After saying Obama seems like "kind of a wuss" Carlson called Obama "rhetoric" "kind of wimpy"
On the July 10 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson continued his pattern of attacking Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), this time calling his "rhetoric" "kind of wimpy" after playing a video clip of a July 10 campaign speech in Des Moines, Iowa. In the clip shown by Carlson, Obama says, "I believe then and I still believe that being a leader means that you had better do what is right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war."
After playing the clip, Carlson said to his guest, former Democratic Rep. Tom Andrews (ME): "[T]he guy is a lousy campaigner because he is caught up in his own rhetoric, don't you think?" When Andrews asked what Carlson meant by his question, Carlson replied: "[W]hen he gets up there, he says we're waging a war against cynicism. That is too abstract. It has nothing to do with the concerns of ordinary people, and it is also, frankly, kind of wimpy."
As Media Matters for America documented, on the July 2 edition of his show, Carlson said that Obama "seems like kind of a wuss." Further, as Media Matters for America also noted, Carlson claimed on the July 6 edition of his show that Obama "sounds like a pothead to me."
From the July 10 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
OBAMA [video clip]: I believed then and I still believe that being a leader means that you had better do what's right and leave the politics aside, because there are no do-overs on an issue as important as war.
CARLSON: Well, that was part of Barack Obama's speech in Des Moines, Iowa, today. Despite his clear advantage over Hillary Clinton on the Iraq war and despite having raised a lot more money from more individual contributors than Senator Clinton has, he can't seem to make a dent in her hefty lead in most presidential polls, national ones anyway. Is the nice rhetoric he puts forth in Des Moines stunting his political growth? Should Barack Obama get tougher with Hillary Clinton about the war and everything else? Joining us once again, A.B. Stoddard, associate editor of The Hill, and Tom Andrews, former congressman from Maine, and now national director of Win Without War. Don't you think -- I mean, Barack Obama is the hope of every good government liberal, right? -- of every Democrat under 35, people who still have high hopes and dreams for this country, Tom. But the guy is a lousy campaigner because he is caught up in his own rhetoric, don't you think?
ANDREWS: Now what do you mean he's "caught up in his own rhetoric"?
[crosstalk]
CARLSON: I mean, when he gets up there, he says we're waging a war against cynicism. That is too abstract. It has nothing to do with the concerns of ordinary people, and it is also, frankly, kind of wimpy.
ANDREWS: Well, look at the crowds he is generating. Look at the support he is building. And of course, right now, I mean, listen: polls, polls. I mean, the Red Sox are up by 10, you know, 10 games --
CARLSON: And they're going to stay there.
ANDREWS: And, my God, I hope so. But I'm terrified of that. Polling numbers here mean very little, except for the insiders, obviously, people who are, you know, giving money because they want to go with the winner. But what matters right now is building a strong organization and taking that base and energizing it and expanding it and increasing its capacity to move. And Obama -- that's exactly what he's doing when he's making these kind of statements. He is focusing on the grassroots base that you need in a state like Iowa to bring those peoples to the caucus. You know, you don't need many votes in Iowa because it is so difficult to go to a caucus. It is not like casting your vote at any time between 8:00 in the morning and 8:00 at night. You have to go and actually --
CARLSON: Oh, no, it's a drag.
ANDREWS: So it is a huge grassroots organization challenge, and you need a strong, invigorated base, and that is exactly what Barack Obama is building.
CARLSON: You know what I'm amazed by, A.B., if you look at the new USA Today poll on a lot of different things -- the president, the different candidates -- the president is just in the John. I mean, it's just -- his numbers are terrible.
STODDARD: What else is new?
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
This from a guy whose trademark, until recently, was a bow tie?
Let's not stoop to his level, Nerzog. Apparently, Carlson's anchor/commentator savvy is so low and inept that he resorts to name-calling to hopefully convince someone that Obama is a wimp and therefore cannot campaign. Glad that he got called out by his own guest that he's full of it; Obama draws huge crowds.
Carlson's quality (or lack thereof) reminds me of a small-town AM radio commentator, not one of the faces that shoudl be on MSNBC.
Actually, I think Nerzog makes a substantial point here.
Prominent conservatives have increasingly worked to link manliness with the Republican party and "wussiness", for lack of a better term, with the Democratic party. The rhetorical strategy isn't quite as simple as Republican:Democrat::Masculine:Feminine -- it's more like Republican:Democrat::Macho:Sissy.
Carlson's comments are far from extraordinary and there are plenty of recent supporting examples to choose from. Most recently, we have Ann Coulter's infamous line about John Edwards, and her defense that she was only using a "schoolyard taunt" synonymous with "wuss". Or her occasional half-joking misogynistic remarks about "finding out who the girls are" in the Republican party. And then there are the countless attempts to portray Hillary Clinton as a woman who menacingly subordinates the wimpy men in her own party. And let's not even bring up Michael Savage.
This all begs the question: why all the defensiveness? Why are conservative pundits so nearly universally paranoid about masculinity? One wonders why the conservatives shouting most vocally about "wussy" politicians are, interestingly enough, those who seem to personally challenge the very gender norms they accuse liberals of violating: Tucker Carlson has tried on many hats, but from his baby-faced bow-tie wearing persona to his new incarnation as a grown-up cable talker who guests on Dancing with the Stars, he's never portrayed himself as an authority on machismo. For all of his bluster about strength and manliness in politics, Rush Limbaugh has never even pretended to live up to the standard of masculinity he holds for politicians: remember his line of personally designed colorful neckties? His rollercoaster weight gains and losses? And how did George Will of all people write a column called "The Politics of Manliness" with a straight face?
It appears that an underlying trope of contemporary conservatism is a devastating insecurity about the stability of masculinity -- a common sense of endangered manliness. One wonders if these pundits and politicians ever really got over the shock of women's movements for social, political and economic equality, and the sense that a previously male-dominated society had become "feminized". Of course, they recognize that it's impossible to argue credibly that equality for women is a bad thing... but it is possible to accuse your opponents of wussiness.
Well written. It is interesting that the "manliness" issue has become the mantra of the fringe element of the Republican party that is blatantly homophobic. I say "fringe" because of the recent poll (see today's "Progress Report" from ThinkProgress.org) showing that 79% of Americans believe openly gay people should be permitted to serve in the military; 51 vs 46 percent support at least civil unions if not gay marriage; 57 % say gay adopotion is proper; and even 77 % of Repulican believe an employer should not have the right to fire an employee because of sexual orientation.
Among men, it seems anecdotally apparent that the quickest to attack "unmanliness" are the men who, if they looked in the mirror or listened to their own voices, would see themselves as potential targets of such a label, and on can only wonder if they've heard such echoes or seen such mirrors and have responded with such insecurity in their own masculinity that they look for someone else to attack to make themselves seem stronger. The typical bully - "I've got a Lenny by me, or a pulpit from which to preach, or a talk show desk and a microphone that put me beyond self defense, so I'll use my position of superficial strength to attack."
Amazingly, Nerzog has once again in almost poetic brevity said in half a sentence what takes others of us paragraphs to argue.
For example: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/boehner-calls-gop-senators-wimps-2007-07-11.html
Megadittos. :)
I'll leave it to someone with a degree in social psychology to write a book on the underlying insecurities of pundits and politicians who seem to "protest too much" in defense of manliness. And as you say, Nerzog hit the nail on the head in one line. If only I knew how to marshal the same economy of words...
