Go see this abominable ad by Dennis Kucinich, using our war dead as agitprop in an ad claiming that the war in Iraq is solely for war profiteering.
Dennis Kucinich- Go to hell, you slimy little pissant.
And every Democrat who fails to disavow this ad and that man- you can go to hell, as well.
Can the parents of these soldiers sue Kucinich and the DNC? Can the companies sue? This is absolutely disgusting.
*** Update ***
Loser Atrios calls the ad ‘interesting’ and states that “the party could use a few more like him – we need to shore up our left flank a little bit – but that’s not the same thing as saying our party should be run by people like him.”
Heya Dave Neiwert- Why don’t you take a five minute break from claiming everyone in the GOP is either a fascist, a proto-fascist, a crypto-fascist, a fascist-enabler, tolerant of fascists, or indifferent to fascists, and examine some of the sick twerps in your little political hemisphere? How about a couple pages on the jerks that you no doubt embrace.
I think I am the angriest I have ever been at a political candidate and political party ever. These Democrats have NOTHING to talk about, except name-calling and rage. They stand around calling the President a miserable failure, calling all Republicans brownshirts, making one stupid accusation after another. How desperate are they- when the President flies to Iraq, serves chow to the troops, and for five seconds picks up the turkey centerpiece and states “I think I’ll take this one,” (or something to that effect), the Democrats talk about the turkey being a fraud for two weeks.
Meanwhile, standing in their midsts is the racist fraud Al Sharpton, who is responsible for ruining who knows how many lives, and not one Democrat is willing to say a bad thing about him. Can’t lose that 90% of the African American vote, now, can we?
Carol Moseley-Braun, an embezzler and fraud in her own right, not to mention a third rate intellect (yeah- Bush is the dumb one), is not only not laughed off stage, but they appear to take her seriously. Why no criticism of her sheer buffoonery? Guess we can’t lose the support of NOW.
Dennis Kucinich- well, I am not wasting any more of my breath on him.
Kerry- Kerry is disingenuous to the point that he makes Al Gore look candid and unscripted.
Oh- who cares. They are going to lose 45-48 states in the next election regardless of who they run. The fact that this is the face of the Democrat party is what is so sickening.
*** Update ***
‘Moderate’ Oliver asks in the comments section: “Does it really say anything that’s untrue?”
Oliver’s question does more to highlight the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the Democratic party than anything I can possibly say. And, remember- Oliver is a ‘moderate,’ and not the ‘left flank’ that Atrios thinks needs shored up.
OK- Let’s try this on Oliver. The very first statement is a lie. The ban was put in place in 1991, but only recently was enforced because of litigation. Is that enough lies for you- the very first statement? Do I need to go on?
How about I just look at the big picture- the OVERALL IMPLICATION of the ad, which is that the only reason Bush went to war was to make his buddies rich, and therefore, has murdered these soldiers in the pursuit of profit.
Do you agree with those statements?
Jeebus Oliver- you are a nice guy, but you really need to get over your knee-jerk anti-Bush response and your lapdog attitude towards the DNC and everything Democrat. Independent thinking does not mean putting your own personal spin or creating your own innovative defense for everything the DNC and the loony left do or say.
*** Update ***
I was in the army for ten years, and all I can sit here and think is that if I had been killed and someone like Kucinich had used my name in a commercial like that I would haunt him for the rest of his life, which hopefully would be short and unpleasant. To think he would use my name, my rank, and my unit to disgrace me like that, to dishonor me and my service like that. I can’t think about this anymore. I am in a white rage.
*** Update #2 ***
Hi. My name is Oliver Willis, and we can add no-bid contracts, the military in general and the military policy regarding casualties, and Dick Cheney’s relationship to Halliburton to the long laundry list of things that I completely do not understand but have no problem talking about at great length.
My old advisor was right- a little bit of knowledge is worse than none at all.
*** Update #3 ***
Right on, Ricky.
*** Update #4 ***
I have calmed down some, and after some correspondence with someone, I agree that my language was wholly inappropriate throughout. Thus, there are ten or so fewer four letter words in this post than when it originally appeared. My apologies, andI will try not to become unhinged again any time soon.
Oliver
FYI, the ad is originally from Buzzflash – and does it really say anything that’s untrue?
Keith
Kucinich is absolutely right, It was Bushs lies that got those poor soldiers killed you fkin gasbag. When do you right wingers ever take blame for your shit?
DaveL
What a policial ghoul. That’s one of the most tasteless commercials I’ve ever seen.
John Cole
Keith- I already addressed you in the post when I said:
“And every Democrat who fails to disavow this ad and that man- you can go fuck yourself too.”
So, go fuck yourself.
Oliver
Reality Hurts
Oliver
Some day, you’ll come around John.
Matthew Stinson
Oliver, do you really believe that the President would go to war just to give out reconstruction contracts to campaign contributors?
Oliver
Let’s just say, its a side effect they’re not averse to.
Matthew Stinson
Oliver, the ad says that the only reason troops are dying is to benefit corporations. It doesn’t say that’s a “side-effect.” It’s a despicable lie, and you do yourself no credit by associating yourself with the sentiments of the ad.
John Cole
They may not be averse to it? And thweaseling and the backtracking begins.
BTW Oliver- you did read the reports debunking the Bush friends/contracts in Iraq nonsense, didn’t you? You did read Yglesias and others explaining how no-bid contracts work and their assessment that they were not being misused, didn’t you?
