Lawrence O'Donnell Worries 'We Are So Free Ann Coulter Can Joke About Jailing Journalists'
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell on Monday expressed concern that someone like conservative author Ann Coulter has the "freedom" to make a joke about jailing journalists.
This was amazing expressed moments before "The Last Word" host applauded the free flow of information that enticed and united protesters to rebel in Egypt (video follows with transcript and commentary):
LAWRENCE O’DONNELL, HOST: Meanwhile, at the Conservative Political Action Conference, CPAC, Ann Coulter felt perfectly comfortable taking a contrarian stand against freedom, and the freedom-hating crowd loved it.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ANN COULTER: What do you mean knowing that there are jailed journalists? I think there should be more jailed journalists.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Nice cherry-pick. Here's a more complete video of that question and answer (forward to 1:57):
According to CBSNews.com:
The comments were sparked by a question about why Coulter and other Republicans advocate for free elections in Iraq but warn against them in Egypt.
Coulter, echoing John Bolton, said that pre-revolution Egypt was an ally of the United States and "you don't go around disturbing countries where you have a loyal ally."
As O'Donnell moved forward bringing on OWN's Lisa Ling, he admitted not knowing the context of Coulter's remarks despite being offended by what was obviously a joke and a darned good one:
O’DONNELL: I want to go quickly to what Ann Coulter said about jailed journalists. You’ve had some experience with this with your sister being held in North Korea and Bill Clinton coming to the rescue to get her out of there in a very dramatic situation. I am sure you and your family were terribly afraid of what was going to happen and how long she was going to be held. What is your reaction when you hear Ann Coulter just so flippantly make a reference like that?
LISA LING, OWN NETWORK: It makes me incensed, and certainly there were those people who said my sister and her team should not have been there and they deserved the punishment they received, and that just angers me so much because I’m such a fierce advocate of free press. And I suppose if, if, if there weren't, we should just kind of sit and remain ignorant, and not have the desire and just allow people who sort of pontificate and profess to know things about which they may not know to be our sources of news. And I think that's actually a very dangerous attitude, and I think that these days with so much media, the need for journalism and people being out in the field is more important than ever.
O’DONNELL: And it seems that what we're seeing there with Ann Coulter and with the thinking even in the focus group is this huge abundance of American freedom. We are so free that Ann can just make a joke about jailing journalists. I, I think it was a joke. I’m not sure what the full context was. And that those people in the focus group can very freely just think whatever they feel like thinking without necessarily having facts to back it up. Is there, is there a kind of laziness that you find that comes with our freedom?
We are so free that Ann can just make a joke about jailing journalists?
Does O'Donnell wish there were laws governing such speech? Does he feel the same way about jokes made by liberal comedians like Bill Maher, or should only conservatives be so constrained?
LING: I actually don't think there's a lot of thinking at all. I think that we're so sort of desperate to be told what to think that we take so much of what we hear as, as, as fact or reality or as news, and I actually think that that's dangerous.
O’DONNELL: Now, you've been everywhere. You've just been everywhere on the planet. Surely you have been to Egypt.
LING: I have been to Egypt, yes.
O’DONNELL: Of course. Like, how many times?
LING: Yeah, I've been to Egypt twice.
O’DONNELL: What you saw happen in the previous 20 days in Egypt, how much did that surprise you? What of it made sense to you as you were watching it unfold?
Now, watch as these two liberal media members, who both were appalled by Coulter's freedom to make a joke, are suddenly enthralled by the freedom of information that led Egyptians to protest their government's oppression:
LING: Well, it was surprising, but having just sort of seen what happened in Iran last year was, I think that there's a movement happening throughout the world. It is increasingly more difficult for any dictator to maintain this kind of stranglehold over the people. And I just think it is so incredible that these social networks that were created by American young people are now destabilizing governments and allowing millions of people to organize. I think the consequences however for the U.S. government will be kind of interesting. I think from here on out, we really need to to really rethink U.S. policy toward authoritarian regimes, because they, they can no longer continue to, to, to maintain the stranglehold.