Hey check out the new Tucker Carlson political news show "I’M RUBBER YOU ARE GLUE". He’s back, PeeWee Herman bow tie and all. It’s an hour of him saying "I know what you are, what am I? Warning must be at the mental capacity of a 12 year old. OK it’s not true but what’s the difference. If you want your political insights dummied down to endless, useless "shallow, hysteric, partisan personal opinions", hour after hour, why not just go for the gusto. Demand more of the same lame, cheap shot, BS that passes for "serious analysis" day after day while the country goes down the "ignorance is bliss" crapper.
Forget the bow ties, the guy's still wears the haircut of a three year old!!
Can we make it official yet? Carlson is rock freakin' DUMB.
Tucketta Carlson, whose voice is several octaves above even the shrill (if not more manly) Ann Coulter, is in no position, none, to call anyone wimpy. I mean, Carlson is about as "manly" as that Village People President, Bush.
Obviously Tucker is not a fan of Obama's, as painstakingly evidenced by MMFA. His opinion is his own and he is entitled to espouse it on his own partisan program, much as his equally partisan colleague Olbermann does on the same network during prime time.
MMFA disagrees with Tucker on his assessments, but misinformation it is not.
Calling Obama wimpy doesn't convey any useful imformation, It's just meant to create an image in the public's minds.
I didn't say it was useful or even that I agreed with it. I simply said it was a partisan commentator's opinion.
Doesn't that define propaganda, misinformation and false narrative?
It's Carlson's opinion, he is not declaring it some factual item here. He is a political commentator with an admitted bias and a conservative stance, there is nothing misinformative about any of it.
You disagree with his opinion, that is all it is.
AND it just happens to be an opinion based on NOTHING that pushes the conservative storyline about the left not being manly or tough. So it is exactly the kind of thing MMFA has always tried to show
Why are you so foul and intolerant of another person's opinion simply because you don't agree with it?.....and then claim it pushes some conservative narrative or agenda? It's an opinion, that's it. Not everyone shares your liberal opinions, or my conservative ones......so what?
There is no misinformation in an opinion that you find a politician wimpy. There are no facts involved or warranted here, it's just Tucker's feelings about Obama, is he not entitled to air them? Calm yourself.
Tommy, with all sincerity;
1) Why do you dislike MMFA so much?
2) Why do you keep coming back?
3) When are you going to give in and become a Liberal?
I can't speak for Solon, but it seems to me that this isn't about tolerance or intolerance of opinion. Carlson is welcome to express whatever opinion he wants. And I agree with you, Tommy, that this has nothing to do with misrepresentation of facts.
I think this has something more to do with holding newsmedia to a higher standard. Are you really content with a popular political discourse that obsesses on whether or not candidates are wussy?
MMFA has put itself in a kind of Catch-22 position: if they only highlight examples of objectively false claims, then attacks against candidates' rhetorical style, haircuts, mannerisms, and the rest go unchecked. If they do highlight those attacks--which are no less influential-- then MMFA is accused of intolerance of opinion.
The question is: if you're going to criticize MMFA for not sticking to factual claims, then shouldn't Carlson be held to the same standards? He's got every right to blabber on about wussiness to his heart's content... but I fail to see the virtue in MSNBC paying him to do so.
If holding the media to a higher standard was the objective here, then why just concentrate on conservative's foulmouths? It's only half the battle, isn't it? I know the mission here is to correct conservative misinformation, but if their goal was to identify the coarseness and raise the public discourse, then they would do us all a favor and put the health and integrity of the media above partisan gotcha.
But they won't. So I believe the mission is agenda driven and far less noble where rising the political discourse is concerned.
Sorry, can't agree with you here.
Exposing conservative misinformation INCLUDES exposing the agenda driven false narratives that masquerade as independent opinions. Again whether they come from an internalization of said narrative or are themselves agenda driven isnt important when they are based on NOTHING they fit the bill. This has always been part of the MMFA program and frankly we dont care whether or not you agree with that.
If it is balance you seek, try setting your home page to something else other than MMFA.
Seriously though, there are plenty of other sites that ying to MMFA's yang. If you need help finding them I'd be happy to oblige.
So, it's only the "conservative" media blabberers that need help in reaching these higher standards that I was responding too? The "liberal" media commentators are allowed to wallow in their sinking political discourse and coarsening rhetoric and that's ok with all of you.
As long as you're honest about it, it's all cool with me.
You dont know what honesty IS. Liberals are watched by MRC Newsbusters AIM and others. MMFA has no obligation to be all things to all people nor to be balanced while conservative sites are NOT being balanced. Try to keep up.
I was responding to Vysotsky who said that reason this thread is highlighted here is to "hold the media to higher standards". That's a bunch of baloney and you know it. The reason it's here is because they, and you, don't like Tucker's opinion on Obama. It has absolutely nothing to do with some lofty goal of raising political discourse.
Since televised news these days is about playing on emotions for profit, the goal of raising the discourse in our society is not just lofty, it's downright impossible. I do not, however consider it a fruitless endeavor to continually expose the media for what it has become. IMO, the less people trust the for-profit media, the better.
Yes, but to claim that this website's mission is to raise public discourse and ratchet down the rhetoric is a little ridiculous. The mission instead is pretty clear - to push the Democratic agenda by whatever means possible, let's be honest about that.
That's the kind of cynical opinion Obama is talking about. In fact, MMFA's staff presents very dry, factual and opinion-free articles. We posters, on the other hand, add the flavor.
Yes, I agree--Let's be honest! MMFA exposes Republican (conservative) B.S.--period.
Now, lets's be honest again--You don't like what they do--period.
Now, allow me to be painfully honest--You and many other right leaners come here for no other reason than to antagonize. You know you won't change our minds concerning the issues posted here, and we won't change yours either. This begs the rhetorical question--What's the point?
We've torn most of your arguments to shreds, while suffering the arrogance and hostility from some of these posters. Frankly, it reinforces the steriotypes that so many of you have claimed not to be true.
This is one statement with which I couldn't agree more--Let's be honest.
Tommy: "[MMFA's] mission...is pretty clear - to push the Democratic agenda by whatever means possible, let's be honest about that."
That's simply false. MMFA is far from Machiavellian in its practices. MMFA could intersperse its articles with comedic commentary, engage in derogatory name calling, digitally alter photographs of conservative pundits, and play parody songs. Better yet: MMFA could have called Carlson a big sissy. But they didn't. If you want to see the promotion of an agenda by whatever means possible, I urge you to take a look at Rush Limbaugh's website. Or take a look at Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck.
MMFA is showing remarkable restraint in its tactics by comparison.Tommy, I appreciate that you're frustrated with MMFA, but when will you stop attacking the messenger and start addressing the message?
You've defended Carlson's right to say what he said -- and you will get no argument from me on that point. But the issue is whether or not what he said is defensible.
Oh no because allowing a framed dishonest narrative about the left in general and Obama specifically does SO much to elevate public discussion. We GET that you WANT these narratives to go unchallenged. Propaganda is so much more efffective when the other side isnt heard. You dont WANT anyone to look at the agenda behind the curtain. Excuse us if YOUR agenda doesnt fit OUR purposes.
TOMMY:
What you fail to acknowledge is that a "higher standard" is met ONLY when non-performers and POOR-performers are removed from the program.
