Schultz: 'Are You With The Terrorists, Or Are You With The President Of The United States?'
What's next: MSNBC hawking "America: Love It Or Leave It" bumper stickers?
The new fashion among the liberal network's anchors is to accuse critics of President Obama's Libya policy of being unpatriotic. Last week, we documented how Cenk Uygur did it. Now, it's Ed Schultz's turn. The man recently relegated to the 10 PM slot went on an extended rant last night, repeatedly accusing Republican critics of the Libyan operation of being unpatriotic. Schultz set the tone with his opening graphic. As you see in the screengrab, Schultz branded Sarah Palin and John Bolton as "patriots, not" for questioning the president's conduct of the attack on Libya.
But Schultz was far--far--from finished. He eventually asked the question: "whose side are you on? Are you with the terrorists, Sarah, or are you with the President of the United States?"
View video after the jump.
ED SCHULTZ: Republicans are attacking the Commander-in-Chief during a time of war! . . . There should be no debate: we ought to be kicking [Gaddafi's] ass . . . Whose side are you on? Are you with the terrorists, Sarah, or are you with the President of the United States? . . . And I have to ask the question tonight: where is the patriotism from all of these war-hawks? Where's the patriotism of the Republican party? . . . What about being a patriot? . . . So the question now for the doubters who are out and about: why don't you support the president? . . . We've been talking about the lack of patriotism from prominent Republicans . . . Laura [Flanders] what about the patriotism?
Note: you wanted to hear Hillary's classic rant, didn't you, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic." Of course you did! H/t reader Annie.
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Now Really...
Submitted by txradioguy on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:54am.
You didn't expect the Democrats to continue the "dissent is patriotic" meme when it's their guy in the crosshairs did you?
The Democrats...no matter what the situation is...play by a different set of rules.
Sorry tx
Submitted by Cappmann1962 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:20pm.
The democrats have NO rules. They make up rules as they go along, and these rules only apply to their opposition.
Bringing on Alan Grayson is even more stunning.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:04am.
Edward sure does like that phrase 'freedom fighters', though... why they're just like the Minutemen in the Revolutionary War. And Obama is George Washington arming and rallying his loyal ragtag troops.
ps: where can I get me one of them ties made out of a homestyle restaurant tablecloth?
Freedom fighters? Supplied by who?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:17am.
I wish the MSM had a little bit of curiousity instead of being Obama kissers.
If something awful happened in this country, the United States, and the people wanted to rebel, even with the advantage of the 2nd Amendment, we the people, would be no match against our military.
So where in a country like Libya, dominated by a thug leader do people get any type of heavy duty weapons, ammunition, etc to fight their government? Somebody is suppling them and my bet is that that somebody is our enemies in Afghanistan and Iraq and probably are fighting along with the Libyans.
What if these "freedom fighters" are Al-Qaeda? Or Al-Qaeda funded? Still want to help them?
Who are these Freedom Fighters? Could they be worse than Quadaffy?
Don't worry, the jihadis are not on the books...
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:28am.
they're just freelancers so there should be no payroll issues... checks will go to the temp agency.
This should work out quite well for Obama.
Under the table...
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:38am.
...so to speak.
If I put a blanket over my head, do you know you disappear?
But, but, but
Submitted by Tomorama on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:05am.
Is it patriotic to arm Al Qaeda like Susan Rice WILL NOT rule out?
Is that patriotic fat boy?
This jerk used to be a Republican and now he is this, deal with the devil much?
For all we know at this point, the terrorists are . . .
Submitted by Galvanic on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:11am.
. . . among the rebels fighting Qaddafi's forces.
We are weeks into this crisis and over a week into our intervention, and the Federal government still can't tell us who makes up the rebels we are overtly supporting.
And the President and his trusted adviser Samantha Power have not ruled out that we would arm the rebels.