O’DONNELL: Yeah, the social media and the internet and all of this free flow of information is something that the regimes don't know how to deal with. They used to be able to just clamp down on newspapers, control the newspapers and you're done. That's it. That controls information in these countries. But it is different now.
Some classic liberal hypocrisy there, don't you agree?
There's way too much freedom in America allowing folks like Coulter to make jokes and Iowa Republicans to think the President isn't a Christian or a citizen, but such freedom is a wonderful thing when people thousands of miles away rebel against their leaders.
And it's just awful when foreign regimes prevent information from being disseminated that might be dangerous to their existence, but when people in America express views counter to the regime in power here, it's a disgrace.
So, in this pair's view, conservatives in America should have less freedom of speech than folks in countries thousands of miles away.
It must take a heapin' helpin' of rationalizations to advocate the tenets of the First Amendment in distant lands while you rue its existence in the nation where it was created.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
O'Donnell is the new "Spooky
Submitted by d1carter on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:46am.
O'Donnell is the new "Spooky Dude"...
Surprised?
Submitted by scarebear83 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:56am.
Surprised that they jumped so quickly from questioning one's freedom of speech and how it is "too free" to lavishing praise on another country being just as free? Nope. After watching Cenk tonight I think that a majority of the extreme left have lost all reason. Half the stuff they talk about just makes no sense whatsoever.
These two commentators'
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:05am.
These two commentators' inconsistency is as appalling as other commentators who've decided that Americans are fit for democracy but Egyptians aren't. Oh the hypocritical double-standards.
not to mention
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:40am.
the shallow depth of perception when it comes to examinig other people's views. Thanks for the example.
The idiot Laurence O'Donnell
Submitted by NotFondOfLibs on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:18am.
This guy is such a stiff jerk, he can't see the humor in any situation or any statement. MSNBC was probably better off with Keith Olbermann in this slot, which isn't saying much. O'Donnell is completely baffled by someone like Ann Coulter who can ridicule the political opposition with a smile on her face.
Coulter makes a good living,
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:31am.
Coulter makes a good living, and a lot of noteriety, by MAKING off-the-wall statements like these, and anyone who wants to take them too seriously doesn't know what is going on. Plus, have you ever read or heard some of the things that have been said about her, or any of the other conservative commentators out there??
Libs have NO sense of humor, and take themselves far too seriously - and they aren't 'heavy' enough to be taken seriously by anyone - unless it's Boy Blunder and the rest of the loony tunes that are trying their best to wreck our country.
But I did just read a Valentine's Day interview with Mooooooooooooochelle Boy Blunder, and she said that (her and Barry) 'didnt' take themselves, or each other, too seriously'..........
I wish we could say the same thing!!!!
Agreed, Ann Colter should
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:51am.
Agreed, Ann Colter should never be taken seriously. Good point...
But some liberals definitely have a sense of humor, I'm willing to bet most comedians are liberal. And Stephen Colbert is an expert at not taking himself seriously and he's liberal.
The Mirror
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:01am.
Agreed, Stephen Colbert should never be taken seriously. Good point...
But some conservatives definitely have a sense of humor, I'm willing to bet most non-conformists in the entertainment industry are conservative. And Dennis Miller is an expert at not taking himself seriously and he's conservative.
wow - that was easy
Who ever said conservative
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:52am.
Who ever said conservatives don't have a sense of humor? Not me. I readily concede many of them do.
Someone else said that no liberals have a sense of humor though, which is an unhelpful (and untrue) blanket statement.
I"m sure that some libs have
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:56am.
I"m sure that some libs have a sense of humor, but I don't know too many of them!!! Over here, on an outer Hawaiian island, I know a LOT of libs who might qualify - just as long as you agree with them. So that only makes it easier for me to bust their chops and drive them even loonier than they allready are!!!
