No better place to start than July 23, 2004. As Media Matters has noted, Neal Boortz said on air that...well I'll let the man speak for himself. I don't want to be accused of putting words into his mouth. On that day he said:
Frankly I'm having a difficult time trying to figure out who is a greater threat to this country and I -- I don't -- I don't ask this question or make this statement for the purpose of saying something outlandish that you will repeat at lunch or dinner today. It's not why I'm doing this. But there's two different groups of people out there that present a threat to this country. Well there's many different groups. But I'm just singling out two different groups of people right now that present a threat to this country, and frankly I just cannot tell you which one presents the greater threat. One group of people: Osama bin Laden and his Islamic terrorists. The Islamic jihadists. The other group of people: those of you who would vote for John Kerry. And both groups present a threat to our safety and a threat to our future. A threat to our freedoms and a threat to our economic liberty.That got me to wondering. We here in Pittsburgh live in a blue state - and certainly in a blue county. According to USAToday, Kerry carried Allegheny County by 363,674 to 268,387 (that's about 95,000 more votes for Kerry).
And again I'm not saying this for effect. I mean this. I can not make up my mind which group is most dangerous. I can't. Because those of you, out there, who would vote for John Kerry for president of the United States, I have -- I deeply, deeply, feel that you present a danger to this country. To our freedoms. To our very safety. And to our future. Just as the Islamic terrorists do. And I hope you know what in the hell you're doing, but frankly I doubt it very, very seriously. [emphasis added]
And Neal Boortz is on record not knowing who's more of a threat to "our" freedoms: al qaeda or the 363+ thousand voters in Allegheny County who voted for John Kerry.
Let that soak in for a bit.
26 comments:
and that's just 1 reason why i dislike him, but of course, i'm a liberal that hates the truth as i was told by someone with no name here. : )
Neal Boortz and Democrats-Lie are both in favor of branding newborn American babies with their social security numbers to prevent voter fraud! Can you believe this?
Neil Booritz is a bad immitation of Michael Savage.
Both are part of the American version of RTLM, the hate radio network that fueled the ethnic cleansing in Rwanda. While folks like Boortz - of whom I admit I've only heard and read snippets, which is pretty much the case with all of the right-wing hate radioites - don't overtly advocate killing liberals, etc., they do promote some serious hate-filled propoganda. You can see that factless hate in Master Lie's comments. Why 1020 wants to hitch its wagon to people like Boortz and Honsberger is beyond me, but it's sad that such a historic radio station has been reduced to running such garbage.
All the more reason to listen to woxy.com during the day and anything other than talk radio in the car.
You called him Master Lie! That's very disrespectful.
One man's garbage is another man's treasure...or something like that.
If Bortz, et al, didn't sell, they wouldn't replace liberals with them. Liberals don't curry the public's favor in talk radio.
I'd love to hear about this "hate filled" speech. Gimme some examples.
Tired cliches.
Typical liberal.
P.S. John, I hope you and yours are having a good holiday season.
x
Um, x, did you actually read the post, with the quote from Boortz? How about this:
"The other group of people: those of you who would vote for John Kerry. And both groups present a threat to our safety and a threat to our future."
He was saying a vote for Kerry was a vote for the terrorists. Perhaps you don't classify calling somebody who would vote for a particular candidate a terrorist supporter/enabler as "hate." Your perogative, I guess.
Are you telling me that Boortz, or Limbaugh, or Savage, or any of these other guys never said those who are against the war "hate the troops" or "hate this country" or "should be tried for treason"? From what I can tell, at one point, those were garden variety comments from the likes of these folks.
So please don't call me a typical liberal, 'cause I'm far from it. But, just like every other right winger who is scared to look in the mirror in any more, somebody who actually makes a substantive claim just gets tagged with "typical liberal." Very thoughtful.
I may or may not want to look in the mirror anymore, but that is due to my ever-balding pate and ever-expanding middle, but not for my political leanings.
The "hate the troops" tag is, in my opinion, applicable to liberals, especially those under the age of 60. I felt this when I served, and I certainly feel it now.
Liberals world-wide have lost the fervor to defend their own countries, and look with derision at those that serve, and those that send them to war.
Is this hate speech? Get over it.
Is this hate speech? Yep.
