84 Comments

1. photoncourier.blogspot.com:

And one of the major corporations backing this network is, of course, GE (which owns NBC). GE is very concerned about its public image…doesn’t this concern apply to NBC? Does Jeff Immelt really want to be associated with people like Brian Williams?

GE is also famous for the mantra “Be #1 or #2 in a market, or get out.” It’s hard to see how this goes with the tolerance of continuous weak performance at MSNBC.

Jul 9, 2005 - 3:23 pm 2. heather:

first, via http://www.command-post.org, the British police ordered complete evacuation of downtown Birmingham, and a number of controlled explosions ensued.

2d, last night, the pbs re-ran a documentary on Osama Bin Laden, and among the interviewees was Mr Fisk himself. The breathless, admiring descriptions of OBL by our Mr. Fisk were truly vomit making. He is truly a man who adored the Stong Horse.

As to movies: having just completed watching the extended version of the Lord of the Rings… well, the people who made Alexander and Troy ought to be on the street begging for a piece of honest bread. Truly. If the Movie Industry disappears from California to Down Under, that will be a Good Thing.

Jul 9, 2005 - 3:38 pm 3. Interested Conservative:

Hitchens vs. Ron Jr. is an excellent example of culture vs. pop culture. Ron Jr. made a speech at a convention, and went to Yale for a while, a while ago. In a way, he looks OK on TV.

Hitchens, . . . . well, just google him. If you can fight all the way back through the books, articles and random other publications, you get a CV from Oxford, with some honors. Add to that the world travels, the truly globe-spanning contacts developed, the trotskyist background, and well, it’s just an unfair fight.

I hope he got paid well anyway.

Jul 9, 2005 - 3:52 pm 4. quickrob:

Ronnie Reagan has his own show on MSNBC? Is it like Kieth Olberman but even worse?

Jul 9, 2005 - 3:52 pm 5. Dave:

Good Lord, Hitchens is brutal. Good, the little candybutt deserved it and more.

Well, looks like RR brought a spitball to a napalming.

Jul 9, 2005 - 3:52 pm 6. David Thomson:

Hugh Hewitt replayed the interview on his radio program. I listened to the whole thing. Ron Reagan is so shallow. It is obvious that this gentleman has done little studying on the war on terror. Reagan,Jr. merely repeats the talking points one normally finds on the Daily Kos. The sad thing is that he is not that young. Reagan was born in 1958. He is, though, intellectually comparable to someone far younger. Reaganís employer should pull the plug. He needs to be put out of his misery.

Jul 9, 2005 - 3:54 pm 7. maria horvath:

The very few times that I happen to see little Ron on tv, this word comes to mind (from the Merriam-Webster dictionary):

Main Entry: unctuous

Pronunciation: ***(k)-ch*-w*s, -ch*s, -shw*s

Function: adjective

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French or Medieval Latin; Middle French unctueux, from Medieval Latin unctuosus, from Latin unctus act of anointing, from unguere to anoint

Date: 14th century

1 a : Fatty, oily b: smooth and greasy in texture or appearance

2 : Plastic: fine unctuous clay

3 : full of unction; especially: REVEALING OR MARKED BY A SMUG, INGRATIATING, AND FALSE EARNESTNESS AND SPIRITUALITY

Jul 9, 2005 - 4:00 pm 8. David Thomson:

ìREVEALING OR MARKED BY A SMUG, INGRATIATING, AND FALSE EARNESTNESS AND SPIRITUALITYî

Youíve got it. Ron Reagan comes across as an elitist snob who feels superior merely because of his liberalism. Heís poorly read and moreover does not feel the obligation to do any serious studying. I would guess that he not intellectually active even an hour a day. To be blunt, Reagan is a male Maureen Dowd.

Jul 9, 2005 - 4:09 pm 9. Kyda Sylvester:

I also heard the exchange rather than saw it. The range of emotion–from astonished incredulity all the way up to utter contempt–in Hitchens’ voice was something to behold. It’s time for Ron to go back to the dogs.

Jul 9, 2005 - 4:38 pm 10. Barry Dauphin:

RR’s snotty remarks about getting his information from the 9/11 Commission report would be laughable if not so pathetic. Let’s encourage the boy wonder to read Stephen Hayes’ latest piece about the communication and association between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

It’s so interesting that RR (and probably the rest of the MSNBC bunch) forget all of the talk and concern from the Clinton adminstration about ties between Iraq and al Qaeda. It’s as if they never said it. RR must still be figring out what the meaning of the word “is” is.

Jul 9, 2005 - 4:39 pm 11. JK Ribera:

Does anyone think he actually READ the 9/11 report (or anything else outside Kahlil Gibran?)? I rather expect he was just being fed simplistic talking points by desperate producers over his earphone.