Or did you just dismiss it because all those numbers and words and facts and things make you dizzy and get in the way of the DNC line?
Harry
These Democrats are vile. And the rate they are going they are probably going to be out of power a long long time. And if they aren’t careful they could possibly find themselves in a filibuster proof senate. So no wonder the Democratic party is working so hard to get the ex-con and felon vote. Besides these morons they are going to need those convict’s votes.
Andrea Harris
Reality hurts, huh? Too bad stupidity seems to come with its own built-in painkiller.
Sean Hackbarth
But realize Oliver is willing to equate Reagan fans with terrorists by calling them “GOP Jihadis.”
Oliver
John, I have seen arguments on both sides of the issues, and I’ve weighed them. When I see this administration’s moves, I try to see the upside to them – but the volume of evidence in favor of the more sinister motivations is just too great for me to ignore.
I’m just waiting for the stampede of Democrats running away from ads portraying Democrats as terrorist sympathizers (unlike this one, those were officially GOP sanctioned). *crickets*
Oliver
John, I have seen arguments on both sides of the issues, and I’ve weighed them. When I see this administration’s moves, I try to see the upside to them – but the volume of evidence in favor of the more sinister motivations is just too great for me to ignore.
I’m just waiting for the stampede of Republicans running away from ads portraying Democrats as terrorist sympathizers (unlike this one, those were officially GOP sanctioned). *crickets*
Oliver
correct sentence: “the stampede of Republicans running”
John Cole
I have not seen any ads calling Democrats terrorist sympathizers. Please lead me to one.
Ricky
Yes, let’s see the text.
PNAC
With knee-jerk morons like (moderate) Oliver and worse, the blogosphere has officially lost any claim to sanity or decency over old politics.
In fact, there is definitely more vitrol. Sad
Scott
“Oh- who fucking cares. They are going to lose 45-48 states in the next election regardless of who they run.”
This is the key as to why the lefts’ rhetoric is reaching a fevered pitch. They recognize that, having failed to develop competing policy positions (or any positions other than “We hate Bush, yes we do, we hate Bush, how ’bout you) they cannot hope to win next year. Like a cornered animal, the Democrats lash out in ever more rash, unprincipalled (sp?) and irrational ways. As the election approaches we can only expect the vitriol to rise with an accompanying increase in ‘peace’ marchers calling for the death of our soldiers. Oh, and don’t forget the giant paper mache puppets. There will be lots of those. If there is one thing the left knows if is this; you haven’t truly made your point unless you say it with a giant puppet.
Oliver
John & Ricky, I was referring to this ad and this recent slam from the GOP.
But don’t let the facts get in the way…
Jeremy
Oliver is not a moderate. He’s a pro Saddam, pro-fascist regime guy. Back on the Command Post, he was always posting gloating notes whenever the US suffered a setback or casualties. He’s scum.
Matthew Stinson
“I’m just waiting for the stampede of Republicans running away from ads portraying Democrats as terrorist sympathizers . . .”
Oliver, the “Reality” ad said “Some are attacking the President for attacking the terrorists.” That’s an accusation of reckless pacifism, not sympathy. I thought the ad was unfair to many Democrats, but it doesn’t accuse them of being terrorist sympathizers. I submit that you are misreading the RNC ad to be worse than it was, just as you are misreading the Kucinich ad to be better than it is.
John Cole
Oliver-
Josh Marshall has about as much credibility with me as Sean Penn’s character in “I am Sam.” Other than highglight connections between people making the ads, and their reasons for making the ads, is there any mention of what was actually said in the ad? Is there any text of the ad? No, only Josh’s assertion (and now yours) about what was in the ad.
B.) The GOP ad did not single out all Democrats. If you feel that you or your party are the ‘some’ people, sorry bout that.
And, btw, Oliver. The douchebag who is the topic of this post- Dennis Kucinich- is soft on terrorism, and is weak on national defense. Unless the idea of dismantling the DoD and creating a Dept. of Peace makes sense to you.
Ricky
Fact is, your memory (remember, the “kick ass speech”?) is failing.
Nice try, but you typed/quoted about it on our own site.
Do I even need to post the link to the entry on your site where you quoted Hillary was lambasting it, as well, Oliver? I was gonna hold it until ’08.
Cam
Wow, Oliver. An ad comparing Tom Daschle to the Iraqi Information Minister known as Comical Ali. Yep, that’s certainly comparing him to a terrorist. But wait… don’t you yourself say that there are no ties between Hussein’s regime and terrorist outfits? So how could that ad compare Daschle to a terrorist?
As to the second ad, the Washington Post says “Bush Ad Criticizes Dems On Defense”. How exactly is that comparing the Democrats to terrorists? Oh.. it’s the “attacking the President for attacking the terrorists” line that bothers you. Hey, if the shoe fits…
Ken Hahn
I see Dennis got to use his favorite color a lot. When we say that the Democrats are essentially reds, this is why. Kucinich and his friends do not believe communism has fail, it was just corrupted by those Russians.
Dave Violence
Interesting ad. Well, the death rate of 1.99 soldiers per day is nothing compared the the number of people killed in car “accidents” per day. But so what? People are dying.
