Be nice, that is a photo of their investors...
Any chart I attempt to generate of their stocks appears as a "flatline" - lol!
Posted on 08/12/2007 4:31:58 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
A Republican victory in 2008 could sink America's reputation in the world even lower. Even if George W. Bush is the most awful American president in modern times, as many historians believe, and even though he has brought the United States into unprecedented disrepute around the world, as opinion polls indicate, the bombastic tone of the candidates seeking to succeed him from his own party raises a disturbing possibility.
If the next president is a Republican, this truly bad situation could become still worse.
Concerning the Iraq war, of course, there is no discernible difference between the current president and his would-be Republican successors (with the exception of Ron Paul, the libertarian antiwar candidate from Bush's home state of Texas). The leading GOP contenders have all endorsed the current escalation of U.S. forces. They all share the president's determination to keep our troops there indefinitely. They all insistently echo Bush by linking the invasion and occupation of Iraq with the attacks of 9/11.
Yet beyond the horrors of Iraq and the excesses of the "war on terror," for which history will hold him culpable, Bush at least has acknowledged the importance of reaching out to the world's Muslims (although he tends to reach out too often with bombs and a torture technique known as waterboarding). In his rhetoric, the president usually seeks to distinguish the religion of Islam, which he has honored in the White House on many occasions, from the murderous perversion of that faith. And in his best moments after 9/11, he has defended the rights of Muslim Americans to live here without suffering persecution or prejudice.
Perhaps Bush's efforts deserve to be dismissed as little more than lip service, but semantics matter. The Republicans most likely to win their party's presidential nomination constantly use language that is meant to inflame anger against Muslims for political advantage.
During the last Republican debate, on Aug. 5, Rudolph Giuliani eagerly provided an example of this syndrome when he attacked the Democratic presidential candidates for failing to describe terrorism as Islamic. "During four Democratic debates," he complained, "not a single Democratic candidate said the word [sic] 'Islamic terrorism.' Now, that is taking political correctness to extremes." To him, the absence of that phrase in their speeches, no matter how tough their stance against terror, proved that Democrats are guilty of "weakness and appeasement." The other Republicans, again except for Paul, agreed -- although as John Dickerson of Slate has pointed out, that phrase is also assiduously avoided by the Bush White House.
There is an obvious reason not to say "Islamic terror," which stupidly suggests that terror is indeed Islamic, as the ideologists of al-Qaida would argue. There is also an obvious reason to say that same phrase -- if you believe that we are careening toward a war of civilizations and your aim is to inflame.
Throughout his career, Giuliani has pandered to the far right on Mideast policy. More than a decade ago he made a fool of himself on the world stage but became a hero to the religious right and Likud extremists when he told his aides to eject Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat from a Lincoln Center concert during the United Nations' 50th anniversary celebration in New York. He played to the cheap seats again after 9/11, when he ordered the return of a $10 million charitable donation to a victims fund returned to a Saudi prince who had urged more balance in America's Mideast policy.
Like many other Republican candidates, Giuliani has a limited understanding of Islam and Islamist movements, despite his claims to expertise. Not long ago, he told Charlie Rose that the West must be on guard against the "Islamic Brotherhood," which doesn't exist. (The PBS host noted that Giuliani probably meant the Muslim Brotherhood, a relatively moderate Islamic party that isn't much of a problem compared with al-Qaida or Hezbollah.)
Mitt Romney, his most formidable rival at the moment, uttered a similar gaffe during a debate last May, when he jammed all of Islam into a single hostile juggernaut. "There is a global jihadist movement," said the former Massachusetts governor. "And they've come together as Shi'a and Sunni and Hezbollah and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda with that intent." A more ignorant description of the Islamic political and theological dispensation is difficult to imagine, but Romney's clumsy conglomeration reflected fears that are common on the Republican right.