I don't watchJon Stewart at all.............I think he's snide and narrow minded and NOT funny, and since Colbert is on his show, I can't make any comment about him. But I do know that he made an ass of himself in front of Congress - and given the extraordinary number of asses in Congress - that is no mean feat!!!!
But........hey...........good humor doesn't need to be 'political'.........and if it is, then it might not be good humor!!!!!
Fair enough. After all, humor
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:07am.
Fair enough. After all, humor is subjective to a certain degree. No one likes to laugh at jokes that ridicule their political beliefs, left or right.
Sorry about the double post.
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:28am.
Sorry about the double post. But I DO take Coulter seriously...........after you get past the ditzy blond bomb-thrower 'sound bites designed to drive libs crazy' routine............I find her to be extremely smart and informend........and brave also. How may of these lib 'experts' want to go up against her??? They'd rather just bad-mouth her without having to deal with the consequenses.
Listen to the Coulter vid
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:36am.
Watch the 2nd vid (of Coulter). She is great and spot on! Excellent speaker.
Regarding the tiny bit of it regarding the joke to jail more journalists, the person asking the question seemed to hate Israel and was suggesting that the USA defund Israel to gain peace. She also asked Coulter about (I assume Israel but could be Egypt due to recent events) them improperly jailing journalists. That is where Coulter shot back with I think more should be jailed, and was perhaps blowing off the question as inappropriate.
She likely should have dug in and nailed her with a better answer. I am thinking the Israel question really pissed her off but she wanted to remain more civil here in this format, and thus made the joke. The joke could mean jailing Palestinian "journalists" (not sure if this has happened) but as I put journalist in quotes because they likely are terrorist supporters, and Israel should jail them.
Or in Egypt it could refer to liberal USA "journalists" because they are covering up Obama's history & current path, as well as covering up the history & path of the Muslim Brotherhood in their reporting... WHICH is a crime of treason to the USA, & thus you could joke that they SHOULD be locked up for their unethical, anti-truth, anti-American reporting.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
%@$#*&+
Submitted by killa37 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:58am.
%@$#*&+
actually he said
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 5:58am.
liberals have NO sense of humor.
We Are The 53%
Meh
Submitted by astonrickenbach on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:51pm.
I thought it was pretty funny when Obama joked about his bowling skill being on par with the special olympics but I'm funny that way.
Who said Egyptians aren't fit for democracy?
Submitted by ConservaSerb on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:37am.
Seems to me, the concern is that what was happening wasn't going to turn Egypt into a democracy, but a theological dictatorship. Of course, leftists pretty much think those are one and the same if that "theology" is socialist or fundamentalist.
A wise & frugal government, which shall leave men free 2 regulate their own pursuits of industry & improvement, & shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. T. Jefferson
True in some cases, but many
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:59am.
True in some cases, but many also reject genuine democracy that would elect a government unsympathetic to US interests.
Speaking of double standards, the US has a long history of respecting democracies that are pro-American but rejecting and suppressing the emergence of democracies that threaten our interests, and the press has been complicit. For example, notice the buzz word "autocrat" of late used to describe the likes of Mubarak. Whatever happened to the word "dictator"?
The Mirror
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:07am.
Because ... we should support emergent governments which threaten our interests?
Wow - I'm glad you aren't in charge.
By the way - I don't support you keeping your wallet - care to give it over?
see response below
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:34am.
see response below
The mirror, Name one Democracy that threatens our interests?
Submitted by upcountrywater on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:42am.
“Democratic countries do not go to war with one another. Name one country......
Hint: Iran, N Korea, and China do not count.
You Didn't Build That.
Democratic countries may
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:04am.
Democratic countries may not go to war with each other too often, but many threaten each other's interests. Big difference.
North Korea and China aren't democracies, in case you didn't know, so of course they don't count.
Iran has a rigged democracy, so yeah that doesn't count either, very good. Same with Venezuela.