This is true in sports, in business, virtually anywhere that a good result is demanded.
The "MEDIA" would be much better overall if "commentators" like Tucker Carlson had their microphones removed from the national discourse. They don't deserve the national attention, and they pollute the dialogue.
It's not just that Tucker has bias, it's that his tone and choice of words involve underscoring a false impression which follows a narrative the rightwing has been promoting for decades.
The rightwing DIRECTIVE: Democrats are weak, are effeminate, are non-manly ... and so the CONCLUSION is that they cannot be trusted to LEAD. The DIRECTIVE goes out as a "narrative", and those who carry the Rightwing water add to the selling of this "conventional wisdom" ... so it becomes TRUE in the minds of the American people, the voters. At least, this is the PLAN.
Carlson is following the narrative, and when he does this, he is doing the bidding of the Rightwing Republican power brokers. It's not "opinion", it is the repetition of a partisan position of "characterizing" the opposition in a calculated negative fashion. It is MISINFORMATION.
Tucker Carlson has his job for the same reason the GEICO "gecko" has HIS job: he is a compliant are reliable mouthpiece to sell a specific product (the gecko has the advantage of being animated, but no less "controlled" by his masters). He stays in business because his bosses are well pleased, and his bosses aren't interested in "fairness" or "balance" or any such silly notion: they are interested in selling the product and WINNING.
You make a fine point, and I'm not at all trying to defend MMFA's mission or practices. But media criticism is, by virtue of being critical, never neutral and unbiased. The worst mistake a media watchdog could make would be to attempt a "balanced" criticism of all news outlets a la Fox News, i.e. reducing every issue into the false dichotomies of conservative v. liberal, Replican v. Democrat, traditional religious v. secular progressive... This would only obscure the more interesting, more complicated, and more systemic problems in contemporary newsmedia, and indeed replicate those same problems.
I maintain that for what it is, MMFA does a relatively good job of arguing for its own positions. (MMFA's articles have always struck me as better researched, more compelling, and somewhat more self-reflexive than, say, MRC).
But all of this, though, seems beside the point: Tucker is taking a cheap shot; he should be criticized for it; and MSNBC should be held to account for their programming. Regardless of whether or not MMFA should be the organization to criticize Tucker for saying it, it seems to me a legitimate criticism.
It appears to me that Tucker is using the current gambit to demean Democratic political opponents not by arguing factual disagreements, but using the frequent repetition of labels to appeal to the bias of his audience. Pure Carl Rove. The "wimpy" concept is the one flying all over the internet with regard to Edwards, as well - Tucker just hasn't sunk quite as low as Coulter and described Obama as "gay." Labels drawing on bias based upon prejudice rather than fact are a form of "misinformation." People should be indignant, if not outraged, about the use of powerful media outlets to appeal to the baser elements of the public in order to shape political results. Sadly, I feel the audience has become to numb and hopeless to express the fury with the sound it demands.
Good analysis. Repetition of message is the key, the perception of what is common sense is formulated through repeated exposure or utterances of sayings.
What Tucker is doing and all the 'oh so afraid that we have lost public sway and power' Republicans are doing is a cognitive trick. A marketing ploy. They're trying to establish a preconditioned response to Obama in the voter's mind. They'll prime the viewer with negative imagery and associate it with Obama in order to elicit a negative gut response.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
It's cool though, it's been standard practice among Republicans since Gingrich started the ball rolling with his list of negative words to associate with the word liberal. It's also standard rhetorical bs for people on the losing end of a political battle.
Thanks, and thanks for the enlightening followup, including the link. I believe you are correct in comparing Tucker's (and the others') ploy to the concept of "affect heuristic," and in your implication of its use by "journalists" to foster political agendas.
A similar concept was advanced by John Neffinger in his post at Huffington, including this statement: "A Princeton study found you can predict who wins an election seven times out of 10 just by watching how someone who has never seen the candidates before reacts to pictures of them." (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-neffinger/the-riddle-that-stumped-p_b_51786.html)
Correct about the Newt, too. Blumenthal had an in-depth discussion of his role in the development of the process in "The Clinton Wars."
I don't understand your reaction. I am often foul and intemperate but I dont get why THIS post gave you this reaction. You can pretend all you want there arent any prescribed framings and agenda driven narratives pushed by conservative most of us arent dumb enough to buy it. There are. What I said in my post is flat out obvious. It is an opinion based on NOTHING that pushes a conservative narrative about the left. This is why MMFA is showing it and I am sure it would fit the conservative agenda if we could be convinced that it is nothing more than a series of opinions independently arrived at by conservatives and nothing more but I dont buy it. You arent going to convince me its true. Whether it is Tucker seeing through the frame he has internalized or whether he is just doing his part to help the narrative is unimportant. He is pushing the dishonest narrative and exposing exactly that dishonest narrative is EXACTLY what should be done. I think YOU have internalized the agenda and are annoyed that we are pointing out that is what it is and THAT is what is causing your defensiveness
There is nothing more hysterical than a tolerant pro-choice liberal who preaches acceptance and diveristy screaming and whining about an opinion they don't like. Talk about a lesson in contradictions.
Sorry, but if you can't see the irony in that and go on about some narrative idiocy, then I can't help you.
The irony is reading you whine and complain about others supposedly doing the same thing.
It appears you are only posting now because you simply cannot accept a difference of opinion about what constitutes misinformation.
Perhaps you missed the several liberal posters here that admitted there was no misinformation here, but rather MMFA calling out Tucker for "furthering some conservative narrative". Which is actually saying that they don't like his opinion.
So you're off base once again in framing an argument that isn't there. Sorry.
So what several liberal posters were willing to accept YOUR frame for what constitutes misinformation. I am not, MMFA is not and YOU dont get to be the definer.
You are desperately grasping at straws here, Solon,
Can you honestly sit there and tell me that a partisan pundit's opinion on whether he personally views a candidate as wimpy is "misinformation"? Now even you can't make a case for that inane conclusion.
We merely have a difference of opinion on the matter. You have a right to your opinion and I can honestly see how you think that way.
If you feel the need to keep going in circles because you simply cannot accept that I have a different opinion than yours, then keep posting until you can get it out of your system. However, I believe there really isn't much else here that I can say.
I responded once to you because of your mischaracterization of what I was arguing. I'd hardly call that going in circles or refusing to accept a difference of opinion.
Don't flatter yourself, you're nowhere near my system. But thanks for asking anway.
YES I CAN. The right has been able to frame the discussion for a long time. To push these false narratives. When the other side isnt heard it becomes to sound like conventional wisdom WHICH IS THE POINT. So yes baselessly asserting these memes that push an agenda driven marrative DOES constitute misinformation as far as I am concerned. If the media constantly portrayed conservative after conservative as uncaring self serving warmongers without linking it to ANYTHING substantial we would be hearing such screaming from the right it would disturb the moons orbit but you guys EXPECT to get away with the same basic agenda driven false narrative without being called on it. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN. Throw whatever fits you want, trying to make left into a charicature of weak through this kind of lockstep false narrative is misinformation as far as I am concerned and as far as MMFA is concerned. It would be helpful for the right if we didnt notice but we DID notice. We dont care if you like it YOU dont get to define the terms and frame the debate.
