The big, deep unreported truth about Ann Coulter’s comments at CPAC is this: conservatives agree with her. They do believe that “faggot” is an acceptable term, both for gays and political opponents. They believe, as she said last year, that Arabs are “ragheads”. When Rush Limbaugh called the torture at Abu Ghraib harmless pranks, they agreed. Sean Hannity issued a call to arms before the 2006 election that stopping Nancy Pelosi from becoming speaker was a cause worth dying for, and this is part of their core value system.
There is a reason why conservatives rarely condemn their allies in the media, and when they do its in the most tepid terms: they agree with them. Conservative talk radio hosts, pundits and other entertainers are simply saying what cons speak about behind closed doors. As a society we’ve banished these insane beliefs to the basement, but among conservatives they are mainstream. Whether that involves the subservience of women, the inferiority of blacks or Hispanics, or the superiority of conservative Christianity over all other religions – it is what they actually believe.
So in a strange way, Coulter is to be thanked. Republicans have tried for years to act as if their movement is a mainstream one, and not radical. They hide it under words like “compassionate conservative” or sloganeering like “support the troops”, but as the speech of Ann Coulter and the conditions at Walter Reed can testify to – this is nothing more than a facade, a fake.
The continued long-term success of the Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, Beck, Fox News quadrant of political commentary and opinion is a testament to the popularity of the ideas and slurs of these figures (and others, like Michael Savage) among the modern conservative movement. They are their gods, their id, their ego, their unrestrained voice. When they speak, there are thousands of heads nodding in agreement from coast to coast. They say what extremists believe and in a perverse way I’m grateful for it because it’s great to know what the enemy is really thinking.
I totally agree. CPAC invited Ann Coulter to speak precisely BECAUSE she says stuff like this, and that makes her popular among conservatives. Mitt Romney praised her BECAUSE she says stuff like this, and he needs credibility among those people for whom ‘faggot’ is an amusing put-down of those hated, hated liberals.
Coulter’s comment about Edwards is rich considering she supports a Mormon Metrosexual from Massachusetts, the latter in itsef an immediate disqualifier as being truly conservative.
The name calling and inferences were thick throughout the conference. The lead of one panel described Hillary Clinton as arriving into the race on her broom, ergo she is a witch. This was immediately followed by his disclaimer that he didn’t want to go negative after already dipping his wick in that tar.
Hardly a day goes by that Imus doesn’t use the name “Satan” in referring to HC. She is onle the devil on days where he is trying to be nice.
It says a lot about Edwards though to try to use the incident to raise money. If Coulter would have called Edwards a whore Beg John would have made her case for her.
I’d love to see Edward’s wife debate Coulter on the issues. It would be a total wipe out. Coulter would be doing a lot of subject changing through personal attacks for sure.
“it’s great to know what the enemy is really thinking.”
It’s like a science with them, isn’t it? Psychopathology for sure. You have to read them like a clinical study. A great clue to understanding them is their unfailing need to project, that tendency to reach deep inside to take their sickness and paint others with it. It’s like they’re desperate to tell the truth but can’t help themselves from lying all at the same time.
Not quite there, OW. Dick Cheney would be Voldemort, and Dubya is the equally spineless Draco Malfoy. Coulter is, at best, Dolores Umbridge, or maybe Rita Skeeter. In other words, a mere annoyance.
And if these names are unfamiliar to any readers…you got 4 1/2 months to read the first six Harry Potter books!
Oliver, I like how you say ALL conservatives agree with her. This is exactly what Ann did — gave idiots a reason to blanket us all.
Please show me just ONE LINK of a popular conservative source agreeing with Ann.
My bosses Bryan and Michelle Malkin have denounced Ann. All of the bloggers at CPAC denounced Ann. Captain’s Quarters .. The American Mind (who had audio first) .. I don’t want to go on and on .. because hopefully you get the point.
“Please show me just ONE LINK of a popular conservative source agreeing with Ann… All of the bloggers at CPAC denounced Ann.”
She called Al Gore a fag months ago, and CPAC still invited her to bring the house down. She called Bill Clinton a “latent homosexual” months ago, and CPAC still invited her to bring the house down. She called for the poisoning of liberal Supreme Court justices, and CPAC still invited her to bring the house down. She was brought to CPAC SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE she says this sort of thing, not despite it.
Misha’s got Annie’s back, Ian. So there’s your ONE LINK.
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=256
That’s why Romney desperately glommed onto Ann: he thinks conservatives like her schtick. And given the crowd response in the video, Romney made the right call.
Ian,
You’re completely missing the point. It’s one thing to issue a carefully parsed press release disagreeing with her remarks. What would be more effective, and worthy of respect, is if conservatives like McCain and Romney publicly, on camera, disavowed her as the monger of hate she is and stated that they would never appear with her in public ever again and would boycott any event that sponsored her. But Oliver’s right. You guys either in your heart of hearts agree with her or lack the stomach to distance yourselves from her, finally and completely. Talk to me again when a national-level Republican chooses to make a Sister Souljah moment of Ann Coulter once and for all. But not before.
And?? That is what Ann Coulter does. Says outrageous things to sell books.
Should I quote some of the ridiculous things liberals who spoke at the DailyKos convention said in the past?
scott,
Have you been living under a rock or something? Dean demanded they distance themselves. And they did:
link
Scott, I just noted all that all of the bloggers who were at the event who blogged about the event DISTANCED themselves.
Yawnnnn.
Same old shit Oliver. Different day.
Get a new schtick.
Oh with regard to torture? It’s funny that you’re on such a moral high horse about when not too long ago, you could care less.
