This is an individual post from E Pluribus Unum
There's more on the main page.


What Terrorists Do (and how Karl Rove & Chris Matthews are helping)

Terrorists seek two things:

  1. Make life a living hell for those they attack.
    Anyone who lost a family member or a friend in the 9/11 attacks knows what I'm talking about. Enough said.

  2. Drive a wedge between those allied to fight back at them.
    Three words: divide and conquer. It's an ancient tactic that, today, has a new name: fouth-generation warfare.

When it comes to #2, Karl Rove, Chris Matthews et. al. are helping big-time.

If we allow these men to do this, then the terrorists have won. Period.

They've won because they will have destroyed America by destroying what we stand for: the freedom to say what we think no matter if it agrees with official government policy.

Ours is a government of the people, for the people and by the people as enshrined in the US Constitution. As such, we must always, always, always fight to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Those that tell you otherwise are simply asking you to defend George W. Bush.

Comments

I would say that the terrorists have already won because our leaders, both mass media and political, have helped them in exacly the manner you say, as well as by the Iraq war.

Very nicely stated.

Not that I necessarily disagree with you but aren't Rove, Matthews and Scarborough also exercising their right to free speech?

If Michael Moore shouldn't be chastised, why is okay to chastise the ones that disagree with him?

Really. It shouldn't be this hard.

Mathews can "chastise” Michael Moore all day long. He doesn’t have to say that Moore is “like” bin Laden.

To say that Mathews and the Republicans are giving comfort to the enemy by their actions is exactly like the right’s criticism of the left’s war protestations. And just as valid

Rose:

I'm ashamed of you.

Your family fled a communist country where a citizen could not criticize the government without fearing for his safety and welfare.

That's not the way we do things here in America.

P.S. And save the "Tokyo Rose" crap for someone who will believe it. Jack Murtha suffered the same fate at the hands of this White House as Moore, being likened to terrorists when he spoke up against the war. As did John Kerry and anyone in the Democratic party who sought to unseat George W. Bush at the ballot box.

Shep is right: it shouldn't have to be this hard to explain the truth to you -- you're brighter than this.

First of all, you both are total hypocrites.

You want to defend Michael Moore, that is your right. Matthews wants to say Moore is like Bin Laden, that is his right. You don't like it, that is your right.

Your family fled a communist country where a citizen could not criticize the government without fearing for his safety and welfare.

Right. What's your point? Is Michael Moore fearing for his safety by criticizing the govt? No.

You, Shep, Moore and anyone else can say what they want, just the same as I, my mom, Chris Matthews, Karl Rove or anyone else can.

You don't have to agree, you can hate it all you want but dammit we are ALL FREE TO SAY WHAT WE WANT.


ALL OF US.

Not just war protesters, not just the liberals, not just the anti-govt faction, not just the "I hate Bush" club.

EVERYONE.

You're ashamed of me? Please, you are guilty of what you are complaining about.

The Tokyo Rose comment is hilarious. It is you guys, the anti-war left, that are acting in the role of Tokyo Rose.

I believe that Moore, kos, you, Shep and everyone has the exact same right to speech that I do. No more and no less.

You seem to be the one that is disagreeing.

Rose:

(paraphrasing) You can say what you want, just like Karl Rove can say what he wants.

Jeez, Rose. I was born at night, but I wasn't born last night.

Rove's comments are a shot across the bow from an administration that brooks no dissent, or else...

[P.S. Rove is a known security threat to the interests of the United States.]

Read your history more closely.

When J. Edgar Hoover wiretapped Martin Luther King, he did it to blackmail King or worse. Look it up.

When FBI agents balked at his orders, Hoover threatened their careers and livelihood. Look it up.

Nixon had his Plumbers, Liddy and Hunt, whose objective was to steal damaging information from Ellsberg's psychiatrist to blackmail him. Look it up.

And on and on into the present day...

...when Joe Wilson's wife was outed by Lewis Libby, Karl Rove, et. al. in order to get him to shut up about the truth.

Now Bush has admitted to breaking the law by engaging in warrantless wiretapping of God-knows-who for what purpose. You'll say it is to catch al-Qaeda, but that's because you believe everything Bush tells you.

As far as I'm concerned his credibility is shot. I don't watch what he says, I watch what he does. And I read history.

The writing is on the wall, Rose.

When the Bush White House sows fear, uncertainty and doubt about dissenters, when they smear their opponents with charges of treason, when they attack a Jack Murtha, when they attack a Michael Moore, when they attack a John Kerry, that is not "freedom of speech."

It is Soviet-style thuggery of the worst kind.

We don't do that in America.

The Tokyo Rose comment is hilarious.

Not as hilarious as you, going there just as I predicted you would.

Bottom line:

Bush is the Commander in Chief. He is sworn to protect the Constitution of the United States.

And/But when he divides the country by accusing his opponents of favoring our enemies, he is destroying our way of life, our system of governance, in return for the tantalizing reward of ultimate power.

Accusing a citizen like Moore or Murtha of treason is no better than yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater.

We don't do that in America.

"And/But when he divides the country by accusing his opponents of favoring our enemies, he is destroying our way of life, our system of governance, in return for the tantalizing reward of ultimate power."

You can't take away their demonization, Ara. In the absence of policies that the American people really want and other than pandering to people's greed, it's really all they have.

At the end of the day, this is another test of values; condemning the sin rather than the sinner. Again, Republicans show that they've blinded themselves to what they hold most dear - after winning, of course.

