Jay Severin, WTKK in Boston, "I was FOR the war before I was AGAINST it." (VANITY)

[Jackson57]

Jay Severin on WTKK in Boston has recently been very vocal in his support of Cindy Sheehan and her anti-war efforts in Crawford. He played very benign soundbites of her's yesterday, yet failed to play some of the more infammatory things she's said. Jay went so far as to say the war in IraqNam (as he flippantly refers to it) is LOST. Callers to his show are increasingly moonbatty in their remarks. He additionally said, yesterday, that protest is the MOST American of things. While, that might be true in spirit, it's wrong in execution. As we're seeing, the protest in Crawford is against what's good for this country and those who are defending it. Thanks for letting me rant ...

[darkwing104]

that protest is the MOST American of things

As so is the right of descent. We have he same right to call it what it really is. A grand standing media hog who will use her son's name to make herself "Special"...

[mak5]

The MSM is having their desired effect. They want us to cut and run, like we did in Viet Nam (remember how well that worked? Ask the millions of dead Vietnamese and Cambodians.) We can only hope that the President and congressional majority hold strong for the year or two it will take to get things to settle down in Iraq.

[betty boop]

I haven't been able to listen to Severin for the past eight months. It is clear that he considers President Bush to be far less intelligent than he is himself. Plus he seems not to perceive the irony of a self-described libertarian being on the same side of a public policy issue as mindless Michael Moore. He cries crocodile tears over the hardships endured by our service people in Iraq and elsewhere, and then works zealously to increase their difficulties. I think a lot of those people would tell you that the support of the American public is critically important to them; and that's the very thing that Severin seems to be working overtime to undermine.

I used to love his show. Now I just think he's another braying ass in the media barnyard. I have simply turned him off. And I won't be back.

Thanks for the rant, Jackson57. You speak for others as well.

[billybudd]

Did it take "a year or two" for things to "settle down" in Vietnam? I'm getting nervous that Republicans are buying the bullshit being spewed by Bush. The real issue in Vietnam is that we were fighting a proxy war without attacking the source. Until Bush rolls up his sleeves and takes out Iran and Syria, Iraq will continue to be a target for foreign infiltrators. This isn't the War on Terror he promised us. It's time to get to work.

[troop_defender]

We are in the process of organizing a resistance to the moon bats. Millions of pro troop supporter's will meet up in every town across America on Veterans day 05. Details will be posted on this site as they become available.

[wndycndy]

My whole family and I used to love listening to Jay. Now none of us bother anymore. And the way he talks about women like he is some young, hot superstud is laughable! Have you ever seen the guy? Can you say "Aging Vampire"! LOL!!!

[Jackson57]

I, like you, have not been able to listen to him with any regularity. He's clearly regressed back to those days of protesting at Vassar that he loves to recall. He somehow thinks he's still able to smoke dope and pick up hippy chicks, while maintaining a talk radio show. I'm writing Dr. Bruce Houghton, a major sponsor of his show, letting him know I won't be a patient of his any longer due to Jay's position on the war in Iraq.

[Jackson57]

Please pm me with details, as I'm in the Boston area and would like to participate. If you need a photographer, I'm a part-time pro.

[betty boop]

The real issue in Vietnam is that we were fighting a proxy war without attacking the source. Until Bush rolls up his sleeves and takes out Iran and Syria, Iraq will continue to be a target for foreign infiltrators.

Great observation, billybudd.

[MNJohnnie]

Did it take "a year or two" for things to "settle down" in Vietnam? I'm getting nervous that Republicans are buying the bullshit being spewed by Bush. The real issue in Vietnam is that we were fighting a proxy war without attacking the source


Look up the term "Operational Overreach". Your heart is in the right place, your strategy is messed up. We did not invade Japan a year after Pearl Harbor. We had to build to the point we could do it. Iraq is a step, not an end point. Think of it as this war's equivalent of the invasion of Italy.

[billybudd]

I'm not trying to second guess the strategy being employed here, either on the civilian or military side. I simply don't know that much about the situation. But I'm getting frustrated about this "stay the course" attitude, which is fine, I agree with it, but we're not getting any indications of any policy, etc. likely to resolve the underlying issues I mentioned.

The situations you describe are different. In WWII, we needed to build up infrastructure, equipment, recruiting, etc. None of that needs to be done today. We have the weapons, the equipment, they're already deployed. And we're not increasing our presence in Iraq, we're starting to bring troops back. So the analogy doesn't really hold. We have the means to do it, just not the will. The only thing I can think of that's holding us back is that a widened war would spike oil prices so high it might bring down our economy.

[MNJohnnie]

The real issue in Vietnam is that we were fighting a proxy war without attacking the source. Until Bush rolls up his sleeves and takes out Iran and Syria, Iraq will continue to be a target for foreign infiltrators. Great observation, billybudd.

