angry

[jaina]

You all know that I almost never talk politics on this journal. But today I'm making a special exception. From the AP:

Speaking in a ballroom just a few miles north of ground zero, Karl Rove said the Democratic party did not understand the consequences of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"Liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers," Rove said Wednesday night. "Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war."

Okay, in the first place, that's blatantly false. Blatantly. In the second place, that is a fucking disgusting thing to say, on SO many levels. It's crude. It's divisive. It smacks of opportunism. And did I mention the part where it's COMPLETELY UNTRUE!?

So, so angry right now. The whole mess about cutting public broadcasting funding isn't helping my mood, either.

Comments

[hokie.livejournal.com]

You're completely ignoring the "that had no concern for human beings part," the rest was throwing out examples.

See, a fair reading of the quote has it sound like a multiple choice question. Suppose you got this description without knowing its source. Would you think it described the actions of a) Nazis, b) Soviets, c) Khmer Rouge, or d) Americans? And Durbin's point was that almost nobody would choose d), even though it's the correct answer. I don't see how this is difficult. He didn't say "This is what the Nazis did, we are no different from them." He didn't say "This is the Holocaust all over again." He said "We are not different enough from these groups, because if you got this account, you would choose, rather than it having been committed by Americans, that it had been committed by some group with no respect for other human beings. But guess what? It was us. Shouldn't we be better than that?"

Good lord, spare me the manufactured outrage. Was it a stupid thing to do? Yes, because you knew what was coming? But inappropriate? Hardly. Hell, those techniques were used by the Nazis and Soviets, though the Nazis eventually found (or their leading interrogators did, anyway), that torture wasn't effective at all. How's that for irony? In any case, that's certainly not how I want my representatives acting.

As for the rest of your nonsense, I'll let other people read it for how ridiculous it is. There's a reason that position is called a "stress position." Durbin also described how the prisoners defecated themselves, how the temperatures were left for hours to be well over 100 degrees, and how they weren't given food or water for extended periods of time.

So you can go on chortling about how easy they have it, what with your privileged little existence. But you know what? It doesn't matter. Because it's from an FBI agent detailing what he referred to as abusive behavior. And yes, almost everyone this side of Rush Limbaugh does think it's abusive behavior. There's a reason that wasn't what any outrage was over.

If my comment was meritless, yours was just completely insipid and without any sort of connection to reality other than an attempt to justify the preconceived notion you'd gotten and won't change. It must be nice to not have to worry about integrity or fair readings when outrage and mockings based on strawmen will suffice.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

good Lord, Hokie, you're a piece of work.
"the multiple choice question" of Durbin's bears no merit b/c regardless of how uncomfortable the terrorists in Gitmo are made, their treatment is nothing compared to those in the camps of any of the evil regimes he mentioned.
'fair' reading?
give me a break.
the fact that you don't find his comments inappropriate tells me all i need to know about you and your character.
guess we can just agree to despise each other. whoopee.

as for the rest of your nonsense, i'll let others read it for how ridiculous it is.

[hokie.livejournal.com]

Again, you're completely missing the point, after apparently skipping all of my response except for the multiple choice part.

I'll repeat this one more time, then add this entire exchange to the list along with others you've engaged in such as "poor people are poor because they did drugs or dropped out of school."

Durbin's point was nothing other than what the Israeli historian Avi Schlaim once wrote: "The issue isn't whether or not we are the same as the Nazis, the issue is that we aren't different enough." Now, you can agree or disagree with that all you want, but don't misrepresent the damned point in order to score some rhetorical cheap shots.

There. I'm done.

[mainframe76.livejournal.com]

i disagree with that statement.

there; i'm done, too.
yipee.