Just You Keep It Up
There is a very good reason the Democratic Party in America is, for all intents and purposes, in serious decline; and there is a very good reason I will continue to use my miniscule influence to highlight the bile coming from the Angry Left. Until I see mainstream Democrats condemn this sort of horsehock instead of coming to play at the site that hosts it, you cannot convince me that they are a serious party any longer:
Strangely, when I visited a blog frequented by GOP apologists this evening, all merrily playing the “Democrats are like bin Laden” sweepstakes, they were shocked, shocked I tell you, when the tables were so easily turned on them. They were outraged :::Gasp:: can you imagine? They were almost speechless when I pointed out the eerie parallels between Osama bin Laden and fundamentalist Islam, and the stated social policy goals of the extremist religious right currently running the so called Republican Party. Nope, they didn’t like it one bit.
When the neocons say that Liberals or moderate Republicans are against America and for the terrorists, they could not have it more backwards. The extreme religious rightwing of the GOP is the closest thing to Islamo-fascism we have in our country, and no one is worried that Al Qaeda will be storming ashore on our beaches en masse, invasion style, anytime soon.
Then there is this nonsense from Glenn Greenwald:
The Matthews smear illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national political dialogue, and among our nation’s journalists, to equate opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support for Al Qaeda.
The national media has truly adopted this dissent-quashing dichotomy created by the Bush White House: one is either a follower of George Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an enemy of the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not hyperbole.
Oh, no, Glenn, not hyperbole at all.
Just as there is no difference between Chris Matthews making an astute observation that bin Laden is using the language of the Left to appeal to an American audience (not equating the Left with terrorists, Glenn, but saying he is appropriating their language) and DarkSyde using the front page of the Daily Kos to truly make a statement of moral equivalence between Republicans and terrorists:
It’s the Neocon, fundie dominated, GOP that is the closest thing to fanatical Wahhabism in our nation today.
In general, as all my readers know, I am a pretty reasonable guy, and I don’t like to accuse my opponents of bad faith.
Well, I’m accusing you, Glenn, and you, DarkSyde, and the many, many like you of bad faith on this one.
If you are so blinded by your hatred of George W. Bush that you can’t see the difference between the reasonable comment made by Chris Matthews and the vile, venomous puke spewed by DarkSyde, then you are either (a) an idiot, or (b) a fanatic. I defy anyone to explain how the two statements are even remotely comparable.
All of my fears regarding 2006 are fading fast…there is no victory so secure that the Democrats cannot lose it…
If you think there is nothing wrong with comparing your domestic political opponents (not just Moore, but John Kerry, Howard Dean, and even the NYT Editorial Board) to a mass murdering terrorist who we are constantly told is the World’s Greatest Evil, then you’re really in no position to sit as the arbiter of what constitutes good faith debate.
I recall quite vividly the hysterical outrage when 2 of the 500 submission to Moveon.org’s contest compared Bush to Hitler, or when Sen. Byrd compared Republican parliamentary maneuver in the Senate to the Nazi Party’s legal maneuverings to quash dissent. Why, positing such comparisons about our Commander-in-Chief was just despicable and beyond the pale of decency.
But comparing John Kerry to Osama bin Laden and saying that bin Laden has “endorsed” Kerry because they share the same views? That’s just “mild” commentary that is plainly true.
It’s one thing for partisan Bush-worshipers to wield that double standard, but it’s another thing entirely for the supposedly objective media to do so.
Adolph Hitler gave lots of speeches railing against the evils of Communism, and so did Ronald Reagan. By your “reasoning,” I guess it’s “mild” and legitimate to say that Reagan sounded a lot like Hitler. But such reasoning would infantile and deceitful because even though they had certain views in common, Reagan did not advocate the ideas which made Hitler what he was (the whole genocide, racial extermination, world domination stuff).
What makes Osama bin Laden the world’s worst terrorist isn’t that he thinks the U.S. is motivated by oil or that the U.S. should leave Iraq — it’s that he advocates and implements the slaughter of innocent civilians based on his extremist religious views. Unless someone shares those views, comparing that person to bin Laden is manipulative, repugnant and wrong.
And who, exactly, is guilty of “comparing. . . domestic political opponents (not just Moore, but John Kerry, Howard Dean, and even the NYT Editorial Board) to a mass murdering terrorist who we are constantly told is the World’s Greatest Evil”?
And who, exactly, is guilty of “comparing. . . domestic political opponents (not just Moore, but John Kerry, Howard Dean, and even the NYT Editorial Board) to a mass murdering terrorist who we are constantly told is the World’s Greatest Evil”?
The countless comentators who have said that Osama bin Laden sounds like Democrats. When you say that one person “sounds like” another, you are positing a comparision between them and suggesting that they are similar.
If that’s not the case, why was everyone so upset when Robert Byrd compared the Republican efforts to eliminate the filibuster to the Nazi Party’s efforts to enact legislation in the Reichstag to render the minority powers powerless? Answer: because every reasonable person would understand it as a comparison between the GOP and Nazis.
Here is what is what Kellyanne Conway said on Fox and Joe Scarborough said on MSNBC (link below):
Conway: If you held a piece of tissue paper between some of the comments that Bin Laden today and some of the comments that the president’s detractor’s say-it would be very difficult to stick more than a piece of tissue paper between–there’s not much of a difference.
