Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 31, 2006
Mary Katharine Ham :: Townhall.com Columnist
A week with the Left
by Mary Katharine Ham
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



How was your week? I spent mine with Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, and Al Franken, and it was fabulous. No, really. I stumbled on the local “progressive talk” station last week, and the commentary left my jaw on the floorboard of my car so often, I couldn’t manage to turn the station. My jaw was actually in the way of the radio dial.

Maybe that’s the business model. Pack the airwaves with enough crazy and listeners find themselves unable to escape.

I learned many things this week.

1) Al Franken is sane.

Hey, it’s a relative term. In comparison to Randi and Stephanie, I mean. I have a feeling Air America may have hired Rhodes and Miller to make Franken look reasonable. This week, Franken shined by very nearly whole-heartedly acknowledging on the air that Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah’s attacks. I was as surprised as you are.

2) Hezbollah doesn’t exist, and even if it does, it’s certainly not a terrorist group.

Both Randi and Stephanie can do half-hour segments about the Israel-Hezbollah conflict without ever mentioning Hezbollah. They show awe-inspiring restraint. On Air America, Israel is attacking a Middle-Eastern democracy—Lebanon—without provocation in an attempt to, as far as I could tell, just be really evil.

In fact, being really evil is a motivation ascribed to Bush, Cheney, all neocons, and all conservatives for every action they’ve ever taken.

When Hezbollah is mentioned, it is as a progressive, do-gooding civic organization that could use just a bit of refining of its self-detonation-inclined members.

3) The Left has its own issues with sexuality.

On Air America, Ann Coulter is no longer Ann Coulter. She is Mann Coulter or Andy Coulter because no one on the Left airwaves can manage to discern her gender. Randi excoriated Coulter for 10 minutes about insinuating that Bill Clinton and Al Gore were homosexual before herself saying she thought Coulter was probably right about Gore. She then went on questioning Coulter’s sexuality for another five minutes.

4) Want moral authority? Buy a plunger.

Randi shared a story about how she’s making some repairs on her house. Her abode has recently required some roofing and plumbing. It didn’t sound like the repairs were major, but their impact went far beyond her hot-water heater. Randi explained that working on her own house helped her understand, just a little bit, what it might be like to be an Iraqi citizen who comes home one day, and through no fault of his own, finds his home destroyed. Who knew that all it took to feel the pain of 35 years of dictatorial oppression and understand the struggle to live in the face of a brutal insurgency bent on continuing that oppression was a trip the Home Depot? That must be some kind of horrible customer service.

As a bonus, the same home repairs helped Randi understand what it must be like to be a Katrina victim. Apparently, they stock moral authority on Aisle 14.

5) Moral distinction, schmoral distinction.

In one of the more uplifting moments of the week, Stephanie Miller admitted that there was a moral distinction between Israelis who attack terrorists and accidentally kill civilians in the process, and terrorists who deliberately target Israeli citizens and use Lebanese citizens for cover. It didn’t last long before her co-host reminded her that Israelis, in their zeal for being really, really evil, target ambulances and U.N. posts without remorse.

The conclusion of that conversation was, despite the moral distinction, the result was the same in either case—civilians were dead. So, really, there’s no moral distinction at all. Whew, nice save, guys! That was a close one.

6) Bush is dumb, and this is still very, very funny.

You know how sometimes you just want to time-warp back to 2003, or even the 2000 primary season? You can do it on Air America. Anytime you’re yearning for those oldie-but-goodie “Bush is an idiot” jokes, they’re dishing them out. And, they’re still laughing, really hard. At the same joke. Over and over and over again.

7) Peace is good and war is bad.

Who says the American Left can’t be trusted with foreign policy and national security? All of the Air America hosts have plenty to say about it. Our foreign policy should be to make peace, not war. With whom we are making the peace and to whose demands we are caving makes no difference as long as there is peace.

You see, because peace is good and war is bad. War is bad because people die during wars. Republicans, what with their tendency to be really, really evil, are in favor of people dying, particularly innocent civilians. Democrats are in favor of people not dying, which is quite obviously the morally superior position.

That must be some of that nuance they’re always saying Bush lacks. You know, because he’s so dumb. Oh, and evil. Don’t forget evil.

Do yourself a favor and stop in on your local “progressive talk” station every once in a while. I promise you, you’ve never had so much fun doing opposition research.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mary Katharine Ham is a contributor to Townhall Magazine.

Be the first to read Mary Katharine Ham's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

I remember when Franken & Davis were...
funny, but that was SO long ago on SNL. Now I can't stand to even look at Al Franken's sour puss without blowing my groceries...

Yes, this piece was very entertaining
...and I can relate to these morons howling like mad fools at the same ol' "dumb Bush" jokes. My 5-year old daughter busts a gut everytime someone says "poop."

Yes, the similarities between liberals and the 5-year old crowd are right on the money.

