Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
On Wingnuts (Updated)
I read Tom Friedman's column today, and though I usually find something to complain about in a Tom Friedman column, this one hit home. Because the scariest thing I have heard in my week and a half here in Israel was a comment by one Israeli that the current political climate in America reminded him of the climate in Israel in the months leading up to the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin.
%$#@. So depressing. There are plenty of valid criticisms of the president, but the extreme right in the United States is just so ugly and angry. Our extreme left is pretty ugly, too, I guess, but they're also unarmed. And as a secret service agent recently told a friend of mine, "People didn't like Bush, sure, but they really want to kill this guy."
***
Dave Chappelle, as usual, cheers me up (slightly) with some extremely politically incorrect and NSFW humor. (Oh, and some classic, pre-Doctor Dolittle Eddie Murphy.) I know there are things one should not joke about, but I feel we have a patriotic duty to keep our senses of humor. I also tend to believe the best way to treat wingnuts like this assus jackus and others is to mercilessly mock them. Because seriously, "men" who dip flavored freaking Skoal get stone cold beat up where I'm from.
UPDATE: Really, readers? Really? I mean, this blog stayed out of the 2008 presidential elections -- and had kind things to say about both candidates and their positions at times -- because politics should stay out of operational discussions. But is my call to not kill the president of the United States or start a military coup really such a partisan breach of protocol? I guess I thought this blog's readership -- containing a refreshing number of libertarians -- would have been more or less united against wingnuttery.
i wouldn't be so quick to
i wouldn't be so quick to dismiss, da kine. At what point does deliberate misinformation become dangerous? I don't remember CNN's producers standing at Bush-era anti-war rallies waving their arms to help work up the crowd, as Fox News most recently did at a Tea Party. Aggressive media promotion aside, the issues at hand are a bit different than the one that you trying to draw parallels from. Anti-war activists clung onto one issue, generally, while the extreme right today have an excess of complaints to draw from. "Indonesian Muslim" anyone? Birthers? I don't remember anyone holding a sign during the Bush years like the ones I saw in D.C. "Bury Obama with Ted Kennedy"? I mean, come on. And, on top of all that, and I hate to say it, there might just be a whiff of racism in the air to help contribute to the hatred.
The biggest difference between the protesters of yesteryear and the ones of today? The anti-war people generally aren't members of the NRA. Sure, the media is focusing on a few crazy individuals but, as history has shown, it only takes one to shoot a gun. Call me crazy, but I think there are some reasons to be concerned.
@da kine: Except that except
@da kine: Except that except for very few elected Democrats, the official Democratic Party does everything possible to distance itself from the "extreme left," while the official Republican Party (Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Rick Perry, Trent Franks, et al) freely embraces this extreme right teabagging and whatnot as genuine grassroots opposition that ought to be encouraged, if not embraced. Ultimately, the degree of separation between Nancy Pelosi and an anti-war protester encouraging mutiny is far greater than between Jim DeMint and a 9/12-er saying that we came unarmed (this time), and to pretend that they're all just extremists or radicals or whatever ignores the very important political context in which these actions take place.
I'm with AM on this one
I'm with AM on this one (and, by extension, Tom Friedman too, I guess).
Discussion of politics,
Discussion of politics, particularly American politics, cheapens this blog. Really Abu M, stay in your lane.
Discussion of politics,
Discussion of politics, particularly American politics, cheapens this blog. Abu M, stay in your lane please.
You know, I think a friendly
You know, I think a friendly "don't kill the president" reminder is within my rights. But the reason I linked to the op-ed was because it eerily echoed something I myself had heard on this trip to Israel.I'd probably agree with what
I'd probably agree with what da kine; people called for Bush's assassination all the time and nobody ever actually worried about someone killing him. Now, that might be because most of the people who were saying that didn't have the tools or the skills to pull off something like that, but there must be some armed left-wingers out there in America. This seems like a double-standard of suspicion to me.
