Andy, Are Ya Locked In The Punch?
…Andy, are you goofin on Nixon?
Are you losing touch?
I begin to belieeeeve,
That you are a looon,
(You are a looon–ooon)
Andy McCarthy has really started to lose it all — wits, sanity, composure:
With most Democrats not wanting to get within a million miles of this, Sen. Feingold has John Dean, of Watergate fame, testifying in favor of his censure proposal this morning.
It’s actually very good symbolism (however inadvertently orchestrated) for how times have changed. Feingold has obviously dragged Dean out there because the latter represents all that Nixon connotes for the civil liberties lobby — domestic spying, corruption, the conceit that our imperialist government is much worse than our “enemies,” the self-image of liberals as the guys in the white hats, etc.
Uh huh, yeah, contempt, exaggeration, and heavy sarcasm noted. But such things are par for the wingnut course and would merit little of our attention. Fortunately, it gets “better”:
But for people who care about the security of the country and about stopping what we well know al Qaeda is trying to do, what Dean and the Watergate legacy symbolize are the shackling of the executive branch, the notion that we just have to accept threats to public safety, FISA, the Wall, the decline of the CIA, etc.
There it all is, in wingnutty spades: A sneer to the effect that the obsolete post-Nixon, post-Watergate concerns of civil libertarians are not only quaintly retained by liberals, but contemporary objections levelled by Nixon hacks at anti-Nixon reformers were valid all along! See? Andy’s implying that Nixon was right! The filthy liberals did mean to shackle the poor executive branch, which only wanted to protect good Amurikans from whatever enemy was in vogue that week. And now they want to do it to Dear Leader, who, like Nixon, would never abuse executive power. Traitors! Sentimental traitors!
McCarthy is laying down a corollary to a certain meme that has been moderately popular, for awhile now, among wingnuts with long memories and ample reserves of resentment.
I promise you (though I’ve never been able to find the quote) that I saw James Baker on television, a few days after 9-11, blame the whole thing on the post-Watergate, post-Nixon reforms that Congress (particularly the Senate Committee chaired by Frank Church, and the House Committee chaired by Otis Pike) demanded of — and that were grudgingly accepted by — the CIA specifically, and the intelligence community generally.
Wingnuts have a general aversion to the “R” word, viewing Reform as an inevitably pinko-fag-appeaser maneuver by which many of their atrocities are accounted for, many of their toys taken away, much of their looting halted. But they particularly loathe reform of the governmental organs through which they do their dirty, constitution-shredding tricks, here there and yonder.
They hated post-Watergate intelligence reforms quite as much as they hated the process that swept Nixon from the office he’d soiled. And they’re deathly afraid that Dear Leader and his extra-constitutional apparatus will suffer the same fate. Hence Andy’s sneer-smear that Feingold, Dean, et al (libruhls) don’t really care about security.
“…domestic spying, corruption, the conceit that our imperialist government is much worse than our ‘enemies,’ the self-image of liberals as the guys in the white hats…”
I’m reminded of yet another ditty…
One of these things is not like the others…
A google search of “James Baker” and “Church committee” later:
Apparently, it was on 12 September 2001, while most of us were still trying to figure out how to get back home, or whether the dust covering the neighbor we hugged when he got home was dangerous, or just a little asbestos.
Oops:
here ’tis
Wow, thanks man. I already knew my google skillz were for shit, but now you’ve confirmed it. But then you’ve also confirmed my memory, which more than makes up for my embarassment.
Seriously, thanks for the link.
all that Nixon connotes for the civil liberties lobby
Yeah, that’s all Watergate was. Just a few disgruntled special-interest malcontents got mouthy and brought a great man to heel.
Christ.
That’s some tasty crazy right there.
What scares me is that this kind of thing is exactly what Grover Norquist spent decades building up the conservative think tanks to produce.
Well, this and Newt Gingrich.
The fact of the matter is that even devout liberals like Ted Kennedy know that censuring the President right now is the wrong thing to do. Which is why they decided not to show up.
Censuring the President in a time of war for conducting a war is telling the enemy that we are not seriously wishing to monitor them and to win this war.
*clears throat*
BULL SHIT.
Gary: Failing to hold the a president accountable for lying to Congress, lying to the American people, and repeatedly and willfully breaking the law lets our enemies know that we are glad to subvert our American way of life — willing to dismantle all that America is and has been for the past two-and-a-quarter centuries — just for the sake of the illusion of security and unity.