Sure there is an ignorant hypacritical conservative whining WWAAHHHHHH leave our agenda alone, stop pointing it out WWWAHHHHHH, I need to be the one to define misinformation WWAAAHHHHH. In my OPINION that is much more hysterical and by your standards you shouldnt get to criticise MY opinion.
Tommy: "There is nothing more hysterical than a tolerant pro-choice liberal who preaches acceptance and diveristy screaming and whining about an opinion they don't like."
Intentionally or not, Tommy, you're using the same rhetorical strategy as Carlson. The word "hysterical" is etymologically derived from the same root as hysterectomy -- hysteria was thought to be a condition caused by a malfunctioning uterus. To claim that a man was hysterical was to say that he was acting like a crazy woman.
Now, don't get me wrong. I don't think you meant it this way. I just want to point out that you're effectively reproducing the exact same charge -- that liberals are acting like wussies.
For the record: Carlson is entitled to his opinion, and he has every right to express it. And MSNBC has every right to give him a forum for that expression.
The question is: is it a good opinion? Is it defensible? Does it contribute anything positive to political discourse?
I still haven't heard you offer a defense for Carlson. And I suspect that you don't have one. It's a stupid thing to say and it's a cheap shot. I'd like for American political discourse to be about something more than "toughness" or "manliness" -- not because we shouldn't talk about gender norms, but because there are BETTER ways of talking about them than accusing one another of wussiness.
TOMMY:
I've used this example before, but it bears repeating. There is a movie starring Harrison Ford called "WITNESS", where a tough big-city cop finds himself hiding out in Amish country, to protect a little boy who witnessed a murder.
One day, the Amish go to town in their carriage, and are confronted by some bullies who depend on the Amish being "tolerant" ... as you define it. They tease and slap around and humiliate an Amish man, confident that the "tolerance" of the Amish will protect them from retaliation of any sort (and this is the very definition of cowardice).
Ford steps in, and beats the bullies bloody, and boy are THEY surprised. "You aren't supposed to fight back!" they whine. "You're supposed to be tolerant!"
Don't make that mistake, TOMMY. Liberals are very tolerant, of other people, of other opinions, of the rights and freedoms of others. But our "tolerance" does not extend to being blindly accepting of every damn thing that is harmful to America. We are tolerant of love, but INTOLERANT of hate. We are tolerant of competition, but INTOLERANT of bullies. We are tolerant of TRUTH, but INTOLERANT of lies.
For you to define Liberals' "tolerance" as expecting us to accept anything and everything is just stupid. Don't be stupid.
I think he's wimpy. I wouldn't trust him to lead me anywhere...whether it's into battle or just lost in the woods. And I could teach courses in both. He's not Alpha, he's a Beta at best.
IT's sort of the same as the whole Barrack "Hussein" Obama thing. Tucker repeatedly trying to potray Obama as a wuss or wimpy is indeed his opinion, but it is alos very low. If Obama is the only candidate that Tucker sees as "wimpy" he needs to really look again.
Tucker's "wimpy", high-school-like taunt dovetails with his tag-team soulmate, Coulter, who loves to try and portray Obama as a 14-year-old. And the right-winger audience eats it up.
As tommy is free to give his opinion. Is it a baseless assertion that furthers a conservative agenda? Why yes it is. So then does it fit the MMFA definition of what they are pointing out? Why yes it does.
As MMFA loosely defines misinformation it qualifies.
Carlson is trying to advance conservative propaganda through his opinions. I don't think he should be able to get away with that just because it is opinion.
He "gets away" with his opinions the same way we all do. Some agree with them and say so, others disagree and say so. People discuss and argue back and forth and when all's said and done, we all "get away" with our own entitled opinions.
And when those opinions are based on NOTHING and advance a conservative storyline MMFA shows that and calls them on it. That is how it works
Their based on nothing is YOUR opinion. Tucker would probably give you reasons why he holds that opinion, in fact he already has. You disagree, so what?
If I said my opinion of you was that you were good looking and somebody disagreed with me, would you say my opinion is based on nothing?
That's ridiculous.
Yeah he gave completely unconvincing rationales because Obama speaks in abstracts like ALL politicians do THAT makes him wimpy? No, it is obvious what is happening I dont care that you dont like us talking about the dishonest agenda driven narrative conservatives are using. I am sure it would fit your agenda if we ignored them or pretended they WERENT an agenda, that isnt going to happen. Get over it.
I think Carlson's remark does something much more insidious than merely reinforce the notion that liberals are unmanly. (Except, of course, for the "tough" Hillary Clinton, who conservative pundits and politicians portray as evidence that liberal gender norms are upside down.)
Lost in the noise is Carslon's rather startling suggestion that "every Democrat under 35, people who still have high hopes and dreams for this country" do not share "the concerns of ordinary people". Since when has cynicism been "too abstract" or outside the concerns of ordinary people?
In fact, I seem to recall a "compassionate conservative" presidential candidate successfully campaigning on the promise of "changing the tone" of political discourse not so long ago...
kind of whimpy... because he is not demonizing, fear baiting, lying, making up distortions about his opponents? I think Carlson mistakes intelligence and rationality for weakness. I hope the public is awake enough now to start thinking about the difference.
Obviously, the candidates whose slogans were "a shining city on the hill", "morning in America" and "a thousand points of light" were at least as wussy and wimpy to Carlson as Obama and the "war against cynicism". Or maybe Carlson would like to clarify.
I have to agree with you there. Campaign slogans for the most part are just generalized, touchy feel good phrases that have little purpose or meaning. Carlson is just selectively picking on someone he doesn't like.
I would say that they have purpose, as much as any marketing slogan. However, I agree that they're mostly devoid of meaning.
I truly think Carlson really wants to duke it out with Obama. I'd pa to see that.
Maybe he should practice on Clay Aiken.
The whole bow tie thing, in essence, was a manufactured focus group type personality characteristic. Once his "name" was recognized, he dropped the prepster look.
Oh yeah and he was on 'Dancing with the Stars.' That certainly puts you in the John Wayne He-man Hall of Fame.
Like JFK, the Repubs doesn't know how to counter sheer popularity.
Carlson, obviously, has nothing substantive to say. Which explains why his show changes time slots like a pinball at warp speed.
---CARLSON: "You know what I'm amazed by ... [in] the new USA Today poll on a lot of different things [...] the president is just in the John."---
Your elite, prime-time pundit, who thinks he has the gravitas to judge who is "wimpy", now proclaims he's "amazed" at the corrupt, war-fiasco, Katrina-bungling Bush's low polling numbers, as if that was some sort of new development.
I think wimpy sums up Obama fairly accurately. ;-)
In my view, wimpy would refer to any politician who doesn't have the cajones or the guts to level with their constituents or be honest about the decisions and choices they make as our elected leaders. Wimpy would be those that pander and tell people what they want to hear because getting elected is more important than principles or integrity. Wimpy would be basing your campaign on attacking your opponents instead of telling the voters why they should vote for you and what you stand for, and intend to do.
At this point, my fear is that nearly all the announced candidates from both parties are saddled with the wimpy label at some level.
While I agree with you on wimpy #1 and #2, even though I don't like it, I do believe that candidates should try to poke holes in their opponents positions and record.
Unless you like railing against the wind, "all's fair in love and war" also applies to politics.
You really should listen to Barney, Tommy. If there's one thing the "squirt" is familiar with, it's the term "wimpy"....
I thought that was the hamburger eating guy in Popeye?