I wouldn't be so quick to call Sarah Palin "Official Republican Party", either; her political career is pretty much over, what with her being completely unelectable. The republicans might run her in 2012 because nobody else stands out, really, but she would only get like 20 percent of the vote. The GOP is beginning to realize that its "base" (which apparently means its crazy people...thanks Karl!) isn't large enough to win elections anymore and at some point they'll have to come back towards the middle, like Labour and the Conservatives in the UK (which I cannot tell apart anymore).
People seem unable to realize that things are actually pretty great right now. I blame cable news.
Seriously? I've come to this
Seriously?
I've come to this blog for your ability to look past your partisan political beliefs and post insightful analysis, AM. Hopefully you're drunk at this moment and you just made an error in judgment because if not you definitely lost a reader.
What a ridiculously asinine post.
Please consider writing down
Please consider writing down the attributes of a situation or context that make assassination of a political leader more likely, then apply those standards against prior situations and then use them again in future situations. Friedman is inventing standards for this case and isn't even trying to test their validity against the historical record and probably will forget them in the future should an assassination occur under complete different conditions. This reminds me of a list of similarities between the assassination of John Kennedy and Abraham Lincoln (viewable here at Snopes, http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp). Please think about evidence and judgement and comparison and testing. Don't look to confirm, but disconfirm to truly test a hypothesis.
HUS: Crazy.
HUS: Crazy.
Other than some pretty
Other than some pretty subjective readings of how dangerous the environment is, do we actually have any substantive evidence of higher levels of political violence? Considering the rich history the United States has of a certain low level of political violence (or, in the case of the Civil War, really high levels), I don't really see much of an uptick in American political instability. And since guys like Friedman are making implicit historical arguments--they need to *show* how now is "worse" than before. The United States has gone through periods of serious (but never fatal) unrest, ranging from the riots of the late 60s to the Bonus Marchers to labor unrest in the late nineteenth-century to the New York City draft riots (part of the nearly fatal Civil War) to the rough and tumble world of antebellum American politics, including weird insurgencies related to slavery in Kansas and religion in Utah, to Alexander Hamilton fighting a duel to the Whiskey Rebellion. Friedman mourns the demise of what he sees as a rational and reasonable center, but he of course sees himself as part of that center--so there's a bit of a problem of observer bias, no? The distrust of the chaotic, crude, irrational, and bruising world of American partisan politics goes back to the Founders, who hated parties, but in the end found themselves unable to stop them, or the Jacksonian revolution that followed, with its lurid and partisan press that was criticized by well-educated elites in much the same terms as Friedman blasts cable news. Heck, Friedman's curious recent preoccupation with the virtues of autocratic China echo PRC rhetoric about the degraded atmosphere of democratic Taiwan, with its rambunctious, scandal-mongering, sensationalist, but FREE media.
It obviously makes no sense to really criticize someone for calling for more civility in American politics, but there's a certain degree of misuse of history here, and a possible conflation of self with national interest, along with perhaps a touch of understandable--but recognizable--cultural condescension.
Other than some pretty
Other than some pretty subjective readings of how dangerous the environment is, do we actually have any substantive evidence of higher levels of political violence? Considering the rich history the United States has of a certain low level of political violence (or, in the case of the Civil War, really high levels), I don't really see much of an uptick in American political instability. And since guys like Friedman are making implicit historical arguments--they need to *show* how now is "worse" than before. The United States has gone through periods of serious (but never fatal) unrest, ranging from the riots of the late 60s to the Bonus Marchers to labor unrest in the late nineteenth-century to the New York City draft riots (part of the nearly fatal Civil War) to the rough and tumble world of antebellum American politics, including weird insurgencies related to slavery in Kansas and religion in Utah, to Alexander Hamilton fighting a duel to the Whiskey Rebellion. Friedman mourns the demise of what he sees as a rational and reasonable center, but he of course sees himself as part of that center--so there's a bit of a problem of observer bias, no? The distrust of the chaotic, crude, irrational, and bruising world of American partisan politics goes back to the Founders, who hated parties, but in the end found themselves unable to stop them, or the Jacksonian revolution that followed, with its lurid and partisan press that was criticized by well-educated elites in much the same terms as Friedman blasts cable news. Heck, Friedman's curious recent preoccupation with the virtues of autocratic China echo PRC rhetoric about the degraded atmosphere of democratic Taiwan, with its rambunctious, scandal-mongering, sensationalist, but FREE media.
