Beck: Supporters of Dems' Iraq bill "will be just as responsible" for troop deaths as suicide bombers
On the March 8 edition of his CNN Headline News program, Glenn Beck issued the following warning to members of Congress who support the Democratic leaders' plan to set a date certain for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq: "If your bill goes through, I hope you can't go to bed any single night without the images of body bags of our American soldiers coming off those planes. I hope they dance in your head every single night, because you will be just as responsible for their deaths as anyone who has ever strapped a bomb to their chest and screamed, 'Allah Akbar.' "
From the March 8 edition of CNN Headline News' Glenn Beck:
BECK: The blood of our troops will be on the hands of Congress soon. Here's how I got there. The Democratic Party leaders are proposing a new bill, which calls for bringing the troops home from Iraq by early next year, then removing whatever troops remain by October 2008.
[...]
BECK: Here's what I don't know. How do these people in Congress, Democrats and Republicans, who want to have it both ways, how do you sleep at night? How do you do it?
If your bill goes through, I hope you can't go to bed any single night without the images of body bags of our American soldiers coming off those planes. I hope they dance in your head every single night, because you will be just as responsible for their deaths as anyone who has ever strapped a bomb to their chest and screamed, "Allah Akbar."
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Makes Mrs Beck very proud ! Obviously engages mouth before engaging brain. And who is he to " issue warnings to Congress " ?
So what is wrong with his statements? Is this not the same as saying that Bush Lied, People Died? If the left can call soldiers and/or government leaders baby killers, why can't the right say the same thing? You can't have it both ways.
By knowingly limiting troop funds and supplies, you endanger their lives. By limiting funds you are further handicapping their abilities to do what they were trained to do.
Yeah, stands to reason. If you want to take steps to scale back and get out of an unnecessary war, or worse, if you were against the war in the first place--against betrayal of our troops by the president--then you automatically are putting them in body bags. Perfectly logical!
If the left can call soldiers and/or government leaders baby killers, why can't the right say the same thing?
"The right" wants to call soldiers baby killers? That's mean.
More seriously, "the right" can say anything "it" wants. Have at it. I don't see Beck getting censored, do you?
And so False Equivalence Defense #1,456 bites the dust...
One could also say that Democrats should be killed as enemy combatants, because that is the logical conclusion to which Beck alludes.
What is wrong is that its the SUPPORTERS of this war as it drags on that will be every bit as responsible for the troops deaths as IEDs. That is people like YOU and Beck. THAT is what is wrong with what he said. He took HIS responsibility and put it on someone else.
To say "Bush lied, people died" is certainly harsh rhetoric, but it falls short of calling Bush a murderer. He's responsible for the deaths of soldiers as Commander in Chief, but that's a totally different kind of responsibility. Bush's critics have charged that the president's actions have had fatal consequences, but the same could be said of the decisions of the voting public.
The charge that elected representatives in congress are "just as responsible for [soldiers'] deaths as anyone who has ever strapped a bomb to their chest and screamed, 'Allah Akbar'" is several orders of magnitude greater. Beck is arguing that the democratic act of voting carries the same moral responsibility as murder and terrorism, and that's offensive to democracy.
I'm sure you could find verbal attacks against Bush that are just as harsh, but I'm unaware of any such claim being made by anyone with their own national news show. And even if such a claim had been made on a national news forum, it would be just as wrong as Beck's claim and I'd object to it as well.
I don't mind if Beck objects to this bill... but it's a pretty desperate move to claim that those who vote for it are "just as responsible" as suicide bombers for American soldiers' deaths. Frankly, I don't think Beck truly believes this, because if he did, then he should already be charging congress and Bush with murder for mishandling the war and subjecting our troops to unnecessary danger. This is a lame attempt to sound "tough" and nothing more. It's a stunt befitting a struggling DJ.
I can't wait to see how our resident Beck Apologists defend this nonsense.
There's a certain pathology within the 'true believer'... not sure if Beck qualifies (or, if he's just an opportunistic loudmouth). But, the perpetual scapegoating these fools engage in... it's amazing.
Let's be perfectly clear for all the nay-sayers... troops continue to die because of George Bush and his policies. This is the real tragedy.
What a smurf'n tool!
Where was this outrage while our own administration was and continues to get our troops killed?
He is Jokey Smurf.
I guess this dimwit must expect the troops to all be killed in plane crashes on the way home?
The makes perfect sense to Beck. How does bringing the troops home endanger them?
Beck apparently believes in the "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" talking point.
Of course, that talking point was proven completely bogus when the Brits were bombed on July 7, 2005. That proved they can still "fight us here", regardless of any war going on in places like Iraq.
Of course, the talking point never made sense from the very beginning, seeing as how Iraq had no operational ties to Al Qaeda whatever, and the fact that even on secret cabinet meeting tapes (now uncovered), Saddam and his cabinet clearly saw Al Qaeda as a threat, not an ally.
Of course, this flies in the face of previous Troglodyte talking points, which assured us that if we set a "date certain", the turrists would just lay low until we left. But then, the NeoClowns have never let logic stop them.
you will be just as responsible for their deaths as anyone who has ever strapped a bomb to their chest and screamed, 'Allah Akbar.'
Does the President share any of that responsibility? After all he's primarily responsible for putting the troops in a warzone in the first place, not to mention that he sent them there under false pretenses.
Beck likely hasn't even read the bill, but don't expect that to stop him from running his mouth about it.
What images of American soldiers coming off planes? I've never seen any.
My thought exactly. Also, "body bags?" Around here, we call them"coffins."
What he really wants to say...
Based on some of his previous idiocies, I'm sure Beck would just love to say: "Kill 'em all - let Allah sort 'em out!"
C'mon, Glenn, Awful Annie will stick up for you - go for it!
Have you checked your own hands lately Glenn?
My God, if he doesn't have blood on his hands, who in the media does?
How can he or any of these slimy chickenhawks sleep?
They are delusional and/or intellectually impaired. There's no other explanation.
Drugs.
Nyquil. Lots and lots of nyquil. They're Religious, god-fearing capitalists, they're not supposed be doing drugs (or male hookers for the record). So, they have to get doped up on the nighttime, sniffling, sneezing, aching, coughing, how-the-hell-did-I-get-on-the-kitchen-floor medicine. It numbs the body, and apparently the soul.
God, I love this place...
I think we will all sleep fine knowing our troops are at home out of harms way. And I think the troops will sleep better at home with their loved ones. Its a win win situation. Troops happy America happy Glen Beck unhappy. See.
Doesn't this bill call for troops to re-deployed to Afghanistan? Where we should have been from the beginning.
If congress denies funding and Bush keeps the troops there without funding, won't that be Bushco's fault for not getting them out of there if more troops die?
They criticize the dems for not proposing anything binding and when they do they screaming murder. What smurfin' smurf smurfers.
I'll repeat something someone else said. How is bringing our troops OUT of harm's way going to kill them again? I don't understand Beck's "logic" on this one. This also goes right along with the Bush administration's talking points about how if we pull funding from the war then our troops are going to be killed, and that supporting the troops means funding them and leaving them in a war zone to be shot at. Yeah, that makes perfect sense in a twisted world view where up is down.