Addition
I feel that I should add that I truly enjoy NPR when they are covering non-political topics such as scientific discoveries.

I just find it funny when I listen to NPR, then watch fox the same day and see everything NPR covers AND everything they intentionally ignore because it doesn't support liberal views.

Haha
Haha, I really enjoyed reading this column.

I've been doing my own research on the left in attempt to keep an open mind. After all, if we completely close our minds to anything the left ever has to say then we're no different than the leftists that plug their ears with their fingers saying "lalalalalalalala fox propaganda".

Anyhow, I've been listening to NPR. NPR doesn't try to shove their oppinions down your throats so much as they simply limit coverage to that which supports left views.

For example, for the last 3 weeks there has been little or no coverage of Israeli casualties, suffering, or even justifications for this war. They have focused the entire segments on lebanese casualties and ignorant drivel such as "israel is purposefully targetting red cross vehicles" until recently.

Well said, Jeff
It is important to understand that Liberal-dialog's whole argument is based upon ignorance of history. The argument is based on a very weak foundation and false assumptions. The following time line may of help in educating this individual:
EARLY MUSLIM EXPANSION
634 Death of Abu Bakr, Muhammed's friend, father-in-law, and successor (second Caliph of Islam)
636 Muslim conquest of Damascus
638 Muslim conquest of Jerusalem
639 Muslim conquest of the Byzantine fortress of Babylon (Cairo)
640 Muslim conquest of Alexandria
644 Assasination of Umar, the third Caliph of Islam
651 Persian Empire fell completely under Muslim control
656 Assasination of Uthman, the fourth Caliph of Islam

THE UMMAYYIDS
661 Assasination of Ali, the fifth Caliph of Islam. Beginning of Ummayyid control of the Caliphate of Islam
670 Muslim conquest of North Africa and foundation of the city of Kairawan (modern Tunisia)
682 Death of Mu'awiya, the first Ummayyidd Caliph of Islam. His son Yazid established the hereditary Caliphate
700s Islam introduced south of the Sahara by traders (Africa)
711 Ummayyid armies conquered coastal region of the Maghreb (Morocco). Meanwhile, another Ummayyid army conquered Sind (Idnia)
720 Ummayyid armies controlled everything south of Pyrenees
732 Ummayyid advance force defeated by Franks at Poitiers (France)

It is true that the Muslim objective was not the extermination of other peoples but to spread the word of Allah. However, their preferred method of spreading Islam was to offer other peoples a stark choice between submission or death. A powerful persuasive device. And when people did not submit death came quickly over large areas. This was, and is, called jihad. Of course, it should not be forgotten that the leaders of the jihad also acquired great power and riches in the course of their religious wars.

Liberal_Dialog's second and more egregious misreading of history is the assertion that the Crusaders were attempting to exterminate whole populations. This is so wrong as to be laughable. L_D could read the orignal documents of Christian Europe in the 11th century or read some reputable historians of the era. I would suggest Runciman, Oldebourg, Pernoud or the old standby, the Oxford histories. L_D would discover that the Crusaders motivations were much the same as the Jihadis: to take back their Holy Land, especially Jerusalem, to spread their faith back to land of its origins. Once again, if glory, riches and power could be acquired at the same time, that's serendipity.

These twin legs of falsity are the basis of L_D's mindset that leads to the question: do we want to exterminate a billion Muslims. No, we want them to stop blowing up our buildings, killing commuters in Europe and blowing up nightclubs in Bali! We want them to stop pursuing the aim of obliterating Israel. We want to make some accomodation to the rest of the world. Oh, and by the way, we would like them to make the necessary improvements in their society to better the lives of their people, so they to can have hope for the future, not bitterness over the past.




Liberal_dialog
You wrote: I pointed out that the Crusades because they were not about conquering nations but the slaughter of infidels. It's hard to imagine a religion founded in 600AD going on a holy crusade to kill all Christians in 620AD

You need to read both the Koran and history. Islam is a militant religion. It explosively grew to cover land from Spain through Afganistan in 200 years. It went into Europe and was stopped until it was stopped in in the Pyrenees in France (Battle of Tours) and in Eastern Europe in Poland. By the way, the first crusade was in 1096 and was a reaction to the unfettered expansion of the caliphates, and not as an attempt to kill all the infidels. Remember at that time, Constantinople was the center of the civilized Western world, and it was under constant attack (and finally fell).

Now about the religion itself. It teaches that the "people of the book" meaning Jews and Christians, are allowed to live in muslim lands, but only as second class citizens, unable to own land or hold office. Other religions must convert or die. Jihad is militant, because Mohammed was a warrior. And his followers did believe and still do believe that their victory in battle is a sign of approval of G*d.

Radio Pacifica
I'm just curious about why Air American and not KPFA?