It obviously makes no sense to really criticize someone for calling for more civility in American politics, but there's a certain degree of misuse of history here, and a possible conflation of self with national interest, along with perhaps a touch of understandable--but recognizable--cultural condescension.
A quick comment about
A quick comment about Afghanistan: Looking at the debate between engaging in a CT or COIN strategy in Afghanistan, it seems to me the case for COIN is the better argument and has the largest chance of success in Afghanistan. However,
One question that keeps coming to my mind though is do we actually have the resources (troops and money) to fully carry it out. The estimates seem to be at least 30k more troops, and more likely 40k, to adequately resource a successful COIN strategy. Right now we’re spending $6-$7B/month = ~$70-$80B/year and we’re already at a limit of available troops, straining our military and drastically hurting our deterrence capability. If we engage to a fully resourced COIN strategy (even if a limited Ink-Spot campaign), then we’re talking $10-$12B/month for the next 2 years before we can transition to a more limited CT/training/logistical/& intel support role, estimating back down to a current cost $6-$7B/month for another 2-3 years. After that, then another 5 years of same but hopefully much less with the Afghans taking over most of their fighting, security and logistics, estimating ~$1-$2B/month. All that gives us a total cost = ~$500-$600 Billion (on top of what we have already paid). I have purposefully not mentioned actual human cost, but I would make a guess of over the next 10 years another 1000 deaths and maybe 5000-8000 casualties (the majority within the first 3 years though), and assuming we’re successful in our efforts.
I think that is a fairly realistic assessment (maybe even slightly optimistic), and I would have to ask if that’s a figure that the American people will support? (and if they wouldn’t then I would argue there’s no way a COIN strategy could be successful, no matter what the Afghans do). Right now our deficit is ~60% of GDP and it’s estimated to go up to ~80% of GDP in the next 10 years (historically manageable but still very high). If we commit to a fully engaged COIN strategy though, that number would go up much higher (or taxes would have to go up). We’re also assuming no other major conflicts come about and so use most of our ground troops to insure any deterrence capability (i.e. Iran or NK).
Most analysis I’ve read on Iran says that diplomacy and/or sanctions have a slim chance of being successful, leaving a better than 50% chance that Israel will strike. However all analysis I’ve read says that Iran is pretty prepared for any limited air strikes (even if it does hurt them some) and is willing to escalate/retaliate against us and others in the region even if it’s Israel (largely because there is little deterrence to stop them from doing so). Those that would argue President Obama wouldn’t choose to go to war with Iran I think would be ignoring the potential lack of choice due to Israel’s stated commitments to not under any circumstances allow a nuclear armed Iran and the likely hood of the US being dragged into that potential conflict. Although that’s a different issue I think it’s important to mention in deciding if we have the capability in committing fully to Afghanistan.
Personally I should state I don’t really know and am not arguing yet one way or another, just posing questions about it.
RWL, I can only hope you
RWL, I can only hope you follow through on that threat, because if you are no longer a reader here, then the rest of us don't have to put up with your "ridiculously asinine" comments. If speaking out against killing the President is considered political partisanship, then what the hell kind of country are we anymore?
East Tennessee WAS the part
East Tennessee WAS the part of the state with the highest percentage of Unionists - and thus ready-made quislings for occupational government - during the war, right?
I ain't sayin', I'm just sayin'.
Matt
Andrew Kaplun, you undercut
Andrew Kaplun, you undercut your argument and my ability to take you seriously by referring to "teabagging". Don't cheapen the conversation with that sort of nonsense, please.