Scarborough: When you look at what Osama Bin Laden said it sounds an awful lot like what we hear the President’s political enemies domestically—not only like what a lot of democratic senators have been saying, but also what one or two movie makers have been saying over the past several years…
Are you really going to claim that those aren’t examples of comparing Democrats to bin Laden? Let’s repeat that:
“it would be very difficult to stick more than a piece of tissue paper between–there’s not much of a difference.”
If that doesn’t count as a comparison between bin Laden to Democrats, what would?
Link: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/20.html#a6792
Looks to me Osama has joined the Democratic out-to-lunch bunch.
These people hate Bush so much they want their country to suffer defeat. Then they can say “I told you so.”
Hey mark and Too many steves – how about this comment, from Miriam above:
Looks to me Osama has joined the Democratic out-to-lunch bunch.
That, combined with the bit about how Democrats want the U.S. to lose – does that count as comparing Democrats with bin Laden? Getting warmer? Do you approve of that rhetoric?
Mark – DarkSyde inadvertently left out a link to the site he visited with his astute insight that Osama and the Religious Right are both (gasp) fundiamentalists.
It was a thread at Jeff Goldstein’s Protein Wisdom, and it could not be funnier. At one point, folks wondered (presumably tongue in cheek) whether Jeff Goldstein himself was just pretending to be DarkSyde. I guess not.
Glenn – comparing Osama compares me as quite different from comparing Dems to Osama. No one is saying that Dems have modified their presentation to incorporate Osama’s talking points.
And re the Hitler-Reagan comparison – since Hitler is dead, it would be quite impossible for Hitler to deliberately modify his rhetoric in an attempt to appeal to Reagan’s audience.
And what is your position on the bood being promoted bt Osama – The Rogue State, by Blum?
Is Blum still a lefty in good standing, or is his Bush-basher now verboten?
And are we allowed to say that Osama has endorsed some of the talking points promoted by Blum?
Hmm, “bood” is not from “shake your boody”; it is meant to be “book”.
Preview is for sissies.
“…Adolph Hitler gave lots of speeches railing against the evils of Communism, and so did Ronald…”
I wonder why so many of the Bush haters just can’t help bringing up old Uncle Adolf whenever they’re trying to make a serious point. This type of comparison is a perfect example of the BushitlerHailliburtonBloodforOil, et. al. nonsense we’ve come to know and love from the Progessive Left these days.
Until the rest of the country feels that the Dems are really going to get serious about the protection and defense of this country, they’ll never be handed the keys to the WH again – perhaps that’s why so many of them loathe Joe Lieberman.
I wonder why so many of the Bush haters just can’t help bringing up old Uncle Adolf whenever they’re trying to make a serious point.
I used what is called an “analogy.” I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare Bush (or Reagan) with Hitler. But if it’s appropriate to compare bin Laden and Democrats on the grounds that they make similar points, then it’s appropriate – by the same “reasoning” – to compare Bush and Hitler (both of whom shared, to pick but one example, a hatred of Communists).
Saddam Hussein and George Bush have some significant similarities, too. Saddam Hussein’s defense at his war crimes trial, for instance, is that, as President of Iraq, he had the right to violate the law in defense of the country. Sound familiar? Do you think Hussein is copying the talking points of Alberto Gonzalez as he defends George Bush’s law-breaking?
You can’t defend the comparisons between Democrats and bin Laden while acting like Bush-Hitler comparisons (or Bush-Hussein) comparisons are the work of some hate-mongering devil – at least you can’t do that without being an unprincipled, intellectually dishonest hypocrite.
If you want to endorse this type of manipulative reasoning – “U.S. Politician X sounds a lot like Hated Demonized Mass Murderer Y” – then it has to apply to both sides.
Glenn – comparing Osama compares me as quite different from comparing Dems to Osama. No one is saying that Dems have modified their presentation to incorporate Osama’s talking points.
Tom – Before the 2004 election – days before – when Osama released his video tape, multiple GOP commentators said that Osama was “endorsing” Kerry and campaigning for him. They said then, too, that Osama sounds like he copied talking points from the Kerry campaign.
Are you actually denying that all of this is an attempt to equate opposition to George Bush (and support for Kerry or Democrats) with being on the side of al Qaeda? It’s bad enough to endorse this tactic. It only makes it worse to pretend that this isn’t what its objective is.
And re the Hitler-Reagan comparison – since Hitler is dead, it would be quite impossible for Hitler to deliberately modify his rhetoric in an attempt to appeal to Reagan’s audience.
Fair enough – maybe Reagan was copying Hitler’s talking points. They sure did sound a lot a like when it came to certain issues. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, of course. Just pointing out that they sounded similar, that’s all.
And are we allowed to say that Osama has endorsed some of the talking points promoted by Blum?
I never heard of Blum until he started getting attention from excited Bush lovers who think they found an example of a real-life Osama-lover. I also haven’t read his book and I would guess that you haven’t either.
Nonetheless, there are a handful of deranged Americans and Westerners who side with Osama and I think they are fairly accused of being anti-American. I don’t consider them part of the American “Left” and no honest person does either – any more than, say, Fred Phelps or David Duke are fairly considered to be part of the “Right.”
