RSS Feed
Washington - What Obama Taught Me |
|
| |
Text Size
|
I thought I knew a little bit about the Middle East. Boy, was I wrong. Last week, President Obama set me straight. Here's what our president taught me during his Middle-Eastern pilgrimage:
There is no more terrorism.
Wow, cool! No more security checks at airports, right? It's unclear which side won, but it's all over. Obama didn't mention terrorism a single time in his star-turn speech in Cairo. Only a few "violent extremists" (our own troops?) remain at large.
America tortured.
I thought there was still a debate about that, but I guess not. And no regime in the Middle East tortures anybody, ever. Our bad.
Churches and synagogues are about to open in Saudi Arabia. Since "Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance" and there are "over 1,200 mosques within our borders," I can't wait for the first Baptist hymn-sing in Riyadh. Sign me up!
Behind closed doors with Saudi King Abdullah, our president must've mentioned the many hundreds of churches and synagogues that thrived on the Arabian Peninsula during the Prophet's lifetime. Muslims zealots destroyed them. Time to get the bin Laden family's construction firm on the job re-building!
And stoning converts who leave Islam to death is a no-no, right?
Women can dress any way they want in Saudi Arabia. Just my analysis, based on Obama's insistence that Islam recognizes "the dignity of all human beings" and that Muslim women must be free to make their own decisions about what to wear. Surely, fashion choices extend to Mecca and Medina, not just Detroit and Paris?
"Islam has always been a part of America's story." Guess the Founding Fathers missed that one. But I'm assured that George Washington turned to his mullah in the dark days at Valley Forge, that Daniel Boone read the Koran around the campfire, and that al Qaeda stood by us at the Alamo.
Yeah, there was that misunderstanding with the Muslim Barbary Pirates, when they killed, kidnapped and enslaved American citizens for years - but who's perfect?
There are "nearly seven million American Muslims." Who knew? We all thought there were three or four million, max. Is this a preview of the predetermined results of our upcoming census? [Note to editor: Confirm numbers with ACORN.]
"It was not violence that won full and equal rights" for black Americans. So much for the Civil War and my ancestor, who volunteered to wear Union blue and paid for it with his life. I thought a half-million Americans died fighting to end slavery. Silly me. Still, it was brave of our president to highlight slavery's "lash of the whip" in his speech, since his own ancestors, as Muslims along Africa's Swahili Coast, would have been complicit - if not actively engaged - in enslaving their fellow black Africans for Arab masters. As a self-proclaimed "student of history," Obama surely knows that.
Holocaust, schmolocaust.
Aren't those pesky Jews ever going to go away? Yes, denying the Holocaust is "hateful." But let's get a grip. Palestinians "endure . . . daily humiliations." Their lot's "intolerable." Israel "devastates Palestinian families." No wonder our president shunned wicked Israel during his trip - sending a clear, if unspoken, message that Jews are now fair game.
"America's strong bonds with Israel are . . . unbreakable." Yup. And they're issued by Chrysler.
Hamas is a legitimate, recognized voice of the Palestinians. Rocket attacks against civilians, suicide bombings and kidnappings really work.
Iran can have nukes.
Our president's acceptance of "peaceful nuclear power" for Tehran was coded language for "no pre-emptive military action."
Jordan doesn't matter.
So much for one Arab country's attempts at human decency. If you want attention from our president, you've got to be a desert gangbanger.
My wife wondered why Obama didn't make his speech in Indonesia, the world's most-populous Muslim state, where he would've been welcomed proudly as a home-boy. Obama just reinforced the stereotype that Muslim equals Arab.
Democracy isn't for everybody.
We're done peddling that particular drug.
Of course, our president didn't mention al Qaeda's catastrophic defeat in Iraq, where millions of Sunni Arabs rejected the terror organization. Iraq was Bush's war, so it's all bad.
And forget junk like modern medicine, telecommunications or even the internal combustion engine. Islam's been the source of real progress. Like "calligraphy." Medieval Islam's ballyhooed contributions actually were due to Greek-speaking Christians (including slaves) employed as court officials, to Armenian architects and Jewish physicians. But, yeah, Arabs had really good penmanship.
Our president's breakthrough message to the Muslim world was that America overthrew democratic regimes, slavery was our history's central feature, and we invaded people on a whim - but we're sorry now.
