Blogcritics: Comments on O'Reilly- Franken: A Fisking

Comment by Andy

Mon, 13 Oct 2003 21:02:05 EDT

(about comment 23) Aside from the Muslim North, Africa is NOT a breeding ground for terrorist. Civil wars; yes. AIDS; yes. Corruption; yes. Terrorism; no. Once again, it is only those from North Africa that are a problem for us and the French are not there. And another thing, Iraqis are NOT revolting in droves. What you have here is basically one group of Arab Nazis (the Baathist) and several thousand Timothy McVeighs (the fundies). Most Iraqis are glad to be rid of Saddam and understandably want to get in control of their country for the first time as soon as possible. And don't confuse protests, which is healthy in a democracy, with the terrorist bombings.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 19:00:43 EDT

As do I.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:42:10 EDT

Ok, I am not going to jump back on board this conversation between the political lines, but now that we are talking about words and definitions, I have to step in again. Over time words change and form a little bit. I am not saying that by a technicality you couldn't call the US a terrorist organization, but, to do so is to pervert the meaning that we have come to use and accept. The use today has really been modified so as not to include governments and/or countries, but sub-groups of people. You can say that the US is a brutal regime, or anything else that proves your point. But, the definition of the word terrorist has narrowed, based on usage, to not include the US government. (although Chomsky might disagree)

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 18:29:13 EDT

Terrorist, from Merriam-Webster: "one who systematically uses terror especially as a means of coercion" Terror, same source: "a state of intense fear" and "violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands" The Bush administration is a group of people, no? I do not doubt that innocent Iraqis would see quite clearly that the definition fits the Thief-in-Chief. Move to France? Uh, non. Canada. Oh, and "war," my ass. It was an invasion. One more: Anyone looking for WMDs should take a peek into the US military arsenal and into Shrub's budget.

Comment by Lloyd

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 17:14:05 EDT

Freakin hilarious. I can only imagine what has to be going through the heads of Rupert & Roger. Nothing better than watching a full on psychotic meltdown play out over the air. Remember "Network"?

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 15:06:25 EDT

If you don't want to be invited to move to France, don't give your garbage about not paying taxes. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing, but it is paid for by American tax dollars. If you are going to flap your mouth, then don't threaten to not pay taxes. Unless of course you want to be INVITED TO MOVE TO FRANCE.

Comment by mike

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:59:36 EDT

It's not a dimwitted prowar argument unless I'm invited to move to France. Made my day. Cheers! Move along now!

Comment by Phillip Winn

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:55:49 EDT

Hello? Off-topic anyone? Great post, Stephen, and my mind just boggles that O'Reilly can be so wrong on this. He's got (or had, anyway, I haven't watched him in a year or two or more) a few good points, but he seems to be descending into madness. I hope he loses and Al sells millions. And I don't even like Al's political stuff!

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:53:55 EDT

Don't label me unless you know me. This is one issue, albeit a big one, where I am on the right side. I voted for Clinton over Dole. I voted for Bush because I couldn't stand Gore. I am not quite so cut and dry, "marching lockstep" with anyone. That bit aside. What proof would you like us to come up with for Saddam giving money to Al quaeda? Do you think he wrote a fucking check with all the funds that were unaccounted for because they were procured illegally? Ok, we will just check his bank statement dipshit. How do you know the two factions are against each other more than they are against the US? "The Iraqis are revolting in droves and this is a no sh%t point? I thought you do gooders were liberating them. You didn't. You failed." Don't you think this is a bit premature? We haven't failed anything, and as Eric said, upheaval is a pretty standard part of the process. But, if I were going to oppose a whole group of people instead of addressing issues in a unbiased manner, I might ignore logic and just try to hammer them on everything too. Last time I checked regardless of how you feel about an issue or something this country does, we all stood somewhat together. Taxes aren't dished out depending on what side of an issue you stand on. If you are serious about not paying for the war move to France.