Obama is naively banking on two outcomes: (1) The rebels oust Qaddafi and establish some form of democracy, or (2) should the rebels be defeated, Obama will be free from blame because "we weren't leading."
Neither outcome is likely.
What is more likely is that we escalate our involvement in the conflict, picking the winner and losers will become more difficult, and we will be left holding the bag long after our NATO friends pull.
Actually, the President does
Submitted by dscott on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:44pm.
Actually, the President does know that he is siding with terrorists and it is particularly interesting he chose to intervene with airstrikes stopping Qadhafi's forces outside of Benghazi. Pay close attention to the Canadian assessment of Eastern Libya:
Libyan rebels’ Islamist ties cause concern: report
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Libyan+rebels+Islamist+ties+cause...
"The Canadian intelligence report, dated Dec. 8, 2009, said in the early 1990s “several thousand” fighters began regrouping in Libya after returning from the Soviet war in Afghanistan. After attempts on his life in 1996 and 1998, Col. Gaddafi responded with a counter-insurgency campaign that “effectively suppressed the Islamist insurgency.”
The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, formed in 1991 to overthrow Col. Gaddafi and install shariah law, was crushed, its leaders imprisoned or exiled.
But during the Iraq war, imams at Benghazi’s mosques issued fatwas “instructing followers it was their duty to fight in Iraq. In geographical terms, therefore, the eastern regions represent the epicentre of Islamist extremism in Libya,” the report said.
It blamed unrest in the east partly on high unemployment and called Benghazi “underdeveloped relative to the rest of Libya.”
“The eastern region has traditionally been the site of previous rebellions against the Libyan regime and where several Islamist insurgent groups were based,” wrote ITAC, the Ottawa-based agency made up of representatives of CSIS, RCMP, Canadian Forces and other departments.
Canada’s relationship with Libya had “strengthened considerably” since Col. Gaddafi renounced terrorism and stopped producing weapons of mass destruction in 2003, it said. A dozen Canadian firms were operating in Libya as of November, 2009."
So the answer to Ed's dishonest question is the President is siding with the terrorists and those who oppose him are the patriots. And please liberals, don't bother claiming Obama didn't know that Benghazi was a terrorist stronghold, he had the Canadian report BEFORE this whole spectacle began.
Yes, we SHOULD be kicking Gaddaffi's ass
Submitted by Texndoc on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:25am.
But as the NBC Libyan correspondent told the Morning Joe crew yesterday, Gaddaffi is probably grinning from ear to ear because General Eisen-Obama won't use the term "Regime Change", and says he can stay.
The shot there of the loon Alan Grayson says to me watching this show must be like 60 minutes in the world's most severe insane asylum.
Texndoc
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:46am.
We SHOULD not be kicking anyone in Libya. We should be watching Gaddaffi kill Al Qaeda and Hezbollah terrorists. No matter who they are. Libyan, Egyptian, Iranian or whatever.
Why should be even be concerned with Libya? A small desert country in North Africa which produces less oil than some states? Who cares if bad guys kill bad guys?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
A++
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:14pm.
Agreed.
Why we are killing one group of people that HATES us for a different group that REALLY HATES us is beyond my ability to absorb.
But, alas, I am probably wrong given my limited mental capacity (147 IQ) and pathetic Bachelors degree(S). Not to mention my status as a RETIRED member of the U.S. Navy. Yep. Gotta be me.
Summary: The man is a buffoon with no real life experience and a world view that was tempered by opaque glasses.
He is a post turtle.
Well, when you put it that way.......
Submitted by syvyn11 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:25am.
I guess I'm with the terrorists.
But then again, that's what King George called the colonists when they were fighting for government to get off their backs!
The hypocrisy in this...
Submitted by Wiiliam1972 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:30am.
situation is astounding; even for liberals.
I live in Wisconsin, so it takes quite a bit to get my attention when it comes to liberal hypocrisy, I assure you.
Please go to this link and read the AFSCME letter to businesses located there.
www.jaywebershow.com
Spread the word, people.
