One of the Bush administration’s overriding goals has been to discredit every institution that threatens the imperial presidency: Congress, the courts, the military, the electoral process, federal agencies and, last but hardly least, the press. Through its precision coordination of PR, spin, message saturation, fake news and demonization of any journalist who dared to ask questions as a terrorist-loving traitor,… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (44)Page 1 of 1 pagesLou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly.
That should cover all the bases. Everyone else can go home.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 4, 2006 at 10:06 AM Lou Dobbs may have discovered a parade and jumped in front of it, I’m not sure — nor do I care. He says what I want said and asks what I want asked.
Economics, security, torture, out sourcing, illegal aliens, health care, prescription drugs — pick any topic. How often have you heard a talking head begin presentation of his bias with, “The average American wants (believes, says,)...” and find yourself talking back to the TV? Dobbs has made it his business to find out what the ordinary American really thinks. How does he do it? He asks! What a concept.
The examples mentioned in this article that I have tried to bring to the attention of my “representatives” have brought either a canned message from an assistant, or a “Questionnaire” offering only choices which back his party’s current proposals or stupid distortions of the opposition’s. In either case they conclude with a plea for the financial support needed to accomplish such.
Like others, Lou often puts the latest poll numbers for Bush and others on the screen. It would be interesting to see how Lou’s numbers would compare.
We’ve now have a CEO in the top slot, have had professional politicians, an actor… Walter Cronkite got rave reviews a couple decades ago. I’m unsure about a news anchor as president, but anyone who speaks straight from the shoulder and is articulate would sure be refreshing.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 4, 2006 at 2:26 PM With all due respect, I disagree that Lou Dobbs is any friend of progressives. While conventional wisdom says ‘The enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ that is hardly ever the case. A ‘friendship’ based on mutual conflict against another almost always denigrates once the mutual ‘enemy’ is removed.
In this instance, Lou Dobbs holds Bushs feet to the fire on occasion. But Lou Dobbs also spends a great deal of time pushing an anti-immigrant message that comes from white supremacist and neo-nazi founded and funded organizations. Please refer to “Broken Record” at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589 for more on this issue.
So while I am more than happy to see Lou Dobbs is not quaffing kegs of Bush White House kool-aid, that hardly puts him “on my side” or makes him my ‘friend’. It’s more an instance that Lou Dobbs & I are walking down the same piece of road at the same time and in the same direction for a small bit of time with several miles of other issue seperating us. To pretend it is more is a large post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:14 AM November says,
“But Lou Dobbs also spends a great deal of time pushing an anti-immigrant message that comes from white supremacist and neo-nazi founded and funded organizations.”
To subscribe to his view doesn’t necessarily make one a Nazi or supremacist. If you have evidence of someone “funding” his messages, let’s see some.
As a regular viewer I have often heard guests on the show call him, “Anti-immigrant.” He never fails to clarify this label.
He is anti- ILLEGAL immigrant. A BIG difference.
As one who would rather see our laws respected and enforced than glossed over for political gain, I am also with him on this. We need to secure our borders (and ports) AND establish an immigration policy which is fair to all applicants.
Our present policy and Bush’s “Special Guest” plan is grossly exploitive. The same is so with our expatriate corporations’ behavior within foreign countries. Suggestion: Read “Who will tell the people,” by William Greider — Our operations in Mexico are disgusting.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 5, 2006 at 8:48 AM I did not say subscribing to an anti-immigrant view meant one was a white supremacist or neo-nazi. I did say his message IS coming from white supremacist and neo-nazi organizations and supplied a link to back it up. Since you asked for evidence, I guess you are link impaired.
I’ll repeat it for you
Please refer to ‘Broken Record’ at http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589 for more on this issue.
Can you spot it that time?
Also, immigrating to the USA has a fine of $50 and is a misdomenor. Littering on a highway has a larger fine. In many places so does jaywalking. When you are making as big a fuss about highway littering and jaywalking and other misdomenors then perhaps your credibility will be greater.
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 9:07 AM Before Dobbs turned crusader, I found his commentary good. But as a crusader, I just never bought it. What brought about his conversion? Well, the conversion happened shortly after O’Reilly’s stock went through the ceiling. Dobbs has always been good at business news commentary. Could it be he has a little of that entrepreneurial spirit himself?