Here is what I also don't understand. The President, and his cabal of supporters always say that if we put forth a deadline for bringing our troops home and ending this war that we started, that the terrorists will lay down and wait. But, if I were a terrorist leader, wouldn't it make more sense to stop fighting now, dig in, wait for the smoke to clear, the US leaves because we think that we've tightened everything up and the promise of a "free and democratic" Iraq now exists, and then you can come back out from hiding later? Or maybe it's just the fact that the people shooting, bombing, and killing Iraqis and American troops are actually not terrorists at all, and that they are the indiginous (sp?) folks who live there, and who want us out of their country?
But only in a right wing parrot's talking point would bringing our troops home equate to more being killed.
No. Supporting the troops in the eyes of the neocons and their apologist minions means... posting a blank check for them and their nefarious endeavors. Then, they will continue to underfund, underequip and mistreat the troops... fill their own coffers and sponser contractors (of which, they also get a cut).
It's pretty simple. That's the definition of 'patriotism' in the 'post 9/11 world'.
I think your mistake was not immediatly recognizing that the term Beck's logic is somewhat akin to the term Madonnas modesty. Its an oxymoron
Beck wants our troops to stay and die in Iraq forever--3,200 dead kids aren't enough--and he doesn't even care if these kids go to Iraq with proper equipment. That's why he's opposed to this bill. Their deaths and their blood will be on Beck's hands.
One other thing: Beck wants endless war and endless deaths in Iraq. But never does he issue a call-to-arms to his armchair-sitting, war-mongering, of-age supporters. There is no list of recruiting office phone numbers, no urging of eligible viewers to sign-up for his glorious, phony battle.
Good point. You'd think that if this war were so critical for our future safety, that he and Sean Hannity and all the other young NeoClown warmongers would be signing up...or at least offering to give up their six-figure tax cuts to help fund it.
To my knowledge, only one person has given up six figures (income, not tax cuts) to fight for his country. He was killed by friendly fire, and the Army covered it up, using him as a poster boy for American martyrdom.
...and his favorite author was Chomsky.
Pat Tillman was a great hero. He will be missed.
his story is so f-in' tragic... I'll be telling my kids his life and death at the hands of fellow soldiers as a warning to stay away from needless war...
That was interesting, thanks.
Right Dave. And he also should be calling for a tax increase so that the sacrifice is shared by Americans today, not in the future.
He should also be telling his followers how expensive healthcare will be for wounded veterans of the Iraq War. The estimated cost will be at least $300 Billion over the next forty years. That's for those wounded so far.
I doubt whether Beck and his followers are willing to offer anything other than vocal support for this war and it's aftermath.
Right on Dave,
I understand that during WWII men from all walks of life and all levels of the socioeconomic strata volunteered for the military en mass. Even "celebrities" volunteered for the armed forces even though they mostly served to promote support for the war. I would still disagree with the Becks of the world over the approach to this struggle with the tool of terrorism, but if they truly believe that militarism is the only solution to this I certainly would have more respect for them if they walked the walk. Furthermore Bill O'Rielly and Rush Limbaugh disgracefully used this Iraq war as promotion for their products and to make a buck. I understand if you purchase a copy of O'rielly's latest book he will send a “free” copy to a soldier in Iraq. Limbaugh solicited purchases of subscriptions for his newsletter to be sent to the soldiers. Shameless!This is just more proof that George W. Bush is a liar. On one hand he tells us that this is the most important conflict of our generation...then he gives billionaires huge tax cuts and tells us to go shopping. WTF?
Going shopping was "Plan 1". We're now up to "Plan A" - the watch TV plan. Remember?
No wonder we're not making progress. You lunkheads are still using Plan 1. As long as that tv is off, every drop of American blood is on your hands. Now get on your lazy butts and sacrifice, dang it!
Off subject but...
I recently visited some inlaws in KS. While in the pooper I noticed many copies of the Limbaugh publication and gleefully put it to its proper use! Made an otherwise forgettable trip quite memorable.
America has again failed at nation building! And now the President and Congress are failing the American people by not stepping back, admitting failure, and calling back the troops.
Beck and his Ilk are the hyena's feeding on the blood of our fine men and women in Iraq, how sad.
Hey Beck! How about telling us how we win? How about telling us what we win? A new car? This guy's a spokesperson for the moronic age. Great job.
REMOVING our troops from a combat theatre will result in their deaths, Beck? How? Are YOU going to kill them for having been withdrawn once they're back here?
Keep diggin' CNN. You've found this bottom-feeder for your fishing pond of Fox's ratings. Maybe you can get down even further by hiring Michael Sewage. MSNBC tried him out and had to can him. Too bad you missed your opportunity to scoop him right up, huh?
Yep- C(ertainly) N(ot) N(ews) is becoming more of a joke the longer they let this *man* speak his foolishness...
L,
It's more like the Crap News Network.
Clowns Never Nag
Capitalists Need NAFTA
Caring Not Needed
Conservative Noisemaker Nonsense (the more I see that, the more I like)
Crying Naked Narcissists
Carpetbaggers Nitpick Nitwits
Does this mean you are not supporting Bush's North American Union?
This demonstrates the thoroughness of the brainwashing of the GOP base. In their minds, the Democrats want to strip our soldiers of their weapons, armor, and transportation, then leave them in the desert to find their own way home.
This crap makes no sense to a thinking person.
Here's the burning question; Why are the NeoClowns so desperate to keep this war going at all costs? I think they're hiding something that could result in hard prison time for many people once its discovered. Could it have something to do with that missing 9 billion dollars?
Since you asked, IMHO staying in Iraq has many upsides for conservatives. It gives the fundies a Holy War to support, it keeps the fraidy cat base constantly fearful and thereby loyal to their protectors and we can't forget the profiteers who grow exceedingly fat from war. Also keeping soldiers in Iraq is part of a larger scheme to dismantle social programs by running strategic deficits.
Just my jaded take on the regressive antics of conservatives.
I think you've nailed it.
You guys are always talking about how the REAL war, or push against terrorism, was in Afghanistan, why did we leave, why did we take resources away from that focus, etc.
Are we to believe that once out of Iraq, you'll still talk the same about Afghanistan?
I can't speak for everyone, but Osama should be the focus. Whether he is in Afghanistan or elsewhere. We should not give up the hunt to bring Osama to justice.
So by taking people AWAY from war, they WILL die in war?? Beck is clueless...
What else did he say after MMfA stopped quoting him? Did he clarify his comments?
He must've meant that the violence would step up if we were on our way out. I think it'll probably the opposite..I doubt the insurgents and militias would care to give us a reason to stay.
Well....pretty much true. Thanks for helping get the message out MMFA!
True? Which part?
Please elaborate.
I think we've spent enough time/money in Iraq. If we pull out and they can't hack it screw 'em. The iraqis are going to need to realize the gift they've been given (a chance at democracy) and take charge and maintain their potential freedom. However, if congress slowly pulls the rug out from under the soldiers it could cause more problems for those in harm's way
See here is where you're wrong.