Comment by mike

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:40:01 EDT

Because Clinton said it, it's true? That's funny coming from a conservative. Who cares what Clinton said? He's a liar. Al Quada/Saddam links. Saddam was a secular dictator. Osama is an Islamist. These two factions hate each other more than they hate the U.S. What was Saddam using the money for? I don't know. He certainly wasn't using it to fund bin laden. All evidence saying so has been discredited. If you have some, post it, so I can rip it to shreds. The way to fight terrorism is to strengthen terrorist organizations? Interesting. By the way, the "Islamists are there but that's the price to pay" argument has officially been withdrawn by Neoconservatives' Central. Since you march in lockstep with that crowd, you may want to adjust the rhetoric you vomit out at their request. I care that the French are coddling dictators in Africa, a terrorist breeding ground. But then, I'm funny like that. The Iraqis are revolting in droves and this is a no sh%t point? I thought you do gooders were liberating them. You didn't. You failed. Most importantly, I don't want to pay for your chickenhawk war. So let me send you my tax bill so you can pay it for me. I want to spend my money on something else, like a stereo, or a new car.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 14:15:42 EDT

We said 1) there will be no threatening quantities of WMD's. There were none. There were none that we found this time. Was Clinton making it up when he said that they WERE there when he left office? We said 2) there were no Saddam ties to al-Queda. There were none. This is the most ignorant thing I think I have ever heard. We do know that Saddam was illegally profiting off of his oil according to the UN settlements from the first Iraqi conflict. What do you think he was using this untraceable source of funds for. Are you willing to say that none of that money was supporting terrorism? You are an idiot. We said 3) The war would give al Queda a recruting tool that would send Islamists flooding into Iraq. It did that. This is just a price to pay for standing up and doing something. The alternative is to do nothing, and that is where our conflict lies in the first place. We said 4) The French will use the international prestige of their opposition to secure themselves unilateral access to African gold and other resources, for example in the Congo, to the detriment of the U.S. national interest. They did that. I am with Eric on this one. Who cares. We said 5) The Iraqis will not welcome us as liberators, but will instead try to chase us out with our tails between our legs. They're doing that. this is the "no shit" point of the year. If you didn't assume this going in then you are naive. Any other "points?"

Comment by Joe

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:56:22 EDT

Sorry, I was still waiting for the rhetorical melee you promised. Let the tally show according to your costing measure you received equal value for your points.

Comment by mike

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:45:11 EDT

Well, that was fun. As always, I am never refuted on the points, just subject to sputtering hot air. Ariel Sharon is a monster, a baby killer, the exact moral equivalent of Kissinger and Pinochet. So I'd prefer that he not be safe and that my tax dollars not subsidize his girth.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:34:40 EDT

Argh Natalie, this is perhaps our point of furthest disagreement: to call our government "terrorists" is to drain all recognizable meaning from the word - something I would think such an accomplished literati as yourself would eschew.

Comment by Natalie Davis

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:28:22 EDT

And no sympathy for the innocent Iraq victims of US-sanctioned murder. No, Mike, it's all too believable. This Nader voter is anti-Democrat, anti-Republican, anti-Gore, anti-Bush, and anti-war. I am pro-peace and pro-integrity, hence, my vote in the last presidential election. Even though the left was and is correct about the immoral Iraq invasion and bloodletting (IMO, natch), I don't feel one bit more safe. I worry about the terrorists residing between the US's shining seas, particularly those in Washington, DC.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:28:20 EDT

all of which is either simply untrue, shortsighted, irrelevant, or misinterpreted. Clearly Iraq is better off: there is ALWAYS a period of instability after such a drastic change in a country/culture. All kinds of ties have been found between Iraq and al Qaeda - what Fisk-like news have you been reading? I am very pleased if Ariel Sharon is better off. I don't know anything about the French and African gold, but I can't imagine why I should give a shit either. Who said there wouldn't be lingering resistance after regime change? While I am not 100% happy with the adminstration's handling of the post-war, nothing has happened that wasn't completely predictable in the big picture. I feel very badly for the soldiers lost and their families - they are heroes, did anyone expect zero casualties? War=casualties, very sad individually, statistically tiny. What does any of this have to do with the Constitution?

Comment by Harry

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:25:37 EDT

A rebuttal to Mike's five points: Wait ... nevermind ... you go on believing what you want. This isn't really even a discussion. You're frothing at the mouth and can't even acknoweledge even the smallest amount of good that has been done in Iraq. It is a bitter cup from which you are drinking and I do not envy you at all.