His crowd-pleasing speech sanitized and romanticized Islam, letting the disgruntled populations of the Middle East off the hook for their own self-wrought failures, their monstrous oppression of women (our president's women's-right-to-wear-hijab remarks were aimed at Europe), and the violent aggression toward others they often celebrated and generally tolerated.
To Arab ears, especially, the Cairo speech made America the guilty party in our confrontations, as if, on 9/11, crazed Presbyterians had attacked Mecca. Yet, the historical facts are that Islam's remorseless assault on the West lasted for more than one thousand years, its cruel occupation of Christian lands lasted into the 20th century, and the dream of an all-conquering caliphate remains very much with us.
The last mass slaughter of Christians in Iraq wasn't a millennium ago, but in 1933. Al Qaeda isn't an aberration. It's a manifestation.
Our president may or may not be a student of history, but he can't just make it up.
Aleikum salaam!
Ralph Peters is Fox News' Strategic Analyst.
More of today's headlines
“Colonie, NY - Four hundred New York National Guard Soldiers, Airmen and New York Guard volunteers converged on Albany June 5-7 to hone their skills in responding to a...”
Colonie, NY - New York National Guard Trains For Dirty Bomb Disaster
New York, NY - Economic Disaster Makes the City Finally Get Some Sleep
Total43
Read Comments (43) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 07, 2009 at 12:36 PM Anonymous Says:
This man is a winner! Great essay. Thank you for posting this on VIN.
2
Jun 07, 2009 at 12:46 PM Anonymous Says:
Kol Hakavod Ralph, you nailed it on the obama head.
3
Jun 07, 2009 at 12:39 PM Anonymous Says:
Our president may or may not be a student of history, but he can't just make it up.
I think someone has to go back to History 101 and take the course over again. better yet by then the history books may be revised to acomodate this new student!
4
Jun 07, 2009 at 01:00 PM Anonymous Says:
Beautiful written but its very sad
5
Jun 07, 2009 at 01:49 PM Anonymous Says:
great piece of work! lmfao!
6
Jun 07, 2009 at 01:10 PM Milhouse Says:
Correction: there aren't even three or four million Moslems in the USA. The best estimates are under 2 million.
7
Jun 07, 2009 at 01:36 PM fox rocks Says:
well said. someone should email it to Obama blackberry or at least to the whitehouse.
8
Jun 07, 2009 at 01:31 PM Anonymous Says:
but on the same vin page , we have a posting from a reporter from HAARETZ , that just does not get the picture ...
9
Jun 07, 2009 at 01:12 PM Anonymous Says:
History is always revisionist. Ask any American Indian about the 200+ treaties that were unilaterally revoked by the U.S. government so that homesteaders and others could take over tribal lands. Obama's speech in the M.E. is not now nor will it be the last attempt to revise history in favor of policies that seek to disfavor Americans.
10
Jun 07, 2009 at 02:09 PM Milhouse Says:
Correction: there are not three or four million Moslems in the USA; the best estimates put their number at under two million.
11
Jun 07, 2009 at 02:29 PM Ralph is wrong Says:
Ralph doesn't get what the president is trying to do: namely to distance the muslims from Al Qaida. Telling the muslims that it's not us against them, it's us against Al Qaida. We have been bombing Al Qaida for 7 years with much success, but bombs will only take you so far. We never took on Al Qaida with regards to their propaganda war. It is absolutely critical that we do that.
Obama has been slowly but surely working towards removing Al Qaida's recruitment tools. I can't tell you whether it will work, but at least he's trying. Bush took the head-in-the-wall approach, an approach Ralph would like us to continue since he's been a major apologist for the Bush admin, but we all know where that got us.
12
Jun 07, 2009 at 02:15 PM Democracy isn't for everybody Says:
100% true! It is NOT for everybody! This one I agree with Obama, if that's what he was trying to say. Just because it works in the US doesn't mean it can work everywhere else. It's very naive to think that it can. When a country is made up of and run by religious people there is no way there can be a true democracy, because it goes against their religion.