I don't listen to Republicans much, so I am not sure how closely aligned the current Republican legislators are to Glenn Beck and his peeps, but I do know that Senator Pelosi had (has?) close ties to anti-war groups (MoveOn, Code Pink, ANSWER) who convened/marched with folks that thought this was acceptable discourse:
http://hotair.cachefly.net/media.michellemalkin.com/archives/images/bush...
http://www.capveterans.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/shoot_...
http://www.moonbattery.com/antiwar-moonbat_091507_02.jpg
and paid money to publish this prior to GEN Petraeus' testimony:
http://tadbarker.com/General_Betray_Us.gif
Two degrees of separation, but I don't think it is any more tenuous than the connection between Republican leaders and birthers.
You stepped in it with this
You stepped in it with this one. I think your blog audience doesn't like this icky political stuff. It's, you know, icky. So low class! Those messy democracies and Republics with their screaming citizens! Why can't everything be neat and rhetorically clean, like, say, China? Tsk-tsk.
"All of these things happened during the Bush years and received little attention."
I'm with the small l libertarian; this crazy rhetorical stuff happens all the time and it's been going on for ages. As one of the 'Visitors' above said, how does the current environment compare to previous environments in terms of political violence, or threatened political violence? Friedman really didn't do due diligence to anything in that column. Doesn't he remember the Reagan era? Please, the assassination and dementia jokes were non-stop.
"Heck, Friedman's curious
"Heck, Friedman's curious recent preoccupation with the virtues of autocratic China echo PRC rhetoric about the degraded atmosphere of democratic Taiwan, with its rambunctious, scandal-mongering, sensationalist, but FREE media."
Oops, you said the same thing I was trying to, Visitor. Good comment.
Comment by Visitor on
Comment by Visitor on September 30, 2009 - 5:13pm
"Other than some pretty subjective readings of how dangerous the environment is, do we actually have any substantive evidence of higher levels of political violence? "
You mean like military trained white supremacists arrested with Obama assassination plans ? Yeah, that made the news.
da kine says don't cheapen
da kine says don't cheapen the conversation. And then links to Michelle Malkin. Wow. Just wow.
That's where the picture
That's where the picture was. Thanks for attending, though.
the political climate is
the political climate is overheated, but everyone is drinking too much of their own party's kool aid.
this kind of dribble is helping to feed the careers and pockets of people like glenn beck, rush, michael moore and nancy pelosi. All of them simply attention whores using those who do not know better. Do not be a pawn.
start point the finger at yourself. ask what you can do, reach other others rather than constantly blaming the other party.
Independents are not buying into either party. Both are complete full of it. Wasting amounts dollars waging political wars for prestige, momentum, and power, through town meetings and press and having nothing, absolutely nothing to show for it.
AM, Lighten up. And
AM,
Lighten up. And congrats on the coma you apparently have come out of the last few years.
Half the "fever" in fact most is because DC is patently corrupt. Dude, it started with TARP.
Yea this post kind of
Yea this post kind of reminds me of those tears Nancy Pelosi had talking about those terrible times in the 70's when Harvey Milk and Mayor George Moscone was murdered by that mean Twinkie eating Democrat Dan White.
Your right Ex, in looking at history we better watch out for those Democrats that murder there own party leaders. What a bunch of Wingnuts. Maybe the President should stick around the White House a little more so the Secret Service would be able to do better planning for his trips. I hear the Secret Service is starting to get spread a little to thin with this level of travel between the First Lady and our President.
and I'll stop after this,
and I'll stop after this, promise.
"Chicagoans for Rio! Just Let Rio Host the 2016 Olympics!"
http://chicagoansforrio.com/
Plus, go to the website and match the Olympic Host with its budget overruns! (via Reason, naturally). Awesome.
Right on, AM: You don't
Right on, AM: You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IMIlP4zB0EM
"you undercut your argument
"you undercut your argument and my ability to take you seriously by referring to "teabagging". Don't cheapen the conversation with that sort of nonsense, please."