William
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:06pm.
That was a disgusting letter. I hope the goons that sent it are out of work sooner, rather than later. I also wonder when people in private sector unions are going to realize that these public employees are leeching from their money too.
I heard on the radio that the state will no longer be taking union dues through payroll deduction. I wonder how long before those folks realize how much that was adding up to?
Good luck in your fight. Please don't let the goons win.
Schultz, at this very point
Submitted by bassndude on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:42am.
Schultz, at this very point in history, I do not see the difference between them. Obama is destined to failure in Libya with his policy. Even if the rebels win, he loses. Al Qaeda and Hezbollah are both fighting with the rebels. Now, if those are not terrorists organizations, clue me in. Al Qaeda has been involved in the riots in Egypt and now Libya. This we know. And the administration is talking about arming them? We armed the Taliban in the 80's. We backed and armed and trained Castro and the savage murderer Che. We trained Osama bin Laden.
When are the folks in the administration going to look at what they are getting ready to do? Or, has this been the plan all along. Is this the reason Obama turned a blind eye on Iran? Because he needed them for the backing of these, so called, popular uprising of the common people?
What we need to do is pull out, sit back and watch the fire works. I will never understand why in the world we would stop someone for killing Al Qaeda and/or Hezbollah terrorists. No matter who he/she is. Let em kill each other. Best solution.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
I'm more concerned
Submitted by katiejane on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:02am.
about whose side Obama is on.
Bingo, KJ!
Submitted by Newsbubba on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:21am.
I was paging down to say the same thing, sort of.
I, and all other members of the military, took an oath to the Constitution, not the president or any other person. At this point in history, I really question the validity of our "Commander in Chief." I'm not sure that he is being true to HIS oath!
Hell, even though Carter was a complete idiot, I never really doubted that he was on our side, in spite of some of the boneheaded moves he made. I just really have reached a point where I can't say that about this president.
God, I hope I'm wrong, but each passing day confirms my bad feeling about this jackwagon.
You appear more inclined
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:35pm.
You appear more inclined toward convincing yourself you are right rather than hoping you are wrong, and that is an attitude I find not only sad but, frankly, dangerous.
Jer
And what, in particular, Jer, is dangerous ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:44pm.
about it?
MD
You did take an oath to the President.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:53pm.
"I, and all other members of the military, took an oath to the Constitution, not the president or any other person."
You did take an oath to the President, as well as other people, the same one I did. You took an oath to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the officers appointed over you.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:59pm.
I looked up the oath and the first oath is to the Consitution. The oath involving obeying orders says according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. I am curious where this leaves the military if they are being asked to do something unconstitutional.
Where is the first loyalty, the president or the Constitution.
It's still an oath to obey
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:08pm.
It's still an oath to obey the orders of the President, and, since the Constitution clearly states that President is the Commander in Chief of the Military, your oath to the Constitution itself reinforces your oath to obey the President. You don;t have to agree with those orders, or even like them, but you took an oath to obey them. There's no way you can say otherwise.
Here's the deal when serving in the US Military: YOU don't get to chose, as a member of the military, what orders are or are not Constitutional, nor does any other member of the military. Only Congress and the courts can makes those determinations. Outside of being able to vote for your particular Congressman, YOU, as a member of the military, don't have ANY say about it whatsoever. If you did try to make those determinations for yourself and act contrary to Presidential orders, you would be guilty of treason.
I took the same oath as you did. Apparently I understand that oath far more than you do.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:16pm.
I'm not military, so I'm asking you, not debating. I do not have in depth knowledge of how the military works and I'm curious about it. Also, my son is thinking of joining the Marines next fall, so I appreciate information of those who have been there. Probably the wrong place for this, but I've wondered about soldiers who are accused of things like Abu Garib (the prison where abuses occurred) and how much the individual soldiers are responsible. It seems (from the outside) as if these men and women are following orders, or at least the culture of the higher ups.