Look at it this way: whether you are Chasidic or Orthodox - which I assume the majority of VIN readers are - can you see true democracy being implemented in your shul, your school, etc? It conflicts with your religion, the Torah. Now imagine if your job is to run a country based on your religious beliefs - which is the case in may of the middle east countries simply because this is what the people living there want - and you're told that you need to implement democracy, is it possible?
The US shouldn't stick their noses in other countries business unless their security is at stake. It's non of our business whether a country wants to be a democracy or not. Are we penalizing China for not being a democracy? No! Because they're not a threat to our security and they give us lots of business. Same philosophy should be applied to all other countries. Human rights is a different story, but to tell them how to run their country? I don't think so.
13
Jun 07, 2009 at 03:43 PM Oy Gevald Says:
Now how do we get this article posted at bus stops and train station billboards across big cities everywhere?.
That would be productive!
14
Jun 07, 2009 at 03:37 PM Milhouse Says:
“ 100% true! It is NOT for everybody! This one I agree with Obama, if that's what he was trying to say. Just because it works in the US doesn't mean it can work everywhere else. It's very naive to think that it can. When a country is made up of and run by religious people there is no way there can be a true democracy, because it goes against their religion.
Look at it this way: whether you are Chasidic or Orthodox - which I assume the majority of VIN readers are - can you see true democracy being implemented in your shul, your school, etc? It conflicts with your religion, the Torah. Now imagine if your job is to run a country based on your religious beliefs - which is the case in may of the middle east countries simply because this is what the people living there want - and you're told that you need to implement democracy, is it possible?
The US shouldn't stick their noses in other countries business unless their security is at stake. It's non of our business whether a country wants to be a democracy or not. Are we penalizing China for not being a democracy? No! Because they're not a threat to our security and they give us lots of business. Same philosophy should be applied to all other countries. Human rights is a different story, but to tell them how to run their country? I don't think so. ”
Democracy IS a human right. And by the way, most shuls are run democratically.
15
Jun 07, 2009 at 03:36 PM Milhouse Says:
“ 100% true! It is NOT for everybody! This one I agree with Obama, if that's what he was trying to say. Just because it works in the US doesn't mean it can work everywhere else. It's very naive to think that it can. When a country is made up of and run by religious people there is no way there can be a true democracy, because it goes against their religion.
Look at it this way: whether you are Chasidic or Orthodox - which I assume the majority of VIN readers are - can you see true democracy being implemented in your shul, your school, etc? It conflicts with your religion, the Torah. Now imagine if your job is to run a country based on your religious beliefs - which is the case in may of the middle east countries simply because this is what the people living there want - and you're told that you need to implement democracy, is it possible?
The US shouldn't stick their noses in other countries business unless their security is at stake. It's non of our business whether a country wants to be a democracy or not. Are we penalizing China for not being a democracy? No! Because they're not a threat to our security and they give us lots of business. Same philosophy should be applied to all other countries. Human rights is a different story, but to tell them how to run their country? I don't think so. ”
Good gawd, not this again. "Don't tell them how to run their country"? Don't tell WHOM? The dictators? How is it their country? When we "impose" democracy on a country, i.e. deliver it into the hands of its people, whom exactly have we harmed?
No, we're not about to invade and democratise the whole world by force; we haven't got the resources to do that. We're certainly not going to do it to China, because we can't. So long as the dictators who run China leave us and our allies alone, we will leave them to oppress their people in peace; it would be nice to rescue all those people, but we have no obligation to do so, any more than a passerby who sees a mugging has an obligation to be a hero. But if we should one day choose to do so, we have every right. We were certainly right to democratise Germany and Japan, since we were already in occupation, and the same applies to Iraq and Afghanistan.
16
Jun 07, 2009 at 04:01 PM Elections Have Consequences Says:
“ Ralph doesn't get what the president is trying to do: namely to distance the muslims from Al Qaida. Telling the muslims that it's not us against them, it's us against Al Qaida. We have been bombing Al Qaida for 7 years with much success, but bombs will only take you so far. We never took on Al Qaida with regards to their propaganda war. It is absolutely critical that we do that.
Obama has been slowly but surely working towards removing Al Qaida's recruitment tools. I can't tell you whether it will work, but at least he's trying. Bush took the head-in-the-wall approach, an approach Ralph would like us to continue since he's been a major apologist for the Bush admin, but we all know where that got us. ”
You are giving obama FAR too much credit in this war. Lets not forget he wants to cut and run. He has no interest in this "war of convenience" as he called it. Pres Bush kept saying over and over how this wasnt a war vs the muslims but you discount all that and as long as the messiah obama said it once you fall for it as if its the word of G-d!
