February 1, 2006
-- by Dave Johnson
It gets worse every day. At AMERICABlog, Pentagon trying to censor top US political cartoonist. I'm not even going to quote from it, just go read it.
This is THE MILITARY DIRECTLY THREATENING A NEWSPAPER on behalf of the Republican Party. This is WAYYYY beyond unprecedented. This is past "find a safe refuge in Canada" time. This is a serious WATCH YOUR BACKS!!!!
Update - the threats keep-a-coming!
You are an enemy of this country. Your day will come.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The MILITARY Threatens Wash. Post:
» So Liberals Need To Watch Their Backs Now? from Right Wing News
Over at the liberal blog, Seeing the Forest, blogger *Dave Johnson is apparently feeling frightened, offended, and downright threatened by... [Read More]
Tracked on February 3, 2006 8:09 AM
Umm, I love STF, but where is the "threat" exactly? As it is, I think Americablog is over-reacting by even calling this "censorship." It's hardly "threatening."
This kind of over exaggeration is why Lefties get called "moonbats." There is a legitimate criticism to make regarding the letter, but calling it threatening or censorship isn't it.
Posted by: Mark Spittle at February 1, 2006 6:30 PM
I agree with Mark's observation completely. Read it over and over. Certainly they are objecting, and they have that right to opinion, however skewed their logic. But THREAT?
Did I miss something?
As far as I am concerned, things are as bad as they need to be... no need to manufacture more trouble.
Posted by: boyd at February 2, 2006 5:32 AM
Of course we have censorship. We've had it in hard time ever since the war began. Where are the photographs of all the coffins of US soldiers being returned from Iraq? How many Iraqis have been killed or wounded? That's just two examples of things we don't see and facts we don't know because of official censorship.
Posted by: MJ at February 2, 2006 7:04 AM
Aravosis got freeped heavily with people playing dumb when he posted on this topic. I don't know Boyd or Spittle, but they seem full of shit to me, at best. Playing dumb may be the newest flavor of troll.
Individuals have freedom of expression, but when an official group of high-level people does this, it's intimidation. But most readers know this.
Posted by: John Emerson at February 2, 2006 7:21 AM
Frog. Pot. Water getting hotter. Desensitized to each new outrage...
I'm getting old, so I remember shit that happened before what I call the "slow coup" began. The idea of the Joint Chiefs writing an intimidating letter to a newspaper over a cartoon mocking a political appointee...
People, do you remember that the military used to be non-partisan? Now the military is an enforcement arm of a political party.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 2, 2006 8:37 AM
CLinton on "right wing radio"
"purveyors of hate and division" on U.S. airwaves who "leave the impression, by their very words, that violence is acceptable."
So, the full force of the Presidency was used against innocent American citizens. There was a definite threat implied in that statement that Clinton would use the monopoly of force the government has against people merely expressing their views protected under the first amendment.
Or, remember the threat that Kerry spokesmen made to foxnews and other media organizations that "they better hope we don't get control of the FCC" another implied threat that they would use the full force of a government against political opponents.
Compare that the General's letter reinforced their right to speak but said that showing a limbless soldier was tasteles.
Please, you people are no where near suffering the intimidation people on your side dish out.
Posted by: Pericles at February 2, 2006 8:55 AM
Clinton was talking about people who had just blown up the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
I remember after that bombing a radio right-winger braggng that "the government finally just got a little bit smaller."
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 2, 2006 9:02 AM
No Clinton was talking about the entire "right wing" radio. I mean, McVeigh did not have a radio show before he blew up the building. Clinton was speaking about Rush Limbaugh etc. who were his political enemies and doing significant harm to him; so Clinton struck back with the Executive's threat of force.
Posted by: Pericles at February 2, 2006 9:07 AM
Rush Limbaugh, who McVeigh said inspired him. Who, a week before the bombing was on the air saying that people were getting so fed up with Clinton and big government, he could just feel it, he knew something important was about to happen, someone was going rise up and do something that would start a revolt that would turn things around.
You mean THAT Rush Limbaugh?
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 2, 2006 9:10 AM
Uh, link? Probably just a rumor you read on DU.
Posted by: Pericles at February 2, 2006 9:13 AM
You're not going to win any arguments here, saying Limbaugh and Liddy and Ann Coulter and the like are not advocating violence. We can listen and read, and we know what they are saying. Liddy, saying to shoot ATF agents in the head, because they wear body armor. Coulter, saying to kill liberals, fly jets into the NY Times building, and poison Supreme Court Justices.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 2, 2006 9:14 AM
Jesus, Dave, we really get the winners, don't we?
Posted by: John Emerson at February 2, 2006 12:44 PM
Let me tell you Pericles about intimidation. It is having a nephew who when he was a junior in HS decided he would go into the military as it was the only way he was going to get an education.So he's done that.He's done good too.Just got his comission a few months ago.He has two young son's at home.I hold my breath for those two young sons.That's intimidation.
Since he got that comission I've been holding my breath that his future training will outlast this fricking war.
Here is to true intimidation.
Posted by: Kay at February 2, 2006 8:26 PM
I fogot to mention...he's in the military but...he's a liberal.Wonder how that happened? Guess he's not an idiot too.
Posted by: Kay at February 2, 2006 8:30 PM
Suppose should have said also not too.Let me mention that this is a comission in the National Guard not the regular army.Now let's talk about what they are supposed to be.On the ground, at home.Short deployments.Yeah right.Gurrr.Does anyone get the idea that..our guards are severly over deployed? Does anyone get the clue that homeland security must have something to do with being home??? No, they do not.It is not just our guards, it is their equipment.All cloged up with sand and not here.You want someone to be intimidated Pericles..maybe you better think about what we no longer have on the ground and you be intimidated.
Posted by: Kay at February 2, 2006 8:43 PM
PS.. he has never complained once...just me.
Posted by: Kay at February 2, 2006 8:47 PM
No one is threatening to shut down the cartoonist. They are expressing their freedom of speech, just as the cartoonist is.
It is exactly this kind of over the top reaction that keeps people from taking the left seriously. Due to this, when a legitimate gripe is brought up, it is written off as being produced by "moonbats."
Posted by: Russ at February 3, 2006 8:24 AM
This is awesome! You guys are hilarious.
I think you really should find safe haven somewhere in Canada...preferably a remote location without internet access. Don't forget the tin-foil.