Coulter has been saying the same kinds of things for years now. Whether a few people say now that they don’t agree with what she said is irrelevant; she still got to say them. She was still invited, she was still given time at the podium, the people there still cheered, and her rants still got free airtime. And the bloggers were there too. Whether they cheered or not is both unknown and irrelevant; they went knowing who was speaking, and given her history there is no real plausible deniability. All of this “distance” now is just a smokescreen to cover ass.
When Coulter quits getting invited to major conservative political conferences attended by Republican presidential candidates and the Vice President, then the conservative commenters here will have a point about people distancing themselves from her professional hatred of all things not Ann-approved.
K
Ian – “your bosses Bryan and Michelle”??!!? Sweet Jesus, I pity you. Hey, does the mighty Hotair conglomerate have a good dental plan?
But, to the topic at hand: 2 points. First: it seems to me that the Hotair conglomerate and its fellow travelers are not so much upset at the outright bigotry of Coulter’s remark, but rather at the difficulty they will now have in playing their own well worn “moral superiority” card. For example:
Big Brain Bryan didn’t write “we shouldn’t welcome homophobia in our party” or anything, no, he writes that the problem is that the laughter is annoying because it will allow liberals to point out conservative bigotry and hypocrisy. The problem isn’t Ann’s comment in and of itself, only that it makes wingers look bad!
And as to the Ministry of Propaganda itself, I was quite intrigued by the imagery in this video. I see that actually using the word “faggot” is a little embarassing, but repeatedly referring to someone as a silky pony and photoshopping them into pink and purple dainty amimals is not to be interpreted as having any subtext? I mean, why didn’t you go out and put San Francisco’s Castro district in the background while y’all were at it? Michelle couldn’t afford the overtime pay?
Ian said “That is what Ann Coulter does. Says outrageous things to sell books.”
Kinda funny that Ian’s other argument is “Ann Coulter says outrageous things to alienate conservatives.”
Which is it, Ian? Meanwhile, reconcile your assertion that conservatives are embarassed by Ann with the fact that courting Ann Coulter seems to have helped Mitt Romney among conservatives.
Yawn. Should I take every statement made by popular liberal commentators and use it as a blanket?
Hey, if you can support a racist like Malkin, it’s just as easy to cover for Coulter.
“Should I take every statement made by popular liberal commentators and use it as a blanket?”
Do what you want. Meanwhile, we will take the craziest, most racist, hateful statements made by Coulter and use them to screw Romney. Win-win!
Anatole .. I was making fun of what you fools are doing.
It’s amazing how libs like Jadegold come in here for one comment like “RACIST!!!!!!!” when no one here has raised a finger to defend Coulter. Liberals. Haha.
Jay: never understand someone who takes the time to type out “Yawn”. You don’t have to read it, and don’t twist my position on torture, thanks.
Ian: You guys already attribute the words of everyone to the left of Bush to “the left”. Ask your boss Michelle Malkin, who has whipped the body of Ward Churchill like it was going out of style – somebody most on the left have still never heard of, but to this day is spoken about as if he was head of the DNC. Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, are conservative leaders, and now what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
“Anatole .. I was making fun of what you fools are doing.”
Yes, and I was making fun of the spineless, shameless way Mitt Romney intentionally panders to the most hateful elements of the right, and how that seems to be an effective strategy. What’s your point?
“when no one here has raised a finger to defend Coulter”
Except for the organizers and attendees of the most important conservative convention in America, who selected her to speak specifically because of the unamerican hate that she preaches. This isn’t about you, it’s about Romney and CPAC, and the conservatives who eat Coulter’s hate right up, and who booked her and praised her for that reason.
This is what I said when this latest Coulter flap started.
Right-wingers APPROVE of it.
When the eventual acts of violence erupts from the right wing (they will lose the White House and the majority of the House AND the Senate for at least a generation. They will become irreversibly unhinged.), you will here no right-wing pundits discourage it. Because they APPROVE of it.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Ian Q. Hotair. First he demands, DEMANDS evidence, then when it’s provided, he denies it ever mattered in the first place.
Try to breathe less, I think other people need the oxygen more than you do.
Oliver: Again I am not a spokesman for Michelle. I am not here to defend her. But you’re complaining about what she does AND you’re apparently doing the same thing, but worse. At least she can find people who agree/support/facilitate Churchill. Can you with Coulter?
Anatole: “Except for the organizers and attendees of the most important conservative convention in America”
I don’t think she should be invited back next year. BUT … WHO IS DEFENDING HER? Link, please?
Starky: Who approves of it? Link to a blog/columnist/paper that does. Thanks.
Oliver I typed ‘yawn’ because your post has no substance other than being another typical left wing smear job and more nonsense about how Ann Coulter is some kind of ‘leader’ amonst conservatives when she really has been nothing more than a Beltway cocktail party trophy than a serious political commentator. Of course, people like you don’t bat an eye when people Julian Bond compare the GOP to Nazis, so your high horse act is tiring. It really is.
When the eventual acts of violence erupts from the right wing
Oh please. Get a grip.
and don’t twist my position on torture, thanks.
I did no such thing. You constantly change your blog around which allows you to scrub older entries, but thanks to sites like archive.org, your older posts are there for everybody to read. Read here and http://web.archive.org/web/20030418095956/oliverwillis.com/03archives/000433.php“ rel=”nofollow”>here.
Essentially, I hold the SAME position as you (in these entries), but when we had these discussions you were happy to chime in with all the other loons about how people who support such a viewpoint are immoral cretins.
Bah. Bad linkage. Read here and here.
At least she can find people who agree/support/facilitate Churchill.
Can you find a major democratic or liberal organization that invites Churchill to be a featured speaker?