Obama has no idea what he is talking about and neither do you!
17
Jun 07, 2009 at 04:05 PM Elections Have Consequences Says:
“ 100% true! It is NOT for everybody! This one I agree with Obama, if that's what he was trying to say. Just because it works in the US doesn't mean it can work everywhere else. It's very naive to think that it can. When a country is made up of and run by religious people there is no way there can be a true democracy, because it goes against their religion.
Look at it this way: whether you are Chasidic or Orthodox - which I assume the majority of VIN readers are - can you see true democracy being implemented in your shul, your school, etc? It conflicts with your religion, the Torah. Now imagine if your job is to run a country based on your religious beliefs - which is the case in may of the middle east countries simply because this is what the people living there want - and you're told that you need to implement democracy, is it possible?
The US shouldn't stick their noses in other countries business unless their security is at stake. It's non of our business whether a country wants to be a democracy or not. Are we penalizing China for not being a democracy? No! Because they're not a threat to our security and they give us lots of business. Same philosophy should be applied to all other countries. Human rights is a different story, but to tell them how to run their country? I don't think so. ”
You are correct and when Moshiach comes (not the Barry Hussein Obama kind) we wont have democracy in EY either. We will have a theocrasy.
18
Jun 07, 2009 at 04:49 PM Anonymous Says:
“ You are giving obama FAR too much credit in this war. Lets not forget he wants to cut and run. He has no interest in this "war of convenience" as he called it. Pres Bush kept saying over and over how this wasnt a war vs the muslims but you discount all that and as long as the messiah obama said it once you fall for it as if its the word of G-d!
Obama has no idea what he is talking about and neither do you! ”
He called it a "war of choice" and boy was he right! By now pretty much everyone but Cheney and the drug-junkie Limbaugh agree that we had no business being in Iraq. Afghanistan is a different story; and he DID say Afghanistan was NOT a war of choice.
19
Jun 07, 2009 at 04:30 PM Big Masmid Says:
“ Ralph doesn't get what the president is trying to do: namely to distance the muslims from Al Qaida. Telling the muslims that it's not us against them, it's us against Al Qaida. We have been bombing Al Qaida for 7 years with much success, but bombs will only take you so far. We never took on Al Qaida with regards to their propaganda war. It is absolutely critical that we do that.
Obama has been slowly but surely working towards removing Al Qaida's recruitment tools. I can't tell you whether it will work, but at least he's trying. Bush took the head-in-the-wall approach, an approach Ralph would like us to continue since he's been a major apologist for the Bush admin, but we all know where that got us. ”
He might have a strategy that might or might not work but with what currency does he
plan to aquire this strategy of course with the security of Israel, Do you think an Arab
agrees to anything without Baksheesh, The more their apetite grows the higher the
price.
20
Jun 07, 2009 at 04:58 PM FVNMS Says:
“ Ralph doesn't get what the president is trying to do: namely to distance the muslims from Al Qaida. Telling the muslims that it's not us against them, it's us against Al Qaida. We have been bombing Al Qaida for 7 years with much success, but bombs will only take you so far. We never took on Al Qaida with regards to their propaganda war. It is absolutely critical that we do that.
Obama has been slowly but surely working towards removing Al Qaida's recruitment tools. I can't tell you whether it will work, but at least he's trying. Bush took the head-in-the-wall approach, an approach Ralph would like us to continue since he's been a major apologist for the Bush admin, but we all know where that got us. ”
There will always be people like you who, despite the immense body of evidence to the contrary, will blindly defend Obama's every move as an attempt to improve conditions in the US. I don't know if you are a fool, brainwashed or part of the Hate-America movement and frankly I don't care but I know I speak for everyone with common sense and the ability to discern between good and evil when I say this: I DON'T THINK SO.
21
Jun 07, 2009 at 05:28 PM Anonymous Says:
great piece of work! lmfao!