Paul and Kucinich and Gravel are speaking their minds....they're not wimps. The others are terrified of bucking the system....total cowards.
What would you say best sums up Bush? Ignorant? Lying? Cowardly? Stupid? How about brain ravaged by alcohol and drug abuse? Mommas boy? I like Hunter Thompsons quote a flat out knee crawling thug with the morals of a weasel on speed.
Now I understand... Hunter Thompson eh? That explains a lot. ;-)
Didn't he pass away recently?
Maybe he did but nobody told him?
;-)
Hunter will live forever. A work of art that some of us suspect was murdered. He had some very high profile conservative neighbours.
True, Redking- I'm betting Thompson's work will be around long after Ann Coulter and Newt Gingrich's essays are relegated to the future counterpart of the Soviet or Nazi artifact museum.
Barney , like most of our fellow Americans,may find their prose easier to grasp, and so tries to ridicule things that take a bit more effort.
Google up the name Joe Bageant, a left-wing columnist cat from the Shenandoah Valley. He's got Hunter's style down. It's good stuff.
What would you say best sums up Bush? Ignorant? Lying? Cowardly? Stupid?
Hard to pick just one so I'd go with all of the above.
I'm not sure why Carlson refers to Obama as "wimpy"...he's far from it.
I'd be more inclined to label Edwards with that description ;-)
Just for discussion's sake, what has Obama ever done to make you say he isn't wimpy?
I agree that he talks in platitudes and feel good-isms and he is for cutting and running from Iraq. Other than that I know, and care little at this time, about him.
I agree that Obama has style. Where is the substance?
AA,
I agree that Obama is lacking in the substance department at this point [but most of the candidates are simply delivering bumper sticker slogans for the moment.] I don't know that one can define that as "wimpy".
Edwards on the other hand sends his wife out to do his dirty work while he's busy getting $4,000,000 haircuts & massages. That to me is a wimp ;-)
I don't like Edwards and I would never vote for him, but I think his wife did a good job going against Coulter.
These pundits want it both ways. When you ignore them, they call you a snob - an elitist and when you attack them in kind, they say "but I am just a mere pundit, I must be saying something right."
Elizabeth Edwards was the appropriate person to address the issue. However much I don't like John, I can understand his not lending his stature to Coulter for that moment in time.
I think calling Edwards a wimp or a wuss as the Right often does is also just an ad hominem attack and nothing more. It is not substantive nor does it affect my already dim view of Edwards one bit.
Open_mind,
If Elizabeth Edwards wanted to address Coulter she should have written an op-ed piece, I'm quite certain almost every newspaper in America would have given her space on their editorial page. To me, calling into Hardball to take on Coulter turned it into a carnival, and really made the Edwards look desperate for publicity for his sinking campaign. And it gave Coulter an air of credibility she doesn't deserve.
I just can't see Clinton or Obama reacting that way. I'm not sure if Coulter has been tough on Obama, but she's been brutal regarding the Clintons. They've ignored Coulter. And in this case I think that makes sense.
As far as my dislike of John Edwards goes, I just think the guy is a phony. And that was confirmed for me when he called a friggin press conference to announce Elizabeth's cancer had returned but he'd be staying in the race. That, IMO, could have just as easily been accomplished by releasing a statement to the press.
But no not John-Boy, he had to turn it into a free PR event....using his wife's sickness for his own political ambitions.
Sorry, but to me the guy is a wuss, a wimp, and a phony.
And I'm not too thrilled with his stance on the issues either.
Well said assessment. It's amazing simply because Edwards comes out with his "courageous" war on poverty, that he somehow becomes this savior and is immune from criticism because he is advocating poverty elimination. Yet he doesn't have the stones to say how he will pay for it, or implement it.......at least if he was honest about the specifics there could be a substantive debate over his programs. But instead he leaves that out so as to insolate his programs from further scrutiny.
Typical phony politician, and more Edwards slight of hand.
Yet he doesn't have the stones to say how he will pay for it, or implement it.......at least if he was honest about the specifics there could be a substantive debate over his programs.
Bingo! Of course it's what he doesn't say that worries me;-)
Some of these folks here think the solution to everything is to tax the rich, somehow kidding themselves that the middle-class will escape being taxed as well for Edward's Feel Good Big Government solutions.
When I hear any of the Democratic candidates mention Universal Health Care I cringe. Some folks actually believe they would be getting Free healthcare insurance!
Nothing is FREE...unless of course you don't work or your here illegally.
We need to slash spending by cutting out the pork barrel feast. Then we need to end the Iraq War. That would be a start.
Tommy, I don't know if you're familiar with the Fair Tax Plan, but it's about the best plan I've seen thus far. The powers that be should at least consider it.
J, I am pretty familiar with the fair tax plan and think it definitely heads us in a far better direction.
Sadly, many on the left are drunk on taxation for it funds the programs, that keep people dependent on those programs, voting to keep them in office. That is why there are so against budget and tax cuts.
The only thing I don't understand about the "fair tax" is that it is supposed to be revenue neutral, but somehow the way the proponents tell the story - everyone benefits financially from it.
I am a little suspicious when people make these kinds of claims. Maybe I am just a little too familiar with mathematics to be so gullible.
It's a lie to say that Edwards doesn't talk about how he would pay for or implement his plans. He has said that it's more important to level with citizens about possible tax increases than it is to play politics, but you blatantly accuse him of the exact opposite behavior.
Of course he has not created a tax bill yet, but your claim that he needs to document this is more nonsense than you usually spout.
Why do you have it in for Edwards and why are you continuing to spout falsehoods about him even after you've been repeatedly corrected?
http://johnedwards.com/issues/health-care/health-care-fact-sheet/
Here's one way to pay for it!
"Because Americans change insurers often, insurance companies have little incentive to pay for preventive care. Some doctors and hospitals are slow to adopt proven treatments. Better, more consistent performance could save 100,000 to 150,000 lives and $100 billion to $150 billion a year, according to the Commonwealth Fund Commission on a High Performance Health System."
First: Business Responsibility. Businesses have a responsibility to support their employees' health. They will be required to either provide a comprehensive health plan to their employees or to contribute to the cost of covering them through Health Care Markets. In return, the Edwards plan will make it easier for businesses to offer insurance by reducing costs and creating new choices.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18394476/
Democratic presidential contender John Edwards said Sunday he would consider raising taxes on corporations and the wealthy to fund programs such as universal health care.
Edwards has long said he wants to repeal the tax cuts on upper-income earners enacted during the Bush presidency, but Sunday he seemed to go further, by saying he was open to raising them higher than they were before George W. Bush took office. He also said he would consider taxes on "excess profits," including those made by oil companies.
Edwards said it was more important to level with voters than to worry about the political consequences of advocating higher taxes.
How about Obama's wussy way of purchasing his home using the wife of a supporter, to purchase the other half of the property on the same day?
Yeah. Uh huh.
$4,000,000 haircuts and massages? By my count that's about four extra zeros!
Remind me not to hire you to do my taxes, Jeter! :)
A better question is what has he done to EARN the reputation for being wimpy? I agree he doesnt support your policy of getting as many Americans killed as is humanly possible to satisfy the insatiable bloodlust of you warmongers but to me thats just good sense.
Exuse me but your BDS is showing...
Only if seen through the delusionary filter of your Bush Idolotry Syndrome. Physician heal thyself
I agree, Solon.
