I had kind of strange reaction this week when Sarah Palin accused President Obama of being "Unamerican."
A visceral reaction of "How dare she call my President that?"
What a harpy that woman has turned into! But it was more basic than that. It wasn't even about Obama. It was the office, and the lack of respect that the tea baggers are showing.
Holy moly.
What's next?
My country, love it or leave it?
My country, right or wrong?
Never mind that the poor guy inherited a horrible situation from 8 years of mismanagement.
It's the idea that these people consider themselves to be the 'patriots' at the same time that they can wish that the President of THEIR U.S. fails.
I'm sure that most people in the U.S.A. don't feel that way. That most people are quietly supporting him.
A Silent Majority, if you will.
NO, Wait! What did I just say?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
Not according to the most recent poll number.
His approval numbers are now below 50% (49% according to AP) and only 44% approve his handling of health care). It has continued to fall since his approval.
As far as the concept of respect for office. Unfortunately that started to erode a while ago. The concept of respecting the office even if you disagree with the person really doesn't exist much anymore. In some ways it goes along with the the erosion of civil discourse that seems rampant in this era of the Internet. Now I did not see you complaining when the same type or even worse comments were being made about Bush. Respect for the office should go both ways and be independant of politics.
Maybe it's just me, but that use of the word "Unamerican" just really bugged me.
Agree to disagree, man.
And don't wrap yourself in the flag at the same time you're screeching in a harpy voice that our President is Unamerican. (Oh, the irony. Unamerican....as in, not born in America? As in being black?)
The wingnuts always say these things. But there seems an added measure of hypocrisy when the so called 'patriots' start tearing down the President. (Hey, you expect it from the hippies on the left, huh? At least they're consistent....)
But since you're such a demon for research, RDC, find me an example of the major party leader calling President Bush something as damning as Unamerican.
Or...any Congressman or Senator using an equally weighted word. Maybe there are hundreds of examples, but I really can't think of any.
I suppose we may end up arguing over the weightiness of words and the importance of the utterer....
But this was just my breaking point --
Unamerican.
Really?
"What a harpy that woman has turned into!"
"Harpy" is precisely the word for her. Did you hear her screech ... uh, I mean, "speech"? Damn, that voice could peel paint.
RDC: I remember Bush II being called incompetent (which he was) and a liar (which he was), but I don't remember him being called "unAmerican." That's an epithet that the righties apply freely but the lefties rarely, if ever, use.
"That's an epithet that the righties apply freely but the lefties rarely, if ever, use."
That's because we love our country....but we don't think everyone who doesn't believe the way we do is Unamerican.
Lets see.
How about this one from Harry Reid.
"President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and he betrayed the country."
By the way this was in context of Yucca Mountain Waste Repository.
Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.''
Blackdog:
Oh please give us the context for absolute claim that Bush was a liar. Also as the issue of competence it is rather amazing that on many of those same subjects (primarily Iraq and for that matter the large stimulus) there was little or no difference between that actions taken by the Pbama administration. Lits get into a nice discussion of details instead of broad ranging claims.
As far as onyl the right using the term unamerican. Gore called Bush unamerican in 2002.
How about the New York Times calling Bush's re-election campaign as being unamerican.
Gore Vidal on Bush’s Inaugural Address:
“The Most Un-American Speech I’ve Ever
Heard”
While not used in context of the Presidency you have Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi, the liberal Democratic Representative from San Francisco, wrote early this morning in a special USA Today editorial that those protesting against government run health care are “un-American“.
I can give you a fairly large number of quotations from either left leaning media type such as matthews or Olberman, as well as numberous media comments using the term UnAmerican related to Bush or his programs.
Since only the right uses the term I could not resist this example
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer took aim at the "disruptions" at health care town halls, calling them part of "an ugly campaign" of "drowning out ... substantive discussion." Quite bluntly, the leading Democrats concluded that the behavior "is simply un-American."
To parse your examples down, the only one that sticks is Harry Reid saying Bush was a liar. Which he had specific example in mind.
Pelosi wasn't calling opponents unamerican, but the idea that not insuring americans unamerican. A little different.
Leave out the media please, they're pretty over the top on both sides.
I think it's one thing to call a policy unamerican and another thing to call and american unamerican.
I guess I'm not a big fan of the term Unamwerican-- as if that's some barrier we never cross.
Whatever we do, by definition, is American.
Otherwise, you get into weird fantasy worlds like Bush saying we don't torture "because Americans don't torture."
Well, if we torture, than that's what Americans do....
"Oh please give us the context for absolute claim that Bush was a liar."
Oh please, the instances of Bush and various flunkeys in his administration lying or twisting the truth to advance the administration's agenda are too numerous to go into in detail. But the most glaring one, of course, was the series of lies about Saddam's WMDs that was used to sell the Iraq war. "Faulty intelligence" my ass -- Cheney and Rumsfeld COOKED UP the intelligence and then, when there turned out not to be any WMDs, blamed "faulty intelligence."
"Also as the issue of competence it is rather amazing that on many of those same subjects (primarily Iraq and for that matter the large stimulus) there was little or no difference between that actions taken by the Pbama administration."
I don't recall the Obama administration invading Iraq -- it must have happened while I wasn't looking. The invasion of Iraq having happened, of course, Obama couldn't just walk away from the mess Bush made.
Keep in mind what I posted were examples not an all inclusive list. Ii would be fairly easy to fill up a large number of posts from this blogs with additional quotes. Including from Reid, Pelosi, not even getting to Democratic members of the Senate and Congress (especially congress).
