Patterico's Pontifications

9/11/2008

Palin Interview & 9/11 Forum Tonight (Updated)

Filed under: 2008 Election,Media Bias — DRJ @ 4:06 pm



[Guest post by DRJ]

Open thread on ABC’s interview with Sarah Palin.

UPDATE 1: The 9/11 Service Forum is also tonight. It looks similar to the Saddleback Forum except John McCain is being questioned first. Consider this an open thread on the 9/11 Forum, too.

UPDATE 2: Tom Maguire at JustOneMinute considers Gibson’s God question, Palin’s Lincoln answer, and finds ABC lacking.

— DRJ

97 Responses to “Palin Interview & 9/11 Forum Tonight (Updated)”

  1. Wow. ABC just reported that Charlie Gibson, evening anchorman, stayed in his interview of Governor Palin that:

    “Our national leaders are sending U.S. soldiers on a task that is from God.”

    “Are we fighting a holy war?”, Gibson added, followed by “There is a plan and it is God’s plan.”

    Exact words.

    fat tony (b94b02)

  2. Just reporting it straight, network style.

    fat tony (b94b02)

  3. And a spelling error undercuts my point. “Stated”, not “stayed”.

    You’ll see what I mean when you compare the interview to Palin’s actual words at the time.

    Gibson should be ashamed, but I doubt he will be.

    fat tony (b94b02)

  4. From the NYT’s political blog:

    She appeared extremely rehearsed, especially when she repeated three times that she did not want to “second guess” Israel.

    And she seemed blind-sided by the question about the Bush doctrine, guessing that Mr. Gibson was asking about Mr. Bush’s “world view.” Mr. Gibson explained later that he wanted to know what she thought of his idea of “anticipatory self-defense.”

    Gibson, they found, “had an avuncular air about him.”

    steve (05d7a1)

  5. The NYT political blog should stop trafficking in Jewish stereotypes. I don’t care how badly Gibson performed, there is no call to go after him that way.

    fat tony (b94b02)

  6. Palin was right that Gibson was mis-quoting her. From redstate and others with transcripts:

    “Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God,” she exhorted the congregants. “That’s what we have to make sure that we’re praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God’s plan.”

    What she said was “to pray … for this country, that our leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God.”

    Gibson’s AP shortened version corrupts and twists the true original meaning.

    I wonder if Gibson or ABC will ever admit this?

    jim2 (03b0ae)

  7. Gibson, they found, “had an avuncular air about him.”
    .
    Now that’s funny.
    .
    Some of the people who watch, and a not insignificant fraction of them, will think he comes off as “superior” or even condescending. IOW, he’s not a “friendly uncle,” he’s more like the HS principal giving a lecture to what he sees as an inferior.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  8. Andrew Sullivan reports (you decide):

    I just read it. I’m not sure how to respond because I believe the entire last two weeks have been a farce, and ABC News is now an integral, enabling part of that farce. It’s also unfair to judge a partial interview, because Gibson has so far asked no questions about her record as governor or mayor, and none of the tough questions that a press conference would ask. Maybe that is to come. So I will reserve judgment until I’m able to watch and read the entire interview. All I have learned thus far is that a McCain administration would be prepared to go to war with Russia over Georgia and will never, ever criticize or oppose any decision made by the government of the state of Israel. And I knew that already.
    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/the-gibson-inte.html

    Sounds like Sarah Palin just batted the series. With a grand slam too.

    Oh yeah, according to Excitable Andrew, John McCain is a shameless liar too. Takes one to know one I guess.

    Joe (dcebbd)

  9. Don’t you just love the NYT? If she is well prepared to answer then she is “extremely rehearsed”, which must be a bad thing. If she needs a question clarified, she was “blind-sided”.

    Apparently the NYT’s staff has made Barach Obama the standard. One needs to stammer and grope for words to not appear “extremely” rehearsed, and stare into the distance silently as in deep reflection to cover-up-I mean indicate, that one is thinking, not trying to pull a rabbit out of a hat.

    Boy, do I wish journalists had standards of practice they were held accountable to like doctors. Why don’t you lawyer-folk work on that, a whole new income stream. 😉

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  10. I still suspect that Gibson is going to try to make up for his horrific performance in the Philadelphia debate where he had the audacity to question The One about his less than savory advisors.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  11. She said that she’s ready. That in itself puts her ahead of Biden.

    Icy Truth (0b82c2)

  12. I like Gibson and my guess is that he will acknowledge in a later interview that he was wrong about “exact words.” If not…

    Mike K (2cf494)

  13. MD,

    Journalists do have standards but, like doctors and lawyers, it’s up to the profession to enforce them.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  14. Thanks DRJ, I guess it’s the “held accountable to” part I’m looking for, like most other adults…

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  15. I think Gibson was going out of his way to come off blase, so as to not look like he was being too tough.

    Icy Truth (0b82c2)

  16. There have been several times where McCain’s answers were inaudible but it could be due to bad weather in my area that is disrupting the signal. Has anyone else had audio problems during the McCain portion of the forum?