Palestine had an election in 2006 and elected Hamas so there's one.. I'm not sure if we even recognize Palestine as a real country though so I guess that technically doesn't count either. But otherwise I'd call that a democracy that threatens our interest
How about Boliva? Aren't they a democracy that threatens our interest? And Ecuador? But they are weak countries, so yeah I guess they don't really threaten our interests.
What about Mexico? Lots of people think Mexico endangers our border states, and the rest of the country too.
Where's the supression?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:44pm.
Mirror, in all the democracies, or pseudo-democracies, that you cited, you never gave us a single example of how we have suppressed, or are suppressing, them.
Let's take Iran as an example. Here we have an "elected" theocracy that has been around since the 70's, one who's power is expanding across the Middle east and beyond. Just how have we "suppressed" them? The same with Venezuela, how are we "suppressing" them? Or Bolivia? Or Mexico?
Please for the sake of your on arguments, give me an example of how we has "suppressed" democracies?
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.
Well, like you said,
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:38pm.
Well, like you said, Venezuela isn't a bona fide democracy, but we did help overthrow Hugo Chavez in 2003 in a military coup, and he lost power for a little while before getting it back. Funny how most Americans have no idea this happened. Kinda blows a hole in the whole 'liberal media" idea. You'd think that would be all over the news. So yeah, that would be a pretty clear cut example of overthrowing a democratically elected government, or suppressing a democracy. Though to be fair, someone asked me to list democracies that threaten our interest, not which ones we helped overthrow, so that's why I wasn't giving examples. I don't think we are suppressing Mexican democracy, I never said that. I just said some people view that as a democracy that threatens our interests. Same with Bolivia.
Some examples of democratically elected governments we help overthrow:
1953 the CIA helped overthrow the elected prime minister of Iran. The elected theocracy you mention came to power in the 70's because people there didn't like the Shah we supported.
1973, the CIA helped get rid of Chilean president Salvador Allkende who was replaced by Pinochet, another murderous dictator who is thankfully gone now.
I could go on but i don't want to make a point of America's bad deeds. The point I'm trying to make in this thread is that Americans aren't too stupid to understand we sometimes need to support less than democratic regimes for important reasons, but we rarely have it explained this way in the press. If we're going to support a corrupt ruler, let's just be upfront about it and not use language to gloss over the reality. I'd respect the press a lot more if they spoke this way.
On Democratic Countries
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 3:42pm.
Wrong. The elections in Gaza was a "one vote/one time" with Hamas thugocracy refusals for subsequent elections. There is nothing "democratic" about their murderous, tortuting, threatening, dictatorial method of ruling.
A single point in time does not define a democracy. The vote may have been democratically structured but the resulting governing element is not "democratic" in action.
Yeah but it was still an
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:56pm.
Yeah but it was still an election where we didn't support the outcome because we didn't like who got elected. Keep in mind I'm not saying we should have supported the results. I'm not some America-hating, terrorist-loving liberal. I'm just saying that sometimes America represses democratic actions in other countries, but there may be nothing wrong with that, as in this case. It is just rarely talked about in these plain terms. Most Americans didn't even know about that election. It just went into a media black hole after it happened. Instead of trusting the American public to understand the concept that some election outcomes shouldn't be supported, the story was simply buried. That's a form of media bias.
I was only addressing your
Submitted by stratman on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 5:10pm.
I was only addressing your incorrect labeling of Gaza as having a democratic government. Anything else you may construe was not in the purveiw of my post.
What democracies have we supressed?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:19pm.
You stated that America has suppressed "true" democracies that threaten our interests, that we, in fact, have a long history of doing this. Care to name a single example?
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.
see above
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:38pm.
see above
So, Mirror---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:06am.
Do you have a problem with the U.S. looking out for its own interests and suppressing democracies that threaten those interests? Your use of the word "complicit" makes it sound as though you feel the United States did its level best to turn every action into a criminal enterprise.I certainly don't have any
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:31am.
