Olbermann, Johnson and the Left on Terror
Whom do you call on in a pinch for expertise about jihadist plots if you’re a guy who hasn’t taken terrorism seriously since 9/11? Why, a guy who hasn’t taken terrorism seriously since before 9/11, of course. It’s a segment six years in the making, starting with Crazy Larry’s now-legendary “stop worrying about terror” op-ed published in July 2001 and continuing through to this morning when he wowed the dKos faithful by pronouncing the car-bomb plot a “crock of crap.”
Hot Air made that observation and posted this interesting exchange between Keith Olbermann and former CIA officer Larry Johnson:
Just for the record, the left has downplayed nearly every failed terrorist plot over the past few years. But how are we supposed to take these gentlemen seriously when they wonder aloud why we are making a big deal out of failed car bombs in western cities but not out of car bombs in a war zone? *Note to Larry,* we are also funny about Muslims running about shooting up our malls too, but somehow we don’t give much press to the daily gun battles in Iraq either.
But isn’t it nice to comment on your news program and always make those that you most detest wrong? When terror plots are successful, it’s because we have created poverty and resentment with unilateral aggression and support for Israel. When terror plots are thwarted, the perps were poorly funded, disorganized, stupid, or didn’t have enough material to cause lasting damage. Its nice to always flip a two-headed coin!
It’s not that we don’t take the threat seriously, in fact I seem to recall scoffing from your side when our presidential candidate said we should treat it as more of a law enforcement issue, rather than a military one. It’s just that, unlike our friends on the right, we don’t wet our beds and reach for an AK every time a group of homeless thugs talk to an undercover FBI agent claiming they want to blow up a few skyscrapers, and then ask for money to buy combat boots.
Andre the Defiant
June 30, 2007 at 11:07 pm
No, the fact is that the Left doesn’t take the threat seriously. Period. And they routinely mock those who do and undermine every attempt to defeat them both at home and abroad. Irresponsibility of the worst sort at best, the Jihadist fifth column at worst. You make the call.
Dave the Infidel Sage
July 1, 2007 at 9:58 am
And you see my point: Readiness is not something to be applauded, it is to be mocked. Potential terrorists aren’t really terrorists until they have completed their act of murder. Until then we are all just pissing ourselves. But I would be interested in wondering how much the personal fortunes were of the 19 hijackers that killed 3000 Americans? What Andre conveniently neglects is that the only rich terrorists are those that used family and oil fortunes to start their own terrorist organizations. With that money, they found the dumb, broke, but capable sloths and funded them into committing murder. Does Andre not believe that a group of angry, homeless thugs is capable of seeking funding for terror acts down the road?
E the Wise
July 1, 2007 at 10:31 am
Of course it’s not “the right” who primarily reacts to these stories, but the media. Every time some low-level plot is revealed, idiots on the left like Olbermann and Sullivan are furious that they were told about it. It’s all scare tactics, you see. Interesting that Gordon Brown now seems to be in on the plot.
Listen to all of the double talk though: Andre insists that these incidents are a law enforcement issue, but then vigorously opposes every element of the law enforcement component. Scotland Yard is overreacting, PM Brown shouldn’t be able to detain suspects for longer than two weeks, Bush shouldn’t be able to wiretap, the FBI can’t check your reading list, no Gitmo, no secret CIA interrogations, etc.
Olbermann and Johnson talked both sides of the issue in the same segment. It began with them insisting that this was no threat at all, these were ignorant bumblers who just would have burned the inside of the car, they have no clue what they’re doing, and this is all more fear mongering… then morphed seamlessly into a discussion about how these were products of the new al Qaeda recruits that Iraq is producing and that while we shouldn’t be scared enough to actually engage in vigorous law enforcement, we should be sufficiently terrified to immediately give into the enemy’s demands and surrender our position in Iraq, so other incidents won’t happen.
Literally, two of the most discredited, disreputable men who have ever uttered a public word about the war on terror.
DFV the Scribe
July 1, 2007 at 11:24 am
Could you please define “readiness” for me E. I just don’t think sending our National Guard to Iraq qualifies. Please, clue me in.
Andre the Defiant
July 2, 2007 at 12:03 am
DFV- I don’t oppose the law enforcement aspect, in fact I whole heartedly support it. But the idea of sending more money, in fact much more money, per capita to Alaska and Wyoming then LA or New York is freaking gay. And my beloved Dems are continuing the same gayness.