    DRJ (7568a2)

  17. I expect the leftards to show up soon with “Did you see that?” and “Can you believe she said that?”. I think she did fine.

    Icy Truth (0b82c2)

  18. We will know when the Leftist trolls have been given their marching orders and talking points.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  19. “Are we in a Holy War?” The Muslims think so, perhaps we should take them seriously.

    dchamil (44dca7)

  20. We will know when the Leftist trolls have been given their marching orders and talking points.
    .
    Just visit their websites. They’re on game at this moment.

    cboldt (3d73dd)

  21. dchamil – It is rare to get them to admit we are in a war at all. Admitting that the other side views it as a holy war is simply too much to hope for.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  22. cboldt – They are still staging.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  23. You can put makeup and lipstick on an pig,
    but Charlie Gibson is still an pig.

    Perfect Sense (9d1b08)

  24. I thought she did fine.

    I was worried at first that she looked a little nervous and fidgety from that horrid side angle they were using for the online excerpts, but when they switched to the full-face angle for broadcast, I thought she just looked engaged.

    She’s awesome. The left will continue wetting the bed . . . and she will continue being awesome.

    Maltpointer (703053)

  25. firedoglake, otherwise known as manbearpig is completely unglued.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  26. Boy, do I wish journalists had standards of practice they were held accountable to like doctors. Why don’t you lawyer-folk work on that, a whole new income stream.

    In Illinois, no medical malpractice suit can proceed without a sworn affidavit, by a doctor in the same specialty, saying that there was malpractice, filed along with the complaint. Think we can get a major network anchor to criticize another one? 😉

    nk (d681ef)

  27. The comments here and around the internet about the Gibson-Paln questioning demonstrate anew how people can view the same event and see it totally differently. To me, for instance, the idea espoused by some that Palin had never heard of the “Bush Doctrine” and whiffed the answer is nuts. The way I saw it was that the Bush Doctrine question immediately raised her antennae and she was not about to wade into a wild untamed jungle without a clearer path. The Bush Doctrine means different things to different people depending on the circumstances and their own biases. Her simply asking for clarification and /or some context from her questioner Gibson, who had lobbed a very broad inquiry is something anyone who has ever been trained in media would have definitely done–and I am glad she did.

    elizabeth (c92f79)

  28. I’ve updated the post (Update 2) with a link to Tom Maguire.

    DRJ (7568a2)

  29. So she said she didn’t know if the Iraq war was part of “god’s plan” but she was happy about her son’s choice to go over there and fight because he was “serving something greater than self” and “not choosing a real easy path where he can be more comfortable and certainly safer.”

    Can’t you say the same thing about every suicide bomber out there, every terrorist who picks up a rifle and goes out to risk his life fighting a military that’s a hundred years ahead of his own side, and has a hundred times the firepower?

    In fact, wouldn’t America be a lot better off if more muslims actually started raising questions about the insanity of throwing yourself unquestioningly into battle in support of what must be presumed to be “god’s plan”? Perhaps convincing some of these idiot terrorists to stop blowing themselves )and other people) up in support of their cause?

    What’s wrong with the terrorists is they are blindly following an ideology that refuses to consider any opposing points of view as being anything but “evil.” If you consider taking an absolutist (i.e. non-moral relativist) position, and defending it to the death, than terrorists are the most noble creatures on earth.

    And yet Palin’s appeal to the neocons, I’m sure, was increased when she talked about how “you can’t even blink” in this war we’re fighting if you want victory. You have to have absolute confidence that you are right, at all times, and anything else is navel-gazing.

    The neocon right has so much in common with the terrorists. These two sides of the same coin are co-enablers. They just can’t see it.

    Phil (3b1633)

  30. Comparing our soldiers to suicide bombers.

    Guess I was wrong when I thought you could not go any lower Phil.

    You are slime.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  31. 29~

    They just can’t see it.

    Pull your head out of your navel.

    One group has world conquest, the bloodier the better, as a goal; and the other group would prefer to be left alone.

    I don’t see a whole lot in common there.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  32. EW1(SG), that ain’t his navel.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  33. Need I remind everyone that Phil is the one that said we just want to kill, torture, jail, or oppress minorities?

    JD (6a8c0a)

  34. Yahoo (Reuters)

    “Palin leaves open option of war with Russia”

    Nuance

    Racists

    JD (6a8c0a)

  35. JD, like I said, that ain’t his navel.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  36. Comparing our soldiers to suicide bombers.

    SPQR, who’s the true evil, the suicide bombers, or the ones who convince the suicide bombers that they’re blowing themselves up for God?

    You can’t possibly believe that just because someone kills civilians who are helpless, they are evil. If you do, then the guys who dropped the atomic bombs on Japan are the most evil humans of all time. But oops, they were on our side.

    Suicide bombers have allowed themselves to be mislead into doing evil things, by leaders who are spreading evil. But how did the suicide bombers get misled? By being loyal, by refusing to question, by taking a stand and fighting for what they were told was right. In other words, by being soldiers.

