Sunday, September 09, 2007

does he ... or doesn't he?

you can bet that there's something fishy in D.C. when the news about the latest bin Laden tape is not that he's alive...ALIVE, not that he's still at large, not that this is the first verifiable sighting of the world's most wanted man in three years, but that he's discovered - Just For Men!?!?

of course it gets worse. now the wingnuts are attempting to link OBL's statements to Democrats and "lefties".

first, on Friday's NewsHour on PBS, NYT columnist David Brooks says:

"[I]t’s like he’s been sitting around reading lefty blogs, and he’s one of these childish people posting rants at the bottom the page, you know, Noam Chomsky and all this stuff."
of course, Fox's Sean Hannity picks up on this, and after comments on his dye-job, states that bin Laden

"...seemed to adopt the very same language that is being used by the hard left in this country...very, very specific language.”

Hannity even suggests that the term "civil war" when applied to Iraq is the "language of the hard left". Hannity and Colmes' guest was former WH Chief of Staff Andrew Card. Colmes asked Card how al Qaeda and the Taliban have been allowed to regroup, and asked Card about Bush's incredible 2002 statement that Bush was "not that concerned" about bin Laden. Card gives a lame answer, claiming, "we are definitely winning the War on Terror". Colmes presses him for evidence of "winning". then comes...the threat: fighting the war on terror, he says, may last "for generations...we cannot let our guard down. They want to attack us." oh and he claimed that there’s "lots of evidence" that we're winning, but neglected to mention any.

later in the 'cast, Fox News Military Analyst Bill Cowan, after comments on OBL's black beard, continues with the fear mongering, insisting that the U.S. will be attacked by "somebody...[a]n attack is going to occur at some point."

News Hounds has more on this, and Think Progress links some "rightie" blogs that claim much the same as above.

UPDATE: the NY Post too: "...vast sections of rambling rhetoric indistinguishable from the latest "netroots" rant."

oh and Fred Thompson tries to have it both ways, saying bin Laden is "more symbolism than anything else. I think it demonstrates to people once again that we're in a global war." but later that same day, following criticism from John Edwards and others, Thompson told a crowd: "He ought to be caught and killed." Thompson also claimed, incredibly, that "[w]e are finally on the right track in Iraq and we're making progress.” and that public support for the war - is increasing(!)

other lame repug reactions to the OBL tape came from Rudy ("a very, very important objective to capture him and take him out.") and from John McCain: "My presidency will be al-Qaida's worst nightmare...Osama bin Laden and his henchmen must be hunted down — and as president, I will." just what this country needs - four more years of that shit.

now, just in case Osama bin Laden happens to be reading this "leftie blog", i have a very, very important question for you: who does your hair?

UPDATE II: he ain't no cave dweller, niether....

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow I dig your Warhol-esk photos. I think you've got something there. Bet they'd do well on the street. I'm so frightened that Guiliani may try to be our next President. I don't like the way he treated New York's homeless people--likening them to criminals. I also don't like the way he tried to stop artists from creating and selling stuff on the street. And especially hate what happened to the Haitian "boat people." What's up with that? Why are people so afraid of a little grit? And if the city was too crowded or a quota needed to be filled or something, then why couldn't they move to another area? Isn't America and New York especially, based on the influx of new immigrants? And you know, illegal aliens have it really hard if a crime is commited against them because how can they report it and not get deported? How can someone like Guilini represent me, my people, my neighborhoods and interests? Why hasn't an educated professor risen to the occasion - a poli-sci-enviornmentalist type? (By the way I think Hillary Clinton's theme song should be a saprano version of "Climb Every Mountain.")

I would also like to know who coined the catchy "war on terror" slogan. How can there be a war on feelings? Aren't they subjective and changing? People fight for rights, for protection. Why not call it a "war for protection" and then elaborate on it, on protection from what? I'm glad you mentioned language and blog parroting. Abbreviated speech, the shortening of phrases, and words even, is too vague for me especially when violence, debting and invading is concerned. The language is broken and the sentences are tapering off and slogan-speech is replacing individual personalities. It sounds like it's coming from Madison Avenue, commercial. What happened to clarity and details? Your Virgo fan-Marcia

9:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's all about hedging. You know, a hedge fund on Wall Street is kind of when a person invests in a high risk and simultaneously invests in a stable or sure thing. It seems like the war is the risk and the upper classes are the stability. See the hedge? It's a balance. It doesn't teeter like a see saw. But this is not about banking. It is about risking people's health, safety, lives and the earth. That's what's criminal here, the sacrifice of life. Losing money is one thing but losing life especially without a clear cause is another. And capitalism seems to sacrifice people for a cause, for a buck. And for what? The plane crashings on the twin towers was an excuse to quickly go in. It is more than revenge. And revenge isn't enough of a reason in my mind. Somethin's goin on round here. Marcia again.

10:03 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home