About us Login Get email updates
Quick Clip
Print

Fox's Ralph Peters: "Osama -- uh, Obama -- sorry, Freudian slip"

September 15, 2009 7:46 am ET

From the September 14 edition of WOR's The Steve Malzberg Show:

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Previously:

Ralph Peters claims it's "shocking" that "eight years after 9/11, we have a president who doesn't think it was any big deal"

Fox News' Peters claimed Obama "clearly has a massive Third World chip on his shoulder"

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by manofmystique (September 15, 2009 8:11 am ET)
      1  
      Idiots by the boad -load.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jmille426471 (September 15, 2009 8:16 am ET)
      7  
      There's that racism you were looking for, Dick Morris.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 15, 2009 9:10 am ET)
        6  
        Does this idiot even realize that "Freudean Slip" means you accidentally SAY what you were actually THINKING? It's an OK save when it masks something humorous or self depricating. Not so much when it's attempting to mask racism.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by shaggles (September 15, 2009 11:45 am ET)
          1  
          That's pretty much what I was going to post. Although I don't see it as racism so much. Seems like these right wing hacks make a habit of using expressions they don't understand.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 15, 2009 12:51 pm ET)
               
            It may not be racism in terms of attack dogs and fire hoses - that kind of racism is already dead anyway. But it's the more subtle racism of "he's got the funny name," "he's different," "sounds scary," "kind of like a terrorist..."

            It may not be that someone telling him to sit in the back of the bus, or denying him a job (just the legitimacy that goes with it!) But there's no mitake: "Obama" is not exactly a good irish name, is it? "Hussein," "Osama" and throw in a "Mohammad" for good measure... If using ethnicity to drive home the perception of someone being different (code word for 'not a real american'!) isn't racist, then I guess I just don't know what is!

            Not to mention that equating "arab" or "muslim" with "bad" in the first place is inherently racist!

            And don't get me wrong: I HATE playing the race card, and I HATE it when other people do so. Because it robs our counter-arguments of legitimacy. (Which must be why so many Republicans keep playing the victim with it!)
            Report Abuse
            • Author by shaggles (September 15, 2009 3:38 pm ET)
                 
              Well I can't hear the audio on this so I could be wrong. I just saw it as a way of calling him a terrorist and similar to comparing him to Hitler. I'm not saying there isn't a lot of racism behind the attacks on the Prez but I think any Dem who got elected would be compared to Hitler, bin Laden, Stalin, and by some really weird, twisted logic Nixon and McCarthy. Obama is probably getting it worse because he's black but who knows what they'd be saying about Hillary if it had been her instead?
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (September 15, 2009 4:09 pm ET)
                   
                I think any Dem who got elected would be compared to Hitler, bin Laden, Stalin, and by some really weird, twisted logic Nixon and McCarthy.

                Was Clinton?

                Actually, I for one won't call the Stalin / Hitler / Nixon / McCarthy comparisons racist. LUDICROUS perhaps, but there's no inherent racism in those. Just partisan hackery. But the "Osama" and "Hussein" nonsense is different. There's a reason they're saying "Osama" and not "McVeigh." And that reason is RACE.

                The whole "Obama is a Muslim" thing? Only worked because of race. How absurd would you look saying "McCain is a Muslim?" Well... you look absurd either way, but considerably more so using it with McCain.

                And that's because of race.

                ---------------------------------------------------------
                My Blog
                Report Abuse
    • Author by jmille426471 (September 15, 2009 8:39 am ET)
      4  
      Funny story, my aunt (wingnut) was telling me glowing tales about a scholarly and intellectual fellow named Ralph peters, who lived nearby her. She told me I simply must read some of his deep, serious analysis of current events.

      So I googled him up and I found some scholarly analysis in a speech he gave at some wingnut research institute in which he referred to the Russians as "drink-sodden barbarians who occasionaly puke up a genius". And he wrote in NY Post column that the Israelis were like the nice upright new apartment tenants who displaced the "shiftless and violent" former occupants. And later he was on Fox pleading for censorship of the media by the military.

      Really, are these people hypnotized? I know some people have trouble with first impressions, but geeze. I should know, as I have so many wingnut relatives, but I really don't.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by New Frontier (September 15, 2009 9:25 am ET)
      7 1
      Peters: "What a role model Obama could be [for minorities]" (emphasis mine)


      Obama became President of the United States. Now if only he could actually accomplish something...


      Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (September 15, 2009 9:46 am ET)
        2  
        Is the thumbs-downer missing the sarcasm here?
        Report Abuse
      • Author by foghornleghorn (September 15, 2009 10:11 am ET)
        2  
        Remember, Obama is NOT the president of the racist teabaggers. They want their country back and this isn't the country they remember.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 15, 2009 12:02 pm ET)
             
          The "Leave it to Beaver" world they remember and desire never existed.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by shaggles (September 15, 2009 12:43 pm ET)
               