Get over it. Nope.
First, show me an example of a progressive blogger, a left-leaning columnist or talk radio host who "looks with derision at those who serve." You may find negative comments about those soldiers involved in abuse at Abu Ghraib, etc., but, with the exception of a few tinfoil hat outliers, you won't find one. I have nothing but respect for those who join the military and want to defend their country.
There was no dissent on the decision go to go into Afghanistan. Iraq was a different story. There was no justification for that war and, to compound things, the way it was executed has unnecessarily cost the lives of far too many U.S. soldiers. That's what many on the left are irate about it. We are pissed that brave young soldiers have to die because of this administration's lies and ineptitude -- lies and ineptitude that people on the right like you seem to be just okey dokey with.
To conflate opposition to the Iraq debacle with a lack of fervor to protect our country is absolutely wrong -- and, sadly, you know it. You have nothing else to fall back on, so you dredge up an argument based on an entirely false premise.
And don't bring up the opposition to parts of the Patriot Act or the warrantless wiretapping program. You see, we are Americans and we believe pretty darn strongly in the foundations on which this country was founded. We aren't prepared to sacrifice essential liberties to protect us from another attack, because we know we can stay safe and preserve our liberties. Meanwhile this administration can't even take basic steps like protecting the rail lines and the food system. They'd rather waste billions of dollars on crony contractors who can't even do half of the job they are being paid for. And, again, those on the right who have supported the war in Iraq - which has nothing to do with the war on terrorism - don't utter a peep about the corruption, the waste of tax payer dollars. None of that exists in the world of Neil Boortz or Democrats-Lie or xranger. Every right-wing blog spent days blabbing on and on about John Kerry's botched joke. Yet I have never seen ONE diary about the billions of dollars unaccounted for on any of those sites. It just doesn't exist in your world. And I know why. It's because you supported this failed administration and this failed war and your not man enough to fess up that you were wrong - wrong about everything.
Denial is a sad state in which to live.
Having a fine holiday season, x. Thanks.
I can't get my head around your reasoning. Apparently "supporting the troops" would consist of sending them into an invasion for who-knows-what reason, underequipped. It would also include forcing them to stay in past their enlistments with stop-losses, shortening their rotation into combat with little hope of success, and punishing them when they report PTSD. Another support item would be to stretch their capacity to the point where they are no longer able to respond to a real threat, should it arise.
OTOH, asking that they be removed from an untenable position, that they get the equipment they need, that they be given the opportunity to recover from combat at both the individual and unit level, and that the Army and Marines be permitted to keep an effective strategic reserve -- these are all examples of "hating the troops."
I don't know how to characterize that "reasoning" except to call it bizarre.
Pretty good retort, Whigs. I'm impressed.
However, don't mistake my conservatism for living in denial. Far from it.
These liberal blogs do get tiresome with the same old re-hashing of the reasons for the Iraq invasion which, I imagine, you'll re-hash until we leave there (if we ever totally leave). If that's your aim, more to the pity.
Do I wish we were in Iraq? No. Did I agree with the reasons to go in, at that time? Yes? Why? I came to the conclusion that if Saddam developed a nuke, and set it off, we could not live with ourselves for not taking him out. History proved those of us that approved of this war wrong.
Sooooo, now what do we do? You choose to re-hash over and over the faulty intelligence. I choose to follow the reasoning for getting out of there.
Do I care about war waste? In a federal government that spends, and wastes, billions on every program that they touch? Not really. The bureacracy is too entrenched to get worked up over this, because it won't be solved easily, anyway. BTW - I don't belive the crony tag on Halliburton. They're the only company that was equipped to even begin to handle the crush of work.
Now, my feeling that libs, down deep, dislike the troops. This stems from the simple fact that they never get the benefit of the doubt, specifically in the media. How much footage did we have to see of the weekend warriors having their own sick frat party at Abu Ghraib? This was a handful of deranged individuals, who are now in jail, yet it fueled the deep-seated distrust by libs towards soldiers in general.
Murtha came out and proclaimed Marines guilty of war crimes before their trial. Would that fly in the civilian world? I think not.
There have been countless stories of heroism in Iraq, and the first Medal of Honor was awarded posthumously. Did you hear of it? Probably not. That would honor the sacrifice.