Can you find a democratic presidential candidate who would have told his/her audience how nice it was that Churchill was coming on to speak, the way Mitt Romney did for Coulter?
Time to be honest with yourself, Ian: sure, you can find some liberal with a keyboard somewhere who says some pretty hateful stuff, but you’ll never find a parallel for the professional vitriol mongers who are given prime speaking gigs and airtime by the mainstream right-wing.
Maybe you and other conscientious conservatives should begin asking yourselves why that is the case.
The question is not whether Coulter should be invited back next year, the question is why she was invited this year. After all, she was hardly Miss Congeniality prior to this.
Wilbur, you fell into my trap. Everytime you used the word “liberal” or “Democratic” .. imagine you used the word “conservative” instead and that is what you’re complaining about. No need to bring Malkin into this, we’re talking about your hypocrisy.
Okay, Ian, I’ll play
Can you find a major conservative organization that invites Churchill to be a featured speaker?
Well, no, but I can find a major conservative organization that invites Coulter. It’s called CPAC. Ever heard of it?
Can you find a conservative presidential candidate who would have told his/her audience how nice it was that Churchill
No again, but I can find one who said that about Coulter. His name is Mitt Romney. Ever heard of him?
Yep that’s quite a trap you caught me in, Ian.
“WHO IS DEFENDING HER?”
My poor naive Ian. It’s not about who “defends” her. That’s a strawman. It’s about who approves and funds her. It’s about who invites her back to their conference after doing the exact same thing last year. She says this stuff all the time. It’s why Romney glommed onto her to get conservative street cred. Hence the roar of approval she got from the conservative activists at the end of her 15-minute hate. See the video, please.
Or do you deny that she says hateful things about liberals to make conservtives glad and give her money?
C’mon Ian, Ann Coulter makes the rounds on all of talk radio and cable network news. Where have you seen Michael Moore and Ward Churchill since they became the poster boys for the loony left?
I suppose you could go to Colorado and catch a Churchill lecture, or go over to Moore’s website if a dose is needed, but otherwise they aren’t given a forum as Coulter gets.
We don’t have to identify a single person who publicly agreed with Coulters slur because there was a whole room full of them laughing and applauding.
There are bomb throwers on both sides for sure, and it usually involves the words Nazi or anti-Semite. But Coulter has made a cottage industry of making offensive remarks that seem to guarantee a curtain call throughout the conservative community.
If someone goes too far off of the reservation on the left they get treated like a leper.
Mitt Romney: “I’m happy to learn also that after you hear me, you’re going to from Ann Coulter. That is a good thing. Oh yeah!”
Take it up with Mitt, Ian.
Ian, to use an analogy: Ronald Reagan would never defend the murder of liberal civil rights activists. But he WOULD go to Philadelphia, MS to kick off his 1980 presidential campaign with a big speech about states’ rights. Reagan didn’t have to endorse the specific conservative murders of liberals. He just had to give a big wink in the town where it happened to let people know what side he was on. Same for Romney and Coulter: he won’t defend the ‘faggot’ remark, but he’ll endorse her in a general sense, in effect winking at the right people to let them know what side he’s on.
It just occurs to me how absolutely brilliant Ann Coulter is. Look at the Democratic candidates. Hillary is strong. Obama is a close second and rising. Republicans don’t stand a chance. What we need is to be able to run against a real yahoo, a proven loser.
Ta Da!!!
Coulter rallies short- attention-span progressives around Edwards,.
Comrades!! What a great way to fight back at Coulter! Vote for Edwards!
“…all the other loons about
how people who support such a viewpoint are immoral cretins.”
Wow. It’s now “looney” to oppose torture. Nice, Jay. Real nice.
Oh yeah, definitely Dugger. And if Ward Churchill started a whisper campaign that John McCain’s wife was a drug addict, that McCain was made crazy from his imprisonment in Vietnam, and that McCain had had a black child with a prostitute, I’m sure you’d rally to his defense, too. Oh, no, wait, that’s what Bush did to McCain in 2000. Never mind.
Wow. It’s now “looney” to oppose torture. Nice, Jay. Real nice.
I said no such thing. Let me break it down and make it simpler for a person of your minimal intelligence to understand:
People can disagree on issues like torture and the death penalty without impugning the moral character of those they disagree with. Unfortunately, around here it was the loons who decided get aboard their moral high horse regarding the issue.
You’re a loon Frameone. Your position on torture is irrelevant really. You just happened to be one of the loons doing what I described. There were others who disagreed with me that didn’t find it necessary to break out morality mallet.
Good post, Ollie.
Last year, when Mann Coulter made her hate-filled speech about ragheads, there was a minor storm but nothing like this.
Ann Coulter may just be the very best thing that has happened to the Edwards campaign since they lost a lot of netroots cred when they caved to the Right and fired Amanda et.al. ROFLMAO
In a larger sense, just as you describe, the crumbling remains of a badly damaged (due to Schiavo, Iraq, Katrina, Walter Reed, Gitmo etc.) veneer of credibility and respectability Conservatives spent three generations since Goldwater patiently buiilding is just about gone.
They became the party of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh fifteen years ago, and it has finally come to a roaring finish.
Early on, aggressive, no-holds-barred figures like these helped them to win over young dysfunctional people with unresolved authoritarian yearnings. This went on for years, but the resurgence of a conscience in America has hit them hard.
It’s not a coincidence that Party-ID polls have gone HUGE Liberal-Dem in recent months. It’s a direct result of the rantings of the Coulters, Gibsons, Hannities, and O’ Reillies being finally brought out to the mainstream for critical consideration, and Common-sense Americans turning away in droves from the hate-filled lunacy they represent.