If one is looking for a liberal punching bag it is harder to find one more in line with what the right stereotypes as a typical liberal mindset.

http://www.pacifica.org/

They have been on the air for 50 years.

Is it possibly because Radio Pacifica only has 5 stations?

KPFA listen live · visit online
KPFK listen live · visit online
KPFT listen live · visit online
WBAI listen live · visit online
WPFW listen live · visit online

I think this is illustrative of how the right views the left. Yes there are radical lefties out there and you can hear them on KPFA. They've been at for 50 years. And there are still only 5 radio stations.

The left wing that Rush Limbaugh and the right vilifies continually is only able to garner support for 5 stations after 50 years. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity were right about liberal radio being a failure if one looks at the radical positions taken by KPFA.

The fact is that the left wing painted as typical on this site is not typical, but belong to the minority that listen to KPFA. Many have in the Democratic party have stated that getting the Democrats together is like herding cats because liberals are all over the map.

Jon Carroll, a lefty from San Francisco, has a great criticism of the Democrats on line today.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/08/01/DDGO4JLVM81.DTL

Why didn't Mary pick on radio Pacifica when the content would have been even closer to the radical left positions the right wing claims common liberals hold? Even though radio pacifica has been on for 50 years and Air America only 2 years?

Is it because even Mary knows that the radical left holds no interest for liberals at large?







RE: To Lib-Diagonal
"You finally admitted the dirty truth. NPR is "liberal." No one from your side of the land fill has conceded that before.

It's past the time when federal funding should be withdrawn from the Public Broadcasting Corporation. If, as you say, NPR outdraws Rush, et. al., then private financing should be no problem."

Yes, and for the record it is for the same reasons CSPAN is liberal too. CSPAN was started by liberals and is consumed predominantly by liberals.

NPR only gets 5% of its funding from the Federal Government. I would also like to see the Feds get out of funding NPR.


My favorite programs on NPR are:

1.) The Commonwealth Club
2.) The National Press Club
3.) The World Affairs Council
4.) The Chitaqua Club

What do all these have in common? Like CSPAN they are unfiltered, live speeches given by the persons involved without interruption and commentary by some host like Rush.

People on the Commonwealth Club and National Press Club do not recieve payment. Conservatives and liberals alike speak on these programs because they get to say their peace.

As far as I know right wing radio only does this on one occasion and that's when the President gives a national speech.

NPR and CSPAN are what a free-thinkers like myself prefer. I want to draw my conclusions and not have them given to me as talking points.

Michael Kransy who does the local program on KQED here in San Francisco does not pontificate. He interviews. He brings guests on and asks them questions. He makes no point of promoting any agenda. Is he liberal? Yes. Is it talk radio, yes? Does he offer opinion like Rush Limbaugh? No. The guests predominantly do the talking on his show. He asks questions, interviewees give long answers. That's why I like NPR. And other liberals too.









RE: Missing history lesson
"just what would you call the attack on the Byzantine Empire, North Africa, The Iberian peninsula Italy and France in the period between 620 and 800? And why confine it to Christians? How about the invasion of Persia and India? And those were just the Arabs. Letsnot forget the depredations and conquests of the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks in Anatolia, contemperaneous with the Crusades and their continued conquests in the Balkans and Eastern Europe that did not end until the 1680's in front of the walls of Vienna.
And none of these conquests were noted for the humane treatment of the vanquished."

Not being familiar with all those, I will admit my ignorance, I will simply refer to the original post I was responding too. That post stated that Islam cannot be reasoned with and Islam dictates all Christians must be killed and therefore you cannot reason with Muslims.

I pointed out that the Crusades because they were not about conquering nations but the slaughter of infidels. It's hard to imagine a religion founded in 600AD going on a holy crusade to kill all Christians in 620AD.

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let us assume the Muslims have launched Crusades historically with the sole purpose of slaughtering all Christian infidels the way the Christians launched the Crusades with the intent of wiping out all Muslim infidels.

Where does that leave us today? Are people on this board advocating a holy crusade against the billion of Muslims on this planet? Kill them all?

If not, how is it intended to pacify them? Tyranny? How does a holy war on Islam make Christianity today any morally different than the Christians who declared holy war on the Muslims previously?

Where does Jesus come down on slaughtering infidels?

Vacuum America
I have time to time listen to Air America. Due to the juvenile and mind numbing nature of the varies hosts and call in listeners, an hour is about the most that one with active gray cells can handle at a time. Most of the time is spent so bored out of one's gord, due to the sameness of the shows and the comments expressed, that a zombie like expression is often found on ones face.

Junvenile? That is an understatement of Vacuum America. But it could be worst. Check out KOS or your typical local newspaper.

real talk radio
NPR, Air America, Rush and Hannity are lightweights. Go to gcnlive.com and listen to real talk shows such as Dave and Joyce or Alex Jones.

