Semi-regular USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux said Monday that President Bush is “a terrorist” and that America is “a terrorist nation.”
In an interview that began with Malveaux accusing U.S. troops of “beating” terrorist suspects at Guantanamo Bay, the controversial author and economist told ABC Radio host Sean Hannity:
“C’mon now, Sean,” Malveaux told Hannity. “We are terrorists.”
Asked point-blank if the U.S. was a “terrorist nation,” Malveaux shot back: “Oh, Absolutely.”
In the next breath she added, “The chickens have come home to roost,” in an apparent reference to the 9/11 attacks.
“You know they weren’t there. I know they weren’t there,” she told Hannity. “George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control.”
Such a treat, that woman is. I am going to bed.
*** Update ***
Some of you don’t know who Malveaux is- here is what I can tell you from memory, and I will look into it in the AM. On second thought, no I won’t. I have wasted enough time on her. Here is a brief bio from memory that I put in the comments:
Julianne Malveaux is just another third-rate mind with a first-rate education (she has multiple advanced degrees, including a Doctorate, if I remember correctly). She also is a columnist (or used to be) for USA Today, and appears (or used to) on televison roundtables as one of the talking heads for the left.
She has a habit of showing up every year or so, shitting in the well of public discourse, and then mercifully, just as quickly as she came, disappearing into relative obscurity.
Most notably, she wished that Clarence Thomas would die young, I believe she was a lead singer in the Blame America chorus post 9/11, and I remember her being involved (loudly, as always) regarding the pledge of allegiance at some point in time (she was against it, what with the US being all racist and all that). She is also an advocate for slavery reparations, and, in general, an oafish loudmouth on all things race- and not, as some would lead you to believe, someone who is really concerned with improving race relations, but rather, someone who has found it profitable to be outrageous.
Overall, a first rate ass.
albedo
Too bad all liberals agree with her and hate Bushitler and the fascists and Darth Cheney, or something.
Sometimes it almost seems like Hannity invites the dumbest idiots on the left to his show in order to make the left as a whole look bad. Good thing Colmes is there, fairly balancing things…
JG
Sometimes?
hadenoughofthisyet
Sometimes it almost seems like Hannity invites the dumbest idiots on the left to his show in order to make the left as a whole look bad.
My thoughts exactly. Who is this woman and who has ever heard of her?
John Cole
Oh, she is just another third-rate mind with a first-rate education (I believe she has multiple advanced degrees, including a Doctorate, if I remember correctly). She also is a columnist (or used to be) for USA Today, and appears (or used to) on televison roundtables as one of the talking hewads for the left.
She has a habit of showing up every year or so, shitting in the well of public discourse, and then mercifully, just as quickly as she came, she disappears into relative obscurity.
Most notably, she wished that Clarence Thomas would die young, I believe she was a lead singer in the Blame America chorus post 9/11, and I remember her being involved (loudly, as always) regarding the pledge of allegiance. She is also an advocate for slavery reparations, and, in general, an oafish loudmouth on all things race- and not, as some would lead you to believe, someone who is really concerned with improving race relations, but someone who has found it profitable to be outrageous.
Overall, a first rate ass.
M. Scott Eiland
Malveaux seems to be missing her calling–she should shoot for a show on “Air America” as the token moderate.
Stormy70
Here’s a bio. They let her talk on CNN, when they need a nutjob on to make everyone else look reasonable. She is a vile person, very fringy.
Jess
Okay, now THAT is what I would call radical, nihilistic hard left, not to be confused with the average MoveOn member. In fact, not to be confused with anyone who truly cares about improving anything, as John suggests, and therefore really not a good example of the typical liberal who for the most part does try to engage with the issues in a constructive manner.
David
…And you wonder why folks are leaving the MSM and turning to the blogosphere for commentary and perspectives on the events of the world. Heaven forbid that a Hannity or Franken would invite someone as equally well spoken and could defend thier position with eloquence and intelligence.
I think that is why I am so impressed with Bill Maher’s show because he is not afraid to have opposing guests with the saavy of Andrew Sullivan who are able to argue thier point (a conservative POV) better than the host of the show. When Hannity, Franken, et al interview someone representing “the othe side”, the shows producers make sure those pundits have the mental agility to qualify as extras in “Deliverance II”.
However, with the expontential attrition of views fleeing the msm pundits and the shills they call guests, and turning to the blogs for in-depth comment that can, en masse, represent all sides of an event or situation, network and cable tv will soon contain nothing more than infomericals, 24/7.