Jul 9, 2005 - 4:53 pm 12. Kyda Sylvester:

If you can stand it, go to the show’s web site and read Ron’s “Rants and Raves”. There’s also a “blog”.

Jul 9, 2005 - 4:53 pm 13. Kevin P:

Roger:

The problem that boy Reagan had is an extreme lack of knowledge. All he had to bring to the fight was soundbites he had snitched from other people. When Hitchens began to bring up facts and names and dates Ron had nothing but the 9-11 report to fire back with but since he doesn’t even know what the report said it was poor amunition.just because they said that saddam didn’t direct or control 9-11 doesn’t mean that Saddam wasn’t knee deep in every type of terroist activity but poor boy Reagan couldn’t grasp that simple concept and hitch hung him on the meat hook over that idiocy.

MSNBC figured since he was OK on his dog show work and since his last name was Reagan well of course he must have knowledge about politics.Thats classic flawed corporate logic. The ratings for almost everthing on MSNBC are so dismal that whether they yank boy Reagan or not makes little difference. I am sure they will get someone with a brain to type out some sort of response to try to restore boy Reagans intellectual manhood but they are missing the main point.As Roger said if you are going to be at the bottom you might as well put out decent product. It would be as if Jerry Springer was at the bottom of the ratings and you kept him around anyway.

Kevin Peters

Jul 9, 2005 - 5:03 pm 14. ex-democrat:

meanwhile, the MSM quotes Wretchard of The Belmont Club (though without providing a link, unfortunately):

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-524-1688012,00.html

Jul 9, 2005 - 5:20 pm 15. Rick Ballard:

Kevin,

Can we be sure that Nonron is actually dumber than Brian Williams? Are we sure that he is more biased than Johnson flack Tim Russert or Carter flack Chris Matthews? I believe that he should be allowed to express himself fully in his chosen medium – interpretive dance – prior to anyone making a final judgement. It is so very difficult to know with certainty who is the dumbest or most biased among the crew at the Peacrock Network.

I do know that I shan’t be the one to judge, because it is very very unlikely that I will see any of them perform.

Jul 9, 2005 - 5:26 pm 16. mcg:

I’ve never been so pissed off at a so-called “newsman” in my life as when Ron Reagan basically called the Republican Party party of the “godhatesfags” crowd.

Nevermind the fact:

1) the aforementioned group is about as hated by members of both parties as the KKK—even by Christians who believe that homosexuality is sinful;

2) both parties have their share of wacko extremists (”Screw them”, anyone?) that they have to “put up with”; and

3) it’s not even clear that those folks are Republicans anyway. First of all, they hate America, as their companion site “godhatesamerica” makes clear. And two, the last time their leader was tied to anyone politically, it was Al Gore.

There’s only one reason Ron Reagan is on MSNBC and that’s because he is not like his father. If he were the kind of thoughtful, articulate, humorous, kind, and yes, intelligent conservative that his father was, they wouldn’t touch him with a 10 foot pole.

Jul 9, 2005 - 6:07 pm 17. mcg:

By the way, I didn’t actually realize just how bad that “godhatesmaerica” site is. Now I know it’s kind of like telling someone not to look down—they always do—but please, if you are the least bit offendable, and you don’t want to sit in a stew of funk all night, DON’T GO TO THAT WEB SITE.

In fact Roger, I wouldn’t mind at all if you edit my last post to remove the name of the web site, and delete this one too. Disgusting.

All the more reason Ron Reagan was disgusting for making the link.

Jul 9, 2005 - 6:09 pm 18. richard mcenroe:

The only reason Ron Reagan has a career is because the self-appointed elite of our media embraced him, not for his talent or erudition or appeal (the Starbucks of West Hollywood and Manhattan are stacked six deep with his clones) but because of his name, in a petty attempt to embarrass Ronald Reagan. They actually thought that was a meaningful reason to stick this mannequin on SNL and a talk show.

But now, spite and snark are all they have left. There are no serious, established foreign policy experts on the left anymore who are competent to speak knowledgably in a time of war. So the Democrats and their media jesters are forced to treat celebrity as substance, and buffoons like Junior, lounge comedian and forger Jon Stewart and the shrieking hysteric Lawrence O’Donnell are put forth as serious commentators and pundits.

Jul 9, 2005 - 6:11 pm 19. Swede:

Junior is a punk. He’s always been a punk. He’ll always be a punk. Hitch treated him like the little punk that he is. If his name wasn’t Ronald Reagan Jr. he’d be out of a job and doing street theater, probably as an extremely annoying mime.

Jul 9, 2005 - 6:16 pm 20. Kevin P:

Swede:

You are not being fair to boy Reagan. He would be a top of the line annoying street mime, one of the best in his field.