Glenn,
You still don’t get it. I thought Mark made his point pretty clear. Did you just skim over that part? It appears to me you’re barking up the wrong tree here. There are left-wingnuts and right-whackjobs. Wow. What a revelation!
The only difference I see is that the right consistently denounces and makes fun of our extremists out there on the periphery. Hard pressed to find any reciprocation from the left.
People who live in glass houses ….
We get Bush=Hitler and a plethora of other slogans all the time. We’re inundated with it every.single.day. But let someone point out the obvious similarities between an OBL tape and Democrat rhetoric and out come the broad brushes. You can’t lie. They were remarkably similar. The problem is that most of us simply found it amusing; not definitive proof that democrats=Osama, as you imply.
Oyster…but don’t, repeat don’t, ever, ever, EVER – question their patriotism!
Faux outrage is their stock in trade, and Glenn proves the point quite effectively.
[...] Mr. Greenwald begins his latest post with these words: There are a few Bush-loving sites which are vehemently denying that GOP commentators compared Bush opponents with bin Laden by “pointing out” that bin Laden’s latest message “sounds like” Democrats. I am currently have a mini-debate with a couple of those blogs and their readers in the Comments sections to those posts . . . , where the Bush lovers are earnestly protesting that all they were doing was making an innocent factual observation that bin Laden’s speech had a lot of points that are often made by Democrats. [...]
To quote from lawyer David Kopel’s evisceration of Michael Moore — and endorsed by another libertarian lawyer who can be harshly critical of George Bush, Randy Barnett — in Kopel’s Fifty-nine deceits in Fahrenheit-911:
Fahrenheit mocks President Bush for continuing to read the book My Pet Goat to a classroom of elementary school children after he was told about the September 11 attacks. Actually, as reported in The New Yorker, the book was Reading Mastery 2, which contains an exercise called “The Pet Goat.” The title of the book is not very important in itself, but the invented title of My Pet Goat makes it easier to ridicule Bush.
Osama bin Laden has specifically invoked this “My Pet Goat” agit-prop that ridicules our President; it is straight from Moore’s playbook, and is a theme some others on the left have gleefully run with. I believe it was even included in some anti-Bush campaign ads.
That all said, it is unfair to depict all Dems as Osama-lovers just because some of them and Osama both oppose the U.S. war in Iraq. That fits the Reagan=Hitler analogy, while Moore and F-9/11 (and those on the left who embrace its propaganda) does not.
I get the feeling that Osama wants Bush to stay in power. His tapes seem to help Bush
I’m sorry, I thought we were talking about the charge that Chris Matthews was equating liberals with Osama Bin Laden?
Matthews said that Osama, in his latest audio memo, was adopting the talking points of the American left as expressed by the likes of Michael Moore. He didn’t equate Moore to Bin Laden, he said Bin Laden was using the Left’s arguments. Observing that one person is adopting and using the arguments of another isn’t in the same hemisphere as arguing that two individuals, and their actions, are equivalent.
I think the proper phrase is “thin skinned” or, perhaps, “hyper-sensitive”.
Oh, the joys of sleeping in – I’m just catching up with the debate here…Glenn, you are obviously a smart person and an up-and-comer on the lefthand side of the blogosphere, so I have higher hopes for you than I do some random Kos Kid…
We’re not talking about all these other hypotheticals and statements – we’re talking about one. The one Chris Matthews made.
Do you really – REALLY – see Matthews’ statement as one of moral equivalence on a par with the one made by DarkSyde and others who make the equivalence explicit?
Please, if it’s not asking too much, read this post of mine for an explanation of why it is not…
Our good friend Tom (thanks for dropping by!) makes a good point, also, Glenn, and it’s no use saying Blum doesn’t count because you’ve never read him…after bin Laden’s endorsement, he jumped into the top ten at Amazon…
Are you actually denying that all of this is an attempt to equate opposition to George Bush (and support for Kerry or Democrats) with being on the side of al Qaeda? It’s bad enough to endorse this tactic. It only makes it worse to pretend that this isn’t what its objective is.
An attempt by Chris Matthews to do that? He has been a reliable Bush basher for years.
As to Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, and others who were happy to put up photos of Kerry, Kennedy, and Osama (so I have read, anyway), well, yes, they are going to try and make hay from the point that Osama is endorsing an American pull-out from Iraq just as these guys are.
If I were an earnest lib, I would either (a) try to bully Chris Matthews and everyone else into covering their ears and pretending that Osama is *not* adopting the arguments of the left, or (b) explain that it is a phony link.
As to (a), good luck, it may work – I am sort of expecting Matthews to fold up like a cheap suitcase, since he has no audience on the right.
As to (b), my quick reading of Osama’s text did not lead me to believe that he was advocating an American withdrawal from Iraq so that we could better focus on Afghanistan; he seemed to want us to quit both countries.
One might attempt to use that distinction as a wege to explain that the real Dem plan is actually more of a threat to Osama than the current Bush approach.
On the other hand, Matthews specifically cited the influence on BushCo of war profiteers; I am not sure that is a talking point Dems will want to drop.
