Gibson on Rumsfeld's resignation: Are bin Laden and Saddam "dancing"?
While discussing Donald H. Rumsfeld's resignation as secretary of defense with Fox News military analyst Oliver North on the November 8 edition of Fox News' The Big Story, host John Gibson asked: "Is there a cave somewhere in Afghanistan with a tall guy dancing? Is there a cell in Iraq with a bearded guy dancing?" Gibson was presumably referring to Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, respectively. Responding to Gibson, North claimed: "If they are, John, they ought to be very careful about where they dance" because U.S. troops are "looking for those kinds of terrorists" and will "kill them just as sure tomorrow as they would when Don Rumsfeld was secretary of defense."
From the November 8 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson:
GIBSON: Ollie, there was a picture today of Don Rumsfeld leaving the Pentagon kind of slumped over, looked depressed, going out to his car. Is there a cave somewhere in Afghanistan with a tall guy dancing? Is there a cell in Iraq with a bearded guy dancing?
NORTH: If they are, John, they ought to be very careful about where they dance, because nothing has changed on the ground. The troops that are out there looking for those kinds of terrorists are still looking today. And they'll kill them just as sure tomorrow as they would when Don Rumsfeld was secretary of defense.
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
a TV studio somewhere in New York with a guy with a giant yellowish head saying stupid things?
Gibson's idiotic remarks mirror Bush's own from yesterday's press conference. Bush had spent months on the campaign trail telling audiences that a victory for the Democratic party would be a victory for terrorists. He's still lost in that same fantasy, and decided to treat the election results as though that's exactly what they'd been. Working from that premise, he tried to be the reassuring hero who will protect us from ourselves and from our own elected representatives:
"Amid this time of change, I have a message for those on the front lines. To our enemies: Do not be joyful. Do not confuse the workings of our democracy with a lack of will. Our nation is committed to bringing you to justice. Liberty and democracy are the source of America's strength, and liberty and democracy will lift up the hopes and desires of those you are trying to destroy. To the people of Iraq: Do not be fearful. As you take the difficult steps toward democracy and peace, America is going to stand with you. We know you want a better way of life, and now is the time to seize it. To our brave men and women in uniform: Don't be doubtful. America will always support you. Our nation is blessed to have men and women who volunteer to serve, and are willing to risk their own lives for the safety of our fellow citizens."
He offered this same sentiment not once, but twice. Our Hero is even going to protect us from ourselves. Talking about the pre-election polls, he said he thought the Repubicans would do better:
"Well, there was a--I read those same polls, and I believe that--I thought when it was all said and done, the American people would understand the importance of security and the importance of taxes. But the people have spoken, and now it's time for us to move on."
If I were these two, I wouldn't be dancing. First of all, Saddam will lose his life anyways. But Bin Laden should not be happy that the most incompetenet secretary of defense has been fired. I would be on my guard.
Bin Laden never gave two straws about Rumsfield. Now about Nanci Pelosi, I heard he was shaking in his sandals.
I don't get Gibson's attemt at humor. When was getting Osama Bin Laden ever a priority for Donald Rumsfeld? He was one of the early advocates of invading Iraq (having better targets than Afghanistan) and never did devote sufficient assets to Afghanistan in order to track down and kill Bin Laden.
So what Gibson is saying when is that bin Laden and Saddam are happy Rumsfeld is gone? Doubtful. Rumsfelds decisions have left bin Laden free , he loved Rumsfeld. As for Saddam, he could care less , he has bigger issues than Rumsfeld. FOX is so disgusting I cant stand even watching it anymore.
I find Fox entertaining. I love the plain ignorant propaganda and I love to dream about seeing these selfproclaimed 'religious' and 'godly' liars burning in hell as we light up another blunt in heaven with Jesus himself. "This one's on you, O'Liely!"
Aren't you a little melodramatic in your seething hatred for one who doesn't share your opnion? "Burning in hell.........." (eyebrow raise)
It's entirely off-topic, but Jericho was obviously referring to religious hypocrisy in his post, and last time I checked hypocrisy wasn't an opinion. But it's nice to know that, at least once a week, we can still count on you to accuse someone of harboring "seething hatred."
I love to dream about seeing these selfproclaimed 'religious' and 'godly' liars burning in hell.....
***********************
Perfectly acceptable "hatred" when it's directed at someone you don't agree with. If this is fine with you, well, I am not surprised.
Personally, I don't imagine anyone burning in hell, because I'm a godless heathen. I was simply shooting down another one of your tired "Why do you have seething hatred for people who don't share your opnion" posts. It's clear that Jericho was speaking generally about Fox and Fox pundits who hypocritically declare themselves to be on the God's side. It's not a matter of differing opinions.