I have seen Dobbs argue his immigration points of view several times. The last one I saw, on C-Span, Dobbs may have certainly advocated anti ILLEGAL immigration. But he has never said we should make it legal. In fact, most of his arguments were slick commentary that was decidedly anti-immigration. He does heap faint praise on their work ethic and every time goes out of his way to let us know he, in fact, has worked with them side-by-side, shoulder-to-shoulder.
What Dobbs did do at that conference, was to constantly interrupt those who were pro-immigration advocates with high-class cheap shots. Listening to him, I felt as dirty as anyone who hates O’Reilly must feel when they listen to his trademark non-spin.
No, Dobbs is on something other than a righteousness kick. He’s watching his ratings as closely as O’Reilly.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 5, 2006 at 9:42 AM I have posted my arguments at Nation.com in their immigration debate:
1) I can’t tell you how many times in the past week I have seen tirades against “illegals” framed in the context that being an “illegal” was as bad as arson or burglary or murder.
The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article. Of all the issues in the Great Immigration Debate 2006, the one I find the most fascinating is the issue of “breaking the law”.
Note the very last bullet point in the article:
Illegal presence in the US is a civil, not a criminal, offense. If apprehended, undocumented immigrants can demand a hearing to appeal deportation.
Civil offense, dudes!
The point of legality in the whole debate ignores the fact that the only “crime” that most “illegals” have commited have been merely this. That is a function of the quota system, of public policy, nothing else.
And if there are 12 million “illegals”, maybe the true issue is the broken quota system.
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/04/2006 @ 5:08pm
2)Countries have a sovereign right to restrict immigration. Some do it to protect and preserve natural resources within their borders (the Watering Hole Theory). Others do it to maintain cultural homogeneity and integrity. Many use it to regulate the influx of immigrants to mitigate adverse economic effects from large migrations.
As a country built on immigration, the rationale for America’s immigrant quota system is really only based on the last one. 12 million immigrants, if allowed in, would be equivalent to 8-10% of the working population drastically affecting, if nothing else, the unemployment rate in America.
But.
They are already here, already working, and have been for some time.
The quota system is meaningless and we have already paid the Piper.
But from the Piper, we are getting pennies on the dollar. Their wages are kept artificially low, under threat of deportation (a threat quite effectively wielded by their employers), they are completely unable to contribute anything to our country, and what little wages they manage to save, they send back to their families, in Mexico, and they use services that we pay for.
America traditionally recoups its investments on immigrant capital by making them citizens, by allowing them to be full partners. Thomas Jefferson once said, in advocating free education for all, and not just the elites, that by virtue of our egalitarian system, we have a vast potential to tap that other countries ignore. The mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste.
Finally, there is the argument that the problem is with Mexico. Yes, but I hear little in the way of solutions. Make these 12 million immigrants full citizens, open the floodgates, so to speak, and Mexico just might be forced to actually deal with the problem, as their economy spirals down.
You really think that the Mexican economy could survive a mass exodus?
And with all those new citizens, maybe we could start attracting our lost manufacturing base back. After all, the only reason we lost the manufacturing base was overinflated wages. With a surplus population, I don’t see wages climbing back to the rarefied heights that the unions extorted.
Ramparts are expensive to maintain. And any economy is based on the size and quality of its labor.
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/05/2006 @ 09:56am
3) Fareed Zakaria of the Washington Post as an excellent column about the virtues of immigration.
Posted by JAY CLINE 04/05/2006 @ 10:40am
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 5, 2006 at 9:45 AM I also find people talking about ‘illegals’ to be troublesome. It’s just like any other epithet used to demean people. They as PEOPLE ARE NOT ILLEGAL. Their IMMIGRATION IS NOT LEGAL as a civil matter and there’s the rub.
If I can get people to look at illegal immigrants as illegal people, I’ve won the meme battle. All that is left is splitting up the spoils. It’s a very powerful trick. It’s racist too, since I hear illegal latino immigrants called illegal yet I’ve never heard an illegal irish immigrant called illegal.
And answer me this: since this is a misdomenor, wouldn’t calling a murder or rapist an ‘illegal’ be more accurate? should we start calling litterers and jaywalkers and those who have gotten traffic tickets ‘illegal’ too?