Missing history lesson
Liberal-dialog writes

The lesson I'm missing is the reverse holy war where the nations of Islam declared holy war on the Christian nations for a couple hundred years and killed a bunch a people?

Just what would you call the attack on the Byzantine Empire, North Africa, The Iberian peninsula Italy and France in the period between 620 and 800? And why confine it to Christians? How about the invasion of Persia and India? And those were just the Arabs. Letsnot forget the depredations and conquests of the Seljuk and Ottoman Turks in Anatolia, contemperaneous with the Crusades and their continued conquests in the Balkans and Eastern Europe that did not end until the 1680's in front of the walls of Vienna.
And none of these conquests were noted for the humane treatment of the vanquished.

Would that be the history lesson you missed? Of course, it might be easy to overlook as the events lasted over a period of 1,000 years and ranged over large parts of three continents!

RE: JohnL1
"The underlying assumption you have made is that people become terrorists because they are poor,"

You know what I'm trying to figure out is how my post about modern warfare whereby defeating the enemy like Germany was defeated after WWI is not sufficient, but one has to also establish law-and-order in said defeated country lest there be a repeat of said war translates into "people become terrorists because they are poor".

Maybe we can translate this into something simpler. Don't start a fight you don't aim to finish. In modern warfare, finishing a fight doesn't end with the killing.


You know, maybe I missed out on a history lesson so perhaps you can enlighten me. Seems I remember that Islam started around 600 AD. Then around 1100 AD, the Christians declared holy war on the Muslims and vowed to kill all infidels for a few hundred years, until about 1300 something. Took over Jeruselum even.

The lesson I'm missing is the reverse holy war where the nations of Islam declared holy war on the Christian nations for a couple hundred years and killed a bunch a people? I don't think Osama Bin Laden represents the nations of Islam. I also don't think Arab countrys threatening Israel amounts to holy war on all the Christian world.


"Ignorance and fanaticism are their most powerful weapons against us. You can’t reason with enemies like this. You can’t ignore them. You can’t appease them."

Are you advocating starting up the Crusades again? I don't get it. There are over a billion Muslims world wide? Kill them all? Beat them into submission to the point where we reign tyranny over them, what?

Even the Bushies recognize there has to be established some kind of peace after the violence. Despite your implications, you just can't kill a billion Muslims.



NPR
What's disingenous about this op/ed?

Liberals by and large listen to NPR.

NPR still gets higher ratings in the morning than Rush Limbaugh.

NPR listeners score higher than any other electronic media for being informed.

Air America is not the predominant liberal media on radio. NPR is.

Shame on you.

liberal_dialog
The underlying assumption you have made is that people become terrorists because they are poor, and they are lashing out blindly against those whom they blame for their poverty. That is the traditional excuse liberals make for any and all violence. All wealth is obtained through theft and inspires revenge by the victims, America is wealthy, therefore America is to blame for every evil that befalls us. That, of course, is another issue entirely that deserves rebuttal, but not right now.

Your other problem is that you have somehow avoided learning that this is a religious war we are in. Do you suppose the Muslims are so incensed by there poverty that they are willing to blow themselves up in order to exact revenge? Whenever they offer reasons for their war against us, have they ever mentioned poverty? Are you not aware their reasons are based on the Koran’s injunction that they convert, enslave or kill infidels? Or do you think they are speaking in code?

Whatever you may think of particular dogmas of Christianity, it has had the singular effect of inspiring respect for the individual and a belief that the individual is worthy of freedom and possesses God given (or natural) rights. It invented rule of law as opposed to rule of men. That is what western civilization is built on. Free people are happy people, and happy people are innovators and builders. Islam is the polar opposite of Christianity. It doesn’t believe the individual is important. Obedience to the literal word of the Koran and subservience to the rule of theocrats is the system most of the middle east lives under. The rulers of Saudi Arabia, the family of Saud, for instance, rule by divine right and if they choose to horde their oil wealth for themselves irrespective of the poverty of their own people, the Koran has no problem with that. Wherever sharia law has been implemented, there are enormous restrictions on economic development. For instance, it is illegal to lend money at interest because the Koran condemns it. In other words, the poverty you see in the midst of vast oil wealth is caused by the Muslim religion itself. There is enormous resistance to acknowledging this among Muslims, as you can well expect. If they are angry over their poverty relative to the west, it’s far easier to blame the west than to blame their religious indoctrination, or themselves. Pretty much the attitude of leftists everywhere. That is why Islamofascists have adopted the language of the left. I would guess the elites of Islam understand the truth of their poverty, but it would injure their interests if their subjects were to ever understand it themselves. Their power and privilege depends on their being the voice of Mohammed. That is why all education controlled by the islamofascists is narrowly focused on the Koran and are indoctrinated to hate us. Ignorance and fanaticism are their most powerful weapons against us. You can’t reason with enemies like this. You can’t ignore them. You can’t appease them. We’ve tried and failed. We were faced with similar fanaticism from the Japanese in WWII. We knew they would fight to the last man, woman and child if we were to invade the island and fight a conventional war there. That is why we nuked them. We may have to do it in the middle east, too. God forbid.