The ad seems to indicate that making Bush’s “rich friends” richer was the reason for attacking and subsequently occupying Iraq. This isn’t true; how could it be? Why would it be? A company like Flour would rather not put its people in harm’s way and still make a lot of money. The inclusion of Parsons and Louis Berger Group boggles the mind. while Parsons is the best transportation engineering company around, did they need this war to boost their profits? Berger does a lot of environmental restoration work – is their inclusion on the list a bad thing? I mean, it’s been well-documented that Saddam – though no where near as bad as W – wasn’t too careful about the environment, especially the marshes of the Marsh Arabs…
But, let’s say it’s all true, that these companies were begging for a war so they could get rich.
Let’s say Kunicich gets elected and does, in fact, create his “Department of Peace” – hey, blessed are the peacemakers, go for it – would it involve giving aid to various countries for peace-inducing initivies? Sure, well, if those projects involve planning, engineering and consturction services, then Halliburton, et al – will be the first getting the call.
Mito
When Clinton attacked the Serbs in Bosnia and Kosovo didn’t they accuse him of doing it to improve his polls? It’s the same thing, they accused him of potentially killing soldiers for political reasons.
Dr. Weevil
Some Republicans did accuse Clinton of attacking Serbia for low political reasons. Mito writes as if all Republicans did so, which is not true.
Matthew Stinson
Mita, Republicans were more likely to claim that Clinton’s bombing of the al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan and a few training camps in Afghanistan were diversionary. With regard to the Balkans, very few accused Clinton of threatening American soldiers’ lives for purposes of political advantage; rather, the more general criticism was that Americans were dying in the name of “internationalism.” (Note that Bob Dole, John McCain, and others not only supported Clinton, but were frustrated that he didn’t do more.)
Matthew Stinson
Er, Mito, sorry.
Lunacy
Here’s a little more ugliness for you.
http://intellectualize.org/archives/003467.html#003467
john young
Looks like an anger abetted by powerlessness to hold the political opposition to account for unwarranted, illogical, and destructive acts. Imagine how angry you’d be if Kucinich was not just a third-string candidate but running the country. And imagine the language you’d resort to. Ah well, you probably won’t see any parallel. Well, if Dean looks as angry to you as you look to me, I can see why you wouldn’t want him in charge of anything. Hey?
Look, I didn’t see the ad. My connection is too slow and this computer too small. But if Kucinich says the war was waged for company profits, I think he’s come to the wrong conclusion. Either that, or he’s just campaigning. His supporters find other explanations impossible or otherwise unsatisfactory; this one fits their notions.
Okay, closest I ever came to military service was patrol leader in the Boy Scouts. But why so much bile at having your story stolen and used for anti-war political purposes, and so much less concern about having your life and limb risked for hawkish political purposes? Or risked by blindly optimistic war planning? Or your death or disability swept under the rug for purposes of maintaining the nation’s dedication to continue a dicey project? What sorts of getting used are acceptable?
Last question. Politicians like to avoid dissing the extremists on their own wing. Are there good examples of politicians overcoming that tendency in recent American history? Give me some examples of times that the big candidates have scorched the also-rans. I’d be impressed if the right Dems (H. Dean, Hillary C., Ted K.) called Kucinich on this ad, but I’m not expecting it.
Lunacy
You really should see the ad. It’s not just the conclusion its the presentation. It is like a reverse memorial to the fallen. It is the complete epitome of politicizing our dead soldiers.
Go see it when you have better access.
Brian
Kucinich is a joke. (read my blog at southphillyattitude.com for my own tirade) Look, we all know the liberal, Marxist-Leninist, Socialist drill: Companies and profit Bad: Government price controls, health care, and paternalism, Good. Proletariate soldiers go fight to enrich the industry bourgeoise. Long Live Che!! Same old tired non-sense. I thought you liberals stood for human rights. Guess a million or so bodies in mass graves is nothing when gay marriage and the right to abort a full-term baby in the birth canal is at stake.
Ricky
I guess the facts about OW’s past entries & how they came back to bite were too much.
Then again, he could be watching the Mike Vick show on ESPN.
James W
Jeez, John. I realize you’ll heed little criticism in your current inflamed state, but you’ve managed to pack more ill will into one post and subsequent comments than I think I’ve ever seen.
How ’bout just a touch of professionalism and class?
I gather from your writing that you’re relatively young, but surely you’re better than telling people to go fuck themselves and calling them douchebags. You know as well as anyone that people resort to ad hominem attacks and vulgar language when real argument eludes them.
Shameful…
…and you’re (mostly) right.
Andrew Lazarus
Keep on talking about that 45-48 state loss. I see even Nick Kristof gets into the act at the NY Times. Count them unhatched chickens, quick.
Seriously, you guys don’t have the affect of someone who’s really going to win in a landslide. Maybe you’re worried that despite unparalleled peace and prosperity brought us by the incumbent, a completely unqualified governor with a barely-disguised radical agenda and no foreign policy experience will somehow take over. Oh wait, didn’t that already happen?
Also, do you really want to argue that the inept Lieberman campaign (or whoever your favorite Democrat other than Zell Miller might be) is going to give George Bush a real run for his money when it can’t even beat Howard Dean?
To me, I think you want to face the colorless conservative Democrat you know will run decently but lose, instead of the “angry” Democrat you hope you can crush, but who scares you just a little.
John Cole
James- The ad had me unhinged. I have edited the post to remove the foul language.
James W
Certainly don’t do it on my behalf.
It is a good gesture, though, if only to raise the level of debate voluntarily.
