Hot Air? The name's well chosen because they are full of it!
If you want to know how deluded the right wing mindset is go and watch this clip being hosted at Hot Air. They describe it as:
I’m not exaggerating when I say that this is the video against which all future Rosie clips will be compared. Never has so much useful idiocy about so many subjects been compressed into so little time.I didn't know what to expect. I was astonished to find that Rosie O'Donnell says things that the audience applauds and yet Hot Air direct you to this as an example of "too-nutty-for-the-nutroots anti-Americanism". I presume the audience members applauding are displaying the very same, "too-nutty-for-the-nutroots anti-Americanism".
It’s her finest hour.
The people over at Hot Air no doubt can't hear that the programme's audience are in total agreement with what O'Donnell is saying as she asks "What do you have to do to get impeached anymore?" The Hot Air folks don't realise that they are the ones operating outside of the mainstream, they are the nutty extremists.
There's a little blonde thing - representing the right wing nutters I presume - who, when asked if she trusts Bush as much as when he first came to power, replies, "In a time of war I think you are in a position where you have to."
She's saying it's your patriotic duty to blindly believe. It's almost Orwellian this notion. Blind faith in the Leader is something you have to give. She regards handing over her faith and trust to another person as the pinnacle of her patriotism.
And yet she is no doubt nearer to the opinions held by Hot Air than by the audience of ordinary Americans that Hot Air dismisses as people who display "too-nutty-for-the-nutroots anti-Americanism".
Talk about an own goal.
Tags:
27 comments:
O'Donnell was awesome!
That blond chick- man who taught her to debate?
She totally set up a straw-dog:
Rosie: "Do you think the government purposefully misled the American people to believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11"
Blondie: "No... do you believe that the government had anything to do with the attack of 9/11?"
Way to try and discredit O'Donnell (which spectacularly failed)!
She may well be, I don't know her that well but even a broken clock gets the time right twice a day.
And she was telling the right time then!
I'm not sure about that. It's often tempting to lend intellectual credibility to that which is appealing on an emotional level.
I have no emotional connection with 9/11.
I'm an Englishman who was in Switzerland at the time.
So not getting your point Jason.
What's emotional about my analogy of a broken clock?
In this clip Rosie was right on the money.
Since O'Donnell's rantings are generally devoid of fact, I can only assume that their appeal is on an emotional level since there is little of substance on the intellectual level.
Elizabeth Hasselbeck actually does discredit O'Donnell by exposing her as a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, particularly when the bit she was going on about has long been debunked.
Seriously, the View is not exactly a news show. The audience they get is not necessarily reflective of your average American any more than Bill Maher's is.
I do agree though, Hasselbeck couldn't debate her way out of a paper bag and seems to wither in the face of O'Donnell's bullying.
Alex,
I'm with you on the broken watch scenario, O'Donnell obviously has a reputation that we Brits are unaware of, but that doesn't change the fact that most of what she said hit home.
Jason,
You have to understand that, without knowing her background, over here we simply listen to the points she made and most of them are points that we would all agree on. What does it take to get impeached in the US these days? Your democracy is under threat from a President who appears to assume that he has the powers of a king, and that viewpoint has been supported until last November by a Republican Congress who gave him the power to detain people simply by labelling them "non-combatents" which means he can then jail them for life without any court in your land having any power to stop him. He has completely thrown out Habeas Corpus, he ignores the FISA law, and yet Republicans continue to support him with no more intellectual reasoning from what I can gather than that shown by Hasselbeck on that clip. "We are at war". That appears to mean Bush can ignore any law he chooses at will.
So there were far more important points that O'Donnell made than the ones concerning building seven, though you seem to have honed in on those rather than the larger points she made, which the audience appreciated.
Who is the "we" who would all agree? Again, it just seems like a lot of emotion and hyperbole with little basis in fact.
To get impeached a member of the executive must be guilty of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors", then a simple majority in the House of Representatives must pass articles of impeachment, and then a trial in the Senate. There have only been rwo presidents who have been impeached, one of them for lying to Congress about "sexual relations" with an intern.
