8
The Torch Is Passed
Hoop-Dee-Doo Polka
Why is Doug Feith smiling? Because he is no longer officially the “the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth.” Dennis Prager is:
Q: Critics of the war in Iraq argue that prior to the invasion of Iraq, America had never attacked a country that had no plans to attack it. How then do you explain the Korean War?
On my radio show, I have asked this question of some of the most celebrated names among liberal intellectuals, and they had little or nothing to say.
No doubt, they had little or nothing to say because their jaws had hit the floor in disbelief and they were physically unable to say anything at all.
That is too bad because America invaded a country that had absolutely no intention, let alone ability, to attack the United States. The United States attacked Korea — and sacrificed over 30,000 American lives — solely in order to prevent Korea from becoming a totalitarian Communist state. We succeeded in the southern half, and over 50 years later, North Korea remains essentially a gigantic concentration camp.
Probably even Gary Ruppert knows that entering South Korea at the request of its government to defend it from invading North Koreans isn’t an invasion. Just as kissing your mother isn’t a sexual assault.
But, hey, Dennis, here’s a better example for you to use next time you want to play stump the stupid liberals on your radio show: “How come the United States invaded the moon even though the moon men had no plans to attack the United States? How come? Huh? Huh??”
[h/t - Jon]
Gundamhead said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:08
Sweet Jesus how I hate Dennis Prager! What the hell does he think the point of this pathetic fantasy is? Oh yeah! I made up some questions and had an imaginary interview in my head with an imaginary Couric and she couldn’t answer any of them! I total kicked the imaginary Couric’s ass in the imaginary interview I had in my imagination. PWND!!!
Also, Last I checked, Couric isn’t running for V.P. so even if someone were impressed by this, I’m not sure what it proves.
Hey, how about letting Biden ask Prager some “gotcha!” questions and see how well he does?
thedarkbackward said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:08
Prager is a geedam mongoloid (not the “from Mongolia” kind) and looks like a swap meet Marquis DeSade.
HemlockEcho said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:12
Some people have difficulty with the concept that starting a war is different from joining a war.
Also Grenada and Panama had no plans or ability to attack the US.
Alex said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:17
Sadly, it’s even dumber than that. There were already American forces in South Korean when North Korea invaded the country.
And guess what? They were attacked by North Korean forces.
El Cid said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:38
Only f*****s recognized the Potsdam Conference.
chocolatepie said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:41
You know who else didn’t like the Korean War?
The gays.
tigrismus said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:43
As someone pointed out a couple days ago, Couric got a degree in American Studies from UVa, so, you know, she might actually know a thing or two.
Also, The Laffer Curve, which, unlike the “Bush Doctrine,” is objectively definable, is perhaps the most important economic argument against tax increases — because at a given point of increased taxation, the government will actually receive less tax revenue, not more tells me Prager doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about, either. It doesn’t mean that at ANY given point increasing taxation will diminish tax revenue, which is his implication and the way it’s commonly understood by right-wingers, it’s a bell curve illustrating that tax receipts are subject to diminishing returns.
Lonny Martello said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:44
MORE BRAKEING NEWS FROM THE RANTOUL ILLINOS PRESS. SARA PALING IS GOING TO HAVE AN OCTOBER SURPRIZE BY ANNOUNCING THAT TEH FUCHING FERRETS ARE BUILDING TERROREST TRANEING CAMPS INSIDE CANADA. SHE WILL ANNOUNCE THE PALING DOCTRANE WHICH SAYS THAT ACTIVIES BY TEH FUCHING FERRETS MUST BE MET WITH REGIEME CHANGE. SHE IS GOING TO DEMAND THAT TEH FUCHING FERRETS BRING HER THE GANAWED HEAD OF STEPHAN HARPAR IN A LARGE TIM HORTENS BOX BY THE END OF THE MONTH. IF THEY DONT SHE WILL HAVE THE ALASKEN NATIONAL GAURD BEGIN A SUSTAINED CAMPANE OF BOMBING ALL YUKON METROPLISES WITH OVERSIZED EMPTY LIPSTICK TUBES. SHE WILL THEN PERSONALLY LEAD HER MASSEVE ARMY OF ZOMBY MOOSE AND INVADE. SHE WILL THEN DECLARE HERSELF EMPRESS OF CANADIA IN ADDITIEN TO BEING QUEEN OF ALASKA AND CHANGE THE NAME OF EVERY TIM HORTENS FRANCHISE TO SARRACUDAS AND THEY WILL ONLY SELL DOUGNUTS MADE WITH MOOSE LARD. FACED WITH A DESACRATIEN OF THEIR SACRED SHRINES THE CANADIANS WILL FOLLOW THE LEADERSHIP OF RED GREEN AND DON THEIR DUCK TAPE WRAPPED TUQUES AND PUSH THE INVADING ZOMBY MOOSE BACK ACROSS THE BOARDER. FACED WITH CERTAIN DEFEAT SARA PALING WILL FLEE BACK TO HER BUNKER BENEATH THE WASILA CITY HALL BUT BECAUSE OF THE DEFRECTIONS OF SEVERAL KEY ZOMBY MOOSE TEH FUCHING FERRETS WILL BE TIPPED OFF TO HER LOCATION AND COARNER HER THERE AND GIVE HER HER BUCKWHEATS.