You don't have to address this, but that's where I'm coming from. Just looking for information on a topic I do not know about.
The President represents the Constitution.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:24pm.
In the military, the President represents the Constitution (and he's the only one that does.). They are, in effect, one in the same. Disobeying a Presidential order would be the same as disobeying the Constitution itself, and that's an act of treason.
The UCMJ describes HOW we follow the orders of our President and any commanding officers he appoints to carry out those orders, not if those are Constitutional or not. It also describes the process for punishing those who disobey those orders, and that's all it does , as far as obeying orders and regulations goes.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:36pm.
Thanks and please check your pm's.
You're welcome.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:57pm.
You're welcome. And you, and your son, should understand that, when you serve in the US Military, you actually defer any and all judgment as to the legality, or even the effectiveness, of the orders you receive, to the President and/or anyone he, or another higher ranking member of the military appoints as your commanding officer, whether that officer be enlisted or commissioned.
You can, when commanding someone of lower rank, make determinations as to if the actions of that individual violates the UCMJ, but you can NEVER make that determination about a higher ranking solder. All you can do is report that solder and their behavior to a higher ranking individual and they will make that determination, in accordance wit the UCMJ.
When it comes to the orders or behavior of the Commander in Chief and whether it violates the UCMJ, there is no higher authority within the military than the Commander in Chief, so no determination like that could ever be made. THAT must be done in the civilian sector (that's to prevent a coup within the military itself).
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Abu Garib
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:41pm.
As far as th Abu Garib incident is concerned,.those solders violated UCMJ regulations as to how prisoners shall be treated while in captivity, while under guard. Those solders should be held responsible for that mistreatment, as those regulations are clearly written and available to anyone who bothers to inquire about them. Those regulations are the same for active military or reservists and National Guard members, because, when called to active Duty by the President, they are all subject to UCMJ authority.
If your son does enlist, I would suggest that he learn all applicable regulations and do his best to abide by them. If he makes an honest mistake and fails to abide by regulations through no fault of his own, well, the UCMJ allows for that and he'll, at the worst, face remedial training. In other word, just more training and no real punishment, like a loss of rank or an entry into his personal records, which can effect assignments and promotions.
The rule of thumb is: obey your orders no matter what they are, for no one has ever been punished, or held accountable, for following orders, unless those orders are so extreme that following them would be highly detrimental to the military and/or the US itself (but you will face a military inquiry as to why you didn't follow those orders, so be prepared for that, as long as you understand that the court of inquiry may not agree with your assessment and punish you severely, up to and including the commission of treason). They're only punished for making an unlawful order or failing to follow orders.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The New Question
Submitted by Boil It Down on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:42am.
I thought the new question was; is Obama with the terrorists or with the United States? The lines are getting very blurred.
Everyone say "False Dichotomy"
Submitted by Ruths husband Ben on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:40am.
Shultz is making a humongous logical error. He is presuming that there are two clear choices and that they are mutually exclusive. I am for America. As far as Obama is working toward our safety and our interests, I am for him. But since I think he is unnecessarily putting us a great risk due to his inept handling of the mideast, I am against what he is doing.
Which is the classic affirmation of the principle that dissent
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:33pm.
represents a higher form of patriotism. And yet those who adhered to that same belief with respect to Iraq--"I am for America. As far as [Bush] is working toward our safety and our interests, I am for him. But since I think he is unnecessarily putting us at great risk due to his inept handling of the mideast, I am against what he is doing"-- were labeled un-American.
Jer
So, that makes hypocracy ok?
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 5:58pm.
So, that make's Shutlz's hypocrisy ok? Nice revisionary ethics you have there, Jer.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Did I say it made Shultz's hypocrisy OK?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:55pm.
Of course not. But nice strawman you set up and knocked over, Cobra.
Jer
Oh, really, jer.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:03pm.