Kevin Peters

Jul 9, 2005 - 6:24 pm 21. Terrye:

What I don’t get is the amnesia. Were all these people stoned during the 90’s or what?

It is not as if Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were unknown entitities when Bush came along. I know I have been hearing for years about their exploits and now that there is a war on guys like Ron Reagan are all shocked, I say shocked, that there are those among us who believed Saddam Hussein had [dare I say] connections with terrorists.

They are like children. You have to tell them the same things over and over and over and over…..

Jul 9, 2005 - 7:15 pm 22. richard mcenroe:

Terrye ó We’re Amurrikins, dammit. We can afford the very best denial.

Jul 9, 2005 - 7:54 pm 23. David C:

What amuses me about Ron Reagan Jr. is that a lot of liberals (I’ve talked to some!) actually believe that *we* take him seriously! They actually imagine that we not only have given Ron more than a passing thought since 1982, but that Republicans must have been *seething* with impotent rage over Ron’s big speech at the Democratic convention, and his daring to Speak Truth To Power.

But, of course, in the real world, the guy has *always* been a joke, and not one that anybody of note has ever taken seriously that I can tell.

Jul 9, 2005 - 9:43 pm 24. Sally-O:

Hitchen’s squashing of the sour little apple that fell from a noble tree was refreshing, but it also demonstrated the lamentable inadequacy of American rhetoricians every time they’re faced with a Brit. The Brits make an art of this kind of thing, and Americans in comparison are by in large a bunch of flat-footed rhetorical dunderheads.

I thought Galloway, considering the total weakness of his postion, pretty much handed Coleman his head too.

I guess I just envy the fact that the British place such a high value on developing those skills. If we had a Republican as quick on his feet as Blair, for example, there’d be no stopping us.

Jul 9, 2005 - 9:51 pm 25. ed:

Hmmm.

1. I don’t think I’ve laughed that hard in quite awhile. I read the transcript just to laugh at RR again.

If this guy has his own tv show on MSNBC, then I deserve a tv show on the same network. I could put forward just as pathetic a performance as RR did. In fact it would be easy, I’d just have to stop reading this and other blogs every day and instead watch the Cartoon Network to the exclusion of everything else.

2. “1 a : Fatty, oily b: smooth and greasy in texture or appearance”.

Otherwise known as mayonnaise.

Jul 9, 2005 - 9:55 pm 26. richard mcenroe:

We do have that kind of oratory among Americans. It’s just that the sort of people capable of it have too much self-respect to work in the media or Senate. CH would have to mind his manners a lot more carefully around a Buckley or Krauthammer, and a CH/VD Hanson debate would be something to hear.

Jul 9, 2005 - 10:29 pm 27. Cool Breeze:

” he (red ron) barely made it out of a third-rate junior college home economics course…”

uhhhhhhhhh

wasn’t he a ballet dancer in his formative years?

Geeze, that’s even worse!

Jul 9, 2005 - 10:47 pm 28. insatty:

Twirp Ronnie is just Chris Matthews without the liberal resume. They both repeat the DNC talking points while misquoting W, Rummy, the 9/11 Commission, or whoever else they can to support their cockneyed opinions. MSNBC is pathetic and it’s too bad that the smart and cute Monica Crowley left FoxNews to share the stage with the twirp.

Jul 9, 2005 - 10:54 pm 29. ahem:

Ron Reagan. Isn’t he the one who used to interview C-List surgery-junkies for some entertainment gossip show?

I’m surprised Hitchens deigned to debate an unarmed man.

That’s all. Off to seethe in impotent rage….

Jul 9, 2005 - 11:35 pm 30. Captain Hate:

What does it tell you about the Donks that they gave this dim bulb a major forum at their convention last year? Will the elevator ever stop going down?

Jul 10, 2005 - 6:50 am 31. BoghRD:

I haven’t been following the Pajama Media business plan – because it is a plan and I am a consumer, but:

Wretchard at The Belmont Club just posted his bio…

And he mentioned that he is part of the Pajama Media group…

Awesome. Now I will watch with breathless unease or something…

Jul 10, 2005 - 7:51 am 32. BoghRD:

The amazing thing about the media (the three US networks and two of the cable news channels, and probably most of the outlets in lands far from my home) is that they emphasize entertainment.

When their market share falls they add graphics and bigger hair and snappy clothes and entertainers.

They do not add knowledge.

They do not add dialog.

They do not add depth.

These things are not impossible to do. After 9/11 (and perhaps even the 2000 election debacle) there was a craving for news and analysis. From experts. It was not provided.

MSNBC probably hired Ron Reagan because of his name and because he came cheap.