“…and I have 52 channels of shit on the TV to choose from…” – Pink Floyd “Comfortably Numb”
KC
Why put her on television and even give her a platform? People like that are just a waste of time. They are the same people that put out nonsense about 911 being a government conspiracy. Just stupid and irritating.
ppgaz
Who’d have thought, in Limbaughmerica, where a fat, loud failed disk jockey could get rich making fun of teenaged girls with braces …. that someone would think of making it “profitable to be outrageous?”
Uh, what the hell did you think cable-tv/radio newsotainment is all about, folks? Education? Public service?
John Cole
Well- to be fair to Malveaux, I have never looked at any of her scholarship, so she may have a great deal of expertise in whatever it is she does. However, in her ventures outside that field, her politics and beliefs appear pretty reprehensible.
ppgaz
She’s Dornan in drag. She’s the wacky liberal who is propped up to say outrageous things and stir up churn and thereby prop up ratings. Just another big mouth on tv.
Responsible liberals don’t like her any more than responsible conservatives like Dornan. They’re peas in a pod. She isn’t worthy of mention. Or tv time. The anti-Coulter.
etc.
marteen
In the late 90’s she used to have a weekly column in the San Fran Chronicle’s business section. I’m a professional economist in the Bay Area and found her commentary extremely predictable and not particularly useful. She seems to have simply switched disciplines and kept the same boilerplate ranting.
Darryl Pearce
Too bad all liberals agree with her and hate Bushitler and the fascists and Darth Cheney, or something.
I haven’t even heard of her until this post. And …NO, I don’t agree with her even though I’ve been labeled a “liberal” by others, a “traitor” by some, even “evil” by others. I’ve been labeled a liberal just because I don’t trust this adminstrative crew who was there in Nixon’s day, and Reagan’s day… and the associated disregard for the Congress they both showed and because I never bought the case for conquering Iraq through invasion and occupation.
Mr Furious
Pretty much sounds like the Coulter of the Left. Is that about right? Except that none of us have heard of her, so she doesn’t get quite the platform as Coulter.
Just a little perspective…
albedo
“I haven’t even heard of her until this post. And …NO, I don’t agree with her even though I’ve been labeled a “liberal” by others, a “traitor” by some, even “evil” by others.”
I was just making a joke about how, predictably, this will cause great outrage in some circles and be advertised as the mainstream liberal view. The sarcasm button on my laptop seems to be broken.
HH
She still writes for USA Today, at least semi-regularly. The Eric Altermans who go as far as calling for Ann Coulter to be banned from the airwaves (if not burned at the stake) are deathly silent on her of course… she also refused an apology today for her Clarence Thomas heart attack comments.
HH
Salon:
carot
Liberals perceive conservative arguments like this as unfair, and conservatives fail to address this problem. Take as an example the US decides to invade and occupy France, which most people would agree would be a bad thing to do. When Liberals complained about this Conservatives might argue that it is treasonous and not showing respect for the troops in France. It would be hoping the soldiers lose just to make the conservatives look bad. People should present a united front of respect for the Conservative leadership until France is defeated. The issue of whether it is a good idea to invade France or not is no longer allowed to be part of the discussion.
Bush announces as his reason for invading France is to punish them for criticising about Iraq. So people who defend France are accused by conservatives as sympathising with and being apologists for Saddam, and by extension supporting his murdering Iraqis. Criticising the French invasion would be blaming America first, and appeasing France could only lead to more problems later as they understand nothing but forced. Liberals want to make the soldiers sacrifice meaningless by withdrawing from France.
The problem the Liberals have is they consider invading Iraq to be as bad an idea as invading France would be. The arguments the Conservatives make to justify invading France seem absurd and politically motivated, but many Liberals think these arguments are just as bad in invading Iraq.
Conservatives don’t seem to understand this, that Liberals believe Conservative arguments about Iraq are excuses for bad decisions and starting a war to get elected again. Whether they are or not is another debate but one that Conservatives don’t get involved in. So this argument becomes like a civil war instead of being debated openly.
For example if the US invaded France would it be fair to silence all dissent by arguing this was disrespectful of the troops? Would it undermine them to call their mission immoral? Would it be treasonous to show the dead French on television or stories of tortured French by the US?
The only difference between Iraq and France here is that it is obviously wrong to invade France so the Conservatives would be wrong to use these kinds of arguments to justify it. Where however is the boundary where these kinds of arguments become acceptable? Are they justified in using these arguments with Iraq? Conservatives think they are but many Liberals think this is as bad as using them to justify invading France.