Stoking those fears may serve the immediate interest of a politician courting primary voters, but even the Bush administration understands that turning a billion Muslims against the West is a losing strategy. Every time an opportunistic candidate blames Islam for terrorism, that grim prospect grows and the possibility of a modern Muslim movement for peace, development and democracy recedes. The president understands this danger, however dimly, but too many in his party do not -- and at the moment they seem all too eager to encourage the indiscriminate and bigoted oratory that he has rejected.
For Pete’s Sake this is Salon. About as left wing as they come. I’d be shocked if they said otherwise.
Funny before you can go to the site you see an add of nothing but asses.
Tagline...
This article hits just about all the most severely stupid of leftist ideas about islam and the war.
There is an obvious reason not to say "Islamic terror," which stupidly suggests that terror is indeed Islamic, as the ideologists of al-Qaida would argue.
I prefer the phrase "Pentecostal terror", since it's clear that they have allied with the Christian Scientists to create all of these terror incidents and blame it on the Muzzies.
There is also an obvious reason to say that same phrase -- if you believe that we are careening toward a war of civilizations and your aim is to inflame.
"Careening toward? Careening toward?" How about fully engaged in with only two possible outcomes - victory or death?
Be nice, that is a photo of their investors...
Any chart I attempt to generate of their stocks appears as a "flatline" - lol!
conason represents the American aliens. These people were born IN America but are not OF America. They are just as much a danger to us as the Islamists they are helping.
Maybe he thinks the islamics will rip him apart last? Only thing I that can possibly imagine this much willfull idiocy.
Of course, since he’s in nuke target #1 NYC, I’m sure he won’t mind when he gets incinerated. Maybe his last thoughts will be ‘those neocoonnnnnsss!!!’
Squeeze a Joe Conason and chickenpoop oozes out of every orifice. There are good reasons why the left could never win any significant elections in the USA except by putting forth liars and charlatans like the Clintons, Albore, et al. Even with those frauds they never do nearly as well as they thing they ought to, but if their true nature is ever made obvious to the American public they will never top 20-30% in any election outside a few of the most degraded cities.
False bravado, false mythology and false concerns for others are all a part of the play book of the sociopaths of the Left. Mr Conason is just another typical example of Leftist illogic and dissembling. Their “concerns” only extend to those circumstances and events that might help put them in power, and all other matters simply do not exist.
Terrorist ARE Muslims!!!
1.61 billion muslims hate you because you are a butt-licking fag!
They just better fear us and respect us.
Hmm. Isn't the new President of France, Sarkozy, vacationing in the U.S. and dinning with Pres. Bush?
bumping for later comment - damn I’m so busy - anyone want to help?
The worst excesses of the Bush Administration are the excesses of the "new tone" - which is nothing other than the old pre-Reagan Bob Michaels tone of never mounting an effective defense of Republican policies for fear of what The New York Times will say about your "extremism."
“A Republican victory in 2008 could sink America’s reputation in the world even lower.”
And we should care what the world thinks of us why?
“Even if George W. Bush is the most awful American president in modern times, as many historians believe...”
Those historians must have never met LBJ, Carter, or Clinton.
Joe Conason is a piece of hate America filth.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Does this mean that a Republican victory would convince people from other countries to no longer sneak into the US?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
This statement is one of the biggest evildim lies spun in media today. I speak with people from ALL over the world. I attend conventions where I meet old and new friends from around the world. I have been involved in this for over 35 years... and America is respected by a vast majority of people, and loved by a large number of those. Some people do hate America... wish we would cease to exist... and hate Freedom and Liberty. Most of these belong to a well known “death cult”!
I ask (doubters) this, “If America is so hated and reviled... why do so many people from every corner of the earth want to come here and become Americans”? It is a evildim lie that is easily exposed to the light of truth.
LLS
If Salons against us we must be on the right track!
“Hey Joe!
1.61 billion muslims hate you because you are a butt-licking fag!”
Dang that was funny! I feel better... thanks!