I remembered this editorial by Joel Stein in the LA Times earlier this year:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-stein24jan24,0,4137172.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions
You may agree with this quote from that article:
"But when you volunteer for the U.S. military, you pretty much know you're not going to be fending off invasions from Mexico and Canada. So you're willingly signing up to be a fighting tool of American imperialism, for better or worse. Sometimes you get lucky and get to fight ethnic genocide in Kosovo, but other times it's Vietnam."
Do you libs believe that? Are you that secure in the knowledge that your view is the only intellectual and just view about serving your country? That the soldiers who volunteer now, knowing they will go into harm's way, are truly war-mongers and lack morality?
Maybe, just maybe, they are exercizing their freedom to say that they believe in this cause and that there is a threat to our way of life by Islamic extremists.
A few things. First, let me apologize for being a little too harsh in my previous comment.
Second, that L.A. Times column is, in my opinion, poorly thought out and, I don't think, representative of many progressives. Stein sounds like a pacificist, so any war is wrong to him. That said, the crux of his column was this line:
"Blindly lending support to our soldiers, I fear, will keep them overseas longer by giving soft acquiescence to the hawks who sent them there -- and who might one day want to send them somewhere else."
So he's saying he doesn't support the troops because he doesn't want any more wars. That's twisted logic in my mind and I don't subscribe to that line of thinking - neither do the majority of progressives, I would bet. War can be necessary. Afghanistan was necessary. Iraq wasn't. You say you believed the WMD threat Sadaam posed, but why was he any different than N. Korea or Pakistan? I do find it hard to believe that you felt Sadaam was a bigger threat than Kim Jong Il or a big enough threat to take our eye off of Afghanistan and the larger WOT. A lot of people didn't, and they were right.
And, finally, if you don't mind, could you answer some of the questions in schmuck's 3:27 pm post, because I think they are very important points. And they are probably why, when the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America graded Congress on how their votes matched up with supporting the troops (armor, benefits, etc.), every Democrat in the Senate got a higher grade than the highest scoring Republican.
N. Korea is a regional problem and, as W is doing now, should be handled by the major players in the region. We gave them the nuke technology, so the fact that they have it is no surprise. Since Clinton's appeasement got us to this point regarding the nukes, I factored this into my decision regarding Saddam. The real threat from N. Korea is Japan, S. Korea, and to a lesser degree China.
Iraq had a history of aggression in that region, and would have sold the bomb to the highest bidder, or use it as a bargaining tool. This was also destabilizing towards Israel. If he had threatened, or even used, a nuke against them, that would have triggered the next world catastrophe.
I guess I looked at Schmuck's comments as political fodder, not as an attempt to defend the troops.
Does that mean you don't intend to answer?
Jesus X, you used to offer some pretty insightful and intelligent posts 'round these parts.
Now yer just going all Tourette's on us.
Sad, sad, sad.
Damn, can't a man go home after work? And I don't EVEN look at the computer at home.
OK, John:
When the army went to war, the front-line combat units had all of the equipment required: Bradley fighting vehicles, tanks, body armor. Once the country fell, the mission changed to occupation.
The enemy knew they couldn't go toe-to-toe with the army, so they started the war of terror/attrition, with the infamous IAD (roadside bomb). The long convoys that are required to daily supply an army in the field came under fire. The Humvee (no, not like the one in your driveway) took the place of the WWII era JEEP. The Jeep was never intended to be a main troop carrier to the front, therefore it was not armored. The Humvee started out in the same fashion. And don't get me started on the 2-1/2 ton cargo truck (deuce-and-a-half in army parleyance) and its lack of protection.
Thus, the effect was that these vehicles were subjected to the horrible consequences of the IAD. And, like any other war, the army adapted. Heavy armor was ordered and installed on the Humvees.
Was this criminal? No way. We had not fought a largely urban, guerrilla war for a long time. The army adapted.
Now then, the stop-loss. When you sign up, first you raise your hand for an 8 year complete time of service, and this is fully explained to you. The small amount of call-ups, while a shame, is nothing more than fulfilling the contract.
I wish there was more time between unit rotations, but the mission doesn't allow it.
Once again, I don't think the crocadile tears about armor and stop-loss have anything to do with troop sympathy; it is merely more piling on the hated Bush war machine.