FIVE MINUTES!!
I've tried to listen to Franken any number of times, and it's rare that I can sit past more than one commercial.

BORRRRRRRRing!

I thought Franken was supposed to be a comedian? Isn't he supposed to be telling jokes or something? Even a tired old Bush joke would be better than what Franken delivers.

Bad radio? That's being generous!

re: Question for liberal_dialogue....
"Question: Do you believe the US should have taken police action(law enforcement) against Japan in 1941?"

No.

Hopefully what I tried to do with my position is show that my position comes from what Republicans prior to this administration were saying.

Need I remind everyone that 1.) Bush Sr. refused to topple Saddam because his advisors told him that doing so would be tatamount to "opening the gates of hell" and 2.) the Pentagon published a report before Bush Jr. invaded Iraq stating that there was an 85% chance that civil war would ensue within five years if Saddam were toppled.

War is chaos. When the war is over how does law and order get established?

I saw John McCain on the Daily Show recently and he is no different than any other politician about the committment needed to win in Iraq. He just said "we need to stick it out."

What we are doing now in Afghanistan, Iraq and what Israel is doing in Lebannon is the equivalent to being half-pregnant.

If you are going to commit, commit. That's the way it is in marriage and should be in war. Hillary Clinton actually comes closest to making that statement but still comes far short.

We needed to have a McArthur plan in place in Iraq. A draft, hundreds-of-thousands or troops, experts, precisely what we did for Japan and Germany after WWII. Instead what we have is what?

The equivalent of taking a dirty diaper and throwing it against the wall and hoping it sticks?

Given how much oil money is in the region with Iran, Kuwait, Saudia Arabia, etc. we had to know that establishing Democracy in Iraq was going to be an economic foot race between at first the Islamic countries funding insurgents and then again Islamic countries funding and corrupting the nacient government. We knew when the government of Russia was changed that there was a huge risk of the Russian mafia running the government, which is pretty much the state of affairs today.

Americans did not sign up for the overwhelming, staggering committment needed to make Iraq a Democracy. Thus the Republicans refuse to enact the draft to put 500,000 troops in Iraq. Therefore we should have stuck with law enforcement.

You can't be half pregnant. Either you go in with full committment to win a war and establish law out of chaos or don't go in at all. We have won nothing in Iraq.

When the Bush Administration went into Afghanistan I was against that war. Not because I was against overthrowing a totalitarian regime, but because Bush made no McArthur plan committment after the government was overthrown to build a Democratic country and establish order out of chaos. We are playing with people's lives. We are killing them. We need the uptmost serious committment under such circomstances. Not be patronized and told to go shopping.


Bush needed to have an honest discussion with the American public about enacting the draft, spending billions upon billions, and decades of troops being in Afghanistan while Democracy takes root. To date all we are doing is the spending of billions upon billions.

Instead what we got as our individual American committment to the war effort was "go shopping."

Given that we should have stuck with law enforcement with the Taliban. Something tells me that there are a good many Reagan Republicans that feel the same way.

What happened to history. We learned from WWI that defeating your enemy is not good enough. Just defeating Germany and taking away the spoils of war landed us another WW. So after WWII we committed the right act in building Japan and Germany. Why have we not applied this lesson to Afghanistan and Iraq?








Question for liberal_dialogue....
First I want to tell you that I respect your opinion even when I disagree. You make a good effort to explain your position without insults and name-calling. Hopefully some of the other liberal trolls will follow suit.

Question: Do you believe the US should have taken police action(law enforcement) against Japan in 1941?

re: A question for liberal dialog
http://www.cato.org/dailys/08-02-02.html

The United States has made common cause with an assortment of dubious regimes around the world to wage the war on drugs. Perhaps the most shocking example was Washington's decision in May 2001 to financially reward Afghanistan's infamous Taliban government for its edict ordering a halt to the cultivation of opium poppies.

When the Taliban implemented a ban on opium cultivation in early 2001, U.S. officials were most complimentary. James P. Callahan, director of Asian Affairs for the State Department's Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, uncritically relayed the alleged accounts of Afghan farmers that "the Taliban used a system of consensus-building" to develop and carry out the edict. That characterization was more than a little suspect because the Taliban was not known for pursuing consensus in other aspects of its rule. Columnist Robert Scheer was justifiably scathing in his criticism of the U.S. response. "That a totalitarian country can effectively crack down on its farmers is not surprising," Sheer noted, but he considered it "grotesque" for a U.S. official to describe the drug-crop crackdown in such benign terms.