For me, it is goodbye to all that…

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:00 am 33. Ruth:

When MSNBC booted Lester Holt and replaced him with Ron Reagan I sent an email of protest. I am still waiting for a reply and still have not watched that show. I was in the habit of watching MSNBc from 3PM CST till 5 PM CST as that particular show had less of the celebrity watching “news” than Fox or CNN. Now I watch “none of the above” and will never watch MSNBC. They lost me and probably others. If they wanted to get the more conservative viewers they should have asked the other son.

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:19 am 34. Buddy Larsen:

Junior will have learned a lesson–do NOT have that English guy back on the show.

Jul 10, 2005 - 10:03 am 35. richard mcenroe:

Captain Hate ó It tells you that the Democratic Party still thinks you can build a party around petty bitchiness, and they haven’t figured out that the Starbucks vote ain’t gonna win them back any seats…

Jul 10, 2005 - 10:46 am 36. Patricia:

“But now, spite and snark are all they have left. There are no serious, established foreign policy experts on the left anymore who are competent to speak knowledgably in a time of war”

Has anyone heard a peep out of Joe Lieberman lately? It’s as if he’s disappeared off the (political) face of the Earth.

I suspect he’s trying to distance himself from the moonbats. Any comments?

Jul 10, 2005 - 10:54 am 37. Kyda Sylvester:

The MoveOn crowd was making serious noise about targeting Lieberman in the Connecticut primaries if he didn’t start toeing the line. I haven’t followed the story so I don’t know what, if anything, came of it.

Jul 10, 2005 - 11:13 am 38. Rick Ballard:

Kyda,

Have you noticed how the moonbat comments by Dem pols have subsided since the end of the month? It could be that we will be subjected to heavy Copperhead behaviour at the end of each quarter as safeseaters try and whip the Ko$$acks into opening their wallets yet another time.

Just a thought.

Jul 10, 2005 - 12:10 pm 39. David:

Maybe MSNBC put Ron Reagon because he is a complete idiot on the theory that if the son is an idiot the father must have been one too. Ratings, smatings, the important thing is to make President Reagon look like a complete idiot. On an aside, the history channel must be mighty upset that they failed to rig their greatest american thingie.

Jul 10, 2005 - 12:42 pm 40. markus:

Hitchens keeps mentioning Abu Nidal, Abu Nidal, as evidence for Saddam’s involvement with terrorism. But wasn’t Nidal was completely retired from terrorist activities when he was given sanctuary in Iraq?

Jul 10, 2005 - 12:47 pm 41. Kyda Sylvester:

No I hadn’t, Rick, but now that you mention it…

If forced to choose between Republicans bowing to their corporate/Wall Street masters and Dems prostrate before the alter of Sorosian multi-culti oneworldism, I know which one I’ll pick every time.

Jul 10, 2005 - 12:55 pm 42. flenser:

But wasn’t Nidal was completely retired from terrorist activities when he was given sanctuary in Iraq?

No.

Iraq, Syria, and Libya have all harbored the group and given it training, logistical support, and funding, often using the ANO as guns or hire. Abu Nidal began working with Iraqi intelligence while representing Fatah in Baghdad, experts say. He formed his organization with Iraq?s help and began by attacking Syria and the PLO. In 1983, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein expelled Abu Nidal and his group in an attempt to win American military support for Iraq?s 1980s war with neighboring Iran. Once the war ended, Iraq resumed its support of Abu Nidal.

http://www.cfrterrorism.org/groups/abunidal.html

Jul 10, 2005 - 12:55 pm 43. flenser:

heather

The breathless, admiring descriptions of OBL by our Mr. Fisk were truly vomit making. He is truly a man who adored the Stong Horse.

Keith Windschuttle explores this idea in a lengthy article in the New Criterion. The thrust is that many on what is called “the left” are closet admirers of the concept of aristocracy.

This same hankering after the trappings of aristocracy, or anything that smacks of aristocracy, is behind much of the anti-American and anti-Jewish sentiment that now emanates from the European news media, especially in the writings of European leftists such as Fisk.

http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/jun05/windschuttle.htm

Jul 10, 2005 - 1:16 pm 44. Kevin P:

Roger:

The notion of retired terrorists makes me laugh. abu Nidal “retired” only in the sense that Saddam said cool it while the U.S. was giving Iraq sattelite info during the Iran- Iraq war. It reminds me of Arafat arresting Hamas and Hezzbollah members during the ‘95 to 2000 Palestinian- Israeli peace effort. As soon as he decided that he didn’t like the Clinton -Ross plan he let them out to carry out the second intifada.When you have to rely on leaders like Saddam and Arafat to enforce the terms of retirement you can bet it is just as momentary suspension.

