Gibson: "Lefties" are "cheering terrorist victories," "pulling for the wrong side"
Fox News host John Gibson asserted that "victory dances on the left are veering into hyperventilation" in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that prohibited the use of military commissions for the trial of detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Gibson further claimed that "lefties" would think "it's a victory and a cause for celebration that several hundred terrorists walk free," adding that that progressives would "wave ... the terrorists off to another building" if a hijacked plane approached the headquarters of The New York Times.
On the June 29 edition of Fox News' Big Story, host John Gibson asserted that "victory dances on the left are veering into hyperventilation" in the wake of the Supreme Court decision issued that morning that prohibited the use of military commissions for the trial of detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Citing reader comments posted to the Daily Kos weblog, Gibson further claimed that "lefties" would think "it's a victory and a cause for celebration that several hundred terrorists walk free," are "cheering terrorist victories" and "pulling for the wrong side." Gibson also claimed that progressives would "wave ... the terrorists off to another building" if a hijacked plane approached the headquarters of The New York Times, but otherwise maintain that "we deserve it. So, come on, jihadis. Work your magic."
From the June 29 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: The victory dances on the left are veering into hyperventilation, which almost always induces dizziness. I'm talking about the reaction from lefties to this Supreme Court ruling on the Gitmo detainee Hamdan. Get this. One of the comments on the far-left Daily Kos, which is a blog, in which writers purported to analyze the Supreme Court decision -- fair and balanced, of course -- one writer actually said, per today's decision, the administration appears to have been engaged in war crimes which are subject to the death penalty. Wow! They're excited over there on the far left.
[...]
GIBSON: These are people who evidently would think it's a victory and a cause for celebration that several hundred terrorists walk free. Their hatred for George W. Bush is so strong, they seem to actually wish for these terrorists to be returned to their wartime activities, in order to be made whole, after the degradation and the horrible abuse at Gitmo. If the Gitmo detainees were to return to the U.S., piloting another hijacked plane headed for the new tower on Eighth Avenue that will house The New York Times, they might try to wave the terror off -- terrorists off to another building. But, otherwise, we deserve it. So, come on, jihadis, work your magic. Once again, the lefties are seen cheering terrorist victories and seem to be pulling for the wrong side. How else is one supposed to interpret jubilation that Gitmo detainees might be released because there's not enough evidence for trial or the evidence was gained by intelligence methods that cannot be exposed? How else are we supposed to take it? That's "My Word."
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
Patently false and, frankly, absurd. I'll save the soliloqy. More lying to cover Bush's behind. Were any of these guys charged with anything?
"Their hatred for George W. Bush is so strong, they seem to actually wish for these terrorists to be returned to their wartime activities, in order to be made whole, after the degradation and the horrible abuse at Gitmo."
Gibson's hatred for liberals is so strong, he actually wishes for liberals to wish terrorsits be returned to their wartime activites, so he can exercise hate towards fellow Americans. I don't know why these idiots want to stir up this kind of hatred towards others because of political belief. There is absolutely no merit to the kind of accusations these righties make to demonize the left. It's akin to yelling fire in a crowded theater.
Whatever the reason...it is extreme pathology.
himself a Christian. They desire to believe the left is so evil, they immediately assume the worst. It's twisted. He doesn't know what he's talking about. SCOTUS didn't rule to release the "terrorists." What's so funny 'bout due process?
We liberals LOVE the terrorism. If it were shampoo, we'd scrub it into our elitist hair. We'd smell great!
If we could put the terrorism in a bottle, we'd call it the elixir of life.
Mmmm, how about we make a cereal and call it "Terrorist Trix." Silly neo-con, terrorists trix are for libs! Better yet "Apple Jack Jihad Crunch," or "Osama Oats." How about "Fatwah Flakes!" Who says we are a party devoid of ideas?
Instead of M.I.L.F.'s, liberals have T.I.L.F.'s. Yep, we have sex with the terrorists, John Gibson. Come on in, while the sin is smoldering hot. Afterwards we can go worship Satan and molest a tree. It will be a total gas.
I recognize your sarcasm.
Unfortunately, it is completely dead on with what the rightwingers are saying in all earnesty.
The Rightwing can no longer be parodied, because they duplicate and exceed the wildest, most extreme, most insane parody that anyone could come up with.
but true. The viewers of his show just eat that type of garbage up. Oh well. I'll still laugh at these lying freaks. That is, until enablers like Gibson/Hannity/Limbaugh/Coulter assist the administration in instituting the thought police.
The reason pundits like Gibson are so consistent in their mendacity and appeal to the most visceral means in their commentary is because most people in this country don't actually agree with the values, methods, and goals of rightest radicals. If people did then they could speak the truth.