My democracy is under no such threat. Since the seventies the legislature has been encroaching on the Constitutional powers of the executive branch. Bush has made a concerted effort to reassert the Constitutional powers of the executive. No law passed by the legistlature may restrain the Constitutional powers of the executive. What that means is that just because Congress passes a law like FISA does not restrain the President from exercising his Constitutional powers as indicated by the FISA court itself when it ruled “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
Regarding "non-combatants"... Actually I believe you mean "enemy combatants". Labeling somone as such does not mean that they can thereofore simply be jailed for life. Specifically what is being referred to is unlawful enemy combatants, and the international Laws of Armed Conflict (LOAC) to include the Geneva Conventions are very specific as to the definition of and the disposition of such people. By law, and not recent law mind you, such people are dealt with by military tribunals. Civil courts are not suitable for handling battlefield detainees, for several reasons, nor are they meant to, nor does the law expect these cases to be tried in civil courts.
While I am not a lawyer, my job in the military forced me to become conversant with LOAC and the Geneva Conventions. Whenever I read complaints against trying these people outside of civil courts (as they should be), it strikes me as a fundamental misunderstanding of LOAC and the Geneva Conventions. Now if we want to argue the merit of those laws which have been on the books for quite some time, that's a different discussion. The laws are being followed though.
In my mind, there's a lot more emotion and hyperbole being thrown about on both sides than there are attempts to dispassionately examine the issues from a factual standpoint. Once we start throwing about hyperbole, it makes it harder to maintain the credibility of our argument as I see it.
Since the seventies the legislature has been encroaching on the Constitutional powers of the executive branch.
Yes, it has. And it has done so for very good reason. Nixon was breaking the law and claiming that those same laws did not apply to him as he was President. It's not a dissimilar argument to the one Bush is making today.
What that means is that just because Congress passes a law like FISA does not restrain the President from exercising his Constitutional powers as indicated by the FISA court itself when it ruled “[A]ll the other courts to have decided the issue [have] held that the President did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence information . . . . We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power.”
I've read both the cases that your link refers to and they both appear to be relating to foreign nationals, in one case a member of the IRA. FISA is, as I understand it, the only means by which a President may obtain the power to listen in on an American citizen who is talking to a foreign national. This law was brought in because of the illegal way Nixon employed wiretapping. I understand your reasoning for why Bush is seeking to claw back Constitutional powers towards the Presidency, however, this is because his administration - Cheney, former member Rumsfeld - possess the same mindset as that of the Nixon administration, many were even members of that administration. So, seeing why they wish to do this does not mean that what they wish to do is correct. They seek to undermine the power of the other two power bases that constitute your government and drag that power towards the executive.
I see you have no difficulty with that reasoning, which only means you are part of the Republican mindset that I discussed. You seem to have no difficulty with Bush holding what is, in effect, the power of a King.
As for "unlawful enemy combatants", I am sure you know as well as I do that the rights of these men to be tried - even before a military tribunal - was one that Bush acceded to only under extreme pressure. His initial claim, backed by Rumsfeld, was that he could hold them indefinitely. That's certainly an authoritarian mindset.
And you make a huge assumption when you describe the men held there as "battlefield detainees", unless you are portraying the entire planet as somehow a battlefield in the war on terror.
The British inhabitant who was arrested in Gambia could easily have been tried before a civilian court. Indeed, the only reason he was let go was because British courts had agreed to review his case and the British government were not prepared to allow the world to review their disgraceful actions.
I am of the belief that governments work best when they are subject to scrutiny. You seem to wish to give them an inordinate amount of trust.
What happened to Republicans being the party of small government? When did you all decide that power should be handed so freely to the executive?
You no longer sound like Republicans at all...
I'd also like to add, Jason, that the line from O'Donnell about 9/11 was my only taking of an example of a straw dog argument- An example of the dumb reasoning of Hasselbeck(?).