Kevin Peters

Jul 10, 2005 - 1:20 pm 45. markus:

Flenser — thanks for the link. But it doesn’t answer my question. In fact, it merely reiterates it:

“Does the Abu Nidal Organization still pose a terrorist threat?

Opinions vary. Some reports say that internal dissent, external pressure, and Abu Nidalís demise have rendered the group inactive. Some Middle East experts say that Saddam harbored Abu Nidal in his last days to ensure that the group remained dormant. But other terrorism experts say the secretive group continues to pose a significant threat.”

Jul 10, 2005 - 1:22 pm 46. flenser:

markus

Actually, your original question was “But wasn’t Nidal was completely retired from terrorist activities when he was given sanctuary in Iraq?”

The answer to this is No, as I say.

As for your follow on question, “Does the Abu Nidal Organization still pose a terrorist threat?”

I think we can say that it does not, due to the death of it’s founder.

Terrorist organizations, or “organizations”, are very amorphous by definition. So it is possible that some former ANO members have joined up with a new terrorist group. I think it’s best to view all the different Arab terror groups as being different heads on the same body.

In any case we can safely say that Abu Nidal himself is no longer a threat.

To return to the inital question, it was perfectly valid for Hitch to point out Saddams support for the ANO, in refuting the proposition that Iraq was not a supporter of international terrorism.

Jul 10, 2005 - 2:02 pm 47. Rick Ballard:

One might speculate as to the reason for Abu Nidal’s multiple gunshot suicide (including two to the head, IIRC). What type of information might he have had to push him to such an extreme measure? Who might have been implicated by said information?

Jul 10, 2005 - 2:08 pm 48. JB:

Anyway, exactly how is operating out of an Iraqi government office tantamount to being “retired” anyway? What, Saddam couldn’t hook him up with a nice dacha on the Tigris?

Connect the dots, bro.

Jul 10, 2005 - 2:12 pm 49. richard mcenroe:

“Have you noticed how the moonbat comments by Dem pols have subsided since the end of the month?”

ó Rick, Kyda, it may be that they actually realize they’ve been pre-empted. It’s not that they feel ashamed of the company they keep, because no modern Democrat is capable of feeling shame except by proxy for other people, but they may actually realize that blaming Britain and America for the London bombings is a nonstarter, at least in public, especially since the Guardian/DU/KOS crowd leaped on that meme so early. Give it few days for the focus groups to kick in, and see if they don’t begin to send out a few feelers in that regard, at least in the Northeast and California…

Jul 10, 2005 - 2:12 pm 50. ed:

Hmmm.

Conan! What is good in life?

To crush your enemies,

to drive them before you

and to get scheduled opposite Ron Reagan on terrorism issues.

Exactly.

Jul 10, 2005 - 2:34 pm 51. Rick Ballard:

Richard,

That could be. The blowback from Sen. dick’s remarks might have settled them down, too. I’m sure that you’re right about the non-pol wingnuts – even Ko$ himself proudly proclaimed a “purge” of nutters. For about two hours.

There is also the little matter of the 70% or so of elected Dems who desperately wish that Howlin’ Howie and the clueless crew would just shut up because their phoney baloney jobs are going to be on the line.

Here is a good data source for following the money trail. The FEC Reports are more up to date but a lot harder to read.

BTW – if you check the Rep Senate funding you can estimate what good old Johm McCain cost his compatriots.

Jul 10, 2005 - 2:38 pm 52. Kyda Sylvester:

Since the congressional “fact finding” trips to Gitmo, the Dems pretty much have had to abandon it as an issue, for the time being anyhow, and the Downing Street memos thing simply won’t catch fire. They’re stuck with waiting to see if Karl Rove outted Valerie Plame. Pretty slim pickins.

What’s with Hillary Clinton voting against an expansion of free trade, one of the proudest achievements of her co-presidency? I know she can pander with the best of them, but this seems a strange pander indeed.

Jul 10, 2005 - 3:30 pm 53. Buddy Larsen:

Kyda, she’s triangulating. Next news flash will be a step to the right. That’s how a centrist facsimile does it. Question–if you’re a good centrist-fax, are you in fact a centrist?

Jul 10, 2005 - 3:37 pm 54. Buddy Larsen:

I don’t get the distinction anyway. If Abu Nidal had “retired”, is he then not guilty of rolling old Mr. Klinghoffer down into the briney deep? If Saddam was only harboring “retired” terrorists, does that somehow change the homocidal/suicidal psychosis he was furiously injecting into global geopolitics?

Jul 10, 2005 - 4:00 pm 55. Kyda Sylvester:

Frankly, I’ve never really understood what a “centrist” is (and “centrist-fax” sounds vaguely dirty–like dominatrix or something). Speaking of, did you see–you and me, babe.