You defended his comments by slamming mine. And your double standard is quite revealing, and hypocritical.
If some conservative posted here about some liberal host burning in hell you and many liberals would be all over that person with the troll accusation and a host of other scoldings, rightfully so.....it would be like clockwork.
Yet one of your own does it and you not only let it lie there, but then you slam me for calling him on it - and then try and worm your way out of it by saying "don't damn me......".
Sorry, I know your rules are vastly different depending on the poster's ideology, but don't get all whiny when your double standards are pointed out to you.
There have been countless threads here about religious leaders and other conservatives attacking liberals on religious grounds, essentially saying the same thing about liberals that Jericho was fantasizing about Fox pundits. I don't think I've ever commented on a single one of those threads, and I know for a fact that I've never called anyone a troll or accused anyone of "hating" the other side. The reason is plain: I don't care about religious mud-slinging, I think it's silly and irrelevant. It's like arguing about Santa Claus. And I don't presume to have knowledge of anyone's emotional state, so I never accuse anyone of being angry or filled with hate. I don't really care what Jericho fantasizes about, just as I don't care about the religious fantasies lurking in the minds of conservatives. Hypocrisy, on the other hand, I do care about.
I commented solely about a poster dreaming about Fox personalities burning in hell, it was uncalled for and way over the top. Instead of agreeing it was, you went to Fox's hypocrisy as an excuse to defend it and then saying I was accusing him of hatred - when the above comment speaks for itself.
Stand by your comments, I stand by my initial assessment of jericho's.
...because that's exactly what you did. Oh, I'm sorry, you accused him of "seething hatred." My bad. You say his comment was uncalled for and I say I don't care. How in the world does this make me a hypocrite?
"Stand by your comments..."
I am. I have no idea why you're suggesting that I'm not.
.......you "don't care". And that's my point. When it's directed at someone you don't like, you "don't care".........no problem, apparently.
I maintain it was over the top and full of hate. You "don't care", so why post about it at all? - unless it was just to unleash a little of your own at me? Frankly, on that note, I "don't care".
You really must be getting sick of sending letters to all of those religious groups telling them that when they state "your going to burn in hell" that its full of hate, over the top and that they are all around mean people.
Or do you just enjoy lecturing the people here?
I think the reason that people get annoyed with you is that if you cannot attack the content of an article on MMFA, you give the appearance of doing everything in your power to pick apart any post under the article instead. Personally I try to ignore or take some posts with a grain of salt... We all come from different backgrounds and our life experience/ age play a big part of the way we express ourselves. Don't you think your making a bigger issue out of the "burn in hell" comment then is necessary?
I can't help, but notice that you said nothing about Gibson's ridiculous comments... Your giving the impression that your defending Gibson by remaining silent on his comment and attacking a poster instead or your defending him by changing the subject to a poster instead of comments from Gibon instead.
Why don't you say it with me Tommy - Giboson is a giant A$$ and adds nothing ot the political landscape! Trust me, you will feel better and people will have more respect for you.
I stand by my criticism of a poster calling for others to burn in hell. It has been explained here enough.
Some people here don't like to be challenged or questioned. I have also explained the reasons for that enough.
haven't said a word about Gibons and its very telling ....
THAT is what you do. Usually, though not always you ignore or appologize for the hatrespeech or bias from the rightwing screechmonkey and lecture all of us piously about how WE act. Hey, did I miss an election where YOU were elected message board protocol manager? Did someone tell you we needed one? Did God whisper in your ear that he needed YOU to tell us how we should act? What great attribute do you bring to this awesome endeavor?
And your double standard is quite revealing...
What does it reveal?
It doesn't reveal anything because he can't point to any actual hypocrisy on my part.
It might reveal your lack of confidence in your arguments. Or maybe your blind partisanship. Or your own seething hatred. Or your hatred of America. Or class warfare. Or your touchiness about Olbermann's low ratings.
Did I leave any out?
I have been waiting for you to comment on this. But your sarcasm today is actually funny, keep it coming.
Sarcasm?
Sorry, gave you too much credit.
It revealed your tendency to create the illusion of an authoritative argument. You say "[Y]our double standard is quite revealing, and hypocritical," as if that actually means something. In fact, you can't identify any double standard or hypocrisy, and you don't have an answer when someone asks you what exactly this alleged double standard reveals. But the quote sounds authoritative and damning enough to give the illusion that you made a valid point or somehow exposed me as a hypocrite, when in fact you were only spouting baseless nonsense.
To bring it back on topic, this is exactly what John Gibson did with his "dancing" comment. He made a statement that makes absolutely no rational sense, but if he says it with the right combination of authority and snideness, his audience will cheer him on without thinking about the actual content of the statement for more than 2 seconds.