Rusty Shackleford (not that one) said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:45
Prager should have asked the “liberal intellectuals” themselves instead of asking their celebrated names.
Teh fuching Dreamweasel said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:51
I’ll get right on that Tim Horton’s thing.
El Cid said,
October 8, 2008 at 16:53
The best part of the Laffer curve is that it turns out that where ever the tax rate is today, wingnuts can always claim that we’re on the wrong side of it, and that cutting it more would make things betterer!
Linnaeus said,
October 8, 2008 at 17:01
Someone should probably also mention that in the case of Korea, the UN Security Council issued two resolutions: one condemning North Korea’s invasion of the South and another authorizing military assistance to South Korea.
Granted, the legality of the second resolution is disputed and it wasn’t passed until the United States had begun its intervention, but the Bush administration didn’t even have that in the case of Iraq.
reality check said,
October 8, 2008 at 17:20
OK, Prager may be super stupid. But the broader point is all too apt. Iraq is not exactly the first time the US has initiated massive aggression against a non-threatening state, and it’s far from the most devastating (Philippine war, anyone?). I imagine readers of this blog have at least some clue as to the length of the list of countries invaded by the US. But hey, I’m sure Panama was on the verge of invading Texas when Bush I kicked their asses. I’ll stop now. This is too depressing.
J Neo Marvin said,
October 8, 2008 at 17:33
Prager is a geedam mongoloid
A special needs child?
Mr. Wonderful said,
October 8, 2008 at 17:48
Lonny Martello–
It’s “Palin.” Otherwise, keep up the good work.
WereBear said,
October 8, 2008 at 17:48
Of course, I remember wingnuts bringing this exact same thing up during the Cold War. As a good thing.
Ginger Yellow said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:05
“Critics of the war in Iraq argue that prior to the invasion of Iraq, America had never attacked a country that had no plans to attack it.”
Really? Then they’re fucking idiots. I must have missed the documents proving Grenada and Panama were planning to attack America.
Bistroist said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:13
See also Wo’C
MaineMan said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:22
By “Laffer Curve”, I presume he’s referring to the idea that Art Laffer stole from Ibn Khaldun and then butt-fucked beyond all recognition.
Kahladun, a 12th century Islamic scholar and polymath, originally postulated that government revenues would likely decline as tax rates approached either zero or 100% (duh!) and that the tax rate/revenue relationship would form a bell curve in between those two points.
Khaldun also thought that all value and wealth is generated by Labor, making him a proto-Marxist, in a sense.
So, Laffer bases his economic theory on the work of a Mooslem Commie. For all I know, Khaldun mighta been teh ghey, also. Too.
actor212 said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:28
The best part of the Laffer curve is that it turns out that where ever the tax rate is today, wingnuts can always claim that we’re on the wrong side of it, and that cutting it more would make things betterer!
Precisely the correct observation to make. Nevermind that Clinton’s tax hike provided evidence that, indeed, we were already on the downslope of that rather silly curve, but this simple observation never even comes up in discussion!
Joshua said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:30
Also, The Laffer Curve, which, unlike the “Bush Doctrine,” is objectively definable, is perhaps the most important economic argument against tax increases — because at a given point of increased taxation, the government will actually receive less tax revenue, not more
What is that point? Oh yea! Nobody knows. Because every tax cut built on this premise has decreased tax revenues.
In all honestly, it’s probably the point between 99% and 100%. But I don’t know. And neither does Prager.
MaineMan said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:35
Another thing that Laffer’s version of the “Khaldun Curve” doesn’t take into account is how the expenditure of current revenues affects potential future revenues. For instance, are they reinvested in improving the state of the workers (healthcare, education, infrastructure, etc.) and, thus, increasing wealth generation (and future revenues)? Or are current revenues wasted on wars of conquest and for the benefit of the already wealthy at the expense of the well-being of the worker?
Dr. BDH said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:35
What self-respecting liberal intellectual, celebrated or not, would waste his/her time talking to Dennis Prager? Nevertheless, I believe only Gen. Tommy Franks can decide when - if ever - someone has surpassed the stupidity of Douglas Feith. Perhaps if Prager had some actual authority and power, as Feith did, he might be a candidate for “FSG,” but until that day he doesn’t come close to Feith’s combination of ignorance and certainty which drove Franks crazy.
tigrismus said,
October 8, 2008 at 18:56
OK, Prager may be super stupid. But the broader point is all too apt.
It would be if that had been the argument war critics made; I never heard anyone make that argument, and I notice he doesn’t give any names. If he really wants to know, why doesn’t he ask people who actually argued that?
Boston Charlie said,
October 8, 2008 at 19:09
Dennis Prager is taking the old Soviet line that the Korean War was totally US aggression? Cool.