Yet the Bush administration did more than praise the Taliban's proclaimed ban of opium cultivation. In mid-May, 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced a $43 million grant to Afghanistan in addition to the humanitarian aid the United States had long been providing to agencies assisting Afghan refugees. Given Callahan's comment, there was little doubt that the new stipend was a reward for Kabul's anti-drug efforts. That $43 million grant needs to be placed in context. Afghanistan's estimated gross domestic product was a mere $2 billion. The equivalent financial impact on the U.S. economy would have required an infusion of $215 billion. In other words, $43 million was very serious money to Afghanistan's theocratic masters.

A question for liberal dialog
How could the Bush administration have donated money to the Taliban a year before it was overthrown by the US?

The Taliban was overthrown in November 2001 - only eleven months after Bush's election was finalized, and barely ten months after he took the oath of office. Granted, they didn't oficially capitulate until January 2002. You didn't actually mean to claim that W sent taxpayer dollars to a terrorist organization before he was even in office, did you?

Once again, stepping over the facts to make a point.

Ridiculous.

Rule of law
As has been pointed out on various occassions, the year before we overthrew the Taliban in Afhganistan the Bush Administration gave money to the Taliban. Why?

I'm reminded of a conference I attended back in 1990 or 1991. The wall had just fallen, communism was seen as dead, and Democracy clearly the winner.

I went to a week-long college seminar in the summer. Every day was filled with speakers and committees on world events.

One of the guest speakers was Reagan's former Amassador to the Soviet Union. His speech thesis was how to continue the spread of Democracy in the World.

He related at that time there were two competing schools of thought in the Reagan administration. One was to go for all out Democracy, politically and economically, and the other was to build the economy before working for government change.

The compromise we are still living with today was to try one approach with Russia and the other with China and see which worked over time. With Russia we encouraged economic and government reforms in tandem. With China we took a slower approach and worked towards economic reforms first.

Looking back now, which country is in better shape for its people? Which is more democratic? Russia or China? Which has a more bleak outlook?

Before 9/11 the Bush administration was taking the Chinese approach to encouraging Democracy in Afghanistan. This is to say we were supplying aid and trying to build the economy first before applying political pressure. The Taliban agreed with US on one thing, drugs were bad and they wanted a different economy. After 9/11 we reversed strategies and "pulled a Russia" with respect to implementing Democracy in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Given we were giving money to the Taliban, one has to wonder if in fact the Taliban would've surrended Al Qaida given legal pressure was brought to bear? We'll never know.

Now, what does all this have to do with the "rule of law" and the price of tea in China you ask?

1.) People who struggle to survive and eat are least likely to appreciate a Democratic approach to the rule of law and more likely to pay attention to who happens to feed them. I believe Kuwait is giving millions of dollars in aid to Lebannon.

2.) Democracies are predicated historically on a middle class of some sort. That middle class itself is then predicated on "public education" of some sort. A booming economy requires a lot of people and these people must be educated. This is what is happening in China.

3.) Too much change at once, i.e. both economic and political, is antgonistic towards building Democracy which is contigent on the rule of law for countries that have no tradition of Democracy. That rule of law respect is predicated on a middle class, an economy, and education.

With China today our US policies are slowly building towards a change to a Democratic Government. We are working within the legal sphere to implement this change.

The classic cases for all out change are taken from what happened with WWII. We declared war, won victory, and rebuilt two Democratic countries out of former authoritarian regimes. But that approach required staggering US committment. A draft, a Marshall Plan, lots of expertise and money. Even to this day we have military presence and support for Germany and Japan because our military has been there for so long. Respect for the rule of law was accomplished through overwhelming force and committment.

Our actions in the middle east have worked against bringing those people inline with Democratic people's thinking; respect for the rule of law.

Rather than declaring war on Afghanistan we should've taken the "Chinese" approach and worked towards improving the economy. This notion that we can just "overthrow the government" or "kill the terrorists" is silly. The enemy is using the killing of innocents to recruit more enemies. What the right wingers will never admit is that al Qaida has more members today than before 9/11 because of what we have done. If there are more al Qaida memebers, are we at risk more or less?

If we had treated Afghanistan and Iraq as law enforcement problems at a minimum we would not have increased al Qaida recruiting and the threat to the US today.

Afghanistan and Iraq are both closer to anarchy today than before 9/11. Anarchy is the friend to terrorists, not Democracies. We have lessoned respect for the rule of law in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Israel with Lebannon. The end result will be more anarchy and more terrorism.

To quote the Russian Amassador to Russia under Reagan, in short a respecting the law of bad governments is a starting place for slowly building changes toward greater democracy in that country unless one wants to make a McArthur Plan style committment of hundreds of thousands of troops, huge dollars, and decades of occupation.