...It also reveals that I'm a racist, and that like all liberals I'm completely intolerant of someone else's opinion, especially when that opinion dares to challenge indisputable facts and scientifically proven theories.
I was sure it was the Olbermann thing. Whenever I express my seething hatred, the real reason is because of Olbermann's ratings.
I would have included "frustration at the Democrats' inability to win elections" but that one won't work anymore.
admint MY seething hatred for someone who doesn't share my views.
3 years over which nearly 3000 servicement and hundreds of thousands of iraqis have been killed, tens of thousands of our military have been maimed, billions of dollars just "lost", the ranks of rookie terrorists swelling daily, still no reliable electricity, a country on the brink of civil war... But it takes an election season that doesn't turn out favorably for the president's party to prompt the exit of Rumsfeld. A very clear illustration of Dubya's view of relative values. A view that, yes, inspires seething hatred in anyone not blinded by partisan loyalty.
.......to his hatred. Defend it by deflecting it to Bush, good one.
And the reason I am not (and will not become) a Democrat is that when the Democrats regain power, many of their followers lose their rationality (much the same as it happened to the Republicans).
There is no room for hate at all PERIOD. Disagreements should be about policy. That's it! I am not innocent here either, to be fair, but we should all agree to aspire to be better people.
Very well said. Everybody gets hot from time to time, but it should also be in everyone's best interest to call out those that do it and temper the tone.
If the election proved anything is that people are tired of all the sniping, they want results. Hatred and comments about opponents burning in hell is hardly that.
do you base your statement that democrats become more "irrational" when they are in power?
People trying to somehow excuse hatred for one.
Don't get me wrong. I sympathize with the Democrats much and dislike the Republicans much more. The problem is really in the power itself. It corrupts.
you see far more irrationality on the republican side. on both a national and personal level. i've had discussions with many many republicans and when you point something out they just go into the yeah but mode. the democrats are not perfect by any means, and i will rip into them as needed. but i don't see the same irrationality among their followers.
I feel the same way, for the most part. I think the Republicans are indeed much worse as a group. It may not be an equal situation, but that doesn't excuse it at all on the Democratic side though, IMO (and I don't think you are trying to do that either).
It is also indeed possible that deep-seated biases in our own nature prohibit us from seeing the errors of our ideological brethren as harshly as we see them in our supposed enemies. Therefore, we should listen to criticism from them as well with an open-mind.
I think it is important for fair-minded people like us (most of the time) to "rip into" Democrats with the same relish we do with Republicans when they are being irrational.
Fantasising about people burning in hell for hypocrisy, that means some significant portion of democrats will become irrational when they take power? You have got to be kidding.
Only when one defends burning in hell as a few irrational posters here have done.
Who said we need you telling us how to act? If you spent half the posts criticising the idiotic statements made by rightwing bloviators as you do chastising the posters here as if you were sent by God to lead us mere mortals to a higher plane of existance someone might take you seriously. As it is I for one am sick to death of your pretntious Church Lady impersonation. Get a job as a schoolmarm if you have some compulsion to tell people what they should and should not say on a message board. Personally, I dont need you to tell me what to do. I will decide every single aspect about what I post. You need to get over yourself and your serious control issues.
.......trying to deny my free speech rights after this rant of yours earlier?
****************************
Limbaugh just like anyone else has every right to stand on a streetcorner and rant to his hearts content. THAT is the only guarantee free speech gives you. Are MY free speech rights being denied because I dont have a syndicated radio show to spout my point of view? Or is free speech, as you seem to define it, only guaranteed to those who OWN the media? * - solon / Thursday November 9, 2006 05:18:00 PM EST
Did I call for you to be arrested? You wingnuts think that free speech means you get YOUR say and we have to shut up. Somehow you seem to think that if WE have our say, and refute or dispute your take on something it is a denial your first amendment rights, in some way comprehensible only to brainwashed wingnuts. Perhaps thats how it works on Planet Wingnut. Back on Planet Eath however it works like this. You can say whatever you want. THEN I can tell you what I think of your pious moralizing and condenscending scolding. THAT is how it works. You must have failed your 8th grade civics class
You can say whatever you want. THEN I can tell you what I think of your pious moralizing and condenscending scolding.
***********************
You absolutely can, but don't get all whiny and defensive when you get called out defending someone who wants to see those of differing opinions burning in hell. Works both ways.
As they say in hell, if you can't stand the heat...............