Let's just call it B.S. - Bush Syndrome. The guy can do no wrong in the eyes of the 25 percent who would follow him off the cliff he's apparently determined to march off.
And what substance could Bush possibly have that you find so compelling? If you mean cocaine, then yes, Bush may well be full of a substance, but otherwise...
I am at a loss for words if you truly believe Bush is anything but a Cheney-puppet. In fact, I still think that was what we saw in the backet of his neck during that debate. It was Cheney's disembodied arm operating his mouth.
Good point. The righty pinheads think they have some idea what courage is, but the truth is that they elected Bush, our Wimp-in-Chief twice.
Evidence:
1) He has never had to work for anything in his life. More importantly, he has never shown character or courage by stepping outside the priviliged life he lucked into.
2) He lets others (Cheney, the radical right, or lobbyists from big business, or choose your puppet master of the hour) make his decisions for him.
3) The only reason he quit drinking, at the age of 40, is because his wife threatened him.
IF Obama, say, avoided the wartime draft by using his rich, Congressman father to get him a safe spot in my home state on the National Guard, where I could also work on a political campaign, then I'd agree with you.
that made no sense, but I'll give you points for trying. ;-)
It oughta be obvious, but Bush was a bonafide wimp for using his rich, politician dad to get out of serving in a war. Now I'd say he's a "simp" as well.
Of course it made sense. Try to keep up.
I understood the gratuitous slam against Bush. However Bush was not part of the thread and even if he were, the analogy fails for if Obama did serve in Nat'l Guard you'd say he's a wimp.
But somehow since he did not serve at all in the military he somehow less of wimp than Bushwho did?
Again, nice try at supporting another BDS compatriot, but it still doesn't make sense.
The subject is someone calling someone else "kind of a wuss". Dave merely pointed out that there was someone more obviously worthy of such an epithet. I think he made a good point. If you disagree, that is fine. If you don't get it, I find that hard to believe. You are much smarter than that.
It ain't rocket science.
---"I understood the gratuitous slam against Bush"---
Your very first post on this topic was your gratuitous cheap-shot slam against Obama, so we knew that even you would get it.
Thanks for your concern. ;-)
I disagree. I was on topic and Dave's silly comment snuck across the border from way back when...
Your first post was simply trollish, baiting name-calling. You lack the ability to have a serious discussion, evidently. Hard to believe that the stupidity shown in your replies is not an act.
Speaking of trolling, baiting, and name-calling, take a look at your friends, friend.
I can see why you'd say that when I simply called you on a little point not making sense. Your most recent post is another example where you make little sense and instead hurl invective.
My original point was sussinct. I simply expressed my opinion. that is all. You are the one who tossed in the gratuitous and nonsensical swipe at Bush. You are more guilty of trolling them my friend.
I've explained my reasoning in many times and many places, including this increasingly insipid thread. I see nobody using any type of logic above rebutting me except for the "Oh yeah? Is too!" line of argumentation from your 'enlightened' side.
I've tired of this. You lost your points.
So since we are enlightened that means we ought to unilaterally disarm? Sure, that would be good for you Bush Idolotors. YOU take a meaningless swipe at Obama. There was NO substance there to attack so returning serve seems like the proper response. YOU want us to be limited in our responses to what YOU would like them to be. YOU want to have the discussion based on YOUR framing. You ;make when did you stop beating your wife posts and WE are supposed to be limited to stuttering but, but... NO the proper response to such a posting is Didnt I see YOUR wife in the emergency room? You may THINK God gave YOU the exclusive franchise on personal attacks. He didnt, get over it.
"Again, nice try at supporting another BDS compatriot, but it still doesn't make sense."--aa
Speaking of BDS and being off-topic. Does this qualify as BDS?
PS here is a backup link just in case:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/11/washington/11surgeon.html?ei=5065&en=79030f4eb1e8f7e1&ex=1184817600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&adxnnlx=1184159559-/NYm79y6BIFjCfEdvXhCOQ&pagewanted=print
No, but it is off topic.
:-)
What you said is that it didnt make sense not that you dont agree. It obviously made sense. Its just that deep in your Bush Idolotry Syndrome you wanted to SAY it didnt make sense. Of course anyone knows it did but you are compelled by the symptoms of BIS to say ANYTHING no matter how disconnected to reality to protect the object of your adulation and idolotry
Now that made even less sense.
It made pefect sense I fail to see why YOUR inability to understand a simple concept should be MY problem
Solon may I ask what the eff does BDS mean? Is it Bush Derangement Syndrome or am I at least close? Thanks.
MoDem, I believe that's it "Bush Derangement Syndrome". I've heard it used by Hannity and Rush,a talking point that makes it easier for the dittoheads to cling to their insanity by pretending that everybody else is nuts.
That is, the righty talkers have a remaining audience that actually is willing to believe that those who recognize our incompetent leadership are afflicted with some sort of irrational baseless hatred of Bush.
This makes it easier for them to put on a fresh adult diaper and ignore the world around them.
Yeah thats it. Coined by the propaganda parrot masters and repeated ad naseum by the propaganda parrot foot soldiers.
Of course you do, AA.
Dang, this guy scares the crap out of you wingnuts!
And Mr Tucker is not ?
This is the same genius who spent a considerable amount of time on Abrams' show explaining how Vitter getting caught with hookers wasn't hypocrisy. You see, white Republicans are diffferent than everyone else.
"kind of a wuss" "rhetoric" "kind of wimpy"
Says the bow tie wearing, nine year old hair cut sporting, high pitched whiney voiced “manly” man!
This would be hilarious if it wasn’t already so sad!
Funny, the mere fact that Carlson, and every other news commentator, is talking about Obama is testament to the fact that Obama is a pretty good campaigner.
His hypothesis is that Obama isn't a good campaigner because he isn't dominating the polls and it must be couched by "despite all the good things that he's doing..." and "can't seems to make dent in Hillary Clinton's lead the polls...national ones anyway"
Problem is that Carlson isn't trying to analyze Obama's campaign or abilities, he's simply trying to label Obama a"big governement liberal"
"...Barack Obama is the hope of every good government liberal, right? -- of every Democrat under 35, people who still have high hopes and dreams for this country, Tom. .."
Rather than adding to the dialogue, he is attempting to subtract from it by creating a flat character in place of the candidate. One that we've seen before - the stereotypical "tax and spend, big government, soft on crime and defense liberal"
Unfortunately, there seems to be little room for nuance in discussing serious issues.
Tucker couldn't take Michelle Obama let alone Barak. He couldn't take me. I am completely confident that I could whup him.
I vote for mud wrasslin....
Front row seat please!
GO LYNN! :-)
You will have to give Tucker some notice so he can schedule a bikini wax.
Pleaseeeeee, I can't take picturing that :-)
Just picture Tucker "el Chihuahua sin pelo" Carlson in a Borat style singlet. Masculinity personified.
Oh My God!!!
I'd rather be blind. :-)
If it's wimpy, then history is replete with wimpy presidential quotes. Consider these wimpy quotes:
I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man. Washington
Honesty if the first chapter of the book of wisdom. Jefferson
Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. J. Q. Adams
Do I not destroy my enemies when I make them my friends? Lincoln
The friend in my adversity I shall always cherish most. Grant
Our differences are politics. Our agreements are principles. McKinley
If you will think about what you ought to do for other people, your character will take care of itself. Wilson
Happiness lies in the joy of achievement and the thrill of creative effort. F.D.R.