Instead of commenting on the fact that the ruling essentially said, "actually, no, you can't just proceed without the slightest regard for the laws of this nation", the line is hysterical and completely false.
Time and time again it is simple to show that the assertions of those like Gibson are not incorrect in the realm of the vastly more subjective realm of analysis or conclusion, but simply untrue on the face of it.
Showing the world that we are a nation of laws is a victory for America.
Showing the world that we are not a nation where the party in power cannot resort to babaric dictatorship in a time of crisis is a victory for America.
Showing the world that the Geneva Convention still means something is a victory for America.
Showing the world that we still believe in innocence until guilt is proven is a victory for America.
Showing the world that our Constitution does not go on hiatus when confronting an enemy is a victory for America.
that the most virulent flag suckers, the most obsessively attached to "defending freedom" and "spreading democracy" are the first to abandon those tennants in the face of fear?
I wonder if it's because they are actually the least committed to these ideals (in their pure form, not the adulterated and frankly obscene, and unfortunately crystal clear meanings that these phrases have come to embody for most of the world) than many of us?
That's pretty much what I have to say. Why do they think turning Americans against Americans by lying is such a good thing?
Why do they lie so much?
Is it all simply for money?
To keep ratings up in their hatefilled demographic?
Why do they hate Truth, Justice and the American way?
They know we don't have anything to do with rooting for the terrorists and it's painful to hear another death in Iraq or Afghanistan, but when the administration gets it's butt spanked and we are happy their power is reined in all of a sudden we are sympathizers with the terrorists?
No wonder we have such a divided country. Those on the right are incapable of telling the truth.
Must be something I missed in the news. Odd, since I follow the news closely.
I want terrorist killed or put behind bars. I don't want those who are not terrorists killed or behind bars (well, unless they are criminals anyway :)).
I guess that is too complicated an idea for some on the right.
about 250 have been released. By released I mean either let go or returned to their home country for detention. Some have returned to warfare and been killed already. Some if they go back to their home country would be killed instantly.
For the most part the ones left are the worst of the worst of the Jihadis.
This whacko Supreme Court decision leaves all kinds of problems but hopefully Congress will fix them shortly by reestablishing the military tribunals.
As it stands, Bush can lock them up and throw away the key. Maybe it would just save time and money by doing just that. They all want to kill themselves to martyr themselves in their jihad war in a public relations war against us. At least they don't have suicide bombs strapped to their bodies. Maybe we should quit being humane and keeping them alive by force-feeding them. I have to give our military credit. They have to wage war against the jihad at Gitmo by force feeding these idiots to keep them alive. I would have a hard time going out of my way to keep them alive.
but care to document any of that stuff you puked all over the board?
For your faithful loyalty to the Bushenfuhrer and your unabashed hatred of the Bill of Rights, the rule of law, and the Geneva Conventions, El Presidente himself will reward you by destroying all your civil liberties and turning your children into either impoverished wage slaves or dead corpses on a battlefield of his corporate masters' choosing.
Like Barnum said, "One's born every minute."....and they tend to vote Republican.
why do you hold on to an irrational hatred of liberals? Everything you think liberals stand for you are dead wrong on. Answer me this so Bush let 250 terrorists go? Why? Why do you hate America and yhe constitution so much?
It's packed with Conservatives, so yes, I agree. It IS whacko, but at least they got the tribunal decision correct, or do you believe the President should have absolute power? I know Bush does, so long as he's the one with the power.
Gosh, if you Bush supporters realized that when you root for things like unlimited presidential power, you're rooting for fascism, so you'd probably stop. Then again, perhaps not.
Not that I know if he's right about that, but maybe, just maybe, it could be interpreted as happiness that things might actually be done by the book, and according to the laws?
I guess it doesn't bother Gibson if there's not enough evidence for trial or if we follow the laws. Some of us still believe in the American ideals, and are actually kind of worried about the erosion of said ideals. How silly!
... the attributing of FALSE MOTIVES to a foe is among the weakest.
That "the left" would celebrate the upholding of the Constitution and the reasserting that America is a nation of laws, dedicated to due process and equal treatment, is not a good slam.
Saying that "the left" wants all terrorists released and celebrate THAT apparently FOX thinks will play well in the heartland.
On the other hand, the Administration started this war in IRAQ, and now are giddy and celebratory that our soldiers are getting slaughtered, maimed, and killed. Why does this Administration HATE our troops so much?