I certainly don't have any problem with the US protecting its interests, but I do have a problem with double standards. Are we on a mission to unconditionally promote democracy, especially in the Middle East, or not? If we only support democracy in areas we feel the people are sane enough to govern themselves, so be it, but let's just be upfront about it. Instead of calling dictators "autocrats" or other euphemisms (which are used to gloss over double standards), let's adopt a standard terminology. Mubarack is a dictator. We supported a dictator for 30 years and guess what, maybe that was necessary for a lot of important reasons. Maybe it wasn't. But it insults the American public's intelligence to pretend he wasn't a dictator. The press assumes Americans are too stupid to understand the concept that supporting a dictator might be necessary sometimes. I'm not saying that's the case in Egypt now, by the way. I just find it insulting when the mainstream press tools me around with foggy language.
The US press generally plays along with a pro-government narrative, using terms like "autocrat" to describe pro-American dictators and "dictator" to describe anti-American dictators. There are exceptions, but generally this is the case. The fundamental bias in news is more complex than "liberal" or "conservative". If the US press truly had a dominant liberal bias, then every American would know about all the times our government replaced democratically elected leaders in other countries with dictators, but they don't. How does NewsBuster's account for this?
Why does NewsBuster's have to account for ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:01am.
liberal bias in the media, either electronic or print?
NewsBusters' stated mission goal is to expose liberal bias, not give a two dollar psychological evaluation of why liberals are biased.
You complain about the "press" 'tooling' you around with foggy language; make a statement about the U.S. replacing democratically elected leaders with dictators, and then suggest that NewsBusters should be responsible for explaining why the press acts as it does in that regard.
You say the press is "tooling you around".
If that is a fact, and you are aware of that fact, how, exactly, are you being tooled?
MD
I'm referring to electronic,
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:46pm.
I'm referring to electronic, print, radio, Internet, all media, all mainstream media.
My point was that the press uses different language when talking about corrupt rulers we're friends with, and corrupt rulers we don't like, which is a form of pro-government bias. NewsBuster's whole thing is that it thinks the media has a dominant liberal bias. So what I'm saying is, how does the bias I am referring to reconcile with the bias NewsBusters is pointing to.
Well yeah, and if I'm aware they are "tooling me around", then I guess I'm not being tooled around, technically speaking. Okay, let me rephrase that, I don';t like it when they TRY to tool me around. Is that clear enough?
Mirror---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:47pm.
What is clear through your posts is that you are more concerned with trying to paint the media, all types, as being equally as biased for conservatism as they are towards liberal ideology. That is simply not true. Spin away.What's the difference?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:00am.
Do you even realize what an autocrat is? Is it any better than being a dictator? (hint, the answer is NO)
Who are you complaining about using that term anyway? Huffn puff?
The term autocrat is actually more accurate, that is probably why it is being used.
President Mubarak was elected. They had elections, he received a majority of the vote. It was probably rigged but it was still an election.
An autocrat has absolut power.
A dictator is a ruler who is not effectively restricted by a constitution.
Mubarak followed the constitution of Egypt, but he did it in an autocratic way.
We Are The 53%
A dictator
Submitted by jon_torlin on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:29pm.
A dictator is a ruler who is not effectively restricted by a constitution.
Denny,
You realize you just described the Chairman? Granted, I wouldn't say he's being restricted, but the laws of the land are not being enforced against him either(when they should be). But he's doing things that fly AGAINST the Constitution and that does in your words make him a dictator. He even said it wasn't written right. That's a dictator speaking right there!
People need to understand this. Further, people need to KNOW this. And act on it.
That performance he had this morning proves that, he was willing to say anything in spite of the facts.
The sooner we can get people to understand this and thus force Congress to act on it(somehow with the Senate anyway), the sooner we can get this POSSOB out of this country and back to Kenya where he was born with his other half-brothers and whatever half-lings he has there.