Like a prissy little girl that people are sooo mean. That what people are saying is offensive. The WAAAAHHHH from your posts is deafening and its constant repitition is BORING. I didnt defend ANYONE, I dont need to, they can speak for themselves, I am telling you that I for one dont NEED you to police the site and tell us what is and what isnt appropriate. You arent anyone boss and we dont need a chaperone nor a prudish, pious moralizer telling us what we should post. I am glad I could EDUCATE you on what constitutes free speech. As for what they say in Hell I wouldnt know but I would know it was YOU snivelling I was in some incomprehensible way trying to deny your free speech. When you are done whining, perhaps you can take your own advise about what I always heard was the heat of the Kitchen at least that was the way Harry Truman put it.
said a word about Gibson's comments - I'm going to take your silence as passive agreement. Apparently you have no problem when Gibson make idiotic, sensationalized comments about terrorism/the war yet your ready to jump all over a poster that uses the phrase "burn in hell" in the same sentence as "light up another blunt in heaven with Jesus". You sir are a piece of work. Take your mock indignation else where.
Gibson is a joke.... A "professional" journalist would not lower our national discourse into the gutter like this jerk does on a daily basis.
You took the words right out of my ineloquent mind. High five.
Solon has got MAD skillz.
So now what I did was to "defend burning in hell"? WTF?!
Actually, you are becoming less worth it all the time, but for new readers, here is your hypocrisy in full display...
**************************
"But it's nice to know that, at least once a week, we can still count on you to accuse someone of harboring "seething hatred." - clams casino / Thursday November 9, 2006
**************************
Since you are condemning me for criticizing or accusing the poster, apparently unjustly, then logically, you are defending that person's statement. That is not hard to understand. Are you retracting your defense now?
First of all, I don't even understand how one "defends burning in hell." That's completely nonsensical, even for you. Secondly, you're still stubborningly refusing to comprehend my initial point, which was to call you out for using your tired "Why do you have seething hatred for people who don't share your opinion" tactic. Jericho made a comment about the hypocrisy of some right-wing christians and voiced an ironic fantasy about them burning in hell. You thought the fantasy was over the line, but I don't really care about your pious scolding one way or the other because it has nothing to do with the point I was making. The point (pay attention now) is that Jericho was specifically addressing christian hypocrisy and you accused him of having seething hatred for others because of their opinions, as if christian hypocrisy were an opinion that should be reasonably considered as a valid viewpoint. Again, you've used this tactic in the past in order to accuse the left of intolerance.
And lastly, you still seem to be clinging to the idea that if you baselessly accuse me of hypocrisy enough times that you'll somehow win this argument. It's not working.
I have no absolutely idea how that quote is supposed to be proof of my hypocrisy.
Nobody else does either.
Telling you they are tired of your church lady impersonation isnt defending anything. Just telling YOU we dont need you to be our schoolmarm. Get over yourself. We dont need you to tell us how or what to post. What we think of the original post is another issue entirely. WHEN in the world are you going to get that your Manichaen worldview that you are either on one side or another, the white box or the black box is downright stupid?
It is the power itself that corrupts mostly. I think we can all agree on that. Elected officials often have inflated ideas of why the public really voted for them. They often get a sense of entitlement. That feeling of entitlement does a lot of things. It makes people arrogant and lazy in their arguments and often irrational in general in my opinion. They start to try to justify behavior that is obviously wrong.
This is all human nature. I am willing to admit that it appears to affect Democrats and Republicans in different ways (because it appears to me that Democrats and Republicans think differently in some ways), but it always seems to happen in situations where one party takes over.
While not an absolute its a good rule of thumb. However by THIS logic you could never support ANYONE because once they got power they would be corrupted. Its about the lyrics from an old CSN song. Ya gotta believe in someone, no matter what the cost. Ya gotta believe in something or else you will be lost. Dont get me wrong, I am not a Dem either, its just that cynicism will only take you so far, then the perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Remember that incremental changes are changes and that we are GOING to have someone in power and go one way or another if you opt out, you stop getting to be part of choosing just what that direction is.
Bush got hated the old fashioned way: He earned it.
only with the part of there being no room for hatred. Hatred is an emotion. It's not the emotions themselves that cause problems, it's our actions based on those emotions that can wreak havoc. Ultimately, what we don't have room for are malevolent actions based on hatred.
I believe we have the power to control our emotions although I admit it can be difficult at times.
It is undoubtedly true we are not at our best when our hearts are filled with hatred.
I am often reminded of the words of Booker T. Washington, "I will let no man drag me down so low as to make me hate him."
Besides, if there is anything I have learned over the years it is that hate is not the opposite of love at all. When you hate something to a high degree, eventually you will become what you hate. Some Republicans hate the terrorists so much, they don't realize when they start acting just like the terrorists do and don't care about the similarities when you point them out. People who hate the President or Republicans because they are bullies who don't listen or even because of their sometimes irrational hatred of Democrats often end up trying to justify similar behavior on their own behalf.