If Congress (not just the democrats by the way) pass a bill that stops funding the war, and the Commander in Chief keeps the troops over there as their budget starts to dwindle, then HE is responsible for the slow draw down, not Congress. Then again, any law that passes through Congress and lands on Bushie's desk for his signature as it relates to decreasing or removing funding, or changing the scope of the authorization to use force will quickly get a big red veto stamped across the top anyway.
So with the prior knowledge of that potential scenario would it not be, in fact, Congress' fault for putting that ball into motion? I agree that it would probably end up that way but knowing that wouldn't it be prudent for congress not to risk being the causation for that situation?
If Bush allows troops to continue with reduced funding isn't that just him being stubborn and reckless with our troops?
It is indeed Congress' fault overall for placing us into Iraq, and or authorizing the President to use force in Iraq. Again, this is based on completely debunked information that was given to our Congressional leaders from the White House who was itching for a war. In my line of business, we like to get down to the creation and root cause of why something happened. In this case, it was the White House selling a bill of goods that didn't exist, and Congress buying into it, and hence, here we are. Stuck in Iraq for no apparent reason. And time and again, information comes out that Bush and Co. manipulated information to give out the story that they wanted, when most knew that it wasn't really the case. It's too bad Bush straight up lied to our Congress, and made them feel as if it was the only choice they had to authorize use of force in Iraq.
I guess the fact taht we found chemical weapons and the fact that many intelligence communities agreed that Saddam had WMD's (which were found).
Doesn't count? I know there were no nukes but the fact is we're there now and we have to accept the current situation
Where were these chemical weapons that we found and how come I've never heard about them? Because we didn't find any. We found some old artillery shells that at one time had chemical tipped warheads, but we found, nothing...
You can breathe sarin gas?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120137,00.html
DAMMIT!
Good thing we went to war to get that one shell. Success!
1 shell that contained "some" sarin as the story said.
1 shell that "may have" contained Mustard gas.
This is the big stockpile of WMDs that we were supposed to find? Please... This is weak.
Considering the fact that Saddam had time to move the WMDs I would cotend he did, probably to Syria. And even if they never existed it doesn't address the present situation. Quite frankly I don't even know why I'm debating it. I want an immediate pull out. I just don't wnat congress to open a pandora's box that might cause an increase of US deaths
When did Saddam have time to move the stockpiles of WMD? 2/3rds of his country including the North and South border were patrolled for over a decade. The weapons inspectors were kicking and screaming that they had personally oversaw the destruction of WMDs and that the President was serioulsy mistaken esp. when it came to a supposive Nuclear Program. Scott Ritter found it laughable and absurd. No sir, we were not given any truthful information leading up to the war by Bush.
Well, I hate to do this but I'll get to it before "neondesert" (apparently the site's unofficial written word expert) but "supposive" is not a word....I believe "supposed" is what you were looking for. To answer your question (and I know you won't like this) I don't know. But if recent history gives us any evidence it is that the people we're dealing with are intelligent and could pretty easily sneak something past border security. Again IF he moved them and I knew how...I probably would be a high paid gov. advisor
So your faith trumps demonstrable evidence?
No, as I've already posted
to believe that Saddam had only a small amount of nerve gas you would have to be pretty ignorant. The fact alone that he denied entrance to all his facilities to UN inspectors at the very least puts a suspicious light on him. Saddam himself was touting his bio/chem weapons programs why would we not believe him? To 'ere on the side of caution is probaly a good thing. In hindsight, I honestly am unsure about the merits of going to war with Iraq at the time....then again if life was lived in hindsight I'd own 1,0000000 shares of google
My point is that yes, we probably shouldn't have gone to war (although there was evidence to support it) and as I've already said, in light of the lack of mass amounts of wmd's found and the CURRENT situation, I feel we need to leave immediately
Evidence that has, for the most part, been found to be misconstrued and cherry picked by the Bush administration to force what they wanted to believe to be true, to actually "appear" to be true, even though it wasn't.
he denied entrance to all his facilities to UN inspectors
More fiction. He did dick with inspectors, but he did not "den[y] entrance to all his facilities to UN inspectors."
Why make stuff up?
If you are continuing to spew this propaganda despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary I would say you DEFINE ignorant. Both Kay and Duelfer said there wasnt any more than remnants since at best the mid nineties. The inspectors WERE in Iraq going wherever they wanted they were NOT being denied access to ANYTHING. When are you going to replace your sad delusions with demonstrable, factual reality?
To 'ere on the side of caution is probaly a good thing. (weinerocks)
"Supposive" was probably a typo, 'ere is using colonial period English for "before" instead of "err".
With that out of the way, weenie, you're not debating, you're repeating Sean Hannity if you think Hussein moved his WMDs to Syria.Two of you believe that, and you're the more rational of the two.
Must have been a religious experience, as that is typically what faith is, some sort of "jump" without having backing knowledge.
Saddam was contained, if he did indeed have WMDs, they were destroyed. The weapons inspectors kept saying that, as someone else said, and there is no way he could have moved the WMDs (if he had them) to Syria before we invaded. No fly zones in the North and South, heavily patrolled airspace, no doubt many satellites covering the country and taking LOTS of pictures, plus, even the so-called "witnesses" or anyone else for that matter has said that they moved the weapons to Syria (alleging once again that they did exist). And one last thing, Saddam was going to move WMDs through a portion of the country that hated him, and he had no control over (Northern Iraq where the Kurds held much sway), and they didn't say anything about it?
Yeah, OK, the facts are there that say there are no WMDs, were no WMDs, and how you "feel" about is irrelevant. They're not there, and they're not in Syria. They don't exist.
All of that or the fact that even his generals believed he had WMDs but I guess you know more than them. HO-HUM, I was hoping this wouldn't go off topic to why we went in but stay on topic as to what we should DO now.
What Iraqi generals said that? Is this where you make up facts to prove your point again? You mean the generals who were debunked time and again?
Of course you do. Just like the administration, you don't like to be reminded of what Bush did to get us into this mess. It reminds you of the absolute bankrupt philosophy of the necons and how Iraq proved how very wrong they were and are. If I was in that position, I might want to focus on the future as well.
You have learned much, grasshopper. The time may be soon for you to venture out on your own. But there is still much for you to learn.
The wise man does not base conclusions on assumptions, for he soon finds his road to enlightenment is actually a path paved with ever-growing stones of lies leading only to ignorance. Thus, you find yourself soling your shoes with fables of moved wmd to cover your story of unfound chemical weapons which were cover for aluminum tubes which were substitutes for non-existent wmd which were replacements for a nuclear weapon program based on imaginary uranium purchases which bolstered questionable wmd intelligence doubted by the very agencies which collected it to justify killing people who were no threat.
Yes, there is still much for you to learn...
Ouch, Neon. Back off a little bit. I like it better when the dittoheads don't realize the arse whuppin they're taking.They stick around longer, and that spells free clown show for the humans here.
