One of the most extraordinary moments of the 2004 presidential campaign was when MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell went totally ballistic on one of John Kerry’s swift boat compatriots, John O’Neill, on the October 22, 2004, installment of “Scarborough Country.” Roughly two years later, O’Donnell was once again a guest of Joe Scarborough, and this time the object of his disaffection was Republican strategist Terry Holt (video here).
The discussion centered on Rep. Charlie Rangel’s recent suggestion that the draft should be reinstated. After playing a video clip of the Congressman, quite a melee ensued wherein O’Donnell called Holt and basically every person in the Administration that hasn’t served in the military including the President's daughters “cowardly warmongers”:
O`DONNELL: Well, you know, he suggested this a couple years ago, and he was fairly open last time around about not being serious. He says this time that he is serious. What he makes, Joe, is a very, very serious point, which is to say we now have an American combat force that has no connection to the society at large. We have a military culture in the United States...
HOLT: That`s just not right, Larry. I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: Oh, yes? How many combat veterans do we have on this panel tonight? I don`t like to hear...
HOLT: There are dozens of...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second!
O`DONNELL: ... cowardly warmongers –
Trust me. That was just the beginning:
O`DONNELL: Not one of us has the courage to put ourselves in a military uniform...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... or ever go into combat! So don`t you dare tell me...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... that you are in any way connected to this military! You`re as much of a coward...
Scarborough tried reining O’Donnell in, but to no avail:
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on! Lawrence, you are so out of line, I don`t even know where to begin! Walter Cronkite -- I don`t know if Walter Cronkite served in World War II or the Korean war, but Walter Cronkite could come on and talk about the Tet offensive. Yes, I am connected to people who are over in Iraq right now.
O`DONNELL: Joe, you are connected...
SCARBOROUGH: I know people...
O`DONNELL: ... Terry Holt is not.
SCARBOROUGH: I know people...
O`DONNELL: Terry Holt is the typical...
SCARBOROUGH: ... over in Afghanistan.
O`DONNELL: ... draft-dodging...
Sadly, it got worse:
O`DONNELL: Does Terry Holt have any relatives in Iraq? I don`t think so.
HOLT: No, but I have members of my church, members of my community, people that I have met with. And Larry, come on...
O`DONNELL: And you would never dream of it yourself! You live your whole life...
HOLT: But Larry, look at the reality!
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: ... supporting this kind of war without ever -- one minute of your life has not been spent contemplating military service yourself, have you!
O’Donnell continued with this attack:
O`DONNELL: Terry Holt gets to live completely apart from this war. Not a single relative involved. Nobody he cares about does he have to worry about going to Iraq.
HOLT: Well, I wouldn`t attack you personally, Larry. I`m sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: I`m just not going to go there with you.
SCARBOROUGH: That`s an awful personal -- that`s an awful personal...
O`DONNELL: It is personal!
SCARBOROUGH: ... attack, isn`t it?
Finally, Lawrence went after the President’s daughters:
O`DONNELL: President Bush has two kids who belong in Iraq, and they`re not there! And if they had to...
HOLT: Oh, my goodness!
O`DONNELL: ... go there, he would make a different decision! It is a disgusting disconnect...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second! Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... from military service!
SCARBOROUGH: ... I don`t know why you think that people who don`t want to serve in the armed services shouldserve in the armed services...
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: People who are afraid of the armed services should not advocate war!
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: If you`re afraid of being in the armed services...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... you cannot advocate war!
How amazingly disgraceful. What follows is a full transcript of this segment.
To answer those questions, let`s bring in former executive producer of NBC`s "The West Wing" Lawrence O`Donnell. He`s of course, a frequent contributor to the Huffingtonpost.com. Also Michael Crowley, senior editor for "The New Republic," and Republican strategist Terry Holt.