Kay, calling you an idiot would be insulting to idiots everywhere. I earned a college degree without having a penny in my pocket AND without joining the military. What your nephew did was his choice - noone intimidated him into joining.
Posted by: hilarious at February 3, 2006 9:00 AM
This looks like a good time to remond everyone of Seeing the Forest's comments policy. Say anything you want, discussion is encouraged. Try to be respectful and argue points. Maybe we can even come to some agreement on thigs.
Insulting people (especially me) gets the post deleted and can get you banned if it keeps up. I'm leaving the previous post up as an example of a post that is borderline for deletion because of the use of "idiot."
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 9:14 AM
Allow me to rephrase:
Kay, I'm sorry for implying that you are sub-idiot in brain power. It is obvious that you are passionate about your nephew, and that is commendable - admirable even. Having said that, I have to point out that our armed services are filled with adults who made up their own mind to serve their country. They were not forced or intimidated into service. Should your nephew bring his sons up to join the military, well that is a question of parenting - not something to blame on the government.
As Russ pointed out, over the top reactions like this are very damaging to your cause indeed. A joint chief of staff wrote an open, polite letter expressing an objection. No troops were mobilized, noone was jailed, and noone was threatened. Freedom of expression was enjoyed by both sides, without violence. That is what the US is all about. I think the knee-jerk "Bush/America = the devil" reaction to absolutely everything in the news causes the moderate, nonpartisan to stop listening.
Posted by: hilarious at February 3, 2006 9:57 AM
You hit the nail on the head when you said, "Freedom of expression was enjoyed by both sides, without violence. That is what the US is all about."
The military is not supposed to take a "side" in American politics. But that is what they did with this letter. The letter protests a cartoon that criticizeds Republican Party policies.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 10:07 AM
So an editorial cartoonist draws a comic saying that the military doesn't care about its soldiers.
And you expect them to sit quietly and ignore it?
Why do the liberals keep losing? Because they will never learn that CRITICISM is not CENSORSHIP.
Posted by: Jeff R at February 3, 2006 10:13 AM
"But that is what they did with this letter."
Uh, no - they took the side of the _military,_ since they have a vested interest in contesting the notion that the commanders of the army don't give a crap about the lowly grunt.
Posted by: Jeff R at February 3, 2006 10:17 AM
I agree with many of the posters above in asking, where is the threat in this letter? Please express to us how, in what manner, you feel intimidated by this, or believe the newspaper and illustrator in question are intimidated (as versus angered) by this?
The last time I checked, the JCs are Americans, too, and these folks, together and alone, officially or unofficially, have the right to express their opinions--even if you FEEL intimidated by it. That’s what’s great about this country (you’ve just got to see my collection of Mohammed collectors cards!) and one of the "problems" with the notion of intimidation; that if you "feel " intimidated, you in fact ARE intimidated. However, this says nothing about the motives of the "intimidator," which may or may not have been to intimidate. So again, could someone simply express how there is intimidation at play here (I don’t see it, but admit I may be ignorant of the threat).
Yes, it can be asserted that anytime anyone in the military brass (let alone the JCs) expresses an opinion contrary to another’s, that this alone constitutes a threat to the other. I would disagree. I also agree that we will not help our cause by making too big of a deal out of this. Statements such as, “This is past "find a safe refuge in Canada" time. This is a serious WATCH YOUR BACKS!!!!,” is such an overbroad reading of this that it must make it hard for anyone to treat STF with seriousness, especially regarding many of your other, well-expressed opinions.
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 3, 2006 10:32 AM
"So an editorial cartoonist draws a comic saying that the military doesn't care about its soldiers."
Jeff, I'm not going to let you get away with this. The cartoon is about THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S treatment of the soldiers.
Rumsfeld is THE REPUBLICAN PARTY, not the military.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 10:53 AM
"The last time I checked, the JCs are Americans, too, and these folks, together and alone, officially or unofficially, have the right to express their opinions--even if you FEEL intimidated by it."
Sorry, but this is not the case. As individuals, yes, they have the rights of every American. But signing a letter IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY, supporting THE REPUBLICAN PARTY is unprecedented and extremely dangerous.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 10:55 AM
Respectfully, I’m just not seeing the threat as you are, so could please explain for me how this is "extremely dangerous"?
And also explain how "this is not the case" that the JCs may freely express their opinion? Which Uniform Code of Military Justice provision, federal/state/local law, or Article of the US Constitution prohibits such a right?
I’m not saying that what they say, or even how they say it, isn’t stupid, or even potentially dangerous to someone, rather just that they have a right in our country to express it. I believe this is how the 1st amendment, free expression, and criticism work—through the expression of ideas, not through the suppression of otherwise civil discourse simply because you feel intimidated.
I’m quite possibly wrong about this, but I’m not seeing how here. Yes, we need to be concerned that the military not become too political, but as an American I’m also alarmed by the suppression of speech (yelling “fire” in a crowded theater exceptions notwithstanding).
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 3, 2006 11:33 AM
What I said is that it is unprecedented and dangerous for the heads of the US military, in an official capacity, to come out in support of a political party. This is what has happened here.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 11:38 AM
Dood. Put the bong away for a few months and see if your paranoia subsides. Sobriety can be a refreshing contrast. Also, when you light up again it will be that much better. What could it hurt?
Posted by: Alt Numlock at February 3, 2006 11:47 AM
If I may presume to speak for some of us enjoying the post...to Alt Numlock--please, keep it civil. We're discussing some specific IDEAS here, (rather important ones at that, IMHO) and aren't really much interested here in your opinions about recreational drug use.
In other words, do you have anything of particular substance to add to the conversation?
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 3, 2006 11:53 AM
Dave, I'm not saying that this wasn't "unprecedented and dangerous," it may turn out that it was. But the leap to "WATCH YOUR BACKS!!!!" seems a bit reactionary, and I would still like to know specifically where this sort of speech is prohibited? If it is not, then they have the right to say it, and we have the right to disagree. It's only through this discourse that the truth becomes more clear (in this case that the military may be becoming too political). And THIS is how a free society is suppose to operate, isn't it?
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 3, 2006 12:00 PM
Was the original post satire or serious?
Posted by: Kevin at February 3, 2006 12:37 PM
No, actually, that is NOT how a free society is supposed to operate. Quite the opposite. The speech of citizens is supposed to be protected FROM the government. The government is not supposed to write intimidating letters to newspapers. That is the whole point of what free speech IS - freedom FROM government intimidation. The Constitution was written to protect the citizens FROM the government, not the other way around.