The Bush administration is guilty of trying to implement quick fixes where none exist. Building an economy, building a democracy takes time and is a gradual process. We will not win the war on terrorism by killing all terrorists. We will win the war on terrorism by increasing the worlds overall respect for the rule of law and wiping out anarchy. Building that takes time.





















Wingo
good point.

Maybe we can send the liberals to live over in al-Qaeda held territory. I know I'd donate to that cause! Let them appease the terrorists face-to-face.

Thanks Ms. Ham!
Thanks for writing about something that we all should do- listen to AirAmerica. It seems that some of you need to get past 5 minutes of listening. Make a game of it!I listen-to Randi especially- because it sharpens my skills of de-bunking a "dressed" argument that lacks logic.
Folks may think that listening may give AirRandi and her ilk more attention
than is necessary;somehow saving them...Not true-nothing will help them- (Witness Franken's book sales when he keeps Coulter and O'Reilly OFF of his covers) In fact, start the countdown now for Air!
You'll have those 5 minutes back very soon.

Liberal dialog
The terrorists, specifically al Qaeda, declared war on us during the Clinton admistration and attacked us continually until 9/11 when we woke up and realized they were serious.

We joined a war that was already in progress. What else were we supposed to do? Arrest Mohammad Attah's ashes?

It amazes me the way liberals can maintain the thought that chanting and protesting will bring peace despite all the historical evidence to the contrary. Ending a war without first pounding the REAL death-mongers into submission and disarming them will only lead to more war and death.

For a concrete historical reference, see Germany/Japan vs. Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos. The "warmongers" won the former, the "peace activists" "won" the latter.

Ask yourself, would you rather live in W. Germany 1955? Or Cambodia 1976?

How would you prefer this one turn out? Look at the empirical historical data, and choose a side. I choose battling for freedom until the religion of death loses its will to fight.

Listening to Air America
I try but my gag reflex limits me to 5 minutes. Any suggestions?

Listening to Air America
I try to listen everry now and then, but usually my gag reflex prohibits more than 5 minutes. Any suggestions?

AAR Phoenix
I like to check in with AAR from time to time also. The A.M. Moonbat here is a real piece of work, but not talented enough to pull it off. They do have some really funny weekend people, but they have to spend a lot of time begging for advertising support. This is the station that even Ed Schultz made fun of when they had to do a fund raiser to get back on the air.

liberal_dialog writes
If some terrorist group working inside Canada snatched a couple of U.S. soldiers, would we be bombing the s**t out of Canada? Declared war?

No--because Canada would cooperate with us and find and punish the savages. That doesn't happen in the Middle East. They protect them. And we obviously can't depend on the UN since they have a resolution for what they and the Lebanese government were required to do after Israel withdrew and they didn't do it. The Israeli government's primary job is to protect it's citizens.
Just as it is our government's 1st job. Nobody likes war but your view of the world seems very naive.. We are dealing with savages who want to destroy us. They can't be negotiated with so we have to try to change the landscape over in the Middle East to protect ourselves. George Bush at least realizes that the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect different results. He has a vision of a world that is better, where Middle eastern governments police themselves and a UN does good for the world.
He knows there cannot be a lasting peace until then. Most liberals don't seem to be able to understand that vision. I'm not sure if it is a lack of IQ or just the selfishness of their politics. It is sad because just like Jimmy Carter they make the world less safe and extend the hostilities. George Bush doesn't express it well but doing what we have done for years--temporary cease fires, appeasement, propping up tyrannies hasn't worked. If we get energy independent it will be a lot easier. So before you post something as silly as what I copied above read a book or at least think.

Liberal_dialog
Thank you. An intelligent post without insults or name calling.

That said, I would like to discuss "law enforcement" against terrorists. The problem is that law enforcement by it's nature is reactive. You lock up criminals after the crime has occured. And fear of being locked up is what limits casual criminals. So, if you have 20 people who want to fly planes into buildings, exactly what is their level of fear? How does law enforcement deal with suicide bombers? And what is this war in the MidEast about right now? Hezbollah wanted to capture Israeli soldiers so they could be traded for people in prison for murder.

If you give me any indication of how a law enforcement process could assist in the war against terrorists, I will consider it. But if you cannot, then the only options are to either ignore the continued attacks, or to attack the bases and centers that support the fighters.

Liberal Dialog
Did you just awaken from a coma? We tried the "law enforcement" approach under Clinton and we all see how well that worked out. Your comparison of Canada and Lebanon is faulty. If Canada attacked us and kidnapped our soldiers every few months, damn right we would attack them (this is not the first time Hezbollah has tried the kidnap/prisoner swap tactic).

As a military policeman for 20 years now I feel I have some authority to speak on this issue.
Criminals = law enforcement
Terrorists = military


Should be titled...
...Left with the Weak.