I am thrilled at the prospect of watching the Conservative movement crumble and collapse like the statues of Saddam, undermined by these sociopathic maniacs until they have to be pulled down by their own members.
I say PLEASE let’s see a lot more of Ann Coulter!
Here’s my dream: I want to see her as a special Conservative envoy to the GOP’s ‘08 Campaign. I would LOVE to see her warming up the crowds for a Rudy, McCain, or Romney speech.
Wouldn’t you? I would settle for Malkin, too.
Hannity was GREAT for the GOP in ‘06, right? LOL!
It will guarantee them losses forever.
People can disagree on issues like torture and the death penalty without impugning the moral character of those they disagree with. Unfortunately, around here it was the loons who decided get aboard their moral high horse regarding the issue.
If you support torture, you are immoral. That’s not impugning anything; that’s just fact. Now, I don’t know what your position on torture is, Jay, so I’m not saying anything about your character. I am, saying, however, that your statement above is false.
You can find lots of Coulter supporters on Ian’s own site, HotAir.com. In fact a lot of them are pissed at Bryan Preston for being mildly upset at Coulter.
Jay: Are you throwing in with the conspiracy theorists saying I “scrub” my site? I’ve had a lot of server crashes and platform changes over the years. My positions remain the same. I support the use of some forms of torture against verified Al Qaeda members in the case of a ticking time bomb. I know it may not be the morally bravest thing to do, but I support it in that limited circumstance. I don’t, however, support it for shits and giggles like Bush administration policy does. I don’t think that Abu Ghraib was just a fun little game like conservative icon Limbaugh does, and the conservatives who support him and that idea are the cancer on America’s soul.
You know how the GOP stops getting compared to Nazis and the Klan?
Stop acting like Nazis and the Klan.
Are you throwing in with the conspiracy theorists saying I “scrub” my site?
Well, I didn’t mean it in a conspiracy theory sort of way. It just happened.
My positions remain the same. I support the use of some forms of torture against verified Al Qaeda members in the case of a ticking time bomb. I know it may not be the morally bravest thing to do, but I support it in that limited circumstance.
Sorry Oliver, but that is not what you said here:
But you’re saying now that you support in a “ticking bomb” situation as you did in 2003. It goes further than that however because you wrote this entry here you wrote:
Basically, you have the same viewpoint that I have.
It seems to me that you’re an immoral person as Mike concludes above about anybody that supports torture.
Except Jay, I don’t believe in torturing just any old Iraqi citizen versus a known Al Qaeda member. The GOP position says toture is okay ’cause the president says so. My anger is only towards the ones who killed Americans.
Except Jay, I don’t believe in torturing just any old Iraqi citizen versus a known Al Qaeda member.
Neither do I.
Bottom line is, your view on torture and mine are pretty much the same. But I won’t hold my breath waiting for Doc, Frameone or any of the others to start questioning your character and morality.
I wish Oliver was as outraged at Bill Maher’s statements as he is at Ann Coulter. I mean, mAnn Coulter. HEHEHHEHEHOHOHOAHHAHA
OMFG ROFLMAO LAWL LOL!!
From a few reports I’ve run across concerning this conservetive circle jerk, there weren’t ANY military recruiters present at the event. Guess they knew it was just a bunch little dick cowards or people too stupid to pass the tests.
Jay philosophy #242
An opinion expressed four years ago will categorically not have changed in the slightest in the intervening near half decade. Nuances are for pussies.
Nuances are for pussies.
Shouldn’t that last word be “faggots”.
I think the point is clear here. OW supports limited torture. Under controlled circumstances. And you won’t hear a peep out of the profane, moral scolds on this site. Not a peep. Why. Because their number one motive isn’t torture prevention. Its partisan politics. Political ideology. If Obama came out for torturing crippled kittens, our moral scolds would suddenly see the necessity of it. Nimmer would chastize us about sticking to old postions.
I’ll “peep”
Oliver’s rhetoric does get a bit overheated at times. And I disagree whole-heartedly with his stance on torture, and on the death penalty for that matter. I suspect that with time his view of the usefulness of violence in solving problems will mature. Meanwhile I would hope we can discuss these issues with some decorum (in short supply around here, on BOTH sides, gentlemen)
But I’ll save my moral outrage for public figures (OW is not) who think it’s perfectly acceptable to call arabs “rag heads” and anyone-much less a former senator and presidential candidate-a “fag.”
For all of you wingnuts claiming that her statements are not roundly representative of your beliefs, the fact remains that she was still invited to speak and she was still applauded. Yes, she is a caricature of herself at this point, and we know she’s an unhinged powderkeg of of stupid statements, but someone still made the mistake of inviting her and they all still clapped for her.
You have no defense.
What does Jesse Malkins’ stenographer Ian and MutherFugger find so outrageous from the Yearly Kos? Where did anyone call Bush a faggot? No self respecting queer would wear cowboy boots with a presidential seal.
Some questions for the nuanced torture supporters:
How good does the lead have to be before we commence to a torturing?
Due to split second decisions needing to be made will every field agent be empowered as desgnated torturers?
How many mulligans do they get?
What do we do with them when and if they are found out to be wrong?
Civilization even among the civilized is jeapordized by barbaric activities. Personally I’ve already had way too much of the “what if” crowd. You may want to become them to sleep better at night. The rest of us lose sleep over your recklessness.
Nice. JWG and Dugger lose the Coulter/Romney argument, so they derail it to make it about… liberals who oppose torture? Really? Fine. I’ll play along. Even though it’s essentially an extended, whiny ad hominem.