This letter was not written by citizens, it was written by the heads of military IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 12:55 PM
"What I said is that it is unprecedented and dangerous for the heads of the US military, in an official capacity, to come out in support of a political party."
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 11:38 AM
That is where your reasoning is flawed. You think that because the JCS criticized a cartoon that was anti-Republican, then it is tantamount to the JCS supporting the Republican party. However, the letter, which by the way seemed very respectful to the WAPO's right to print the cartoon, does not address the implication that the Republican party doesn't care about the troops. The point that they were trying to make is, 'if you want to criticize the war or Republicans, fine, but please don't trivialize the sacrifice of those who fought selflessly for their country.' They don't care if Toles criticizes Republicans as long as he doesn't use the images of people the military respects highly to take a shot at Republicans.
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 1:03 PM
Sorry, I'm missing something--the letter from the JCS is "intimidating?" What are these pathetic creatures made of, if that's "intimidation?" A cartoonist runs a cartoon, people voice their objections, and that makes the cartoonists' political allies' chins quiver? Well, this is fun--let's see some more "intimidation," maybe we'll get to see pants fill.
Posted by: trouthall at February 3, 2006 1:08 PM
Sorry, I'm missing something--the letter from the JCS is "intimidating?" What are you pathetic creatures made of, if that's "intimidation?" A cartoonist runs a cartoon, people voice their objections, and that makes the cartoonists' political allies' chins quiver? Well, this is fun--let's see some more "intimidation," maybe we'll get to see pants fill.
Posted by: Anonymous at February 3, 2006 1:09 PM
Sweatpants, if they are respectful of the WaPo's right to print the cartoon, why did they write the letter at all? Remember, it is from the military, not citizens.
And isn't it the Republican Party line that criticizing Republican policies is going against the troops? WHy is the military in an official capacity going public supporting that line?
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 1:10 PM
I'm sorry if I made it sound as if my nephew was intimidated into the military.My intent was to say that I find it intimidating to think of what he may ultimately have to sacrifice for the choice that he made.I believe that intimidation is another word for fear.Yes, he absolutely made that choice himself and has never complained about it that I know of.I am the one that is fearful for him.I am the one that feels the intimination.Hopefully I cleard that point up.
I was on my way to work the other morning when I heard about how many of our wounded are being lost in the system that is suppopsed to take care of them.Paychecks lost and delayed.Overpayment made in at least one case mentioned with the Army, or whichever branch demanding payback from a soldier still in a coma.Those are just a couple of the cases that were mentioned.
That's ok hilarious, I can be a sub idiot and no doubt a full fledged idiot a good share of the time.
The cartoonist is in the business of political commentary.The military is supposed to be able to censor and discipline within it's own ranks.I don't believe they have to right to try in any way to control a public media outlet.
Next time I feel a flare of anger I'll take a deep breath and keep it to myslf.
Posted by: Kay at February 3, 2006 1:17 PM
They were asking the WAPO to be considerate of their belief that those severely wounded in battle deserve the utmost respect of their colleagues for their sacrifice. It is quite similar to the current controversy with the Danish newspaper printing depictions of Muhammed. Sure they have a right to, but they shouldn't have out of respect for the beliefs of Muslims. Fortunately the JCS are taking it a bit better than some Muslims in the Middle East (if you want an example of real intimidation).
It doesn't matter what the Republican party line is. They just don't want people they respect being used to score political points, and I don't think they were out of line informing the WAPO of that.
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 1:25 PM
Dan, the JC's do have every right to express their opinions as private citizens not as the Joint Chiefs of staff on company time with official stationary and all the trappings that go with it.
The Justice Department went after Head Start teachers a few years ago to make sure they did not make a single phone call, use a single stamp or a single minute of their work time to advocate against the privatization of Head Start.
There is something called the Hatch Act and if what the JC's did was not meant to be intimidating, was it intended to ignore the same protocols that people who spend their days with three year olds must adhere to?
There is a risk to being a little guy with a different opinion than the big armed powerbroker who is flexing their muscle. It is nort necessarily paranoia.
I personally thought this incident was beyond pitiful in so many ways:
"So the Pentagon immediately drops everything they were doing to go on an intensive letter writing campaign to the Washington Post about their cartoonist because shutting people up is a hell of a lot more important to them than supplying their troops with the equipment they need to do the jobs they were sent to do.
It is about priorities, isn't it?"
Posted by: grannyinsanity at February 3, 2006 2:08 PM
I didn't realize that writing a letter (or more likely having an aide write it to one's specifications and then signing it) constituted an 'intensive campaign'. I also didn't realize that telling someone that they offended you is equivalent to trying to shut them up, or that the JCS can't take 5 minutes to sign a letter without the whole operation going to shambles.
Not to mention they wrote the letter to advocate respect for the troops among the media, something which you consider "pitiful," though you feigned concern for our troops when it was convenient for you so you could criticize the JCS for writing a letter.
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 2:24 PM
Thank you grannyinsanity...
This does help clarify the issue for me, in that if there are specific provisions in the Hatch Act against this type of activity by the JCs and other in the federal gov't., then the speech is, in fact, prohibited (I'm presuming here that the Act is also specific enough to help answer whether or not this was a "political activity").
Your other points are also well taken, that the little guy needs protection from those with real power (although I still think Mr. Johnson's initial remarks were unnecessarily shrill, but then again, the proverbial squeaky wheel...), and that this is a curious way, at best, for the top pentagon brass to be spending their time.
Thanks for the feedback and information.
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 3, 2006 2:30 PM
No, I'm sorry, but the Hatch Act would apply to actions of government employees as employees of agencies, but not the actions of the agencies. This is about an OFFICIAL letter from an agency of the government - the OFFICE of the Joint Chiefs - to a newspaper. It's the freedom of speech of the newspaper and the cartoonist. AND it's about agencies of the government taking action in support of a political party.