    Now, that doesn’t mean I think our soldiers are evil. They’re being good soldiers. But it boggles my mind when I’m told I’m dishonoring our soldiers by questioning their leaders’ motives. Our soldiers can’t question their leaders’ motives. If we civilians don’t do it, who will?

    Phil (3b1633)

  37. I recommend not to feed trolls.

    jim2 (03b0ae)

  38. You can’t possibly believe that just because someone kills civilians who are helpless, they are evil

    Actually, it is quite possible to belive that people that murder innocent civilians, on purpose, are evil.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  39. Tar and feathers went out of style about a century or two too soon.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  40. Uh-oh gang, Phil’s on to us.
    The nerve of some people to not bow to the a priori superiority of relativistic moral thinking. My goodness, when you don’t have to think of anything being evil, (except of course, people who disagree with you and think there is evil), life gets so much simpler. Why, it is no longer a problem how close of ties Obama has with Bill Ayers or any other terrorist, domestic or otherwise. Wait a second, are we even allowed to call them “terrorists” anymore? How about “Physically forceful dissenters”? Of course, DA’s like Patrick, who think they have the right to enforce someone’s standards on someone else, will be looking for a job.

    PS to nk (old buddy)-
    How about we get together a group to start a news agency in Illinois?
    That affidavit thing you have there in Illinois, never happen in Philadelphia.
    Freedom to litigate unhindered is guaranteed in the city charter.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  41. Actually, it is quite possible to belive that people that murder innocent civilians, on purpose, are evil.

    So do you believe that the American soldiers who knowingly dropped the atom bomb, knowing there were hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings below them, were evil?

    If you don’t,then you don’t “believe that just because someone kills civilians who are helpless, they are evil.” That’s what I actually said. Don’t distort it.

    Phil (3b1633)

  42. Phil, do you think the Enola Gay operators were evil?

    You can’t demand answers of us if you aren’t willing to be intellectually honest here. Do you think they are, or do you think they aren’t?

    Juan (2388f1)

  43. If Georgia were to join NATO, then it would be our responsibilty under the treaty to defend Georgia if Russia were to attack. It is a treaty obligation, Period.
    I have never heard of the “Bush Doctrine” until tonight. I have heard Bush’s statements, but never refered to as a “Doctrine”. Could you define it before tonight?

    lynndh (66e68f)

  44. Juan, no I don’t think the Enola Gay operators were evil, at least I have no evidence to indicate they are. Truman, and his “two atom bombs are better than one” strategy . . . that I feel differently about.

    Phil (3b1633)

  45. #41

    Suicide bombers deliberately target civilians. The more civilians they kill the better from their perspective.

    US military targets enemy military and other targets within the laws of war. We do cause civilian deaths as a result of lawful acts of war. Cities are legitimate targets if they contain military installations. During WWII we dropped leaflets informing civilians that their cities were going to be bombed.

    Our enemies in WWII had the option to declare any or all of their cities Open Cities, leaving them undefended and removing all military forces as the French did with Paris in 1940.

    Stu707 (7fb2e7)

  46. Phil likes to frame his debates in such a manner whereas he gets to determine who is evil. Attacking innocent men, women, and children intentionally – not evil. I am comfortable to say that it is evil.

    Phil – How many more years and millions of people would have been killed had we not dropped the bombs? That cannot play into your calculus, can it?

    JD (6a8c0a)

  47. Phil – How many more years and millions of people would have been killed had we not dropped the bombs? That cannot play into your calculus, can it?

    You don’t think the terrorists believe that by sacrificing some innocent civilians who choose to live in an evil, decadent, western society, they can scare mankind into realizing that Allah is the one true God, and bring balance back to the world?

    And maybe they can, who knows — after all, Palin clearly wants God to once again be pro-war, and a lot of Americans are supporting her. Maybe we’re more receptive to the terrorists’ message than we realize.

    Phil (3b1633)

  48. Phil, you’ve talked yourself into justifying evil. And you don’t even realize it.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  49. Sure, I’M the one who’s justifying evil. I’m not the one who’s cheering a leader who wants her God to support her war.

    Phil (3b1633)

  50. I’d love to hear Palin pray for God to find a way that not one more person would be killed over who’s religion is right — no more deaths, not soldiers, not civilians, not terrorists, not anyone. If that actually happened I would vote for McCain, seriously, just for the gesture. But it won’t, because they’re pandering to the voters who WANT more people to die.

    Phil (3b1633)

  51. 47~

    they can scare mankind into realizing that Allah is the one true God, and bring balance back to the world?

    That isn’t their goal.

    Their goal is, at a minimum, to enslave you. If you happen to belong to any of a number of groups that they deem more offensive to their sensibilities, then their goal is to exterminate you. And your family, your descendants, and the memory of your ancestors.

    Balance.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  52. 49~

    Sure, I’M the one who’s justifying evil.

    Exactly.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  53. 50~

    If that actually happened I would vote for McCain, seriously, just for the gesture.