And I really don’t mean to be a buzzkill or anyone’s nanny here or make otherwise intruding suggestions. I think we’re all smart enough to keep it civil and cool but still difficult and honest.
‘course, thats jus’ the lib’rl in me.
cheers
Oliver
>No, only Josh’s assertion (and now
> yours) about what was in the ad.
I saw the ad and you saw the ad, and its plainly obvious that Bush twisted the truth – fact of the matter is Bush is the one who opposed creating the DHS, and only went against the grain when it was politically expedient – and significantly weakened.
>Do I even need to post the link to >the entry on your site where you >quoted Hillary was lambasting it, >as well, Oliver? I was gonna hold >it until ’08.
Ricky, what the heck are you talking about. The facts remain the same and my position is consistent. The GOP decided to portray a veteran as being in league with terrorists to get political points. They also did the same thing to Tom Daschle. Your ongoing obsession and archiving of my past entries is a little odd, however.
>B.) The GOP ad did not single out >all Democrats. If you feel that >you or your party are the ‘some’ >people, sorry bout that.
“Some” people is a lameass escape clause and you know it. Its a political ad, do you think Bush was talking about the Greens – or the French? Only an idiot could watch that ad and assume he wasn’t talking about the opposition party – the Democrats.
>And, btw, Oliver. The douchebag >who is the topic of this post- >Dennis Kucinich- is soft on >terrorism, and is weak on national >defense. Unless the idea of >dismantling the DoD and creating a >Dept. of Peace makes sense to >you.
I’ve made it pretty clear I think Kucinich is a loony bin angry elf whose only purpose is as a sideshow. But sometimes the assclowns have a point (Bush does, on occasion).
>He’s a pro Saddam, pro-fascist >regime guy. Back on the Command >Post, he was always posting >gloating notes whenever the US >suffered a setback or casualties. >He’s scum.
How do you remove the excrement from your mouth? That’s a lie and you know it. Unlike the pro-war right who sees our soldiers as their own little home version of RISK, many of us who were against this attack have their best interests in mind and not as campaign props for their responsibility-deficient commander in chief.
Mito
This is the problem when you have people like Coulter and Limbaugh on the right saying so many foul things about the left.They are your Ted Rall and you can’t complain about him and give then a free ride.
When was the last time you heard right wing politicians disavowing what they say? If they don’t then they tacitly endorse it. For example Coulter calling all Democrats treasonous, no protests from the right about her. Just more appearences on FOX.
It’s all about trashing the opposition with plausible denial. During the Bosnian war it was quite clear the Repbulican party distinguished between criticising the president and supporting the troops. Kucinich has the same attitude about this that the top of the Republican Party had then.
As it turns out I think both were wrong in saying things like that, but the Republicans set the standard and I doubt many here would have hurled such abuse at their own party at the time. I haven’t seen anyone here say they were ashamed of their party at the time.
For the record I had a neighbour who was a Bosnian refugee. His job was filming mass graves in the Bosnian Army. The Serbs would come in and slaughter every man in every village and he (besides fighting then under an arms embargo) had to film it all.
At the time what the right were saying on the subject was nothing short of disgusting, claiming Clinton was trying to stop this to make politicial points.
So I have no complaints about what Kucinich and others say like this because it’s guaranteed the right will whine and complain about it, and then in the future when the roles are reversed will do exactly the same thing.
Kimmitt
I do not share the view that the Iraq war was for the purpose of enriching Bush’s campaign donors and other friends. I do not, however, believe this view to be foul, merely badly misguided.
If one were to hold the aforementioned view, however, one would find the war to be utterly reprehensible and the deaths to be a foul crime against the people of the United States of America.
The ad could be foul if you believed it to be offered in something other than good faith — if you think the people behind it are lying about their beliefs regarding the Iraq war.
So, which is it? Do you find their paradigm regarding Iraq to be foul, or do you believe that they are misrepresenting their beliefs?
Kimmitt
I am genuinely confused about the nature of the ban on photographs of the coffins of returning soldiers.
From what I read (please ignore the bias and skip to the factual parts), the ban was put into place during Gulf War I for propaganda reasons, then quietly not enforced at several bases until a crackdown just before the beginning of this war. Is that correct?
Harry
Did Kucinich pay those dead soldiers families or get their permission for the use of their sons images for the puposes of self-enrichment. This old Kook knows he will never be president so I guess he figures he’ll damage as many people as possible on his way out. Anyway good fuckin’ riddance.
I don’t know what the size of the defeat will be for the Democrats next Nov. but I do know that the ones who post here are severely miguided in how the nation feels. It would seem that a certain percentage of the left in the US has become insular from the rest of us. This ad will not play well in the south, the heartland, or the west. I figure just the North East, California, Oregon, Washington, Washington DC, and Hawaii will look favorably on such vile sentiments. The Republicans would do good to paint the entire Democratic party with Kucinich’s tripe. I mean this is an idiot running for President of the United States from the Democratic Party. What the hell has happened to Jefferson’s party. They no longer seem to connect to average Americans and seem to be a mish mash of wealthy socialists and leftist interest groups. Come November 2004, I say burn their shit down. They deseve it.
Besides Kucinich looks like Gilligan after a drunken asswhupping.
Ricky
**Ricky, what the heck are you talking about.**
It’s quite clear to everyone else, Oliver. You’re inconsistent when it comes to Ds versus Rs.