I really thought O'Donnell put it right on the whole debate- it was nice to see a leftie sounding off for a change and drowning everyone in her opinion- a change from, say, loudmouths like O'Reilly.
I will say you do not come across as one of those types, have clearly thought the issue through and where you stand. So I welcome debate with you.
I will agree with you not everything she said was able to be factually backed up (eg. British in Iranian waters) but I found most of it to make sense entirely.
I also googled and found a bit about her comparing radical Islam to radical Christianity (summizing both were equally dangerous)(another controversy kicked off by her loudmouth).
I don't know O'Donnells faith but can I just say as a born-again Christian that she was absolutely correct then too.
Kel,
Trying to make the debate personal by making accusations about me isn't constructive nor sustainable. I will have you know that I am not a Republican; I am independant. I have as recently as the last election voted for both Democrats and Republicans.
That said, I believe in a strict interpretation of the Constitution and separation of powers. One branch of government cannot remove the constitutional powers of another branch, whether or not it is for what you refer to as a "very good reason". Take the latest Congressional attempt to limit troop movements via riders on a spending bill, which is blatantly unconstitutional as that power only resides with the Commander-In-Chief.
Regarding FISA, it deals with US persons, which is a little more broad than just citizens. If you as a UK citizen were in this country on vacation for example, as I understand it a FISA warrant would be required in order to tap your phone. Additionally, what the quote I offered does is refer to the President's constitutional powers in collecting foreign intelligence. In order for it to be foreign intelligence, one party of a conversation must be acting as an agent for a foreign power. What that means is that foreign intelligence could theoretically result from a conversation between two US citizens. In the case though, what they are referring to is conversations where one side is of foreign origin and one side is domestic. FISA mandates that only the foreign side of the conversation could be collected, however the court decision means that stipulation cannot trump the President's ability to collect foreign intelligence in time of war.
Alex,
Again, O'Donnell's statement comparing "radical Christianity" to radical Islam is emotional hyperbole that can't be sustained by fact. There are not Christians going around beheading people, blowing up markets or children in schools, using car bombs, blowing up planes, or anything even remotely close to that, all in the name of God. I believe that an abundance of evidence points out that radical Islam is in fact much more a threat than radical "any other religion".
Jason, I'm aware we're going off topic and in danger of approaching Christian theology, but let's just take a look at where 'radical' Christianity:
"terrorist activities"
"series of military conflicts"
"judgement of heresy"
All of these are radical actions, instigated by Christians.
But then, I would argue that they weren't really Christians or acting in Christ- so perhaps you are right - perhaps this has come from an ignorance or incorrect interpretation of scripture.
Well then you have to judge Muslims by the same standards- since it is argued radical Islam is also an incorrect interpretation of their holy scriptures.
I have my own opinion but if you say there's no comparison, you need to provide evidence to the contrary.
With the exception of a very few indefenible acts by a handful of individuals, I don't think having to go back hundreds of years to find examples "radical Christianity" is relevant. I say that because obviously Western civilization and the Church have come quite a long way since those times and don't seem to hold much in the way of comparison or relevance to action today. For me at least, a handful of what may be called terrorist acts by a extremely small number of people aimed at abortion clinics and doctors doesn't seem a fair comparison to radical Islam today.
Of course we could also try to define what terrorism is but I don't think that would get us anywhere. In my mind, terrorism is illegal violence perpetrated by non-state actors against a general populous for the purpose of causing terror, typically to meet some political or religious objevtice. But that's just a rough personal definition (and something close to what I picked up studying courses on the subject in college).
The reaction of people in this country to the clniic attacks was universal condemnation, which is different from what you have in some of the Middle Easter and Central Asian countries. There were no crowds of people dancing in the streets in the US as a result of the Eric Rudolph attacks. Strains of Islam, particularly Wahhabism and Salafiyya, extoll violence. We could be politically correct and try to pretend that those are only small groups of people, but unfortunately that's not the case. That does not mean that I believe that anywhere close to the majority of Muslims is what we might call "radical", but I also won't pretend the numbers aren't likely to be in the millions (think the tribal regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan for example).