    No, you wouldn’t. Because that is exactly what her prayer is for: but she sees what you will not. That there is evil, and it cannot be satiated by pandering to it, nor vanquished with kind words.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  54. because they’re pandering to the voters who WANT more people to die.

    I love it when Phil is honest, and just lets his hatred flow.

    THE STREETS SHALL FLOW WITH THE BLOOD OF THE NON BELEVERS !!!!!!!!!!!

    JD (6a8c0a)

  55. Their goal is, at a minimum, to enslave you. If you happen to belong to any of a number of groups that they deem more offensive to their sensibilities, then their goal is to exterminate you. And your family, your descendants, and the memory of your ancestors.

    Wow, that would make them almost as reasonable as the Christians who settled the Americas (and owned slaves for centuries, and exterminated heathen native races who wouldn’t convert to Christianity).

    Slavery and extermination of other religious traditions is what America, as a Christian nation, is built on. And we can’t somehow find common ground and compromise with Islamic nations because … why?

    Phil (3b1633)

  56. Because that is exactly what her prayer is for: but she sees what you will not. That there is evil, and it cannot be satiated by pandering to it, nor vanquished with kind words.

    Yeah, well, see post 55 for my response to this “they are evil and we are good” position.

    Phil (3b1633)

  57. They are evil and we are good.

    Mr. Gibson would say this is an exact quote, Phil.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  58. Phil –

    So she said she didn’t know if the Iraq war was part of “god’s plan” but she was happy about her son’s choice to go over there and fight because he was “serving something greater than self” and “not choosing a real easy path where he can be more comfortable and certainly safer.”
    — That “something” would be the population of America and the security of the land they inhabit; and YEAH, you can interpret the ‘comfortable and safer’ part to be both an expression of personal pride (as well as showing respect for Biden’s son), and a dig at anti-military people.

    Can’t you say the same thing about every suicide bomber out there, every terrorist who picks up a rifle and goes out to risk his life fighting a military that’s a hundred years ahead of his own side, and has a hundred times the firepower?
    — There’s a big difference between “serving something greater than self” in order to protect innocent people, and killing innocent people in the pursuit of a self-serving purpose.

    In fact, wouldn’t America be a lot better off if more muslims [sic] actually started raising questions about the insanity of throwing yourself unquestioningly into battle in support of what must be presumed to be “god’s plan”?
    — Yes. They should do that.

    Perhaps convincing some of these idiot terrorists to stop blowing themselves )and other people) up in support of their cause?
    Or they could just go out into the middle of nowhere and blow themselves up without collateral damage. Whatever floats their boat.

    What’s wrong with the terrorists is they are blindly following an ideology that refuses to consider any opposing points of view as being anything but “evil.” If you consider taking an absolutist (i.e. non-moral relativist) position, and defending it to the death, than terrorists are the most noble creatures on earth.
    — Except that, their beliefs to the contrary, they are the ones whose point of view is evil. There is nothing at all “noble” in being single-minded but wrong.

    And yet Palin’s appeal to the neocons, I’m sure, was increased when she talked about how “you can’t even blink” in this war we’re fighting if you want victory. You have to have absolute confidence that you are right, at all times, and anything else is navel-gazing.
    — What you have to have is absolute determination to succeed.

    The neocon right has so much in common with the terrorists. These two sides of the same coin are co-enablers. They just can’t see it.
    — Says the worshipper at the altar of Bill Maher. They’re two sides of the same coin, like the one used by Two-Face. This whole tack you’re taking is ridiculous. YES, opponents in a military conflict are going to appear similar in many ways. But then there’s that key difference: one side has no compunction whatsoever about killing innocents — in fact it’s one of their main tactics; the other side makes reasonable efforts to avoid killing innocents. It’s a slightly important distinction.

    SPQR, who’s the true evil, the suicide bombers, or the ones who convince the suicide bombers that they’re blowing themselves up for God?
    — What’s the point of this question? To imply that American military commanders are evil? or worse, equally evil in comparison to terrorist leaders?

    You can’t possibly believe that just because someone kills civilians who are helpless, they are evil. If you do, then the guys who dropped the atomic bombs on Japan are the most evil humans of all time. But oops, they were on our side.
    — Isn’t it amazing how “moral equivalence” usually leads to a simplistic-to-the-point-of-meaninglessness conclusion? Japanese civilians were involved en masse in the manufacture of the country’s war machine.

    Suicide bombers have allowed themselves to be mislead into doing evil things, by leaders who are spreading evil. But how did the suicide bombers get misled? By being loyal, by refusing to question, by taking a stand and fighting for what they were told was right. In other words, by being soldiers.
    — Soldiers furthering the cause of evil.

    Now, that doesn’t mean I think our soldiers are evil. They’re being good soldiers. But it boggles my mind when I’m told I’m dishonoring our soldiers by questioning their leaders’ motives. Our soldiers can’t question their leaders’ motives. If we civilians don’t do it, who will?
    — Who says you can’t question the motives of the leaders? Go right ahead. If you come to the conclusion that their motives are wrong, we will have a disagreement. If you come to the conclusion that their motives, or their actions — or they personally — are “evil”, you should then count on being hit by a shit-storm of rebuttal.