Next week maybe he’ll start talking about US germ warfare against N.Korean civilians. Pass the popcorn. And the hooch.
kefauver said,
October 8, 2008 at 19:46
Actually, the United States military was acting in behalf of the UN.
Why is history lost on these right-wing morons.
Martini Revolution » Wingnut Historicalitiness said,
October 8, 2008 at 20:02
[...] we have Dennis Prager, who revises history so that we started the Korean War by attacking North Korea: Q: Critics of the war in Iraq argue [...]
Tony Seybert said,
October 8, 2008 at 20:13
Did Prager offer up anything remotely resembling an example of anyone who tried to make this exact point?
I remember making the point that Iraq had not attacked us and the people of Iraq (in addition to the people of Aghanistan) had nothing to do with Sept. 11.
I don’t remember trying to make a point that America had never attacked another country unprovoked. For one thing, Vietnam is just too damn obvious to ignore.
I think Prager was stuck in straw-man argument mode. And since he’s a conservative, he’s there almost permanently, occasionally shifting into the false dichotomy or the red herring for a little variety.
And you can’t get mad at them for that. Apparently, all they have are logical fallacies.
(Unless … maybe the October Surprise is that conservatives will surprise us all with a new batch of arguments based on honesty, decency, consistency and cogency. I’m not putting any money on it. But it would be a surprise, no?)
Stag Tunnel Palin said,
October 8, 2008 at 20:56
“And you can’t get mad at them for that. Apparently, all they have are logical fallacies phalluses.”
Fixed.
If they didn’t have logical phalluses, they wouldn’t have any phalluses at all.
Stag Tunnel Palin said,
October 8, 2008 at 20:57
FYWP!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Another strikethrough ruined.
actor212 said,
October 8, 2008 at 21:06
What self-respecting liberal intellectual, celebrated or not, would waste his/her time talking to Dennis Prager?
Stephanie Miller, for one, who’s agreed to debate Prager.
huxley said,
October 8, 2008 at 22:08
Depends on which figures you’re using for the Philippine-American War but civilian deaths in Iraq are already approaching the highest estimates for the “Philippine Insurrection”
Dan Coyle said,
October 8, 2008 at 22:16
Howard Zinn was also on Prager’s show. David Sirota debated Prager a few weeks ago. Which provoked Sirota to declare he’s even more in the tank for Obama after dealing with Dennis.
tigrismus said,
October 8, 2008 at 23:39
You know Howard Zinn didn’t argue “that prior to the invasion of Iraq, America had never attacked a country that had no plans to attack it.”
The Ghost of Tom Joad said,
October 8, 2008 at 23:47
Lads, you might want to take a look at this link:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10520607
jim said,
October 9, 2008 at 0:50
My reply to Prager:
- & now I need to lay on the eyewash. Again.
Basharov said,
October 9, 2008 at 1:48
Praeger would have been correct if he’d used Mexico as his example instead of Korea. Although it’s true that the Mexicans fired a few shots at Zachary Taylor’s troops across the border in Texas when Zachary, under Polk’s orders, had them taunt the Mexicans, Mexico had neither the desire nor the ability to invade the United States in 1846. That war was nothing but a land-grab by the U.S. which figured that since the Mexicans weren’t doing much with California and the land in between, it had the right (pursuant to “Manifest Destiny”) to steal it from them.
ckc (not kc) said,
October 9, 2008 at 2:17
…it had the right (pursuant to “Manifest Destiny”) to steal it from them.
and, not to put too fine a point on it, we know who they stole it from in the first place, right?
bayville said,
October 9, 2008 at 5:33
Prager: Members of the news media believe, correctly, that individuals running for political office, because of their potentially great impact on American life, should subject themselves to interview after interview about their views, values, personal life and knowledge base by often hostile members of the news media. But, the most powerful members of the news media, people who have more impact on American life than almost any politician in America, do not allow themselves to be interviewed about their views, values, personal life and knowledge of the issues. Why not?
Christ, we know too much about these assholes’ personal life as it is. Hey Denny, ever hear of Big Russ & Me. Every big media clown - with the exception of Mike Barnicle - it seems has written atleast one autobiography.
Even Steve Douche of Fox News has a book out about his kids and family.
Rust Lintjaws said,
October 9, 2008 at 10:09
When will all of you Surrender Sallys in the Democrat party admit we were greeted as liberators when we landed on the Moon?
Not a shot was fired if I remember correctly.
Tom said,
October 11, 2008 at 22:40
The Laffer curve is pure myth. Tax laws aren’t written as simply as Laffer assumed. What happens if we change section 633, paragraph 42 of the tax law? You could increase the tax rate but by changing the way deductions are taken you could cause revenue to go down or up or remain the same.
And please don’t refer to right wing idiots as “mongoloid” or “special needs”. I have a son with Down syndrome and autism and although he may not be the smartest citizen in the country he is not a danger to our country. He does not try to convince others to follow ideas that are destructive to our democracy. Mocking them as “mongoloid” or “retarded” treats them as harmless and they are not. Just look at what has happened to this country after 8 years of GWB.