1) JWG and Dugger can try to score points against me or other anti-torture advocates if they like. It won’t make torture any more moral than when they began, though. As in so many other instances, you attack the man when you’ve lost the policy debate. Naturally, Dugger will refuse to respond (these days he prefers whining petulantly, then skulking away) but it should be pointed out nonetheless.
2) JWG falsely conflates Oliver’s “ticking time bomb” scenario with the kind he favors. He elides over it by referring to it as “pretty much the same” but if we got both Oliver and him to elaborate on the subject (which JWG and Dugger will refuse to do, of course) it’d be clear which of Bush’s policies JWG and Dugger support, and which Oliver doesn’t. (Hint: JWG and Dugger support Bush’s secret gulag system, while Oliver does not.)
3) On the actual merits: the ticking time bomb scenario is bullshit. The New Yorker had an interesting article (it’s actually about 24) that touched on how destructive it’s been with regard to the torture issue. The ticking time bomb (TTB) never comes up; even so, recent classes of interrogator trainees all seem to view as a benchmark for interrogation. The article quotes actual, experienced military interrogators (or as Dugger calls them, “moral scolds”) speaking about how frustrating, impractical, and wrong this is, and what a negative effect TTB has had on their ability to actually get information out of prisoners.
All this is a separate issue from Bush’s gulag system, but I thought I’d mention the popular view on torture anyway.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070219fa_fact_mayer
Nice. JWG and Dugger lose the Coulter/Romney argument
What argument? Who here has defended Coulter? It’s just that Oliver’s sweeping generalization is nonsense. He mentioned torture, so I called him on it.
JWG falsely conflates Oliver’s “ticking time bomb” scenario with the kind he favors. He elides over it by referring to it as “pretty much the same” but if we got both Oliver and him to elaborate on the subject (which JWG and Dugger will refuse to do, of course) it’d be clear which of Bush’s policies JWG and Dugger support, and which Oliver doesn’t.
How is it conflated? Oliver said very clearly that until Al Qaeda is eliminated, he considers us to be in a “ticking bomb” situation.
I’ve already elaborated on the subject many times. When it comes down to the nuts and bolts, Oliver’s position is not different than mine.
The difference of course is, you guys won’t mount your moral high horses and start denigrating his moral character simply because he’s he’s on your side All that means is your grandstanding is complete nonsense and is driven by partisanship more than anything else.
Some questions for the nuanced torture supporters:
I can’t speak for OW, but
“How good does the lead have to be before we commence to a torturing?”
As good as possible, but the torture scenario supported here is only under the direct circumstances – say the prevention of genocide or another 9-11 – demonstrably. These circumstances are truly very rare and not particualrly realistic – thus torture would be almost never.
“Due to split second decisions needing to be made will every field agent be empowered as desgnated torturers?”
No. It would never be a split second scenario in the field – only a last ditch, save thousands of lives decision – made at higher Command levels.
How many mulligans do they get?
None. Would almost never happen.
“I’ve already elaborated on the subject many times.”
Well, I haven’t seen it. Oliver seems clearly against Bush’s gulags. If Oliver’s for torture, then he’s wrong. But back up your repeated assertion that you have the same “nuts and bolts,” please. If you’ve elaborated on it, before, then it should be easy to restate. Meanwhile, it’s funny that you have nothing to say about torture, or the article I pointed to. Just more wasted space about personalities. But I guess it that’s all you’ve got, then that’s all you’ve got.
So for the record: on America’s torture regime: the TTB scenario is utterly irrelevant to the real programs Bush has enacted and the real moral evil he’s engaged in.
“All that means is your grandstanding is complete nonsense and is driven by partisanship more than anything else.”
I obviously disagree, but that’s neither here nor there when it comes to the moral rightness of torture. Disliking or discrediting me will never make Bush’s gulags good for America or morally correct, so do as you please. The simple fact that you’re so focused on torture’s critics rather than torture itself, well, that shows that we’re making progress.
“thus torture would be almost never”
Well, I’m certainly glad to hear that, Dugger. Unfortunately, the debate I assume you’re referring to is over Bush’s broader detainee policies, which have nothing to do with your pie-in-the-sky, torture-one-guy-to-stop-a-genocide fantasies. We’ve tortured people for far, far less. And you still voted for Bush! You directly supported it! I’ll take being a “moral scold” over what you are any day of the week, Dugger.
CPAC is now exposed as the radical homophobe organization it is. Moderate and mainstream conservatives would do well to distance themselves from this radical organization.
“Who here has defended Coulter?”
Irrelevant. The question is why do conservatives keep buying her books, attending her hate rallies, and putting her on their TV shows?
And the most important: why did Mitt Romney think that praising her would help him among conservatives?
The answer: because conservatives love Ann Coulter. The fact that Malkin’s critical of her only shows that Malkin wants TO REPLACE her, not repudiate her hate.
“…but the torture scenario supported here is only under the direct circumstances – say the prevention of genocide or another 9-11 – demonstrably.”
Since a genocide is a movement over time how would torture help in preventing such and atrocity? How would it help in even curtailing the activity once underway? Defending the potential victims and persuading he perpetartors to desist are the only possible solutions to such an event.
Torture to prevent another 9/11 from happening? The warnings that were given in advance that the Bush folks ignored are damning. A cynic might think that they didn’t want to stop the events of that day. Good thing there are no cynics around to ask the real tough questions of the administration, under oath. Maybe we should resort to torturing them just in case they knew, and may know again?
Oliver seems clearly against Bush’s gulags.
If you’re going to use the term ‘gulag’ which clearly doesn’t apply, then the conversation is pointless.