    So do you believe that the American soldiers who knowingly dropped the atom bomb, knowing there were hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings below them, were evil?
    — NO. They were doing something that, although it cost a tremendous number of lives, quite possible saved many more in the long run, by eliminating the need for an American ground assault on the Japanese mainland.

    Icy Truth (4d1249)

  59. 55~

    And we can’t somehow find common ground and compromise with Islamic nations because … why?

    Because they are not the least bit interested. And have been saying so quite explicitly for the last millenium and some centuries.

    In the meantime, Western Civilization has evolved to the point where abjuration of slavery is a cultural norm, including amongst those Christians that you keep harping on about. And the “heathen native races” hadn’t given up slavery and slaughter of the other heathens that they could get their hands on yet when European settlers first arrived.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  60. Because we just wants to kill/jail/torture/oppress us some minorities, women, children, and old people, right?

    JD (6a8c0a)

  61. Wow Phil, does it hurt your brain to think like that? All those knots and twists I mean to get essentially nowhere I mean?

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  62. There is nothing at all “noble” in being single-minded but wrong.

    That’s a wonderful paradox, isn’t it? Here I am not being single-minded, but because I happen to be on the “right” side, I’m just wasting my time — if only I were a noble, single-minded, neocon like Sarah! Never blink!

    And yet if I’d had the bad luck to be born in Iran or somewhere that I’d be around the “wrong” people, my single-mindedness wouldn’t be “noble” at all. Because I’d be “wrong.” Great.

    Phil (3b1633)

  63. 56~

    Yeah, well, see post 55 for my response to this “they are evil and we are good” position.

    Post 55 is not a response, it’s a non sequitur brought about by a lack of any moral clarity on your part.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  64. In the meantime, Western Civilization has evolved to the point where abjuration of slavery is a cultural norm.

    Oh come on — fifty years ago we had “white” and “colored” sections in our restaurants and buses and schools. We haven’t “evolved.” We’ve recognized the error of our ways. And so can Islamic people.

    Phil (3b1633)

  65. 63~

    Here I am not being single-minded, but because I happen to be on the “right” side, I’m just wasting my time

    What a very strange view you have of yourself: you are extremely single-minded. As to being on the “right” side, you certainly haven’t demonstrated that here, all you have demonstrated is a willingness to accept murder and mayhem because someone asserts it as a cultural heritage.

    You’re not wasting your time, you are wasting your life.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  66. A few more interviews like that and she may end up where Dan Quayle did… which I’m pretty sure was an office in the White House.

    Mostly because swing voters ultimately don’t vote based on a VP pick, and certainly not based on a single interview on a single network. Conservatives will still love her, Libs will will still hater, same as before. Most mushy middle people won’t have seen it or will have moved on well before Nov.

    In the meantime, let’s burn a few more news cycles on Palin and the relative experience of Obama, please. Because that’s been workin’ really well for Camp Obama.

    Karl (1b4668)

  67. They were doing something that, although it cost a tremendous number of lives, quite possible saved many more in the long run, by eliminating the need for an American ground assault on the Japanese mainland.

    So is that the standard for unilaterally deciding that hundreds of thousands of old people, women, and children should die excruciatingly painful deaths? That “quite possibly” it would save the lives of some of our soldiers?

    You’re right — suicide bombers, Evil, Americans good.

    Phil (3b1633)

  68. All you have demonstrated is a willingness to accept murder and mayhem because someone asserts it as a cultural heritage.

    I assume you’re talking about the U.S., and the way we killed most of the indiginous people here before us, and enslaved millions of Africans? You’re right, I do accept that.

    Phil (3b1633)

  69. 64~

    We haven’t “evolved.” We’ve recognized the error of our ways.

    That isn’t an evolvement? Yes, we have recognized the error of our ways, and changed.

    And so can Islamic people.

    Nobody is saying that the people can’t, although they will be unable to as a group until the ideology that currently drives them is defeated.

    Someone, I’ve forgotten who, postulated that just as we have people that display genius in mathematics or the arts, we occasionally find someone that is, in the circumstance, a moral genius. And in fact, we do find them even coming from Islamic countries where you would expect their total immersion in a twisted ideology to twist them as well.

    But they can, and do, recognize evil when they see it. So yes, there is always a chance that progress can be made. But that doesn’t mean that one can stand idly by while those who lack that genius are firing up the ovens again.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  70. You’re right — suicide bombers, Evil, Americans good.

    Good on ya’. That didn’t hurt too much, did it?

    Do these asshats even know what a neocon is, or is neocon just some perjorative for people that they do not agree with?

    JD (6a8c0a)

  71. I assume you’re talking about the U.S., and the way we killed most of the indiginous people here before us, and enslaved millions of Africans? You’re right, I do accept that.

    Folks – I remind you, again, that Phil is the one that told us that we just want to kill/jail/torture/oppress minorities. Any assumption of good faith on his part is misplaced.