**The GOP decided to portray a veteran as being in league with terrorists to get political points. They also did the same thing to Tom Daschle.**
And you’re here pimping a commercial portraying the point that the president is willing to kill kids in order to enrich his buddies, which bypassed ‘patriotism’ several eons ago. Loony stuff.
**Your ongoing obsession and archiving of my past entries is a little odd, however.**
Obsession? It’s called a search button, Oliver, and it’s come back to haunt you. Don’t start going after me personally when things don’t go your way. You pimped the Cleland commercial as questioning his patriotism & the LEAST thing that the Kucinich commercial does is question Bush’s patriotism. “Obsession” is what you have for Clinton. What I’ve done is out your inconsistency.
Slartibartfast
I am genuinely confused about why anyone wants to see photographs of the coffins of returning soldiers. They’re…pictures of coffins, for doG’s sake. When you get those, will you next be asking to open them up and photograph the contents?
I just don’t understand the thinking. If there even is any.
Oliver
**It’s quite clear to everyone else, Oliver. You’re inconsistent when it comes to Ds versus Rs.**
Actually, I’m quite consistent. The GOP has a consistent policy of denigrating the patriotism of the left. Should they just shut up and toe the line?
*And you’re here pimping a commercial portraying the point that the president is willing to kill kids in order to enrich his buddies, which bypassed ‘patriotism’ several eons ago. Loony stuff.*
The only problem is the stories about the Dems are untrue. There are several germs of truth to the GOPs use of the military for political gain. Sorry partisanship disables you from seeing them.
**Obsession? It’s called a search button, Oliver, and it’s come back to haunt you. Don’t start going after me personally when things don’t go your way.**
Ricky, you’re the one who’s always going after ME personally. We’re discussing an issue here and you keep diverting from it.
Slartibartfast
Ah, so the rule is, personal attacks are forbidden when they are pointed at Oliver, but mandatory when it involves someone who’s not around to defend themselves. Noted.
greg
The problem is that this is all part of the ever present victim mentality in the Democratic party.
Basically, they–“they” being some Dems, not all of them–feel that they’ve been sooooo nice all this time and they’ve just been letting the GOP beat the hell out of them, but damnit now they’re mad as hell and they’re not gonna take it anymore.
They sound pathetic, but that’s their justification. It’s only gonna get worse.
I mean, there’s no point trying to debate these people. Oliver and his ilk honestly believe that Bush said “Hmmm, if i go into Iraq, a lot of soldiers are gonna die. But it would help my approval numbers, and plus, I have a buddy who has a bunch of stock in Halliburton and he needs a new speedboat and vacation home, so, dead soldiers or not, I’M DOIN IT”.
Like I said, you can’t argue with people who honestly believe that bullshit. All you can do is laugh as the Democratic party becomes more and more irrelevant.
Ricky
**The only problem is the stories about the Dems are untrue.**
What part of the Cleland commercial is untrue? Please cite the text (the link for the commercial is on my site).
**The GOP has a consistent policy of denigrating the patriotism of the left. **
Victim flag! Assess a 15 yard penalty for whining while pimping a commercial that questions the humanity of the President. :)
**Ricky, you’re the one who’s always going after ME personally**
OW, if I’ve ever gone after you in a personal manner without the obvious notation that I’m joking around (usually with a “:)” present, as is the case with everyone), I’m open to examples – where a personal apology would be forthcoming shortly thereafter, since it’s not my style to attack other people personally (politicos & celebrities are another matter). I’ve never had a reason to, so I can’t recall, but I certainly won’t put my memory above your assertions in this case. If there’s actually an instance where I’ve attacked you, I’d like to know it so I can rectify things. And just in case this is what you’re talking about, my joking about your tiger-beat-esque affection for Clinton is nothing more than joking around (as I usually note in the comment), so I’m hoping that’s not what you’re talking about.
MonkeyPants
The Democrats are doomed.
Dodd
No. The policy was originally put in place in 1991 and was not enforced because there was a lawsuit filed against it. When the government finally won that case early this year, the policy began to be enforced. Abiding by a court order enjoining an action is *very* different from ‘quietly not enforcing’ a policy.
John Cole
Damnit Dodd. If you keep teaching them things, you will ruin all of their talking points.
Amatyultare
Two things about this ad:
(1) Could someone possibly do or find a screen-by-screen analysis of this commercial? There were a lot of words flashing during the ‘corporation’ segment, and I couldn’t catch them all. Subliminal images, anyone?
(2) Does anyone else find it ironic that, now that it serves a political purpose, the war with Iraq wasn’t ‘unilateral’ after all? (To wit: deaths of Americans, British, Italians, Danes, etc. etc.)
Don Drysdale
Face it Cole, you’re a hothead who works himself into paroxsyms of rage at the drop of a hat. You may not be much at using reason and logic, but you can always be counted on to batshit loony from time to time, and I’m glad you do. It’s very entertaining. Don’t ever change, big guy.
HH
Subliminal images? Remember how that so-called subliminal image from a Bush ad was NYT front page news?
greg
I thought Don Drysdale died years ago. Great guest appearance on the “Brady Bunch” though.
John Cole
Woohoo. I am batshit loony!
Kimmitt
Can I get a cite on the lawsuit in question? I’m having extreme difficulty finding any mention of it.
ViriiK
John Cole, I’m with you all the way on this..
The Liberals want to see more deads in order to profit their campaign for the presidency of the United States only to give us another Enron period to dump on the next conservative president and blame it on the Current Presidency..