Until this issue is resolved I can’t see how Liberals and Conservatives can resolve their differences on war. Arguments like this have been going on since Vietnam because each side accuses the other of not arguing fairly. At some point “my country right or wrong” becomes immoral, but where is that point and was it crossed in Iraq?
Slartibartfast
So, she’s got some value. I’m a leg man, myself.
p.lukasiak
At some point “my country right or wrong” becomes immoral, but where is that point and was it crossed in Iraq?
As an argument, its always immoral (or more properly amoral) and (more importantly) anti-democratic. The essence of democracy is the ability to openly criticize the government’s decisions so the the “marketplace of ideas” can function as a “market” where the best ideas win.
Accusations of a lack of patriotism are as grave a violation of civil discourse as calling someone an “idiot” if not graver.
Juliane Malveaux may represent a radical fringe in America public discourse, but her view are shared by hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people worldwide.
The problem is that the Bush regime has created such a fluid and inconsistent definition of terrorism that in many senses Malveauz is correct. The US harbors terrorists, and has a long history of supporting terrorism, and there is good reason to believe that the Bush regime continues to support terrorism against those it doesn’t like.
If we define “terrorism” solely as attacks aimed at civilians as victims, then Bush is not a “terrorist.” If we define “terrorism” as attacks designed to threaten and intimidate civilian populations, then Bush is clearly a terrorist. (Remember “Shock and Awe” was designated as such to convince the Iraqi people of the futility of resistance to the US military….).
Doubtless, Malveaux is using this second definition — but its the same definition that the Bush regime uses when it talks about bombs aimed at Iraqi police and Iraqi Army recruitment centers. The Bush regime has diluted the definition of the word “terrorist” to the point where anyone fighting against the US is described as a “terrorist”, and anyone who supports those who are fighting against the US are “terrorist sympathizers.”
One of the reasons we are losing the “War on Terror” is that we’ve lost the focus on what “terrorism” actually means. Everyone understood when al Qaeda was described as a “terrorist” organization — but when the Iraq was is justified as part of the “war on terror” and described as the “central front of the war on terror”, we’ve changed the definition of “terrorism” to mean “whoever we don’t like at the moment.”
Mr.Snrub
Never heard of her before. Go figure.
Mark
If you recall, Malveaux also, years ago, was talking about hoping that Justice Thomas’s wife would feed him unhealthy foods so he would die early of heart disease or some sort of thing like that. She is a despicable woman.
Jay
I’m so sick of the anti-America/pro-evil-enemy rhetoric!
http://www.stoptheaclu.com
Zifnab
First off, any party that openly endorses Ann Coulter has no room to labeling an opposing spokesperson an “overall ass”.
The Liberals have Al Franken, the Conservatives have Bill O’Reily. The Conservatives have Sean Hannity, the Liberals have Lou Dobbs. It’s a back and forth and if we’d all just acknowledge that the entire lot are a bunch of hacks the nation would be a better place. Stick with Nightline and NPR and Peter Jennings. At least with network TV you might actually get some news with your partisan rhetoric.
Second off, I think calling America a “terrorist nation” is a poor choice of words. This is more an attempt to throw the Republican terrorist rhetoric back in their faces. Unfortunately, it really does come across as America-bashing. We’d be better to note that America is more of an “international bully”, “childish superpower”, or “wet blanket” when it comes to international relations.
Threatening to pull a billion dollars of aid to Turkey cause they won’t vote for us at the UN? Let’s just call it what it really is, not aid but a billion dollar bribe that we won’t pay anymore. At least it is when you use the money as an international big stick. How about threatening to shut down NPR and PBS by starving it of federal funding because they won’t sing the party line? Hardly a terrorist action, but still pretty cowardly and low. Repeated threats to invade Syria and Iran when any educated American knows that Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, and Egypt are all just as likely to produce terrorists or aquire nuclear weapons? That’s because it’s just not politically viable to march on Cairo or Mecca. This isn’t terrorism, it’s just political sleaze on a world scale. And finally, the kicker, is the blank check we feed Isreal – arguable the whole reason we got attacked in the first place – because large numbers of Congressmen are beholden to donars with interests in a Jewish state, be they actual decendants of the Holocaust or simple financial interests or some zany nuts on a Revelations bent who think Isreal needs to exist for the second coming of Jesus. Regardless, we feed Sharon and his Isreali sleaze machine 3 billion a year so they can send goon squads out to bulldoze Palestinian homes to make room for families of powerful Isrealis. Never ask questions, don’t hold the 3 billion dollar stick over the country’s head to affect some ACTUAL change on their part, let them build their big wall to steal Jerusalum from the Arabs, and to hell with the consiquences. Actions of a “terrorist nation”? Not exactly. Actions of a bunch of fat smucks who want to make a buck and a vote off a hot button issue? Totally on the mark.