-Jon
I don't think the difference
Submitted by Reflect on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 4:37pm.
I don't think the difference is that clearly defined, I'd say they are synonymous, dictator and autocrat. Even the dictionary entry you cited has autocrat listed as a synonym for dictator.
The difference does seem
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 5:59pm.
The difference does seem elusive looking at certain explanations.
"Autocrat" is the general term for "self-ruler", of one person with supreme power over all else. There are different types of autocrats, for example "dictator" and "monarch".
The conotation of the word, the subtext, seems different depending on word choice, such as a dictator interpretated as less benign than a monarch autocrat.
Haven't dictators been unconstrained by constitutions and courts compared to the extent monarch autocrats have? The British Monarchy is an example of an ever increasingly benign autocracy, as are numerous other examples from European countries.
On January 27th, Jim Lehrer
Submitted by Reflect on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 8:22pm.
On January 27th, Jim Lehrer was interviewing Joe Biden, and he ask him if he thought Mubarack was a dictator. Biden said no, but the fact that he even asked shows the definition isn't so cut & dry, like being clearly based on the existence of a constitution or whatever.
Besides the purpose and
Submitted by stratman on Wed, 02/16/2011 - 9:11pm.
Besides the purpose and utility of asking this question, Biden's opinion is meaningless in the scope of this discussion unless he is reading directly from an undisputed source the definition of dictator versus other forms of autocrats.
Autocrat is to "car" as dictator is to "GM" or monarchy is to "Ford". The latter two are subsets of the first. In simplistic slogan-like terms, all Fords are cars but not all cars are Fords.
For all intents and purposes, Mubarak's Egypt was a military dictatorship, another subset of autocracy. It is interesting to note, IIRC, that Mubarak did not alter, amend or throw out the Egyptian constitution during the crisis. In fact, he spoke of following the rules of their constitution in his stepping down from power, specifically the timing of elections. There may be other examples, but this one I recall.
HAHAHAHHA
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 02/17/2011 - 10:54pm.
Did you just site Biden as a source? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THANKS FOR THE LAUGH!!!!!!!
OK, seriously, (snicker, sorry, can't stop laughing) ..
OK, better now, (almost) ...
The definition isn't so cut and dry, so why are you complaining?
I would contend that he was an autocrat more than a dictator because I have not heard of 1 instance, not 1, where they said he went against the Egyptian constitution. Even when he stepped down, he still wanted to follow the constitution.
We Are The 53%
WHO'S supressing democracies?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 12:29pm.
Mirror, you keep claiming that we suppress democracies which threaten our interests. I would like to see a single example of this, just one single example. I can't think of a single democracy that America has "suppressed" in our entire history.
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.
You can't think of an example
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:49pm.
You can't think of an example because much of this history has been "suppressed" in the mainstream media. See above responses for examples.
No, wer'e not
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:12pm.
"Are we on a mission to unconditionally promote democracy, especially in the Middle East, or not?"
No, that's not our mission. Our "mission" is to promote mutually beneficial and lasting relations with other people and their governments. If we have relations with a benign government, whether that government takes the form of a Democracy, a Constitutional Monarchy (Great Briton, anyone?), a Federation, whatever, the mutual benefits of that relationship is what matters, not the form of the government that creates those benefits.
America has a long history of dealing beneficially with various forms of governments, including Monarchies and even Dictatorships, but only as long as those dealing are beneficial to everyone involved. We don't narrow our focus to just democracies, you know. But here's the key: those relationships have to be beneficial, not only for ourselves but for the citizens of governments we support.
Take United Arab Emirates as an example. Here we have a very beneficial relationship with several relatively benign governments, none of which are a democracy (they are, in fact, a Federation). Yet, because their Federation is relatively benign, and not a threat to us, we have open and beneficial relations with their governments and their citizens. This was not always the case. Until the 70's, that relationship was "strained," to say the least, but only because of the "nature" of the people, the Emirates, who ruled those countries before a Constitution was adopted in 1971 and they stopped threatening the US and our interests, as well as suppressing the rights of their own citizens. Now, after political reforms took place within their own societies and they stopped being a threat to us and our interests, we have open and beneficial relationships even though they are still not a democracy.
