Imus touted Giuliani as willing to "drop [a nuclear weapon] on Mecca"
On the February 6 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning, host Don Imus claimed that "if we're gonna be fighting these terrorists through the lives of [8-year-old son] Wyatt Imus' children," then "it might be good to start with somebody who is willing to take three big ones and drop one on Mecca, one on Jeddah, and one on Saudi -- one on Riyadh," all cities in Saudi Arabia. Imus made the point in response to co-host Charles McCord, who claimed that Imus had "Leon Klinghoffered John McCain ... in favor of Rudolph Giuliani" during a private conversation they had the previous evening. Imus has previously claimed that he is voting for Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008.
Leon Klinghoffer was a wheelchair-bound American passenger on the cruise ship Achille Lauro when it was hijacked in 1985. He was shot by a hijacker before being thrown overboard.
From the February 6 edition of MSNBC's Imus in the Morning:
McCORD: That doesn't cover the fifty percent of the conversation last night in which you Leon Klinghoffered John McCain --
IMUS: I simply said -- no, no, I simply said --
McCORD: -- in favor of Rudolph Giuliani.
IMUS: -- I made the observation, I think Chris Matthews or somebody made it, one of those mouth-breathing cable nitwits. I think -- I think the observation is, that if we're gonna be fighting these terrorists through the lives of Wyatt Imus' children, then, you know --
McCORD: Well, unfortunately that seems to be true.
IMUS: -- it might be good start with somebody who's willing to take three big ones and drop one on Mecca, one on Jeddah, and one on Saudi -- one on Riyadh. Right, Chuck?
McCORD: Well, that would get their attention, probably.
IMUS: Yeah. And say "now what?" Eight minutes after the hour. Please welcome to the Imus in the Morning program chief White House correspondent for NBC News David Gregory. Good morning, Mr. Gregory.
GREGORY: Good morning, I-man.
Touted???
How about "predicted facetiously"?
How about spewed insanely?
I'd go with "spewed half-facetiously, and insanely."
Anyone who worries about Imus influencing the political landscape is wound way too tight...
Wesley, Let me be the first to explain this to you.......it's not about that silly rabbit, it's about "right wing garbage", stopping it now and nipping it in the bud. And this was told to me in confidence by a thoughtful supporter and contributor.
Tommy, if you hate it here so much, there's the door.
Thanks Tommy...I'm duly reprimanded. How could I see humor in mmfa's crusade to stamp out the evils of conservative misinformation.
I'll rein in my sense of humor and watch that evil Imus like a hawk...lest he sway the 2008 election.
Yes. Because nuclear annihilation can be so funny.
What sick people you are.
Oh heavens to Betsy...it appears that you and mmfa's scolding of Imus has emboldened the enemy. He repeated his "3 bomb" statement this morning...with the caveat, "I'm not kidding".
And you thought it was funny. Looks like the joke is on you.
He's a radio shock jock talking head on the morning airwaves. He makes provocative comments and jokes all the time. For anyone to give this comment serious credence or anything else Imus says, is ridiculous. Pick your battles, this ain't it.
I'll tell you what. I won't tell you what battles to pick if you grant me the same courtesy.
Imus' opinion on this is a fairly common one. I think it represents a lot of idiocy from a certain segment of our society. It is deserving of ridicule as I see it. And according to Wes, Imus is serious.
Besides, it is not like my battles amount to anything. I am just a stupid poster on a fairly obscure website. I don't have delusions that my posts change anyone's minds. I don't view this as a "battle" either. Just an opportunity to pi$$ in the ocean of opinion with my own flavor. It is quite meaningless, I know, but it helps me put my own thoughts in order.
Open, When I said "pick your battles", I was referring to this website, not you. And I agree, we are all just lowly posters on one website voicing our opinions. The best we can hope to accomplish here, or at least for me, is to become more enlightened and educated on issues of importance.
He had Mary Matlin all upset this morning by saying that Bush, Cheney, et al were lying in order to get us into this war. She told Imus that her kids call his show Anus in the Morning. He took it like a man.
There's somethin' for everybody on that show, but pure, distilled preaching from any one angle--no.
Next suggested thread topic;
"Mary Matalin's kids called Imus' program, "Anus in the Morning".
Where's the misinformation there?
Next suggested thread topic;
"Mary Matalin's kids called Imus' program, "Anus in the Morning".
Followed by part II, in which Anus takes it like a man.Yikes!
I have never been able to watch more than 5 minutes of Imus. I start out wanting to give him a chance, but his muttering opinions seem very arbitrary to me and inconsistent in any real way at least when they are intelligible enough to understand.
I don't think he influences, I think he reflects the opinion of a lot of people driving around out there, listening to Imus on their radios, dreaming of using our nuclear arsenal to show those "sand n*****s" how tough we are.
I don't have a simple way of dealing with that problem, but I think people could stand up and say, no, that S#1T is not funny, and it may inflame some crazy people who take his rantings seriously.
And I don't think thousands or millions of Americans should die for one old man's right to make stupid, faux-macho jokes. I really don't.
don't think he influences, I think he reflects the opinion of a lot of people driving around out there, listening to Imus on their radios, dreaming of using our nuclear arsenal to show those "sand n*****s" how tough we are.