What backing down from censuring the president tells our enemies, brainiac, is that we are more than willing to destroy ourselves for them — neither OBL nor Kim Jong Il need lift one finger.
See how that works?
Hey, isn’t Hitchens involved with the ACLU suit against the NSA? Did you read his latest Vanity Fair article?
He wrote that the President broke the law (as Clinton did before when he lied to the grand jury).
I thought Hitchens had turned “to the Right”. That he was a TRAITOR and SELLOUT. I thought he enjoyed bombing Iraqi civilians from his computer.
According to people like you and Dennis Perrin, Hitchens would never write something like this:
“Almost everybody also concedes that the Israeli occupation has been a moral and political catastrophe and has implicated the United States in a sordid and costly morass. I would have gone further than Mearsheimer and Walt and pointed up the role of Israel in supporting apartheid in South Africa, in providing arms and training for dictators in Congo and Guatemala, and helping reactionary circles in America do their dirty work—most notably during the Iran-Contra assault on the Constitution and in the emergence of the alliance between Likud and the Christian right. Counterarguments concerning Israel’s help in the Cold War and in the region do not really outweigh these points.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2138741/
Willingly ignorant mofos. Spoiled adolescent “radicals”.
Is that you, Peter Kilander?
If so, from the links on your own (other) site, you might want to refer again to Hitchens’s hackish commentary on Hugh Hewitt’s radio show apropos Bush, the ACLU suit, and comparisons to Clinton and then get back to me with your self-righteousness.
[I]Wingnuts have a general aversion to the “R” word . . .[/I]
I don’t know, i think wingnuts like the “R” word just fine, if it’s next to “tort”, “Social Security” or “your face”.
Stupid tags. Stupid tagger.
“Failing to hold the a president accountable for lying to Congress”
Show me one lie from Bush to Congress
“lying to the American people”
Show me one lie from Bush to the American people.
Remember the definition of “lie” too
“and repeatedly and willfully breaking the law”
Numerous lawyers have verified that Bush had the power under the post-9/11 resolution to order domestic spying.
“lets our enemies know that we are glad to subvert our American way of life”
The enemy wants to bring the entire world under Shari’a and the left is foolish to align themselves with the Islamic Fascists.
“What backing down from censuring the president tells our enemies is that we are more than willing to destroy ourselves for them”
A devisive censure will cause more disunity than doing the right thing.
The right thing is censuring Russ Feingold for subverting the war effort.
The fact is that the left has destroyed the unity that occured after 9/11.
PS, Hitchens could have, at the time, said “ah hah!” to the likes of James Baker, who spoke, at least then, for not only the Republican establishment but the administration itself; Hitchens could have dealt with the sort of exploitation and demagoguery Baker was peddling but noooo he was more worried about the strnaglehold Noam Chomsky and Tariq Ali had on public opinion.
Thus Hitchens made common cause with Baker et al; and though he is indeed a party to the ACLU suit (which is a noble deed), he still speaks hackishly of his allies in that suit and still makes common cause with the reactionary forces that *inspired the fucking suit in the first place*.
*rowr*! Out come the claws!
I was just going to say that the fact that Hitchens went nutty and rightward on Iraq does not in any way prevent him from being his usual leftish self on other issues.
But why employ logic when strawmen make for cheaper labor, right? While confidently project as fact one’s assumption of another’s state of mind on the topic of what someone else is capable of doing? (That’s what, 3 layers of assumption there?)
Shorter MCH: Peter K’s post makes no sense.
I had posted that “under” Peter K, before Gary droned on about the sky being green with purple polka dots (or something of similar validity).
“Show me one lie from Bush to Congress”
Bet I could do it in exactly 16 words. But I’ve suddenly decided I don’t want to do your homework for you.
“Remember the definition of ‘lie’ too”
Ha ha. That’s your defense for Our Leader ™? How Clintonian.
“Numerous lawyers have verified that Bush had the power under the post-9/11 resolution to order domestic spying.”
“Constitutional scholar” Ann Coulter does not count, foolio.
“The enemy wants to bring the entire world under Shari’a and the left is foolish to align themselves with the Islamic Fascists.”