That is the sort of nonsense being discussed though. If you decide throw tea bag prop supported tea parties (!) in 2009, you don't get to complain that people call you teabaggers. Well, no more than Jeff who runs the Rusty Trombone Musical Restoration Shop. Or Lance's Reach Around Families Support Group. Or Ted's Suck The Chrome Right Off That Thing car detailing service.
Think back a few months.
Think back a few months. The way Mr. Bush was treated. Activists and even movie actors talked about killing him, and they were cheered for it. That has become the new normal, unfortunately. Mr. Obama benefitted from this tone, since it energized his base, and now he and his supporters will have to live with that level of invective and animosity.
In the long run of American history, it is not out of line. Look at how people wrote about FDR, for example.
Mr. Obama is trying to make massive changes in American life. He has said himself that this was bound to provoke a lot of opposition. Mr. Obama, himself, has been quite sensible about all this stuff.
There are always lunatics out there that want to commit violent acts. They are always a tiny minority.
Over-hyping this sort of thing is a distraction.
What this all looks like is nothing more than an attempt to silence political opposition by Mr. Obama's supporters, by associating political opposition with violence, racism and other things that are beside the point. This appears to be happening because he is losing ground political ground on his major efforts such as his health care proposals and cap-and-trade. Attempts to silence his opponents by accusations of racism were floated first and failed. Now his supporters are ratcheting up and trying to silence Mr. Obama's political opponents by accusing them of even worse things. That will also fail to silence his opponents. Part of all of this angst on the part of his supporters seems to be shock that anyone would dare to oppose him. They seem to have drank their own Kool-Aid on his special status as somehow above or beyond politics. He is a charismatic politician who is otherwise nothing special, and like all politicians, lots of people will oppose much of what he wants to do. That's a feature, not a bug.
Flavored Dip Guy will be
Flavored Dip Guy will be getting his own show on Fox News soon. hahahaah.
IntelTrooper: damn you.
IntelTrooper: damn you.
F*ck politics, I want to
F*ck politics, I want to know what whiskey flavoured dip/ Skoal is? Chewing tobacco right? Does it get you high, cos that fine example on the link looked wasted. I thought it was a spoof but it slowly dawned on me that it might be for real- shock, horror.
Right on Lexington
Right on Lexington Green.
AM,
It's your blog, but a call to civility from a guy who was only three weeks ago waxing rhapsodic about the power of a one-party state to "get things done" and bypass the messiness of democracy strikes me as a poor platform to riff off. Put simply, he's full of shit.
Right on Andrew. This is
Right on Andrew. This is unnerving; and unexpected. The vitriol against Obama and Bush Junior is wrong.
Steve's analytical framework
Steve's analytical framework is the right one to bear, but I'm not sure such an exercise is required of AM. AM is engaged in travel reporting, in a sense. He is reporting the news from Jerusalem, in a way (to use a caveat once more). The news from Jerusalem is that the atmosphere in the US today is reminiscent of that in Israel prior to Rabin's assassination. We should be thanking AM for bringing this to our attention, not condemning him. And reporting from the Middle East *IS* in his lane. Finally, we should ponder - to enter into domestic politics, or the interplay between it and foreign politics - why a two-state solution might be as divisive as universal (or the expansion of non-universal) health care.
ADTS
It's recent history more
It's recent history more than the language used in televised protests that makes me worried about President Obama's safety.
Serious attempts on the lives of Presidents have tended to be made when the President, whatever his job approval rating, was well-liked personally by the public. Kennedy was shot at, Johnson was not. No one tried to kill Nixon, but two people tried to kill Ford. Carter, Clinton, and the younger Bush were each disliked, and worse, by large numbers of Americans, but it was the well-liked Reagan who got shot.
In today's word, political violence is always a concern. Attempts to kill the President in modern America, though, have tended to be made by individuals with idiosyncratic motivations. Though it could be that such individuals can be influenced by the tone of political discussion in the country, the precedents available to us suggest that this is at the least not always the case. It is even plausible that the groups throwing around wild talk now about Obama actually provide him a measure of protection, by giving an outlet to people that might otherwise be tempted to take action against a President who -- politics aside -- is rather hard to dislike personally.