Nuance, law enforcement vs. war
"You see, because peace is good and war is bad. War is bad because people die during wars. Republicans, what with their tendency to be really, really evil, are in favor of people dying, particularly innocent civilians. Democrats are in favor of people not dying, which is quite obviously the morally superior position.

That must be some of that nuance they’re always saying Bush lacks. You know, because he’s so dumb. Oh, and evil. Don’t forget evil. "

Let's talk about nuance from the other angle of war.

Law Enforcement.

Unfortunately the liberals lost their backbone soon after 9/11. For about two weeks after 9/11 the press had debates about whether the response to 9/11 should've one of law enforcement or war.

The response to 9/11 should've been one of law enforcement and not war.

Irael's response to the kidnapping of two shoulders should've been one of law enforcement and not war.

If some terrorist group working inside Canada snatched a couple of U.S. soldiers, would we be bombing the s**t out of Canada? Declared war?

Republicans like to espouse that they are the "rule of law" party: more cops, more prisons and tough sentencing. Yet internationally we have Bush stating "we will never let another nation have a security veto over us" or something as unnuanced as that. Yet the treaties we sign with other countries are legally binding. Is Bush declaring those treaties null and void?

War. Not law enforcement. War is the only response the right can come up with for dealing with terrorists. As Bush said, "Any country harboring terrorists will be held accoutable." Which only goes to show that any terrorist group force the U.S. to declare war on a country of their choosing by simply camping out in said country.

There is no nuance of law enforcement vs. war when it comes to terrorism for the right. It's just war.


Agreed agreed agreed
I'm a liberal (I'd carry a card if the liberal command structure issued them), and I still think Air America sucks. I wonder how many people they alienate from liberal causes. It's got to be more than the number who are persuaded by the lame commentary, cheap shots, and just plain dullness that pervade the network's offerings.

Full disclosure: I'm not much a talk radio fan except for sports; I listened to Air America for about a week to see if it was as bad as conservatives say it is. The right was right on this one.

A WEEK?
I wouldn't spend five minutes with those leftist barking moonbats.

They've been on the wrong side of every issue facing America since FDR gave Eastern Europe to Stalin at Yalta to Bubba's Impeachment for PERJURY and beyond.

My personal favorite is the lib's bitching about gas prices but forbid drilling in the ANWR and the building of new refineries.

I guess like money for their socialized health care and all hands get to go college, they expect the gas to magically appear at the pumps.

The blogs are worse
Fortunately I can't usually get Air America here outside Boston but I have tried to find some interesting ideas at HuffPo or Kos. It is basically childish profanity--without any deep thought apparent. It is kind of sad. I would like to test my ideas against theirs'. If the opposition that posts there are really conservatives and not shills or plants then they should be ashamed of themselves. They stoop to the same immature name calling profanity as the libs. we are better than that. On trips I have listened to Air America and Franken is boring and Stephanie Miller just is silly making fun without one single idea defended.

No humor on the left
I understand what you mean about the pitiful sense of humor of the left. I remember a cartoon that showed a burly woman behind a counter berating a small boy saying, “There is no humor section. This is a feminist book store”.

Saturday Night Live is another example of how the left can find humor in endlessly saying Bush is dumb. Regardless of whether it is true, it isn’t funny. I think this is just symptomatic of the reprobate mind that is the consequence of intentionally rejecting even the knowledge of God (Rom. 1).

Post modernism is the term given to the tendency towards irrationality found in the left. They continually rant about their feelings as if this was the same as an insightful analysis of current events.

Really bad radio
The problem with Air America is not really it's politics, but that it just isn't good radio.

True, the politics of the shows is pretty bad.

Stephanie Miller has to be the worst of the lot. Take away the canned sound effects crutch and the schadenfreud, and you just don't have a show. And why do Air America hosts have co-hosts with that "whatever" voice of the American Castrati, suggesting that when they aren't co-hosting the show they work behind the counter at a Starbucks?

Well, Ed Shultz doesn't use a co-host and he has come out as pro-Israel, anti-Hezbollah. I can respect that, even if many of the callers to his show don't agree. At all. I was suprised to hear Shultz point out that Israel is a liberal democracy with women's rights and even gay pride parades (!) and that a nation like that should be the darling of the Left.

You know things aren't going well when the commerical breaks are filled with public service announcements instead of revenue-paying commerical advertisements. That and the long moments of musical "filler" that simply cries out, "Place commercial here!"

Thank God for Rush and Hannity...

I heard Al Franken was dead, but then...
....maybe that was just his career. If you could call appearing on a radio show with 5 listeners, all children, a career. He should stick to writing fairy-tales, that's where the real money is.

Al Franken is a Tool
Al Franken was in town this last week, and he did a segment on one of our talk radio stations. When they asked him straight out about Air America's financial situation and why stations were dropping it, he actually said, "I don't really know much about why stations are dropping us." I thought Al was supposed to be some kind of self-proclaimed genius.

Apparently not.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.