The Joint Chiefs as individuals have freedom of speech (although it would be against military tradition top publicly support one party) but the office of the Joint Chiefs does not have freedom of speech.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 2:40 PM
Sweatpants, give it up with the stuff about criticizing Bush means you don't support the troops. It doesn't win arguments here.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 2:43 PM
Actually Dave, grannyinsanity never mentioned or even alluded to Bush in her post, and neither did I. She was criticizing the JCS for the letter they wrote to the WAPO, which she felt was "beyond pitiful in so many ways." Note that she did not merely disagree with the decision of the JCS to write it, in which case I would not have said that she "feigned concern for the troops," in same way as I believe one can think the war in Iraq was a mistake but still hope for the safe return of our troops. To the contrary, she she found it reprehensible that the JCS would write a letter to the WAPO extolling the sacrifices of our soldiers and asking them to show more respect for the wounded, while specifically affirming their right to criticize the war. To call this polite request to respect the wounded "pitiful" and then speciously argue that the few minutes it took to design and sign the letter affected the readiness of our troops on the ground seemed disingenuous to me, and I stand by that post.
And please explain to me why the military cannot advocate respect for the wounded without supporting the Republicans. Wouldn't that logic imply that Democrats do not advocate respect for the wounded?
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 3:22 PM
OK Dave, does this then mean that the Hatch Act doesn't apply to the JC's as an agency? And if so, I would have to ask again, where then is this sort of speech prohibited (assuming it was determined that this was, in fact, political speech)?
If what you imply is true, this would lead one to conclude that no federal agency may engage in political speech, and that sounds a bit absurd to me, in that I see it all the time.
Then again, I'm no expert on the federal gov't.
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 3, 2006 3:24 PM
Sweatpants - We are talking about the Office of the Joint Chiefs going after the Washington Post for a cartoon criticizing Rumsfeld.
It's standard Republicanism to claim that criticizing Republicans is the same as not supporting the troops. We hear it every day, we heard it here. This is not about the wounded or the troops. It is about Republican policies and the military weighing in on their side.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 3:35 PM
Dan - that's right, it isn't about employees of government agencies, it is about the agency itself.
"If what you imply is true, this would lead one to conclude that no federal agency may engage in political speech, and that sounds a bit absurd to me, in that I see it all the time."
Yes, but you have never, repeat never, seen it before this Bush administration. The United States government is not supposed to be on the side of a political party. But now, almost every agency of our government is engages in activities in support of the Republican Party. I write about this frequently. But this is the first time we have seen the Joint Chiefs weigh in like this and it is ominous. That is "Banana Republic" stuff.
Posted by: Dave Johnson at February 3, 2006 3:40 PM
The Hatch Act definitely covers the military. I just looked it up. It's part of their ethical training that they must not express political opinions or take sides in favor of one political party or the other. This has been the law since the late 19th century, and so far as I know it hasn't been repealed. In other words, these JCs were breaking the law. This cartoon was clearly about Rummy's treatment of soldiers and disguising data, not about making fun of the wounded. They were obviously trying to intimidate the Washington Post because they were being sarcastic about a Republican political appointee.
When I was a lowly employee of the Freer Museum of Art in Washington, DC, note that this is an art museum (!) it was made very clear to me that I could not express any political opinions, or publicly take sides, whether officially or not, because of the Hatch Act.
Posted by: MJ at February 3, 2006 3:52 PM
Again, grannyinsanity did not criticize some Republican policy. She called it pitiful that the JCS would write a letter to the WAPO advocating respect for the wounded. I understand if people feel they should have refrained, or commented unofficially, but it's not pitiful for the heads of the military to ask for respect for wounded soldiers, and saying so is not the same as just criticizing a Republican policy, as you claim it is.
Furthermore, how can you say that "This is not about the wounded or the troops?" As I posted already, the JCS objected to the use of the wounded soldier, not the political message. They felt that the cartoon was not disrespectful because of its message, but just because it used the image of a wounded soldier in such a trivial way. The letter asked for respect for the wounded and nothing more, so how is that constituted as "weighing in" with Republicans?
Also, how does writing a polite letter constitute "going after" the WAPO? What part of the letter implies that the JCS will take more serious action if this happens again?
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 4:20 PM
Thanks to both D. Johnson and MJ for the clarifying remarks here. I will look more closely at the Hatch Act and try to fill in the gaps in my ignorance. If what you say is true, this does become more troubling for me.
It does still seem to me that federal agencies and their representatives (when the D's were in power too) often engage in what some might deem political speech, because--again to my perhaps simple mind--how can anyone with certainty label any particular speech as political, or at least in a partisan way. Most human interaction has a "political component," one that would seem very difficult to detach from other dimensions of any typical communications.
One last thing, I do also think that sweatpants is being disingenuiously ignorant, or at least missing the rather obvious fact that many will perceived that this letter, while addressing reasonable concerns for the troops, may well have been written because the JCs and Mr. Rumsfeld were smarting from the criticism implied by MR. Toles cartoon, in which case their remarks were political. To pretend this was only about the JCs concern for how wounded troops are portrayed is just plain silly.
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 3, 2006 5:01 PM
"I do also think that sweatpants is being disingenuiously ignorant, or at least missing the rather obvious fact that many will perceived that this letter... may well have been written because the JCs and Mr. Rumsfeld were smarting from the criticism implied by MR. Toles cartoon..."
Well let me explain why I do not think this is so, and perhaps you can at least rule out the disingenuous ignorance from the possibilities.
First of all, Rumsfeld has been the subject of frequent criticism for going on 3 years now because of the Iraq War. No doubt during this time many a political cartoonist, not to mention MANY outspoken liberals, have criticized both him and the military. So for the most part, I would expect criticism from a political cartoon to roll of the backs of Rumsfeld and the JCS, especially since Democrats in Congress have made far stronger statements on the subject than this cartoon does.
So now assume Rumsfeld and the JCS do get angry over the cartoon, at least partly for it's partisan message. So why did the JCS write the letter? What purpose did this letter serve politically? Dave has claimed it was a threat, but has yet say what that threat was or to produce a specific passage which he feels implies a threat. The letter won't stop such criticism, since it specifically affirms the right of the WAPO to criticize. In fact, it only served to make the cartoon the subject of a national story. The letter wouldn't embarass the WAPO, who could claim that they do respect the troops and were merely printing the work of one of the most famous cartoonists in the country. It wouldn't embarass Toles either to get some national exposure as well as a rise out of the administration of which he is so often a critic.
In other words, this letter served no political purpose, and thus the only possible motivation aside from advocating respect for the troops would be the desire to criticize those who levelled crticism at them. But that requires one to take the position that the JCS actually care when a political cartoon criticizes them, which they have had over two years to get used to. Call me crazy (or disingenuously ignorant), but I don't think the JCS would take such a rare action over something so routine. I find it FAR more likely that they thought it proper to show their official disapproval for the "callous" portrayal of the type of soldier they most highly respect.