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 10:09 AM November,
Whew, Touchy!
This what I got at the site…
--------------
“We’re sorry, the page you requested has not been found on our site. Please use the links in the menu bar at top or the navigation at left to find more pages on our site, or use the Search function below.”I did find several articles referring to Nazis and other wackos. I fail to see that this is relevant at this point, but these guys could go for scapegoating as the economy falters. They made it work against the Jews.
BTW — I’ll save you the trouble of looking it up — I assume you meant misdemeanor.
--------------------------------------
Jay,“The quota system is meaningless and we have already paid the Piper.” More likely we have just begun to pay.
So, it looks as though our quota system is worse than useless. However, they are here illegally which in short form gets the name “illegals.” This applies to any and all who buck the line. Apparently November is aware of Irish illegals being a part of the problem as well — I hadn’t heard that.
They ARE being exploited financially, both here and in their homeland. Politicians are sucking up to the Hispanic vote because they are the fastest growing bloc. Employers prefer them for multiple reasons not the least of which is they are easy to intimidate with threat of deportation.
A simple fix for those who say you can’t round them up since there are too many—
Penalize the employers of illegals. Deport those employer SOBs to Mexico or elsewhere.
No jobs here for illegals — no reason to stay. Problem solved.
Rather than offer amnesty to those who came in illegally, let it be known if caught here they will never get citizenship, but if they leave and apply properly they will get first priority in their country’s quota and return at minimum wage or better.
Require at least minimum wage for those “jobs Americans won’t do.” Less than minimum is an oxymoron. More game playing by politicos.
Our economy is in a very precarious position. Unemployment is far greater than reported and the unemployed know it. If we don’t fix this illegal alien I expect to see a backlash against any who “look foreign” whether illegals or those who followed the rules. The Irish will have an edge should that happen.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 5, 2006 at 2:52 PM The url for ‘Broken Record’ is <a>http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=589</a> t; I find it odd that it’s broken in the previous two posts.
Posted by november on Apr 5, 2006 at 5:16 PM november,
The comments section here has a tendency of breaking url’s when they cross over lines. It helps to use tinyurl to shorten long url’s.
You can create links uising the < a href="url"> LINK </a > mark-up. (without the space between the a’s and <>’s)
Here is your Broken Record link.
If you get follow ups you can see the HTML in your e-mail. (At least this is true for Yahoo e-mail.)
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 5, 2006 at 7:40 PM Thanks luminous beauty. That was very informative. I was looking for a help link off the comments window but didn’t see one.
Posted by november on Apr 6, 2006 at 6:54 AM wth,
LOL! I like your “employer” focused solution.
But the solutions for those who are here “illegally”, well, that is mostly already the law. And it isn’t much of a deterrent.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 6, 2006 at 7:53 AM November,
Thanks for the updated URL— I finally got on.
As the article states up front, “Dobbs favors clamping down on illegal immigration, and his “reporting” never fails to make that clear.”
He has often made it very clear he has a bias. I like that. (Most reporters are, but pretend objectivity.) It just happens to match my own biases on several topics —
• The US job losses thru globalization • Illegal immigration • Border & Port Security(We all come here with our own biases. Honest, open discussion may lead to adjusting them. Although I’m pushing 70, I find myself influenced not by simplistic media parroting, or party platform declarations — it is new, verifiable information, presented in a reasoned fashion. Age only provides the wisdom of experience. Our experiences vary widely. )
The “Broken Record” article and site also have biases. After the above statement of Dobbs’ favoring clamping down on illegal immigration, note how often they use only “anti-immigration” and then link him by insinuation to the extreme groups and individuals.
They add, “Dobbs has failed to present mounting and persistent evidence of anti-Hispanic racism in anti-immigration groups and citizen border patrols.”
They also take a crack at people concerned about our border security by highlighting/linking to extremists once again.
“Although Dobbs has steered clear of the racist comments that some of his guests have made elsewhere, he has warned of “illegal aliens who not only threaten our economy and security, but also our health and well-being,”
In case you are unaware — there is a genuine problem with increasing violence in the smuggling of both drugs and people. So, while as Jay pointed out, the illegal immigrant my be committing a misdemeanor, there are plenty of felonious activities there as well.