Osama also mocked Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” aircraft carrier speech; again, I think Dems will cling to that talking point.
Hey, Osama doesn’t like Bush and neither do you – until you can get a good international copyright on your Bash-bashers, you need to be resigned to some overlap.
And if it is a bit awkward that Osama is using language intended to appeal to your audience, well, get over it – as an example, lots of Reps oppose affirmative action even though we are always reminded that racists oppose it too.
(Bonus thought – I don’t think Dems quit making the “all affirmative action opponentns are racist” argument out of a sudden distaste for non sequiteurs; my guess is that the political cost of calling roughly half of Americans racist became unacceptable. Presumably, a similar dynamic would save Dems here – plenty of Osama-haters think we ought to leave Iraq, and aren’t going to buy the notion that, because they agree with Osama on a few points, they are on his side.)
((Double bonus – this is a tough spot for Glenn, who is far too disciplined to let his intelligence interfere with a good polemic. A lot of folks on the left seem to want this Matthews fight.))
(((TRIPLE BONUS – guilt by association was fine with Teddy K last week at the Alito hearings, yes?)))
Ladies and gentleman – I give you the MinuteMan! Nicely done, Tom…I suspect that even those who disagree with your politics are envious of your style…
Also, nice parallel with the overlap between racists and people who truly believe in King’s dream of a colorblind society re: affirmative action.
I have higher hopes for Matthews on this score than you do, though…I think, based on his comments thus far, that he’s not going to give in to the mischaracterization of his comments…but he’s certainly disappointed me before (oh, lord, has he ever!)…
The thing I like about Chris Matthews is that everybody — right, left, and center — dumps on him. That tells me that he must be doing something right.
“…Adolph Hitler gave lots of speeches railing against the evils of Communism, and so did Ronald…”
And Hitler also gave speeches extolling the virtues of vegetarianism, environmentalism, and socialism. And he encouraged the German people to not smoke. And he believed homosexuality was genetic. And he supported gun control. And you point is, what, exactly?
And Hitler also gave speeches extolling the virtues of vegetarianism, environmentalism, and socialism. And he encouraged the German people to not smoke. And he believed homosexuality was genetic. And he supported gun control. And you point is, what, exactly?
That comparing someone to a fanatical mass murderer based on incidental and ancillary similarities rather than defining and fundamental ones is a dishonest and intellectually corrupt thing to do. That’s the point, exactly, and your question illustrates the rationale for it.
Tom – Here is what Osama said in his message (link below):
On the other hand, the mujahideen, praise be to God, have managed to breach all the security measures adopted by the unjust nations of the coalition time and again.
The evidence of this is the bombings you have seen in the capitals of the most important European countries of this aggressive coalition.
As for the delay in carrying out similar operations in America, this was not due to failure to breach your security measures.
Operations are under preparation, and you will see them on your own ground once they are finished, God willing. . . .
Days and nights will not go by until we take revenge as we did on 11 September, God willing, and until your minds are exhausted and your lives become miserable and things turn [for the worse], which you detest.
I haven’t heard John Kerry, Howard Dean, Michael Moore, or any Democrats defend or advocate the prior attacks which bin Laden is praising and the future attacks he is threatening, have you?
The defining attribute of Osama bin Laden and his “message” is that he is praising the deliberate slaughter of innocent people and threatening new acts of slaughter in the future. Anyone who tries to compare Democrats or war opponents to that message is doing nothing other than demonizing political opponents and engaging in rank deceit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4628932.stm
Osama uses the opposition’s talking points because he thinks it helps them. That makes me want to support McChimpybushaliburton.
Glenn, please…that last argument was not up to snuff at all…that’s PART of what Osama said, but it’s not the part anyone around here is referring to…
You’ll have to do much, much better than that to convince anyone who isn’t already a Bush hater…
“The thing I like about Chris Matthews is that everybody — right, left, and center — dumps on him. That tells me that he must be doing something right.”
Aside from this one instance, please give cites for the times when he slammed the Dems – the guy worked for Tip O’Neil, where do you think his sympathies lie in most cases?
I don’t really know why anyone listens to poor little Chrissy – his ratings are almost negligible these days – even SNL doesn’t bother to parody him anymore.
I suspect Bin Laden could give a ratsass about the American left or their talking points. He watches Al Jazeera, OK? I’ve read the transcript, and there is not enough similarity there to suggest his message is dependent on American antiwar talking points. If [name of hated liberal] and OBL were students in an English or Speech class, and OBL turned in these words, the teacher would not be thinking plagiarism. The similarities would be attributable to the class assignment: write a composition explaining your position on (opposition to) the war. The rest would be due to the fact that both students relied on TV news as a major source. OBL did not take his talking points from American antiwar talking points.
The tape is what it purports to be, an Islamist antiwar message in which OBL comments on statements by Bush, statements by the Pentagon, a new book, and the idea of a truce. Aside from a few remarks, the vast majority of the tape sounds like Islamist antiwar rhetoric; not American antiwar rhetoric. OBL did not get his talking point about threatening future attacks from the American left. He did not get his crude rhetoric about soldier suicides from the American left. He did not get his invitation to the U.S. to enter into a truce with Al Qaeda or jihadist transnational terrorism from the American left. He did not get his glowing description of 9/11 from the American left. There is no evidence here that he got any of this from the antiwar leaders in America. He watches TV.