Meanwhile, it’s funny that you have nothing to say about torture, or the article I pointed to. Just more wasted space about personalities.
Well it’s irrelevant. We’re not discussing the benefits or lack thereof. Just people’s positions on it.
So for the record: on America’s torture regime: the TTB scenario is utterly irrelevant to the real programs Bush has enacted and the real moral evil he’s engaged in.
Bullshit. The conversation has never been about what Bush has done but the application of torture in general – regardless of who is in office.
“The conversation has never been about what Bush has done but the application of torture in general – regardless of who is in office.”
No, Bush’s gulag policy is unique to him. You are simply wrong here. And Bush and his administration routinely appeal to the TTB scenario specifically to justify their broad detainee policy. They a) are not the same, and b) TTB is a canard, see above. The examples of people who’ve been tortured simply for being who they are, rather than for any TTB scenario, is endless. See the Australian David Hicks, for an example of what you are for, and for what Oliver is against: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks
“then the conversation is pointless”
Well, obviously. No doubt a discussion between a liberal civil rights activist and a segregationist in 1963 would’ve been pointless too, but even so, we liberals will be vindicated by history once again.
Doc, you’re just wrong. The conversations here have never been about the specifics of Bush’s policies, but rather the moral argument regarding the issue of torture itself.
You even admit that you are ignorant of those conversations so how can you even claim something in direct contrast to that? Because you’re attempting to divert the conversation away about the use of torture in general to specifics about what Bush has done.
In the previous conversations, to those with the opposing view of me and guys like Dugger, there was no gray area. It was completely black and white. Torture is wrong. Period. They didn’t allow for any kind of scenario for it to take place and as such, basically declared those of us who supported in the most extreme cases to be moral lepers.
Amazing how silent they have been thus far. I wonder why.
“Because you’re attempting to divert the conversation away about the use of torture in general to specifics about what Bush has done.”
If you don’t want to talk about it, fine, but since I’ve been informed by Dugger and JWG that I’m motivated only by partisan considerations, I thought I would actually bring up what it is about this torture issue that has me so worked up. It’s Bush’s detainee policy. I also think torture is wrong and pretty black and white, btw, but it’s not abstract considerations that drive me to call, say, Dugger, a moral cretin. It’s Bush’s policies.
Also, torture doesn’t work, and the TTB scenario is bullshit, so I’m not sure what you’re defending even in the abstract, Jay.
The conversation has never been about what Bush has done but the application of torture in general – regardless of who is in office.
But you sidestep the crux of the issue; what Bush has done has made it the subject of conversation. What bush has done has made it easier for whomever is in office to use the application of torture. That, it seems to me, is pretty fucking evil.
Oh, and Doc AGH, not to nitpick, but JWG isn’t even here today. Your remarks are directed at Jay. Just sayin’.
Also, torture doesn’t work
Actually, it has worked. Against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to be specific.
Do I cheer when Det. Sifowitz bangs some cobag perp’s head against a table during an interrogation? Sure I do. Would I want to see him get his balls electrocuted while standing in a bucket of water for 14 hours? Not so much.
Does that de facto make me flip-floppery on this issue? No it doesn’t.
Torture is wrong. Period. Civilization takes a giant step backwards when its members advocate barbarism.
But you sidestep the crux of the issue; what Bush has done has made it the subject of conversation.
The crux of the issue is the viewpoint on torture itself. None of this is new and it’s not as if this is the first time this has happened, but as a result of 9/11 it came to light.
Duros, here are the techniques used by the CIA. I don’t support the kind of torture that you’re talking about as well:
1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.
6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.
And the rest of them Jay? You don’t have secret CIA prisons for nothing. Rendition.
Also, how do you feel about those techniques being used against innocent people? For long periods of time.
4, 5, and 6 are torture. If they were defensible, then the president would defend them. They’re not, so he denies that we’re doing it. It’s quite simple. If you deny it, fine, but it’s a sign that your moral compass does not function correctly.
And you’re right, Duros, my remarks were directed at Jay, not JWG. My mistake.
Seconding what Midder said. And what about shipping people to Syria to be electrocuted?
Where are you getting this list from, Jay? The president denies that we waterboard, for one thing.
Have you guys seen the conservative open letter denouncing Ann Coulter? Some conservative blogs are signing on, and there’s an interesting conversation going on there. I didn’t realize she’d said “torture should be a spectator sport.” Lots of conservatives defending her there. I restate, for the record, that the reason Malkin denounced Coulter is because she’s her competitor and aims to replace her, not because she’s any less hateful.
http://www.theamericanmind.com/2007/03/05/an-open-letter-to-cpac-sponsors-and-organizers-regarding-ann-coulter/
“People can disagree on issues like torture and the death penalty without impugning the moral character of those they disagree with.”
I’ll give you the death penalty but not torture. Torture is immoral. If you support it you support an immoral policy. It’s simple as that.
They’re not, so he denies that we’re doing it.
What evidence do you have that he has denied it?
Where are you getting this list from, Jay? The president denies that we waterboard, for one thing.
Where? It’s common knowledge that water-boarding was used to get information from Mohammed.
As for rendition, I ask where was the moral outrage when it was being performed by the Clinton administration? There wasn’t. Not even retroactively. This is the problem I have with those who once again, mount their moral high horses and claim to represent the angels. All we ever hear from Clinton apologists is what great things they did to combat terrorism and from what I’ve heard cheered at Al ‘Go Grab His Ass’ Gore flippantly dismissing international law in favor of rendition.
Here’s the thing folks: Disagree on the issues all you want. But quit the humble pie, “I’m such a great person and you’re not” act because it’s bogus.