Jeff
Some of the comments here are example #1295 of the reasons that, no matter how bad Bush and Congress might fuck up, Democrats aren’t gonna make significant gains.
“OH YEAH, WHAT ABOUT LIMBAUGH?!”
“HANNITY SHOULDN’T INVITE HER!!”
Good God, you people are so fucking predictable.
carot
“As an argument, its always immoral (or more properly amoral) and (more importantly) anti-democratic. The essence of democracy is the ability to openly criticize the government’s decisions so the the “marketplace of ideas” can function as a “market” where the best ideas win.
Accusations of a lack of patriotism are as grave a violation of civil discourse as calling someone an “idiot” if not graver.”
My main objection is they substitute for an argument, using tactics like this aren’t an argument in themselves. For example in attacking France these arguments are shown to be absurd. If you were French you might use the same arguments quite validly against people who supported the Nazis in WW2.
So these arguments are more goal posts than actual points scored. It tells me nothing some Conservatives think dissent in a war is treasonous and disrespects the troops because it depends on the kind of war whether it is true or not.
It also tells me nothing some Liberals believe dissent in war time is needed to prevent over reaching, that soldiers need not be respected if they do terrible things, that the enemy can sometimes be right and our country is wrong, that terrorists sometimes have a legitimate grievance, that fighting back is like kicking over a hornet’s nest, that atrocities by our troops must be exposed, that we must fight fairer than the enemy, etc because all those attitudes are treasonous in some war situations and not others.
The question really is whether Iraq is a situation at one goal post or another or where it is between them. I happen to believe Conservatives would be better off making an argument for the war without all this name calling, and the Liberals would be better off making a reasoned counter argument.
For example the war on Iraq is arguably justified, there were only 3 options. Do nothing for another 10 years and have hundreds of thousands more die of sanctions (which is supposed to be something Liberals are against), list sanctions perhaps with permanent inspectors with a man who is a mortal enemy of the US and had killed US soldiers in battle, or take him out and hope the next goverment will be more friendly. Arguably the area and its oil is too important strategically to have an enemy controlling so much of it. On the other hand Saddam was no threat as it turned out, was an ally before, had complied with inspectors we now know, and might well have toed the line if sanctions were lifted.
But there seems to be no debate of the pros and cons of the war, only poisoned and unfair rhetoric, almost as if people are still divided on whether Vietnam was a just war or not. The unfair rhetoric from that war instead of being settled seems to come up again over and over in each war after that.
Zifnab
Sadly, there are many people who continue to debate and believe that Vietnam was not a total waste of our time, money, and American lives. I hear the “If we’d just stayed in a year longer, we’d have had them” line often enough.
sean
I’ve never heard of her myself. seems like a real loon.
and to David, who posted:
it’s 13 channels and the song is “Nobody Home”
Jon H
“Overall, a first rate ass.”
And a first-class “get” for Hannity: a liberal guest almost guaranteed to say something absurd on tape.
TM Lutas
The conservatives have successfully led purges of their crazies in the past. Decades ago, the John Birch Society used to be huge and respectable on the right. They aren’t today because of Bill Buckley and Co., not because anybody on the left did anything about it. If the liberals don’t want Malveaux representing them, they’ve got to be the ones wielding the knife as those on the right did on their own.
mario
2 posts here, one on top of the other, concerning whackos on the left and right.
One is someone who is barely known.
The other is the Senator from Oklahoma.
Any questions?
Mr Furious
Zifnab-
Lou Dobbs is supposed to balance Sean Hannity? Come on…
CaseyL
How many people here knew who Coulter was before John’s post?
How many people here had ever heard of Malveaux before John’s post?
Jeff
John didn’t mention Coulter but the little Atriettes and Kossacks that have drifted over here have to once again pull out their “oh yeah, what about ______?” arguement.
BumperStickerist
Hi CaseyL, I’d heard of Julianne Malveaux before John mentioned her.
Her ‘Uncle Thomas’ postings, desire that he eat a lot of fried eggs for breakfast to hasten a heart attack, which is common among black men (per her) made me think she was, well, an idiot.
As for Coulter – I treat her act as schtick, I wish more people would. This article re: Coulter is an oldy, but a goody.
sample:
Zifnab
It’s hardly an unfair analogy.
Sorry, I don’t know alot of left wing pundits off the top of my head.
Compuglobalhypermeganet
Hey, Jeff here’s example #1296 of the reasons that, no matter how bad Bush and Congress might fuck up, Democrats aren’t gonna make significant gains.