Oh, really, Jer. Than I guess you brought Bush up for what, general conversation?
Face it Jer, that was YOUR strawman that got burned, not mine. YOU tried to use equivalency, not me.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:13pm.
I repeated R H B's words VERBATIM--only substituting "Bush" for "Obama" because my post wouldn't have made sense otherwise.
Jer
So, you're plagiarizing too
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:18pm.
So, you're plagiarizing too. Man, you just keep digging that hole deeper and deeper.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I'm going to assume your kidding, Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:06pm.
Jer
Who labeled them as
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:05pm.
Who labeled them as Un-American, Jer?
NC Cop...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:10pm.
For one example, Rush smeared Tom Daschle as Hanoi Tom, unpatriotic, etc. I'll try to find the full quote for you.
Jer
Still trying that equivalence tacit, I see
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 7:16pm.
No need to bring up the quote. We all know how thew liberals portrayed those type of comments, Jer (descent is the highest form of Patriotism, right?). But, please, stop the equivalency attempts, ok? It's not going to justify Shultz's hypocrisy. It's not going to even minimize it. All you're accomplishing is to highlight that hypocrisy.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:11pm.
One more time: I am not in any way, shape, or form attempting to justify Shultz's hypocrisy. I would appreciate it if you would stop suggesting that I am. You obviously completely misunderstood my original comment.
NC Cop requested the quote, so I'll bring it up.
Jer
Here's a link NC Cop. Rush
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:15pm.
Here's a link NC Cop. Rush said "Hanoi Tom" was a disgrace to patriotism and had embraced the Axis of Evil. Rep. Tom Davis accused Daschle of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
Jer
So what,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:34pm.
Rush was right Jer.
Dachle was laying the groundwork to turn the public opinion away from the support for the war. He was demoralizing the troops, and blindly without cause, suggesting false assertions. Dachle did his job well, with the help of Murtha, Read, Pelosi, Clinton, and a host of others. Rush was right!
I figured that would be your view, Boudin...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:50pm.
But, but...he IS un-American!!!
Pathetic.
Jer
Your hero
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:58pm.
IS pathetic, along with the rest of your commie brethren
And your hero is obviously Ed Schultz
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:02pm.
...because you are clearly endorsing his views on dissent.
Jer
So Ed, Rush, and I
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 9:09pm.
Are all buds?
Maybe you should try defending the actions of your Party, before you level accusations at me.
Terrorists or POTUS? What POTUS?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:46am.
Given Monday's calamitous lecture from someplace other than the Oval Office, we don't have a President. For many of us, including myself, we never did these past couple of years.
We have a poser at best and a Manchurian Candidate at worst. We can't really call him a traitor because to be a traitor to the country, you have to be a citizen at some point and we know he's not. After all, who the hell spends millions to hide his background? Best description that I can think of is that we have a criminal squatter who is an enemy to this country. He's an enemy to this country because he's beholden to the enemies of this country.(who apparently are losing patience with him despite his being successful for more damage than they ever did, call it professional jealousy)
So that question really can't be answered on both sides, terrorists or potus.
As usual, Eddie is barking up the wrong tree.
-Jon
I am with neither
Submitted by Prester John on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 10:58am.
I am with my son (Army Reserve), nephew (Army National Guard), niece and her husband (both USAF)--all of whom could be called upon to fight Obama's and Hillary's wars.
Herman Cain 2012
www.hermancain.com
I feel the saw way. I am for
Submitted by ricklail on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:12pm.
I feel the same way. I am for the Marine son in law and the Navy Corpsman son in law.
LOL!!
Submitted by StewartIII on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:11am.
WHERE DOES MSNBC FIND THESE PEOPLE? IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT SIDE YOU PICK, REALLY. BOTH SIDES ARE LINKED TO TERRORISM:
Libyan rebel commander admits his fighters have al-Qaeda links
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/840...