I have previously written to this site of the C-SPAN testimony of four law officers from the border states to a congressional committee this year. They are dealing every day with — rape, murder, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, and intimidation by armed intruders.
As for anti-Hispanic sentiment, what can we expect as a reaction to Hispanics (legal and illegal) marching with foreign flags waving and making “demands?” Now, schools in California and Colorado forbidding the wearing or showing of any patriot items of the US? I suppose the principals think they are being politically correct, but this can only further inflame an explosive problem. What would you think and who would you blame, if your brother, sister or parent is serving in Iraq or Afghanistan?
If it is OK to disregard laws and regulations — let’s make it work for us all.
I propose we all pick illegal immigrants as write-in candidates in the coming November election. They will work cheaper than our current “representatives” and need not understand English, since the job requires no listening to constituents.
I want our laws obeyed, not illegality legalized.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 6, 2006 at 8:53 AM I have never been in favor of legalizing bona fide crimes, but the only real crime being committed is what the employers do to the immigrants. The “criminal” nature of most immigrants is a consequence of a failed policy.
Unlike arguments that attempt to justify decriminalizing, say prostitution or gambling or drug trafficking, there is nothing immoral or illegal or plain wrong about bringig home the bacon.
Yes, there are more serious crimes, like “rape, murder, kidnapping, robbery, burglary, and intimidation by armed intruders.”. But c’mon! That is a facetious argument.
Show me any population of people numbering in the millions and I’ll show you those same crimes. If not, then we be in heaven, dude!
Or maybe we should just declare everyone in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, North and South Dakota as illegals.
Ever seen the crime statistics from those five states?
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 6, 2006 at 12:58 PM We have a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-party family--included are some veterans of wars in Korea, Vietnam, Gulf One and now Gulf Two. Oh yes, we’re also spread across the landscape when it comes to religious [or not] affiliations...we’ve got Catholics, Unitarians, Mormons and Total Unbelievers in our tribe. I can truthfully report that Lou Dobbs is treated as the great guru of all our factions, faiths and affiliations. We gather around the tube on week-nights much as frontier families used to do around a campfire--watching for danger, listening for the crackling in the brush, and greeting the informative brave Dobbs like the roving path-finder he is. Any talking head who can speak truth to power and attract respect across our broad family spectrum is doing a great service to us all. Dobbs can identify the charlatans and the truth-avoiders with a deft hand & a beady eye. We all hope he’s watching his back these days...we need him to stay healthy, vocal, informed and informative and keep telling us what’s REALLY going on.
Posted by Populista on Apr 6, 2006 at 1:04 PM Jay said,
“… there is nothing immoral or illegal or plain wrong about bringing home the bacon.”
Would you feel the same if they walked into your house through your back door and left with YOUR bacon?
This discussion is not about just any population’s crime rate. (No one’s is higher than D.C.’s. It is about people who are not US citizens perpetrating crimes against our citizens.
I taped and later watched the following on C-SPAN. Not exactly a “facetious argument” to the US citizens who are confronted with it daily.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Statements before the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims Regarding Violence and Incursions on our Southern Border — March 2, 2006
Testimony of Sheriff Larry A. Dever
Cochise County, Arizona“Twenty to twenty-five years ago, we would intercept smugglers right on the border fence. Most would simply abandon their cargo and flee on foot back south. It wasn’t unusual to have some just give up. Today, the expected response to an attempted interdiction is a fight. Smugglers are armed with high capacity assault weapons and with orders to protect their cargo at all costs. They operate under the watchful eye of scouts equipped with sophisticated observation and communications equipment. Failure to make safe delivery is not acceptable and many who do fail are executed. The stakes are extremely high.”
“Smuggling routes are often marked with “rape trees"-women’s under garments hung on tree limbs where a raped occurred, warning everyone of the consequences of failing to cooperate with the coyotes who prey on them. Running gun battles with fleeing felons occur much too frequently placing law enforcement officers and the public alike at great risk. Gang activity and its associated violence are on the rise as these groups become more competitive in the lucrative people smuggling trade. Just last week one of my deputies, the supervisor of the narcotics task force was the victim of a drive-by shooting at his home.”