BTW - Shawn, what in my posts suggests I have Tourettes?
I came to the conclusion that if Saddam developed a nuke, and set it off, we could not live with ourselves for not taking him out. History proved those of us that approved of this war wrong.
Actually, the facts on the ground AT THE TIME proved you wrong. You guys keep ignoring the fact that there were weapons inspectors all over Iraq prior to the invasion. Saddam could have developed a nuke under that regime about as easily as he could have flapped his arms and flown to Albuquerque.
Sooooo, now what do we do? You choose to re-hash over and over the faulty intelligence.
We keep re-hashing over and over, x, because you keep bringing up "faulty intelligence." The CIA probably knew that there were weapons inspectors, don't you think? I'm guessing they told Rumsfeld about it.
And I'm still waiting for a reply to my last comment.
The weapons inspectors had been kicked out years before, and Hans "I'm not sure what I'm looking for" Blix was only recently sent in, just prior to the invasion.
What about all those UN directives to Saddam? Don't you think the UN felt he was striving towards WMD?
So what you're saying is, what? That Rumsfeld didn't know that there would be an insurgency? That he didn't know that transport vehicles were vulnerable? That he didn't know the troops would have to be re-supplied?
Whatever. Going in to an unnecessary war unprepared to protect your troops is hardly what a reasonable person would consider "taking care of them." And taking them out of an untenable position is not what a reasonable person would call a good example of "hating the troops."
Besides, families were sending body armor to the troops at their own expense practically from the opening shots of the invasion. And Rumsfeld knew we weren't ready. As he said to that soldier, "You go into a war with the army you have, not necessarily the army you want." If it had been necessary to invade, we could have waited to prepare the Army we want.
Your doctorate in psychiatry is doing neither of us any good. I don't need you to tell me what I am feeling "deep down," I don't need you to tell me who or what I hate, and I don't need you to diagnose whether my grief for the men and women in our armed forces creates "alligator tears." You're not the only veteran around here, you know. And not the only patriot, either.
The weapons inspectors had more than six months in Iraq before the invasion, x, but it could have been 6 years or 600, because there was nothing to find.
But that's beside the point. The point is that there was no chance nuclear development could proceed with them on the ground, so to excuse the invasion on the grounds of "faulty intelligence" is pure smoke and mirrors.
The only thing the invasion prevented, the only thing the invasion had the potential to prevent, was some larger degree of stability in the Middle East and the survival of (so far) 3000 troops you so want to take care of.
KDKA radio continues to flood the Pittsburgh airwaves with right wing, nutjob, propaganda! Why?
OK, John, let me tone down the rhetoric a bit.
When I gave my reasons for accepting and supporting the war, that was referring to me, and me alone, not W. I believed him and, especially, Colin Powell.
I cannot explain the faulty intelligence, or who knew what, when. I give W the benefit of the doubt, because I must. I cannot believe he would go on a rampage through the Middle East, and put our troops lives at risk, on his own version of The Crusades.
I do not wish to re-hash the events 3 years ago, anyway. Let Congress do that. I would rather look at the solutions to scaling down the conflict, leaving Iraqis to their own future, and moving forward in these dangerous, and fascinating, times.
" At 10:46 AM, Anonymous said...
KDKA radio continues to flood the Pittsburgh airwaves with right wing, nutjob, propaganda! Why?"
So what? The left can do the same thing via radio. In fact, they've tried a'la Air America Radio. The only problem with Air America Radio is that people don't want to hear the b.s. coming from them. Hey, if you can come up with a network of your own to push your left wing agenda, so go for it; last time I checked, this is still a free country. You just can't admit that the people don't want to hear it.
How can I say all that? Because look at Air America Radio. The proof is in the pudding. If you think that KDKA is pushing "right wing, nutjob propaganda" then fire up your own radio station and knock yourself out. Otherwise, I'll continue to listen to the static emanating from the left.
I cannot believe he would go on a rampage through the Middle East, and put our troops lives at risk, on his own version of The Crusades.
Funny thing about believing, x. I have no trouble believing that at all; but I do have trouble believing that he wants to support the troups.
Good debate, boys, I'm outta here.
Happy New Year; see you in '07.
Post a Comment