Granted none of us have high security clearance so all we cna do is speculate with the information we know. I don't buy that Saddam moved the weapons because we had such a strangle hold on the country and we have the capability to monitor from low orbit sattelites any and all movement in and around Iraq. the stockpiles we were told about surely would have made quite a site as they moved across the border to Syria or Iran. We know that the PNAC document exposed the desire of many in the Bush administration's desire to attack and take over Iraq for many reasons other than the supposive (or supposed) WMD excuse. We know that the intelligence being used to bolster support for the invasion was criticized internally as being weak by the CIA and we know that Dick cheney himself was putting pressure on them to give him the info he wanted to hear. We know that it is highly unlikely the prez wasn't aware that the there was no solid proof that Iraq was trying to purchase yellowcake uranium from Africa when he said this in a state of the union speech. We know that weapons inspectors and other intelligence agancies did not share the opinions of the war mongers in DC. It would appear that it is more likely that there were no stockpiles of WMD or nuclear material or any relationship with al Qaeda to be afraid of, and it is also likely that they knew this at the time. Critics that have been proven correct in their analysis leading up to invasion were systematically smeared and dismissed as terrorist appeasers. I could be wrong, I am not 100% confident I know there were no WMDs. But, with the evidence I am exposed to leads me to that conclusion because it's simply more likely there were not.
That being said, we are there now and some terrorists have come there to fight our troops and try and scuttle our attempts to bring democracy to Iraq. Most of the violence seems to be internal and sectarian. Meanwhile, Indonesia is trying to beat back Muslim fanatics, the Taliban is resurgent, Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda figures and Africa is ripe for pockets of terrorists to take root. We wasted our time and effort going into Iraq and leaving won't make it much worse. Our resources are needed elsewhere.
Just so we're clear on what you're saying: You're OK on using those "resources" in other trouble spots? Because they will grow into larger conflagrations, too. And those efforts will have as many detractors, too.
Please clarify.
Considering we have just as much evidence that the Aliens whisked the WMDs off to Alpha Draconis as that they went to Syria.I much prefer the fairies took them scenario. Why would Syria take them and exactly HOW could they have been taken there without us knowing considering the constant overflight and satellite surviellence we were doing on Iraq before the invasion?
Considering that both Duelfer and Kay the men whose job it was to find them didnt say they got taken away but rather that they hadnt been there since at LEAST the mid nineties, I think the a-dog-ate-my-WMDs defense is just pathetic. Not quite as pathetic as pretending the few degraded, misplaced or abandoned shells were us finding Chemical weapons but almost.
Was that really worth 3000+ soldiers? Take your time and think befor you answer.
Never said it was...read above comment.
Was that really worth 3000+ soldiers? Take your time and think before you answer.
Weinerocks, are you trying to debunk reality again?
What WMDS? If we went to war for what was actually found thats pathetic and wildly irresponsible. We're there now and we don't need to be. Our presence only makes things worse for Iraq and is a drain on the U.S.
SavageNuts has proven himself a liar, after all. And just when I was starting to like him.
He might be talking about the 500 shells they found buried, in the desert, that were inactive. Apparently Iraq had buried them during the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's, we found them, and the entire right wing crazy world was abuzz that we had finally found WMDs, only to proven that they were old, and inactive, and not really a find at all. Even according to the White House. This didn't stop the fighting 101st keyboarders from shouting it from the hills though.
Oh, yeah, those are the same ones Hannity and Santorum kept lamely bringing up. Okay, then Savagenuts isn't a liar. My bad. He just drank the Koolaid.
Of course, by this definition, any common artillery shell is a WMD.
I never lied, to believe that Saddam had only a small amount of nerve gas you would have to be pretty ignorant. The fact alone that he denied entrance to all his facilities to UN inspectors at the very least puts a suspicious light on him. Saddam himself was touting his bio/chem weapons programs why would we not believe him? To 'ere on the side of caution is probaly a good thing. In hindsight, I honestly am unsure about the merits of going to war with Iraq at the time....then again if life was lived in hindsight I'd own 1,0000000 shares of google
'To 'ere on the side of caution is probaly a good thing.'
Unles, of course we are talking about global warming. Right?
The problem with that argument is that if we're wrong about global warming and try to stop it through lowering our industrial output it will hurt us economically.
Hey, you got a little something on your chin...right...there..
no, up a little. there, no you missed it. back down...to the right a little. a little more.. There, you got it.
No biggie, just a little koolaid...
For God's sake, please stop? - Neondesert
OMG! A misuse of the question mark! Last I checked fractions were learned later on in the school system than puntuation so I guess I'm a few grades ahead of you. So if you want to continue playing this irrelevent game of "who has the most composition mistakes" I'll gladly continue. Moron. (well aware that's not a complete sentence) - SR
Sorry, just thought you might have missed that one
OMG! A misuse of the question mark! Last I checked fractions were learned later on in the school system than puntuation so I guess I'm a few grades ahead of you. So if you want to continue playing this irrelevent game of "who has the most composition mistakes" I'll gladly continue. Moron. - SR
punctuation has a "c" in it.
irrelevant is spelled this way.
I don't know what the fractions are about, but you calling anybody a moron is just incorrect, unless it's your source, Sean Hannity.
And the problem with that argument is that if we're right about global warming, contuning to do nothing about it will lead to killing storms, loss of agricultural land, spread of disease, death.
The automatic assumption that cutting emissions will hurt the economy is not necessarily borne out by facts. Investing in new clean technologies will create new jobs, and the US could be a leader. The EU looks like they are moving ahead of us, though.
Why do you guys hate America so much?
I don't, but if we bend to the will of the EU, other countries will pass us up economically ie, India, China. Here's a question, the UN recently released a statement claiming that the rasing of animals for human consumption is worse for the enviroment than SUV's. Now here's the question, regarding his increased girth I'll assume Gore is not a vegan. If he belives so strongly that man is causing global warming shouldn't he look like he's doesn't weigh 280? And please don't get me into a global warming debate, it's off topic, and I will easily debunk many of your statements, for example that many scientist disagree with the assertion that global warming is causing stronger hurricanes. And, let's not forget the AWFUL hurricane season we had last yea....oh wait...it was a VERY quiet year on the coast
Can't base anything off of one year's worth of data. That would be the same as saying, "It's cold in December in the Northern climes of the US, so I ask; what global warming?" These things are deduced, and identified as happening over longer times. Not just a year.
Vegans, can also be fat. And I am betting that a lot more pollution is dumped into the air farming vast fields than "growing" cattle.
But yet the alarmists can base much of their evidence on small windows of evidence not to men....I'M GOING TO DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING!
Looking at trends of how the Earth is warming or cooling based on as much information as they can get their hands on? Yeah, that's alarmist indeed.
If you knew anything of the science involved, you'd know that it was based on reams of historical data, not one year. The cons don't care about global warming because they all expect to have enough money to counter it; e.g. move north, move inland etc.
What will happen in 50 years when it's too late and even the most ardent deniers can no longer deny the truth? Will they throw a parade in the honor of the scientists and "alarmists" who were right all along? Nope. They'll say something like, "The past is the past. We're in this situation and we have to deal with." In other words, they'll follow the same pattern as we're seeing play out in Iraq.
"It's easier to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission"
It is off topic, but it doesn't really matter so long as we keep it in this thread, which will probably end up being one letter wide...