---------------------------------------------------------------Testimony of Sheriff Todd Garrison
Dona Ana County, New Mexico“One case in point of the problems of rural law enforcement along the southern border is an incident still under investigation as I testify. One of my constituents was recently the victim of a brutal rape more than 20 miles from the border. The investigation has resulted in the apprehension of an illegal immigrant who broke into this elderly woman’s home in Hatch, New Mexico and raped her.”
“The picture of border security along the southern border is not what you think. Serious problems currently exist. These problems occur daily and fall directly under my jurisdiction. The tax payers of Dona Ana, Hidalgo and Luna counties ultimately pay the price. I agree with my colleagues from Texas, enough is enough. I encourage you to look at Operation Linebacker. This concept was designed by locals to fix local problems. The problems are really a federal issue, but New Mexico Sheriffs are the ones answering the 911 calls.”
---------------------------------------------------------------
I can see no reason why these people should not be required to follow the same procedures as those from other countries — can you?
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 6, 2006 at 2:56 PM Illegal immigration is indeed a problem.
I think we can agree on that.
The difference appears where we have our focus.
Posted by Jay Cline on Apr 6, 2006 at 4:31 PM .
Yesterday’s news brought out two explosive pieces of information:
Lewis Libby, the indicted chief aide to Dick Cheney, has admitted under oath before a Federal Grand Jury that it was George W. Bush himself who authorized Libby to illegally “leak” classified information to New York Times reporter Judith Miller in July, 2003 in an effort to discredit Ambassador Joseph Wilson who had publicly stated that “there is nothing to the story” that Saddam Hussein’s government was trying to buy uranium for a nuclear weapons program. Wilson is the husband of Valerie Plame, the undercover CIA operative whose identity was revealed to the media as retaliation for Wilson’s contention that Bush’s assertions about Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction were false. The “classified information” that Bush and Cheney authorized Libby to plant in the New York Times turned out to be entirely false.
Bush’s Attorney General admitted yesterday that Bush believes that he has the authority to personally authorize the secret wiretapping, without any court order, of any and all conversations and emails between Americans that occur exclusively within the borders of the United States. Earlier it was revealed that Bush set up a massive secret wiretapping operation monitoring a huge number of Americans, but he had asserted that it was only to listen in on conversations of people in the United States who were making international calls and emails.
The fact that Bush has not already had articles of impeachment filed in the House of Representatives is clear evidence that the people must act forcefully as the true guardians of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. That is exactly what the ImpeachBush.org movement is doing. When impeachment looked remote, there were still tens of thousands of individuals who tirelessly worked to collect petitions, hold rallies, wrote and called members of Congress and donated so that we could place newspaper ads all across the country.Today, impeachment is not remote at all. It reflects the majority sentiment. Recent polls show that by 52% to 43% majority the American people favor impeachment if it is proved that Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. A nearly similar majority support impeachment if the President broke Federal wiretapping laws by authorizing the secret wiretapping of Americans without a court order when there is no evidence or inquiry of criminal wrongdoing.
Yesterday’s revelations confirm again that this is a lawless administration. Impeachment is imperative. This is a challenge for every person in this country who has a commitment to the Constitution. The people must continue to act rather than wait for the politicians to lead.
Now that more than 700,000 people have voted for impeachment at http://www.impeachbush.org/ it is urgent that we do everything in our power to make the issue of Bush’s criminal conduct a major issue between now and the November Congressional elections. The newspaper ads are an excellent way to keep the issue of impeachment front and center. We have succeeded in placing more and more ads because of the donations of the people who are committed to this course.
We want to increase the visibility in the weeks ahead with even more newspaper ads. Please continue to show your support by making a generous donation on-line or by learning how you can send a check. This is a grassroots people’s movement. It is historic and it can succeed with your help. Click here to make your contribution.
-All of us at VoteToImpeach/ImpeachBush.org
Posted by brian28 on Apr 9, 2006 at 6:08 PM Brian,
So, 700,000 have voted for impeachment of Bush — that won’t even get a cup of coffee — it is meaningless, a total waste of time and energy.
Tell me how we can get the congress to do something useful and then you’ll get my attention.
Congress loves side issues, especially emotionally charged ones like “undocumented” aliens, news leaks, PC issues.
(Democrats at least knew sex is a better grabber — pun? Yes!).