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 6:06 PM
There was nothing in the portrayal of the soldier in the cartoon that showed disaproval of the soldier himself.If there was I'm not getting it.But you know what would you expect from a sbit.No...the disregaurd for that soldier was all that was evident to me.The point got across to me.
Of course it served a political purpose.It was a political cartoon after all.
I agree with Dave.It is a threat.I percieve it that way too.All I see in this is a shut up thing.You are for us or against us.It simply doesn't work that way.Believe me...I'm for them.I'm not thinking that gives any one the right to take advantage of them.Most days from what I see and hear.. we arn't even at war.Well, of course we're not.Officially.At war.
Hmmm.Does that mean we won? Which brings up the question...did anyone ever decide what winning is.I'm still waiting to hear.
The percieved threat to me is that the next time someone comes up with a cartoon, an editorial what have you, they may think or their editoial board may think. it itsn't worth the bother.We have to contend with the JCS giving us whatfor.Guess we'll skip it.That's what's intimidating.They can talk and we can talk.That's cool.Nothing wrong with that.But...we both get to do that.
Posted by: Kay at February 3, 2006 7:37 PM
I understand your concern, but what you have to understand is that not only do the JCS hear about soldiers wounded this severely, they probably see and visit such soldiers on a regular basis. Soldiers in the field see friends of theirs wounded in front of their eyes in these ways. So this kind of image provokes a very emotional and very respectful response from members of the military. The message I took from the letter was "you don't have to agree with us, you don't even have to like us, but please just show respect for those of us who have made such a sacrifice.
However, I don't think you have to worry about any news outlets holding back criticism of the military because of this incident. You need look no further than the letter itself to see that the JCS accepts the right of newspapers to disagree and criticize them. However, it was the goal of the JCS to make newspapers think twice about what images of the fallen and wounded they publish, not because of the reprocussions that the JCS might undertake (indeed, there are none), but because they too want to maintain proper respect for the wounded.
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 8:02 PM
1. I work for a Federal agency. It is indeed in the Code of Conduct that I may not campaign or work for any politician or political party in my official capacity. I believe the JCs are covered under the same policy. Expression of overt political opinion is discouraged at my work for obvious reasons.
2. I think your reading of the JCs coming out for the republican party is way off. They were (rightly) offended by the inappropriate and heartless cheap shot in the cartoon. They were not campaigning or supporting a politician or political party. Rumsfeld is not a politician. He is an appointed Federal official. He serves at the pleasure of the president. And, IMHO, the schoolgirlish overreaction in the original post is the reason left wingers are so easy to dismiss. Look what is happening in Europe right now over the Islam cartoons. Now THAT is intimidation and suppression of free speech.
Posted by: fugazi at February 3, 2006 8:53 PM
My fear isn't that they don't respect the fallen.In my heart of hearts I hope and pray we all do.My fear is this, that if something does need to be said, if something does need attention drawn to it,that won't happen because of a fear that they will draw critisism of some sort.I really believe that the first couple of years of this war were so hard on liberals because we didn't want to be accused of not supporting our troops or not being patriotic.Now we don't have a clue how to say what we think...without being accused of all kinds of crazy stuff.Maybe we simply don't know how to say..hey we care a lot.Or we wouldn't even bother.
Sometimes I think this...it wouldn't hurt this country to get a reminder by way of the harsh realities that we are indeed at war.There are coffins and there are wounded and there is no particular reason that I can see that we don't get kicked in the behind with it every single day.
Those people out there that are dying and are coming home in those coffins or are winding up with huge disabilities belong to us.They are ours.It is happening and every day what I see is this...stick a stupid bumper sticker on your car and you're there.You did good.This war really is too easy on the conscience I think.Anything that draws attention to the reality of it is ok with me.If our military has to go there every single day at war,we belong there with them.Most wars were not only fought but won on the premise that "we" are at war.I don't get the feeling that is so now.As a liberal I'm thinking...I knew this was a stupid idea from day one.I did my homework and thought what the hell??? I'm also thinking that the conservatives are locked into their own insulated little igloos with their yellow sticker and they don't want to worry too much about it either.So that would only leave the military to worry about themselves.
Well to be honest, after writeing that all out maybe I will give some credence to the thought that they may possibly think there is no one left to defend them but themselves.
But if that is so it is because we have been too insulated.We shouldn't ever let that happen.So as far as I can see,we need to see more and not less of what this war is.
Posted by: Kay at February 3, 2006 9:25 PM
BDS claims yet another victim.
Posted by: Jordan at February 3, 2006 11:36 PM
The JCS did not write this letter simply because they were angry that a picture of a wounded soldier was printed in the WAPO, but rather because it was in a political cartoon serving someone's political agenda. That's what they found disrespectful. And I agree with the military's policy of not releasing photos of the coffins and wounded, and the reason is clear: if the worst should happen and your nephew is killed in Iraq, would you want pictures of his corpse being passed around the internet, or a bunch of cameramen taking your picture when you went to meet his coffin coming back from Iraq? Perhaps Americans do need a reminder about the gravity of the war, but this is not the way to go about it.
And fear not that anything that needs to be said will not be said. After all, Bush wrote a letter to the New York Times specifically requesting that they not publish the story about the NSA wiretaps, lest its usefulness as a surveillance tool be destroyed. If a direct letter from the president wont stop 'what needs to be said', then a letter from the JCS requesting more respect for the wounded is nothing to worry about.
Don't think liberals are the only ones getting criticized either. The head of the NAACP just compared Republicans to Nazis a couple days ago. Criticism of this war and Republicans were there from the start. We get called racists, imperialists, corrupt, homophobic, etc. all the time. Of course there are a few Republicans who fit one or more of those descriptions, just like I could find you a few liberals who really were Anti-American and who didn't support the troops at all. Politics is a nasty arena, and the only way to survive is to be able to defend what you believe, and believe only what you can defend.
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 3, 2006 11:39 PM
Don't you just love the rampant stupidity of parasitic liberals?
Whining, seditous, liberal, swine should be constantly mocked, riduculed, and spit on publically...
Posted by: juandos at February 4, 2006 3:59 AM
Where are the photographs of all the coffins of US soldiers being returned from Iraq?
Posted by: MJ at February 2, 2006 07:04 AM
I'm not sure I understand the ghoulish obsession to see coffins of someone you neither know, nor are related to...It's really not any of YOUR business...Is there a "nuance" I'm missing?