[…]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. CHARLIE RANGEL (D), NEW YORK: There`s no question in my mind that this president and this administration would never have invaded Iraq, especially on the flimsy evidence that was presented to the Congress, if indeed we had a draft and members of Congress and the administration thought that their kids from their communities would be placed in harm`s way.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
SCARBOROUGH: And of course, Charlie now is pushing, Lawrence, for a military draft. Is that...
O`DONNELL: Well, you know, he...
SCARBOROUGH: What`s he -- what`s he trying to do, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory for Democrats?
O`DONNELL: Well, you know, he suggested this a couple years ago, and he was fairly open last time around about not being serious. He says this time that he is serious. What he makes, Joe, is a very, very serious point, which is to say we now have an American combat force that has no connection to the society at large. We have a military culture in the United States...
HOLT: That`s just not right, Larry. I mean...
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: Oh, yes? How many combat veterans do we have on this panel tonight? I don`t like to hear...
HOLT: There are dozens of...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second!
O`DONNELL: ... cowardly warmongers --
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: One at a time!
O`DONNELL: Not one of us has the courage to put ourselves in a military uniform...
SCARBOROUGH: Well, Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... or ever go into combat! So don`t you dare tell me...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... that you are in any way connected to this military! You`re as much of a coward...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence!
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second, Lawrence!~
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on! Lawrence, you are so out of line, I don`t even know where to begin! Walter Cronkite -- I don`t know if Walter Cronkite served in World War II or the Korean war, but Walter Cronkite could come on and talk about the Tet offensive. Yes, I am connected to people who are over in Iraq right now.
O`DONNELL: Joe, you are connected...
SCARBOROUGH: I know people...
O`DONNELL: ... Terry Holt is not.
SCARBOROUGH: I know people...
O`DONNELL: Terry Holt is the typical...
SCARBOROUGH: ... over in Afghanistan.
O`DONNELL: ... draft-dodging...
SCARBOROUGH: I know people all the time that have to go over there. I know wives who have left their husbands!
O`DONNELL: I know you do, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: I know husbands that have 2-year-old kids they have hardly seen at all! There are people who are connected to this war. I don`t think, though...
O`DONNELL: Does Terry Holt have any relatives in Iraq? I don`t think so.
HOLT: No, but I have members of my church, members of my community, people that I have met with. And Larry, come on...
O`DONNELL: And you would never dream of it yourself! You live your whole life...
HOLT: But Larry, look at the reality!
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: ... supporting this kind of war without ever -- one minute of your life has not been spent contemplating military service yourself, have you!
HOLT: But let me make a point to you, sir!
O`DONNELL: Tell the truth!
HOLT: Let me make a point to you...
O`DONNELL: You`re just like me, you wouldn`t dare enlist in the military...
HOLT: I`m sorry, I just am trying...
O`DONNELL: ... because you are as afraid of it as I am!
HOLT: ... to interrupt to make a point to you, and that is that people in Columbus, Ohio, and Indianapolis, Indiana, and Des Moines, Iowa, have friends and families that have suffered and sacrificed in this war.
O`DONNELL: And you don`t!
HOLT: And for you to suggest that a draft would make people hurt more, I think that`s unfair to the millions of military families around this country...
O`DONNELL: What Rangel is saying is a draft will connect the military...
HOLT: ... that have made a sacrifice.
O`DONNELL: ... to the wider American population, which is absolutely true.
CROWLEY: Joe, may I budge in for a minute? I think that maybe the key point is that political, and frankly, media leadership in this country. So it`s not that average Americans have no connection to the military or that tiny numbers of Americans do, but unfortunately, I think the people who make the decisions about war and peace in the corridors power and at the newspapers, to some extent, editorial boards -- those people are all too disconnected from the culture of the military.
SCARBOROUGH: And Michael Crowley -- Michael Crowley, that`s a great point.
CROWLEY: And by the way, I am one of those...
SCARBOROUGH: The fact is...
CROWLEY: And that applies to me. I`m not trying to point the finger.
SCARBOROUGH: Right.