Diversion by impeachment debate will free them from pressure to get a health care plan, Social Security reform, deficit reduction, the war, homeland security… an endless list of important issues.
Bush is a lame duck and his party has begun to panic and fragment on all topics just like the Democrats.
Wake me when the revolution starts.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 10, 2006 at 8:12 AM To return to the thrust of the article:
I don’t think the author was necessarily advocating the views of Dobbs so much as she was looking to his style of rhetoric as an innovative method for conveying the news. As for Dobbs himself, I have never agreed with him, but I’ve respected him more than most talking heads for reasons similar to those listed above (having said that, I’ve heard he’s a real asshole).
Hopefully this conversation will bring the debate of New Journalism (dare I dream Gonzo Journalism?) back to TV Land. Poseurs like Tim Russert, who feign objectivity while pursuing a natural human bias, is disingenuous. A Dobbsian model may not be a bad one for progressives to look toward.
I can only assume that people reading these posts have located alternative ways to receive their news; sadly, television is still the major source for most Americans. I for one have no positive opinion on Katie “Navy Seals Rock” Couric as anchor, but I can only guess that the networks have given up on serious journalism in favor of clownishly made-up “perky” types to attract more advertising revenue. How about replacing the McLaughlin Group with the panel from the View?
Posted by rocco on Apr 10, 2006 at 10:49 PM Yeah rocco,
Compared with the rest of the pack, Dobbs is almost Cronkite-like. I’d like to replace the McLaughlin Group with like, maybe, the tele-tubbies. Or just have the tele-tubbies surround Charles Krautheimer and just stand there until he starts screaming incoherently. I don’t think it would take long.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 10, 2006 at 11:42 PM LB,
Funny thing… Yesterday’s lunch TV news got to me — same comments/questions about the immigrant marches on every channel. I actually watched the Tele-tubbies for a bit.
I recall someone (Pat Robertson or Falwell?) claiming the one with the purse (Not being a regular fan I don’t know their names.) is gay. Well, how do we know he’s not a she? How long did it take the accuser to figure that out? Could it have been through divine revelation?
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 11, 2006 at 7:03 AM Rocco,
Dobbs’ personality may be very unpleasant — don’t know, but it is always apparent it is HIS show without question.
Even when I disagree with him I do appreciate his tenacity and refusal to let the guest dodge questions. I too, think the author sees that as his forte.
Our politicians still manage to avoid dealing with the core issues which Dobbs tries to keep up front.
The “immigration problem” should be labeled, Made in D.C.” not in Mexico.
Unemployment, job exports are either directly lied about or spun to “benefit consumers.”
Security is taken care of with promises of increased Border Patrol staff — then ignored.
Ports management, airport procedures, deficits and debts, health care…
Well, at least some are new problems — others we’ve lived with for decades.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 11, 2006 at 7:29 AM This is the image that got me thinking of Tele-tubbies and Krauthammer.
Disturbing, but funny.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2006 at 8:41 AM LB,
I went to your Tele-tubbies site. Yes, disturbing and funny, but like so many things can be used for good or evil.
A friend of mine was on what was called a Crash Boat in WW2. They waited in the English Channel to pick up downed fliers. One day a hospital ship was torpedoed and they fished a very young German out of the water. He turned out to be the pilot of the one man sub/torpedo which struck the ship.
As they hauled him up into their boat he pulled a dagger and tried to stab his rescuers. Their orders were to hold for interrogation, but it was all Russ could do to keep his crew from slitting his throat and throwing him to the fish. The Hitler Youth trained him thoroughly.
I talked with a young Marine a few weeks ago who had just come back from Afghanistan. He reported their unit had basically good relations with Iraqis in their area after getting to know each other. The saddest thing he had witnessed — kids as young as 13 sent to attack with AK-47s.
He had been hit twice —(an in and out) just missed his elbow and a guy at close ranged after surrendering pulled a .22 and shot him in the knee.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 11, 2006 at 1:15 PM WTH,
How do you know those kids aren’t volunteers?
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2006 at 2:00 PM First time I ever saw the teletubbies, I was coming off 4 tabs of acid at 5 in the morning. True story. I defy anyone to beat that, even Krautheimer.
Ever seen those two Nazi teeny-boppers? Now that’s freaky.