Oh, and Rose, no hypocricy here. I would condemn a similar smear by Michael Moore.

Oh, and one more thing: the real problem with the Mathew's sound-bite about Moore was that it was just so completely over-the-top in its gratuitousness. What the f*ck makes Mathews think of Moore (over, say, Pat Roberts) when he hears bin Laden. He's either a complete partisan hack or batsh*t crazy - maybe both.

Oops. Apologies to the good Senator (and Freud), I meant Pat Robertson

You want to defend Michael Moore, that is your right. Matthews wants to say Moore is like Bin Laden, that is his right. You don't like it, that is your right.

Um, except for the fact that Rove, Matthews and Scarborough are wrong.

Wrong in an empirical sense since history is written by the victors -- or the survivors.

Wrong, in your opinion. I'm sure that I could find as many people that agree with them that you find that say they are wrong.

Isn't this a great country?

Rosemary:

There is no equivalency between Moore criticizing the President and Rove attacking the Democrats.

The former is a citizen exercising his free speech rights. The latter represents the White House smearing their opponents while grabbing at unlimited government power.

Again: your family fled a communist country where citizens could not criticize the government because they feared for their well-being.

How does it feel to see it happening here, right before your eyes?

”Wrong, in your opinion. I'm sure that I could find as many people that agree with them that you find that say they are wrong.

Isn't this a great country?”

No. Not any more. Not since Republicans managed to conflate reality with their own cynical ideology in the minds of many Americans. Now it is a country in deep physical and moral crisis.

I’ve made this point before. Our two perceptions of empirical reality cannot be reconciled. One side is seriously in error in their perception and, politically, living in a world of make believe.

I think that the barometer of public policies and their effects – comparing, say eight years of the results of Democrats policies under Clinton and the years since Republicans have gained complete control over public policy – should give you a clue. But, apparently, that only works if you already have one.

To the cause of the moral crisis, Digby gets right to the point in “Limbaugh Nation”:

“If the culture is careening into a crude, dog-eat-dog corrupt 'Pottersville' it's because the greedheads and the juvenile authoritarian thugs, whether in street gangs or talk radio or K Street, have taken it over. And it is hard for liberals to counter this because our bedrock values include tolerance, free expression and personal autonomy and that enables this decadent turn in many ways. But let's make no mistake, it is only on the right that purveyors of brutal, sadistic, depraved political discourse are welcomed into the houses, offices and beds of the nation's political leadership.”

8 years of the Democrats policy under Clinton????

Dude, Clinton was great but he worked the Republicans for most of that 8 years and it was a policy that merged both sides. Clinton was not passing Dem policy, it was Republican policy that he agreed with and he just convinced you nimrods was your idea.

Seriously.


Dude, Clinton was great but he worked the Republicans for most of that 8 years and it was a policy that merged both sides.

Not like, um, today.

Clinton was not passing Dem policy, it was Republican policy that he agreed with and he just convinced you nimrods was your idea.

Rose, you're embarassing yourself. Go google "Clinton administration veto" and come back with your report.

Seriously.

No shit, sherlock. Clinton had a spine when it came to standing up to the Republicans. He vetoed the welfare bill at least twice before he finally got a bill that was more to his liking. He also went eyeball-to-eyeball with that crackpot Gingrich and shut down the government instead of caving to the Republicans' idiotic demands. Clinton won that one hands down and torched Dole the following November.

Bush, on the other hand, has not vetoed a single bill, despite claiming that the Republican Congress' spending is out of control.

"Dude, Clinton was great but he worked the Republicans for most of that 8 years and it was a policy that merged both sides."

Oh, right. The great Clinton/Gingrich alliance of the 90s. Who could forget?

Okay, look I liked Clinton too but

"Clinton won that one hands down and torched Dole the following November."

Torched? Dole should never have even gotten close. That election should have looked like the 1984 Reagan/Mondale bout. Torched isn't an appropriate word at all, he didn't even get 50% of the vote.

I spent a week sayin' "wow, I can't believe Dole did that well against Clinton"!

OTOH, you're right it was all Clinton and the Repubs had nothin to do with anything in the 90's.

Don't ask, Don't tell and DOMA are all 100% Liberal Democrat ideas. I knew you guys were homophobes...

”OTOH, you're right it was all Clinton and the Repubs had nothin to do with anything in the 90's.”,

As I’ve said, in the minority Republicans make a fine check against regulatory overreach by liberals. Actually turning government over to industry is a completely different matter. Mussolini (another fan of executive power) had a term for that and, whether you know it or not, that’s what you are helping to make happen.

If this is allowed to continue and if they become aware of what took place, your children will not thank you for it.

Well put.

Rose -- do you know what Mussolini called it, i.e., "turning government over to industry?"

Do you know what name that went by?

Just for the record, Osama also sounds like an over the top Ann Coulter/James Dobson:

"Who can forget your President Clinton's immoral acts committed in the official Oval office? After that you did not even bring him to account, other than that he 'made a mistake', after which everything passed with no punishment. Is there a worse kind of event for which your name will go down in history and remembered by nations?"
Will Matthews and Scarborough make the connection?

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html

There's more:

"We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication [and] homosexuality..."
The fact is, Osama's moral yardstick is almost identical to the Republicans.

So what?


Post a comment

(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.)

Full Feed RSS

Creative Commons LicenseThis weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.2