Just like all those cowards who want Stalinist-type regime only to embrace another 30 million dead for no cause whatsoever except the advancement of communism which does not work with human nature. People like Oliver and Kunich support those who wants communism and will give it another chance even though it has a terrible history.
Liberals: Word for you.. Get a fucking life and pull your fucking head out of your ass.. I do not care if you claim it was a war for Oil. I have real friends over there and they joined up before the war started and they knew it was inevitable and were happy to serve. Why? They knew they would help 25 million people be finally free from a brutal dictator who killed his own people for entertainment and you liberals are screaming “Saddam is a good man! No War for Oil!”
Kimmitt
Ah! Found a mention of it an a WaPo article, though no info as to the nature of the suit. Also, it appears that the ban used to apply to Dover only, but was modified to include other US bases shortly before the beginning of the war. The charge, in my opinion, is supportable, both in fact and spirit.
ViriiK
Btw I forgot to end my statement with a quote.
“The guys who enforce that face the enemies are mostly conservative”
Rarely do you see a liberal upholding the laws of the land but instead you see them ripping up families, destroying lives, etc.
Crusader
Attention all conservatives!
Take comfort in the words of Senator Zell Miller (Democrat, yes Oliver, Democrat,-Georgia) when he called the Democratic party, “a national pary no more” and said that the Democrats are “like the Whigs of 1850’s” implying that the Democratic Party is on its last legs and on their way to (borrowing from the DNC’s favorite philosher, Karl Marx) “the dustbin of history.”
Therefore, follow the advice of Rush Limbaugh: sit back, relax, laugh and watch them self-destruct.
Kimmitt
“Saddam is a good man!”
No one is saying this. I have friends and acquaintences serving over there as well. Let’s try to keep what little civility remains in this discussion active.
Jim
Extremists are a plague to humanity on both sides. I don’t see this ad as any more offensive or shocking than a certain sailor who stated that he would like to see all anti-war protestors shot.
Regardless of right or left (a.k.a. fascist or socialist), these extremists are eroding what is left of the America the Framers of the Constitution created. What is wrong us is that a cataclysmic event can’t even keep us from throwing dog shit at each other. It’s a travesty. People need to learn to agree to disagree, as well as believing all the stories that are the most hyped-up and conducive to their own opinions. We need to stop being the multitude of thoughtless clones that we are and stop the extreme contingents from taking what is ours – our freedom – whether it be social or fiscal.
Were there proof of it, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if there were wartime profiteering going on – not anymore surprised than I was when I heard that “envioronmental” groups were torching SUV’s and construction sites. Both, to me, are atrocities.
Lunacy
Kimmitt:
Here is one man’s take on the no show ruling for Dover. I found it interesting,
http://www.sgtstryker.com/weblog/archives/004129.php#004129
Lunacy
Steve H.
Unbelievably slimy. Kucinich could have made an ad that simply said he thought the war was unjustified, and he could have mentioned the casualty figures. Instead, he put out a ghoulish cartoon packed with innuendo and outright lies.
Was this really necessary? He can’t even make a colorable claim that he did it to win the Presidency. He knows there is no possibility at all that he’ll even get the nomination.
You do not have to be a raving idiot to be liberal, but Kucinich makes that a hard point to prove.
The people who are supporting him are just casualties of the left’s longstanding policy of winning at any cost, which comes from their narrow-minded, self-righteous belief that anyone who disagrees with them is not merely wrong, but evil. This is the Texas lynching ad, all over again.
Don Drysdale
Crusader wrote:
“Therefore, follow the advice of Rush Limbaugh: sit back, relax, laugh and watch them self-destruct.”
Crusader, this is exactly how I’ve been reacting to the news that your beloved radio clown is a pill-poppin’, money-launderin’ junkie.
John Cole
“Extremists are a plague to humanity on both sides. I don’t see this ad as any more offensive or shocking than a certain sailor who stated that he would like to see all anti-war protestors shot.”
I think I had a fistful of expletives for that guy, too. There is a big difference between the two of them, though- Kucinich is older, supposedly more mature, and a candidate for President. There should be at least 8 people that I can think of who should be publicly smacking him down. The kid saior, on the other hand, is just some kid who has never gronw up.
Kimmitt
The court case in question was
JB Pictures v. Department of
Defense, 86 F.3d 236 (D.C. Cir. 1996), aff’g No. 91-397, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6517 (D.D.C. April 22, 1993).
The suit was filed in February 1991. The District Court dismissed the case, and JB Pictures appealed. Their appeal was denied.
Just info for everyone’s edification.
Kimmitt
So, to sum up:
Bush 41 put into place a policy keeping the press from photographing arriving caskets in Dover during Gulf War I. This policy was challenged in the courts but the challenge was unsuccessful; final resolution happened in 1996.
Bush 43, with a strong legal precedent behind him, reaffirmed this policy and implemented it for bases other than Dover, including Rammstein. The charge that President Bush is hiding pictures of flag-draped coffins from the American public for propaganda reasons is supportable, in my opinion.
David C
What do you expect from Kucinich? He’s an idiot!
Here are a couple of questions for him:
How many Americans died in just a few hours time on September 11, 2001?
What is the per-day ratio of 9-11 deaths to combat deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq?
I really like to see Mr. Kucinich’s answers.