Ah actually NO. Tone way down the Bush hate and try to actually learn something here instead of mindlessly parroting the anti-Bush propaganda you been programed to spew. The difference all the Hysteric "Iraq is Vietnam" people keep missing. Vietnam was basically a fight between conventional forces with know base areas and supply lines in a limited geographic area. In the War on Terror, we are facing covert foes spread across a wide geographic areas with covert sources of supply. Since we lack the ability to send forces every where the terrorists hide, and because we cannot defend every target the terrorists may hit, we need to draw the Terrorists out of hiding into our kill zone. Iraq is that kill zone. We prepped a battle field the terrorists HAVE to fight on for political reasons (the "holy soil" of Arabia). We force the terrorists to fight OUR strength (Conventional Military force) with their WEAKEST asset (Conventional military strength) on a geographically neutral area (Iraq as opposed to favorable terrorist battlefields like Afghanistan) on a battlefield where we would have the support of indigenous forces (the vast bulk of the very nationalistic Iraqi tribes). I know you all have been horribly scared by Vietnam but Iraq is in NO WAY similar to Vietnam. You see Syria as one big Ho Chi Min trail, that is not what it is. The better analogy is the processing chute of a slaughter house. See, in a slaughter house cattle from a wide area are concentrated for processing. They move down the processing chute until they are killed and processed. Syria is the slaughterhouse processing chute, Iraq is the terrorists slaughterhouse. We WANT them to come to Iraq and get massacred rather then hide out around the world planning the next 9-11!

[MamaLucci]

Jay wants to be invited to the elite's cocktail parties.

[ClaireSolt]

Have you heard this? A man called C-span yesterday and asserted that in the time when we have lost 1800 soldiers in the Middle East war on terror 30,000 Americans have been murdered in America. To some extent, then, isn't the incessant attention to low war casualties a wag-the-dog dodge to avoid covering the dismal failure of liberal democratic policies in American cities?

[billybudd]

I'm not anti-Bush and I don't hate him. I voted for him both times. But I'm getting nervous because of an analogy I see to Vietnam, which other people have seen, and Bush isn't taking any pains to address it through his speeches. The analogy is NOT the left's version, i.e., people are dying, American evil, blah blah. My concern is specifically about Syria and Iran, and if you look at the pattern of attacks within Iraq, it is clear as day that the infiltrators are coming in and getting supplied from Syria and Iran. There are plenty of reports from the borders to confirm this, even though Bush seems to want to ignore it.

The "kill zone" strategy is a valid one, although it has never actually been articulated by Bush (for good reason). That's because it would contradict the stated reason for our presence: to build an Iraqi democracy, to serve as a model for the region. If we intend to achieve this aim, then we do indeed need to take out the source of the problem. The Iraqi system simply will not survive if we don't do this. And the terrible thing would be that it would kill our future credibility in these situations. "Look what happened to Iraq, we don't want that here in Iran", etc. So I think it is a legitimate concern to have.

Now, if Bush dosn't think this is a priority, then fine, he should say that. Instead, it looks as if he's trying to lower expectations without making a change in policy, which makes me really nervous.

[billybudd]

I find the liberals' constant citing of war casualties to be extremely juvenile. After WWII, we were still fighting insurgents for four years after the supposed end of the war, costing literally thousands of American lives. It would be like claiming back then that we actually lost WWII because we were still taking casualties.

Having said that, we're at the beginning of a war in Iraq, not the end.

[betty boop]

We WANT them to come to Iraq and get massacred rather then hide out around the world planning the next 9-11!

I could be wrong, MNJohnnie, but it seems that billybudd thinks we should take out the people who are sending the terrorists/infiltrators/jihadists that are winding up in Iraq -- and elsewhere. (And I would agree.) There seems to be an infinite supply of expendable fanatics to fuel this barbarism forever; but the people issuing the marching orders are probably comparatively few in number. And we know where they are. They should be made to "go away." JMHO FWIW

[raccoonradio]

WTKK's James Severino. Nice flattop.

[raccoonradio]

From Wikipedia:
"Severin, a former GOP political consultant, worked for the presidential campaigns of George H.W. Bush and Pat Buchanan before before becoming a radio talk show host.

"Severin is known as a libertarian on social and economic issues, and isolationist on international affairs, supporting Pat Buchanan’s ideology. Arguing that Republicans are less socialist than Democrats, he voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. However he has been criticizing the Bush’s policy on Iraq war vehemently for risking the lives of US troops unnecessarily even after it was found that there was no weapons of mass destruction. His radio show Extreme Games (on 96.9 WTTK FM Boston) has been criticized by Boston-area media, especially Boston Globe, on numerous occasions for his offending comments towards minority and liberals.

"In 2005, Severin was made a permanent contributor to MSNBC show The Situation with Tucker Carlson, but left the show due to displeasure over having to commute from Sag Habor to the New Jersey-based MSNBC studio, especially since the show's initial ratings have been low." He pretends to do his show from Boston, and occasionally does the show live from a bar, but mostly does it via ISDN line from Long Island.