I love, along with the straw man, and the elision of the distinction between “our enemy” and all the other brown people we’re bombing, the implied false dichotomy, that our only other alternative is to submit to homegrown corporatist/right-wing fascism.
“The fact is…”
Whenever one uses this construction, one wants to think awfully hard and more than once about how factual one’s point is.
Just FYE.
PS: “The right thing is censuring Russ Feingold for subverting the war effort.”
I just love how participating in the processes of representative democracy is “subverting the war effort.” I think that tells all of us all we need to know about Gary here.
The fact is that the left has destroyed the unity that occured after 9/11.
I’d say the constant exploitation of 9/11 for political gain, especially the dishonest linking of 9/11 to Saddam, and the invasion of Iraq was what destroyed the unity we had after 9/11.
But don’t take my word for it, ask anybody from any of the countries that stood with us after 9/11, that now do not.
“Bet I could do it in exactly 16 words. But I’ve suddenly decided I don’t want to do your homework for you.”
That wasn’t a lie.
Bush was repeating information which was credible and still is credible.
“”Constitutional scholar” Ann Coulter does not count, foolio.”
What part of ‘the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons’ do you not understand?
That’s the law too.
The funny thing is about people like Gary, is that his rabid defense of the administration is really independant of the country he happens to live in.
If he was a Cuban, he’d be railing about the counterrevolutionaries trying betraying Castro.
In North Korea, he’d report anyone who dared question Kim Jong Il’s golf score.
A Serbian, he’d be weeping at Milosivec’s coffin.
America has nothing to do with it. He automatically is loyal to whatever crook runs his country. Ideals, freedom, mean nothing to him.
clarification:
whatever REPUBLICAN crook runs his country.
teh – not just subverting the war effort but inherently anti-semitic too.
The enemy wants to bring the entire world under Shari’a and the left is foolish to align themselves with the Islamic Fascists.
You know, I’ve kind of gotten used to the droning of trolls in comment threads, much like learning to sleep with a fan or radio on. Most of it’s easy enough to tune out, but I still find this ludicrous bullshit about “Islamofascism” to be a discordant note that gets on my nerves.
Look, shit-for-brains: you are not part of the Greatest Generation Redux. Do a little research on Mussolini, Hitler, and hell, even Franco, and try to delineate the differences between their societies and a loosely organized group of religious nuts. And besides, furiously wanking in a comment thread doesn’t exactly put you on a par with Rosie the Riveter either. Even if there is an epic battle for the soul of the world going on, you’re just a dumbfounded dipshit bystander.
Maybe you and everyone else on your paintball team like puffing yourselves up by imagining yourselves saving the world from tyranny again, but you’re not fooling anyone else. Just fucking drop it already.
Well said, Mr. Mordant.
Also, what really gets me is that the simple dichotomy – against Bush/must be for the Islamists doesn’t allow for what’s really going on:
The left in this country is fighting a two front battle:
1) against the religious nuts (and those who exploit religion and fear to further their own agenda) abroad.
and
2) against the religious nuts (and those who exploit religion and fear to further their own agenda) here.
We are trying to preserve the post-Enlightenment modern values against a tide of power mad paranoid ignoramuses.
Dammit!
Mr. Mordant – I agree with your assessment of the Islamic Fascism trope. One wonders if it’s not an intentional tactic of the right, to disarm critics by packing as much cognitive dissonance as possible into their concepts.
The fact that fascism = bad is enough, and it doesn’t really matter that some of us know that there is nothing particularly fascist about so-called Islamic Fascism, since we don’t buy most of their crap anyway.
This way, people who don’t know better associate al Qaeda, and Islam in general, with fascism, and those of us who do are forced to explain why it isn’t really an apt term, and it’s a learned distinction that doesn’t compress easily into a soundbite.
Meanwhile the wingnuts are like ‘why are you defending them?’ It’s a vicious cycle.
The right in this country is no where close to the Islamic fascists who wish to turn America into a nation where Christianity is a crime.
When it comes to spying, I got this inspiring piece of mail from Ken Mehlman today:
“Dear Gary,
Terrorists are at war with our country. And we have a choice.
Either we use every tool available to fight and win the War on Terror … or we heed the calls of Democrats who would censure and impeach the President for fighting the terrorists.
Watch our new web video, “Censure? Impeachment?,” which outlines the stakes in this fight.