Intelligence on Libya rebels shows "flickers" of Qaeda
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/libya-intelligence-shows-flickers-al-qaeda-u-20...
Sgt. Shultz
Submitted by RightRealDeal on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:20am.
Does this clown still have a show on the Cartoon Network (PMSNBC)? He is a disgrace. Comcast needs to continue cleaning house with "ED", Larry The Tool and Richard. As someone said above, I too am wondering who's side BHO is on.
"ED" has to go.
What is the differance
Submitted by John21 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 11:34am.
Is there any difference to help me choose? Both choices are anti-American. Both choices are ruled by the extremist ideals. Both choices are owned and operated by CAIR, Soros, unions and their fellow power seekers.
I wonder
Submitted by GONAVY on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:00pm.
when these libs will realize they have morphed into exactly what they have been railing against for 8 yrs. It's really an exercise to gyrate their opinions to fit BHO's agenda. LOL
Actually, the Left is worse
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:39pm.
Actually, the Left is worse than the libels and slanders heaped upon their ideological opponents. The Left support military action against a country that is no substantive threat to American interests, its leader long ago caged and compliant.
Is it patriotic?
Submitted by notinstl on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:03pm.
To just want to stand by and watch more muslims killing other muslims?
notinstl,
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:38pm.
Patriotic or not, it is a fools errand to take that position and think it means that such a fight will stay "there" between "them" and that they will not come "here" and bring their killing with them.
That is the Lesson of September 11, 2001. That myth was dispelled on that day in a way that must never again be ignored.
Never Forget.
Ever.
Was sooner than that
Submitted by jon_torlin on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:50pm.
They attacked a lot earlier than that which was the first attempt in 1993 to bring down the WTC with a truck bomb, shortly after jihad was declared on the US by them. The jihadists are a patient lot, which led to the execution of the plan leading to September 11, 2001.
-Jon
Say Huh?
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:00pm.
"Is it patriotic?... To just want to stand by and watch more muslims killing other muslims?"
If you are not kidding, and you are referring to behavior outside US borders, or traveling American citizens who are Muslims and not operating to harm US interests and American people, then this is the biggest dumbass question of the day.
If you are not kidding, then you must support US military action in most of the 34 countries listed on the travel warning list. For those countries whose inhabitants are killing each other for reasons other than Muslim on Muslim actions, are you some kind of bigot for standing by and watching them kill each other? Why are Muslims your protected class and why your selective interest now in Libya?
"Who's on first, what's on
Submitted by buddyc on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:24pm.
"Who's on first, what's on second and I don't know's on third".
Up is down, black is white.
Gawd I love Ed Schultz, the guy doesn't have a clue.
Well, you know it is tough trying to be the Rush of the Left.
Submitted by Red Jeep on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:31pm.
Especially since Liberals values are built on shifting sands, and since Ed doesn't have 1% of the talent that Rush has.
Ed's Traits
Submitted by dreamsincolor on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 2:24pm.
Talent: no.
Intelligence: no.
Ability to discern truth from lie: no.
Morals: no.
Grasp of simple facts: no.
Objectivity: no.
Diversity of guests: no.
Command of the English language: no.
Ability to make a point without foaming: no.
Arguments make sense: no.
Ability to not contradict himself in the same sentence: no.
I'm sure there are a lot more...
Obviously, In This Case
Submitted by JustAl on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:29pm.
To be "with" one is to be "with" both.
Well,
Submitted by Ashrak on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:34pm.
MSNBC sure ain't gonna say "Come Debate it" if they do offer such a bumper sticker.
;)
Ed Schultz is a TERRORIST!
Submitted by blazermaniac on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:36pm.
Ed Schultz is a TERRORIST! And, so is PMSNBC for employing him!
Hey you dumbass Schultz it's
Submitted by UncleDirtNap on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:42pm.
Hey you dumbass Schultz it's not an either or situation. The undocumented "President" of the United States IS WITH the terrorists on this one.