22
Jun 07, 2009 at 05:27 PM Anonymous Says:
“ You are giving obama FAR too much credit in this war. Lets not forget he wants to cut and run. He has no interest in this "war of convenience" as he called it. Pres Bush kept saying over and over how this wasnt a war vs the muslims but you discount all that and as long as the messiah obama said it once you fall for it as if its the word of G-d!
Obama has no idea what he is talking about and neither do you! ”
I'm part of the 65% that approves of Obama!
23
Jun 07, 2009 at 06:18 PM Anonymous Says:
great article, but the only problem is that some of the history issues- especially as regard the role of Islam in Revolutionary war America- he kind of had to say. I mean, if the idea was for him to reach out to these people, then he kind of has to say those kinds of things. Of course, his equating the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering was vile and uncalled for; calling for Israel to make concessions was also idiotic, and had no place in that speech; but a lot of the other things we didn't like about this speech, well, he had to say in order to get his point across, and any other president would have done the same.
24
Jun 07, 2009 at 05:42 PM Milhouse Says:
“ He called it a "war of choice" and boy was he right! By now pretty much everyone but Cheney and the drug-junkie Limbaugh agree that we had no business being in Iraq. Afghanistan is a different story; and he DID say Afghanistan was NOT a war of choice. ”
The only choice with Iraq was whether to invade in 2003 or delay it until '04 or maybe even '05. Sooner or later Hussein had to be dealt with.
25
Jun 07, 2009 at 06:32 PM Oy Gevald Says:
“ I'm part of the 65% that approves of Obama! ”
Well, do you feel as Obama does, that Israel must show serious willingness to a 2-State solution knowing full well that the Palestinians have not retracted their position of desiring to "push Israel into the Sea" as taught to their school children???
I like Obama too, but I don't agree with any of his foreign policies. Not on Israel and not on Iran. Sure it's wonderful to "talk nice" etc. but historically it is as described in this article. The author couldn't have said it better.
26
Jun 07, 2009 at 06:36 PM elections Have Consequences Says:
“ I'm part of the 65% that approves of Obama! ”
just WHAT do you approve of?
27
Jun 07, 2009 at 07:27 PM Milhouse Says:
“ great article, but the only problem is that some of the history issues- especially as regard the role of Islam in Revolutionary war America- he kind of had to say. I mean, if the idea was for him to reach out to these people, then he kind of has to say those kinds of things. Of course, his equating the Holocaust with Palestinian suffering was vile and uncalled for; calling for Israel to make concessions was also idiotic, and had no place in that speech; but a lot of the other things we didn't like about this speech, well, he had to say in order to get his point across, and any other president would have done the same. ”
What, lied about how many Moslems there are in America, lied about Islam having a role in American history, lied about America having oppressed Moslems and colonised them?
28
Jun 07, 2009 at 07:48 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Well, do you feel as Obama does, that Israel must show serious willingness to a 2-State solution knowing full well that the Palestinians have not retracted their position of desiring to "push Israel into the Sea" as taught to their school children???
I like Obama too, but I don't agree with any of his foreign policies. Not on Israel and not on Iran. Sure it's wonderful to "talk nice" etc. but historically it is as described in this article. The author couldn't have said it better. ”
Yes I do. Reason being, there's no way Israel can survive with the way things are going. They can drag it on for 10-20 or even 50 years, but it has to come to an end. When they started fighting with the Palestinians, they were throwing Molotov cocktails. Now they're shooting rockets. They will with 100% certainty become more and more sophisticated. Regardless of how sophisticated Israel will be at that time, they won't be able to live next to a neighbor who's shooting rockets all the way into Tel Aviv. The bottom line is, there HAS to be peace and the Israelis need to work hard and give up a lot to achieve it. To thing you can wall yourself off make no sense. It's not sustainable in the long run.
29
Jun 07, 2009 at 07:43 PM Anonymous Says:
“ The only choice with Iraq was whether to invade in 2003 or delay it until '04 or maybe even '05. Sooner or later Hussein had to be dealt with. ”
Because??? Did he threaten us, was he capable of threatening us??? We now know that he wasn't. No WMD.
30
Jun 07, 2009 at 08:12 PM PMO Says:
“ The only choice with Iraq was whether to invade in 2003 or delay it until '04 or maybe even '05. Sooner or later Hussein had to be dealt with. ”
This is a ridiculous article. This moron pulls 3 words out of context and turns it into something it wasn't. What a fool! I'm not a big fan of all of this either... however, I'll at least keep my debates on it HONEST.