OBL is not a leftist of any description. He was an anti-communist Islamist who went to Afghanistan to fight against the Russians. He is more like Ghengis Khan with a turban than a leftist. He would probably be disgusted to know he was being compared to any American. He stands for nothing that anyone on right or left stands for in America.
It’s like The Blessed Virgin in the cheese sandwich. You see it or you don’t. I for one don’t see it, unless you cherry-pick the words to fit a preconceived agenda (eisegesis). The real point is: why is this guy not dead or behind bars but out there preparing to attack us and making tapes?
Glenn, please…that last argument was not up to snuff at all…that’s PART of what Osama said, but it’s not the part anyone around here is referring to…
OK, we can try again. Glenn, at least cited what he was referring to. Please cite “the part [people] around here [are] referring to”.
One point that I find telling: It appears that people would rather attempt to smack Democrats around than note that bin Laden came close to saying “uncle” by asking for a truce. If I was a supporter of this administration, I would be loudly pointing out that the badguy has shifted tone.
But no, apparently that’s not the most interesting part. The shocking similarity (“If you held a piece of tissue paper between some of the comments that Bin Laden today and some of the comments that the president’s detractor’s say-it would be very difficult to stick more than a piece of tissue paper between–there’s not much of a difference.”) between
“On the other hand, the mujahideen, praise be to God, have managed to breach all the security measures adopted by the unjust nations of the coalition time and again.”
and
[insert your favorite insinuation from F9/11. Really. Pick the best one and compare.]
Sorry, that was cut off. I meant “…shocking similarity between [...] and [...] is far more important than noting that Public Enemy #1 is offering a truce.”
Rider, apparently I give Osama more credit than you do…I suspect he cares quite a bit about the talking points of the American left, and I can’t imagine where in the world he would have come up with the idea of quoting the the Blum book if he didn’t (I don’t think there has been an Arabic translation of the formerly puny-selling book). Clearly, Osama is looking to score rhetorical points by quoting (fishbane – here’s the bit we’re talking about) such leftie favorites as the following:
And if you compare the small number of dead on the day that Bush announced the end of major operations in that fake, ridiculous show aboard the aircraft carrier with the tenfold number of dead and wounded who were killed in the smaller operations, you would know the truth of what I say. This is that Bush and his administration do not have the will or the ability to get out of Iraq for their own private, suspect reasons.
And so to return to the issue, I say that results of polls please those who are sensible, and Bush’s opposition to them is a mistake. The reality shows that the war against America and its allies has not been limited to Iraq as he (Bush) claims. Iraq has become a point of attraction and restorer of (our) energies. At the same time, the mujahideen (holy warriors), with God’s grace, have managed repeatedly to penetrate all security measures adopted by the unjust allied countries. The proof of that is the explosions you have seen in the capitals of the European nations who are in this aggressive coalition. The delay in similar operations happening in America has not been because of failure to break through your security measures. The operations are under preparation and you will see them in your homes the minute they are through (with preparations), with God’s permission.
Based on what has been said, this shows the errors of Bush’s statement – the one that slipped from him – which is at the heart of polls calling for withdrawing the troops. It is better that we (Americans) don’t fight Muslims on their lands and that they don’t fight us on ours.
We don’t mind offering you a long-term truce on fair conditions that we adhere to. We are a nation that God has forbidden to lie and cheat. So both sides can enjoy security and stability under this truce so we can build Iraq and Afghanistan, which have been destroyed in this war. There is no shame in this solution, which prevents the wasting of billions of dollars that have gone to those with influence and merchants of war in America who have supported Bush’s election campaign with billions of dollars – which lets us understand the insistence by Bush and his gang to carry on with war.
So, we have war profiteering (Halliburton, anyone? Gee, that’s never been mentioned by Michael Moore, has it?); Mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier (oh, now I KNOW that’s surely never been mentioned by Michael Moore); a focus on casualties taken in fighting the insurgency (oh – well, never mind, you get the picture).
Is this a verbatim transcript from any source of the Left? Of course not.
I’m not going to let you get me distracted from the point: the point is, Chris Matthews said Osama sounded like an overheated Michael Moore with some of his talking points – and so he did…it’s not controversial, it’s not a statement of moral equivalence, but rather an acknowledgment that he was targetting a certain audience with this speech…
So, we have war profiteering (Halliburton, anyone? Gee, that’s never been mentioned by Michael Moore, has it?); Mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier (oh, now I KNOW that’s surely never been mentioned by Michael Moore); a focus on casualties taken in fighting the insurgency.
From wherever OBL is sitting Halliburton’s profiteering is right under his nose on a daily basis. Bush’s speech on the carrier deck was probably on Al Jazeera the same day it was on CNN. Even in a cave in Waziristan he would know that things have not turned out like Bush said on the carrier, which is more than Dick Cheney knows. And casualty figures? Can you imagine OBL making a tape about the war without mentioning casualty figures and commenting on the difference between what he knows (or claims to know) and Pentagon figures on TV or Internet? Everything he said was a commentary on something either Bush or the Pentagon said on TV. It’s Islamist rhetoric; not American rhetoric. It’s much more likely he was targeting a Muslim audience in Iraq and Afghanistan with an Islamist message. If he thought he was targeting an American audience, his purpose must’ve been to undermine the antiwar movement, because he didn’t do them any favors by sending out a tape with his imitation of Tokyo Rose on it. And why would he want to do that? No, his audience was Muslim and his message is boilerplate Islamist rhetoric. What worries me is not what he sounds like (Is this really Elvis?) but whether he put some coded sleepers-awake messages in the tape. We are wasting our time.