The Democrats say we are supposed to excuse the idiotic, hateful rants of people who should know better in deference to the millions (no, not billions) of wrongheaded leftist/Socialist/Communist morons around the world who also don’t know the definition of “terrorist.” The old “We may be stupid, but there are a bunch of stupid Euros who agree with us!” routine. Very compelling.
Sojourner
They’re long overdue for another purge.
JPS
Zifnab:
Well that’s about all you had to say. Don’t you dare tell me what “any educated American” knows.
HH
“One is someone who is barely known.”
Sorry a regular/semi-regular column in one of the nation’s biggest newspaper and regular television appearances doesn’t count as “barely known.”
Sojourner
Test it. Ask your friends if they know who Malveaux is versus Ann Coulter. I’ll bet that the vast majority don’t know who she is.
Simply because a newspaper chooses someone as a columnist, that does not make that person a spokesperson for a party. Newspapers don’t have that kind of clout (at least not yet).
Rick
Sojourner,
Malveaux’s reknown/notoriety goes back some more years than Coulter. The skeletal blonde is certainly more TV-friendly, which would likely account for greater name recognition. As in “Coulter is a columnist, too?”
But Malveaux has had an enduring career in the lunatic fringe of the broader media.
Cordially…
P.S. From this, you can be assured that I knew/heard of Julianne Malveaux years before I learned of Ann Coulter.
Sojourner
So? Are you claiming that most Americans know who she is and consider her a representative of the Democratic party? I doubt it, which is why I suggested the survey.
It not, what’s your point?
Rick
Sorry, the P.S. was for CaseyL 7/12 at 9:49 a.m. That Malveaux’s fame, such as it is, preceeds Coulter’s, such as it is. Contrary to what CaseyL evidently believes.
Coulter is likely better known now, but that’s cuz of the boob tube.
Cordially…
Zifnab
:-p I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with the quote. That said, when Osama Bin Laden himself is a Saudi native you can hardly doubt that there are some serious terrorist vibes coming out of the nation.
But Iraq was viable as a target for invasion because we’d practically invaded the country twice before (see: Operation Desert Storm/Operation Desert Fox). Egypt and Saudi Arabia are not viable. Not to say which nation deserves being invaded first, just that invading any single country merely scratches the surface of the nation-sponsored-terrorist problem. And that we don’t have the resources, manpower, or resolve to invade them all.
HH
So suddenly “most Americans” knowing of their existence is the test? Didn’t stop anyone from going after Jeff “Who?” Gannon and Armstrong Williams.
If you put up Malveaux’s picture, many Americans who pay attention to news would recognize her, nearly as many as Coulter. The distiction would be so small as to not matter. Besides, there was high dudgeon from the likes of Salon and Eric Alterman over giving Coulter a week in USA Today (and she was famously fired before that even started) while Malveaux is in those pages on a near-weekly basis.
HH
Hardly Chomsky
HH
Malveaux appearances
JPS
Zinfab:
“I’m not sure if you’re agreeing or disagreeing with the quote.”
Let me put it this way (with apologies to those who may remember I’ve made this point here before):
When Shiite mosques in Pakistan get blown up by Wahabi fanatics, is it for their support of Israel?
What I was getting at is that when people suggest that our support for Israel lies at the root of Islamist hatred for us, I find it so lazy and simplistic that it’s hard to bother with the rest of their analysis. Meaning of course no offense. It’s part of it; it’s also a minor part.
Also, while suggesting that we support Israel only because large parts of our government are either bought off by you-know-who, or because they’re Christian nutcases, doesn’t mean you’re an anti-Semite, it certainly does put you squarely in the company of everyone who is.
Know what? A lot of non-Jewish, mostly secular Americans support Israel, despite its flaws and while wishing for its improvement, without any conflicted loyalties. The PLO and the Arab nations were mostly pro-Soviet throughout the cold war; they or their precursors were pro-Nazi during WWII. As an American, I don’t need to be beholden to any donor to know which side of this conflict I prefer, and I get a bit irritated when people suggest otherwise.
Sojourner
I asked some of my more politically knowledgable colleagues if they knew who she was. None of them did, including the liberal ones. I asked them if they had heard of Coulter. They all had.
Kimmitt
I’d never heard of Malveaux until this post.
Rick
Kimmitt,
Well, hang out with us Right-wingers more often, and you’ll lean the IDs of our voodoo dolls. Malveaux has been a laughingstock for us just as Coulter serves for your side of the barricades.
Only for years longer.
Cordially…