    It is racist to want to enforce immigration laws.

    Phil is one of the exact reasons why I started calling people racists.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  72. 68~ Nice try, but I am unimpressed by your wriggling about like a worm on a fish hook.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  73. Do these asshats even know what a neocon is, or is neocon just some perjorative for people that they do not agree with?

    “Neocon” to me is shorthand for anyone who thinks that a “victory” is something that, in and of itself, justifies continuing to fight a war.

    Phil (3b1633)

  74. Words mean whatever they wish them to mean.

    As a wise person once said, about people like Phil, they must have been given dictionaries with all of the words, but no definitions, and have created their own definitions of the words to suit their chosen narrative.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  75. Wow, that would make them almost as reasonable as the Christians who settled the Americas (and owned slaves for centuries, and exterminated heathen native races who wouldn’t convert to Christianity).

    Native tribes were busy making war on each other, enslaving each other, and seizing each other’s territory long before Christians arrived in the Americas.

    Slavery and extermination of other religious traditions is what America, as a Christian nation, is built on.

    There was slavery in America. The Christian record with respect to slavery is mixed. No sooner had the first slave been landed in America than the abolitionist movement, largely made up of Christians, arose to oppose it. We fought a bloody civil war to end it. Christian Britain outlawed slavery in 1807. “Ultimately, it took nearly 60 years of untiring diplomacy and naval patrolling to finally abolish the Atlantic slave trade.

    Slavery existed at the time in Africa and still exists to this day.African slaves are now owned by other Africans and Muslims.

    And we can’t somehow find common ground and compromise with Islamic nations because … why?

    If by common ground you mean normal international relations we have found common ground with most Islamic nations. Iran and Syria are notable exceptions. We are engaged in war with Islamic extremists who are also at odds with most Islamic states.

    Stu707 (7fb2e7)

  76. Phil –

    Truman, and his “two atom bombs are better than one” strategy . . . that I feel differently about.
    — Problem there, of course, was the Japanese reaction to the first bomb: “Well, they sure aren’t ever going to do that again.”

    You don’t think the terrorists believe that by sacrificing some innocent civilians who choose to live in an evil, decadent, western society, they can scare mankind into realizing that Allah is the one true God, and bring balance back to the world?
    — Now this is impressive! A run-on sentence in the form of a rhetorical question. Good show!

    And maybe they can, who knows — after all, Palin clearly wants God to once again be pro-war, and a lot of Americans are supporting her. Maybe we’re more receptive to the terrorists’ message than we realize.
    — Pure stupidity, in addition to containing an outright lie. Palin doesn’t “want” God to be pro-war.

    I’d love to hear Palin pray for God to find a way that not one more person would be killed over who’s religion is right — no more deaths, not soldiers, not civilians, not terrorists, not anyone. If that actually happened I would vote for McCain, seriously, just for the gesture.
    — So if she goes on The Tonight Show and sings John Lennon’s “Imagine” you’ll vote for her? What about if Obama goes on Jimmy Kimmel and does “Bridge Over Troubled Water”? Should the debates take place on America’s Got Talent?

    But it won’t, because they’re pandering to the voters who WANT more people to die.
    — Only the bad evil murdering people.

    Wow, that would make them almost as reasonable as the Christians who settled the Americas (and owned slaves for centuries, and exterminated heathen native races who wouldn’t convert to Christianity).
    — Yes, yes. We’re all bad. Moral equivalence . . . we’re just as bad as they are; we’re all ‘the pot calling the kettle black,’ etc. and on and on. . . .

    Slavery and extermination of other religious traditions is what America, as a Christian nation, is built on. And we can’t somehow find common ground and compromise with Islamic nations because … why?
    — Probably because we don’t engage in vague generalities that are essentially meaningless. Do you think we don’t compromise with Saudi Arabia? or Egypt? or LEBANON?

    Icy Truth (2dbd61)

  77. Neocon” to me is shorthand for anyone who thinks that a “victory” is something that, in and of itself, justifies continuing to fight a war.

    You do not wish to win the war on poverty?

    highpockets (9c7278)

  78. “We’ve recognized the error of our ways. And so can Islamic people.”

    Phil – You’re wasting time. Get over there and start convincing.

    daleyrocks (d9ec17)

  79. Stu707, I don’t disagree with much of your position, except that I don’t think we’re engaged in a “war.” I think we’re chasing our own tail trying to fight the “extremists” by invading whole countries. The collateral damage appears to be creating at least as many, if not more “extremists” as the ones we eliminate.

    But who knows, maybe we can get ’em all. It’s only been seven years so far.

    Phil (3b1633)

  80. You do not wish to win the war on poverty?

    Hell no. If there was no poverty, I’d have no motivation to go to work every day.

    Phil (3b1633)

  81. The collateral damage appears to be creating at least as many, if not more “extremists” as the ones we eliminate.

    This might be one of the most tired BS canards out there. By that was of reasoning, there should be approximately 8,938,713,385 jihadis running around today.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  82. So if she goes on The Tonight Show and sings John Lennon’s “Imagine” you’ll vote for her? What about if Obama goes on Jimmy Kimmel and does “Bridge Over Troubled Water”? Should the debates take place on America’s Got Talent?