I would really, really love to debate the issue with you Tim. The only problem is, you seem to think "debate" incudes pulling irrelevant things out of your ass like Gore's weight and the fact that there weren't a lot of hurricanes last year.
It would be so much more interesting if you were to pick a position, stick to it, and defend it. If you think cutting GHGs will lead to economic damage, find something that supports your evidence, and if someone challenges you respond to the challenge.
That's debate. Argument is boring, and pointless.
That's it. HE finally admits what this is all about: India and China. So, we're in Iraq to control the oil flow, to keep China and India from passing us. So, what does China do? They become innovative and they're are moving their country to become independent from oil. Wow, I guess it's better for us to help the Saudis regain their economic feasiblity, instead of trying to figure a way out.
Thanks Savage, for pointing it out, that it was all about econmics and not about WMDs. I would have to admit, I admire your ability to stick to the talking points that was wonderously fed to you by the Smurfs.
What evidence do you have to support such a claim? We've heard the same kind of mumbo jumbo coming from market fundamentalists for decades, 'regulations will destroy the economy.'
Besides that accept the status quo thinking fails in imagination. Why can't this country invent its way out from under our addiction to fossil fuels?
Have the last word, we are off topic. I'm done talking about global warming on this thread.
And this war was what a BOON to us economically? If we are right about Global Warming and do NOTHING that will hurt us even MORE economically
Let's err on the side of caution and get those jobs exported to countries that won't be penalized by the genius GW treaties we're trying to hitch our wagon to.
Good plan. Get those jobs exported. That'll make us feel all warm and fuzzy.
"denied entrance to all his facilities to UN inspectors"
Another talking point...You may find this interesting...
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/03/21/iraq.weapons/
The way you keep repeating propaganda that is directly contradicted by the Kay and Duelfer reports, shows YOU are in fact the ignorant one. Seriously ignorant. To keep saying Iraq denied access to the inspectors is MORE IGNORANCE. They were going whererever they wanted they werent denied access to anything by their own declaration. You just avoid reality at all costs dont you? I hope the day comes when you join us in the reality based universe. Bush lied to us, and whoever told you the nonsense you keep repeating lied to you. Its really that simple.
'I know there were no nukes but the fact is we're there now and we have to accept the current situation.'
Actually, we don't have to accept anything. Accepting conservative bs is what got us mired in a situation that serves no interest of national security whatsoever. Accepting the way things are is the mindset of a blind follower.
Like the French and the Germans? This is a tired myth that many other countries thought they had stockpiles of WMDs. If it were true we would have had a bonafide coalition of many more countries. The weapons inspectors didn't think so either. Furthermore Bush was supposed to go back to the UN and use military force as a last resort. He lied flatly that Saddam would not let the inspectors back in when they were already in Iraq.
The "everybody thought they had WMDs" lie has been thoroughly debunked. Ever heard of Scott Ritter? Even Sean Penn knew they didn't have them.
You're 0 for 2.
1. He did not have chemical weapons (the shells were from before the First Gulf War).
2. The intelligence community had significant doubts about the presence of WMDs in Iraq, but they were steamrollered in the rush to war.
I'm sorry, Ididn't realize your were in the intelligence community at the time. Unlike you I was. Proof? My entire title is Cryptologic Technician 2 (SW) Mathis. Unfortunately, many of my arguments about the validity of possible wmd's might land me in jail (top secret clearance violations and all). Listen, we can debate ALL day whether we should have gone to war w/ Iraq. As I've already said in hindsight we probably shouldn't. The real issue is what we should do now. I want an immediate pull out, I'm guessing many of folks on this site agree with me there. That, unfortunately is not going to happen. My only concern is I don't want to see A) congress stoping funding which will lead to B) Bush arogantly trying to "stay the course". This perfect storm is unfortunately what we potentionaly have. THIS is the issue at hand, if you'd like to continue to debate the reasons for going to war we can, just realize that I'm well aware it was a bad idea, however at the time that wasn't totally known. Just ask 98% of the DEMS in congress
That was lame. "I could tell you all about the secret WMDs but then I'd have to kill you?"
I had more respect for you before you pulled that out of your ass, Tim.
No, Val, I wouldn't have to kill you. However, I might get arrested. They DO monitor the internet. I hope you'll see that I must tread lightly. I don't know all the rules
No, I was just being snarky - the "but I'd have to kill you" is the punch-line to dozens of bad jokes.
Since you can't reveal what you know, it's irrelevant to the discussion - itmay have been a bad move for you to even allude to the possibility you were privy to such information, especially since you have already posted your true name and rank on this site.
In any regard, my point is that there were significant doubts among the intelligence community. I don't question that there were elements of the IC that had fewer doubts, but to present it that "everyone thought he had WMD" just is not borne out by the facts.
So how does your cryptological technician status help you in having information about WMDs? Because according to information I've read, here is what your job assignments and or description was/is:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/navyjobs/blcti.htm
"The duties performed by CTIs include: operating sophisticated state-of-the-art electronic radio receivers, magnetic recording devices, computer terminals and associated peripherals in the communications signals environment; operating sophisticated, computer-assisted information systems; working with classified material; translating, interpreting and transcribing foreign language communications data; analyzing and reporting highly technical information of strategic and tactical importance to fleet commanders and national intelligence agencies; performing temporary duty aboard a variety of naval surface and subsurface vessels and aircraft."
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/enlistedjob1/a/cti.htm
No, what it did was allow me to get on a "different" type of internet. I honestly wish I could talk about it because if someone on the other side of the argument brought it up I'd also be skeptical. However, I'll not hold it against you to disbelieve just know thta I might be more informed on the topic. And please refer to the last part of that particular post and let's get back on topic
I don't find it hard to believe that you had access to classified information, because as the information I posted says, it appears that you need a top secret clearance to work in the position you say that you worked in. How much information though, and what types, I'm not sure, and I'm not sure that you could tell me or us. And that's fine. But I can go back to the Bush administration, and say that they have told us before that "if you could see what we have seen, you wouldn't feel opposed to this or that" and you appear to be making the same argument, and as we have gone around and around on in this thread, the "evidence" and classified information appears to have been incorrect. Or manipulated to make it say what they wanted it to say. So I ask you this;
Did you have access to better and more information that our President? Because that would be crazy, and not true.
No but my point is that there are things that are not reported or known by the general populace. That said there was SOME evidence of WMDs in Iraq. Maybe not to the level bush has implied but some. I'll leave you with this...Bush IS the worse pres. since Carter. I'm sure on that we'll agree
I absolutely agree that there was some evidence. It was just not across the board, "everybody thinks so" evidence.
I'm leaving the Carter remark alone, I'm even touchier about that subject than I am about global climate change...
Of course we knew that there was the possibility that he had "some", because we and the UK and other countries sold them to Hussein in the 80's.
But "some" is a far cry from the stockpiles we were told that he had, and was going to use against our soldiers and possibly us because he had those "connections" to al Qaeda (something else totally unfounded that people are still being led to believe by some administration officials - cough - Cheney - cough).
I'm sure your right about that Savage. However, I would be as skeptical of classified secret information as the public's information. You may have seen information that bolsters your claims, that doesn't mean it was true. The military isn't exactly a bastion of open and honest communication.