I saw the whole speech. Obama did not blame Israel for the suffering of Palestinians... he just said they were suffering. THEY ARE! They are suffering at the hands of the brutal violent regime that has been allowed to rule there.
Lets be very clear... read the ENTIRE speech if you didn't hear it. If you think it was "anti-Israel", you are looking at the speech though hate-colored glasses. If all you know about this speech is snippets you saw on Fox News or heard on Limbaugh's show, you did not get the truth... you got what they wanted you to THINK was the truth. Read the entire text of the speech and think for yourself.
31
Jun 07, 2009 at 08:06 PM PMO Says:
“ The only choice with Iraq was whether to invade in 2003 or delay it until '04 or maybe even '05. Sooner or later Hussein had to be dealt with. ”
Why did Hussein have to be dealt with? We know now that he had nothing more than some rusty pieces of scrap metal for weapons.... who was he a threat to? Certainly not the US!
32
Jun 07, 2009 at 08:05 PM PMO Says:
“ There will always be people like you who, despite the immense body of evidence to the contrary, will blindly defend Obama's every move as an attempt to improve conditions in the US. I don't know if you are a fool, brainwashed or part of the Hate-America movement and frankly I don't care but I know I speak for everyone with common sense and the ability to discern between good and evil when I say this: I DON'T THINK SO. ”
Can you provide some of this "evidence" that you speak of? And by evidence, I don't mean silly distortions you heard on the radio... I mean ACTUAL evidence.
33
Jun 07, 2009 at 10:26 PM Rippin Pinchas Says:
“ Why did Hussein have to be dealt with? We know now that he had nothing more than some rusty pieces of scrap metal for weapons.... who was he a threat to? Certainly not the US! ”
Hind-sight is 20/20. Bill Clinton said that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Congress approved of the war. We do not have a crystal ball to look to the future and know then what we know now. You sound like the bafoon John Kerry: " I voted for the Iraq war before I voted against it."
34
Jun 07, 2009 at 09:19 PM moshe Says:
great article,thanks so much for posting it.
35
Jun 08, 2009 at 08:28 AM Sorry Charlie. Says:
“ This is a ridiculous article. This moron pulls 3 words out of context and turns it into something it wasn't. What a fool! I'm not a big fan of all of this either... however, I'll at least keep my debates on it HONEST.
I saw the whole speech. Obama did not blame Israel for the suffering of Palestinians... he just said they were suffering. THEY ARE! They are suffering at the hands of the brutal violent regime that has been allowed to rule there.
Lets be very clear... read the ENTIRE speech if you didn't hear it. If you think it was "anti-Israel", you are looking at the speech though hate-colored glasses. If all you know about this speech is snippets you saw on Fox News or heard on Limbaugh's show, you did not get the truth... you got what they wanted you to THINK was the truth. Read the entire text of the speech and think for yourself. ”
Sorry PMO, this time I will respectfully disagree with you.
This president is making a laughing stock of us. He is destroying this country single handedly.
The man in the Whitehouse today is doing more damage than a major war fought on our soil.
Property can be rebuilt.
Lives lost would be lost for a good cause.
But, when we lose our Constitution..... our very freedoms .... Better to have NY nuked!
This man is a threat to the United State. He has already damaged it during his first few months in office. I do not believe we can survive 4 years of him.
36
Jun 08, 2009 at 08:22 AM Yeah, Right. Says:
“ I'm part of the 65% that approves of Obama! ”
LMAO....
Most of that "65%" only SAY they approve of Obama, because they are afraid of being said to be racist.
Some are actually SCARED to oppose him.
I know 2 educated blacks, who admitted to me they think he is "G-d Awful" as president, but they would never say it in public. In public, or in surveys, they feel they must support him to not lose friendship of their fellow blacks. One said, "I was at a meeting. We talked about Obama. I really believe we had 13 black men standing around praising a man who we all thought was totally horrible at the job."
37
Jun 08, 2009 at 09:00 AM Anonymous Says:
“ Can you provide some of this "evidence" that you speak of? And by evidence, I don't mean silly distortions you heard on the radio... I mean ACTUAL evidence. ”
It is easy for those who oppose Conservatism and are pro Liberalism, to make light of what Conservative Radio personalities say.
