AHH HELLO!! then you would be talking about michael moore, because he called them freedom fighters as did other posters here. so, using your words, michael moore and others here support the insurgents. wonderful.
Sometimes people try to put something in context from a different perspective to make a valid point. You are so busy trying to attach Michael Moore with terrorists you fail to comprehend what he is saying. Try to think more and not hold on to your opinions as much. Try not to assume you know the motives of people you disagree with because as far I have read you assume a lot and know very little.
>>AHH HELLO!! then you would be talking about michael moore, because he called them freedom fighters as did other posters here. so, using your words, michael moore and others here support the insurgents. wonderful.
Michael Moore calls them Minutemen. I stated that he was "wildly inaccurate." (Really, I wish I had just said inaccurate.)
I want you to explain why Iraqis who fire on an unpopular occupying force are evil, as you clearly are implying.
Michael Moore did not call them "freedom fighters." He said they were "the revolution" (a statement I frankly don't get) and Minutemen. Now, you have to admit they share some characteristics of the Minutemen, the main one being that they are fighting an occupying army using guerrilla tactics. History has shown that these kinds of fights don't usually turn out well for the occupying army.
The conclusion you're jumping to is that Moore is therefore stating support for the insurgents, which he isn't.
By "Minutemen" I mean Paul Revere and those guys, not the border patrollers. I also meant that the insurgents are using guerrilla tactics, not the U.S.
How do you define "freedom fighter," "insurgent," and "terrorist?" Is it possible for someone that has radically different opinions than yours to be a freedom fighter?
For example, if Iraq had invaded the USA and citizens rose up against the invaders, would they be insurgents, terrorists, or freedom fighters? Would they all be the same thing, no matter what their action; by this I mean that if some targeted only enemy military and some targeted military and civilians, would it matter?
We DID invade a soverign nation that had not attacked us, the situation of most Iraqis has not improved and tens of thousands have died. There is civil war in Iraq with so many different factions that it is impossible to paint them all with one brush. NOBODY really knows who their friends are down there. And while we have said that we're going to leave as soon as they say that they want us gone we haven't left and they've asked us to, we're building 16? 17? permanent military bases there AND we're building the largest US diplomatic compound in the world, 110 acres (bigger even than the D.C. Mall and environs).
Who wouldn't fight? I don't pretend to have a solution, but I certainly don't expenct any of them to stop fighting. Besides, where could they go to escape it? How could they leave, even if they wanted to leave their homeland?
I'm not asking rhetorical questions, I really hope that you respond.
I agree with you right on. Funnymanpants is about as far out there as it gets.
He makes me laugh when he says that you are lumping insurgents and terrrorists together... Hahahha as if there is a difference?
Let me see.. an insurgent who blows up innocent childrent and women in marketplaces and mosques is to be admired but a terrorist who does the same thing is not. Hmmmm??? Am I missing something?
Thanks funnymanpants, I can now cross you off the list of rational people here. Have fun.
You seem to think that your trash talking is the same as an argument. It is not.
>>Let me see.. an insurgent who blows up innocent childrent and women in marketplaces and mosques is to be admired but a terrorist who does the same thing is not. Hmmmm??? Am I missing something?
Yes, you sure are. I clearly stated that insurgents fire against *troops.* Read my posts.
And I'll try and be as simple as possible. Just because you think things are black and white, doesn't mean they are. There is a difference between an insurgent and a terrorist just like there is a difference between a law abiding citizen and a criminal. "hahahaha", what are you 15 or something?
all insurgents are terrorists. but not all terrorists are insurgents. however, both are evil.
>>all insurgents are terrorists. but not all terrorists are insurgents. however, both are evil.
Here is another flippant remark that you won't be able to back up. If an insurgent engages only troops in combat, he is not a terrorist. By definition a terrorist targets civilians to create "terror" to achieve his political goal.
tells us to know your enemy. If you can't tell the difference you will never defeat them. Does that make sense to you. Claiming both are evil and leaving it at that will get your ass shot. I'm sorry you aren't willing to devote time to think and process information to form a reasonable conclusion.
Are you suggesting that anyone who targets civilians during war is a terrorist? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that statement?