CROWLEY: And it paralyzes my thinking about these issues.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, sure. And it`s not that middle America is not connected to the loss that our men and women are suffering overseas. It is a fact that elites -- and because I`ve got a TV show, by my definition before I got into TV what an elite would be, I would be one of those. Elites in this country, people in the media, people in Congress, people in the executive branch, they are disconnected.
I remember hearing Doris Kearns Goodwin talking about her son deciding from Harvard to serve this country and talking about how she`d go to dinner parties, and people would like at her like her son was out of his mind. Of course, he wasn`t.
HOLT: Joe, does a draft make that happen?
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: And Lawrence -- let me ask that question to you, Lawrence, because we know how the last draft went. I mean, the elites are still going to be able to keep their kids out of the draft.
O`DONNELL: Yes. Tell that to John Kerry and everybody else from his Yale class who enlisted. The draft put the pressure...
HOLT: Whatever!
O`DONNELL: ... on people to...
SCARBOROUGH: John Kerry...
O`DONNELL: ... face the decision...
SCARBOROUGH: John Kerry went in in 1965...
HOLT: The draft brought people in the middle...
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: Hold on. Hold on. Hold on.
O`DONNELL: My brother went in and I have cousins going in...
HOLT: Go ahead. Go ahead. Talk.
O`DONNELL: ... who don`t want to go in, and they had to go in! So it did happen, and the draft did connect you. Everybody had a draft number, and they had this relationship to this war at the time...
HOLT: But does it make them a more effective fighting force?
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: Terry Holt gets to live completely apart from this war. Not a single relative involved. Nobody he cares about does he have to worry about going to Iraq.
HOLT: Well, I wouldn`t attack you personally, Larry. I`m sorry.
(CROSSTALK)
HOLT: I`m just not going to go there with you.
SCARBOROUGH: That`s an awful personal -- that`s an awful personal...
O`DONNELL: It is personal!
SCARBOROUGH: ... attack, isn`t it?
O`DONNELL: President Bush has two kids who belong in Iraq, and they`re not there! And if they had to...
HOLT: Oh, my goodness!
O`DONNELL: ... go there, he would make a different decision! It is a disgusting disconnect...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on a second! Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... from military service!
SCARBOROUGH: ... I don`t know why you think that people who don`t want to serve in the armed services should serve in the armed services...
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: People who are afraid of the armed services should not advocate war!
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: If you`re afraid of being in the armed services...
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence...
O`DONNELL: ... you cannot advocate war!
SCARBOROUGH: Lawrence, you are just so out of bounds tonight. Let me finish my sentence. We`ve got over a million people that serve in our military, that do it proudly, that are proud of what they`re doing, and as much as this may shock you and other people, they`re very proud of what they`re doing in Iraq. They`re proud of what they`re doing in Afghanistan. They`re proud of what they`re doing in the Balkans. Don`t tell them...
O`DONNELL: I`ve had family in Iraq...
SCARBOROUGH: ... that they`re the dregs of society!
O`DONNELL: ... myself, Joe. What I`m telling you is if someone is afraid to put on a military uniform and afraid of combat, they have no right to advocate war.
HOLT: Who`s talking about being afraid? We`re talking about...
O`DONNELL: You Terry! You`re afraid!
HOLT: ... a policy...
O`DONNELL: You didn`t do it!~
HOLT: Larry...
O`DONNELL: And you advocate war!
HOLT: We`re not talking about fear...
O`DONNELL: Just like President Bush!
HOLT: ... or no fear. We`re talking about...
O`DONNELL: He was afraid of combat, and he advocates war.
HOLT: Well...
(CROSSTALK)
SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. Did you say that about Bill Clinton also?
O`DONNELL: Yes! Bill Clinton was a draft dodger, classic afraid, terrified draft dodger.
O`DONNELL: He
SCARBOROUGH: OK. And he sent our trips overseas...
O`DONNELL: That`s right.