Comment by Joe

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:24:07 EDT

Deep breaths, give us your location and we can have an abulance there within half an hour. Who is this "you" you're referring to?

Comment by mike

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 13:07:54 EDT

Iraq is BETTER OFF?! What neoconservative crack have you been smoking?! We said 1) there will be no threatening quantities of WMD's. There were none. We said 2) there were no Saddam ties to al-Queda. There were none. We said 3) The war would give al Queda a recruting tool that would send Islamists flooding into Iraq. It did that. We said 4) The French will use the international prestige of their opposition to secure themselves unilateral access to African gold and other resources, for example in the Congo, to the detriment of the U.S. national interest. They did that. We said 5) The Iraqis will not welcome us as liberators, but will instead try to chase us out with our tails between our legs. They're doing that. Nowhere have you once expressed any sympathy, by name, for the family of a single soldier killed in Iraq since the end of the war. Nowhere have you posted a single link to a humanitarian organization in Iraq desparately looking for assistance. Nowhere have you acknowledged the movement of the 600 military families calling for immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. I'm not safer, pal. Ariel Sharon is safer. The air conditioned cowards at the Weekly Standard are safer. Osama bin laden is safer. I'm sitting hear reading the Constitution which you, clearly, have no respect for. Unbelievable. Absolutely unbelievable.

Comment by Craig Lyndall

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:41:32 EDT

Maybe if you and your stupid ass cohorts on the left hand side hadn't split your vote with Ralph "the spoiler" Nader, you wouldn't be quite so bitter. I am not sure if you people are more anti-war, or anti-bush. Regardless of whether there are WMD's in Iraq, Clinton is on record as saying they were there when he left office, and in the long run I believe that this is one of the better moves (whether controversial or not) that this country has made in foreign policy. It is slightly dangerous, but this country had to prove that it could be a little dangerous.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 12:35:29 EDT

I'm not sure what you were right about Mike, other than the somewhat embarrassing lack of WMD found thus far, and I don't recall you saying there wouldn't be any found anyway. Iraq is better off, the world is better off, we are safer than we were, and this was just another step in the war on terror that is far from over. It isn't easy, it isn't quick, it isn't over, nothing is perfect, but the anti-war stance doesn't look any better to me now than it did at any point.

Comment by Joe

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:53:02 EDT

...and through the collective blogosphere, a shudder was felt.

Comment by mike

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 11:43:23 EDT

Hmmmm. Ripped apart, hey? I happened to have been reading archived articles of the Left One on the Independent's site recently; and, a few errors and rhetorical misfires aside, he has been completely, 100% vindicated in his analysis of what has happened in Iraq. He's not as good as the Independent's other man on the scene, Patrick Cockburn (the more level-headed brother of the infamous womanizer Alexander), but he gets it done. So the "Shallow Like Andrew Sullivans" may want to consider who has been fisked here, after all. I'll say it again: We antiwars called it. We were 100% right. So I suggest all you prowars pay my taxes since I'm not interested in subsidizing your war. Remember, as soon as W gets re-elected, he'll enact a "temporary" income tax surcharge to pay for the mess. Totally regrettable, he'll say, but necessary in the emergency. I predict the "peace movement stabbed us in the back" rhetoric will start up soon on right wing radio, if it hasn't already. I am definitely ready for rhetorical combat on this front, my prowar friends. The gun is loaded and you're in the line of fire. Payback's a bitch.

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:49:03 EDT

Mike my friend, you haven't been hanging around the blogosphere if a "Fisking" is an alien term. The leftist British writer Robert Fisk has been ripped apart so many times by bloggers and others that the act of comprehensive rippage has become known as "Fisking."

Comment by Eric Olsen

Tue, 19 Aug 2003 10:45:49 EDT

Rachel, I'm not sure if you're talking about the same Al - his career goes back over 25 years, he was hilarious as part of the Franken and Davis team on SNL, he has had many funny characters, and he is always witty regarding politics even if you don't agree with him, which I often don't.