On September 11, the President made a solemn commitment to protect the American people. The President made his choice. And many Democrats are making theirs, calling a program to defeat al Qaeda terrorists inside the U.S. an illegal and an “impeachable offense.”
Where do you stand? Watch the video. And take action by signing our petition against repeated Democrat attempts to weaken these efforts to fight the terrorists and keep American families safe.
Sincerely,
Ken Mehlman
Chairman, Republican National Committee”
Granted, when it comes down to it, a better move would be to call the Senators, instead of a petition.
But Mehlman is 200% right when it comes to this issue.
yeah, too bad Bush didn’t think fighting terrorists was an issue until after 9/11.
You know, ’cause stopping terrorists was Clinton shit, and BushCo don’t do Clinton shit. Missle defense, that’s Republican shit.
Besides, if they had stopped 9/11, then they wouldn’t have an excuse to spy on whoever they wished. Well, that worked out well for them, didn’t it?
I think the evidence is clear that this was the seven-gin-and-tonics Hitch writing about AIPAC.
Hitch first boasts to the bar that “everyone knows” that when US foreign policy follows AIPAC’s wishes it has always led to debacle, before veering off drunkenly into Clintondidit. He stops to emit a gas belch, and to quibble that, technically, it was more of a power-sharing arrangement between Sharon and Bush than the Israeli tail wagging the US dog.
After a brief bout of complaining about all the voices (in his head?) “incessantly” criticising Israeli influence on US policy, he falls fast asleep with “boredom” of the whole topic.
ah
GarY Ruppert
who wants america to be a christian one-party therocracy
according to what he said at atrios’s palce
Gary,
You’re mentally ill. In the same way the Russians who backed Stalin, or Japanese who loved Hirohito or Agentinians who loved Peron were mentally ill.
Furthermore the ideology you cling to in the name of saving America and Western Civilization is actually destroying all that is good about America and the West.
Your a living tragedy. Like the republican party you’re busy destroying America in order to save it.
WAKE UP!!
Either we use every tool available to fight and win the War on Terror … or we heed the calls of Democrats who would censure and impeach the President for fighting the terrorists.
Ah, Gary. Leaving aside Ken’s false dichotomy, let’s examine this “every tool available” business.
I would bet that if we allowed the government to intercept every communication, to incarcerate anybody at will and hold them indefinitely without formal charges, to intern and/or deport anybody who demonstrates a belief — or even just an unhealthy interest — in Islam, to prevent the press from printing negative stories about what’s going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to arrest dissenters and protesters on sedition charges… we could pretty much eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism from our shores. (And the trains would probably run on time, too.)
So I guess we should permit all of these very effective tools in the War on Terror. And apparently, it’s Democratic treason to suggest that a President who thinks he can or should do any of these things ought to be held accountable.
As I recall, Bush swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Instead, his administration has sought every conceivable argument to avoid Constitutional limits on presidential power. The Administration keeps slapping us across the face with its dick, and people like you say “Thank you sir, may I have another.”
Hmm… Now that I think about it, maybe you’re what Mehlman was referring to when he said “every available tool.”
Possibly dumb question, but how don’t most of us stop being inspired by form letters about roughly the same time that we learn the truth about Santa?
Er, erase that “how”, dammit. Damn tendency to post before previewing…
Watergate figure Dean at hearing on Bush censure
Nixon White House counselor John Dean asserted today that President Bush’s domestic spying exceeds t
I’m guessing that you guys are all absolutely right about Gary’s loyalties being to whichever (right-wing) politician happens to be leading me, but one thing gives me great glee:
How many Germans who were adults in the 1930s would admit post-WWII for supporting Hitler before the war? And yet, we know at one point he had to have majority support.
Likewise, a number of years into the future, when the full extent of Bush’s incompetence is being felt – in particular, when the economy starts tanking because of the trillions of dollars in debt Bush has rung up – do you think Gary and others of his ilk will admit to voting the man into power?
I believe the anser is: not bloody likely!
…er, that should be leading at the time.
What part of “all necessary and appropriate force” applies to warrantless wiretapping?
I’d also take issue with the 16 words comment you made, Gary, but I can tell by this: Bush was repeating information which was credible and still is credible. that you’re too delusional to understand what rational people know as a LIE.
Gary Ruppert = Rupert Pupkin.