In their own words

Discussion in 'Politics' started by TGregg, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. TGregg


    And here's another mainstream liberal (Kurt Vonnegut) telling everybody how the terrorist suicide bombers are great heroes:

    ONE of the greatest living US writers has praised terrorists as “very brave people” and used drug culture slang to describe the “amazing high” suicide bombers must feel before blowing themselves up.

    Kurt Vonnegut, author of the 1969 anti-war classic Slaughterhouse Five, made the provocative remarks during an interview in New York for his new book, Man Without a Country, a collection of writings critical of US President George W. Bush. Vonnegut, 83, has been a strong opponent of Mr Bush and the US-led war in Iraq, but until now has stopped short of defending terrorism.

    But in discussing his views with The Weekend Australian, Vonnegut said it was “sweet and honourable” to die for what you believe in, and rejected the idea that terrorists were motivated by twisted religious beliefs.

    “They are dying for their own self-respect,” he said. “It’s a terrible thing to deprive someone of their self-respect. It’s like your culture is nothing, your race is nothing, you’re nothing.”

    Asked if he thought of terrorists as soldiers, Vonnegut, a decorated World War II veteran, said: “I regard them as very brave people, yes.”

    He equated the actions of suicide bombers with US president Harry Truman’s 1945 decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. On the Iraq war, he said: “What George Bush and his gang did not realise was that people fight back.”

    Vonnegut suggested suicide bombers must feel an “amazing high”. He said: “You would know death is going to be painless, so the anticipation - it must be an amazing high.”,5744,17293730^601,00.html

    Yes it is true, the left does indeed have compassion and pride. Unfortunately it's in the terrorists.
    #51     Nov 19, 2005
  2. The "amazing high" part is apparently true...

    I've read some reports - unsubstantiated - that autopsies on the dead Muz show high levels of opiate use.

    I wonder how THAT squares with Islam?
    #52     Nov 19, 2005
  3. TGregg


    #53     Nov 22, 2005
  4. TGregg


    Mainstream libs ponder about the US angering extraterrestrials.
    #54     Nov 27, 2005
  5. TGregg


    Ramsey Clark (hero of the left, and Saddam defender) just lost a case trying to stop a judgement against the PLO for killing innocent people from being enforced. As usual, the left is trying their best to keep terrorists well supplied. Anybody that wants to kill Jewish woman and children is their bosom buddy.

    Meanwhile, nobody was even slightly surprised to learn that yet another Palosimian Charity was caught supporting terrorists.

    #55     Nov 28, 2005
  6. Pushing bad news
    Nov 28, 2005
    by John Leo

    In a burst of anti-war triumphalism, Harold Meyerson of the Washington Post wrote last week that President Bush and the Bushies have run out of “elitists whom they can demonize.” Hmm. That is a problem. Where will we find the punching bags of tomorrow? Wait! I have it. How about the elite news media? Will they do?

    Meyerson celebrated Cindy Sheehan “whose down the line dovishness is more than offset by her standing as the mother of,” etc. etc. Actually, Sheehan was more or less a summer-long anti-Bush media construct, kept aloft by withholding the news that she regards “insurgents” in Iraq as “freedom fighters,” hates her country (America “is not worth dying for”) and thinks Lynne Stewart, the lawyer convicted of aiding terrorists, is a real-life Atticus Finch, the heroic attorney of “To Kill a Mockingbird.” She’s a loony Michael Moore clone, protected by the media’s “bereaved mom” image.

    The major papers pulled all of our string with stories, mostly played big on page one, about the 2000th American soldier killed in Iraq. Every military death is a tragedy, but more than 58,000 died in Vietnam and almost 7,000 in a single World War II battle, Iwo Jima, all without front-page anti-war articles posing as compassionate news stories. The modern front-page editorial is easy to find these days. On November 21, the NY Times felt it had to run FOUR, page one photos of Bush trying to exit a Beijing meeting though a locked door. What a doofus! First he doesn’t listen to us, now he doesn’t even know how to leave a room!

    President Bush deserves heavy blame for his current predicament, but it is impossible to watch network news or read the elite newspapers and not conclude that anti-Bush and anti-war reporters are pushing things along. Reporters keep citing the switcheroo argument (that Bush premised the Iraq invasion on WMDs, then switched to other reasons when those weapons weren’t found) without mentioning that Bush and the administration cited other reasons many times. The war resolution that all those Democrats voted on (and apparently forgot) mentioned seven or eight strong reasons.