Bush is the worst president in history. He isnt fit to lick Carters boots. Was your clearance higher than Kays? Duelfers? Because their reports didnt say they had reservations and couldnt tell us about the WMDs that had been there but that THEY WERENT THERE. So I flat out dont believe you.
98% of the Dems in Congress? Another lie, or just a rhetorical exaggeration?
How many voted against the war. Now if I made a math mistake we've already seen I suck w/ numbers
A majority of Democrats in the House voted against the Iraq resolution, as well as a good chunk in the Senate. In either case, no where near 98% voted for it. But nice try though.
Here are the numbers:
Senate: 77 Yea and 23 Nay (29.8% voted nay)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
House: 296 Yea and 133 Nay (44.9 voted nay) only 60% of democrats voted against the authorization to use force
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
Nerzog, savagerocks has been asked to back up that figure before, and that's when it disappears. I can't believe other posters are politely entertaining its claim of cryptographer-whatever. I' assumed SR was 16 or 17 years old and posting from mom's house.I could be wrong, but there seems to be a lot of Get Smart style classified info.
My money's still on mom's basement as SR HQ.
Wow, you've got an amazing skill set, SavageRocks. A while ago you claimed that you worked for a radio show... something about checking with your program director to see if you could tell a certain joke on the air?
I just read the rest of this thread and saw the back-and-forth over your military service. I shouldn't have been so immediately and unfairly skeptical. I apologize, and thank you for your service.
Savagerocks, stop it- are you trying to tell us that someone with your spelling skills is employed by the Gov in breaking codes? What video game are you pretending to be a part of?
Ahhh, YES!! Such a *gift* we gave them... invaded their country for no reason, killed innocents, blew shtuff up, put up a mock government, rallied terrorists from ALL over the region to congregate at Iraq, got nothing done, and now we may pull out and say 'scr*w 'em!!' Yes, they should be grateful...
One quick question....should we go into Darfur?
The quick answer is no.
Like Iraq, there needs to be a political, not a military, solution to the problem. Barging in to yet another country we don't understand - as if our military could stand the strain of another deployment - is bound to make things even worse (as difficult as it may be to believe they can get worse).
Yes, as part of a UN peacekeeping mission. Seperating the government from the idigenous population they are slaughtering. However thats no where near the same. When Saddam was doing his mass killing we supported him. The human rights organizations all said there was NO humanitarian rationale for invading Iraq. At most a few hundred a year were being killed in Iraq by the time of the invasion, now thats bad but its a good MONTH in Columbia much less the Congo, Sudan, or Zimbabawe.
I think we could. It would be justifiable, at least, since the evil there is happening AS WE POST and not 15 years ago when we were giving them weapons.
Whether we could succeed in Darfur is another question. Something needs to happen there and the political solution is not working. But I have no clue what would. Remember, though, that the people of Darfur may not end up hating someone who goes in and takes care of both the government AND the rebels. There might not be a self-fueling insurgency as in Iraq or 'Nam. But I might be wrong.
List of countries that would have been a better idea to invade:
North Korea: They have basically nothing; but all the South Koreans would come in and help rebuild, since many of them are related. And South Korea wouldn't be fighting any proxy wars, and there is no religious [rpblem to speak of.
Darfur: See Above
Haiti: The righteous, democratic governernment of Haiti has been repeatedly displaced by the military. Yet the Haitians seem inherently good at democracy, capable of selecting effective leaders ob the first attempt. They're working on it now, so it's really too late but in 2003 someone could have helped out "prezident" Aristide.
Afghanistan: Was invaded but troops were soon removed tosend to Iraq, resulting in the non-capture of OBL. Now other countries have to deal with that place.
Not France: Anyone who says France and/or Europe is the enemy and/or should be bombed is either crazy, retarded or very evil. Go to HECK!
That's all i can think of for now...
"slowly" pulling the rug out from anyone really destroys the metaphor. Stop cornholing our cherished
colloquialisms.
And I was just wondering who could possibly be dumb enough to take this trite propaganda seriously. We have a WINNER.
CNN
This isn't just Glen Beck ranting. This is the propaganda of CNN management. If not, Beck would be cancelled for thisand other things he has said and done in the past (e.g., sexual harrassment last week). CNN knew what they were getting with Beck and continue to push him and his message by putting him on prime time. Before CNN, Beck's radio show was his audition for this spot on CNN.
Perhaps the billionaires that own CNN are also heavily invested in Defense Contractors? Have to pay for that beach house in the Bahamas, don't you know?
That's absurd. CNN has many different and varying points of view from all sides of the political spectrum. Beck has his show and his opinions, they are not being forced down anyone's throat in the form of propoganda.....and they aren't about to fire him because of his opinions, whether they agree with him or not. They will fire him if his ratings get low enough, apparenlty they aren't.
Yeah, just like MSNBC fired Phil Donahue based on his low ratings...no, wait....
Ya, MSNBC is strictly a right wing tool......no, wait (Keith Olbermann)
Tommy,
But what do you think about the FACT that he was fired for his political beliefs? During the run up to the Bush/Cheney war every politician and news organization was scared sh-itless that they were going to be painted as unpatriotic for questioning the war and Phil's show was canceled because of that. Now I don't believe that CNN us a right wing tool either. They are a business and if wing nut sells then they want a slice of that money pie. That's why Beck in all his glorious and confessed dumbness is on the air.Lynn,
Phil Donohue is off topic, and verrrrrrrrry old news. If you ask the bigwigs at MSNBC why they fired him they will tell you his ratings after six months were not what they wanted - he still had a fraction of O'Reilly's. You can believe it or not, it's all subjective.
In any event, look where they are now with Olbermann, a very harsh, partisan program that slams Bush every night........and he hasn't been fired for not towing the administration's line.
If Beck's program isn't where CNN wants it to be, he will be gone - their stockholders wouldn't settle for ideology over dollars.
Toeing the line. Not Towing.
And it's nice to have you here pointing out "off topic" posts -- even though you raised the ratings issue.
Once again your tiresome bitterness clouds your comprehension, I responded to the idiotic assertion that Beck is not being fired because he says what CNN wants him to say. I pointed out the reason he is still on the air is ratings, nothing more.
And thanks for the spelling check, by the way.
I pointed out the reason he is still on the air is ratings, nothing more.
You're probably right, Tommy, and I don't really want to get sucked into this argument, but I have to point out that you don't know this for a fact. It probably is a fact, but it's also a fact that corporations do not always act as perfectly efficient profit-making machines. They are, after all, run by human beings.
Rusty,
You're right, I do not know that for a fact, it is an assumption admittedly. But corporations, publicly held corporations ultimately answer to their stockholders, who want their investments maximized and profits realized. If I, as a stockholder at CNN, or any media outlet, thought that business decisions that could impede profits or not maximize them were being made at the expense of political ideology, I would, as most would, take measures to stop it. Business cannot afford to play politics and risk profits.
Of course there could be an exception now and then, but by and large there is far too much competition and cut-throat ratings wars to focus on who or what ideology is served.