You brought up "seething hatred". I just illustrated how one can justifiably have "seething hatred" for another who doesn't share one's opinion.
To bring it closer to home, to make it more easily conceived by even conservatives, let me put it this way: Gibson and North apparently hold an opinion that Bush was correct in his reluctance to remove Rumsfeld. I guess because he was so effective? These two tools have covered and cheered for this administration, regardless of the consequences. They can justifiably share the "seething hatred" runoff.
Clear enough?
I didn't "bring up" seething hatred. It was my opinion that the poster who wants to see others burn in hell, apparently, is exhibiting his own "seething hatred". If you see it otherwise, that's your opinion.
To go off about how others exhibit their own hatred is not relevant at all.
You didn't bring up seething hatred, you only said that someone exhibited seething hatred? That's a good one.
And do you still not understand that the part of your post that I was initially criticizing was the part where you accused Jericho of exhibiting seething hatred for someone because of their "opinons"? You've done this repeatedly in the past, where you'll characterize a factual innaccuracy or a baseless accusation as an "opinion," and then accuse the left of not being tolerant of these "opinions." Again, hypocrisy is not an opnion.
You and I both know you brought up "seeting hatred". You used the phrase as hyperbole to point out an apparent contradiction of the liberal characature of peaceful, benevolent evenness with the "burn in hell" comment, which was also used as hyperbole. Am I wrong in thinking you didn't really perceive any "seething hatred" in the original post?
I haven't a clue what you are talking about???
It is absolutely hysterical how you and others are rationalizing and excusing the comments by another poster calling for others to burn in hell. This is rich. It is so funny. And then all whiny and bent out of shape because I called him on it.
I'll try to clarify:
I don't think you really sensed any "seething hatred" in the post to which you originally replied. I think you took advantage of a light-hearted jab to promote your view that liberals - contradictory to what they proclaim - actually hate others for their opinions. You were hoping to point out an instance of liberal "hypocrisy".
The original post, contrary to your latest assertion, did not call for Gibson and North to burn in hell. It was simply musing an alternate reality where the guilty are punished - eternally - in hell - by fire - while the others enjoy lighting up a doobie in heaven with our lord and savior. Pure fantasy for one's self enjoyment. Hardly the malevolent product of "seething hatred". More likely the peaceful product of lighting up a doobie in one's living room with a buddy.
"I love the plain ignorant propaganda and I love to dream about seeing these selfproclaimed 'religious' and 'godly' liars burning in hell as we light up another blunt in heaven with Jesus himself".
************************
That was what I was referring to. You are feel free to interpret, or explain it anyway you'd like. Even though you didn't even write it?
But I read it. The whole thing. Perhaps I did interpret it wrong.
So the phrase the author used - "I love to dream about" - how exactly did you interpret that?
Drugs are bad, mkay?
That made me laugh :)
Aren't you a little melodramatic in your seething love for one who shares your opinion? ":)"......(eyebrow raise)
Are you saving my posts and using them as your "talking points" now? Are you that enamored with me, that much? I am unavailable actually, but thanks for your attention. I am flattered.
...to misinterpret a satiric jab as a romantic pass.
When one's ego is that huge, it's the only way to interpret anything.
I was just looking for a way to use the phrase "seething love."
I promise to limit my affectionate emoticons.. :p
I learned I shouldn't get high to come up with ideas. I should come up with ideas, and then get high to reward myself.
Oh, man, I have no idea what I'm doin'...
AWAY from Gibsons blatant stupidity and toward a post YOU didnt approve of in true Church Lady fashion by another POSTER? Yeah, I guess like that. Or did you think the topic was how mean us posters are, and how much more important THAT is than MEDIA bias?
Aren't you a little melodramatic in your seething hatred for one who doesn't share your opnion? "Burning in hell.........." (eyebrow raise) // - tommy / Thursday November 9, 2006 12:49:14 PM ES
We endure twenty years of "political pundits" from Beck to O' Reilly to Limbaugh, and Mathews in the public eye, we watch NPR turn rightwing idealogue, we see Maira Laisson & Joe Klein as our liberal counter peice, we hear history re-invented for their pathetic talking points, Tony Yellow Snow as press sec, ect........
I would say we're to patient, and Tommy willing to eat whatever the Republican puts on his plate.
"Aren't you a little melodramatic in your seething hatred for one who doesn't share your opnion? "Burning in hell.........." (eyebrow raise)"
Let's analyze the sentiment.