SCARBOROUGH: ... and aren`t you glad that he sent them to Bosnia and Kosovo?
O`DONNELL: I`m not sure that I am glad that he sent them there.
SCARBOROUGH: Well, there were a hell of a lot of people that were being killed there...
(CROSSTALK)
CROWLEY: It rather tends to limit the 2008 Democratic presidential field. I mean, Lawrence, I`m sympathetic to a lot of what you`re saying, but it makes it a little bit difficult for the Democratic Party to continue to exist...
O`DONNELL: Well, the Democrats will continue to be as hypocritical about it as the Republicans...
(CROSSTALK)
O`DONNELL: ... from war cowards loathsome!
SCARBOROUGH: All right, we`re going to have to leave it there. Lawrence O`Donnell, you came to fight tonight. Michael Crowley, Terry, thanks for being with us.
HOLT: Thanks, Joe.
SCARBOROUGH: It`s an important debate you`re going to be hearing in the coming future, I`ll guarantee you that, if Charlie Rangel has his way.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
SCARBOROUGH: It`s an import
November 21, 2006 - 23:15 ET by John in CASCARBOROUGH: It`s an important debate you`re going to be hearing in the
coming future, I`ll guarantee you that, if Charlie Rangel has his way.
Well, it would have been nice if during this debate someone besides O'Donnell had been allowed to talk over his yelling.
Give a Democrat Party free America a chance!
kookball premise
November 22, 2006 - 00:27 ET by SportPoliticskookball premise.
So all our WW1 heroes were nowhere and none helped enter and continue WW2, and likewise the Korean War vets- none helped fire up Vietnam - oh- yeah JFK now never served... etc.
The whole premise of the gasbag is gone from just my basic knowledge of history.
When he shrieked the Bush daughters belong in Iraq you knew he was just like any other screeching a*****e democrat we get in here and all over the net. The problem is, that's a whole generation or two of these liberal whack jobs, Lawrence ODonnel being one of them.
I guess these insanely angry loons want this discussion now, and the reason of course is, it's their biggest bargain chip for white flag surrender and retreat from Iraq, and you can bet we will have 40 years and more of them screaming about Bush and his lying war with his sexed up intel and deception and on and on and on and on...
If L ODonnel would have been a man and said " I want a draft to really put a hurting on the prospects of finishing up in Iraq and to really destroy President Bush" I could have accepted him as telling the truth.
But, instead, I have to twist my brain into a pretzel trying to ignore our former leaders, JFK for instance that actually had served and ramped up Vietnam. President Grant.
Last time I checked congress there were more republican vets that saw combat than democrats. Although liberals have screamed no congresspersons are touched by the war since MM's fahrenheit 911, I have seen several elected in Congress telling about their relatives and sons in Iraq.
If this ODonnel wants to become a man why doesn't he take a Halliburton job over there? Oh that's right, he screamed he would never sign up and is scared to death of the whole idea.
Most of Congress has been over there at least once, and I wouldn't categorize that as "entirely safe" or free from the possibility of being blown up, unless ODonnel wants to cut out his raging heart and claim he has been lying about Iraq for years now...
He's Makookoo ( tip to Free Stinker).
I see ulterior motives none good and left wing rage. At least he had to "croak" and nearly croaked when Scarborough made him comment on slick willies lack of service and the war in the Balkans he whipped up.
( Basically his whole raging ranting screechfest ='s If I could make Bush's daughter's get the hell over there this ^&^&$%^ #$%$%^$%^ President would stop this whole thing yesterday. )
BTW - Bush's daughters were in Argentina and had her purse and cellphone stolen at dinner the Sec Ser missed the crime, and later off duty one Sec Service guy was robbed and beaten badly. The dimmocrats commenting at the abc blog on the story screamed Bush's daughters don't deserve protection and they should both be in Iraq and they're glad they got robbed hope it was diamonds and a gucci purse... check out the link you'll see, they're just like the ranting a******e Lawrence O'Donnel.