Manichean worldview is limiting your ability to think logically OR morally. NO all insurrgents are not terrorists nor do I think they are all evil. If we want them to stop killing us we ought to come home. They are not HERE killing anyone we are THERE killing them. They have every right by international law to fight a foriegn occupation. PERIOD. Fighting us that way no more makes them evil than if WE were killing foriegn occupiers here would make US evil. Your desperate attempt to pretend this obvious double standard is morally defensable is laughably simplistic and cannot withstand one seconds moral scrutiny. There are also terrorists in Iraq committing criminal acts and they are not under the same umbra, they are not the same. You can continue to try to arbitrarily define opposition to our occupation as evil but wishing will not make it so.
just kidding about your name...
You're comments are typical.
No I am not 15. Are you? I laugh at what I find funny. I imagine you do the same. If you don't like it, too bad.
I do know the difference between the definition of terrorist and insurgent. I also know that in Iraq the so called insurgents are also terrorists. You and funnymanpants seem to forget that.
These so called "insurgents" are not freedom fighters by any stretch. They are Baathist holdovers killing indescriminately in the hopes of overcoming a democracy and bringing back their bloodthirsty, corrupt, murdering, torturing fascist regime. To suggest otherwise is reject reality.
But go ahead, defend them if you like.
A lot of the carnage is being perpetrated by Shia against Sunni, not just Sunni against everyone else.
>>I do know the difference between the definition of terrorist and insurgent.
Your last post to me showed you didn't. You claimed both kill civilians.
>>These so called "insurgents" are not freedom fighters by any stretch. They are Baathist holdovers killing indescriminately in the hopes of overcoming a democracy and bringing back their bloodthirsty, corrupt, murdering, torturing fascist regime. To suggest otherwise is reject reality.
And your proof of this? You like to make claims you can't back up. Many of the insurgents may be Baathist. And many of them may be men who had relatives humilated by American forces. And how could you possibly know that the are "killing indescriminatly?" Do you have some secret source that knows that Iraqis that kill soldiers are also killing civilians?
I also reject the notion that Iraq is a democracy right now. If there is a huge foreign force occupying your country and you can't hold elections in which candidates can freely express their views, then it is not a democracy.
No country occupied by foriegn troops can HAVE a free election. (of course he was talking about Lebbanon and like most rightwingers he never thinks the conditions he puts on others apply to himself). Since he has no sense of irony his head did not explode but by his very own definition there have been NO free elections in Iraq.
That though we are in THEIR country killing them it is somehow intolerable they are killing us back. There are terrorists there, no question, not everyone fighting our occupation fits that description. IF a foriegn country came HERE and occupied US, what would YOU do and how would you describe those who killed the occupiers? Is this ok for us but somehow venal when done by THEM? This cannot withstand a seconds moral scrutiny.
If you really examine the Revolutionary War, you will find instances where American loyalists viciously attacked 'rebellious' American civilians and vice versa. Granted, "Minutemen" did NOT attack Loyalist civilians (as a rule) but, especially in the South, there was a great deal of blood letting between the Revolutionaries and Loyalists, many of the victims of both sides being civilian.
More importantly, really horrendous atrocities are ALWAYS part and parcel of occupation; regardless of who is doing the occupying or who is being occupied.
Tactic of any civil war, revolution, or attempt to rid your country of foriegn invaders. You can argue one way or another whether it is morally justified. It IS the way it has always been done.
So what's your response to my or anyone else's response to your "outrageous" quote and how does that stack up to the truly outrageous comments made by Rush Limbaugh? I don't believe you have one except, "you missed the point..." Well you didn't make it very well then did you because I think your point is way off the mark.
Well, we DID invade their nation illegally and kill them in huge numbers and set up our own torture chambers and rape rooms and puppet governments with collaborationist militias and police force. Germans did the same in every nation they invaded in WWII. Nothing new here, been done before.
The French Resistance fought to liberate their homeland from an invader, we praised them as "freedom fighters" at the time. Guess that means the Iraqis are fighting for their freedom too, right? Simply labeling them as "terrorist" doesn't change the facts. We invaded, we occupy, they fight to remove us from their soil. I'd do the same if someone invaded my homeland for no valid reason too.
What would you do? Collaborate? Betray your homeland to the invader? What would you do?
Rush's other mistake is ignoring the obvious PR move by Bush. The irony here is, I think it's perfectly fine for Bush to do PR. He hasn't done enough and part of diplomacy and being the leader of the free world is making appearances. I can't criticize Bush's motive for going to Iraq. He should go more often, maybe the reality he has created would sink in and the rest of the world wouldn't think he's a complete ass.