We're talking about people who claim to be religious, but lie for partisan purposes. Right? Well, if these people actually do believe in God, and believe in the ten commandments, then they're going to Hell. According to their own beliefs. Right? Thou shalt not bear false witness and all that.
If God condemns these people to Hell, then they deserved it, there's no question about that. So anyone who is on God's side should want to see that, since these people broke the rules that God laid down and they themselves advocated.
The bottom line is that according to the Bible and the interpretations these hypocrites themselves advance, anyone who believes in God should really want them to burn in Hell. That's not hatred, that's just calling it like it is. They claimed to be moral, they aren't, they pay the price, it's as simple as that. Right?
Saddam's good buddy Rummy just got the axe.
Listen up guys, Americans have told you on election day that Saddam is not the same as Bin Laden. As hard as Bush tried to tie them together, there is no relationship. Bin Laden may have been behind 9/11, Saddam wasn't. HOWEVER, the war in Iraq has cost Americans the last penny of treasure Bush could find and pushed Iraq into chaos and civil war. Americans gave you the signal that you need to stop fighting unreal treaths, and if you do try to rid the world of evil, get rid of ALL EVIL or none at all. When is Bush going to 'fix' Nepal? China? Korea? Myanmar? Congo? Vietnam? Watch yourself!
I thought Rummy and Saddam were buddies? They did meet quite often, had some nice chats about the US selling WMDs to Iraq for their war against Iran and all. I'm sure Saddam is sad that his buddy Rummy has been fired and all.
John back away from the Crack. Osama is in mourning and Saddam is a lot more worried about what special little corner of Hell he will be dancing in next week
actually osama is probably saying they might not let me go again like they did at tora bora. and they did let him escape, a fact our liberal press didn't seem to focus on. that was the one "clear shot" that we had to get him and bush didn't pull the trigger, for whatever reason.
Bin Laden can't be happy about Rumsfeld's firing. Rummy provided a target rich environment for Al Qaida in Iraq.
Do you think he understands that what has drawn them into Iraq is the lingering presence of our force there?
They will never admit that invading Iraq was a mistake. Truth is, had we concentrated our efforts on catching Bin Laden instead of foolishly invading Iraq, Osama would probably be dead or in custody by now, with a sack over his head and electrodes on his testicles. Rummy's little excursion into Iraq has actually given Bin Laden a few extra years of freedom, as well as a fresh supply of recruits. He's probably sad to see Rummy go.
I'd love to hear Gibson explain his (il)logic on this one. It takes a special brand of idiocy to go on national tv and cheerlead for Rumsfeld on the day of his resignation.
Which is to spread lies and propaganda in favor of Republicans. Just because they've been repudiated by the voters doesn't mean they will stop. In fact, I expect the flying monkeys to redouble their efforts now. They still have Puddinhead George to prop up, plus they are now on the outside looking in once again. The Angry White Rich Christian Homophobes shall return, and they will have vengeance in their black hearts.
Why should it matter if bin Laden is happy, sad or indifferent? That's the wrong yardstick for measuring the value of Rumsfeld's departure.
I used to think he was a decent reporter back when he was covering the OJ trial with Jerry Rivers on CNBC, but since then I don't believe he has uttered a single word that I found to be the least bit thoughtful, intelligent or compelling.
I really liked Gibson back during the O.J. trial. Too bad he gave up his integrity to become a talking head on Fox.
And yeah I'm sure Saddam is dancing...well he WILL be soon --at the end of a rope.
bin Laden is probably holed up in some palatial home in Iran with his feet up watching Fox and laughing his ass off. NOT because Rumsfeld got canned, BUT because Gibson would think he gives a rats ass.
He's doing the "pee pee" dance because he knows we are finally going to go after him for causing 9/11.
This election was about a number of issues: Iraq, corruption, immigration, and partisanship. We were all tired of being called unpatriotic and treasonous if we disagreed with Pres. Bush and the war in Iraq.
John Gibson is talking to the faithful and if that is the type of conversation they want to hear and believe in, then they are in for another “thumpin” in two years. In addition, if the Democrats play the same sort of politics that Republicans have played these last 6 years then they will be in for a “thumpin”.
All this talk about reaching across the Isle and dealing in a bipartisan manner better damn well be sincere, because if it is not, we are all in a “heap of trouble”.
So talk on John Gibson, talk on. If conservatism is in fact your ideology and not simply your meal ticket at Fox, I suggest you back off. If not…..Well, just talk on.
What was OBL's MO?
Question?
What was OBL's MO?- hogprint
OBL's MO was to attack the United States under the watch of an administration with very little collective military experience, a huge fiscal interest in the war business, and a huge number of members and supporters as blinded by religious fundamentalism and fear as OBL's followers.