(unless you're Fox News, but then they are maximizing profits too with their ratings wins all the time - go figure)
Agreed. Also, sometimes relatively low-rated shows (which I'm not necessarily saying Beck's is) are kept on the air because they are cheap to produce and thus offer good return on the network's investment despite their ratings. (Even the lowest-rated shows have advertisers, after all.) That's one of the reasons for the lamentable trend in the last decade towards "reality" programs.
Dang it, and I wasn't going to get sucked in...
.........I hear ya, it's like a drug.
Tommy,
You guys go off topic all the time with you little man spats, but I'm big enough to lapologize for taking the topic off course.
I'm big enough to lapologize for taking the topic off course.- Lynn
I know there's been an unhealthy focus on typos on this thread, but I could really use a lapology from somebody.It sounds like somebody asking forgiveness while giving a lap dance.Anyone need to lapologize to me? I'm listening.
I think it isan interesting question, though... why would they fire the guy who had the highest ratings on their network, if it was just a "business decision?"
Because VIEWERS dont mean dollars. ADVERTISERS mean dollars and that money comes from the business community. THAT dynamic is what skews reporting toward elite opinion.
Tommy,
You will agree that Mr. Beck has just placed the blood of the soldiers on the hands of the liberals who have tried in vain to get them out of harm's way. Therefore, his opinion has determined that this is the only cause of the blood. Although it is an opinion, it is politically charged and just plain wrong. He is using death to slam the liberals. So. he should be stopped because opinions can be wrong if there is no logic, understanding behind them.
Too bad this man cannot be challenged by being interviewed publicly.
Well, you can always watch that CNN or CNN Headline prime-time program in which the host critiques and admonishes the Bush administration, and calls upon the U.S. to get out of Iraq and bring our troops home.
Oh, sorry---that show doesn't exist.
Or you could watch your Democratic Congressperson call for the U.S. to pull out of Iraq and bring the troops home now.
Oh wait, they are spineless and very few of them exist.
I don't believe anyone from Congress, or too many in Congress, have been calling for removal of all troops now. But there are some, look at the news today, where they want to set a timetable for withdrawal. September of 2008 I think they were saying. Of course, Bush won't listen to that, and again, people are forgetting it seems to me, that if Congress passes legislation saying that they are taking out the budget for the war, and setting a deadline, one word will fall from Bush's lips.
VETO!
And unfortunately, Congress doesn't have the votes needed to override, because constantly and consistently, Congress does not listen to their bosses (that's you and me by the way). And the majority of this country wants our troops back home.
I don't understand. They did just that yesterday. I am all in favor of the timelines orderly withdrawal. We need to exist the Bush/Cheny was as quicky as is realistic, butd it has to be methodical. Give credit where it's due sometimes
He did, I have. So has my city. The word "spineless" applies to the Bush, Cheney, and the Republican Congress.
I believe we should have a national "Chicken Hawk" day.
The Glenn Beck's and Dick Cheney's and George Bush's and Bill O'Reilly's and Sean Hannity's could strut their stuff up and down the street on "CHICKEN HAWK DAY."
They could swap battle stories about the great battles they've seen (not been in) on TV, maybe drive around in their hummers and shoot paintballs at each other.
"I believe we should have a national "Chicken Hawk" day."
Sadly, we do have one.
Every,
Friggin',
Day!
Not a bad idea. Luckily for me people can't use that argument when I speak about the war (active duty USN 2001 - 2005). On another note, I think we've spent enough time/money in Iraq. If we pull out and they can't hack it screw 'em. The iraqis are going to need to realize the gift they've been given (a chance at democracy) and take charge and maintain their potential freedom. However, if congress slowly pulls the rug out from under the soldiers it could cause more problems for those in harm's way
"Slowly pull the rug out from under the troops?" Who's proposing that? Take your time; I'm sure it's there in your talking points somewhere...
The only a=way that congress CAN stop the war before Bush wants to is the power of the purse. All the "non-binding" resolutions in the world are impotent. My point is that if Bush wants the war to last until the innaguration party of his sucessor, unless congress stops funding there's pretty much nothing they can do.
Congress can stop funding, but Bush can veto. Remember?
Now you're a vet of the Navy? Was this even mentioned before or are you trying to bolster yourself, ala Col. Roy?
Look, I'm trying to be cordial here but since you questioned the validity of my claim to service...
Boot camp - Great lakes June, 22 - (approx) Aug 15, 2001
Navy "A" school - Pensacola, FL - Aug, 15, 2001 - Dec. 12, 2001
OT Division CG51 USS Thomas S. Gates - Dec. 12, 2001 - June 22, 2005
You may question my politics but never again question my service you piece of crap. I am WELL aware of the veto power and I am also well aware of the fact that bush rarely (if ever) uses it. I am also aware of the fact, as I've already stated that congress is probably aware of the veto power. I still contend that congress should tread lightly when dealing with funding the war
I'll vouch for Savagerocks. since he began posting he's claimed to be a vet. He's backed it up with enough info to satisfy me.
But Savagerocks, you're wrong to call someone a piece of anything for asking if you actually served. Many have come here claiming to be something they're not. Many who have served have been denounced by others from the right who have not served.
So you've got to understand, it's a rather touchy subject.
Sorry, thanks for backing my claim up. And I did apologize, just never had that questioned before. I'll try to be more "slow to anger" next time
I questioned an anonymous poster on their sudden claim to be a vet and I'm a piece of crap? Ah well, guess I'm a piece of crap then. So be it. It wouldn't be too out of the ordinary to have someone on here claiming to be a current active duty soldier, and or a vet. I don't know you, and you don't know me. So I think it was more than a fair question especially since you just brought it up now and we've gone back and forth on Iraq many many times before.
Sudden claim? You mean the fact I've signed off nmerous times as CTT 2 (SW) mathis doesn't register? Did you think my parents just gave me screwy first name? I'm sorry I called you a piece of crap I just thought the usual inhabitants of this site already knew my military background. My bad.
I didn't, I apologize for that. Your service is indeed appreciated. At least from me.
Well, thank you. Again, sorry I kinda lost it there....and I thought libs only got overemotional! (joke)
Actually as a bigtime liberal I have to tell you that no one who knows me would ever accuse me of being overemotional. I am ever over analytical. Which I certainly dont think is any better. Thats the problem with sterotypes they lead you to think in terms of assumptions not based on facts in evidence.
Oh, and I may not like you, or your opinions much, but believe it or not, I do respect your service to this country. So there...
"OT Division" - does OT stand for "off topic"?
[joke]
Operations Technical - I wasn't exactly a knot tier.
Are you disparaging knot tiers? Elitist! Why do you hate our troops?
And to think I just backed Savagerocks's claim.
He insults every man who has ever been awarded a Combat Knot Tiers Badge.
My point was only that I was in a technical field. Don't put words in my mouth. I never meant to disparage knot tiers....they are the backbone of the navy. (damn! I sound like a politician)
I was just having a little fun at your expense. Didn't mean to offend. I'm actually starting to kind of like you, Weinerrocks.
thanx, I think I'm finally coming to the realzation that you can "agree to disagree", I think I might even stop referring to all libs as "idiots" (might). :-)
Take it on a case by case basis, maybe... works for me. I know lots of smart cons, and more than a few dittoheads. The trick is telling 'em apart.