There is nothing wrong with America that the faith, love of freedom, intelligence and energy of her citizens cannot cure. Eisenhower
If we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. Kennedy
Truth is the glue that holds governments together. Compromise is the oil that makes governments [run]. Ford
There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder. Reagan
It would be interesting to see how many of these quotes came from primary campaigns.
That being said, all of these quotes are from President's who served our country in time of or war. Correct me if I am wrong, nNone of them advocating cutting and running.
When you walk the walk, you can talk the talk. Otherwise it sound like wimpy rhetoric.
Wow, AA, do they still use that phrase "cut and run"? That is sooooo 2006!
Especially now that Lugar, R-IN, Voinovich, R-OH, Hutchinson, R-TX and others of your party are all starting to sound oddly like "cut and runners"? What's a die-hard war-mongerer to do?!?
Yes. I agree with you.
---"None of them advocating cutting and running"---
A meaningless, unserious quip that is simply a parroted talk-show slogan for right-wingers to slap on anyone that doesn't want to stay-and-die in Iraq indefinitely. Here's a cracker for you, Polly.
Nice bird analogy Mr. Lemming.
I guess you are offended by the ugly reality of your position? Perhaps I can soften it with "immediate withdrawal". Does that make you feel better? If that is not your position, what is your plan?
Oh, and I prefer Wheat Thins, thank you very much. Gotta watch that wingspan ya know...
Since your "cut-and-run" ad campaign was launched, sales of the Bush War for Civilization have actually fallen. More Americans want out of Iraq than ever before. Time for a catchy new slogan. How about "plop-plop, fizz-fizz, oh what a fiasco this war is."
The REALITY that make us uncomfortable is the insatiable bloodlust of you warmongers who have such passion for the slaughter of Americans. You cant begin to justify this slaughter but its the only thing that gets your little thingys hard so your zeal for getting Americans killed is without limit.
Why don't you start supporting the troops and protest this wretched war? Anything less is unpatriotic at best, treason at worst.
So, Deputy Fife, are you saying that Obama's statements sounds like those of our most experienced and respected wartime president, but because he is not one, he can be ridiculed as an inexperienced platitude-spewing wimp?
You may want to get that noggin down to Emmett's Fix-it shop.
Also none of the advocating getting as many Americans killed as possible. Could be they werent as enamored of getting Americans slaughtered as you warmongers are.
Written like a loyal Bushie; a truly irrelevant and ignorant response.
CD, whatta wuss Hall of Fame ! ;0)
Somehow, I don't think "evildoers", "I'm the decider" "They hate our freedom" and "smoke 'em out" will ever be added to that list.
For Tucker Carlson to accuse ANYONE of being a wimp is too funny for words.I guess he can throw this kind of stuff around now since he lost the bow-tie and put his big boy pants on.Next thing he'll be hanging around with a bad crowd smoking cigarettes and talking back to his mommy.
That being said, all of these quotes are from President's who served our country in time of or war. Correct me if I am wrong, nNone of them advocating cutting and running.
The Civil War, WWI, and WWII were all wars WORTH being involved in. The stakes were too high for those Preisdents to advocate "cutting and running". And it's not a matter of hindsight bias either. Please don't try and compare the mess we're in to that. Ideally, the default position on war should always be that it is wrong and that there must be a more peaceful, civil means of solving a conflict.
Exactly, Carn. Also, remember that those wars were entered into very reluctantly by the US. In fact, many historians say we almost entered WWII too late. None of these wars was a war of aggression, like Iraq, none of the wars were long term occupations of a country in civil war, and they were all against a well-defined enemy who could be "defeated" on the battlefield.
This "war" is so unlike any other in our history, that comparisons are ridiculous. "Cut and Run" is so meaningless here as to be laughable. How do you cut and run from someone else's civil war? How do you cut and run from terrorists when they are spread all over the globe? Where is the central headquaters of all terrorists? Is there a bunker somewhere we can bomb? If the opposite of cutting and running is staying and winning, how will we know we have WON?!?
Go tell that to the Al Queda terrorists in Iraq, if you dare.
We both know they'd chop off your head and show it on TV.
So many here seem to me to have consciously decided not to think about who we are fighting or why. Do any of you see the reports of the babarity of our enemies? Do you not understand what it is they are trying to do? What will happen if we cut and run? Do you think they'll be satisfied and stop or will they take their islamofacism jihad to other countries around them who don't tow the line? What makes you think they won't start mass genocide against anyone who supported the U.S. or happen to be of different faith? Do you support their subjugation of women? Do you support them killing the victims of rape because of the dishonor to the family? Do you support the indiscriminate killing of innocents in order to gain their political ends? Take a look at the Bill of Rights and tell me how many those fascists support.
Yes. We are at war. Do you not remember that they started it? If we lose this one, we'll end up losing a lot more as they gain strength and possibly nukes. What's your position on that?
I am tired of the political wimps who don't have the courage of their convictions. Those opposing the war are defeatists. Abandoning Iraq will be a great defeat for the U.S. and the ramifications are truly frightening.
Excerpts from the recent letter of al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi.
-I want to be the first to congratulate you for what God has blessed you with in terms of fighting battle in the heart of the Islamic world, which was formerly the field for major battles in Islam's history, and what is now the place for the greatest battle of Islam in this era, and what will happen, according to what appeared in the Hadiths of the Messenger of God @ about the epic battles between Islam and atheism. It has always been my belief that the victory of Islam will never take place until a Muslim state is established in the manner of the Prophet in the heart of the Islamic world, specifically in the Levant, Egypt, and the neighboring states of the Peninsula and Iraq; however, the center would be in the Levant and Egypt. This is my opinion, which I do not preach as infallibile, but I have reviewed historical events and the behavior of the enemies of Islam themselves, and they did not establish Israel in this triangle surrounded by Egypt and Syria and overlooking the Hijaz except for their own interests.
As for the battles that are going on in the far-flung regions of the Islamic world, such as Chechnya, Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Bosnia, they are just the groundwork and the vanguard for the major battles which have begun in the heart of the Islamic world. We ask God that He send down his victory upon us that he promised to his faithful worshipers.
...
So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:
The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.
The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before unIslamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.
There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.
The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.
The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.
[link to www.weeklystandard.com]
Considering al-Zarqawi has been dead for over a year now, it may prove a slight impediment to his abilities to carry out the plan.
cont.
My raising this idea-I don't claim that it's infallible-is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.YOU ARE UNPATRIOTIC ! ! !
later on in the same letter...
However, despite all of this, I say to you: that we are in a battle, and that more than half of this battle is taking place in the battlefield of the media. And that we are in a media battle in a race for the hearts and minds of our Umma. And that however far our capabilities reach, they will never be equal to one thousandth of the capabilities of the kingdom of Satan that is waging war on us. And we can kill the captives by bullet. That would achieve that which is sought after without exposing ourselves to the questions and answering to doubts. We don't need this.
AA,
Please tell me if you believe that this war is so important you are doing more than posting on this website and voting to support it.
Noticeably absent from that copy-and-paste job is a U.S. plan. A plan that's any different than what Bush & Co. has had the past four years -the one that's worked out so great. They want more of the same. The same stay-and-die/tax-cuts-for-everyone Plan. The Bush hikes the mess to somebody else Plan.