Worked pretty well, didn't it?
It took a few years but, thankfully, more Americans are catching on.
...using 'fear' as a means to drain our once immense nat'l treasury surplus right into the pockets of their cronies (Cheney a HUGE benefactor of this plan himself - $9 million dollar paycheck last teat). That, to me, is a real crime we've all been subject to... and, as usual, we (the people) will be paying that bill for years and years and years... Cryin' shame.
Now, add in the 100's of thousands dead... well. Very sad, indeed.
...ah, that should be 'year'. Hmmm.
HBLefty, I'll add that he attacked after being emboldened by the previous administration and it's lack of will to do anything of substance (no matter what they say now) to counter al Queda, but we've been round and round on that topic...
OBL's MO was video. He used this medium to communicate with lieutenants and spread fear and propaganda in the west. He never strayed from this even after 9/11.
Next question. Why would he change his MO? The last credible documented video was December '02. Everything since has been audio.
Your opinion about Osama being emboldened is just that, an opinion My opinion is that YOURS is without merit. As to your assertion that Osamas MO was video that is just weird. MO stands for Modus Operandi or mode of OPERATION, not medium of communication.
That Hogprint was going to get one thing right in his post?
Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go back to emboldening terrorists by not allowing them to pull off horrendous attacks.
Please refute.
...well, for starters you got the definition of MO wrong.
modus operandi [L] a way of doing or accomplishing something -Mr. Webster
modus operandi n : an unvarying or habitual method of procedure [syn: routine]
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)
Modus \Mo"dus\, n.; pl. Modi. [L. See Mode.] (Old Law) 1. The arrangement of, or mode of expressing, the terms of a contract or conveyance.
2. (Law) A qualification involving the idea of variation or departure from some general rule or form, in the way of either restriction or enlargement, according to the circumstances of the case, as in the will of a donor, an agreement between parties, and the like. --Bracton.
3. (Law) A fixed compensation or equivalent given instead of payment of tithes in kind, expressed in full by the phrase modus decimandi. --Blackstone.
They, from time immemorial, had paid a modus, or composition. --Landor.
Modus operandi[L.], manner of operating. """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
The phrase can be used in severl ways boys.
You're obviously trying to go somewhere with your questions, but I don't see it. Bin Laden has alternated between video and audio releases in the past, so I really don't see where you're going with this. Better hurry up and make your point before this thread slides off the first page.
Their OTHER meanings that is those that depart from their regularly used meanings, must be shown in CONTEXT or they are not being used correctly. In the context WHAT is OBLs modus operandi the meaning would clearly be the most widely used definition unless specifically shown and defined by context to be different. In that context it would be understood to mean method of OPERATION not method of COMMUNICATION. You used it inaccuratly, its just that simple.
Solon posted:
"Your opinion about Osama being emboldened is just that, an opinion My opinion is that YOURS is without merit. As to your assertion that Osamas MO was video that is just weird. MO stands for Modus Operandi or mode of OPERATION, not medium of communication" """""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I've posted many times and if you like I can go back and post again every instance where OBL attacked US interests and each time they became more SOPHISTICATED and EMBOLDENED. Here is a Frontline segment:
August 23, 1996 Several months after being expelled from the Sudan, bin Laden issues his "Declaration of War Against the Americans Who Occupy the Land of the Two Holy Mosques." It reads, in part: "Muslims burn with anger at America. For its own good, America should leave [Saudi Arabia.] ... There is no more important duty than pushing the American enemy out of the holy land. ... The presence of the USA Crusader military forces on land, sea and air of the states of the Islamic Gulf is the greatest danger threatening the largest oil reserve in the world. The existence of these forces in the area will provoke the people of the country and induces aggression on their religion, feelings and prides and pushes them to take up armed struggle against the invaders occupying the land. ... Due to the imbalance of power between our armed forces and the enemy forces, a suitable means of fighting must be adopted, i.e. using fast-moving, light forces that work under complete secrecy. In other words, to initiate a guerrilla war, where the sons of the nation, and not the military forces, take part in it." -Frontline [link to www.pbs.org]
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
As for my choice of MO...Better check your use of definitions there big guy. ;)
that was still more than bush who did....nothing.
He had a task force on him. He didnt ignore him. Ben Laden is a nutbag, ONE OF OUR MAKING, he doesnt need emboldening. Clinton didnt ingore him BUSH IGNORED HIM. Your take on it is YOUR opinion, nothing more. I have mine, that is that yours is without merit. Whatever the rationale for your OPINION, it doesnt change mine. Did you think for one second any part of your list was something new to me? Did you think I needed YOU to tell me about them? I KNOW the facts, I interpret the dynamics my way, and you intepret them YOUR way. Such is the way of the world. If you think your take is a proven fact you are delusional. I dont claim mine is. We both have opinions and that is all they are.