I also agree with AM on this
I also agree with AM on this one, and for the most part with Friedman. I think just skim reading the comments section of this post shows that we all have fairly strong opinions about the political and cultural environment in U.S. right now, which seems to reinforce the Op-Ed. Everybody needs to take a deep breath, or at least try.
Abu I think we can all use a good laugh right now, and will be able to keep our sense of humor. Take Exhibit A, years after 9/11 and terrorist threats we laugh at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go.
Lastly, the Skoal guy looks like he's out of a scene from "Deliverance".
"In today's word, political
"In today's word, political violence is always a concern. Attempts to kill the President in modern America, though, have tended to be made by individuals with idiosyncratic motivations. Though it could be that such individuals can be influenced by the tone of political discussion in the country, the precedents available to us suggest that this is at the least not always the case. It is even plausible that the groups throwing around wild talk now about Obama actually provide him a measure of protection, by giving an outlet to people that might otherwise be tempted to take action against a President who -- politics aside -- is rather hard to dislike personally."
Zathras:
An intelligent post, but it reminds me of Finel's critique of AM's excessively well-caveated support for the McChrystal strategic assessment. Individuals are motivated by idiosyncratic motivations:
But they can be influenced by the tone of political discussion in the country
But this is not *always* (emphasis mine) the case
But "wild talk" might provide an outlet to people who might otherwise be tempted to take action against the President
What if any of those "Buts" are wrong, or misplaced, or inappropriate?
What if, everything else being equal, the tone of political discussion does influence the propensity of individuals to commit acts of political violence?
What if, everything else being equal, wild talk does not provide an outlet for action, but rather acts as a cause for it?
Your paragraph seems an attempt to perform mental gymnastics (admittedly, by a competent gymnast) strictly to disprove a hypothesis, rather than to even-handedly assess its validity.
ADTS
Flavored Dip Guy/Palin 2012
Flavored Dip Guy/Palin 2012
smoke break ... Maiden - The
smoke break ... Maiden - The Trooper.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgqxQmAbTBc
lamp is still lit ...
lamp is still lit ... Ramones - I'm Against It.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiXklnXFuA4
Abu M, If I were to tell
Abu M,
If I were to tell you, "hey man, I'm not insulting you or anything, but please don't kill the President," I suspect that you might take that as either an incredibly odd statement or as an insult. Now, you may be thinking, "wait a minute, I was talking about the extreme right." Well, okay, but one does not need to live in DC for very long to know that much of the population that reads the news interprets the phrase "extreme right" as "the right wing, which is extreme." That is particularly the case when you drop such an eyebrow-raising suggestion about assassination. If by "extreme right" you meant "extreme elements of the right," then I would be curious to know who you are talking about. You are feeding the meme that those who disagree with the President are inherently unreasonable. Perhaps that was not your intent, but given that you're a fairly intelligent fellow, people generally assume that you know what you are saying. There might be a lesson there.
Schmedlap: If you read the
Schmedlap: If you read the statement made byu Exum as *not directly aimed at you* you might see it a bit different. Saying "Im worried that this politicval climate may cause violence down the road" isnt the same as asking you, personally, not to kill the president. Get a grip. I find it absolutely fascinating to see readers dictating a blog owner on what they feel it is right for him to write about or not, like you all were paying customers.
Ive been following the looney right for years now, and the coalition of FOx and the extreme negativists of the right is a new and fascinating emergence of power, a television network as a independent political actor, not aligned with any national interest but only by a profit motive. To try to equal that force of impact with us poor pathetic far-lefters is just dishonest. Also, as far as I remember, Code Pinkw asd never invited as the starspeakers of the democratic conventions. Limbaugh was for the republicans. Theres a whole different dynamic to the interaction between the rights politicans and their extreme allies, its fascinatingly like insurgency in many ways.