It is easy to marginalize their words by saying things like, "He is just an entertainer... don't take him seriously."
The oldest propaganda techniques take elements of truth, and make you believe everything they want to attach to that truth.
Sure, Radio is entertainment. There is the element of truth. Therefore attach to that the concept that everything the talk radio hosts say is rubbish, and you have the new Liberal posters.... "Ignore Rush, he is an entertainer who knows nothing, and has an agenda"
Well, we all have agendas. You have one, I have one, Rush has one, and the Liberals have one.
I am not a Rush fan. But, one of the things I do cry over, is that because everyone is so involved in making fun of Rush, and the other 4 or 5 like him, you are throwing out whatever he says, not stopping to see if it is actually true and right.
More often than not, Rush is right.
Calling him a druggie, because he had trouble with pain pills in the past, is dirty and not worthy of a good debater.
Years ago, Rush did go off into the rediculous at times.
But, now that he has the world's attention, he puts in a major effort, and successful one too, at being dead on on almost all of what he says.
Sure, there are a few little points which he needs to stick to to appease his "constituency".... and he must take the "party line" on those things... sometimes he could have done better to leave a certain news even uncommented on...
But, in general, on the big issues, you will find Rush is much more often correct than the "other side"... Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because Rush says it, does not make it wrong!
38
Jun 08, 2009 at 08:41 AM Bush's 5 Mistakes in Iraq Says:
“ Hind-sight is 20/20. Bill Clinton said that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. Congress approved of the war. We do not have a crystal ball to look to the future and know then what we know now. You sound like the bafoon John Kerry: " I voted for the Iraq war before I voted against it." ”
Bush made FIVE bad mistakes in Iraq:
1. He gave us a poor reason for going in by mentioning WMD's. He should have simply said we are fighting terrorism, going after the madman, and taking the oil from the terrorists.
2. Bush underestimated the intelligence of the Iraqis. This is a typical mistake all Americans make. We assume all "others" are not as smart as we are. Sadam KNEW he could not prevail in a military conflict. So he set it up to make the military conflict, our type of war, end fast, and "let the US win quickly."
Then he or his men could continue with the type of war the US seldom does well at, a war of terrrorism rather than armies meeting.
3. Bush did not send in enough troops and equipment to begin with. We should have opened more fronts, and really overwhelmed Iraq.
4. Bush declared "victory" when the war was only ready to change from outright war fought on our terms to one fought on the terrorists' terms.
5. Bush SHOULD have taken their OIL. Instead of trying soooo hard to win love, by saying we are not out for oil, he should have proudly announced, "Yes, now that we are here, spending all this money, WE WILL TAKE THEIR OIL FIELDS"
He should have cut off that part of Iraq, and taken it as a US territory.
Bush meant well. But is is a softy. He wanted soooo much to be liked, that he fought like a wuss.
39
Jun 08, 2009 at 10:27 AM PMO Says:
“ Sorry PMO, this time I will respectfully disagree with you.
This president is making a laughing stock of us. He is destroying this country single handedly.
The man in the Whitehouse today is doing more damage than a major war fought on our soil.
Property can be rebuilt.
Lives lost would be lost for a good cause.
But, when we lose our Constitution..... our very freedoms .... Better to have NY nuked!
This man is a threat to the United State. He has already damaged it during his first few months in office. I do not believe we can survive 4 years of him. ”
Once again, I will say.... can you provide some actual FACTS for us?
The only Constitutional freedoms we have lost recently were under BUSH through his Patriot Act which essentially says the government can violate and spit on the 4th amendment any time they see fit in the name of "National Security".
You say "This president is making a laughing stock of us." How? Can you provide facts to back this up? I doubt you can, but I would like to hear it.
I did not vote for Obama, but really do believe in keeping a conversation HONEST. If all you can do is repeat wild speculations that you hear from comedians on the radio, you are not dealing in FACTS and you are not being honest. If you are going to make a charge, back it up. Otherwise it is just empty words.
40
Jun 08, 2009 at 10:19 AM PMO Says:
“ It is easy for those who oppose Conservatism and are pro Liberalism, to make light of what Conservative Radio personalities say.
