Hard to Argue with This

…take on our media and particularly on the demagogues and enemies of America at Fox:

Someday, in the Great Assizes, it will be shown how many innocent people (including honorable men forced to follow orders by our Ruling Class) have been killed because a media “content provider” was suffering from a form of martial coitus interruptus with the State’s war machine.

Speaking of which, the reliably war-worshipping John McCain called Russia’s Syria plan a stall tactic. “Mr. McCain made the comments at a Seib & Wessel breakfast hosted by The Wall Street Journal.”

  • The Deuce

    John McCain called Russia’s Syria plan a stall tactic.

    Well, it obviously is, but I’m glad for it nonetheless, and glad to see McCain’s panties in a frustrated wad.

    • Kristen inDallas

      when it comes to war… stall tactics are the best tactics

      • S. Murphy

        “Jaw, Jaw, Jaw is better than War, War, War.”

        (I think it rhymes if you’re Winston Churchill)

  • Newp Ort

    Great Asssizes, according to me: big, bigger.

  • wlinden

    One could argue that there is no “international community” to “turn over” things to. How can an abstraction take custody of tangible weapons?

    • Imp the Vladaler

      The first rule of International Law is that there is no such thing as “International Law.”

      • chezami

        So much for the Nuremburg Trials.

        • Imp the Vladaler

          Victor’s justice. Which is not to say that the punishments meted out there against the Nazis weren’t just, but remind me: how many Allied war crimes were tried at Nuremburg? Was it zero? Zero Allied war crimes? Who was in the dock for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Was it no one?

          “International Law” only exists to the extent that nations feel like participating it, or can force others to participate in it. This is a good layman’s overview of the illusion of international law: http://chuckcowdery.blogspot.com/2013/09/the-illusion-that-is-international-law.html

          • S. Murphy

            Why are you blaming Victor?

            • Imp the Vladaler

              In this case, Victor didn’t put Russians on trial for their war crimes, nor American submariners for employing unrestricted submarine warfare.

  • Dave G.

    I missed that segment. But I caught MSNBC showing a Stephen Colbert segment where Colbert rips into Rand Paul for his position against military strikes. The point was that Paul was being radically inconsistent. But I got this gnawing feeling that the clips Colbert and company were using were heavily edited against Paul’s favor. I wonder how often that happens.

  • Rosemarie

    +J.M.J+

    Okay, I’m calling BS on this. I’ve been watching Fox News and a *lot* of the talking heads there have been opposed to the bombing of Syria. Including Sean Hannity, BTW.

    In that three second-long clip Stewart played, Hannity only says “Now Vladimir Putin has filled the leadership gap.” He’s not bemoaning the fact that we may not have to bomb Syria after all, he’s just criticizing Obama for leaving a “leadership gap.” I actually watched Hannity this week and he was definitely *not* in favor of Obama’s plan to bomb Syria! Neither are Eric Bolling and Laura Ingram, other conservative commentators. In fact, it’s mostly liberals on Fox News like Bill Beckel and Juan Williams who have been the most outspoken advocates of attacking Syria.

    (One big exception would be Bill O’Reilly who is in favor, though his viewership largely disagrees with him. His latest online poll asks “If Congress passes military action against Syria would you support it?” As of now, 90% of his viewers voted “No!”)

    Yet Stewart actually says that “Fox opposes a Syria peace plan” (an exact quote from him at about 3:42 on the Daily Show clip), as though the entire channel is against it. Sorry, but that is a lie. I’ve heard commentators on Fox both for and against the bombing of Syria over the past week. The channel has not been pushing a single agenda on this.

    If The Daily Show were honest, they would have showed Eric Bolling on The Five last week, holding up a “bloody” hand (smeared with ketchup) and saying that we shouldn’t be so quick to spill the blood of Syrians and of our own troops:

    http://www.mediaite.com/tv/the-fives-eric-bolling-holds-up-bloody-hand-in-protest-war-in-syria/

    But I guess that would have taken more than five seconds to show, and would have blown the Daily Show’s narrative of Fox News as bloodthirsty conservative warmongers.

    I’ve warned here before against trusting an entertainment program that strings together a bunch of five-second (or less) clips ripped out of context and tries to create an impression from that. Now I have proof of how deceptive they are. Anyone here who was taken in by this Daily Show clip – you have been played.

    • wlinden

      Don’t you know that “Fox” is a hive mind, like “The Vatican”, and like Mark’s “conservatives”?

      • Rosemarie

        +J.M.J+

        Then it’s a hive mind with multiple personality disorder. :-)

        Really, though, there’s a *lot* of different opinions expressed on Fox News. Why does no one believe me when I say that? I actually watch the channel and I hear the debates. And if 90% of those watching the O’Reilly Factor disagree with O’Reilly on this, then so much for Fox News’s viewership being brainwashed idiots who will mindlessly believe whatever they see and hear on that channel.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X