    I know you’re being sarcastic, Icy, but there really doesn’t seem to be a place, politically, in America anymore for anyone who doesn’t want to kill all of America’s enemies. So yea, all of those things, cheesy as they are, sound better than Palin saying “pray our war is part of God’s plan.”

    I know it’s hard for you to grasp, but to me, being cheesy isn’t as offensive as killing people. Crazy, isn’t it?

    Phil (3b1633)

  83. 36~

    Now, that doesn’t mean I think our soldiers are evil. They’re being good soldiers. But it boggles my mind when I’m told I’m dishonoring our soldiers by questioning their leaders’ motives. Our soldiers can’t question their leaders’ motives. If we civilians don’t do it, who will?

    I had skipped this earlier. But this is too stupid let pass unchallenged:

    Our soldiers can’t question their leaders’ motives.

    We don’t really give a rat’s ass about motives, soldiers are only concerned with orders.

    You see, unlike a suicide bomber who will gladly kill innocents, a US soldier can’t be ordered to kill a noncombatant; and they know it. Which is where all of your huffing and puffing trying to float a balloon of moral equivalence falls down. Our soldiers are required to adhere to a rigorous ethical standard, which they volunteered to and knowingly uphold, and are punished when they do not.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  84. but there really doesn’t seem to be a place, politically, in America anymore for anyone who doesn’t want to kill all of America’s enemies.

    Kill, kill, kill you murdering killbots. How dare you defend yourselves?! All you want to do is kill! And torture. And jail. And enforce your laws! Racist killbots you are.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  85. EW1 – There were no facts utilized in arrivng at Phil’s position, and no amount of facts will deter him.

    JD (6a8c0a)

  86. By that was of reasoning, there should be approximately 8,938,713,385 jihadis running around today.

    Are there fewer jihadis today than in 2001? If only someone could definitively demonstrate that there are, then I would be a lot more inclined to support this “war on terror.”

    Phil (3b1633)

  87. 79~

    It’s only been seven years so far.

    No, actually its been 14 centuries.

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  88. Phil –

    That’s a wonderful paradox, isn’t it? Here I am not being single-minded, but because I happen to be on the “right” side, I’m just wasting my time — if only I were a noble, single-minded, neocon like Sarah! Never blink!
    — What’s that you said . . . ‘never think’? If you’re wasting your time it’s because you’re not on the right side.

    And yet if I’d had the bad luck to be born in Iran or somewhere that I’d be around the “wrong” people, my single-mindedness wouldn’t be “noble” at all. Because I’d be “wrong.” Great.
    — 1) Who, other than you, said that single-mindedness is a noble thing? 2) Who, other than you, said that Sarah Palin is single-minded? 3) The best thing you could possibly do is ween yourself off of moral relativism.

    Oh come on — fifty years ago we had “white” and “colored” sections in our restaurants and buses and schools. We haven’t “evolved.” We’ve recognized the error of our ways. And so can Islamic people.
    — And in the meantime we should just tolerate all of the violent destructive shit that they do?

    So is that the standard for unilaterally deciding that hundreds of thousands of old people, women, and children should die excruciatingly painful deaths? That “quite possibly” it would save the lives of some of our soldiers?
    — War is heck.

    “Neocon” to me is shorthand for anyone who thinks that a “victory” is something that, in and of itself, justifies continuing to fight a war.
    — Interesting. So Churchill, FDR, and Stalin were all Neocons. Who knew?

    Icy Truth (fb9343)

  89. You see, unlike a suicide bomber who will gladly kill innocents, a US soldier can’t be ordered to kill a noncombatant; and they know it.

    EW1(SG), relax. You’re misinterpreting my comment about soldiers not being able to question motives I’m not saying they can’t question a superior who says “go over there and shoot those kids.”

    Soldiers don’t get to say “I’m not going to go to Iraq, because I think that the whole WMD claim is a ploy to get us to take over a country that Bush and Cheney have wanted to invade since the mid-90s to stabilize the political situation and make things easier for their oil company pals.”

    And when I raise the same suspicion, neocons tell me “how dare you insult our brave soldiers who are over there fighting!” That’s all I’m saying.

    Phil (3b1633)

  90. Icy, my whole complaint about Palin is that she’s single-minded. Her “never blink” comment was an example of that. She can’t consider the possibility that she’s wrong about war.

    Anyway, I’ve gotta turn in for the night. Once again, my reasoning, so persuasive to me, has failed to convince you. Ah well . . . I’ll have to re-examine why I’m so utterly unpersuaded by your position. Enjoy being “good” and fighting “evil.” I’ll chat with ya later.

    Phil (3b1633)

  91. Are there fewer jihadis today than in 2001?

    Yes.