So, even if they do stop funding, how does that get the troops killed? Is Bush going to just leave them over there until they run out of bullets, food and gas? Is Bush that stupid?
Yes, unfortunately he is.
Well, can't argue with you there. So, the only solution is to leave them over there to act as targets until dipstick is out of office?
No, and here's where I know you'll be shocked. As I've already posted I think we pull out...yesterday. We've spent enough time/money/lives there and if they can't hack it when we leave...screw 'em.
We should disengage military aggression in Iraq...yesterday. But to say,"and if they can't hack it when we leave...screw 'em.", is like breaking both a man's legs and telling him if he can't walk to the emergency room it's his own fault.
No, we are responsible for their suffering. We owe them more than a brush off. It's like Powell said; if we break, it we own it.
Imagine right after the civil war, country X invaded our country and completely demolished our entire infrastructure. Who’s in power is now completely up in the air. The recently ended civil war was an extremely bitter and violent war. With a cleared playing field, there is a new opportunity to readjust the balance of power between the north and south once again. If a whole new wave of violence breaks out between the north and south did country X screw us or did we screw ourselves? Is it a shared responsibility? A hypothetical I know, but just wondering.
This war equals MONEY...just follow the MONEY!! CNN, FOX, Limbaugh, Coulter and the M.S.MEDIA are all cashing in on their ratings which makes MONEY.
For Mr. Beck and those of his ilk, I think they should answer this question, If we are to continue to fight the IRAQI's in their country, would you be willing to have your taxes increased to pay for this Occupation? Those cowards will be calling their Senators to get the HELL OUT OF IRAQ by the time the words increa...is finished
Granted, Beck regularly evidence the intelligence and integrity of a deer tick. However, does the above report quote and show his entire rant? There's a jump in there, which makes it look as if MM was cutting and pasting. Did he give no introduction or argumental base to those statements? If he did, MM can be fairly accused of taking his statements out of context. That undermines our credibility, and makes us look just as ideology driven and economical with the truth as is the right.
I read the transcript and it's basically a bunch of slow bleed rhetoric.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0703/08/gb.01.html
Ack. Beck's childish anti-logic is painful to read. He is clearly a very simple-minded fellow.
Funny, the transcript writer at one point refers to Beck as "Bush." (Right after he starts talking at Van Hollen.) How very accurate.
I think he knows better. Just like Rush Limbaugh, he can't possibly be stupid enough to believe the crap that comes out of his mouth. I think they are told what to say, which hot-buttons to push. By whom? I haven't a clue. Otherwise, we are left with the prospect that total idiots are able to get their own shows, spew nonsense and get rich by misleading millions of gullible people. That's only supposed to happen in religion.
I don't see how context would help an idiotic statement like this, unless he followed it with "Just kidding".
Hey! He was being sarcastic. Or ironic. Or was making a joke here. Right? Oh no, wait, he was serious. What a dolt!
The stunning retardedness of these rightwingnut chickenhawk talking heads never ceases to amaze me.
All these IDIOTS have been yattering since Election 2004 is: "You're either for us, or against us" . . . "A vote for the Dems is a vote for the terrorists" . . . and all other kinds of BS . . .
Since when is BRINGING THE TROOPS HOME being "responsible for their deaths?"
And who's more responsible for the harm to US servicepersons: the one who sent them there without proper equipment in the first place [Bush], or the ones trying to extract them [congress]?
If Beck is that f*cking brain dead to where he cannot tell the distinction, I have to wonder just how he got on television . . . and if he needs to go back to rehab . . .
Just one more thing that leads me to believe that he isn't sincere...he's willing to blame Congress for any deaths that may result from withdrawing, yet places no blame on the administration that sent them there in the first place? Sorry, I ain't buyin' that.
Off work
SR
I see that idiotic "Win the War" slogan in the background. What does Beck think this is, a football game? Besides, many believe that the war cannot be won miltarily. The guy is a simpleton.
During the '50's the Republicans loved red-baiting. Now they are into terrorist-baiting. Shows that a half a century doesn't change anything.
Dan H
Response to Tommy's"it's absurd" that CNN is using Beck to push propaganda.
First, I am not convinced Tommy believes it is absurd. I believe Tommy is playing your usual MMFA devil's advocate role, perhaps for money. "Absurd" is one of Tony Snow's favorite comebacks to reporters when they are on to what is going on. For example, when the reporters first reported that the CIA was picking up people off the street sending them to secret detention facilities, Snow said it was absurd. As it turns out it wasn't.
Propaganda only works when the receivers don't know it is propaganda. Most progressives know Fox is a propaganda tool for the neoconservatives, but since a large segment of the population doesn't know it, it is still an effective propaganda tool. By saying Limbaugh and O'Reilly are just stating their opinions, it gives Fox cover and freedom of responsiblity. But we know Fox used to pass out talking point memos of the day (they still may). Fox loves it when people think it is just their opinions; but it isn't just that. It is no coincidence that there nearly every major voice on Fox toots to the same tune. On the other hand, Fox mixes it up a little with Nascar racing, the Simpsons and so forth to buy credibility. The other argument is that it is just about money and ratings (only partly true). Crossing the moral threshold of cheerleading and fooling your country to an illegal war and continuing it is not about money and ratings. It is about ideology. Again, as long as Fox keeps viewers thinking it is all about opinions, money and ratings, it fools its viewers.
CNN is doing the same, especially with Beck, but doesn't have the same program mix.The blood of our troops is on the hands of cowards like Glenn Beck. Here's how I got there.
Glenn, you are little more than a hand wringer and a cheerleader. You want to support the troops? Get in a uniform and take your buddy Hannity with you. Either that Glenn...or just shut the pie hole, you're becoming a bore.
CNN's resident clown speaks
When contacting the media, please be polite and professional. Express your specific concerns regarding that particular news report or commentary, and be sure to indicate exactly what you would like the media outlet to do differently in the future.
Are you crazy? Why should we be nice - they basically let this guy tell the American People that I am a terriost, a commie, a troop hater.
NO - I am not going to be nice - it is time to be agressive - look at the Fox Debate, the Colter issue. TIME TO GET MAD!@
And Gore has Glenn's blood on his hands. After all, Glenn did say Gore made him want to squirt blood out of his eyes. The image won't leave, lolololololol.
And anyway, I can't believe we're still having this debate. With wingnuts you have to 're-explain the wheel'
over and over and over again my friend, they don't believe, they're on the eve of destruction. No, noo, they don't ...
And this man is a rising star in the mainstream sewer that we call US "news". Shows how low and pitiful it all really is.
Yes, the Dems will be responsible.
No rightwing warmongers have the FULL responsibility
Why should righties be held responsible? All they did was fall asleep at the wheel only to wake up and continue to drive directly into oncoming traffic.
Surprising prediction coming fro you, LDoren. I hope the Dems will be more responsible than the no-acccountability GOP have been, but the bar has been set pretty low, shouldn't be a difficult goal.
That's why Beck has the worst ratings in his time slot, his logic is weak, and he always tries to dumb-down everything.