            I don't think that's what they mean or they would've been saying I-want-my-country-back before Jan 20, 2009.
            Report Abuse
      • Author by jediknight65 (September 15, 2009 5:38 pm ET)
           
        well the racists of the world dont wanna call attention because that will encourage non white people to become president
        Report Abuse
    • Author by blk-in-alabam (September 15, 2009 9:34 am ET)
      1  
      accidently on purpose
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jediknight65 (September 15, 2009 10:03 am ET)
      1  
      yeah a real slip of the tongue.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by kfraz43 (September 15, 2009 10:24 am ET)
      1  
      That's just pathetically weak. If you want membership in the lucrative uber whackjob level of the reich, you've got to FEEL the whacko. BE the whacko.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by fishergirlusmc (September 15, 2009 10:53 am ET)
      1 3
      Didn't Ted Kennedy make the same mistake once?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by peace4all (September 15, 2009 11:08 am ET)
        2  
        i don't know, did he? link please
        Report Abuse
        • Author by fishergirlusmc (September 15, 2009 2:02 pm ET)
          1 1
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APx2YJ-_jos. Here is the link. And it was just a slip of the tongue just like Peters.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (September 15, 2009 11:51 am ET)
        1 4
        He did, indeed, but all is forgiven. The (D) after a politician's name is a 'get out of trouble free' card. If I remember correctly, Joe Biden(D) made a similar slip-o'-the tongue.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 15, 2009 12:03 pm ET)
          3  
          He did, indeed, but all is forgiven
          Remember when peace4all asked for a "link?" Merely asserting the same thing again does not constitute evidence.

          The plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
          Report Abuse
      • Author by New Frontier (September 15, 2009 12:17 pm ET)
        1 1
        Didn't Ted Kennedy make the same mistake once?

        Several people have made the mistake. The difference is, they didn't say "Freudian slip" immediately afterwards, as Peters does.
        Report Abuse
      • Author by worrierking (September 15, 2009 1:23 pm ET)
        2 1
        I think you're right. He may have, as have other decent people.

        Ralph Peters is not "decent people".
        Report Abuse
      • Author by shaggles (September 15, 2009 3:41 pm ET)
        2 1
        Except when Kennedy did it it actually was a mistake. This is obviously a staged bit.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by kydem09 (September 15, 2009 11:06 am ET)
      3 4
      What a non-story. Oh my goodness, the guy said Osama instead of Obama! What is this world coming to???? Gimme a break!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Easy to refute wingnuts (September 15, 2009 12:05 pm ET)
           
        Yeah, but when we say "kydumb09" instead of your actual handle, it isn't a mistake or a "Freudian slip," it's merely a statement of fact.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by pros2pros2940 (September 15, 2009 11:19 am ET)
      2  
      I think we should waterboard the guy since he said Osama. It makes me think that he's in regular contact with the al Qaeda leader.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by puppienrainbows (September 15, 2009 11:53 am ET)
        1 4
        I agree. It'll probably remind him of the time when he made fun of his sister and she splashed water in his face.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by The_Cat (September 15, 2009 12:11 pm ET)
          2 1
          You do realize that torture, including waterboarding, is a form of terrorism, right, puppienrainbows? And that by belittling the experience of those who have undergone it, you are siding with and supporting terrorism? Terrorists who insisted they had the Constitution of the United States on their side, and were allowed to commit these terrorist acts on our soil and in our name?
          Report Abuse
          • Author by puppienrainbows (September 15, 2009 4:44 pm ET)
              1
            Explain the leap from waterboarding an enemy combatant to waterboarding is terrorism. Interrogation techniques should not be divulged to the public as to dilute their efficiency, so, I'm not getting the link between waterboarding and terrorism.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by The_Cat (September 15, 2009 6:31 pm ET)
                 
              Why does waterboarding work, puppienrainbows? Why is it called torture? Because it puts the recipient in fear for their life. I remember Mancow being waterboarded, and he is apparently a fairly strong swimmer, comfortable in water, and was pretty sure it would be no big deal. That didn't turn out to be true for him, did it?

              What do you call it when someone threatens to rape your wife and kids if you don't tell them what they want to know? Terrorism. They are using your fear of a possible outcome to coerce your cooperation. Why did the terrorists fly planes into buildings in the U.S.? Why were they called terrorists and not political activists? Because their actions were designed from the outset to inspire terror.

              It doesn't matter who is doing the waterboarding, and it doesn't matter who is the subject of waterboarding. Whoever uses it is a terrorist, and whoever it is done to is a victim. Period.
              Report Abuse
        • Author by worrierking (September 15, 2009 1:26 pm ET)
          2  
          Another bedwetter who not only supports torture, but minimizes it.

          Bet you're a Christian too.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by tman418 (September 15, 2009 12:24 pm ET)
         
      That joke is really, really old.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by oldman (September 15, 2009 2:28 pm ET)
           
        The right supports torture to our enemies but do not want to support treaties that might expose our troops to the same things.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by puppienrainbows (September 15, 2009 4:51 pm ET)
            1
          Our troops, when captured, have and will be treated horribly, regardless of how we treat captives. Anyone who thinks that reaching out to our enemies with a convoluted olive branch of "we won't hurts yours, so don't hurt ours" is sadly misguided. There is absolutely no evidence that shows that if we treat captured enemy soldiers with kid gloves, it will be reciprocated.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by jediknight65 (September 15, 2009 5:40 pm ET)
               
            so we should torture anyone who did it to us first. nice logic. next thing ya know you will be calling for afghanistan to be nuked.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by The_Cat (September 15, 2009 6:38 pm ET)
               
            You're quite right, puppienrainbows, there is no evidence that other countries will treat our soldiers well just because we treat detainees in our country well. Absolutely correct.

            So, what do we gain? Well, we don't lower ourselves to the standards of a 'banana republic', as some conservatives have already called this nation. We get to keep our principles, and our national soul.

            Those who hate us and wish for our downfall will now have one more justified complaint against us: that we did in fact torture innocent people. There are larger issues here than how our soldiers are treated, puppienrainbows.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by robyn20094113 (September 17, 2009 2:07 am ET)
            1  
            Pup, I thought you Righties, did not want to become those other countries. Explain why you Righties, pick the most disgusting actions of another country to imitate?
            Report Abuse