Somehow, I doubt there are that many that feel that way. The ignorant, probably. But most people in AMERICA, do not want to resort to violence. And before someone else says it, I have strong opinions about the moderate to radical Muslims,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
but not enough to drop a nuke.
I don't know what the percentage is. It would be interesting to see a poll. I think the number of people that would say "nuke 'em" and not be exaggerating or over-dramatizing would be frighteningly high.
Of course for me, "frighteningly high" would be > 0...
I can say that living in a Red State, Imus' opinion is a fairly common one here.
I routinely hear the "nuke 'em all" rhetoric spouted by people with whom I discuss politics. Are they, as Insight might have it, 110% serious about doing it? Perhaps not, but this rhetoric has been with us since the Cold War and is part and parcel of this nation's frequent recourse to using force, even when other avenues are more productive.
Even if it's just a mouth-breathing MSNBC nitwit, it's irresponsible.
Anus - and everybody else in the corporate media - likes to portray Rudy as "tough" {the same way they praise McCain as a "straight talker"} . . .
Wonder why?
After all, this is a guy so "tough" he got booted out of Gracie Mansion as was forced to live with a gay couple after his wife discovered he'd been tipping around . . .
Yeah, that's real "tough" . . .
And with a good portion of the Arab/Muslim world already PO'ed at us due to the misadventure in Iraq, the willingness to "drop a big one" on major cities in our "ally" of Saudi Arabia isn't brave, its downright STUPID . . .
Anus, loosen the cowboy hat a little . . .
In a way, it's almost welcomed to be relieved of this nonsense about "Islamic jihadists" and "Islamo-fascists" and other such stupid terms that don't identify anybody specifically, but instead just direct our anger and our defenses against a religion (just how ineffective is that?)...
A relief to have the actual authors of the attacks of September 11, 2001 (and much of the "insurgency" in Iraq, and "terror" worwide), to have them named specifically:
Saudi Arabia
Truly, how often do you hear that?
Our administration (and their hack "media") have made it their industry to distract the American People's anger and concern on this issue (born on 9-11-2001), distract it away from particulars (away from Saudi Arabia) and toward vague and undefined terms such as "Islamic jihadists" etc., toward a religion.
It was not a religion that financed and directed the attacks of September 11, 2001, it was the president's "good friends" and business partners, the
Saudi "royal" family
Heck, if we were to bomb the daylights out of that murderous clan just now, I'd only think it Justice for the attacks of September 11, 2001...
And it's never too late to get Justice.
And it would sure save lives in Iraq, U.S. Troops and Iraqi civilians alike, by destroying the authors of the "terrorizing insurgency":
Saudi Arabia
...it's nice to at least see them mentioned ny name, the president's "good friends" and business partners and authors of the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Irresponsible. Idiotic. Slanderous. Why is this guy on TV/radio? Even more mysterious to me is why do "insiders" and the idiot media genuflect in Imus' presence and trip all over each other to be on his show? I have never found him entertaining. He just seems like some bitter old guy who someone decided to wire for sound.
Imus reminds me of the Crypt Keeper
Some of you are as mindless as the dittohead wingnuts
Some of you are just as apparently vague and pointless as them as well.
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media."
MMFA. What, was it a slow day? No matter how seriously Imus and Chuck like to take themselves, they are still just comedians, not the U.S. Media you have charged yourselves with monitoring, analyzing and correcting.
What next: "Stephen Colbert canonizes Bush despite reality"?
Maybe not comedians, clowns at best.Like rush, hannity. o'reilly etc., just entertainers.
Unfortunately, clowns who have an audience consisting of a certain number who don't realize they're clowns (I've met them), and who vote.
You're right HBL.
Now don't get me wrong. No one thinks the prospect of thermo-nuclear war funnier than I do but these guys are, as you said, clowns not comedians.
Imus and the other cowboy shock jocks want to drop bombs to make themselves feel better. We've gone from the belief that dropping atomic weapons was unthinkable to some on the right wanting to drop them just so that they can appear tough.
When I heard this I thought of this quote from a "real" fictional cowboy.
"Well I've been to one world fair a picnic and a rodeo and that's the stupidest thing I ever heard come over a set of earphones."
-Maj. T.J. 'King' KongYou do realise that you keep quoting the mission statement for the non-profit that owns this website, right? Does it say anywhere in there that the website they maintain will only present content that is narrowly consistent with that mission? I don't see that.
Look. You are welcome to your opinion, but I think it is a stretch to act like it's some how inconsistent or wrong put whatever they please up here.
V: First let me say that, as a poster recently released for good behaviour by the MMFA content police - now having the requisite number of non-offensive posts under my belt, I have read your posts for some time, and I enjoy them.
Since that is the first time I've ever quoted the mission statement, I don't "keep" quoting anything. If you've read any of my posts, you know that I'm a huge fan of what MMFA does, which is usually well within the very broad mission statement. I don't think the mission statement has the narrow confines you suggest.