As for Ann Coulter I have a serious question:
Why is it that I (using myself as an example) am obligated to denounce what she says? She doesn’t speak for me, so what gives?
Chum
I was going to give you a thoughtful response but I see after this, it would be wasted:
“The warnings that were given in advance that the Bush folks ignored are damning. A cynic might think that they didn’t want to stop the events of that day.”
Lets just say I feel better supporting rare, extraordinary-circumstance torture when my opponent believes Bush had 9-11 pre-knowledge.
Live on in your fairy tale world with evil Bush conspiracies.
Clinton and rendition? Wow, haven’t heard much about that, so I looked it up. Yup. Clinton used the practice of Rendition rarely, and on a very specific set of terrorism suspects that met certain criteria that helped determine the country they’d be rendered to; specifically, under Clinton, the US used rendition to send prisoners of interest to countries where they had outstanding criminal warrants. Kind of a rendition of extradition.
Bush sends them to be tortured for information, punished or to disappear.
And again Jay, how do you defend those CIA techniques being used on innocent people?
Jay: again, where did you get that list? It looks like it’s either unofficial or incomplete.
On your questions: “I ask where was the moral outrage when it was being performed by the Clinton administration?”
Maybe there should have been. The issue is that it wasn’t part of a larger detainee program. That’s what’s really provided the fuel for the outrage – a network of secret prisons with no oversight in which torture takes place, sometimes of U.S. citizens. If Clinton had had 9/11 happen on his watch, (say, in 1998) and responded the way Bush has, the left would’ve abandoned him too. Plenty of liberals were pissed about his centrism as it was. If he’d added widespread human rights abuses, the Nader vote would have been through the roof. Now answer Midderpidge’s and my multiple outstanding questions about Bush’s torture record, please.
On torture: Bush refuses to confirm that we waterboard. The transcript below shows how he refuses to defend it specifically. Not only that, but he justifies his tortures by appealing, once again, to a ticking timebomb scenario. He explicitly says that even though he refuse to defend his torture techniques, we simply have to trust him because the timebomb is ticking, always ticking. I don’t know what you call that if not demogoguery.
Jay and Dugger, do you guys really think we’re faking our anger for partisan purposes? This man really is doing something horrible to America, and your only question is whether our feelings on the matter are sincere? To call us “moral scolds”? That’s your response? Incredible. I guess I had more faith in the basic goodness of my fellow citizens than was ever really justified.
“Disagree on the issues all you want. But quit the humble pie, “I’m such a great person and you’re not” act because it’s bogus.”
I voted against torturers and you voted for them. If you’re feeling sensitive about that, I suggest you think harder about who you vote for next time.
“Why is it that I am obligated to denounce what [Coulter] says?”
You’re not. I believe you when you say you think Coulter’s an ass. The issue is the broader conservative movement, which thrives upon violent, hateful rhetoric towards liberals. See Phyllis Schlafly or the Dixiecrats, or the John Birch movement, for example. Maybe because I’m a Southern liberal I’m more sensitive to the violent, hateful, pro-lynching (excuse me, states’ rights) side of conservatism than you are. (How many conservative Southern Democrats in Birmingham laughed when that east coast liberal JFK was shot? How many conservative Southern Democrats decided that Reagan was alright after all after they saw him launch his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, Mississppi?) The difference between Coulter and Malkin is exceptionally small, yet even on these boards, conservatives treat one as respectable and one not. It proves my point that this is bigger than you or Coulter. It’s simply hardwired into the Conservative politics of resentment.
************
October 20, 2006
O’Reilly: “Is waterboarding torture?”
Bush: “I don’t want to talk about techniques. But I do assure the American people that we were within the law and we don’t torture. I have said all along to the American people we won’t torture. But we need to be in a position where we can interrogate these people.”
O’Reilly: “But if the public doesn’t know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush Administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?”
Bush: “Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we are not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum, no matter how hard you try, because I don’t want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield. But what the American people need to know is we have a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people and we have used it to stop attacks. The intelligence community believes strongly that the information we got from the detainee questioning program yielded information that made America safer, that we stopped attacks.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,221975,00.html
“I was going to give you a thoughtful response but I see after this, it would be wasted:”
Gee Dugger, maybe you have some brush to clear or some fishing to do instead of giving some serious thought to what could damage your country.
Clinton and rendition? Wow, haven’t heard much about that, so I looked it up. Yup. Clinton used the practice of Rendition rarely, and on a very specific set of terrorism suspects that met certain criteria that helped determine the country they’d be rendered to; specifically, under Clinton, the US used rendition to send prisoners of interest to countries where they had outstanding criminal warrants. Kind of a rendition of extradition.
Oh please. Why don’t you just say, “This is what the administration told me to say.” Do a little more research Midderpidge.
On torture: Bush refuses to confirm that we waterboard.
Well that’s different from specifically denying it which is what you claimed.
Jay and Dugger, do you guys really think we’re faking our anger for partisan purposes?
When your ‘anger’ only extends to those who are your political opposites, it sure seems that way.
This man really is doing something horrible to America, and your only question is whether our feelings on the matter are sincere?
Once again, we’re not talking about President Bush. Stop trying to change the fucking subject.
I voted against torturers and you voted for them.
And here you go again with this bogus line of reasoning. So Oliver can support torture, but so long as he voted for the right candidate, it doesn’t matter. That’s like saying what Mark Foley did was no big deal because he did after all, get legislation passed that was tough on child predators.
That line of reasoning Doc is extremely piss poor. Stop using it.
The intelligence community believes strongly that the information we got from the detainee questioning program yielded information that made America safer, that we stopped attacks.”