The assigninig of false motives is a very weak argument and its very easy. The reason the rightwing is using it so much lately is its all they have. The cupboard is bare. There are no cogent, decent arguments left them so they cast aspersions pulled directly from their expansive derriers. What was Gibson GOING to say. OK, we have no real evidence most of these guys really are terrorists or any threat. In fact we KNOW some of them clearly arent. The President should still be able to lock them up forever abuse them at will and treat them as if they WERE criminals without even trying to show they ARE criminals. The Supreme Court has ruled, the question now is will Bush throw another I am Pharoah and no silly Supreme Court is going to tell a God-King like me what to do? Or will he finally comply with the law and common decency. These human beings have rights which must be respected if we are to continue to be a decent country. IF Bush tells the Supreme Court to take a hike, maybe make a signing statement saying the Supreme Court ruling is fine but he is not bound by it will cons STILL support Bush doing whatever he wants for whatever reasons he can dredge up and spew out or will they finally wake up and smell the fascism?
How else am I suppose to feel about the truth about Iraq? I am sorry but I really hate what we have done to the civilian population in Iraq. It amounts to murder -- in this case, a very high class elitist murder cloaked in patriotism. When you look at the truth and the facts surrounding this War, I find myself looking for the honor we use to carry as a standard for the world to follow. So, I too look to Bush's court lost as a blessing that could bring down this misrepresentation of the American spirit. I would love to few our war resolve as a necessary option only used to save the lives of others in imminent danger. I do not feel the kind of honor and pride afforded our soldiers in past wars. How else am I suppose to feel?
Joseph
" There are no cogent, decent arguments left them so they cast aspersions pulled directly from their expansive derriers. "
Ditto??
" will cons STILL support Bush doing whatever he wants for whatever reasons he can dredge up and spew out or will they finally wake up and smell the fascism? "
Why would conservatives support Bush? He won't be running for president any time soon. Conservatives will soon choose a person to support in the next election, but I can gaurantee you it won't be any liberal and their crazy ideas for running the country.
" Their hatred for George W. Bush is so strong, they seem to actually wish for these terrorists to be returned to their wartime activities "
Gibson is exactly right on this statement. I agree that liberal hatred of Bush gives apparent support for any and every group that can denegrate Bush in any way. That includes the support liberals have for every terrorist we capture, claiming this abuse or that abuse on every turn of the wheel deciding guilt simply on the reporting of the incident before any trial is even assembled, simply because it gives Bush a "black eye".
You get it as wrong as Gibson does.
The support is NOT for the terrorist, but for America. America has always strived for justice and rule of law. It should never been the American way to just lock up people indefinitely, without an established, transparent and legal way to try these people for the crimes they are accused of. THAT is what the "liberals" are defending - not the terrorist.
And I have yet to talk to anyone who defends this position because it will make Bush look bad, although I'm sure some do. On the contrary, I'd argue most liberals do it so America, and by extension Bush, can look good again, in the eyes of our allies, both existing and potential.
There is a LOT of ways to make Bush look bad that are better than trying get America's respect back.
Will conservatives continue to support Bush doing..... This is exceedingly clear will conservatives continue to support Bushs power grabs. The POLICIES. Adult education look into it.
Then you go on to do exactly what we were talking about. Assigning false motives since it is the only trick left in your book. I think you do this because you hate America and it is the only way to push your fascist agenda. See how easy that is, no need to show facts or evidence just spew out any baseless assertion in a Coulteresque fashion. How about you do it because you are so ignorant you cannot possibly understand the dynamics at work. Hey I could do this all day. Pull spurious motives from some dark dank part of my anatomy and CLAIM they are your motives. How about you do it because you were abused as a child and it causes you to lash out irrationally. Its all so much hooey. IF you had a cogent argument I assume I would have seen it. I looked, where was it, I didnt see it. Oh thats right IT WASNT THERE. In fact the NEXT cogent point you make the next rational argument will be your VERY FIRST ONE. You are a really big waste of time.
Yeah, them crazy liberals with their ideas that we should be a good decent moral country that doesn't kill people and respects human rights and the rule of law and the Bill of Rights and other such nonsense...damned liberal commies won't even let us torture people! I hate them all!
People like Gibson and yourself who dismiss criticism of the president and his policies as being an irrational hatred are intellectually lazy. It doesn't matter what topic it is or what's being said, you stop thinking and cling to this notion that we're just crazy liberals who are holding a grudge. It's really sophmoric. There many reasons for criticizing this president, from a liberal point of view, a moderate and a conservative point of view. It all comes down to a few simple things. Very simply put most of us are upset at his disregard for the constitution, his disregard for humanity, and his disregard for facts. If you are interested in why we feel the way we do, then by all means stick around and we'll tell you. But if your just going to parrot people like Gibson just go away as you aren't offering anything to the conversation.