You see, it's not the form of government that matters, but the form of the relationships with those governments. If those relationships are beneficial, especially to us, well, that's the "mission" that we desire. That same behavior, that same form of foreign policy, is true for every single type of government on Earth, both past and present. America is no exception. So, just how is that "hypocritical" on OUR part?
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 not even really
Submitted by Reflect on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:31pm.
I'm not even really disagreeing with everything you just said, what you're describing is often how the world works. The hypocrisy I'm referring to is that spoken mainly by the press. The way you describe how the US operates in the real world is rarely explained so clearly in the news. The concept that America will support any type of government that serves our interest is a controversial topic that is rarely stated so plainly. Using different words to describe pro and anti- American corrupt rulers (be they dictators or "elected" in false elections) is where the hypocrisy and double standards come in.
I don't quite agree with everything you mentioned above though, in particular the statement "those relationships have to be beneficial, not only for ourselves but for the citizens of governments we support." We will be friends with a ruler even if it isn't in the interests of their citizens. Look at Egypt, for example. Or Iraq under Saddam Hussein back when he was our friend. Or Pinochet in Chile.
lesser of two evils
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:39pm.
Much like our recent presidential elections and having to choose the lesser of two evils the US has often chosen the perceived lesser of two evils in foreign policy. Unfortunately two things typically though not always happens. The lesser evil becomes much worse once they actually have power and the media will shape the story to ignore the reasons the now dictator was once considered preferrable while casting the US as imperialist.
The sad thing is that the media would blame the US if they did nothing as well because we were uncaring of the suffering of the people of _______.
Journalists in Jail
Submitted by Chandran on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:09am.
O'Donnell shoots from the left and admits to being a socialist. Its the other lefties who couch themselves under journalism that should be considered for ... hmmmmmm.
Journalists are not immuned
Submitted by 4rcane on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:40am.
Journalists are not immuned from corruption.
Poor Larry
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 2:52am.
Like watch'n a 2 year old play with his poopy diaper
roflmao
Democrat brains and what passes for Liberal thought....
Submitted by acaiguana on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 6:52am.
Now here is brilliance at work. I am still reeling from the logic contained in the following:
"Well, it was surprising, but having just sort of seen(1) what happened in Iran last year was, I think that there's a movement happening throughout the world. It is increasingly more difficult for any dictator to maintain this kind of stranglehold over the people. And I just think it is so incredible that these social networks that were created by American young people are now destabilizing governments and allowing millions of people to organize. I think the consequences however for the U.S. government will be kind of interesting. I think from here on out, we really need to to really rethink U.S. policy toward authoritarian regimes, because they, they can no longer continue to, to, to maintain the stranglehold.(2)"
(1) 'just sort of seen' - interesting...
What if she had just seen or maybe sort of just seen or just sorta kinda maybe seen??
(2) She used the word or its variance 'think' in one paragraph 5 (count them) five times.
That's gotta be a record.
Let me translate.
I think, gosh, I mean, gee, OMG, all the social networking is, you know, kinda, sort of, really interesting with respect to consequences for the US government (whatever that is) and you know, we need to rethink US policy toward authoritarian regimes (I am still aginst the war in Iraq) and my sister was in Korea because, well whatever.
And journalists (and no matter how stupid this sounds) like my sister who worked for that wonderful hard news outlet Current TV, and sort of like isn't Al Gore just wonderful; and I own about thirty blue dresses... um... what was I talking about again?
So, there's my take on the kinda sorta just sorta seen paragraph opening this twits dialogue with whoever she was on TV with - thanks Noel for the early morning chuckle.