Oh, young Abu M. Londonstani
Oh, young Abu M.
Londonstani specifically said, "yeah, if I was you lot, I'd vote for him," (meaning President Obama) prior to the election. And, so? I credit the fact that this blog attracts a wide range of people so willing to discuss so many things. IIt's quite a good education and good on all of you!
However.
No one was saying it was wrong to be concerned about assassinations: my goodness, who would want anything to happen to this President, or to any President? Not me, that's for sure. I'd pray for their safety, rather.I don't want anything bad to happen to this man. EVER.
What people don't like is a DOUBLE STANDARD. Did the NYT write a similar op-ed during the Bush years about the 'assassination chic' during that particular era? (I don't know, perhaps it did. I only read the Art blog - hey, I love the NYT Art blog, it's gorgeous.) That is the reason the comment section erupted. And, with partisans it's always easy to see the other guy's faults, and to minimize one's own. It's just human nature, and I'm certainly not immune to the phenomenon.
Okay, I really am done with the above topic. Speaking of COIN (ha ha), I was disappointed no one took me up on the offer to discuss the Kagan slide presentation (slides 40-45, or so) and why some of the other options discussed would not work well. There were quite specific objections in there, and most of the commenters who are skeptical never address those exact specifics. I ask, again, because I don't know nothing about nothing, and of course, no one is obligated to discuss anything with me on this blog, of course :)
Cheers (I just felt like doing that).
one for the road ... For
one for the road ... For Whom The Bells Toll
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22W38jJk81s
Just want to STRONGLY
Just want to STRONGLY support AM on this. If any readers are lost, good riddance.
All those Democrats (or
All those Democrats (or other supporters of President Obama) who lie awake at night worrying about the possibility that some conservative-minded individual will attempt to assassinate the President can stop worrying and sleep easy. Do you really think any conservative would prefer V.P. Joe Biden as President?
Go for it, AM. This needs to
Go for it, AM. This needs to be said.
The tone of the nutty left
The tone of the nutty left during Bush and the nutty right today are very different.
The left was talking about no war and non-violence and other hippy things.
And they called Bush, Cheney, et al war criminals who should be put on trial / impeached (and called him lots of names)
But there was never a broad current of thought in that movmenet of armed insurretctions, assinations, bombings, or coups.
On the right, we already have paranoids shooting police officers, racists shooting mueseum gards, and murdered census workers.
At the protests, there is a strong current that does call for revolution and armed assault. Read AM's post more carefully, and you'll note 'as a secret service agent recently told a friend of mine, "People didn't like Bush, sure, but they really want to kill this guy."'
It's not AM seeing something that's not there, it's the Secret Service seeing something that IS there. And internet sites funded by the Republican party (newsmax) advocating a military coup.
An anti-war group accusing Petraus of lying to Congress (the "Betray Us" ad) isn't in the same ballpark. It's not even the same sport.
Oh, please ... A "coup" by
Oh, please ...
A "coup" by an eeevvviiilll right-wing US military junta has been a leftist wet-dream since the 1950s and probably before: can you say "Seven Days in May?"
Friedman has managed to insult the ENTIRE US military and AM thinks his blithering is something worthy of serious discussion?
Dude, even for a fellow East Ten-uh-see-yahn this is weak.
Every single officer or enlisted man I have had the privilege to know takes his/her oath to the Constitution VERY seriously. As far as this goes, the armed forces of the United States have the same capacity and inclination for open revolt as my Shi-Tzu.
Friedman is an idiot and needs to be treated as such.
I'm gonna side with Exum on
I'm gonna side with Exum on this one. I heard plenty of people dis Bush (including myself), but I never actually met anyone who wanted to kill him. Obama, on the other hand . . .
This summer I worked with a guy. He had gotten a chain email saying Obama wanted to ban handguns or some sort of ridiculousness, and was considering getting some buddies together to assassinate the president.
I talked him out of it, of course, once I demonstrated that the email was false, but it still scared the crap out of me.
Add your comment