Nice Link, Sporty,It also sai
November 22, 2006 - 00:42 ET by BlondeNice Link, Sporty,
It also said that one of the Bush daughters had been working as a UNICEF intern in Panama....
Hmmmm.
Doesn't that make O'Donnell's rant look even more foolish?
Why do these press fools think the Bush twins are fair game? When Chelsea Clinton and Amy Carter are still afforded all measure of privacy? Do you think it may have to do with the intials after thier father's names? Call me a cynic.
Blonde,You're a cynic (always
November 22, 2006 - 06:02 ET by Indiana JoeBlonde,
You're a cynic (always happy to oblige, LOL)! So am I.
Doesn't mean we're wrong, though.... ;^)
Regards,
IJ
Blonde,You hit the nail right
November 22, 2006 - 08:31 ET by msh1973Blonde,
You hit the nail right on the head...the Bush twins are fair game because the msm hates their father. It is just pathetic what is going on in this Country. O'Donnell should be shut out of all media outlets, but instead he will be a hero.
...so what does O'Donnell thi
November 22, 2006 - 13:00 ET by TruthMonger...so what does O'Donnell think of draft-dodging Clinton bombing the hell out Bosnia if you pressed him on it - especially as it was simply as an attempt at distraction from Monicagate? I'm sure his response would be "WELL THAT'S DIFFERENT..."
I'm happy to see O'Donnell and Rangle make this asinine crusade - it makes the left look even worse than the actually are - if that's possible...
This can't possibly be having the desired effect. The MSM will pull be pulling the plug on these pro-draft idiots pretty quick I'm sure...
"...over there ... I wou
November 22, 2006 - 01:38 ET by mattm"...over there ... I wouldn't categorize that as "entirely safe" or free from the possibility of being blown up."
The thing these deluded morons either fail to recognize or refuse to admit is that OVER HERE were not entirely safe.
They can criticize the effort or question decisions all they want, the fact remains that Islamofascist fanatics want to either kill us or subjugate us. They say so themselves. There are more 911's planned; they announce it. And they won't stop until they succeed or we stop them.
As Aragorn said "Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not."
Iraq vs. CALIFORNIA, etc...
November 22, 2006 - 13:40 ET by TruthMongerOnce again the quagmires of California and Florida - more violent than Iraq:
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson041206.html
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20716640-1702,00.htm
noel, what are the chances
November 21, 2006 - 23:15 ET by tumblerIs there any way this evil character might be sued for defamation and character assassination? It seems to me there are judges who --besides not having served in the military, -- wouldn't be pleased with this kind of rhetoric, and would see it as clearly irresponsible. O'Donnell should be judged guilty of sordid hate speech, defamation and character assassination. Sue the jerk for 77 million dollars, I say.
Why didn't the left think it was a big deal in 1992 that Billy d
November 21, 2006 - 23:37 ET by terrigWell, I'll be honest I don't know why in 1992 we were told by all those on the left and in the MSM that it wasn't important for someone to have served in the military to become Commander in Chief. In fact we had this mantra shoved down our throats for the entire 8 years he was in office. This O'Donnell clown should send his spawns to the military then (I think he's a bit too old to enlist himself). I personally wondered why my husband had to go to Bosnia 6 weeks after we got married. I wondered myself why I was going there as well but when I signed up, I knew that I would probably have to go somewhere sometime and it wasn't for me to question those who made the decisions (which I hope they spent some time on) to send me or anyone else in harms way.
As a percentage of the American population there are very few who are directly affected by what is happening with those who serve today. However, it's always been that way and I don't see no stinking libs running out to sign up, I just see them protesting and making fun of those who do.
My humble opinon only.
Liberals do not like free
November 22, 2006 - 00:14 ET by liberal_bug_zapperLiberals do not like free speech. They do everything they can do to shut up any opposing views by using the "Infallible Viewpoint" or "Unassailable Viewpoint" or "Unqualified Viewpoint" tactic.