One branch of government cannot remove the constitutional powers of another branch, whether or not it is for what you refer to as a "very good reason".
No, they were restoring the power that Nixon had improperly taken for himself.
And are you an Independent like Liebermann is an Independent? I judge where I think people are politically from the arguments they make, and your arguments have you on the side of Nixon and Cheney.
Take the latest Congressional attempt to limit troop movements via riders on a spending bill, which is blatantly unconstitutional as that power only resides with the Commander-In-Chief.
No, it doesn't. Congress and the President both have to approve a war. That's what your Constitution says. Congress can withdraw that support. And that action that you seem to find "blatantly unconstitutional" has wide support amongst the American people who want, overhwelmingly according to the polls, for America to withdraw.
And as for FISA, answer me honestly, why do you think Bush didn't approach FISA who have given most warrants when asked? I think they've said no on about eight occasions out of the 58,000 requests that have been made to them. Why attempt to sideline, and step outside the law by doing so, an organisation that is so very compliant to governmental requests?
Indeed, an organisation that was set up to stop the very illegality that Nixon indulged in and which you seem to approve Bush indulging in.
Of course we could also try to define what terrorism is but I don't think that would get us anywhere.
How can you fight that which you can't even define? You are avoiding definition - and the Bush administration is also doing so - because, in every reasonable definition, your country would have been found to have indulged in it. Indeed, during the Reagan era the ICJ found the US guilty of precisely that.
Terrorising citizens with the aim of changing a governments actions or causing the fall of the administration would seem a reasonable place to start. Wouldn't you agree?
Jason,
Just so you know I'm not backing out but I want to finish by clarifying that when it comes to radicalism- we are discussing the effects, not the quantity.
Quantity wise, no, Christianity in the last century does not have as much blood on its hands as Islam (radically). But theology wise- as in misinterpretation of scripture, as in how wrong and inhuman it can become- they are both the same as they result in acts of violence and terrorism.
And I'm sure you will agree that if we do not look back at history, then we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes as George Santanaya said.
Anyway this post is about Rosie O'Donnell and her comments on the current mess that America has got itself into. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to see that.
Oh and Kel,
"How can you fight that which you can't even define? You are avoiding definition"
Word.
No, they were restoring the power that Nixon had improperly taken for himself.
The court disagrees with you, as I have indicated.
And are you an Independent like Liebermann is an Independent? I judge where I think people are politically from the arguments they make, and your arguments have you on the side of Nixon and Cheney.
Just about every American, to include Nancy Pelosi, comes off to the right of the average European. That's our respective cultures. And you can define me however you like, I tend to be more conservative on some issues and more liberal on others. Not everyone who doesn't buy into the radical left's line is a "wingnut".
No, it doesn't.
Yes, it does. Troop movements are dictated by the President as the commander-in-chief, not by Congress. This isn't my opinion, this is Constitutional law, and as a veteran of 12 years of military service, I am well aware of what the chain of command is, and what the respective roles of the branches of the government are in that regards.
Congress and the President both have to approve a war. That's what your Constitution says.
Congress has the power to declare war, to raise an army, and to fund or not fund a war. The respective powers of the branches with regards to war are clarified in the 1973 War Powers Resolution (although that act has some questions of its constitutionality that haven't been challenged). Basically, the President can initiate hostilities but must withdraw forces within 60 days (extendable by 30 more) if the Congress does not declare war or provide an authorization for the use of force.
Congress can withdraw that support.
Congress can certainly decide not to fund the war, as they did in Vietnam. The Democrats appear afraid to do that however and are trying to use unconstitutional means to reach the same goal.
And that action that you seem to find "blatantly unconstitutional" has wide support amongst the American people who want, overhwelmingly according to the polls, for America to withdraw.