I'm with you FBBoy. I asked AA yesterday if he had signed up to fight this war, didn't see an answer.
Maybe next he'll say that we're fightin em over thar so we don't haveta fight em over here.
"Excerpts from the recent letter of al-Zawahiri to al-Zarqawi."--aa
Recent? al-Zarqawi has been dead for over a year now.
Yeah he is a nutbag lets get him. Lets NOT base our foriegn policy on what HE wants. I also cited an al Queda letter where their biggest fear was us leaving Iraq because they were afraid the newly recruited fighters would just go home. I bet Osama Ben Laden has a pin up poster of George W Gump on his bedroom wall and thanks Allah for him every night. Making his recruiting so easy, letting HIM get away with the worst terrorist attack in US history and helping him achieve his goals. Al Quedas stated purpose is to bring Islamic governments to all Secular Islamic nations. He never in his WILDEST DREAMS could have accomplished this in Iraq luckily for him Bush and ignorant warmonger sychophants like YOU have done it for him. Good job.
A religion under attack, calling for unity and a buffer zone on their borders. Gee, wonder why they doin' that? 200 years of European imperialism, perhaps? We just happen to be the latest invaders of convenience, we even sailed to the other side of the planet to do it. Just that eager to play Viking conquest, I guess. Raid and plunder.
Barney, it might be helpful for you to review your post, note every reference to "they" "our enemies", "these people", and ask yourself exactly who you're talking about.
You may be a bigger wuss than Tucker, with all that you consider "truly frightening".
Wow, you went on a bed-wetting roll before i posted. That letter sounds like something written by James Dobson.
Is that all you've got?
Pathetic.
What is pathetic is posting nutbag al Queda wetdreams as IF they had some relation to reality. We already KNOW they are an enemy. Lets fight them in a smart way instead of allowing THEM to pick the venue and fighting their fight. Good job of carrying al Queda water though. THEY want Iraq to be a major battleground so YOU say we need to let them. Great military strategy there. Why dont you appear on al Queda recruiting posters.
In response to a hysterical copy and pasting of propaganda? It's all that was needed.
AA, you've got to understand that we.as Americans, can't play into the hands of ultra-conservative religious fundamentalist primitives by trying to be exactly like them. That's what they want, a perfectly matched opponent.
Now change your star-spangled diaper and try to start acting like a man, you're embarrassing the rest of the country. ;0)
"...we, as Americans, can't play into the hands of ultra-conservative religious fundamentalist primitives by trying to be exactly like them"
Unless your a Republican in front of a voting machine.
Do you mean the al Queda terrorists that werent IN Iraq until we invaded? So the reason FOR the invasion were these terrorists that werent there, then they FOLLOWED us there so NOW we have to stay because the action we took that brought them TO Iraq has to be maintained because they are IN Iraq. Does the term self fulfilling prophesy mean anything to you. What is being accomplished by your zeal to see as many Americans killed as you can possibly GET killed? Is that your end all, lets just make sure Americans DIE to make YOU feel safer, whatever the reality? The false dichotomy of saying either we stay in the Iraqi meat grinder or completely leave off fighting terrorism is plain stupid which has been pointed out to you before. You keep repeating it because you are no where NEAR any real point so you just keep repeating whatever stupid excuse you have whether or NOT it has any connection to reality. There is no realy doubt we can do a better job of actually fighting terorrism with international support that will NOT be forthcoming as long as you warmongers keep using terrorism as an excuse for hegemony. Invading Iraq had NOTHING to do with terrorism. The Iraqis want us gone. We are now in the middle of a civil war our invasion helped to bring about and its time to leave. I know that will hamper the slaughter of Americans that you love so much but frankly we dont care. Its time to come home and take steps to actually deal with the problem of terrorism with something more that empty rhetoric and invasions of random countries with huge oil reserves. We get that you learned everything you know about foriegn policy from watching John Wayne movies but arrogant, stupid and bloodthirsty is no way to go through life
THEY started it??? WTF? Are you even attempting to pay attention. Bin Laden attacked the WTC. bush (lowercase intentional) invaded Iraq. These are two completely unrelated events. Wake the f**k up.
AA,
What has happened in the last 6 years has not been a fight against 9/11 attackers but an invasion of a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Junior and Dick were aware of a small I do mean small group of Al Qaeda in northern Iraq, not under Saddam’s control. They had the ability to bomb them but waited 18 months and decided to invade the entire country. People are not ignorant just tired of the BS. Republicans have used terror as a political tool. You remember the “raise the threat level from yellow to orange/red” used to avoid bad news that Junior and Dick didn’t want the public to focus on. Leak a covert CIA ops name to avoid the truth about the "supposed threat". Terror has been used as a tool to keep Americans afraid in a child like manner. The bogeyman will get you unless you let us (Republicans) keep you safe. Now that they have cried wolf so many times no one believes them. You cannot blame liberals or anyone else for the fact that very few believe them. Because they have lied through out this war nothing they say can be believed as the truth. Dick’s “insurgents are in the last throes” or “there is good news in Iraq, reporters aren’t telling you about” “we are winning” “we will stand down when the Iraqi’s stand up” “I listen to my generals”.
Now they are trying another slogan by constantly saying Al Qaeda in Iraq knowing full well that Al Qaeda is only a small portion of insurgents in Iraq. Again playing politics with American lives. You want someone to take what you say seriously, tell the TRUTH!
AA: Yes. We are at war. Do you not remember that they started it?
We're not at war. We're at War, with a capital W. Or more precisely, we're at Warre, the kind of war of all against all that Hobbes describes. Like you, Bush has conflated all enemies, from states to stateless organizations, and has declared war on them all.
"They" didn't start it. Al Qaeda did. And when Bush lacked the resolve to commit sufficient political and military energy to defeating Al Qaeda, he turned to Iraq and claimed that it was part of the War on Terror. And having mismanaged that war, he's now looking for new enemies.
Yes, we're at war -- against an affective state: a War on Terror. Afghanistan and Iraq are, for Bush, merely specific instantiations of a general war against insecurity, which is a contradiction in terms, since war is by definition an insecure condition.
Please don't lecture anyone here about forgetting who started what if you can't even name the first aggressor in more specific terms than "they". Al Qaeda attacked us and provoked a legitimate war of limited scope. Bush responded with a Hobbesian state of war with no logically foreseeable point of conclusion.
It IS wimpy. Where's the fire? Where's the soul? Where's the warrior of the people? The tribune of the masses? That ain't Obama, he's a hand out in a suit getting a fistful of dollars. As revolutionary as a can of soda. Kucinich is the only cat with guts in the primaries. He takes on the big fights, he don't take the easy way up the ladder. Obama is a corporate crawler compared to him. Revolution at the ballot box, my brothers, vote the country back into our hands. It's so easy...all we have to do is do it.
It's the same old Repub talking point; only now they can't call a candidate "French". After all, the French elected a conservative, so they are using the term "wussy". They have ALWAYS been obsessed by the need to appear masculine - or in control. What a crew! This demonstrates Tucker's inability to find any substantive negative about Obama.
They wear make-up! Masculine men they are. Real manly men in the make-up room prior to showtime, reviewing their talking points and schedule while having their nose powdered by some intern. I wouldn't trust to hand them a rifle or a shovel. They probably think Richard Marx was heavy metal. There's creampuffs in bakeries tougher than these guys.