Posted by: franksalterego at February 4, 2006 6:31 AM
"I'm not sure I understand the ghoulish obsession to see coffins of someone you neither know, nor are related to...It's really not any of YOUR business...Is there a "nuance" I'm missing?"
Damned right there's a nuance you're missing. The nuance is that we're not supposed to see the results of our involvement in Iraq if it's something that might ruffle the consciousness or the conscience of the public. Out of sight out of mind, and all that kind of crap. Don't I have a right to mourn the return of my neighbor's children in flag-draped coffins? Of course it's my business. What kind of heartless person are you, anyway? Be careful what you're defending in your pro-Bush fanaticism.
And let's try wading through the propaganda and look at a few facts. We are not at war in Iraq. We won that war. Bush was correct when he claimed, "Mission Accomplished." Congratulations to Bush for winning the Iraq war, and shame on him for claiming we're still at war. We are not. We are conducting an occupation. Even you can grasp the fact that conducting an occupation, even when this involves continuing loss of life, is quite a different thing from fighting a war.
Posted by: MJ at February 4, 2006 7:52 AM
Thank you, franksalterego, for elevating the post with your insightful commentary. Your broad-ranging intelligence and--as always--mordant wit are in fine diplay.
You best be off now to work on gathering sufficient spit together for your self-appointed task, while the rest of us try to gain some clarity and understanding about the actual events in our lives...
(p.s., you seem off topic and may not have noticed, but this post isn't really about pictures of coffins. Do you have anything the add to the conversation?)
Posted by: Dan Kallem at February 4, 2006 7:52 AM
Dave, as I see it, what the JCS were objecting to was the callous way in which the cartoonist used a gravely wounded soldier as a political statement against a political party.
They WERE'NT defending the Republican party, they were protesting that callousness toward the wounded as tasteless, which it most definately WAS.
They also took great pains in agreeing that the WP had every right to publish the offending cartoom, indeed, they pointed out that it was a part of their Constitutionaly mandated funtion to PROTECT that right, hardly intimidation to expess distaste of obvious poor taste. They were merely exercising their own right to disagree with that view. And since the cartoon was an abuse of their base resource, the men under their command, I would contend that it was not an abuse of their "official' status to expres that distaste. The moonbat reaction was a prime example of why the purveyors are CALLED moonbats.
Posted by: delftsman3 at February 4, 2006 12:20 PM
"The nuance is that we're not supposed to see the results of our involvement in Iraq if it's something that might ruffle the consciousness or the conscience of the public."
MJ You can contend that we "don't see the consequences of the war" when almost every story about Iraq in the MSM is one in which there are US causelties, and the body counts are endlessly cited as an example of the "quagmire" we're in?!?!
"We are not at war in Iraq. We won that war."
Your only half right, we HAVE won the war against the Saddam regime, but we are STILL engaged in a war with Islamic militants, even as we are engaged in an occupation of Iraq.
"Bush was correct when he claimed, "Mission Accomplished."
For the LAST time, the only "mission accomplished" referred to in that celebration was the mission that that particular ship was engaged in, not the war itself. typical partisian ploy, to equate the specific to the general and vice versa when it suits the agenda (and sadly, one employed by both sides of the argument, just more blatent on the Left).
"Don't I have a right to mourn the return of my neighbor's children in flag-draped coffins?"
Sure you do. At the funeral of your neighbors children. Just grant that a public spectacle by partisian media of whatever stripe isn't showing grief and respect in a way that most grieving families would care to experience in their time of grief.
Posted by: delftsman3 at February 4, 2006 12:50 PM
Took me a few seconds to realise this is not a pisstake site satirising the extremely demented fringe of the British 'Monster Raving Loony Party'.
Thank's guys, NOBODY could make this stuff up (no-one would dare). My ribs ache from laughing - you are SERIOUS: priceless, just priceless.
Posted by: MarkL at February 4, 2006 4:06 PM
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have sworn to uphold and defend the constiution against ALL enemies, foreign or domestic
"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." US Constitution
I have seen the Washington Post cartoon, and while I personally find it extremely offensive, I have not gathered groups of my fellow Americans in the streets of downtown Washington DC, trying to burn down their offices. Please compare this with the thousands and millions of Muslims around the world who are burning buildings because some cartoon OFFENDED THEIR SENSIBILITIES!!!
Posted by: Cas at February 4, 2006 4:56 PM
First of all, unlike what Dave has said, neither the cartoon or the letter of response from the Joint Chiefs mentioned or discussed the Republican Party. The only thing actually named in the cartoon was a single individual, Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense. To say that by, implicitly, defending the Secretary in their letter they are somehow taking a Republican political position due to the fact that the Secretary is a member of the Republican Party is simply a silly guilt-by-association ploy. By using that same logic, I could say that all the military members participating in Hurricane Katrina relief operations were representing the Republican Party by the simple fact that the majority of military personnel are Republicans. The fact of the matter is that, like Hurricane Katrina relief operations, this letter was non-partisan and took no party line.
Secondly, nowhere in the letter was there any threat or even an implicit threat to the cartoonist or the editors of the Post. To say that there was amounts to an intentional distortion of the truth and to continue with your paranoid ramblings about "watch[ing] your backs" is absurd.
Thirdly, it is not uncommon for military leaders or members of any administration to write letters to the editor condemning or correcting statements and distortions from that media source. A simple Google search would show this to you.
Posted by: Arcane at February 4, 2006 6:14 PM
Coffins and the viewing of an actual corpse are two different things.Would I want someone looking at me while I grieve? No, I don't think I was going there either.I just think that this war like so many things in this country anymore has become an unreality.I don't see it, it doesn't exist.It exists for hundreds and thousands of families and since we're at war, this country is at war; it would only be right and proper that it exist on a real up close and personal level for us all.Wars to my way of thinking should call on us all to make sacrifices and if we are fortunate enough to avoid a loss in any war we should at least be called upon to appreciate that other people have made that sacrifice.If the reality of that scrifice doesn't at some point slap you in the face, I'm not sure you can ever truly understand what it may have meant to someone else.
Posted by: Kay at February 4, 2006 6:50 PM
The most precious thing of all will be when history vindicates Bush just as it did Reagan. Speaking ill of Ronald Reagan these days is political suicide. Even the weirdest lefty politicians bowed to the great man when he died.
Your grandkids will be attending George W. Bush Junior High School. How's that taste?