Kimmitt
While I do agree that the deaths of three thousand Americans a day due to hostile and/or terrorist action would be a pretty thorough foreign policy failure, I fail to understand why the bar is set quite that high.
Surely, merely one thousand American deaths a day would be sufficient to cause concern, no?
Perhaps even five hundred?
Kilabe
Fug em all!!! I advocate a Revolution to restore a Constitutional Republic. After all it was the Democrat Party inspiration-boy (Jefferson, the real one not the recent phony) who said, “I like a little rebellion now and then.” Then let us rebel, fight the liberals the way they fight, except int his case it wouldn’t be slander but truth.
Ricky
Well, I guess Oliver couldn’t find any instances where I attacked him personally.
Greyhawk
Kucinich would drop a web cam into a soldier’s casket just before it was closed and feed it to his campaign home page if he thought he’d gat a vote because of it.
The dead are known; that’s why Dennis has their names. And if he’d use their names in an ad decrying the fact that he can’t use images of their coffins, (strangely, did you notice the ad was full of images of flag-draped coffins?)then he’d likely use images of their coffins to complain he can’t use their corpses.
But then again, more people will read this blog entry then will vote for Dennis for President in ’04.
cheers,
a MilBlogger
Sandy Herrold
John said:
>BTW Oliver- you did read the reports debunking the Bush
>friends/contracts in Iraq nonsense, didn’t you?
I would say the jury is still out on that one — new Guardian article says that Halliburton has already gotten over a billion dollars without competitive anything…
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,1101341,00.html
Harry
You know I was just thinking that when the Kucinich finally buys the farm maybe he would be kind enough to dedicate his body to science. That way they could remove his brain, place it in a jar of formaldehyde, and then put a label on the jar informing curious onlookers at the Smithsonian what 6lbs of stupid looks like.
ChrisL
Sure, Kucinich is wayyyy out there. That’s why he’s practically at “0” in all the democratic primary polls. The only people less popular are Bruan (who has no campaign staff and is up against the fact that the country isn’t ready for a black woman president) and Sharpton (who’s a grandstanding joke).
don’t paint the entire left as being in favor of Kucinich and his tactics.
John Cole
ChrisL states:
don’t paint the entire left as being in favor of Kucinich and his tactics.
I don’t have to- when the first moderate Democrat responds to the post and asks “does it really say anything that is untrue?” and then the rest of the Democrats are silent, they kind of paint themseleves that way, don’t they?
Dr. Weevil
When it comes to “paint[ing] the entire left as being in favor of Kucinich and his tactics”, I can only repeat a comment I made over at North Georgia Dogma:
“Kucinich can’t be all that fringey if he’s invited to participate in debates on equal terms with the non-fringe candidates. Lyndon LaRouche has more money and more supporters than some of the nine so-called ‘mainstream’ candidates, but is not invited to debates because he’s a lunatic. (I think he’s in jail, too, but that didn’t stop Mumia from making a commencement address, and wouldn’t necessarily stop LaRouche from debating if the others were willing to debate him.)
Apparently Dean and Kerry and Gephardt and Clark and Lieberman and Edwards don’t consider Kucinich (or Sharpton, for that matter) a lunatic, and have no particular objection to appearing on stage on equal terms with him. That unwillingness to avoid him tends to implicate them, and the entire Democratic party, to some degree in what he does.”
If the other Democrats refuse to appear on stage with Kucinich in the future, and say why, we’ll know that they disavow his vicious tactics. If not, not.
HH
Halliburton got money? Well, we stand corrected.
Kimmitt
Again, here is my problem with the attack on this ad:
It is an ad in good faith. The people producing the ad made exclusively supportable statements, then gave their interpretation of the statements.
They are badly wrong, in my opinion, and the presentation is tasteless. But “tasteless and presents a bad conclusion based on agreed-upon facts” is the kind of thing I really wish characterized the worst of our political ads. The ad presents an opinion and then attempts to support it.
It is a bad ad. It is deserving of “I don’t agree that the war in Iraq was about enriching Bush’s friends, so the ad does not represent my views.” It is not deserving of a denunciation of any sort.
Dodd
Kimmitt: Here’s the Washington Post story from which I got my information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A55816-2003Oct20¬Found=true
They could, of course, be referring to the same court case. That isn’t clear. If so, then I misspoke when I said they’d won the case earlier this year – such was my impression from the article.
Regardless, given the exquisite attention given to every single combat death (and the numbers are small enough, lest we forget, that a single soldier being killed is a front page story), any argument that this policy is an effort to “hide” the number of our dead is, well, kinda cracked. Sgt. Stryker’s take on this (above) is mightily instructive.
Dodd
So we’re back to the meat of this argument, then: You are saying that the assertion that Bush went to war – and consigned hundreds, possibly thousands, to death – for no other reason than to enrich his corporate buddies is supportable – wrong, in your eyes, but nonetheless supportable and made in good faith? That’s not good faith; it’s despicable.
section9
Part of the problem with the entire thesis of the Halliburton-Determinist school of recent war history is that Bush took the course of action least likely to lead to greater profits for his friends.
If this were about oil, or Halliburton contracts, we would have simply done a deal with Saddam. Jeez, if we could prop up Trujillo, play Old Maid with Syngman Rhee, Chiang, or Nguyen Cao “Captain Cocaine” Ky, I don’t see why the craven, corrupt, and oil soaked Bushies would have hesitated to make a deal with the Thief of Baghdad. But Bush chose not to do a deal with Saddam, when that would have been the path of least resistance. We chose, deliberately, the harder path. Therefore, I conclude that we went to war in Iraq for reasons of national interest, not to enrich Bush’s cronies.