    The media are fond of citing Condoleeza Rice’s “mushroom cloud” statement as an example of unwarranted hype about non-existent WMDs. Her full sentence, however, was a reasonable one: “There will always be some uncertainty about how quickly (Saddam) can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

    Another favorite press chestnut is Vice President Cheney’s statement on Meet the Press that Iraq has reconstituted nuclear weapons. Yes, he said that, but several other times on that program he talked more carefully about the possibility of Iraq reconstituting such weapons. Whether that one “reconstituted” was a verbal slip, I can’t say. But he retracted it on another edition of Meet the Press (alas, six months later). The retraction usually goes unmentioned.

    When President Bush belatedly y responded to his critics, the Washington Post ran the story as “Bush Spars with Critics of the War; Exchanges with Democrats Take Campaign-Style Tone.” The Power Line blog got it right: “a non-partisan paper would headline the story of Bush's defense of the integrity of his administration by saying something like "Bush responds to critics’”…But the Washington Post isn’t non-partisan…So it tries to make the president sound like he’s engaging in partisan quibbling rather than finally responding to charges which, in their strongest form, cast him as one of the great villains in American history.”

    Or take Rep. Jeanne Schmidt’s “coward” outburst about Rep. John Murtha. Her statement was well over the top. But it was followed by typical media overkill. Schmidt, who apologized immediately, was pounded for days. (‘Mean Jean’ Goes to Washington and Invites a Firestorm, said an alleged news article in the NY Times.) Meanwhile, Murtha, who few people had ever heard of, emerged as an astonishingly important congressman. His call for immediate withdrawal of troops was spun by Democrats as something more moderate and nuanced, and the media went along. The resolution for immediate withdrawal, defeated in a House vote of 403-3, was denounced by Nancy Pelosi as “a disgrace,” though the text of it was almost exactly the same as Murtha’s.

    The story was not played as a defeat for Murtha. In fact, the defeat was glossed over as somehow irrelevant, buried in some major papers beneath “uproar in the House” reports. If the vote had gone Murtha’s way, you can bet that the press corps would not have played the “uproar” angle as more important.

    Can it be that many national reporters are so afflicted by Bush hatred that they can’t let go long enough to report stories straight? Could be. Consider the entire backward-looking thrust of so much reportage, focusing sharply on what happened in 2002 and 2003, less on the stake we have in prevailing in Iraq. If we lose in Iraq, it will be the first great victory for global jihad, with tremendous consequences for the U.S. Can the media get over their obsession with Bush and focus on that?
    #56     Nov 28, 2005
  7. I don't know where else to put this. Kinda proves the saying "If you go far enough left, you reach the extreme right (and vice versa)"

    David Duke in Syria: Zionists Occupy Washington, NY and London

    White supremacist David Duke visited Syria last week to support Syrian dictator Bashar Al-Assad and the Arab state’s hostile stance toward Israel.

    Duke attended a rally, which was broadcast on Syrian state-run television, where he condemned Israel as a war-mongering country and referred to the “Zionists occupying New York.”

    “I come from the peace-loving people in America to the peace-loving people of Syria,” Duke said, adding that, “I come from the peace-loving people in America to your great peace-loving President of Syria.”

    Each of Duke’s proclamations were repeated in Arabic by a translator, at which point the camera provided an alternate angle showing a crowd of Syrians, waving cardboard flags and cheering on cue. Following Duke’s statement praising Assad, the crowd was shown chanting, “Our soul and our blood we will sacrifice for you, Bashar.”

    “It saddens my heart to tell you that part of my country is occupied by Zionists, just as part of your country, the Golan Heights, is occupied by Zionists. [They] occupy most of the American media and now control much of the American government…It is not just the West Bank of Palestine, it is not just the Golan Heights that are occupied by the Zionists, but Washington D.C. and New York and London and many other capitals of the world.”

    “Your fight for freedom is the same as our fight for freedom,” Duke proclaimed, adding that it is the Zionists who prefer war over peace, but that people around the world will tell them, “No war for Israel,” [in reference to the claim that the United States is in Iraq on Israel’s behalf-ed]. Duke tried to lead the local demonstrators in an English chant of “No war for Israel.”

    Duke, a former “Grand Wizard” in the Ku Klux Klan, was elected to the Louisiana Legislature in 1989, but failed in subsequent election bids.

    Syrian parliament member Muhammad Habash said that Duke’s visit gave Syrian’s a “new and very positive view of the average American.”
    #57     Nov 28, 2005
  8. TGregg


    You can see how the left "supports the troops" in this cartoon from Ted Rall:

    <IMG SRC=>
    #58     Nov 28, 2005
  9. TGregg


    Well. . . uhm. . . not sure how to intro this one. Apparently "psychic" Uri Geller is a major political influence in Europe:
    #59     Nov 28, 2005
  10. TGregg


    #60     Dec 3, 2005