It is easy to marginalize their words by saying things like, "He is just an entertainer... don't take him seriously."
The oldest propaganda techniques take elements of truth, and make you believe everything they want to attach to that truth.
Sure, Radio is entertainment. There is the element of truth. Therefore attach to that the concept that everything the talk radio hosts say is rubbish, and you have the new Liberal posters.... "Ignore Rush, he is an entertainer who knows nothing, and has an agenda"
Well, we all have agendas. You have one, I have one, Rush has one, and the Liberals have one.
I am not a Rush fan. But, one of the things I do cry over, is that because everyone is so involved in making fun of Rush, and the other 4 or 5 like him, you are throwing out whatever he says, not stopping to see if it is actually true and right.
More often than not, Rush is right.
Calling him a druggie, because he had trouble with pain pills in the past, is dirty and not worthy of a good debater.
Years ago, Rush did go off into the rediculous at times.
But, now that he has the world's attention, he puts in a major effort, and successful one too, at being dead on on almost all of what he says.
Sure, there are a few little points which he needs to stick to to appease his "constituency".... and he must take the "party line" on those things... sometimes he could have done better to leave a certain news even uncommented on...
But, in general, on the big issues, you will find Rush is much more often correct than the "other side"... Don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Just because Rush says it, does not make it wrong! ”
I don't know where you get the idea that I am a liberal. I am a very conservative libertarian. All of the "radio hosts" are just entertainers. That goes for the LEFT and the RIGHT. These people exist to make money. They have no journalistic integrity, and the TRUTH rarely gets in the way of their ranting. These people are not the great journalistic minds of our time, they are guys who knew how to build a brand and knew they could get listeners by being controvertial. That is the radio game. Whether you are talking about Sean Hannity or Alan Colmes or Howard Stern, their game is 100% the same... get listeners so advertisers will pay.
As for not listening to what he says... I DO listen. When people quote Rush (some even just copy and paste their comments right from Rush's website), I look at the facts for myself. It is a VERY rare occasion that the facts support his wildly speculative arguments. If you actually took the time to look, you would see that FACTS are not really part of his world.
There are very few genuine, conservative, libertarian voices left on the air. Joe Scarborough and Tucker Carlson (just to to name 2) are true conservatives with an insatiable appetite for FACTS and TRUTH.
41
Jun 08, 2009 at 11:51 AM Anonymous Says:
“ LMAO....
Most of that "65%" only SAY they approve of Obama, because they are afraid of being said to be racist.
Some are actually SCARED to oppose him.
I know 2 educated blacks, who admitted to me they think he is "G-d Awful" as president, but they would never say it in public. In public, or in surveys, they feel they must support him to not lose friendship of their fellow blacks. One said, "I was at a meeting. We talked about Obama. I really believe we had 13 black men standing around praising a man who we all thought was totally horrible at the job." ”
That was the same rethoric I heard before the election "he's ahead in the polls because ppl don't want to be racist". Guess what, those ppl voted for him when the curtains were closed. Stop the stupidity already!
42
Jun 08, 2009 at 04:29 PM # 12 you're wrong Says:
“ 100% true! It is NOT for everybody! This one I agree with Obama, if that's what he was trying to say. Just because it works in the US doesn't mean it can work everywhere else. It's very naive to think that it can. When a country is made up of and run by religious people there is no way there can be a true democracy, because it goes against their religion.
Look at it this way: whether you are Chasidic or Orthodox - which I assume the majority of VIN readers are - can you see true democracy being implemented in your shul, your school, etc? It conflicts with your religion, the Torah. Now imagine if your job is to run a country based on your religious beliefs - which is the case in may of the middle east countries simply because this is what the people living there want - and you're told that you need to implement democracy, is it possible?
The US shouldn't stick their noses in other countries business unless their security is at stake. It's non of our business whether a country wants to be a democracy or not. Are we penalizing China for not being a democracy? No! Because they're not a threat to our security and they give us lots of business. Same philosophy should be applied to all other countries. Human rights is a different story, but to tell them how to run their country? I don't think so. ”
If you think China is not a threat to US security, you're crazy.
43
Jun 08, 2009 at 06:41 PM Anonymous Says:
oy too much truth here