That unless you're an uber-rigtht-wing Bush-butt-kissing "patriot" that you are somehow helping the "enemy"? I don't wear a flag on my sleeve and I surely don't have one of those (made in china) magnetic flags/"support the troops" thingies on my car. But - being a patriot is the willingness to actually question your government when you feel it is not operating in the direction you feel is correct.
As some experts have expressed (and I'd have to search for references) - but the "war on terror" will never be won in a military sense - we can keep killin' 'em, but unless you win the hearts and minds of those who oppose you, you're going to lose.
Call me a "softie" - but I truely believe that we can only win the "war on terror" once we understand the culteral reasons as to why these people want to attack us. America isn't all bad - most people left and right believe that - but our foreign policy does have an impact on the rest of the world and that's something Bush et. al. don't seem to understand. (Their solution is to get out the bigger guns)
Finally, I don't feel one bit safer with Bush at the helm - he and his administration policies have only created more angry people who are quite willing to cause harm to us. (and at the same time, he's using "secret" spying tactics to track these same terrorists)
We need a sane foreign policy and learn to play nice with our neighbors in the "virtual sandbox" - right now all I see is a bully tossing sand in the opponent's eyes - and it's no wonder why they're pissed off.
Of course, the cost of this "policy" has been many lives - all directed by people who don't know what war is.
/rant
Excellent commentary. I don't think it's "timid" to use some brain power on this cultural gap. It's very easy to fire a gun, no matter how big up to and including the "big one," but it takes subtle diplomacy and innovative ideas to take some different approaches to the war on terror (an endless war). If we spent our money on butter, not guns we'd theoretically could forward the American dream as the one most sympathetic to the poor and unaccepted. The desire for power and money has destroyed our Marshall plan kindness. We need a different approach, now more troops and guns. I am naive, I suppose.
As MICKD says: "Excellent commentary. I don't think it's "timid" to use some brain power on this cultural gap. It's very easy to fire a gun, no matter how big up to and including the "big one," but it takes subtle diplomacy and innovative ideas to take some different approaches to the war on terror (an endless war)."
Thanks - as someone somewhere once said - we don't have diplomats to talk to our friends, we have diplomats to talk to our enemies. And, the keyword is "talk" - something a cowboy (and I use that term loosely) hasn't done.
But, Fox loves this "war" - it makes for good images and it can scare most Americans. Gibson is just a clueless putz who lives in a glass house and can pontificate from his "thrown" - as do most Fox pundits.
Your point is RIGHT ON.
These NeoCons treat everyone outside their NeoCon Elitist CLIQUE exactly the same: with domination, intimidation, force and violence.
That's why they lump Democrats and Environmentalists in with Al Qaeda -- to the Rightwing, it's all the same; Opposition to their totalitarian rule.
So, it's screw the UN, unprovoked invasion of "preemptive WAR", and demonization of domestic opponents will calls for their death, with accusations of treason, and with collaboration with "the enemy".
It's a big gamble for this upper 5% to 10% of the monied elites to take on the rest of the world, but they calculate with nearly all the wealth (and the POWER that brings), they can pull off this world domination thing.
All they have to do is fool a few "Conservatives" into voting AGAINST their own best interests, and the NeoCons retain the total power they have engineered during the Bush Administration.
Think about it: It's not though REASON and better POLICIES that these Rightwingers mount their campaigns. No, it's the SMEARING and BELITTLING of their opponents. The list is long, of even Heroic decorated combat veterans that these Rightwing slime have attempted to character assassinate ... Kerry, Gore, Clelland, Murtha, even John McCain.
It's all about violence, lying, smearing, and the application of FORCE that these guys "govern".
I love how he snickers sarcastically about that random blog entry he is quoting from being "fair and balanced".
Fox News - producing delicious irony once again.
John, we see right through your shallow, spoonfed fake outrage. It's hilarious.
Good work!
Wait... was he being serious?!
Wait a minute, the Supreme Court is dominated by right wing conservative white men and Gibson blames "lefties" for their decision?
I'd love to take this ghoulish moron to a beach and watch him burn.
I'm sure both of your viewers agree with you.
"One of the comments on the far-left Daily Kos, which is a blog, in which writers purported to analyze the Supreme Court decision -- fair and balanced, of course -- one writer actually said, per today's decision, the administration appears to have been engaged in war crimes which are subject to the death penalty. Wow! They're excited over there on the far left."
Excited? Aside from "appears", which seems to be used more to set up an argument than an opinion, there is no editorializing in that sentence Gibson quoted. In fact, who's to say it wasn't from a right-wing poster in that "far left" blog, admitting the dire consequences of the Supreme Court ruling?
But in Gibson's mind, it's the best evidence he can find that the liberals are cheering terrorists on.