For example, they offer up the Jersey Girls to give their opinions on the war on terror, the patriot act, and other issues with the mantra that you cannot refute them as they are victims, and unless you’ve experienced what they’ve experienced, you have no business talking about it. They offer up Cindy Sheehan as the only reputable source for loss due to the Iraqi battle. Or the most recent version, with them parading Michael J Fox in front of everyone with totally bogus claims, and when his claims were refuted, and his actions called into question, there were weeks of angry tirades from the left on “How dare you impugn this poor man and make fun of his illness” and they completely ignored the substance of the counter argument by claiming infallibility due to victim status. When their guys come up, as you said, these prerequisites don’t matter, but when we offer anyone up, these prerequisites are paramount to being able to talk on a subject. They say either you can't refute or you impugn, or you can't comment because you have not experienced it.
For the record.... I now hate liberals even more... if that is even possible.
Welcome liberal_bug_zapper
November 22, 2006 - 00:33 ET by SportPoliticsWelcome liberal_bug_zapper, as in hey there friend glad to hear it. Yes, it is possible, and the disgust is growing here too. They are getting worse and worse.
More desperate they get the w
November 22, 2006 - 00:38 ET by ChemicalOperatorMore desperate they get the worse they become. Its almost as if they believe the more they behave like a 2 year old child that the more the american people will see their point of view.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Chemical,I do agree with you,
November 22, 2006 - 10:06 ET by msh1973Chemical,
I do agree with you, however, why are they becoming more desperate, their party is in control of the House and Senate. They should be rejoicing not acting all unhinged.
thanks
November 22, 2006 - 00:49 ET by misterbillI get a little sick of the trolling of victims to win a point. Yours is a good description of how the Dims do it.
LBZ,Right on target! Sighted
November 22, 2006 - 06:16 ET by Indiana JoeLBZ,
Right on target! Sighted Sub, Sank Same. Couldn't have put it better myself.
IJ
We Go Because
November 22, 2006 - 00:17 ET by CGattonWe go because we place our country's existence above our own lives.
We go because we know that our actions protect our loved ones.
We go because we believe in the freedoms we have as members of this nation.
We go because we want our children to enjoy the same freedoms we have.
We go because we know we are the only ones we can fully trust to do whatever is necessary.
As the son of an Army scout, a former submariner myself, and the father of two national guardsmen, one disabled air force veteran, a marine, and a not-too-far-in-the-future (fingers crossed) sailor, I salute you and your husband for your service.
V/R
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
CGatton: thank you for your s
November 22, 2006 - 03:55 ET by Andrew H.CGatton: thank you for your service. People like O'Donnell will never understand. It's tragic they have so many forums to spew their retarded, coffee shop formed thoughts and emotions. He obviously hung around the wrong crowd in college.
Never relent.
CGatton, Dittoes to everythin
November 22, 2006 - 06:12 ET by Indiana JoeCGatton,
Dittoes to everything AOH says above.
Thank you.
Regards,
Indy
terrig,No one in my generatio
November 22, 2006 - 06:10 ET by Indiana Joeterrig,
No one in my generation in my family has ever served. It's to my personal shame. I came of age in '74, when Viet Nam was just winding down, and fell for the popular line of the day that military service was for saps.
But the previous generation ALL served, in WW II, or Korea.
I always, on this site, make it a habit to thank anyone who ever served, any time, anywhere, in anyway. I believe I've said this to you before, but may not at that time realized you were female, nor that your husband also served. And in Bosnia, yet, under our REAL "draft dodger" President.
So, thank you and your husband both, once again, and heart-feltly. Your nation should be eternally grateful. I know I am.
Regards,
Indy
...I came of age in '74, ..
November 22, 2006 - 11:49 ET by lnthomp...I came of age in '74, ...the popular line of the day that military service was for saps.