Jul 10, 2005 - 4:06 pm 56. Buddy Larsen:

Here, Ron Jr–in case missed Barry’s link above, “The Mother of All Connections”!

Kyda, your link, the writer of “Hillary doesn’t like her internal polling” sez “centrist fax” is vaguely profane? O’Really!

Jul 10, 2005 - 4:23 pm 57. Kyda Sylvester:

Thought I should clarify for others–that was “speaking of” Hillary & free trade, not dominatrixes, “you and me, babe”.

Jul 10, 2005 - 4:28 pm 58. Kyda Sylvester:

What, is “internal polling” some sort of strange sexual deviation in Texas??

Jul 10, 2005 - 4:34 pm 59. Buddy Larsen:

I’m gonna have to take the 5th on that.

Jul 10, 2005 - 5:08 pm 60. Kyda Sylvester:

And because I wouldn’t want this thread to end on that note, I’m linking to this report from the Sunday Times about Al-Q recruiting among middle class university students.

The Iraq war is identified by the dossier as a key cause of young Britons turning to terrorism. The analysis says: “It seems that a particularly strong cause of disillusionment among Muslims, including young Muslims, is a perceived ‘double standard’ in the foreign policy of western governments, in particular Britain and the US.

“The perception is that passive ‘oppression’, as demonstrated in British foreign policy, eg non-action on Kashmir and Chechnya, has given way to ‘active oppression’. The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

Jul 10, 2005 - 5:23 pm 61. Buddy Larsen:

Ok, so taking the 5th was lame. But here’s something on Ron Jr, that ties to your quote, too–a Hewitt link.

Baldilocks and commenters, very good, hadn’t heard before, info to help Ron Jr understand.

Jul 10, 2005 - 5:42 pm 62. ed:

Hmmmm.

“The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.”

That just proves the old adage that “you get the government you deserve” to be as true as ever. It’s frankly amazing to me. If all these “muslim heroes” in Iraq had put forth 1/10th the effort in unseating Saddam, he’d have been deposed decades ago.

I feel for the Iraqi people and I hope the very best for them, but I would bitterly oppose liberating any other muslim country. If they want freedom, then they can damn well fight for it.

Jul 10, 2005 - 5:55 pm 63. legion:

Very curious.

The war on terror, and in Iraq and Afghanistan, are all seen by a section of British Muslims as having been acts against Islam.

And one must wonder against whom such acts as the bombing of the US embassies in Africa, the Khobar towers, the USS Cole, the WTC tower attacks in 1993 and 2001, etc etc were perpetrated and by whom?

The justifications for terrorism are justifications du jour. They are convenient excuses for an underlying current of supremacist barbarity that has been present within islamist thought for many generations.

Jul 10, 2005 - 6:01 pm 64. Kyda Sylvester:

I was looking for something in the way-back machine and came across this. These are some people I’d like to liberate.

Jul 10, 2005 - 6:17 pm 65. richard mcenroe:

Kyda ó I remember the nuns were death on external polling…

Jul 10, 2005 - 6:21 pm 66. markus:

According to the link that Flenser supplied me with, the Nidal group only had two terrorist attacks in the nineties: one against Arafat’s number two man, the other against a Jordanian official. That seems pretty close to “retired” for me.

Hitch needs to chill. Dems and other liberal-minded Bush haters are for the most part willing to listen to a Michael Ignatieff make substantially the same points. But Hitch is sounding more and more like he is infected with the intellectual rabies of the David Horowitz variety.

Regarding the questions about Lieberman. Yes, Dems are threatening a primary challenge. Not to actually defeat him, but to keep him from triangulating on Social Security. Without the primary challenge lurking, he would be likely to be making some pro-privatization noises, which would have been a major boost to the Administration’s effort.

Jul 10, 2005 - 7:47 pm 67. JB:

Markus,

The moving goalpost game, eh? “Almost retired” is like a little bit pregnant, no?

Osama wasn’t “sufficiently provocative” for Bill Cohen. Given the fact that Saddam was casing our embassies in Europe, how much more evidence would satisfy a Bush-basher?

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:27 pm 68. flenser:

markus

The issue is not whether Abu Nidal was retired or not. (Although the fact the Saddam killed him suggests that he was not.)

Hitch pointed out that Saddam had a history of supporting terrorist groups, including ANO. Whether that particular group was active or not in 2003 is beside the point. It’s indisputable that Iraq had a long history of ties to, and support for, terrorist organizations which attacked America and American citizens.

Speaking of which, what do you make of the information which AP got hold of, and buried, about collaboration between Al Queda and Iraq?