Which has nothing to do with its Constitutionality. Wars are not fought by opinion polls. Many on the far left I believe misinterpret these polls. It is very true that most of us would rather not be there and would prefer our forces come home as soon as possible. It is also true that most of us will not accept a defeat imposed upon us by politicians, particularly since most of us are smart enough to realize that things will be far worse if we pull out without achieving some sense to stability.
How can you fight that which you can't even define?
Read again, I did provide a definition. What I was implying is that we won't get anywhere in this forum by trying to agree on a definition. I've tried that exercise before and have come to realize it is futile. Even if I provide academic definitions from textbooks, I suspect they won't be viewed as broad enough to fit your goal of trying to brand the US as terrorists, which you've already intimated.
Wouldn't you agree?
No, I wouldn't.
But theology wise- as in misinterpretation of scripture, as in how wrong and inhuman it can become- they are both the same as they result in acts of violence and terrorism.
I can't speak for whether or not the radical Islamists are misinterpreting the Koran. I certainly hope so. I do believe that there are a great many Christians who misinterpret scripture, but I can't say I'm aware of any groups who've misinterpreted it to the point where people are killing people. But I agree, we should examine history and learn its lessons so as not to repeat past mistakes.
Congress can withdraw that support.
Congress can certainly decide not to fund the war, as they did in Vietnam. The Democrats appear afraid to do that however and are trying to use unconstitutional means to reach the same goal.
I'll find it very hard to defend the Democrats who I regard as generally spineless, even when their proposals carry great public support.
When you say "troops movements" are you objecting to the demands that troops withdraw by a certain date?
Because surely the only substantive difference between the two points is semantics? They can either continue to fund the troops but link this to a withdrawal, or they can stop funding with the obvious risks of being portrayed as unpatriotic towards the armed forces.
So your only objection is because the latter does not do them political harm whilst the former would. In both cases the end result is the same.
Many on the far left I believe misinterpret these polls. It is very true that most of us would rather not be there and would prefer our forces come home as soon as possible. It is also true that most of us will not accept a defeat imposed upon us by politicians, particularly since most of us are smart enough to realize that things will be far worse if we pull out without achieving some sense to stability.
I feel you are adding your own viewpoint and labelling that as what "most of us" want. The poll certainly didn't imply what you are saying.
When you say "troops movements" are you objecting to the demands that troops withdraw by a certain date?
For the most part. It is actually a timetable of withdrawals which dictates that some forces must being relocating this year with the rest relocating by next year. That is congress dictating troop movements and is completely unconstiutional.
While the result of simply cutting off funding is essentially the same, it is probably the only constitutional means they have available to them. Of course, as you pointed out, that carries political risks that they don't seem willing to take.
While the result of simply cutting off funding is essentially the same, it is probably the only constitutional means they have available to them. Of course, as you pointed out, that carries political risks that they don't seem willing to take.
That's what's annoying you isn't it? That they won't allow Republicans to have a pop at their patriotism!
Because as we both admit, the end result is the end result.
So then your argument is that it doesn't matter how one achieves a goal as long as the end result is the same?
No, my argument is that you're pretending to be outraged over Constitutionality when you're actually angered over the Dems stopping the war.
And, of course, in most circumstances the ends do not justify the means. However, if the end is actually ending a war.. then that wouldn't bother me so much.
No, my argument is that you're pretending to be outraged over Constitutionality when you're actually angered over the Dems stopping the war.
That would be argument ad hominem. Let's say for the sake of argment I am "angered over the Dems stopping the war". Does that make the fact that the Democrats are try trying to do it unconstitutionally any less valid? No, it doesn't.
But just for the record, my position is exactly as I have represented it.
Does that make the fact that the Democrats are try trying to do it unconstitutionally any less valid? No, it doesn't.
For the record, John Yoo - yes someone as right wing as that - disagrees with you that what the Dems are proposing is unconstitutional.
"Not only could Congress cut off money, it could require scheduled troop withdrawals, shrink or eliminate units, or freeze weapons supplies. It could even repeal or amend the authorization to use force it passed in 2002."
Post a Comment