LLS
I no longer have use for Salon, not that I really ever did, my parrot won't even crap on it and the dead fish I used to wrap in it, say it stinks.
Before this Conason fellw came along, I had no idea that they could stack stupid so high.
“These people loathe conservatives.”
LOL, Then, why do they hate Bush?
They have a strange way of thinking. If someone hits you in the head with a brick you must stop and try to “understand” why. Not very good survival behavior.
I figure that Romney would scare these perverts so much they would die instantly of heart attacks. That would be a blessing.
They’re so far left they think Rudy McRomney is conservative, much less President Bush!! Of course, Ron Paul is their new hero (he’s our Kucinich, IMO).
Mr. Conason, Arafat was a killer. Remember the Achille Lauro hijacking? According to the left, we so much as look at a Muslim the wrong way, and we've committed an atrocity. But if they hijack ships and toss disable people overboard, we have to be "understanding."
The Islamic Brotherhood doesn’t exist?
This will come as a terrible shock to them.
/s
Yo, Joe, give one good reason why you have NOT left the USA for some “better” country.
Maybe because there is no other place where you can write your purple prose fiction bashing everything you don’t like without fear of reprisal?
They can migrate to greener pastures. North Korea and Zimbabwe come to mind--or perhaps Saudi Arabia--places better suited to their world view and where they will be happier--and from which they can take pot-shots at the United States to a more adoring audience--or at least a more homogeniously adoring audience.
And this will solve America's immigration crisis. We can import millions of family oriented, law abiding Latin Americans to replace all those emigrated Leftists.
Everybody wins!
I'll even help you pack!
All right, let's just look at the first paragraph, as far as I got.
"A Republican victory in 2008 could sink America's reputation in the world even lower."
Where? Right now in the Muslim world, support for suicide attacks is sinking. Both Germany and France elected relatively pro-American leadership. Britain's new Prime Minister said supportive things in his visit with Bush. Anti-americanism is primarily a Western European and Muslim world meme. Both are places that resent the fact that America does better than they do. In their self-images, Western Europeans and Muslims, albeit in different ways, both believe that they and their beliefs are superior to the uncultured Americans. But the biggest issue with this sentence is the implied directive, that Americans should act in ways to make foreigners feel better about America and not do what is necessary to defend America, if there is a conflict. This is plain stupid and will and has got Americans killed.
"Even if George W. Bush is the most awful American president in modern times, as many historians believe,..."
This absolutely proves the author is a weasel. He can't admit his own belief, so he puts it off on "many historians". Who cares? Many historians don't believe that. And it's too early to judge any president's actions. Whether Iraq is a success or not remains to be seen. Historians study history, not current events.
"...and even though he has brought the United States into unprecedented disrepute around the world, as opinion polls indicate,..."
"Unprecendented"? How the heck does he know that? On the basis of what? And this goes back to 1776? And what does the opinion of foreigners matter, if we are doing what is necessary to defend ourselves? Should we run policy on the basis of opinion polls of foreigners?
"...the bombastic tone of the candidates seeking to succeed him from his own party raises a disturbing possibility."
Being Republican is already evil, expounding Republican opinion to Republicans is bombastic and actually electing a Republican is going to make the foreigners even more angry. Don't make the foreigners angry, elect a Democrat with foreign support.
Does any of this make a whit of sense? Let's see, in response to a bombastic statement by a Presidential candiate, the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence of Pakistan has called for jihads against America and India and to support the Taliban in Afghanistan. Those d*mn Republicans .... er ... eh ... nevermind, that was Democrat Barack Obama. Sorry.
This is just another typical lefty article. It’s dishonest from the first point to the last.
Is Joe trying to agree or disagree with Al Qaeda? Is some terror Islamic? Is the word "terror" inclusive of all terror or just some? It's hard to understand Joe's point of view when he is so confusing and ingenuous.
Why does he deny Al Qaeda the right to define their own terms anyway? Does he have the elitist white-man-syndrome of knowing better than others what they themselves mean when they speak?
