How to Lose Your Job in Talk Radio - Clear Channel gags KFYI's Goyette, an antiwar conservative!

PHXnews ^ | 1/11/04 | Charles Goyette

[AZ Righty]

“Imagine these startling headlines with the nation at war in the Pacific six months after Dec. 7, 1941: “No Signs of Japanese Involvement in Pearl Harbor Attack! Faulty Intelligence Cited; Wolfowitz: Mistakes Were Made.”

Or how about an equally disconcerting World War II headline from the European theater: “German Army Not Found in France, Poland, Admits President; Rumsfeld: ‘Oops!’, Powell Silent; ‘Bring ’Em On,’ Says Defiant FDR.”

It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident. The Secretary of State should not need to convince a skeptical world with satellite photos of a couple of Toyota pickups and a dumpster. And faced with a legitimate casus belli, it should not be hard to muster an actual constitutional declaration of war. Now in the absence of a meaningful Iraqi role in the 9/11 attack and the mysterious disappearance of those fearsome Weapons of Mass Destruction, there might be some psychic satisfaction to be had in saying, “I told you so!” But it sure isn’t doing my career as a talk-show host any good.

The criterion of self-evidence was only one of dozens of objections I raised before the elective war in Iraq on my afternoon drive-time talk show on KFYI in Phoenix.

Click on the link above.

[thoughtomator]

Just as a wild guess, I think that the antiwar conservative audience is vanishingly small right now, and that to have such a radio host would be a money-losing business.

[NMC EXP]

How about this: did I tell you that just before the US invasion of Iraq there was an Iraqi SSBN sub sailing up the Illinois River just east of here. There was an Iraqi aircraft carrier and battle group cruising Lake Michigan not far from Chicago. And an entire Iraqi motorized rifle regiment parachuted onto the high school football field right here in my home town.

Regards

J.R.

[Steve Eisenberg]

How about this: did I tell you that just before the US invasion of Iraq there was an Iraqi SSBN sub sailing up the Illinois River just east of here. There was an Iraqi aircraft carrier and battle group cruising Lake Michigan not far from Chicago. And an entire Iraqi motorized rifle regiment parachuted onto the high school football field right here in my home town.

No, you didn't. But how about this. Before the US/UK invasion of Iraq, the US occupied the northern quarter of the country and was bombing military targets in the rest of Iraq every few weeks for the last ten years. Why were we bombing? Because they were trying to shoot down our planes! This is exactly the sort of no-win-no-lose war that FReepers, I hope, hate. I sure do. It is is the number one reason I was anxious to do something about Iraq for years. The reason I suspect some of the 9/11 hijackers to have been trained in Iraq is because the US was constinuously at war with Iraq for 12 years, and was conducting it in a way to earn Saddam's contempt. Bush and Blair couldn't explain the Iraq invasion in this way because then they had to admit that they had both, on taking office, inherited an unacceptable war and not done enough to end it one way or the other. After 9/11, ending it by cutting and running was no longer an option, not because Saddam was behind 9/11, but because you don't show weakness at such a time.

[JoJo Gunn]

Early this morning the "felixrayman" troll, who keeps spamming for the "kuro5hin" site, posted something from there under the name of "hsmomx3" (since 2001-03-01. ) It was almost immediately deleted.

Was "hsmomx3's" name hacked?

[MEG33]

I missed it.

[JoJo Gunn]

I sent you a PM.

[NMC EXP]

Well at least we seem to agree that SH was not involved in 9/11.

Regards

J.R.

[lepton]

It seems to me that when there is reason to go to war, it should be self-evident.

In exchange for a cease-fire (allowing the Iraqi government to stay in power), Iraq agreed to demonstrate destruction of several classes of weapons to appointed weapons inspectors. They didn't do it. Cease-fire negated. War continued.

Pretty self-evident.

[Steve Eisenberg]

Well at least we seem to agree that SH was not involved in 9/11.

Sorry, but I just can't agree to that.