Of course, I didn't say MMFA could not present content that is inconsistent with their mission statement, but at the same time we have the right to point out such inconsistencies when we see them. While, as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, they only need to act within their general corporate purposes consistent with their 501(c)(3) nonprofit purposes, a mission statement is a representation to the world of specific corporate intentions. Since MMFA is an organization dedicated to notifying us of instances of misinformation in the U.S. media, they should value such criticism. By the way, if MMFA values its tax-exempt status, it can't publish anything it wants. There are many legal prohibitions not relevant to this discussion.
Nevertheless, my original post was not about what is prohibited, but what is appropriate, in my opinion. Said another way, I just think that Imus is a political comedian, tres huevos notwithstanding, and not worthy of the attention given him. I don't think anything he says, as opposed to what his guests say, can be considered information, and therefore if incorrect, misinformation.
I do, however, recognize that Imus provides a forum for politicians and media personalities. His show, therefore, is subject to scrutiny consistent with the MMFA mission statement; but when he talks about dropping a bomb on Mecca, he's just being a comedian, albeit a bad one.
Thanks.
There goes Rudy's Muslim vote.
Crusty,
That was funny.
What you should remember is the Brits just a month ago or so came out and said that there are active attempts to import nuclear bomb materials.
laugh all u want and while you regain your composure you can be sure plans are underway for us.
CIA, FBI and the Terrorist have said so.
interestingly our sub are on stand-down over a few mishaps.
look for the "American hiroshima" as promised from our islamist friends shortly after a Lib is prez.
Uh, yeah... that makes a lot of, uh... sense.
Nobody wants to do that? They're just kidding, like Imus, Rush, Beck, and the other comedians.
I was referring to the "American Hiroshima when a Lib becomes president" comment. I think NFTF's tinfoil hat is on a little too tight.
Rusty,
That is straight from Osama himself, one thing about these guy's they follow through on a promise.
Crust,
The "lib prez" I thought was obvious......wait for an appeaser with their finger on the button.
NoFoFu, you are aware that on September 11, 2001, we experienced the most horrific terrorist attack on American soil in our history?
And that this, the most disastrous military, intelligence and defense failure in our history happened the better part of a year into the watch of our current commander-in-chief?
And that the same Commander -in-chief has taken no responsibility for this failure, in fact attempting to blame it on the preceding administration , the one that tried to inform him of the danger of such an attack?
Are you also aware that the right wing media, including a TV movie, has insulted the intelligence of the citizens of this country by actually thinking some of us might believe that none of this happened and the real danger would be not having this political party in charge?
Oh. Right. Never mind.
He said he'd wait for a "Lib" to become president first? That's very interesting. Can you cite that?
It makes me wonder though. Why did Osama schedule 9/11 for Bush's watch? Because he knew Bush would be asleep at his post?
(chirp...chirp...)
Bomb Mecca... Medina, too?
Last year while driving out of state I picked up on the radio a Christian/Political talk show on a nationally syndicated "family' network. The hosts were talking, in all seriousness, about how one day we're just going to have drop nuclear bombs on Mecca and Medina. Their reasoning was that such a show of force and destruction would convince the Muslims that their god was weak or non-existent and that it would drive them to Christianity. Frighening thoughts, huh...? Thank God there are no politicians advocating such a thing but isn't it disconcerting to think that there are actually people on the airwaves who subscribe to such an idea? Forget about whatever "entertainment" value MSNBC may see in Don Imus, this fool is getting crazier and crazier by the second and MSNBC should can him. This isn't about stifling freedom of expression... it's about being responsible and not providing a national forum for irresponsible lunatics. Let Imus take his gig to a Times Square street corner where he can hold up a placard saying "Bomb Mecca!". That's where Imus belongs... not on a nationally televised show.
Have not heard of any Christian/political talk show, or talk of any kind, recommending a pro-active bombing of Muslim holy cities. Have heard discussion of the fact that if, in retaliation for such an attack here, Mecca and Medina were vaporized, Islam would be obviously bankrupt as a belief system " because if Allah is indeed the true God, He would not allow such a thing to happen".
Supposedly the French were the first to notify the Muslim world of this consequence if France suffers an attack that elicits such a response.
Firstly, I hadn't heard that about the French. Do you have a link for that?
Secondly, I would think nuking Medina and/or Mecca would be a bad idea amongst people who are known for really bad ideas. The terrorists would absolutely love that. It could possibly instantly polarize the situation so that every Muslim would hate us. Terrorist propaganda is already saying that the US is against all Muslims. I can't think of a better way to play into that propaganda and make it seem real.
Mecca isn't just a holy place for the terrorists, it is a holy place to billions of other Muslims, who don't necessarily believe or associate with the terrorists.
As well, blowing up somebody's holiest place of worship doesn't show that the Muslim God is weak IMO, it shows that followers of our own God are weak for punishing all Muslims for the actions of a few. Religions that are truly strong shouldn't have to resort to destroying what is sacred to others.
"I made the observation, I think Chris Matthews or somebody made it, one of those mouth-breathing cable nitwits."
The title of this MMFA post should have been "Imus calls Matthews 'mouth-breathing cable nitwit.'"