“There is no evidence here that he got any of this from the antiwar leaders in America. He watches TV.”
The naivete’ behind that statement is breathtaking – General Giap made it very clear after the Vietnam war was over that during the hostilities, once he became aware of the anti- war activities that were shown on our national broadcasts on a daily basis, he realized that the war he knew he couldn’t win on the ground could suddenly be won by the manipulation of the TV images that were shown back to American households at dinnertime.
This is an old story – of course OBL knows all about press and PR manipulation – it’s part and parcel of our enemy’s strategies to defeat us in wars they cannot win by conventional means.
Rider, lest you forget my point, I said this was a faux controversy…no one could agree more that we are wasting our time…but please tell that message to the lefties that are trying to manufacture this controversy…I think you’ve gotten yourself seriously confused here…and please…I have not seen one serious analysis of Osama’s message that claims he was speaking to anyone but an American audience – have you so soon forgotten the ‘truce’ part of the message? That was aimed at Islamists? Wow, what an obscure strategy that is…
And come on…Halliburton’s war profiteering is taking place under Osama’s nose? In the mountains of northern Pakistan?
Sorry, once again, no one is making an equivalence between the American Left and Osama around here…we’re only saying that he has (wisely) appropriated your rhetoric, as dmac says, in a time-honored tradition…
dmac
What Gen. Giap did was “manipulate” the casualties, which were then reported on television. He didn’t try to sound like Walter Cronkite. What is being put forward here is the claim that Bin Laden was addressing an American audience and intended to demoralize the U.S. by imitating the antiwar rhetoric of the American left, i.e., by putting the rhetoric of the American antiwar movement in his own mouth as he does the Tokyo Rose shtick. What’s up with that? How exactly does that demoralize the Americans? Do you feel particularly demoralized about this? If that was his intent and if that was his method, it doesn’t seem to have had any effect except causing finger-pointing and making us all mad as hell. It didn’t impress the right, and it sure as hell didn’t impress the opposition. Maybe I’m as naïve as you say, but I don’t get how this was supposed to work. Can you explain in what way he was trying to manipulate the press or the American public by putting American antiwar rhetoric in his own mouth, the mouth which spoke the orders for 9/11?
no one could agree more that we are wasting our time
Good. Then please tell your friends on the right to ask President Bush to start taking Osama Bin Laden seriously and see if he can’t kill him or put him behind bars where he can’t hurt us again. Whatever happened to “smoke ‘em out”? You may call me silly to be worried about OBL. I know he’s just one man. But if he is still out there four and a half years after 9/11, what else is also not being done while Bush focuses on Iraq and thinks that is the central front in the GWOT?
have you so soon forgotten the ‘truce’ part of the message?
No I haven’t. I’d rather not say what I think that meant to an Islamist audience. To an American audience, it is interpreted as a sign of his weakness, as though he is asking for terms. We should all be able to agree that this tape is ritualized taunting or sabre-rattling. You don’t taunt your enemy by standing on the parapet and suggesting a truce. It makes much more sense that he is showing himself to a Middle Eastern audience offering a cessation of hostilities to the Americans. I’ll leave you to figure out his possible reasons for wanting to do that.
In the mountains of northern Pakistan?
Wherever he may be, you can be sure he is in the close contact with people who keep him informed about the jihad in Iraq and that he is very much aware of what Halliburton is involved in there from first hand reports. Today we learned about Halliburton providing untreated water to our military and civilians last year. We learned about it today because of an investigation of employee e-mails and company records. No doubt Osama learned about it last year from hearing about people with dysentery. Halliburton is probably a very irritating symbol of American corruption and of what is wrong with the American occupation in OBL’s eyes. He’s no fool. He’s taunting us before an Islamist audience.
Ummm…okay…say, no speculation there…
On January 22nd, 2006 at 1:58 pm, Tom Maguire Says:
An attempt by Chris Matthews to do that [equate opposition to George Bush (and support for Kerry or Democrats) with being on the side of al Qaeda]? He has been a reliable Bush basher for years.
Wrong again! The idea of Chris Matthews as a reliable Bush basher is laughable, and yet another delusion that’s part of the widespread belief in a (so-called) “liberal media.” Here are some relevant excerpts from the factual record — some of which, interestingly enough, play right into this very discussion.
Hardball with Chris Matthews, July 8 2004; MATTHEWS: What happens, Senator Breaux [D-LA], if it looks like that Al Qaeda is playing cards here, playing a game of trying to get people to vote Democrat for president, to basically make their case worldwide? Doesn’t it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting for you?
Hardball with Chris Matthews, August 10 2004; MATTHEWS: “Who made that ad [depicting Senator John Kerry (D-MA) speaking about national security and defense at the Democratic National Convention] — Leni Riefenstahl? You know what I’m talking about, a lot of flags.”