Isn't THIS a Limbaugh thread?? ;-)
NONE of us INCLUDING Limbaugh KNOWS why those prisoners committed suicide.
Wise Ass reason: They were HORNEY and wanted to get at those 72 Virgins.
At first I thought well hey SUICIDE is pretty popular among radical Islamics. BUT Suicide Bombers like to take INNOCENT people with them...so that can't be it.
I'm sure SOME on the Left will say they grew despondent being locked up for years with no end in sight. And that's certainly POSSIBLE.
It's TIME we give these prisoners TRIALS. Then if they are found GUILTY they can sit and rot till the end of time, or commit suicide...whatever. I won't lose ANY sleep over them or their fate.
BUT it's time to to fish or cut bait here. HOLDING people indefinitely [without a trial] is just plain WRONG
"It's TIME we give these prisoners TRIALS. Then if they are found GUILTY they can sit and rot till the end of time, or commit suicide...whatever. I won't lose ANY sleep over them or their fate." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I absolutely agree because otherwise I don't understand the plan, Is it to hold them all for perpetuity?. If their guilty of something sentence them if they're not let them go. Although I fear what the innocents may have become after being held for years with no trial and exposed to a multi-year indoctrination by the real terrorist.
This has been my point all along. Either try them if we want to treat them like criminals or treat them like POWs. Either is fine for me.
they didn't know where they had been taken, hadn't seen their families in months or years and maybe, just maybe didn't have anything to do with terrorism. It's impossible to know, but there is probably a reason they haven't been tried, like they were wrongfully picked up perhaps.
Is UnAmerican
What friggin' parallel universe does OxyRush live in, anyway?
Did anyone see "Saving Private Benjamin"?
Stop now if you haven't. I'm going to give away the ending.
If I remember correctly, the German Tom Hanks lets go, is the guy who ends up shooting him.
That is the same problem we face with the "enemy combatants". As soon as you let them go, they'll go back to trying to kill our soldiers. What do you do about that?
AP) U.S. military officials say that despite being freed in exchange for signing pledges to renounce violence, at least seven former prisoners of the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have returned to terrorism, at times with deadly consequences.
At least two are believed to have died in fighting in Afghanistan, and a third was recaptured during a raid of a suspected training camp in Afghanistan, said Lt. Cmdr. Flex Plexico, a Pentagon spokesman. Others are at large.
Additional former detainees are said to have expressed a desire to rejoin the fight, be it against U.N. peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Americans in Iraq or Russian soldiers in Chechnya.
What do you do?
It was "Saving Private RYAN" I think your confused with the porno "Saving Benjamin's Privates" starring a look alike Goldie Hawn, which, if I remember correctly, won a Peabody award, or Polk award, or something similar
Is include more of the article, which goes on to say:
Some 146 detainees have been released from Guantanamo, but only after U.S. officials had determined the prisoners no longer posed threats and had no remaining intelligence value.
Pentagon officials acknowledged that the release process is imperfect, but they said most of the Guantanamo detainees released have steered clear of Islamic insurgent groups.
///
Those in the small group that has gone back to fighting come mainly from the upper echelons of suspected militant or terror groups, some allegedly linked to al Qaeda, several counterterrorism officials in the Middle East said. They gave no details, but one noted a trend that lower-echelon members tend to get on with their lives after they are released.
[link to www.cbsnews.com]
So obviously the only thing to do is detain ALL of them indefinitely without any kind of hearing.
When are you Chickenhawks on the right going to get it? If you want to see what war is really like, go to Iraq.
I'm so sick of people who are all for endless war who have no idea what war is really like.
And to bring up a movie, is pathetic. It's dishonoring those who've fought in our wars.
Anything the Pentagon says, we're to believe, right? After all, Rumsfeld and his hand-picked brown-nosed generals would never lie to us. *coughWMDcough*. Our beloved Psychopath n' Thief Bush would never *coughwedon'ttorturecough* lie, right? Them peoples must be out to get us, the government said so!
Do we get a "sieg heil" with this ultranationalist spew? Or just another "God Bless America"?
For holding someone based on what they MIGHT do. If there were the police could pick YOU up and put YOU in prison indefinitly because you MIGHT one day kill someone. This is simple. IF they are terrorists we must have a trial to prove this, punishment without trial is uncivilized. IF we want to prevent them from rejoining the fighting like the fictional, hypothetical soldier you mentioned then we treat them like POWs. They are human beings who should be treated as IF they had human rights which means trail or POW status. Not because of who they are but because of who WE are supposed to be that is people who take the law and justice seriously. YOUR prescription would strip us of ANY reasonable right to continue to make that claim. I like being able to make that claim but think we ought not to just MAKE it but take it seriously and EARN the right to make it.