John F... Kerry still believes military service is for saps. He denies that, but I don't believe his denials.
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
My success and happiness are not determined by who wins elections.
O'Donnell
November 22, 2006 - 00:07 ET by pocomocoDan Abrams, the head of MSNBC News, recently made the comment: "His program could become a model for the newscast of the future,"
He was speaking of Keith Olbermann.
It sure sounded like O'Donnell was auditioning, don't you think?
I did think Abrams would do a
November 22, 2006 - 03:59 ET by Andrew H.I did think Abrams would do a good job--by and large he was fairly objective when he had a show--but this comment causes me to think he doesn't have a clue after all. So long MSNBC. I don't think you'll survive.
If Olberman is the wave of then future--you're speaking of a future quite confined to a specific audience demographic--a small one except for those who are curious about what lunacy is being expressed as they pass by for five mintues. What's the going rate for advertising for five minutes of viewership, Dan?
Never relent.
People need to attack the "Chicken Hawk" fallacy agressively.
November 22, 2006 - 00:13 ET by Jonah JohansenEvery time a liberal uses this rhetorical device people need to grab a hold of it and beat them with it till they shut up.
The truth or falsehood of ones beliefs about the Iraq war has absolutely nothing to do with their Military service or lack of it.
You can be a Congressional Medal of Honor winner and still be totally clueless when it comes to military strategy or when and when not to use force.
You can construct thousands of clearly false propositions using this same logical fallacy.
Bill Clinton's avoidance of the draft has absolutely no bearing on the question of whether it was right or wrong to send troops to the former Yugoslavia.
Wasn't the head of Vichy France the war hero General Petén?
For example you could say to a death penalty opponent Have you ever had a loved one murdered?
If Winston Churchill for whatever reason had not served in the military then all his war time speeches in defiance of the Nazi's out of line.
This is such a glaring and moronic false argument you should be able to make anyone who uses it look the total fool; if you just attack their stupidity aggressively.
Note: There is often a hidden premise in this and other Liberal nonsense about questions of war and peace. It is the historically false notion that all military action is bad, fighting an enemy is never right. "War is not the answer" bumper stickers.
You need to attack this hidden premise with counter examples, Munich and Neville Chamberlin is a good start.
jonah war
November 22, 2006 - 00:36 ET by misterbilljonah, I have posted this a few times in various forms. "War is bad --it kills and cripples people. Disease is bad , it kills and cripples people."
Of course it is! I don't need a bunch of fools to tell me that. Both things happen, though and we must be prepared to combat them. .What in the world is wrong with appeasers. I was just a boy, but do I ever remember that poor fool Chamberlain stepping off the plane with Hitler's contract for "Peace in Our Time" in his hand. I am a Republican. Yet I feel that Roosevelt was one of the best Presidents of our country. He was,in fact, a great wartime leader. Men like my father and older brother looked to him as our leader. He was in a wheelchair. To my knowledge he never did a day of military service. Intelligence, courage and fortitude are a few of the qualities of leadership. The willingness to allow some people to die in battle while building the strength to ultimately win takes a kind of courage that few possess.
So -let all these people who set these boudaries, "war is bad, leaders must have military backgrounds", go on about their ranting and just pray that as in times past in this country that brave men and women from all walks of life come to the fore to keep us safe and free.
You've got the wrong Roosevel
November 22, 2006 - 02:30 ET by NL207You've got the wrong Roosevelt. FDR is the man who corrupted the Constitution, opening the door to the massive government abuse we see today.
TR. Now this was a real man. It took some nuts to go up that hill under fire on horseback. Either that, or he was nuts. I prefer to think he was courageous. If you want to know where he stood on Muslim terrorists, read about the Pedicaris Affair.