Hardball with Chris Matthews, October 29 2004; MATTHEWS: The big thing in politics, of course, is picking the right topic. This [the release of a taped message form bin Laden on the eve of the presidential election] shifts the topic from Iraq where the challenger was hitting the president hard for alleged mismanagement of the war. Now it takes it all back to 9-11, the moment of the president’s greatest heroism. … This creates a terrible situation for the challenger because it seems to me that Karl Rove has his finger on this. He knows that the American people have only one president at a time. And that’s George W. Bush. We only have one protector at a time. We have to rally behind the president when we’re threatened by an enemy. Osama bin Laden. And he’s done it again.
Hardball with Chris Matthews, May 27 2005; MATTHEWS: I make this president look like — you don’t watch this program, Alexandra [Pelosi, a filmmaker]. That [portraying Bush as a "dunce"] has never been the case with me. And anybody watching knows right now, we treat this guy [Bush] with respect. I happen to like him. I voted for him at least once. I’m not going to go any further on that. But the idea that we treat him like a dunce is just inaccurate.
Hardball with Chris Matthews, October 24 2005; MATTHEWS: You know, Tony [Blankley], there is in the past, it’s not always there, but sometimes it glimmers with this man, our president, that kind of sunny nobility. How does he bring it back, because it hasn’t been apparent for a while now?
Hardball with Chris Matthews, November 28 2005; MATTHEWS: I like him. Everybody sort of likes the president, except for the real whack-jobs, maybe on the left — I mean — like him personally.
MSNBC News, live coverage of Bush’s November 30 2005 speech at the U.S. Naval Academy; MATTHEWS: This is going to be a very strong political move by the president. He’s talking about spending an extra $3 billion for extra economic aid to the new government of Iraq for rebuilding. I think he’s going to hold the Democrats’ feet to their fire and say, “Are you going to vote for this or vote against it? I dare you to vote against it.” And I think this is the brilliant political move here by the president, forcing the Democratic carpers and complainers to come forward, and say, “All right, you don’t like my strategy for victory in Iraq? Vote against it. Go ahead, make my day.” This is Clint Eastwood stuff. I think the president today is brilliantly putting a marker out there and saying to the Jack Murthas and the rest, “OK, vote against reconstruction. Vote against my plan to turn this war over to the Iraqis, that’s my long-term plan, you vote against it and I’m gonna nail you.”
Hardball with Chris Matthews, December 16 2005; MATTHEWS: If his gamble that he can create a democracy in the middle of the Arab world and he does it, he belongs on Mount Rushmore.[...] You know, I felt sensitive. I was with him last night, the president. We all went to see the president. You were there — went to see the president for our Christmas. You get your picture taken with him. It’s like Santa Claus, and he’s always very generous and friendly.
Hardball with Chris Matthews, January 12 2006; MATTHEWS: We’re under attack on 9-11. A couple of days after that, if I were president of the United States and somebody said we had the ability to check on all the conversations going on between here and Hamburg, Germany, where all the Al Qaeda people are, or somewhere in Saudi [Arabia], where they came from and their parents are, and we could mine some of that information by just looking for some key words like “World Trade Center” or “Pentagon,” I’d do it. [former National Security Agency employee Russell] TICE: Well, you’d be breaking the law. MATTHEWS: Yeah. Well, maybe that’s part of the job. We’ll talk about it. We’ll be right back with Russ Tice. You’re watching Hardball on MSNBC.
I don’t see how this doesn’t help Bush. So why is bin Laden helping Bush? Osama is no idiot. Have left-wing talking points ever not helped Bush?
I think the point missed by those demonizing Chris Matthews is why did Osama choose the words he did? He chose them to further the divide that has erupted over the War in Iraq & the GWOT, in general. Those on the left should look at his motives & I believe that that was the point that Chris Matthews was trying to make. Notice that the left, instead of looking at their positions or talking points, or questioning why Osama would do this, they immediately denounced Matthews for asking the question. Where is their support for a dissent point of view? Or is it only valid dissent if it is anti-war or anti-Bush? Osama was mocking the left & they predictably reacted like they always seem to do, attack the attackers no matter whose side they are on. Their beliefs are beyond questioning; their positions are above reproach & if you don’t believe me simply ask them.
The real question that Democrats need to ask themselves & answer honestly are… is it acceptable for these so called dissenters to compare a war-time President to Hitler? Is it acceptable to belittle or question the efforts of troops in the field to score political points… like John Kerry? Is it appropriate to question the motives of a war that they overwhelmingly supported, voted for & financed by suggesting it was based on lies or by insisting it is un-winnable? Is it appropriate to demand a time-line for troop removal when no other American military conflict, action or war has had one before? Are these the actions of those that are truly questioning the steps taken by this country or of those who are no longer in power & just trying to dirty the faces of their political opponents? Most Republicans would suggest it is politically motivated & that those decisions & actions have consequences. Look at how Lieberman was treated by saying that the troops are doing a good job, that there is a noticeable improvement in Iraq, and that the war is just. Where is the respect for dissent within their party, much less of those on the other side?