On his show today, Rash made the incredibly false claim that US troops in Iraq are safer than they would be if they were walking the streets in America. Limbaugh's convoluted claim seemed to rest on idea that since there were more murders in all of America than there were US troop deaths in Iraq, that the troops must be safer over there than here.
Of course, if one didn't realize immediately that Rash was lying, he could really find out if the troops are safer by calculating the chance of a US serviceman getting killed in Iraq against the chance of an average citizen being murdered in the most dangerous US cities.
About 800 troops were killed in Iraq last year out of 130,000 US troops. That puts a servicman's chances of getting killed at about 1 out of 165.
By contrast, Detroit, with a population of 951,270 had 359 murders in 2005 (FBI Uniform Crime Report). That would put the chances of being killed in Detroit at 1 in 2650.
Washington DC's population is 550,551. In 2005 they had 198 murders. That would put the chances of an individual person being murdered in Washington DC at 1 in 2,780.
These are among our most dangerous cities. That means a US Serviceperson is 16 to 17 times more likely to be killed in Iraq than they would be if they lived in one of our most dangerous cities.
QUOTE FROM RASH:
RUSH: " Let me just cut to the chase on all this death statistics stuff. You don't have to spend time calculating the demographic age of men between 18 and 29 in America versus the number of soldiers 18 to 29 in Iraq to figure out which is more at risk. It's obvious. Just look at the murder numbers. A male 18 to 29 is at greater risk for losing life in this country than in Iraq if you're wearing a uniform. Statistics bear it out."
All those I've encountered on the left have the utmost respect for the dangers our US troops face. Rash doesn't. Rash trashed all the honor US troops earned by facing these dangers for us.
Rash's voice is carried on Armed Forces Radio. That means our troops facing death in Iraq had to hear Rash say that they are sacrificing nothing. Talk about not supporting the troops! Talk about hurting morale! Remember that according to Rash, the media is not allowed to give the public any negative news about Iraq because he says it might demoralize the troops.
I hope MediaMatters will look into this shameful behavior by Limbaugh, run a column on it, and suggest that MediaMatters readers contact their Congresspeople to have the lying, troop dishonering Rash taken off Armed Forces Radio for this disgusting lie.
[link to rushlimbaugh.com]
[link to www.fbi.gov]
ALSO:
Last week a liberal Christian called in to the Rash show to say that liberal views are more in line with what the Bible tells us about the teachings of Christ. Rash responded by making fun of the man's Christianity. Rash yelled " Cheeeee = zussss" in a voice that cartooned televangelists. I hope MediaMatters runs an article on that too, and suggest that Christian readers contact the networks, and contact their churches to encourage others to do the same.
they seem to be coming faster and faster . . . but I'll get to that in a minute -
For RightOn and AnoAmerican:
You two seem to be of the opinion that Michael Moore was being "reprehensable" when he labeled the Iraqi insurgents not as insurgents but as "the REVOLUTION" and "MINUTEMEN."
Then, without a doubt, I'm CERTAIN you also feel that the patron saint of Conservatism, Ronald Reagan, was also "reprehensable" when he referred to the Contras as "freedom fighters," no? OK, thanks for clearing that up.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Back to the subject: It seems the Rove talking points are being spun out faster and faster . . . I know last week it was "Defend Crazy Annie's comments {and if you can throw in a reference to the Clintons, no matter how obscure, do it}" - which is actually continuing into this week; this past week it was "Praise Dubya's 'surge in momentum' {no matter that his approval rating didn't budge}"; I guess the latest one is, "Marginalize and Dehumanize Detainees: Their suicides mean nothing, the rule of law, international treaties and the presumption of innocence mean nothing, and allegations of abuse at GTMO - no matter that some have been proven to be fact - mean nothing unless they are tried in the Court of Bill O'Reilly's TV show."
I used to think these talking points got distributed to first to FOX, then to the rest of the liberal media, only on a week-by-week basis . . . but I guess with Rove no longer under the gun, he's free to spin ever faster . . . at this rate, he'll be absolutely SUPERSONIC by the November elections . . .
I hold Rush to pretty low standards, but this is beyond belief.