...I've said this before (not my invention).... The neocons/republicans did nothing to catch Bin Laden or decimate Al Qaeda. We hear a lot of fuss about Iraq being the front-line in the War On Terror. I mean, it may be NOW... still not sure about that... But, it certainly is one helluva training ground for wannabe up-and-comers...
We'll see what the Dems try and do in regard to actually catching OBL... Bush and his crew had their chance and they let him go. And, we've not heard word of it since then... "I don't spend much time on him" said Bush.
The boogey-man will never be caught by the tools in Washington that use fear as their biggest weapon = Republicans. OBL should be more afraid of the Dems and their apparent allegience to the people's needs/wants/desires... I eagerly await their progress on many issues.
I don't see either one "dancing". Rummy maybe gone but the one who has ultimate military authority is still in place (the president).
As for the dancing itself, Bin Laden wouln't dance because it's against his fundmentalist beliefs. And Saddam will shortly be dancing at the end of a rope.
The old Secdef is gone, a new one is coming in. What really changes for OBL and Saddam? As long as the same president is in office, Osama is safe.
Does he realize that, uh, Bush was the one who sacked Rummy, and if Gibby thinks this gives aid and comfort to Saddam & Bin Laden...then I guess for Gibby, if you're not for Rummy, then yer fer the Terrorists winnin', and so Bush must be fer the Terrorists winnin'.
Why does this man have a job?
First of all, seeing as OBL has a kidney condition I doubt he'll waste any energy dancing . . . and as others have said Saddam has bigger issues on his mind than Rummy - like deciding what his last meal will be . . .
" . . . I'll add that he attacked after being emboldened by the previous administration and its lack of will to do anything of substance {no matter what they say now} . . ." - Hogprint
----------------------------------------
We may have a new Legislative branch, but some things never change: the winguts continue singing that golden oldie, "Blame Clinton", whenever possible {heck, I'm waiting for Faux to start blaming the GOP losses on Clinton . . .}
Well, I've said it before, but it bears repeating:
Please define "doing nothing of substance." I'm certain that definition does NOT include launching retaliatory missle strikes against terrorist training sites in response to embassy bombings in Africa - even amidst the cries of "no war for Monica!"
And, once again, I recall two specific things about the first attack on the WTC, February 23, 1993: 1} those repsonsible were all captured by 1997 and imprisioned {without us having to illegaly invade a single country}, where they remain today, and 2} despite the fact this attack occured barely one month into Clinton's presidency, I don't recall a single instance of his blaming the previous administration.
Those were the days, my friend . . .
[link to today.reuters.com]
Khamenei calls elections a victory for Iran
Let's see, Gibson suggested that bin Laden and Hussein were dancing because of Rumsfeld's resignation, and you link to article that quotes Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as saying that the elections are a defeat for Bush's hawkish policies and therefore a victory for Iran. Two obvious things: Khamenei is neither Osama bin Laden nor Saddam Hussein, and he wasn't speaking about Rumsfeld's resignation.
Let me help you out here. Maybe you meant to link to this article in the same paper, which quotes an alleged al Qaeda leader as saying, "I tell the lame duck (U.S. administration) do not rush to escape as did your defense minister...stay on the battle ground." [link to today.reuters.com]
But of course, it should be obvious that al Qaeda propaganda urging us to stay in the fight doesn't support Gibson's idea that Rumsfeld's resignation is a win for the terrorists.
you cannot deny that it emboldened them
Did you start drinking early today?
What emboldened whom?
Also, your statement "No but," is admitting that you were completely wrong in your first post as pointed out by Clams.
So before you answer, think about how wrong you were the first time.
You sound like you're just parroting the standard "Democrats will embolden the enemy" soundbite. If you're going to make an honest attempt at making that claim then you need to explain yourself beyond just repeating the GOP buzzwords. Emboldened them how? It's been plainly evident for a while now that Rumsfeld has been regarded as incompetent and ineffective by respected figures from both parties as well as with many within the military itself. In what way would his resignation embolden the terrorists? Bush and Rumsfeld's Mideast strategy has created chaos and increased terrorism. This administration has clearly and undeniably emboldened the enemy. So please explain how Rumsfeld's resignation, along with the American electorate's decision to reject Bush's Iraq policy, has emboldened the terrorists.
did any of yopu see the editorial on the fox news website written by ollie north calling out clinton for trying to kill osama bin laden before 9 11 he said it was proff of clintons illegal behaviour i just thought ....wow!!