BTW, there is literally no chance of Clinton getting any schools, airports, etc. named for him, outside of Arkansas.
Posted by: fugazi at February 4, 2006 8:30 PM
It's utterly amazing how blinded by propaganda and spin, and how blindly devoted to the total fantasy of a somehow heroic GW Bush and/or Ronald Reagan, some people manage to stay. Somehow reality gets left far behind in favor of a mirage of advertising spin. It's hard to believe that anyone really thinks that a rich, pampered Yale graduate normally speaks in that folksy voice without lessons in how to do it, or would dress in that pseudo-masculine style without plenty of coaching, or how totally people forget that Reagan -- was an experienced, coached and trained actor playing his greatest role.
History is going to vindicate either Reagan or GW Bush? What a joke! Both Reagan and Bush will be recorded in history, all right, for their looney economic theories, and Bush for his insane desire for war based on his personal fantasies and his feelings of inferiority about his Daddy.
Posted by: MJ at February 5, 2006 5:20 AM
Leftists are pathetic. Here's why real people don't take you seriously :
You come up with fables that a three year old might when trying to explain how his milk got spilled, example : " No mommy, I didn't spill it,the evil Rumsfeld came flying in, pushed the glass over while the military searched my underwear drawer in an effort to intimidate me. The whole while Bushlied was giving a speech to the neighbors about why racism is a good thing".
You losers 'threatened' to move to Canada a few years ago. Ok, keep your word, GO.
Common point - You are way over the top, childish, immature,hypocritical and not believable.
You are guilty of what you accuse Bush of being - liars.
BTW,I don't really care what you 'feel', I would be interested in what you think. Obviously your 'movement' doesn't allow that.
With all your blather about the Constitution, it's obvious that not one moonbat has ever actually read it. No need to I suppose when you've got drunken teddy and crew there to interpret it's 'subtle nuances'.
I expect this post to get censored because the truth is too much for any leftist to bear.
That act will demonstrate what hypocrites leftists are.
Posted by: LMAO at February 5, 2006 6:54 AM
As usual, when faced with facts instead of propaganda and spin, the result is simple-minded name-calling and personal attacks. "Leftist" is at least more wholesome than the good old-fashioned "Mother fucker" of the 60s. I guess that's the influence of the Religious Right? If you don't worship at the holy feet of Bush you're now a "Leftist" no matter what your political stance might actually be. Any concept that this man GW Bush is merely a fallible human with flaws and faults has departed from the minds of his worshippers. Well, the Romans worshipped their emperors, too. But the good old threat, if you don't like it get out of the country, hasn't changed. No, chum. You get out of the country if you can't stand to hear the truth because the truth is gonna be spoken. The truth is out there.
Posted by: MJ at February 5, 2006 11:38 AM
Correction MJ, we are not at war WITH Iraq, but we are certainly still at war. It is a guerilla war between the Coalition and Al Qaeda, similar in many ways to the American War of Independence, though the intentions of both sides are far different.
"But the good old threat, if you don't like it get out of the country, hasn't changed. No, chum. You get out of the country if you can't stand to hear the truth because the truth is gonna be spoken."
Actually he was calling on those who keep saying their going to take 'refuge' in Canada to put their money where their mouth is and go already. But the "truth" you say these people speak - is that the same truth about how Bush had a hand in 9/11, or that the government has secret camps set up to arrest dissenters? We've already heard these "truths" from those who say it's time to flee this country. We've also seen their predictions proved wrong time and time again. Just look to the left at this blog's archives and read the post about how Bush was going to initiate the draft as soon as he was reelected. Is the draft not on the list of "truths" anymore?
These "truths" are nothing more than faith. Even Christians have the Shroud of Turin and the occasional miracle. All the far left has to support these theories are the claims themselves. They're beginning to sound like they're trapped in the Clue movie - "or, it could have happened like this!"
Blind dissent doesn't elevate the dialogue in this country. Claiming that 'Rove was behind the forged CBS documents' doesn't help the state of this country, but rather just worsens it because people manufacture excuses for not learning from their mistakes. So rather than hearing inflamatory conspiracy theories with nothing to back them up, why DON'T such people just up and move to Canada already so that we can ALL live happier?
Posted by: Sweatpants at February 5, 2006 9:07 PM
(As usual, when faced with facts instead of propaganda and spin, the result is simple-minded name-calling and personal attacks.)
'Facts' ROTFLMAO, a leftist knows as much about actual facts as he/she does the truth.
( "Leftist" is at least more wholesome)
I say leftist because that doesn't change. Once your movement called themselves liberals. Then people discovered it was the same old recycled bullshit your movement always was. So your movement changed it's moniker to progressive, but alas people see through that as well.
I could have went with marxist, communist, socialist, but didn't.
(than the good old-fashioned "Mother fucker")
Wouldn't call you that, wouldn't be accurate. From what I've seen most leftists favor killing children, not raising them.
(of the 60s.)
Yeah, I recall leftists spitting on returning soldiers and screaming baby killer. Leftists have yet to get the irony of that. Clue for you- it's like calling Bush a liar.
BTW, the 60's were 40 years ago, Iraq isn't Vietnam, and Johnson ( of great society fame ) is the one who perpetuated Vietnam. Nixon got us out.
(I guess that's the influence of the Religious Right?)
As opposed to the irreligious left ? Funny how all your 'leaders' in Congress are insisting that " We have values too".
(If you don't worship at the holy feet of Bush you're now a "Leftist" no matter what your political stance might actually be.)
Just can't help the kneejerk Bush slam eh ? Or was it to gain you credibility with your fellow leftists ?
(Any concept that this man GW Bush is merely a fallible human with flaws and faults has departed from the minds of his worshippers.)
I agree, he is a fallible, flawed human being, just like me, you and everyone else. Which does not make him the devil incarnate.
( But the good old threat, if you don't like it get out of the country, hasn't changed.)
I don't recall threating you with expulsion, I said keep good on YOUR word. A man is only as good as his word, which means your movement is worthless.
( No, chum. You get out of the country if you can't stand to hear the truth)
The truth has been spoken in the last two elections, I'm not whining about it.
(because the truth is gonna be spoken.)
It already has been, you can't stand to hear it.
(The truth is out there.)
Here's some truth for you,
Your stances and belief system aligns you with the islamofacists whether you like it or not.