I'm so glad there are so many Liberals around to tell me what they 'think' and why I am so stupid.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana notes from the Underground' (Soon to be at theaters near you)
Yes, Larry, and we're so free
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 8:12am.
Yes, Larry, and we're so free that Ed Schultz can rage (NOT joke) about killing a former vice-presidents (in a particularly gruesome way, I might add).
But heavens! Don't joke about journalists in jail!!
That's just outside the pale!
Bad Jokes
Submitted by Boil It Down on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 8:34am.
Coulter made a stupid joke without thinking, but then again Lawrence O'Donnell is a bad joke without thinking most of the time. Coulter was not insulting O'Donnell since the reference was to journalists.
It wasn't a stupid joke
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 11:15am.
It was very funny.
I don't care if she thought more journalists should be dead, red, matters not. These liberal "journolists" with an agenda are offended by anything and everything Anne Coulter says. They accused her (wrongly, natch) of comparing Democrats to Cancer on Huff Po yesterday. They accused Dick Cheney of telling hecklers to "sit down and shut up", which he did say, but in response to overwhelming cheers FOR HIM, it was a joke as well....but that doesn't fit the mean conservative meme.
Go watch her whole CPAC speech, she was fabulous. As for O'Donnell, I hope he stays mad. He's not very good at pissed off. It's funny in a trainwreck sort of way.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Crazy Larry rants! MSNBC, what a network!
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 9:41am.
Tingles, Special ed, Crazy Larry and the woman who wants to be a man, what a prime time lineup!
When has DEMOCRACY ever won?
Submitted by PJMan on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 10:17am.
A Republic, when all are served, is it, these idiots are so self serving, and I think there rubbing their own tingly places, and that they believe that they are their right! Amazing.Balogna!
Submitted by Ashrak on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 10:28am.
Lawrence didn't "admit" to not knowing the context, he absolutely knew the context. He just said that give himself an out when NewsBusters, and others, check him on his cherry pick.
What I found hilarious when I was watching this on TV was how Lawerence misses the fact that as he himself talked about not knowing the facts "to back it up", he himself pontificates without knowing the facts about his own storyline.
I took particular interest in Ling's comment about wanting to be told what to think. For crying out loud, she derides the very thing that the liberal control over schools has created. It is the progressive left that has been reduced to targetting children, teaching them WHAT to think instead of HOW to think, and Ling snaps on it?
There is a movement happening al over the world. It is called the Liberty movement. It began in earnest in Iraq in 2003 and it was demonstrated with purple fingers there. It was demonstrated, absent military intervention, here in 2008 with a little something called the TEA party.
Liberty is on the march and there is nothing that the progressives can do to stop it.
Above, Mirror talks about unconditional democracy. Partner, this nation's people stand AGAINST unconditional democracy and have from the very start. Inalienable rights cannot exist within unconditional democracy, which is why we pledge allegiance to the Flag and to the Republic for which it stands, because that makes rights themselves subject to the will of the majority. That means there are no rights at all.
"Does O'Donnell wish there
Submitted by jdawg2009 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 10:31am.
"Does O'Donnell wish there were laws governing such speech?"
Yes.
"Does he feel the same way about jokes made by liberal comedians like Bill Maher, or should only conservatives be so constrained?"
You're kidding, right? These people would be very happy to see Soviet-style gulags put in place so they can imprison anyone they disagree with.
Any English Teachers here?
Submitted by Gothampc on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 1:17pm.
"It makes me incensed"
You'll have to excuse me because I'm a product of the public school system (ok, the truth is I just hated grammar). But is this grammatically correct? It seems to me a strange phrase. I would have just said "It makes me angry." Maybe she should have said "I am incensed?"
Why not Larry, we are free
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Tue, 02/15/2011 - 4:01pm.
Why not Larry, we are free enough to make movies about assasinating Pres. Bush and the sub human muslims can make beheading videos, why not joke about locking up a few newsreaders.