October 13th, 2006 4:06 am
“There are a lot of things about this war that disturb me and one of them is the attitude, that you know, that was well expressed by our President. He said it very clearly, he said either you’re with us or you’re against us. And I had a problem with that because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet. You know, what if you haven’t made your mind up? You know, what if you’re thinking about it, doing some studying, doing some reading because it’s an important decision to go to war or whether or not to go to war. I mean, you’re either with us or you’re against us, that’s pretty black and white.”
Defenders are claiming he was referring to the Iraq war. So they’re either lying or stupid… because President Bush gave the “You are either with us or against us” speech on November 6, 2001, long before the start of the Iraq war… referring to the War on Terror. So is Ted Turner a traitor or an idiot… or both?
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Texas Rainmaker is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Graphics by: Margolis Media Works | Style by: Lisa Sabin - E.Webscapes
Both!
Comment by Old Soldier — 6:09 am
Ted Turner is both stupid AND a traitor. Once again a leftist thug spins a lie to make a vacuous point. They will stoop to anything to bring down George W. Bush…who, by the way, isn’t even a real Conservative. The man is a moderate Republican. It’s the Christianity issue that drives the left insane…besides the fact that they couldn’t steal the 2000 election, as hard as they tried. All things anti-Bush are related to those two issues.
Comment by Righ-Wing Hard-Ass — 7:07 am
I saw Ted Turner answer this question at the National Press Club that day. The audience actually just sat there and responded as though it was a perfectly normal answer. Ted’s problem is he thinks as a globalist, not an American.
Comment by Karen — 9:00 am
Both–joint trial and execution with Ghadan would work for me.
Comment by Ay Uaxe — 9:07 am
Wow, TR, you totally missed the boat with this post.
a) The title makes no sense, because Turner isn’t opting for black or white, he’s holding out for a less simplistic position. You can fault him for not blindly supporting Bush, but he is clearly not debating whether to side with the terrorists. He rejects the us/them dichotomy altogether, so why are you shoving it back down his throat?
b) Just because Bush used the “with us or against us” line in November 2001 doesn’t make it irrelevant to Iraq. This mantra turned out to be highly relevant to Iraq and how the plans were made.
c) A random point: I clicked on the Hot Air link, and you know what the rebuttal to Turner’s comments were? Pictures of the World Trade Center being bombed. Are right-wingers so defieicent in rational analysis these days that all they can do for rebuttal is to respond with pictures? Pathetic.
Comment by Nate — 6:26 pm
“but he is clearly not debating whether to side with the terrorists”
He said:
He hadn’t made up his mind about whether he was “with us or against us”. You can try and spin it, but his words are very clear.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 7:25 pm
The whole problem is that it is a false choice. I teach a remedial reading and writing class right now, and some of the logic rules the students learn to identify is this one: “Just because an author presents two choices doesn’t mean there aren’t other choices.”
Turner was obviously trying to convey the fact that he hadn’t made up his mind about wether the war would be a good idea for the US, and your Clintonesque word parsing is the spin.
Comment by Nate — 1:49 pm
“your Clintonesque word parsing is the spin.”
Funny how you accuse me of parsing when I’m the one taking his words at face value and you’re the one trying to invent meanings.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 3:08 pm
Nate, when specifically talking about terrorists, what are the other choices besides “with us or against us”?
I suppose you could be totally neutral, but what else is there?
Comment by SouthernRoots — 2:36 pm
SouthernRoots, you can agree that terrorism has to be fought, but disagree with the means that the US administration has chosen to do it. Not only because those means have - in many instances - been illegal, but also because the entire approach has been counterproductive.
Nate is right that “you’re with us or against us” is simply a false choice. It is wrong to be asked to abdicate the right to disagree. People that don’t want to blindly follow the federal government should reject being forced to make this kind of choice. Americans pledge allegiance to the flag, not to the president or its administration.
Republicans should be all over this one, fighting the presidential power grab. When a Democratic president (eventually) takes over, he’ll be using all the presidential powers that Bush is laying claim to. I guess you’ll agree that that is not a pretty prospect.