See Cueball.
“When your ‘anger’ only extends to those who are your political opposites, it sure seems that [you’re faking it for partisan purposes.]”
But it doesn’t. I’d be mad at anyone who set up a secret network of torture prisons in my name. And also, GOP politicians, and especially the Bush administration are clearly responsible for the post-9/11 secret torture prison network. So what are you talking about?
“Once again, we’re not talking about President Bush. Stop trying to change the fucking subject.”
You questioned my sincerity, I gave you a sincere answer. This is the thanks I get. Clearly, you are here to call liberals names rather than in the interest of honorable discussion. Noted.
“[Anatole] voted against torturers and [Jay] voted for them.”
“And here [Anatole goes] again with this bogus line of reasoning.”
At least it has the virtue of being evidence, and being true. Your analogies make no sense, either. If you have a real response, you have yet to supply it.
It’s quite simple: if you are against torturers, you should not vote for them. Either it’s your honest conviction or it isn’t. I still have no idea what your honest conviction is, besides carrying water for the Bush administration’s torture regime and attacking the liberals who are against it. Do you have any beliefs, Jay?
Hey, Jay, great response. It’s your allegation, apparently from some right-wing talking point that made the rounds on the nutjob conspiracy circuit, I just did a quick search on ‘clinton rendition’. Maybe you should provide links.
And again: how do you defend those CIA techniques being used on innocent people?
You questioned my sincerity, I gave you a sincere answer. This is the thanks I get. Clearly, you are here to call liberals names rather than in the interest of honorable discussion. Noted.
Now your reading comprehension needs work. I didn’t question your sincerity. I said the issue was over the moral viewpoint on the issue of torture, not President Bush. Let’s go through this again so maybe this time you’ll understand it:
A. Oliver throws out a comment about torture. I remind him that he supports torture which conflicts with some other things he has written.
B. I also point out that it seems while others were willing to cast aspersions on me or any other conservative that frequents this blog as morally corrupt, I notice those same people are eerily silent about Oliver’s view. Shit, go do a Google search on the word ‘torture’ for this blog and you’ll see self-righteousness meter going through the roof.
C. I make the claim and stand by the claim that if support for torture AT ANY LEVEL is so sub-human and so morally indefensible on every level, then spread your message around. Don’t just reserve for those who don’t share the rest of your political viewpoints.
It’s quite simple: if you are against torturers, you should not vote for them.
Fine, but that’s not your line of reasoning. You’re saying Oliver’s pro-torture viewpoint is negated by who he voted for and that makes no sense.
And stop with with the whiny victimhood crap. Nobody’s attacking you.
Thanks for the clarification.
“you’re saying Oliver’s pro-torture viewpoint is negated by who he voted for”
No I’m not. I said that to the extent Oliver defends torture (which is far from clear) it is wrong. People should be morally responsible for the choices they make, and voting for torturers is one of them.
“while others were willing to cast aspersions on me or any other conservative that frequents this blog as morally corrupt, I notice those same people are eerily silent about Oliver’s view.”
This is not an abstract issue, regardless of whether it suits you to make it one. If you support Bush’s detainee policy, then you’re morally corrupt or willingly ignorant. Is that clear enough? I’m not sure what debates you’ve had here (I’ve participated in some) but they’re all taking place in the context of what our president is doing in his secret prison network. To remove that context plays into Bush’s strategy of framing everything he does as justified by a ticking timebomb scenario, which is pure demogoguery and plainly false.
“if support for torture AT ANY LEVEL is so sub-human and so morally indefensible on every level, then spread your message around.”
Okay, deal. I think I’ll call it a “bill of rights.” That has a nice ring to it. Though I doubt we could get it past a GOP filibuster or presidential veto.
Here’s the problem with torture:
1) It is not efficient or effective as torture victims are more likely to tell investigators anything they want to hear than the actual truth.
2) It corrupts the justice system (inadmissable evidence) and delays investigations (false leads)
3) It is patently immoral.
Jay has no response to any of this.
And under Bush, has been applied to many innocent people who do not have any way to defend themselves.
“if support for torture AT ANY LEVEL is so sub-human and so morally indefensible on every level, then spread your message around.”
What’s so sad about statements like this is that up until the Bush administration one did not have to go around arguing against torture. It was a given that America does not torture people as a matter of policy. The Bush administration has made it a matter of policy and a bunch of morons watching 24 applauded it. Sheesh.
What’s so sad about statements like this is that up until the Bush administration one did not have to go around arguing against torture.
Right. And if you believe it didn’t happen prior to January 21, 2001 I have a bridge in Brooklyn I’d like to sell you.
Once again, Jay has lots to say about the bad, bad people who criticize torture, but not one word about torture itself. You keep selling those bridges, buddy.
Jay: how do you defend those CIA techniques being used on innocent people?
Given your defense of Bush Administration torture policy, it’s a point you have to address because the Bush Administration hasn’t been exactly diligent in making sure they have actual terrorists.
Jay’s defense of torture now boils down to “Hey, people have done it before so why not now?”
First, check your own reading comprehension skills. I can’t recall any administration openly asserting that techniques previously identified as torture, such as waterboarding, are now part of our official interogation techniques. Can you name any administration that has so elevated torture to the level of policy?
Second, if interogators have tortured suspects in the past, can you tell me definitely that the administration they were working under approved and authorized the treatment?
Third, if interogators have torture people in the past, even the recent past, it was still immoral and condemnable.
People have done it before. How about this:
Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, the United States. What do they all have in common? They all used the same intelligence compound to interrogate prisoners in Poland. Is this what we want our country’s name associated with?