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/804yqqnr.asp

Jul 10, 2005 - 8:58 pm 69. markus:

flenser –

If in fact credible evidence of a Iraq/Al Qaeda connection DOES emerge, the White House and the rest of the conservative media will be talking about it 24/7. And you, me and everyone else will learn about it, faster than you can say “Dick Durbin” or “Eason Jordan.”

In the meantime, I don’t have the time to read the writings of creationists, raw food diet advocates, chiropractors who cure cancer, “free energy” inventors, and other quacks. And I don’t have time to read an article by Stephen Hayes.

Jul 10, 2005 - 9:43 pm 70. JB:

Don’t confuse Markus with the known facts, he’s got his mind made up.

Typical leftist logic – “unless the WH announces it, I don’t need to know nothing.” Yeah, every classified document shall be released to sate Markus’ thirst for knowledge. Riiiiiiiight. The WH would be devastated if Markus and his ilk remained unconvinced.

Snicker. Chortle. Guffaw.

Jul 10, 2005 - 10:08 pm 71. flenser:

This is encouraging, don’t you think? markus is saying that he will believe something the White House tells him. I thought the lefty position was that the WH always lied.

If I recall correctly, Bush recently repeated that Iraq WAS tied to Al Queda, and markus and friends did what they always do; put their fingers in their ears and went “Nyah, nyah, can’t hear you!!”

The Iraq/AlQueda link has been endlessly documented over the years. The only people who are unaware of it now are the ones who still think John Kerry really won the last election.

So markus, after your last petulant outburst, can I assume that you now accept that Hitch was correct about Saddams support for terrorist groups?

Jul 10, 2005 - 11:17 pm 72. markus:

Who’s petulant? I’m amusing, not petulant.

Regarding Hitch, Saddam, terrorists…there were good reasons for thinking in March 2003 that killing American in the effort to liberate Iraq was the right thing to do. There are still some good reasons for thinking it was the right thing to do. PROTECTING AMERICA FROM ABU NIDAL IN 2003 WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.

Jul 10, 2005 - 11:32 pm 73. prokopton:

Markus,

Do your goalposts have wheels?

From your first post:

“Hitchens keeps mentioning Abu Nidal, Abu Nidal, as evidence for Saddam’s involvement with terrorism.”

From your last:

“There are still some good reasons for thinking it was the right thing to do. PROTECTING AMERICA FROM ABU NIDAL IN 2003 WAS NOT ONE OF THEM.”

See the difference? Providing retirement housing for aging terrorists IS “evidence for Saddam’s involvement with terrorism.” This is a fundamental fact.

No one here has ever claimed that Abu Nidal was a specific threat in 2003… except you.

Let’s get your goalpost stuck back in the ground.

Jul 11, 2005 - 7:00 am 74. Buddy Larsen:

By all means, keep Sen. Joe from responding to the massive opportunity costs of ignoring actuarial science in favor of scoring a political win for the Dems on SocSec.

Jul 11, 2005 - 8:07 am 75. markus:

Buddy — “By all means, keep Sen. Joe from responding to the massive opportunity costs of ignoring actuarial science in favor of scoring a political win for the Dems on SocSec.”

We’re trying, Buddy. We’re also trying to stop the biggest long-term threat to the SS program: the fact that the most powerful political party in America hates it and wants to get rid of it. The main weapon we have in this effort is the widespread unpopularity of said plan.

prokopton — Abu-Nidal also spent time in Egypt in recent years. Does this mean that the Mubareck is terrorist consort, worthy of overthrow? And if Hitch wasn’t using the fact that Nidal was sheltered by Saadam as further justification for the invasion, just what was the purpose of him bringing it up?

Jul 11, 2005 - 12:22 pm 76. JB:

Markus: didn’t you answer your own question?

“And if Hitch wasn’t using the fact that Nidal was sheltered by Saadam as FURTHER justification for the invasion..”

Why use the word “further” if you aren’t implicitly admitting that the case for invasion was not solely based on Saddam’s ties to terrorism.

Jul 11, 2005 - 1:01 pm 77. flenser:

Markus

Surely the ?long-term threat to the SS program? stems from the fact that it is mathematically unsound, depending on a constantly growing population? And on the reality that SS has the perverse effect of actually giving us a shrinking population, as the Europeans have found to their cost.

Your allegations about Abu Nidal are unsupported, as usual.

Iraq, Syria, and Libya have all harbored the group and given it training, logistical support, and funding, often using the ANO as guns or hire. Abu Nidal began working with Iraqi intelligence while representing Fatah in Baghdad, experts say. He formed his organization with Iraq?s help and began by attacking Syria and the PLO. In 1983, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein expelled Abu Nidal and his group in an attempt to win American military support for Iraq?s 1980s war with neighboring Iran. Once the war ended, Iraq resumed its support of Abu Nidal.