Posted by rocco on Apr 11, 2006 at 7:01 PM Bummer, dude.
Some perverted part of me wants one of those T-shirts.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 11, 2006 at 7:39 PM Lou Dobbs is truly a “made in America” hero. His is the type of populist voice that is needed in the national debate. I would vote for Lou Dobbs in a heartbeat if he were to run for President.
Posted by Hattie Caraway on Apr 12, 2006 at 12:36 AM “Hero” is cutting it a little close, don’t you think?
I hate to think that Lou Dobbs is the best we can do.
LB - I know. It would have been a great t-shirt in Venice Beach once upon a time. Damn neo-nazis.
Posted by rocco on Apr 12, 2006 at 4:18 AM LB,
“How do you know those kids aren’t volunteers?”
Probably are — as was the Hitler youth.
As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.
The Marine I heard it from was also a volunteer. He enlisted right after 9/11. We’ll no doubt disagree on this, but while I see the parallels (twig bending of each), I see a big difference in motivation and outcome.
To the Hitler Youth, Adolf was as a god. One professing Aryan supremacy and destruction or subjugation of all others. To the 13 year-old Iraqi, his religious indoctrination (the thrust of education under Mullahs) followed the same theme. Both Nazi Germany’s and the fundamentalist Islamic education/social experience was extremely narrow—control nearly total.
Who would you prefer to have living next door?
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 12, 2006 at 6:36 AM Last night I watched a bit of Lou Dobbs when he presented the latest presidential poll numbers — each issue was either at a new low or close — the war, security, economy/jobs, illegal immigration if I remember correctly the overall performance was at 36% favorable.
I suspect about now Bush sees himself in Lincoln’s shoes at the height of the Civil War — not Lyndon Johnson’s. At least he won’t have to make an, “I will not run,” speech.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 12, 2006 at 6:54 AM WTH,
You’re making a lot of assumptions about that Iraqi kid. Islamic fundamentalism is a very recent phenomenon among Iraqi Sunnis, if it is really religious fundamentalism at all and not just a militant reaction to the US invasion. Until we started mucking with Iraq, it was the most secular state in the Arabic world. Don’t believe 90% of what you hear about Islamic fundamentalism. The Salafis, who mostly live in the Arabian Peninsula, are a small percentage of Wahabism, which is more traditionalist than fundamentalist. The Iranian Shia are a whole different story. The point is that Muslims, particularly in Iraq, are driven to militant religious behaviors as a reaction to the perception, not entirely unfounded, that they are under attack, not because they have some vision of world domination. That’s just propaganda that the Neo-Cons, who do have such a vision would want us to believe.
We’ve been over this before.
I was thinking more along the lines of the 12 year old Russian boy in Stalingrad who was hung by the Nazis than the Hitler youth or the US ‘volunteer’ army. (My roommate can’t find his copy of “Enemy at the Gates” or I’d have his name.) He wasn’t recruited by the Red Army, he acted on his own through his personal relationship with Russian snipers. What we’re facing in Iraq isn’t a top down organized and ideologically driven force so much as a bunch of loosely connected bands of irregulars motivated by plain old ordinary vengeance. Much more like the Resistance than the Nazis. We’re more like the Nazis, uncomfortable as that is to contemplate. We’re the invaders. We’re trying to impose an alien ideology on an unwilling populace. Those are the objective facts.
Posted by luminous beauty on Apr 12, 2006 at 8:02 AM LB,
Sorry, I should have said 13 year-old Afghan. You may be right that he perceives our troops that way hard to say for sure. At any rate, there is little choice but to shoot when your own life is threatened even by someone so young.
---------------------------I am reading a book, “Cobra 2” which has a lot of recently released info about the planning stages of the Iraq War. I am only about a quarter of the way through, but I am definitely getting the same sinking feeling I had about Vietnam. Political meddling can lose this war too and there is no doubt in my mind many of our casualties are because of it.
I have never subscribed to the “falsified intel” theories, but in some ways the arrogance and wishful thinking revealed by formerly classified info and testimony from minutes of meetings and from high ranking retired US generals is just as disturbing.
Rumsfeld’s micro managing is a disaster. He threw out ten years of planning (four different levels of US involvement). The least: Arm the Shiites in the South, bomb dams Saddam built which cut off the Shiite water supply and aid the Kurds in the North (no democratizing). The most: Total invasion, requiring 500,000 troops.
Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz apparently operated on the belief — “If we deduce it will happen a certain way, it will.” As for troop strength, In effect, Rumsfeld said, “I know better. We can do it all, with fewer troops and much cheaper.”
The “brains” assumed and went with the idea that many Iraqi regular army commanders would “capitulate” and come over to our side. They would be used post - combat to establish border security and protect infrastructure. With this in mind Rumsfeld maintained he might turn back some of our forces and supplies — depending on just how soon they switched sides!
Not a comfortable position to put our commanders in — you may have this many guys, but maybe only half as many.
Generals Zinni, Powell, McKiernan and several others cautioned having enough for the post combat stage. Franks told his people the state Department was handing that job. Not a good start and we can now see the result.
Typical of the CEOs they are, there have been no admissions of miscalculation or of overconfidence. Democracy and free enterprise for all — ready or not, here it comes! (I hope they all invested in TupperWare for Baghdad housewives.)
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 12, 2006 at 3:08 PM No, I think “hero” fits. Lou Dobbs has the guts to put his views out there; he is one of the few voices on the political scene who publicly comments on the corrosive effect that big corporations have on America. He’s my guy in 2008!
Posted by Hattie Caraway on Apr 12, 2006 at 10:19 PM Hattie,
While I like Dobbs keeping these issues alive, I voted for Perot for the same reason and got eight years of Clinton. It may once again be a matter of voting against the worst option we have.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 13, 2006 at 7:24 AM Whattheheck,
I think the thinking that we must “vote against the worst option” is what gets us in trouble. A great populist politician once said that the difference between the democrats and the republicans was that one “skinned you from the ear down, and the other got you from the ankle up.” If more of us had voted for Perot, the nation would be better off today, the fact that they did not is because both parties successfully sold the “don’t waste your vote” propaganda. I recall reading one exit poll that suggested that a plurality of voters who voted on election day 1992 actually preferred Perot, but voted for either Bush or Clinton because they didn’t want the other one to win. To me, Lou Dobbs gives voice to the populist feelings in the nation that are manifestly not represented by either political party.
Posted by Hattie Caraway on Apr 13, 2006 at 4:39 PM Hattie,
while I applaud the strength of your conviction, I disagree with both your political sentiments and your definition of the word ‘hero.’ However I only have the brain power, or perhaps the will, to tackle the ‘hero’ part.
I use the term ‘hero’ sparingly, else the term is diluted. Not everyone who voices their opinion without thought of personal consequence is a bona fide hero (David Duke, Hitler, etc.). Not to put Dobbs in their company, but nevertheless…
A hero is one who struggles through the miasma, dies in a sense, and returns to the world reborn and with a message (doff of the cap to Joseph Campbell). I’m not sure that Dobbs qualifies, nor am I certain that he’s earned my vote through voiced indignance of current policy.
Respect can be given generously. Canonization should be reserved for the truly incredible.
Posted by rocco on Apr 14, 2006 at 12:33 AM Hattie,
I understand what you are saying, but I voted for John B. Anderson in 1980 and as I said, Perot too.
If everyone cooperated and acted “responsibly” most of the world’s problems would disappear. Idealism wears a bit thin with age and reality takes over.
Our representatives are not paying attention to you, me or Dobbs. Both parties are overwhelmingly in control of the government “by the people.”
With incumbency and longevity comes power. They make the rules and they get the benefits. (P3) = pay, pensions, perks.They will NOT send anyone back. Will NOT penalize employers. Will give amnesty a new name and suck up the Hispanic vote. Anyone who pushes for the rule of law will be branded a racist.
Even when enforcing the law they guard their real constituency — the latest example: The IRS is increasing audits this year… of small businesses and individuals.
Posted by whattheheck on Apr 14, 2006 at 7:11 AM Apologies for the lack of documentation on the allowed tags in our comment system and the breaking of long URLs. I’m working on incorporating documentation into this space. Currently, words over 80 characters are broken in two parts to avoid breaking the layout. I have an alternative fix coming soon though. Thanks for your patience everyone!
Posted by seamus on Apr 20, 2006 at 1:06 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Susan J. Douglas
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1972 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