Comment by endorendil — 2:10 am
“Republicans should be all over this one, fighting the presidential power grab. When a Democratic president (eventually) takes over, he’ll be using all the presidential powers that Bush is laying claim to. I guess you’ll agree that that is not a pretty prospect.”
As I said before, I only wish a Democrat would have the fortitude to use it.
But I see where you’re going with this comment and I appreciate your acknowledgement that Democrats tend to abuse such powers against political opponents rather than enemies of this country. Otherwise, why would I worry about a President having the authority to spy on terrorists? Why would I worry about a President seeking military tribunals for enemies captured on the battlefield? Why would I worry about a President going to Congress to seek authorization for the use of force against a declared enemy? The only thing I’d worry about when a President has “all the presidential powers that Bush is laying claim to” is that they’d abuse it against their political opponents for political gain and payback. And yes, I agree with you, that is a scary prospect. But it’s also why a Democrat won’t win the Presidency again for a long time to come.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 5:24 am
TR, I believe that both Democratic and Republican presidents will use the full power of the presidency. It is very, very hard to say no to power. While I will agree more with the goals of a Democratic president than with a Republican one, I see both as a danger to what little there is left of American democracy.
And you’re betraying a little more than bias when you call warrantless wiretapping “the authority to spy on terrorists”. The federal government now has the power to spy on anyone it deems dangerous. And this is the federal governments’ power, not just the president’s power. It’s not like Bush signs of on each warrantless tap, weighing the merits of infringing on someone’s civil rights against the possibility that they might be doing something illegal. After a few years, any ol’ hack in the CIA, FBI, IRS or the Department of Alcohol, Firearms and Tobacco (DAFT) will have found a way to do these things with whomever they want to track.
The same holds for “enemies captured on the battlefield”. Since the US has designated entire countries as battlefields, and does such dumb things as believing warlords about their prisoners, yeah, you should worry. Not only because innocent people go to US prisons, where they don’t even have habeas corpus protection, but also because this kind of behaviour will further discredit the US internationally, and breed justified hatred in the targeted populations.
Am I correct in interpreting your post as saying that you believe Republican presidents would not abuse their power against political opponents? How about Nixon? Or do extremely stupid military things behind the back of the congress? Such as selling weapons to the mullahs, and supporting death squads in Nicaragua, courtesy of the Great Communicator?
Wake up, TR. These days gullibility really is dangerous. Unrestrained Republican presidents are as dangerous as Democratic ones.
Comment by endorendil — 8:40 am
In all of the abdicated disagreeing you are “not” doing, what viable alternatives have you been proposing? Do you agree that we need to cut off terrorist financing? Do you agree that we need to be actively looking for terrorists and those who aid them? Since your side has disagreed with the government’s methods in these areas, what methods do you propose to achieve the same end result – the safety of Americans at home?
Again, besides with us, against us and totally neutral – what are the other alternatives that are not “false choices”? The WTC destruction was planned and set up on Clinton’s watch. It was executed on Bush’s watch – before we were in Iraq (i.e. don’t give me an Iraq based excuse). What “choices” do you propose that would have stopped this attack, or others like it?
As to Bush’s “power grab” – I don’t worry about that as much as I worry about the power grab that the courts have taken over the last 40-50 years. We can vote out a president, senator, or congressman. We cannot vote out federal judges. By the way, what were those 900 FBI files doing in the residence of the White House during Clinton’s term? What “power grab” was in play on that one?
I pledge allegiance to the flag as a symbol of the Constitution and this country. To burn the flag in protest is to symbolically burn the Constitution and the nation it represents. If I disagree with the government, I will do it without burning the national symbol.
Comment by SouthernRoots — 10:59 am
TR,
Since context seems to mean nothing to you, why don’t you take at face value these words by President Bush on Osama Bin Laden on March 13, 2002:
“And, again, I don’t know where he is. I — I’ll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
Is Bush for us or is he against us? We can play this game forever, but you at least ought to admit you are applying a different standard to Ted Turner than you do to your own side.
Comment by Nate — 9:52 pm
Pretty lame Nate.
Comment by SouthernRoots — 10:10 pm
SouthernRoots, explain why using Bush’s own words is “lame”, please.
As to alternatives, here are some ideas. Going to war in Afghanistan was premature: more forces were needed there, and the result is that AQ and the Taliban were not definitively defeated - and are poised to win in the end. Iraq was irrelevant in this entire matter, and it could have become an ally in containing Iran. In stead Iraq completely ties down what’s left of the army, and it is set to become an even more resounding defeat than Vietnam. Withdrawing from Saudi-Arabia would not have caused any military problems for the US, while removing a major incentive for AQ’s Jihad. And we don’t have to support Israel with a blindfold on and our noses held. Especially when a genocidal murderer such as Sharon (Sabra/Shatillah) rules it.
If you want to look for a nation that deals with militant Islam resolutely, if perhaps overzealously, look at France. If you want one that simply does what militant islamists what they want, look at the US.
I don’t believe that the US has the best approach to organizing civil society. Its central authority is weak and pathologically afraid of religion. Especially the Republicans are entirely spineless on the matter. But be that as it may, within the framework of the American Idealism, there is no place for cowardice such as Bush’s. It is simply unacceptable for a US president to trade personal freedoms for vague promises of safety, and reject any form of accountability for that “tradeoff”. Bush has declared many ancient freedoms and rights to be inappropriate (”quaint”) for this day and age, and has refused to justify that or have it properly checked. Bush does not believe at all in the very idea behind the US. Why else would he believe that killing a few thousand Americans would matter? Hundreds of thousands died for the creation of this country. How can anyone believe that 9/11 would make any difference? Have Americans grown that cowardly? Are they all just Republican pussies? If they have, then perhaps the American Idea simply isn’t worth fighting for. If Bush is right, the US isn’t worth dying for.
Similarly, if you think that burning a flag is going to hurt the US, you didn’t really believe in the American Idea all that much. If Freedom really means that much to you, you shouldn’t be willing to trade even an inch of it for a vague promise of security.
Comment by endorendil — 4:56 pm
“If you want to look for a nation that deals with militant Islam resolutely, if perhaps overzealously, look at France.”
Oh yes, France is a shining example.
Comment by Texas Rainmaker — 6:35 pm
If you want to look for a nation that deals with militant Islam resolutely, if perhaps overzealously, look at France.
Holy shizit…did he just ask us to use France as a model of dealing with Islamic jihadists?? That has to rank right up there with one of the absolute stupidest things I’ve heard from endo…even more so than “Bubba’s North Korea nuke giveaway was a smashing success”!
France? Slouching towards dhimmitude and we should model ourselves after them?!? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA!
Comment by Jonathan — 8:05 pm
Where to start? Ok - explain how Bush’s words about OBL 5 years after the fact make Bush not still serious about “with us or against us”. The example Nate gave and the support was weak at best.
I think that in both Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. got too caught up in the “multilateralism” demands and instead of going in with overwhelming force and finishing the job decisively, we wanted to prove we weren’t conquerers or occupationists, so we backed off for political and “cultural sensitivity” reasons.
France as the right way to approach Jihadists? TR and Jonathom are right. How many weeks of riots were there? How many cars were torched? How many windows of businesses were smashed? How much of that has occurred here in the U.S.?
Well, if that’s your starting reference, no wonder there are so many things you don’t understand about this country. Freedom of speech, though good, does has its drawbacks if you want absolute civility.
What personal freedoms have you lost? Look at the PC movement around the nation. Look at the overly litigious society that, because of the fear of lawsuits, stifles far more freedoms than any law passed by congress.
As for the flag - burn it all you want (but, if you can, use common sense as to where you burn it). I explained why I would not.
Comment by SouthernRoots — 10:58 am
Yeah TR, exactly. Even though militant secularism causes a whole lot of trouble, France sticks to its guns. The US, on the other hand, is simply powerless against militant religion. Hey, explain to us again why creationism should be taught in public schools.
Jonathan, explain why it’s okay for American kids to go to religious schools that can teach whatever they want, no matter how retarded it is. For that matter, explain why kids can be “taught” at home. Do you know the single greatest reason why people join Unitarian Universalist churches? Because they want their kids to be able to answer when they’re asked “what church do you guys attend?”.
Incidentally, France has a large muslim population, has historical ties to muslim populations, and - like everyone else in western europe - is geographically close to major muslim power centers. Not to mention that they will be in reach of Iranian nukes. The US has it easy, comparatively.
SouthernRoots. You say: “I think that in both Afghanistan and Iraq the U.S. got too caught up in the “multilateralism” demands and instead of going in with overwhelming force and finishing the job decisively, we wanted to prove we weren’t conquerers or occupationists, so we backed off for political and “cultural sensitivity” reasons.”. Too multilateral, too sensitive? What should they have done, go in with less than one ally? Should they just have napalmed the entire country and let god sort them out, or make like An Coulter and force them to convert to christianity? Can you send me some of the stuff you’re smoking? I realise it’s not the flag, but it sure has some toxic fumes….
Comment by endorendil — 5:32 pm
endorendil - sorry to burst your bubble, but I don’t smoke, and even if I did, it appears to me that you have much higher grade smoking stuff.
Gee, if I were to rephrase your sentence mocking non-Christian schools would that start more riots?
As for your distaste of my comments about the war, tough. We made some political decisions that have produced an end result not necessarily in our favor, one example being how we handled Sadr. Those decisions are made for political and cultural reasons and I’m not required to like them.
Vietnam was lost politically, not militarily. For political and cultural reasons, the military was limited in what they could do. When our troops are put in harms way, we need to be extremely selective in when we hold them back.
When I speak of cultural issues, I include the culture of people like Ted Turner and the Democrats and the liberals that constantly decry our efforts and embolden our enemies to hold on a little longer - just as the North Vietnamese did.
Of the demands and pronouncments Al Qaeda has made, which approach to the GWOT (Dems or Repubs) will give AQ most of what they want?
Your thinly veiled hatred of Christianity doesn’t help progress conversation. All I really have to say on that subject is, on those nights where you don’t sleep well and are restless, it’s probably because some Christian somewhere is praying for you.
Comment by SouthernRoots — 7:47 pm
SouthernRoots, I don’t think Christianity is a problem, or, for that matter, Islam. But extremism is a serious problem. And it’s not just religious extremism either - any ideology has its fringes. The US’s handling of religion has allowed the lunatic fringe to become perilously close to mainstream. That’s a problem.
You can call of the god squad. I do my own praying, thank you very much. I’ld include you in mine, but I don’t believe that that works. But your thought is appreciated.
I agree that Vietnam was lost politically, in some sense. But the root problem was that militarily, it was a stalemate for far too long and at too high a cost. As long as retreat is a real option, it will - eventually - be chosen. One can call that a political defeat, but it is an inevitable consequence of a military stalemate. Arguably, Iraq is different, in that the US seems to be actually losing this one militarily (it’s not a stalemate since things are deteriorating, and the army can’t increase its effort anymore).
The idea that the Iraqi insurgents need to hear from Americans that they are winning or justified seems farfetched. They know the score - they see the carnage they inflict on US and Iraqi forces. They see the bodybags fly out - even if Americans do not. They see how afraid the Iraqi government is. I am sure they do follow the news, especially the army reports on its casualties, army newspaper stories on how many vehicles have been destroyed, and how big the backlog is for repairs. I’m sure they carefully follow DoD discussions on how to keep the current force strength up, and how much all of this is costing. I’m sure they’re heartened when they hear that some troopers refused deployment, and that army recruiting has become so difficult that the army lowers its standards. But I’m sure that they don’t need to hear Ted speak in order to know that they might have some valid reasons to hate the US, or a shot at defeating it. That’s simply BS. If you don’t like to hear the other side of a debate, that’s fine, bail on the debate. But don’t try to stop it.
As to who gives AQ most of what they want, that’s easy. The US is bleeding financially, its army is under heavy strain, its reputation is blown to bits, its vestigial democracy is creaking under the pressure from the presidential power grab. I’m not sure what more AQ could want. It knows from experience that it can take a decade before a major power admits defeat. I don’t think that they’re in a rush. As long as the cost of the war remains high, they just have to bide their time.
Comment by endorendil — 9:22 am
“The US’s handling of religion has allowed the lunatic fringe to become perilously close to mainstream. That’s a problem.” Which lunatic fringe are you referring to?
“But the root problem was that militarily, it was a stalemate for far too long and at too high a cost.”
The stalemate wasn’t caused by the military, it was caused by political decisions.
“Arguably, Iraq is different, in that the US seems to be actually losing this one militarily (it’s not a stalemate since things are deteriorating, and the army can’t increase its effort anymore).”
I disagree with this statement. Also, if we are training Iraqis why do we need to increase our forces? If you look at all the Iraqi units trained and added to the current force, there has been an increase in troops. They may not be as well trained as US forces, but they aren’t “nothing” either.
“That’s simply BS. If you don’t like to hear the other side of a debate, that’s fine, bail on the debate. But don’t try to stop it.”
Who’s stopping the debate? How have YOU been stifled in speaking out against the war or Administration? I want to see our troops and our country win in Iraq. An important component is the will to win and I will do all I can to show our troops that we do have the will to win.
In Vietnam, the will to win took a hammering and we decided to get out - at the cost of millions of lives in SE Asia. Why would we want to do this again?
What about you? All policy issues aside, do you want us to win in Iraq?
Comment by SouthernRoots — 11:03 am
SouthernRoots, I think this is one of the core fallacies about Iraq: “Also, if we are training Iraqis why do we need to increase our forces?”. It is of course true that the US military is training Iraqis to fight. Unfortunately, it appears to be training the wrong Iraqis. Entire police squadrons turn into death squads, Iraqi soldiers leave their posts without a trace. Terrorists, insurgents and militiamen can get free training from the US, get a close look at their enemy and learn their tactics, then turn around and use what they’ve learned on the Iraqi army, police or US troops.
That is why you need to pacify the country with US troops first. Just training Iraqis and hoping that they’re on our side is rather, um, optimistic. In light of the experience of the past few years, one could call it naive.
The problem in Iraq is not the will to win, it is a strategy to win. The country was strongly behind the war in the first two to three years. In that time, things went straight to hell. So it is the strategy that is failing.
As to my personal feelings, I think that winning in Iraq would be great, but I don’t see a realistic way for that to happen. The US went in with too few troops (as Shinseki predicted), made huge mistakes (disbanding the police and the army, playing loose with Iraqi civilian lives, bringing in Iraqi expatriates with axes to grind, not doing much reconstruction …) and has refused to admit that things were not going well (first step to fixing a problem is admitting that it exists). But I certainly agree that the US shouldn’t leave Iraq. Hell, it shouldn’t be allowed to. As Powell said before the invasion “you break it, you fix it”. So more American troops need to go to Iraq, and the retreat to large megabases needs to be reversed (force protection isn’t why we’re there) in favour of a much closer engagement with both friends and enemies. A long-term commitment has to be made as clear and binding as possible: the US could sign a treaty with the Iraqi government, pledging to maintain this elevated troop strength for at least 10 years. It may need to reintroduce the draft to enable the army to do this, or increase pay and benefits for military personnel to significantly increase its size. It should reinstate the old standards for recruits, perhaps even strengthening them (there’s anecdotal evidence that some gangs are sending foot soldiers to the army for the training and the experience). It needs to commit more funds to rebuilding Iraq, engage Iran constructively and actively try to improve ties with muslims worldwide.
Do I think that this is going to happen? Not really, Bush didn’t have the guts to ask for it when he could, and he no longer can. It will be very, very expensive, but then that should have been clear at the outset. The next president might do it, but that’s two years off, and things get worse by the day. Maybe if Bush buys the farm, Cheney could push it through. I want this disaster to be contained as much as possible. How do you think it can be won?
Comment by endorendil — 1:32 pm