You were making the point that use of the term unamerican was exclusively being used by the Right, so what was posted was a few out of a pretty large set, to demonstrate that the term is and was also being used by the left.
How many quotes would you like?
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
If you go back to that period, everyone of the WEstern Countries intelligence reports (Germany, France, Netherlands, US, UK, and for that matter even Russia thought the same thing. Go pull up the UN reports from the weapons search team, they also thought that the weaponsa were there. Immediately after the invasion there was an interview with Hans Blix in which he said that he was shocked that the US did not find anything, that he thought the US would find something. His opposition to the invasion was not that he did not think that they existed, only that he wanted the UN to have more time to find and destroy them. There is also a lot of documentation that Iraq was actively running a misinformation campaign to make people think that they still existed. The reason for that is because Saddam felt that he need Iran to believe he still had them to keep them from invading.
This is from 2003 and is from an article about Hans Blix
Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix now believes Iraq destroyed its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago and that intelligence agencies were wrong in their weapons assessment that led to war.
Note the NOW Believes and the INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES (as in plural
Now if you are calling Bush a liar do you call each of the following liars as well:
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
COMMITTEE ESTABLISHED TO REVIEW INTELLIGENCE ON WMD (03/02/2004)
STATEMENT BY THE FOREIGN SECRETARY, JACK STRAW, IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS, ON THE COMMITTEE TO REVIEW INTELLIGENCE ON WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION
The Government recognise - and always have - that there are wider and entirely legitimate concerns about the reliability of the original intelligence which have been heightened by Dr Kay's evidence. When he gave evidence before the US Congress last week, on 28 January, he repeatedly emphasised his continued support for the decision to take military action against Iraq, and his belief still today that Iraq was in clear and material violation of UNSCR 1441. He stated also:
'Prior to the war, my view was that the best evidence that I had seen was that Iraq, indeed, had weapons of mass destruction. I would also point out that many governments that chose not to support this war – certainly the French President Chirac, referred to Iraq's possession of WMD. The German intelligence certainly believed that there was WMD.'
Dr Kay added: 'It turns out that we were all wrong, probably in my judgement, and that is most disturbing.'
Hans Blix, An Update on Inspection, January 27, 2003
With regard to cooperation on substance, Blix's report is more negative, noting that Iraq has failed to engage in the "active" cooperation called for in Resolution 1441. He questions Iraqi claims concerning the quality, quantity, and disposition of VX nerve gas produced by Iraq as well as claims that Iraq destroyed 8, 500 liters of anthrax. In addition, he reports that Iraq has tested two missiles in excess of the permitted range of 150 kilometers.
Dr. Hans Blix, Briefing of the Security Council, February 14, 2003
However, he also noted that many proscribed programs had not been accounted for, a matter that he characterized as being of "great significance." He specifically mentioned programs for the production of anthrax, VX nerve gas, and long-range missiles.
Statement by David Kay on the Interim Progress Report of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG) before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
In addition, Kay summarized some of the Survey Group's discoveries, which included: a clandestine network of laboratories and safe-houses controlled by the Iraqi Intelligence Services containing equipment suitable for CBW research; reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientists home; documents and equipment hidden in scientists' homes that could be used for resuming uranium enrichment activities; and a continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD missiles.
Transcript of David Kay testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee, January 28, 2004
David Kay appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee shortly after he resigned as special advisor to the Iraq Survey Group. Kay states, referring to the expectation that there would be substantial stocks of, and production lines for, chemical and biological weapons in Iraq, that "we were almost all wrong, and I certainly include myself here." He also notes that other foreign intelligence agencies, including the French and the German, also had believed that Iraq possessed such stocks and production lines. In addition, he discusses the issue of whether political pressure had any impact on the content of the October 2002 national intelligence estimate (Document 15). Kay also notes that "based on the work of the Iraq Survey Group … Iraq was in clear violation of the terms of [U.N.] Resolution 1441. He goes on to note the discovery of hundreds of instances of activities prohibited by U.N. Resolution 687.
Also keep in mind that the debate at the time was not if Iraq had them or not, it was if the UN should be given more time to find them.
It is amazing how easily forget the discussions that were actually taking place at the time.
A little bit of overkill there, RDC.
It's a little bit like shouting down your opponent.
As regards your proof of "unamerican" , I'll accept your contention that both sides overuse it.
It still bugs me that Sarah Palin said that....I guess because I think she's so utterly unqualified and unworthy and smug about her ignorance.
And shrill.
I don't like her.
Uh lets see when Obama was running for President he indicated that he would pull out within 12 months. He and Biden both stated that the surge would not work. Reid stated that the war in Iraq was wrong.
Obama once he got into office bascially made no changes in the Bush plan inside Iraq, the Surge did work and the war was not lost.
Note that unlike comments during the campaign he has now increased forces in Afghanistan (rather Bushlike to me). The same polices about using unmanned aircraft in attacks on terrorists that he criticized during the campaign are continuing and for that matter expanded.
So exactly what changes from the Bush policy has Obama made in Iraq or AFghanistan, excpet for moving more troops into Afghanistan, which probably would have occured under McCain or for that matter Bush if his term had lasted a bit longer.
I will agree with you in that I do not like such terms used by either side.
If you disagree on an issue you should debate the issue, not attack the person. Today the normal course seems to be to debate in broad terms and to attack the other person, instead of applying facts and logic to support ones case.
Post a Comment