Had this been about Bush’s friends getting rich, Saddam would still be in power in Baghdad. It would have been a win-win situation both for Bush and Saddam to trade economic concessions for a security guarantee with a “no interference” clause. The Iraqi people, of course, would have been the biggest losers of all.
As a side note, I also conclude that Dennis Kucinich has his head up his ass, but I think we all knew that. Kucinich and the type of people who attend his events are the kind of people who used to shake people down for money in Airports to fatten the wallet of Lyndon LaRouche.
Kilabe
Here is a post I left at Blackfive on the subject.
I was disgusted by the ad and decided to tell him so. Making a check out the RNC is a good one to, but you know, I am a cheapskate. Here is a copy of the email I sent at his site:
Mr. Kucininch,
As a veteran I was deeply disturbed by your exploitation of fallen Service Members for your own political gain. I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. The candidate who I support is the one who falls closest to my own personal, political preferences regardless of party affiliation. After witnessing your egregious use of fallen Heroes, your open insensitivity to their family and friends, I am left with the impression that you are a small, petty man with little to care for but your own personal gain. I consider you a shameful example of leadership.
Robert Beeson
USMC 1992-1997
I encourage all of you to write similar email (or even copy this one if you like, just change the name) and flood their e-mail, fax, phone lines, etc… Keep it polite and respectible but do honestly express your condemnation. Pass this on to your friends and family, the only way we can defeat people like this is to act.
Semper Fi
RB
Kimmitt
You misunderstand me. I do not think that the interpretation put forward is demonstrated by the facts they use to support it. I merely note that the facts themselves are not false.
They are wrong, badly. They are not lying. These are different things, and I am much more forgiving of the former than the latter.
Glenn
Let’s not forget about Kucinich’s ridiculous fear-mongering casualty predictions.
Shark
Lets all send Kuchinich money so he can run these commercials nationally- so everyone can see what the real Democrat party stands for. This ad is so stupid, it can only help Bush. The Democrats havea cancer of the soul…lets show the whole world
Kimmitt
“so everyone can see what the real Democrat party stands for.”
Due respect, but Rep. Kucinich is a Congressman who polls in the single digits despite an aggressive Presidential campaign. He’s off on the Left end of the Party, not a representative of the Party’s center or even their mode.
Now, I know Republicans have a general practice of flinging their wingnut psychotics into positions of high authority, but Democrats are a little more sensible. So while one has to keep an eye on the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party — they set most policy — one should keep a closer eye on the center of the Democratic Party.
alfredo stroessner
Kimmit writes:
“The charge that President Bush is hiding pictures of flag-draped coffins from the American public for propaganda reasons is supportable, in my opinion.”
Well I normally do not wish illwill upon anyone but as a serving soldier, Kimmit, you can kiss my US Army ass. Justified? I guess anything to support the destruction of our constitution is justified as well. Give me a farging break. You actually want surviving families to be exposed to those images? You actually think that using soldier’s names to promote a leftist who does not respect the sacrifice given by those Americans is justified?
You need to get back to DU because their hatred of the military and our Constitution may be waivering without your influence. And if, by chance, you do not hang out their, how is it that you sound so much like them.
alfredo stroessner
Dang it, need to preview when I am pissed off.
That is “hang out there”
and you can still kiss my ass.
Kimmitt
“I guess anything to support the destruction of our constitution is justified as well.”
Sir, you may rest assured that the maintenence of the freedoms granted by the Constitution of the United States is one of my primary motivations. Chief among them is freedom of speech, especially political speech, and most especially political speech with which I disagree. The tired refrain that anyone who does not share your foreign policy opinions hates America or its freedoms is particularly grating from a man who took an oath to defend my right to speak freely.
Geek
Don’t take nothing back the Liberal Left would rather have more people die in America than admit there is a problem. They can not handle the absolute truth and these people a such cowards It makes me sick.
Avedon
I’ve never been comfortable with the “War for Oil” theory. However, I’m still trying to figure out why we did invade Iraq. It’s perfectly clear that the reasons the administration gave aren’t the real ones. So what are they?
And I can’t believe anyone is trying to deny that Clinton was accused of using the military for reasons of personal advantage. At the time, I was getting most of my US news from The International Herald Tribune, which was at that time a compilation from the so-called liberal New York Times and Washington Post, and as far as I could tell just about no one wanted to accept the possibility that terrorism was a serious threat and that was why Clinton was going after bin Laden.
And if you think the Patriot Act and the phony conflation of ordinary drug law violations with terrorism aren’t a virtual destruction of the Bill of Rights, I’ve got this really neat bridge to sell you.
I think Kucinich’s theory is probably wrong, but I’ll let you know if I see him doing or saying anything as outrageous as what the Republican leadership has been up to for the last decade or two. He’s gonna have to work pretty hard to beat Tom DeLay, John Ashcroft, Antonin Scalia, et al.
Ricky
Avedon,
Clinton received near unanimous support in the congress when he bombed Iraq (that’s the subject, not Osama, whom he went after with missles the day Monica testified & no other time).
Nice try, though.
Tony Hughes
The ads are not only great.. but how do you
plan on preparing that crow?
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0110-03.htm