First, second, and third, I do not have any certainty as to who was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The hijackers were mostly vaporized, and I have yet to see any real proof as to who they were. I'm not asking for beyond a reasonable doubt proof, just the quality of evidence that we saw in the Warren Commission (and books based on it) and which was not enough for many freepers but is good enough for me. As for the trail tracing the vaporized monster-men back to bin Laden, again I haven't begun to see it, even though I am always on the lookout for the first good book telling the backstory of 9/11. I'm not fussy! I'll probably even believe the story if written by a WaPost reporter. Yes, I know that bin Laden claims credit, but I also know that fellow to be a big liar.

Does the President know all that much more about it than we do? I am almost certain he does not. Given this radical uncertainty, what was the President to do after we suffered 9/11? And then after the anthrax attack, perhaps even more worrying in its potential for continuing mayhem? The only real alternative was to wage victorious war against whomever was already fighting a low level war against the US. Bin Laden and Saddam were the two world figures most clearly already at war with the US. So we were right to defeat them. Those who want clarity can want it all they want, but in the fog of war, there is none. If you go back through history, you'll see that having shadowy enemies is nothing new. The first declared war of the US under the constitution (the Tripolian Wars) was against pirates with unclear ties to some (all?) of the Barbary States. Sound familiar?

[Wil H]

Obviously, Goyette isn't the sharpest tack in the box.

Not true, Goyette is extremely intelligent, he has great knowledge of theology, economics, and constitutional law - which makes his current anti - war stand extremely puzzling.

In fact, intellectually, he is on a plain way above most of KFYI's listenership.

It is clearly a stand he has made on principle, but it has cost him dearly, he has been shuffled out of Prime time to an evening shift and will likely be dumped from there.

It is a great shame, he had wit, humor, and intelligence far above the rest of the local morons ( Barry " I never actually listen to what you are saying" Young, and Bruce "I am as dumb as I sound" Jacobs) that KFYI employ.

[chiller]

Was "hsmomx3's" name hacked?

I don't know if this is related but hsmomx3 has posted several Arizona related threads trashing Goyette's replacment. Tom Liddy is Maricopa Co Republican chairman and co-host of the LIddy and Hill show which replaced Goyette.

Sounds like hsmomx3 is tight with Goyette and grinds Liddy whereever she can. FWIW.

[johnb838]

He is employing selective historical perspective. There were, unfortunately, plenty of people opposed to our entering what came to be known as WWII in 1939, 1940, 1941, and even after Pearl Harbor. Then there was the lovely little tin-foil hat theory that Roosevelt allowed our ability to project power in the Pacific to be *wrecked*(!) with foreknowledge, so we would have to enter the war.

[johnb838]

Iraq agreed to demonstrate destruction of several classes of weapons to appointed weapons inspectors. They didn't do it. Cease-fire negated. War continued.

Oh yeah. Now that you mention it, we take a lot of hits for abandoning the Kurds and Shi'a to their fates after the war, but once we found out what was going on didn't we spend the next 11 years keeping Saddams helicopters from continuing the mass murder?

[Cyber Liberty]

I can't stand Goyette because he thinks he's on a smarter "plain" than the "rest of us hicks". I stopped listening long ago because I hate being talked down to, as if I were a small child.

I hope we get Tony Snow, and I figure Goyette's slot is as good as any to fill.

[chiller]

Goyette discussion on now at KFYI

[Wil H]

I would certainly prefer Tony Snow myself, however Goyette to his credit, has fought well on local issues, in particular agianst the corruption of the Bidwells and their cronies in the TSA. He also exposed McCain for the lying weasel that he is.

[Cyber Liberty]

I have no idea what his views are lately, because he drove me away with his wacky conspiracies years ago.

[Texas_Dawg]

The guy clearly doesn't understand why we went to war.

[martin_fierro]

How to use "search" before posting

[Pres Raygun]

I listened to Goyette a few years ago, but gave up, because he was such a light weigt. His arguments were full of logical fallacies and superficial analogies. To top it off he developed a persecution complex whenever someone disagreed with him. Apparently it has gotten worse. Forget KFYI and listen to The Patriot 960 which features Laura Ingraham in the morning, Dennis Prager at lunch time, Michael Medved in the early afternoon and Hugh Hewitt in the afternoon. If there is something going on in local politics turn on Barry Young in the morning. I don't always agree with the above radio personalities, but at least they can make a cogent argument for their point of view. Goyette just became more incoherent the more I listened to him.