And as for the “car bombs” in London. Uh, propane tanks and nails? You try to ignite a propane tank. Guess what, they are DESIGNED not to blow up. These are what I would call “Dime-Store Terrorists”.
Ooooooo, I’m scared.
Can we focus on the real dangers now, like those in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?
Andre the Defiant
July 2, 2007 at 12:08 am
Well it looks like as of right now that two of the airport terrorists are Doctors and are both new to Great Britain, one from Iraq. So will somebody ’splain to my hillbilly ass how they count as disgruntled, domestic, retarded, incompetent “Dime-Store Terrorists”?
Let me think, oh yeah, does motivation count in this? Seems these guys are willing to put their lives and freedom on the line regardless of pedigree or competence.
Again, please take it slow, cause I am, and somebody tell me why motivation is not the most vital and important part in this. Experience, expertise and equipment can all be acquired. Seems to me ‘ol Bill McCartney once said “You achieve what you emphasize!” and his kids went on to win a national championship God bless them.
You must prepare for a risk despite the fact it is (hopefully) rare if it occurrence would be catastrophic. Just because things are in some ways worse in Iraq (it is in some ways better-no Paris or Keith!) does not justify Olbermann and Johnson’s glee at these “non-events”. Those two sick narcissistic gadflies are not happy because these attacks failed from a loss of life stand point, no, they are happy because a high body count would “help” Bush they think.
pgwarner
July 2, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Pgwarner is right. Are you clueless, Andre? These guys in London were al Qaeda and they were part of at least a three-part coordinated plot to murder Britons in their home city. That doesn’t bother you in the least, but you want us to go after allied governments halfway around the world?!?!
DFV the Scribe
July 2, 2007 at 2:06 pm
Well, I know I wet myself in terror every time someone mentions Al Qaeda. But President Bush will protect us, because Jesus appointed him in our time of need.
Phlebas
July 2, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Well, you may not ‘wet’ yourself, but many thousands of relatives have buried their dead with plenty of tears to ‘wet’ their cheeks due to the actions of Al-Qaeda and their allies. We can snicker and mock and then bury some more innocents, or we can attempt to stop them, and kill them, whenever we get a chance. The choice is clear.
Dave the Infidel Sage
July 2, 2007 at 9:40 pm
Well, you may not ‘wet’ yourself, but many thousands of relatives have buried their dead with plenty of tears to ‘wet’ their cheeks due to the actions of Al-Qaeda and their allies.
Right on! It’s a good thing that Iraqis are subhumans who neither have relatives nor cry, otherwise we might start comparing our own actions with those of Al Qaeda, which is, of course, ridiculous.
Besides, the Iraqis should have thought about our retaliation before they flew those planes into the towers.
Phlebas
July 3, 2007 at 3:04 am
“What a Maroon….” – Bugs Bunny
Dave the Infidel Sage
July 3, 2007 at 7:40 am
Well, I did say it was ridiculous to compare our actions with those of Al Qaeda. Sure we’ve killed more civilians than they have recently, but we’re America, and we’re allowed to murder foreigners.
Phlebas
July 3, 2007 at 11:28 am
The mentally and morally bankrupt attempts at moral equivalancy pretty much puts your arguments straight into the gutter of political discussion. An intelligent person could tell the difference. But then Phlebas tosses and turns at night because the Iranians are being thwarted in their attempt to procure the ‘Islamic bomb’. Watching someone endlessly and angrily flail at Western Civilization is frankly very sad to see.
Dave the Infidel Sage
July 3, 2007 at 6:12 pm
The mentally and morally bankrupt attempts at moral equivalancy pretty much puts your arguments straight into the gutter of political discussion. An intelligent person could tell the difference.
How foolish of me to judge people based on their actions, rather than the ideologies they profess while performing those actions. Well, I’ve learned my lesson.
Al Qaeda is not justified in killing thousands of American civilians based on radical Islamic ideology and a claimed grievance against American troops in Saudi Arabia. We’re justified in killing tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians because Saddam was a bad person, and because Bush said that the British said that he might be getting yellowcake from Nigeria, even though that turned out to be a forgery, and even though we never actually sorted out who forged that claim.
Two totally different things. It’s wrong and anti-American to hold US actions to the same level of criticism we use to condemn others.
America! America!
Phlebas
July 3, 2007 at 6:41 pm
Hence your hostility towards detecting, stopping, fighting and killing Al-Qaeda?
Dave the Infidel Sage
July 3, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Phlebas has trouble differentiating between terrorists who target civilians and Americans who targeted Baathist infastructure, military and government installations. I know the distinction is difficult.