My grandparents suffered rationing of gas, power, clothing, food, rubber, etc to support WWII, FDR wire-tapped w/o any Congressional over-site American’s phones or opened their mail… basically they acted like they were at war. Show me someone on the progressive side, a leading Democrat other than Lieberman, who acts like the US is at war. Answer is that they do not. Gas prices raise & Bush is allowing his buddies to make war profits is the left’s response. The war is for oil – though no-one can show me where all of this illegally obtained, excuse me, stolen oil is; the Patriot Act is violating our rights – name one person whose rights have been violated… still waiting. Every point regarding terrorism or Saddam’s regime, the function of a President & the Office’s responsibilities to the Electorate, the Constitutionality of Executive Privileges, the ability to appoint people to the SCOTUS… that Bush had made over the past few years, have been made by almost every single Democratic leader in the past & all have been made by President Clinton while he was in office. The only difference is the current President’s political party. This isn’t any longer just dissent, its dirty pool & that is what Osama is counting on & that is what is most frustrating to those of us who are actually supporting the troops & the job they are doing over there.
People on the political left may not be exactly like Osama, but they sure are acting likes his tools & maker it harder to defeat him. Don’t like the comparisons, maybe you should think about changing your tatics.
I meant to end it my last statement like this… Don’t like the comparisons, maybe you should think about changing your tatics, because our real enemies are adopting them because they find them so very effective to their cause.
Politics aside, our reading of OBL’s tape is culturally-blind and dangerously so. Despite the references to the war in Iraq, I don’t believe Osama is really talking about the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq when he speaks of truce. He is refering to the worldwide jihad for the restoration of the caliphate. You may think Iraq is “the central front in the war on terror.” He does not think in those terms, in my opinion. You are interpreted his words (translated into English) from the narrow perspective of American political inside baseball, the battle between Dean and Mehlman, DNC vs. RNC, Bush vs. Sheehan, left vs. right. As I said, this tape ritualized taunting. It comes from the ancient practice (the rules) of warfare in the ME. I think first of all I’d compare it to his previous tapes. And step outside the American political frame when doing it. It’s closer to the 8th century than it looks.
“That comparing someone to a fanatical mass murderer based on incidental and ancillary similarities rather than defining and fundamental ones is a dishonest and intellectually corrupt thing to do. That’s the point, exactly, and your question illustrates the rationale for it.”
I knew I was in for a treat when I decided to feed the trolls! You go from comparing Reagan to Hitler “based on incidential and ancillary similarties” and then denounce me for being “dishonest and intellectually corrupt” when I did nothing more than use YOUR OWN LOGICAL ANALYSIS. Wow. That was fun!
“I knew I was in for a treat when I decided to feed the trolls! You go from comparing Reagan to Hitler “based on incidential and ancillary similarties” and then denounce me for being “dishonest and intellectually corrupt” when I did nothing more than use YOUR OWN LOGICAL ANALYSIS. Wow. That was fun!”
Ummm, Sean, I’d just like to point out that Glenn wasn’t really comparing Hitler to Reagan. He was using that as an illustration of “dishonest and corrupt” comparisons. He wasn’t calling you dishonest and corrupt, he was saying that your comparison was the SAME AS his comparison and that BOTH of them were dishonest and corrupt. That’s why it’s called an analogy. His Hitler/Reagan comment was analogous to Osama/Dems comment and your comment as analogous to his. For you to jump to “He’s calling me names!” is either deliberately disingenuous or betrays a lack of reading comprehension.
Glin: I read all of his comments, and it sounded to me like he was trying to have it both ways, on the one hand arguing that it was outrageous to compare anyone to a mass murder, but on the other hand, if anybody got to do so it was him. Specifically this comment (on January 22 at 10:01 am):
“Maybe Reagan was copying Hitler’s talking points. They sure did sound a lot a like when it came to certain issues.”
By the way, as Mark’s later post has noted, Michael Moore made the comparison between Bin Laden’s rhetoric and his own months ago, which really should have put this issue to rest.
Sean: I think the problem comes in because tone is sometimes very difficult to convey through this medium. I do believe what you quote above was meant to be ironic. I don’t think he was trying to have it both ways.
He was making absurd comparisons to Reagan and Hilter to deliberately show the absurdity of such camparisons. He quite plainly says to you that comparing “incidental similarities” is dishonest – whether it is you doing it or him doing it. Or anyone. That’s his whole point in all of his comparisons.
He’s basically saying: See! Look how stupid this is! I can compare A to B just like others are comparing C to D. I can draw comparisons in the same way but just because it CAN be done doesn’t mean that it should be done or that the comparisons are fair or correct. They’re BOTH equally wrong.
How you can read everything he’s written and believe that he’s taking you to task for basically backing up his whole point in your comment about Hitler and gun control, vegetarianism and homosexuality is quite beyond me.
He made a comparison between Hitler’s anti-communism and Reagan’s anti-communism. You made a comparsion between Hitler’s evironmentalism and the environmentalism on the left. He flat out said that both of those comparisons are stupid, banal and dishonest. His as well as yours. That’s not calling you dishonest, that’s saying ‘you just proved my point.’
I don’t see anything reasonable in your views. How exactly does DarkSyde get it wrong?