Ed Schultz is really stupid
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 12:44pm.
Sarah Palin criticized Obama for not hitting Libya hard enough to kill Qadaffi.
But it's not like liberals actually care about the truth.
Ed’s audience is really stupid
Submitted by needle on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:53pm.
He tells them what they want to hear, without regard to reality.
Sick and sad.
- Looking forward to the self-annihilation of the Manipulated Stories Machine.
shouldn't be about the president
Submitted by MidAmerica on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:04pm.
The question is supposed to be "Are we with AMERICA or the terrorists?".
This military adventurism is from the decision of one man and has never been approved by congress or even debated.
So the way I see it if there is any legality question or a charge of some atrocity then their is only one man that is accountable.
Schultsy
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:25pm.
I am with the United States and our allies not the terrorists and especially those amongst the Libyan rebels with terrorist ties. I do not want us to arm the terrorists with American weapons as we ignorantly did in Afghanistan. Therefore I am against what Obama is doing without congressional approval and not in the interest of the people of the United States. Further reasons are clearly stated in the YouTube video that I have linked below. Glen Beck is spot in this video as he often is.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aM0DjOC74zI&feature=player_embedded
Forever
Submitted by CommanderTaya on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 6:25pm.
Thanks, great link! We are forgetting that regardless of which side POTUS decides to arm, the ultimate and coalescing goal for all the Middle East regimes is to wipe the Israelis off the face of the earth. Trust No One.
It was just a simple misstatement
Submitted by CarolinaJimbo on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:42pm.
What Shultz meant to say was : "Are you with the Terrorists and the President of the United States?"
Actually, Red Ed, it is YOU who is on the side of the terrorists
Submitted by Dave. on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:43pm.
You have done nothing but criticize and slam George W. Bush along with this nation's efforts to prevail in the GWOT, (which, by the way, we are currently losing).
As such, you have been aiding and abetting the cause of our enemies since day one.
Now that Obama is risking the lives of our military personel by having them fighting ON THE SIDE OF FRIGGIN' OSAMA, you are yet again supporting the terrorists.
At least you are consistent.
-Consistently moronic.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yea...slob Shultz
Submitted by bbboss on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 1:51pm.
Sarah had a son in the field fighting the terrorists....does this slob even know a soldier let alone have a family member fighting? Disgusting pig...this one really gets me....
How fats Sgt. Schultz forgets
Submitted by east tennessee john on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 3:17pm.
Given the partial identity of the rebels in Libya, made by the NATO Commander and our State Department either side could be considered terrorists. Where oh where are the "progresives" when we have a President who began a war of choice, operates it with no Congressional discussion or approval, is definitely for oil (Europe's) has a prison camp, GITMO, still operational, involves us in a civil warwith potential arming of one side without any knowledge of who the rebels are or what their aims maybe;where are the "progressive" critics,the media attacks, the calls for impeachment, the assassination p,lays and films, the charge of war criminal? I guess "progressive" "commitment to social justice" only applies to GOP Presidents, not one of their own, no matter what he does or how ineptly he does it.
What will Ed say?
Submitted by Model850 on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 4:05pm.
And when it finally comes out that the "rebels" who many in the administration still haven't ruled out arming are somewhat/mostly/primarily composed of Al Qaeda, what say you then, Ed?
They Are Both On The Same Side
Submitted by Avitar on Wed, 03/30/2011 - 8:40pm.
This was a neat use of the Greek Logical 'OR' Very Ivey League, where as 'XOR' is the 'exclusive or' used in comon english and the Logical 'OR' means "either or both".
This clever word structure means that if you are supporting the President you can be supporting Al Qaeda terrorists at the same time. I have to say agree that to support Al Qaeda terrorists is to support President Obama.
It is astounding on how many commentors to this blog wer not fooled. We may see Obama take a LBJ dive rather than run again wih people this far ahead of him and his cronies.
.