After being expelled from Iraq, the organization moved to Syria, where it worked to undermine peace plans involving Jordan, Israel, and the PLO. In turn, Syria expelled the Abu Nidal Organization in 1987, probably under U.S. pressure to distance itself from terrorists, at which point Libya took it in. In 1999, in an attempt to rid itself of international sanctions, Libya kicked out the Abu Nidal Organization.

In 1999, Egypt and Libya closed down ANO offices in their countries.

You seem a little slow, if I may say so. Of course Hitch mentioned ANO as justification for invasion. And it was a valid justification, as everyone but you understood immediately, and as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. Is English not your native tongue?

Jul 11, 2005 - 1:40 pm 78. Buddy Larsen:

Markus, a historical and forseeable future return, on conscripted money, of less than half of what a similarly-controlled rock-solid long-term treasury bond would give to the retiree–as his own property that he could will to his heirs–doesn’t bother you champions of the little man? Half of a retiree’s cash flow amounts to half a retiree’s cash flow. That’s a big sacrifice to raise the funds to operate a huge, wasteful federal establishment that functions as a Democratic party jobs program, dontcha think, hey?

Jul 11, 2005 - 1:50 pm 79. Buddy Larsen:

A legal Ponzi scheme is still a Ponzi scheme, and like all such, nobody ever gets hurt so long as the base keeps growing. But, ours isn’t, relatively. So, what’s it gonna be, massive tax hikes, benefit cuts, or just a wild ride thru some more morale-wrecking and middle-class-destroying Carter-flation? Or, of course, private accounts held in Treasuries. The reason the public isn’t on fire with this, is it isn’t yet well-understood. One reason it isn’t, is a national, well-orchestrated campaign by your party, to confuse and mislead the public.

Markus, have you no shame, sir?

Jul 11, 2005 - 2:00 pm 80. flenser:

“Markus, have you no shame, sir?”

That’s one of them thar rhetorical questions, I think.

Jul 11, 2005 - 3:14 pm 81. Paul Snively:

Supporters of the party of which two members sponsored legislation proposing a reintroduction of the miltary draft and then proceeded with a pre-election e-mail blitz campaign aimed at draft-age students insisting that the OTHER party would reinstate the draft don’t get to claim shame. Or ethics. Or honesty. Or credibility. Or pretty much anything positive, really.

Jul 11, 2005 - 5:06 pm 82. Buddy Larsen:

They had Charley Rangel do it, because as a vet he had some cover. Then, after sponsoring it so that their 527s could run a “there’s a reinstitute the draft bill in congress right this minute!”, the good congressman voted against it. The cynicism was in having a target demographic they could count on never hearing the true story–a target demographic fresh out of the government K-12 system. Wot a machine.

Jul 11, 2005 - 6:04 pm 83. markus:

Buddddy —

Yes, Social Security will need some minor changes to account for increased life expectancy after retirement. It would be nice to get started on fixing this problem, but only if the people working on fixing it agree that the patient — meaning in this case the GUARANTEED benefit social insurance program known as Social Security — should be saved. Inviting George Bush and the Republican Congressional Leadership to help tweak the program to keep it going is a little like finding out your eighty something year old mother needs to have surgery and inviting Dr. Kervorkian to join her medical team.

Bush actually has proposed one half-decent, almost Clintonian idea: different COLA rate growth based on income level. But until he takes the poison pill of private accounts carved out of payroll taxes off the table, there is nothing to talk about.

A real solution is based on the “no free lunch” principle that Republicans used to believe in before they drank the Kool-Aid and started to believe that cutting taxes leads to greater tax revenues and other voodoo jive. So…you trim a bit here and there, over the coming decades, spreading and minimizing the pain:

1. Gradually raise retirement age to 68 or 69.

2. Gradually raise the payroll earnings cap.

3. Get those immigrants legal and paying into the system.

4. Means test COLA increases, as Bush proposed.

5. Invest a portion of the Trust Fund COLLECTIVELY in higher yielding bonds or stocks, as Clinton proposed.

6. Possibly, have private accounts as an ADD-ON, not a carve-out, as Moynihan proposed.

Another part of the solution, though it is too late now, would have been to run surpluses and pay down the public debt BEFORE the boomer retirement. Such an intelligent move, of course, was precluded by the Jews for Buchanan of West Palm Springs, who vote in 2000 ensured the election of a man determined to wipe out the surplus and “starve the beast”.

Jul 11, 2005 - 9:49 pm 84. Buddy Larsen:

Tomorrow, when the hour is not so (yawwwwn) late, we shall speak of the surplus, the Florida panhandle 2000, The policy position coded into Kervorkian, and add-ons vs carve-outs…and…zzzzzzzzzzz….

Jul 11, 2005 - 11:15 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: