When you look at something like the AP's covering for John McCain as he embarrassingly jokes about his desire to kill Iranian civilians, it's worth considering how the AP would have reported this if the shoe were on the other foot. Ahmadenijad makes a "joke," at a political rally, about killing Americans. Soft-focus human interest story? I doubt it. Heck, what would John McCain's reaction be if that happened?
« Absolute Disgrace Video | Main | Clinton Against FISA »
Killing Jokes Revisited
09 Jul 2008 04:22 pm
Comments (26)
Or, for that matter, what if Obama had made a similar statement?
Unfortunately, I have to discount anything the AP says about McCain and the GE this year.
Sidoti, et al. are the lickspittles of the McCain campaign.
Matt, you Commie! Don't you understand that there's nothing funny about the killing of Americans? It's only the killing of Iranian civilians that's funny. You just GOTTA' chuckle about causing cancer in brown people.
I read this as "Killing Joke Revisited", and thought of this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=cVgMEsMZdcQ
Gee, you mean the MSM might treat one person's joke differently than another's based solely on the MSM's preconceived notion of the persons involved? Really? You're kidding. Someone go and tell Trent Lott!
Seriously, though, it's remarkable how often Republicans get caught making jokes about killing people. There's a basic immaturity at work here.
This ties into your point about conservatives and patriotism. They assume everyone knows that America is TEH BEST EVAR!!!!1!!! and so American leaders joking about killing people must be seen in light of America being TEH B3ST EVARRR!11!!!!!.
Al, if you're talking about the Strom Thurmond thing, I don't recall Lott ever claiming his controversial comments were intended as a joke. His line was that it was intended as praise. So WTF is the relevance exactly?
Hey I got a good killing joke for you - what if some patriotic hero blew out that madman McCain's brains with a high powered rifle?
Hahaha.
Hey, why is no one laughing?
Voice of reason wins the thread.
Meanwhile, I'm now waiting on Matt to acknowledge the existence of the Iran resolution - probably the most important resolution the Congress will pass this year - and if Bush uses it to start a war with Iran, the most important resolution in US history.
And Matt, as usual, can't be bothered to comment.
One of the co-sponsors doesn't even like it!
Iran Resolution Must Change
by Representative Robert Wexler
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-robert-wexler/iran-resolution-must-chan_b_111663.html
In the coming weeks, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, of which I am a member, may vote on House Concurrent Resolution 362. Given my growing concerns regarding this resolution, including its failure to advocate for direct American engagement with Tehran and open language that could lead to a US blockade of Iran, I will lead an effort to make changes to this resolution before it comes to the Foreign Affairs committee for a vote. Despite being a cosponsor of this resolution -- these changes will ultimately determine whether or not I will continue to support H. Con. Res. 362.
My rationale for originally supporting H. Con. Res. 362, which currently has 230 cosponsors, was to urge the Bush administration to pursue a policy to place additional economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran as part of an international endeavor to prevent Tehran from moving forward on its nuclear program. Given my intense distrust of President Bush and his administration's disastrous foreign policy record, I also sponsored legislation (H. R. 3119), which if passed into law would prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran unless authorized by Congress and prevents the president from unilaterally going to war.
It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that "nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran" that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as "a green light" to use force against Iran.
The language that is most disconcerting in the resolution is the third resolved clause, which demands that the president initiate among several things an "international effort to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran."
I firmly believe it was not the intention of the authors of this resolution to open the door to a US blockade or armed conflict with Iran. However, I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum.
To that end, I am not willing to leave even the "slightest crack" open for this president to unilaterally set this nation down another disastrous path of war in Iran. It is unacceptable for Congress once again to leave the door open for President Bush to exploit -- as he did when Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq in a 2002 resolution. I believe it is essential that Congress remove the language in H. Con. Res. 362 that could lead to president Bush's unilateral imposition of a blockade on Iran.
Of course the MSM covered for Trent Lott and it was JMM that brought it out.
But isn't Al's idea of comedy just great? Segregation? Funny! Killing Iranians? Hilliarious!
More imporantly, what does McCain's crack say about his view on domestic tobacco policy?
More importantly, what does McCain's crack say about his view on domestic tobacco policy?
Don't you watch Bill O'Reilly? The MSM is in the tank for Obama. And that means it was good for Obama that McCain's joke was covered up, because, after all, it is a howler. I mean, I want to see Iranians killed just as much as the next guy, but by cigarettes? Hilarious.
MY - Ahmadenijad makes a "joke," at a political rally, about killing Americans. Soft-focus human interest story? I doubt it.
Quite a difference between McCain or Ahmadinejad wishing the other side would croak on their sides goods - die of cigarettes, die from high fat pstachios choking American arteries...and the rather...direct...military threats Ahmadinejad has made against Israel and the US Navy.
Worry not. The man who proclaimed future generations remembering the moment of his nomination as the moment the sick began to be cured, the ocean's rise slowed, and the planet begins to heal will just have to sit down and talk to the Iranians to make everything all better.
Why is Jesse Jackson so jealous about Obamessiah, the planet-healer?? The honey dripping Oracle of World Peace and liberal Jewish moral redemption? Why does he hate the Black Messiah so???
What amazes me about all the Iran stupidity coming from Bush, McCain and the MSM is that anyone who knows anything about Iran's position in the middle east knows that whenever Ahmadinejad threatens Israel or the "great satan", he is just playing tough for his base. The country, the military of which is not controlled by him, has absolutely no interest in attacking anyone (well, they used to want to attach Iraq, but we fixed that little problem for them). The actual rulers of Iran (the clerics) know that attacking Israel would be like signing their own death warrants and would rain horrible devastation on Iran.
On the other hand, whenever Bush, who does control our military, threatens and swaggers around talking tough, he is also playing to his base. The difference is he means it, as he has shown over and over again. So who exactly is the warmonger here? And who promises another 4 years of warmongering idiocy? That would be Bush and McCain baby, all the way!!
As if McCain's warmongering macho swagger wasn't un-presidential enough, he has to pile it on with "jokes" about killing Iranian civilians. The insularity and xenophobia inherent in his comments is just what this country (and the world) doesn't need any more of.
oh, and chris ford, the healing Obama referred to in his speech was with regard to his plan to turn to green and renewable energy solutions so as to not destroy the planet by burning fossil fuels until we run out. I'm pretty sure you knew that, so why spew dumb hateful speech all over this nice little thread? oh... because you're an idiot. Sucks to be you douchebag.
The problem is that the clerics who run the Iranian military have done nothing to retrain the "Death to the Infidel!" chants of the last 29 years, not tried to leash Ahmadinejad even as the US and Israel say they interprete the remarks as credible threats - so the idea that Iran's clerical leaders "secretly, are only bluffing and having fun" doesn't wash.
J Bartlett -
You say Obama's proclaimation that "future generations will mark his Greatness" from the moment of his clinching the nomination....as just Obama implying that they will appreciate his green policies like no other Greenies out there... simply marks you as yet another Black Messiah ball-licker.
Lick away, Bartlett.
A quick guide for those in McCain's media
Killing jokes by John McCain: bad
"The Killing Joke" Batman story by Alan Moore: very, very good
Ford, you don't know fuck all about Iran.
Ahmadinejad has not issued one "credible threat" during his time in office. All the other Iranian generals and the like are issuing threats this week and last week which threaten RETALIATION for any direct attacks such as the threats from the US and Israel over the last five years.
And the official position of Iran is that the Israeli STATE needs to be replaced by a Palestinian state. Nothing whatsoever about military threats, genocide or any of that crap - which Iran couldn't carry out even if they made them and everybody knows that.
So STFU.
Ahmadenijad makes a "joke," at a political rally, about killing Americans...
He doesn't do that. He makes serious statements that signal a desire to exterminate Middle Eastern Jewry. You can credibly guess that McCain intends the same for Iranians. But for some reason you extenuate the former and proactively deplore the latter. Why?
"He makes serious statements that signal a desire to exterminate Middle Eastern Jewry."
Bullshit. He has never done that.
Try to keep up - there are thousands of Jews living in Iran. They have a minister in the Iranian parliament. They are Iranian nationalists who have no desire to leave Iran. They support Iran.
Get a fucking clue or STFU.
Thanks Mr Hack for your clarifications. I would, in response to Mr Pagano, add that I worry more about what McCain says because:
a) he may be our president;
b) McCain's threats are credible* while, as Mr Hack astutely points out, Iran's are not.
* to define our terms here, credible means one has the power to actually follow through on one's threats and has shown in the past the desire and willingness to do so.
Hooray, it's the boring hack Richard Steven Hack, who worms up "astutely" (according to the even more credulous J Bartlett) to parrot official Iranian propaganda. George Galloway got paid for providing that service, what's in it for you, Dick?
J Bartlett, Iran has shown a long history of desire and willingness to attack Israel through its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. And not just Israel: Iran funded and green-lighted Hezbollah to bomb the Asociación Mutual Israelita Argentina in Argentina in 1994. This was a mass-murder of Jews simply for being Jews.
The issue is not so much what Iran is doing today. The issue is what it will mean for it to continue doing what it's doing today with the backing of nuclear arms. (The issue is NOT that Iran will first-strike Tel Aviv with nukes. It won't.) I'm sure you can live with Israel being harmed or destroyed -- Dick sure can -- but a nuclear Mexican stand-off between Israel and Iran will have more than just regional ramifications.
Pagano, get a clue. Iran had nothing to do with the Hizballah bombing in Argentina - that story has been exposed.
Bush's Iran/Argentina Terror Frameup
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080204/porter
US Officials Rejected Key Source on '94 Argentina Bombing
http://www.antiwar.com/porter/?articleid=12254
Second, Iran has no nuclear weapons program and never did, based on the total lack of evidence of same. At best, they had a nuclear weapons database program - exactly the same as militaries in probably dozens of countries.
Third, Israel deserves to be attacked by Hizballah and Hamas. If you don't like that fact, tough.
Well Mr Hack, this is where we part company. I actually support Israel's right to do away with any nuclear weapons program in Iran if in fact they do have one (though I do have concerns that it will destabilize the region -- I just think Israel doesn't have too many options).
Mr Pagano, I am aware of Iran's support for terrorist organizations and support any reasonable efforts to fight back against their indirect attacks on Israel. However, I don't think this is a fight the US should be directly involved in.
The fact is that the US has heavily supported Israel, as you know, for decades. From the perspective of Iran, this looks very similar to its support of groups like Hezbollah. I'm not saying they are correct, but that's the way they look at it.
Let's face it, its a mess; but bombing the crap our of Iran is not the solution. Diplomacy would be a lot more sensible and if, at some point, we decide military intervention is necessary, we will be in a lot better position to get international support for such an endeavor if we restore our credibility as a fair-ish foreign policy broker.
Comments closed July 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
McCain would respond by "Bomb Bomb Bomb, bomb bombing Iran."
Duh.
Posted by Curtis | July 9, 2008 4:43 PM