Get a clue
Posted by: lmao at February 6, 2006 2:34 AM
Ah, yes. The latest demonizing buzzword. Trouble is, those doing the demonizing then find themselves, well, surrounded by demons, don't they?
I doubt that most of those Muslims demonstrating in the streets would know the difference between fascism and a hole in the wall, and comparing them to Nazis is utter nonsense. It doesn't really clarify anything to try to wrap everything into one big ball of wax. The Nazis were sophisticated Europeans. These outraged Muslims are, for the most part, still living, both mentally and physically, in the equivalent of Biblical times. Not quite "cave men with cell phones" but darned close.
Just like the gangs in cities like Chicago, they feel marginalized and "disrespected." And they should, considering all the ranting and threats to which they're being submitted by no less than GW Bush himself. If you don't think there's considerable disrespect in his desire to "enlighten" them about how they should govern themselves, as though they're a pack of backwards animals, just listen to what's being said a bit more carefully. The threats amount to nothing less than a threat to wipe out their entire culture. Whether we approve of that culture or not is beside the point. We'd react exactly the same way, and we should. No doubt the cartoons served as the last straw.
This is a sociological problem far more than a religious problem. We want their territory and their oil, and we're rationalizing and projecting our own greed and ignorance on them so we can then incite them to riot and blame them for our -- greed and ignorance.
The problem we're having trying to discuss anything rationally here in this forum exactly parallels the situation on the streets in the Islamic countries. Demonizing people -- creates demonic situations. We'll end up in a real, genuine, street-fighting revolution sooner or later if we keep this up.
Posted by: MJ at February 6, 2006 6:34 AM
Ah, yes. The latest demonizing buzzword.)
No actually, it's quite accurate. I guess getting talking points is easier than looking in a dictionary.
( Trouble is, those doing the demonizing then find themselves, well, surrounded by demons, don't they? )
That's the basis of your entire movement, victimized by demons, led by none other than Hitler/ Satan/ Bushlied himself.
(I doubt that most of those Muslims demonstrating in the streets would know the difference between fascism and a hole in the wall,)
From what I've seen here, they wouldn't be alone.
By your own confession- they living in Biblical times still, have an excuse, what's yours ?
(and comparing them to Nazis is utter nonsense.)
How so ? Apparently history isn't your friend.
(It doesn't really clarify anything to try to wrap everything into one big ball of wax.)
OK, you were going somewhere with this ?
( The Nazis were sophisticated Europeans.)
Lol,that's a kind way of saying arrogant intellectuals.
( These outraged Muslims are,)
It took them all of what 3 -5 weeks to become 'outraged' ? Also, I'm I the only one who found it interesting that somehow they were able to produce more than enough Danish flags to burn ?
Oh, and let's not forget a short while back they were 'outraged' in France.Through their 'outrage', they somehow found the clarity to call their brothers in Germany, Norway and Denmark to signal the beginning of the European jihad.
( for the most part,)
You do not have a clue what you are talking about.
( still living, both mentally and physically, in the equivalent of Biblical times. Not quite "cave men with cell phones" but darned close. )
Agreed, and this is the part where you make apologies for them and create a whole new victim class. Typical and expected.
(Just like the gangs in cities like Chicago, they feel marginalized and "disrespected.")
At this point I am embarrassed for you, because it is so painfully obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Thank God the adults won the elections.
(And they should, considering all the ranting and threats to which they're being submitted by no less than GW Bush himself.)
Of course, the evil W again. One flaw with this 'reasoning' might be..... How do you explain all the attacks BEFORE W became President ?
(If you don't think there's considerable disrespect in his desire to "enlighten" them about how they should govern themselves, as though they're a pack of backwards animals, just listen to what's being said a bit more carefully.)
Thus far YOU are the only one I've heard call them backwards animals. Granted, you didn't have the guts to outright say it, but by stating they were stuck in Biblical times, not knowing facism from a hole in the wall, etc, anyone will draw that conclusion.
(The threats amount to nothing less than a threat to wipe out their entire culture.)
Which part of their culture do you think is worth saving ?
Women are nothing more than pets ?
Honor killing your daughter because she was raped ?
Submit to islam or die ?
BTW, converting isn't enough, if you want to live I'd suggest you learn to read Arabic because Arabic is the only acceptable language for the krayon. All other languages are perversions.
Even at that, you would still be second class because you see, you are not of Arab descent.
Something about the master race, now where have I heard that before........
( Whether we approve of that culture or not is beside the point.)
Ok, leftists believe that owning women, raping and killing daughters is perfectly acceptable. Maybe not your cup of tea but hey,who are you to judge. After all, it's not like there are absolutes or anything....
A long time ago, your kind offered this very argument. My people responded by saying - " it is wrong to own people and we will not stand for it. If necessary, we will fight you and put an end to slavery".
( We'd react exactly the same way,)
You could not be more wrong if you tried.
(and we should.)
Because after all, we're all just victims and as such are not personally responsible for our actions ?
(No doubt the cartoons served as the last straw.)
The cartoons serve as an excuse, not a reason.
How about Rushdie ? Vangogh ? WTC 93 ? USS Cole ? 9/11 ? Plenty more examples.
(This is a sociological problem far more than a religious problem. We want their territory and their oil, and we're rationalizing and projecting our own greed and ignorance on them so we can then incite them to riot and blame them for our -- greed and ignorance.)
There is no excuse for this level of complete ignorance.
You are in desperate need of serious history lessons.
Seeing the forest... you've just given this site a special irony.
(The problem we're having trying to discuss anything rationally)
Is that I think, and you 'feel'.
I have studied and you are giving predigested answers.
I've discussed and debated islamofacism with actual muslims, and Europeans. You have read prepared propaganda.
(here in this forum exactly parallels the situation on the streets in the Islamic countries. Demonizing people
-- creates demonic situations.)
Yet you would still deny that your movement parallels theirs.
(We'll end up in a real, genuine, street-fighting revolution sooner or later if we keep this up.)
Hey sport, you are about a day late and a dollar short.
We are in a War for the survival of our civilization. I'd suggest that since you people can't lead, and won't follow, that you just get the hell out of the way and let the adults take care of it. Go off in a corner somewhere and throw another tantrum.
As for a revolution on our shores, that you won't win. You seem to forget he who supports the Second Amendment probably has the guns :-)
Here's another delicious morsel of irony. You no doubt consider yourself to be philisophical and highly intelligent. Rotflmao.
Posted by: lmao at February 6, 2006 3:36 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)