    Soldiers don’t get to say “I’m not going to go to Iraq, because I think that the whole WMD claim is a ploy to get us to take over a country that Bush and Cheney have wanted to invade since the mid-90s to stabilize the political situation and make things easier for their oil company pals.”

    Really? Really!

    JD (6a8c0a)

  92. 89~

    Soldiers don’t get to say “I’m not going to go to Iraq, because I think that the whole WMD claim is a ploy to get us to take over a country that Bush and Cheney have wanted to invade since the mid-90s to stabilize the political situation and make things easier for their oil company pals.”

    Of course they can.

    And some do.

    And when they break a sworn oath, they face the consequences.

    I do not know what is so difficult to understand about that.

    90~

    Once again, my reasoning, so persuasive to me, has failed to convince you.

    You might want to try practicing on a different audience than just “Me, Myself and I.”

    EW1(SG) (993079)

  93. Phil –

    But who knows, maybe we can get ‘em all. It’s only been seven years so far.
    — The goal is to get enough of them so that the others pick up their marbles and go home.

    I know you’re being sarcastic, Icy, but there really doesn’t seem to be a place, politically, in America anymore for anyone who doesn’t want to kill all of America’s enemies.
    — It isn’t about “wanting” to kill America’s enemies; it’s about being ready willing and able, if necessary, to do what sometimes has to be done. But you’re correct in that pacifism and isolationism simply will not fly, because it flies in the face of the threats that face us.

    I know it’s hard for you to grasp, but to me, being cheesy isn’t as offensive as killing people. Crazy, isn’t it?
    — And by “cheesy” you mean your “not one more person would be killed over who’s religion is right” Utopian fantasy? Hey! We all can hope and dream about that state of affairs coming to pass; however, the way to deal with the real world is you hope for the best while simultaneously preparing for the worst.

    Are there fewer jihadis today than in 2001? If only someone could definitively demonstrate that there are, then I would be a lot more inclined to support this “war on terror.”
    — We should sit back and allow their numbers to grow unabated? Oh, I see. You’re of the Pat Buchanan “appeasement works” school of non-intervention. As long as we don’t tease the snake, it won’t strike? Yeah, that philosophy really worked well with the Soviet Bear.

    Icy Truth (8174b2)

  94. . . . I don’t think we’re engaged in a “war.” I think we’re chasing our own tail trying to fight the “extremists” by invading whole countries. The collateral damage appears to be creating at least as many, if not more “extremists” as the ones we eliminate.

    Bin laden declared war on the United States in August of 1966. He followed up his declaration by bombing our embassies in E. Africa, the first World Trade Center Bombing, the suicide boat attack upon the USS Cole, and on 9-11-2001 with the second World Trade Center bombing. If these are not acts of war against us by Islamic extremists than what would you call them?

    I don’t see any other way to get at the people who are making war against us other than to go after them where they are.

    We don’t have an exact count of the number of jihadis in the world. It seems to me that our military actions in Iraq have reduced, not increased the number of Al Qaeda terrorists.

    Stu707 (7fb2e7)

  95. John Toland, in “The Rising Sun”, relates that the Japanese Army (?) reaction to the first A-bomb was that it was a trick. The generals couldn’t imagine that the reports filtering back to Tokyo were accurate and went to great lengths to justify continuing the fight. Only the second bomb brought them around.

    BTW, Toland was extremely sumpathetic to the Japanese people in his works.

    fat tony (b94b02)

  96. Phil –

    Soldiers don’t get to say “I’m not going to go to Iraq, because I think that the whole WMD claim is a ploy to get us to take over a country that Bush and Cheney have wanted to invade since the mid-90s to stabilize the political situation and make things easier for their oil company pals.”
    — That’s right. There’s a “no run-on sentence” clause in the enlistment contract; it’s right next to the part that says “if you’re called to war, you go“.

    Icy, my whole complaint about Palin is that she’s single-minded. Her “never blink” comment was an example of that. She can’t consider the possibility that she’s wrong about war.
    — That’s a creative interpretation. Palin: “In order to stop Islamic extremists, those terrorists who would seek to destroy America and our allies, we must do whatever it takes; and we must not blink, Charlie, in making those tough decisions of where we go, and even who we target.” It’s about being prepared to do what sometimes has to be done.

    Once again, my reasoning, so persuasive to me, has failed to convince you. Ah well . . . I’ll have to re-examine why I’m so utterly unpersuaded by your position. Enjoy being “good” and fighting “evil.” I’ll chat with ya later.
    — You answered your own query. Because you look down on the terms “good” and “evil” as being unsophisticated, because you’ve been sold this liberal wishy-washy “moral relativism” bill of goods, because you have expressed an isolationist viewpoint . . . there is no chance of changing my mind, and I’m sure that the reverse is true. But that isn’t the point really. We express our differing opinions; and if we take something away from what the other has said, it isn’t required that a declaration of “You have shown me the light” be made. Just silently vote the right way and everything will be fine.

    Icy Truth (ef009a)

  97. #94
    That should be August of 1996. Sorry.

    Stu707 (7fb2e7)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.5023 secs.