More projection from Joe.
******
Joe Conason’s new book is “It Can Happen Here: Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush.”
The Raw Deal: How the Bush Republicans Plan to Destroy Social Security and the Legacy of the New Deal by Joe Conason.
******
In the 1980 documentary movie about the Yiddish anarchist newspaper the Freie Arbeiter Stimme (or Free voice of labor), a young Joe was interviewed. His grandfather Joseph Cohen served as the paper’s editor for a number of years and Conason may have been an intern for them.
In 1992 Conason wrote an article for Spy magazine naming Jennifer Fitzgerald and Jane Morgan as women who allegedly were having affairs with George H. W. Bush, using Linda Tripp as a source.
Conason was a regular guest on The Al Franken Show who once had his own theme song Carry on Joe Conason — Carry On Wayward Son by Kansas. He made an appearances every Friday as a commentator, as well as co-judging with Al their weekly quiz show Wait, wait, don’t lie to me.
In 2000, he co-authored the book The Hunting of the President: The 10 Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton with Gene Lyons
written a number of books, including Big Lies (2003), which addresses what he says are myths spread about liberals by conservatives.
Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth
by Joe Conason
according to Salon.com and New York Observer writer Joe Conason: the charges they’re leveling just aren’t true.
more substantive than Molly Ivins and Al Franken but still a lot wittier than Noam Chomsky
delivers what he hopes will be a knockout blow to Ann Coulter (whom he accuses of “manufacturing... sham outrage for personal gain and political advantage”) and her liberal-bashing comrades on the right.
dismissing conservatives’ espousal of the free market-arguing that what they really support is selfish crony capitalism (he indicts the Bushes at length)- and in reviewing of Clinton’s strong anti-al-Qaida campaign to counter charges that he was “soft” on terrorism.
Conason argues, polls show that most Americans sympathize with liberal positions on issues from the tax system to the environment. Still, it’s not clear that what eventually becomes a tiresome litany of the sins of the right
The right-wing smear campaign against Barack Obama, with its telltale twist of linking Hillary Clinton to the attack, is classic Watergate. By Joe Conason
Hugh Rodham matter, is there anything illegal in what he did?
JOE CONASON: Well, I'm not a lawyer, Jim, so I'd be hesitant to offer an opinion about that. But on the face of it, there was nothing illegal, as Stuart said, in his representing someone or collecting an exorbitant fee for it either.
JOE CONASON: Oh, it has the terrible of appearance of impropriety, which I assume is why the Clintons prevailed on Hugh Rodham to give the money back immediately. At least that's what they say. They say they found out about it and thought it was terribly improper that he collected money for doing this. It is, however, you know, an old story, that people approach White House insiders or those who have connections to the White House for pardons.
President Bush's father, the first President Bush, responded to a pardon request from Armand Hammer in 1989 that was brought by Ted Olsen, a very prominent Republican lawyer, who is now a candidate for Solicitor General. This is not really something new and I don't know the fee that Mr. Olsen collected. But the reason the Clintons are so upset about this is because of the terrible appearance that the huge fee gives and the connection between Hugh Rodham, who's been caught in other unseemly behavior before, brings to this situation.
******
Hey, Joe, you worm! Mr. Olson was the attorney, Hugh Rodham was the bagman! He was no one's attorney. But, you already knew that. You just think we are stupid enough to believe you.
On Salon.com
who cares what the world thinks?
Anyone to right of Hillary is "Conservative". If they support killing of the unborn, they might be described as "moderate".
Joe Conason is the human equivalent of something vile and oderdous that you have to scrape off the bottom of your shoe.
Or is this just well crafted propaganda?..
American generally buy this nonsense.. Remember most all Americans have no idea who the Secretary of State is or even who is Vice president of the United States..
Most republicans are republicans because their daddy was not because the Democrat Party is a Criminal Enterprise.. Mob Rule by mobsters..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.