If Phlebas wants to argue that war is bad or that civilians are unnecessarily caught up in war zones, fine. I just wish (s)he would stop making the case that it is American policy to kill civilians in Iraq.
E the Wise
July 3, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Hence your hostility towards detecting, stopping, fighting and killing Al-Qaeda?
I think we’re doing a fantastic job of fighting Al Qaeda from Afghanistan by declaring war on the Ba’athists and occupying Iraq. It’ll be even better when we continue to fight the Sunni bastards by declaring war on Shi’ite Iran and sending our troops to occupy that country, or at least the oil producing bits of it. That’ll really show bin Laden who’s boss.
If Phlebas wants to argue that war is bad or that civilians are unnecessarily caught up in war zones, fine. I just wish (s)he would stop making the case that it is American policy to kill civilians in Iraq.
Quite right. That launching a war of aggression is a crime against humanity only applies to, say, Nazis, Serbs and Iraqis. It doesn’t apply when we do it, because we are righteous, and therefore everything we do has to be assessed by what we say we’re doing it for rather than the actual results.
Phlebas
July 3, 2007 at 7:42 pm
“Quite right. That launching a war of aggression is a crime against humanity only applies to, say, Nazis, Serbs and Iraqis.”
Gosh, I forgot the 17 U.N. resolutions that were violated by Saddam. Boy, if only we had kept on hoping Saddam would obey the sanctions of the world body then he most certainly would have. Talk about actual results! Thanks so much Phlebas for your grand analysis. And thanks for helping all of us to see that we are simply nazi’s, serbs, and Islamofacists at heart.
E the Wise
July 3, 2007 at 8:19 pm
True angst when it is hard bought is a wondrous thing to behold in its terrible beauty! Only the young and vigorous or the slightly older with few responsibilities can afford the energy and time it takes to internalize extreme views and attain that kind of result.
Making outlandish and patently false statements in a histrionic way for affect is not just Paris Hilton’s purview. The Iraq War is not a war of aggression. It is not even worth a half-assed discussion that it could be one. If that silly view bleated out in desperation “A.J. Soprano Style” at Starbucks helps one get laid then more power to you. Otherwise it really is nonsense.
In any event it really has nothing to do with whether we should take terrorist attacks seriously that happen in western countries. I think that was the point of the thread? Anytime terrorism, or hell anything that can possibly be linked even tangentially to Bush is mentioned online these days it causes some child to rush in to do the intellectual equivalent of going potty in the corner by declaring “Nazi!”, “Illegal!”, “Oil” or the favorite “We are the real Terrorists!”. I assume it is felt to have greater affect if it truly is seen as distractive and not productive.
I guess some will see this as a personal attack, and maybe it is. So is accusing somebody of being a Nazi. Don’t Ya Think?
pgwarner
July 3, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Excellent points by PG.
E the Wise
July 3, 2007 at 8:31 pm
Gosh, I forgot the 17 U.N. resolutions that were violated by Saddam.
All of which specifically referenced Article 42 of the Charter, of course.
Boy, if only we had kept on hoping Saddam would obey the sanctions of the world body then he most certainly would have.
Indeed. The massive amounts of WMDs found in Iraq only demonstrate the true wisdom of the path we have chosen.
The Iraq War is not a war of aggression.
Obviously not. The hordes of Iraqi soldiers with waterwings strapped on lined up and just waiting to swim the Atlantic and invade New York were a clear and present danger to the United States.
Anytime terrorism, or hell anything that can possibly be linked even tangentially to Bush is mentioned online these days it causes some child to rush in to do the intellectual equivalent of going potty in the corner by declaring “Nazi!”, “Illegal!”, “Oil” or the favorite “We are the real Terrorists!”.
Of course. Why do people not see that invading the sovereign country of Iraq was an obvious response to an attack by a Saudi terrorist based in Afghanistan? Fools!
Phlebas
July 3, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Again, Phlebas’ points would be taken so much more serious if he showed the sophistication to make an actual statement or written version of his ideology. Instead he just parrots whatever is written like a two year old.
Additionally, if (s)he actually had something to say about the scores of other topics we cover, one might be more inclined to enjoy having Phlebas around.
Okay phlebas, we get it. Iraq was a soverign, law abiding nation. The U.S. is a nation of cold-blooded killers. WMD’s were the only reason we gave for invading. Bush is bad. Jack Murtha is always correct. Etc. Etc. Etc.
Your talking points are a breath of fresh air!
E the Wise
July 3, 2007 at 10:51 pm