The MOH has recipients, not
November 22, 2006 - 02:26 ET by sarcasmoThe MOH has recipients, not winners. Most (and both in this war) lose their lives in the process of making the best out of what became a very bad day. The few remaining living MOH recipients are living treasures. Also, does anyone else here find it strange that this draft idea is being pushed just as Milton Friedman (whose ideas killed the last draft) dies? As someone said in one of the many eulogies I've read for the professor over the past few days, "Everyone loves to argue with Milton, so long as he's not around!"
JMR
It should be noted that 70% o
November 22, 2006 - 11:44 ET by UnsaneIt should be noted that 70% of Congressional Medal of Honor recipients do not live to see it presented to them.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Well.... Keep him away from s
November 22, 2006 - 00:35 ET by ChemicalOperatorWell.... Keep him away from sharp objects.
We have a volunteer army for a reason, people perform better when they want to be there. The American soldiers have never once complained, its the left who apparently has been chosen to "speak for our troops". As a matter of fact though, when every soldier signs his name to that contract he knows combat is possible and most likely probable. If they are that afraid America is out of touch with our soldiers how about they go to Iraq and visit them, instead of just letting the republicans do it.
His comment about the Bush girls just shows exactly whacked out he is. By his thinking we should have used chelsey clinton as a cruise missle before we used real missles in bosnia. If he really wants to use chelsey as a ballistic missle go for it.
This nation will remain the land of the free only so long as it is the home of the brave.
Tell me Lawrence, how those o
November 22, 2006 - 02:58 ET by Andrew H.Tell me Lawrence, how those of us who enlisted are supposed to feel about our brothers and sisters in America electing that clinton in '92... he did dodge the draft and came into Washngton where he dispatched troops to Somalia as well as Bosnia, Kosovo... how are we supposed to feel? I have my own answers.
You admit being a coward. And like the true lefty shout over people (apparently--because I don't watch you). You have to shout because you and other lefties wouldn't win the first debate. You're brave on a television set, aren't you? Does shouting make you feel more brave?
How does one come to think as wrong as you?
Never relent.
OK
November 22, 2006 - 14:23 ET by cvgbuckeyeWell Andrew, I served in THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS and later in the Ohio National Guard in the 60's.
Since I never served in Viet Nam nor Iraq, but I am a Hawk, then, according to Mr. Odonnell, I must be "A COWARD".
I am quite sure that MR. ODONNELL will read this thread today AND when he does, he might possibly like to email me and he and I can meet up and discuss "MY COWARDICE".
You're hardly a coward, cvg.
November 22, 2006 - 20:45 ET by Andrew H.You're hardly a coward, cvg. Thank you, sir, for your service and may God bless you and your house.
Larry baby doesn't hold a candle to you and never will--he's a sniveling, whining liberal cry baby who thinks of himself first above God, country--or anything. There's a good reason he doesn't get very much air time--it's him.
Semper Fi.
Never relent.
Charles Rangel Draft Proposal
November 22, 2006 - 05:43 ET by P.J. GladnickEven a lot of leftwingers are now turning on Charles Rangel's draft proposal because it makes them look ridiculous:
"Rangel needs to be taken out in the 2008 primary"
I saw O'Donnell's rant in '04
November 22, 2006 - 06:25 ET by lehmanI saw O'Donnell's rant in '04. I believe Pat Buchanan was the guest host and couldn't do anything with him. Doesn't sound like Joe could either. I felt so sorry for John O'Neill. O'Donnell kept screaming that the Swift Boaters were a bunch of liars. I quit watching after that.
One aspect of O'Donnell's rem
November 22, 2006 - 06:31 ET by Indiana JoeOne aspect of O'Donnell's remarks I haven't seen raised here. And it is that the military command structure was so designed as to make the "Commander-In-Chief," i.e., the President and his advisors, civilians. Civilians ultimately control the military in this country. That was intentional, to prevent the rise to power of a "warlord," through the military turning on the elected government. Can't cite chapter and verse, but I KNOW this to be true.
It was meant to prevent the type of military coup we've seen in country after country, the world over. Never once has the type of tin-pot dictator risen to power here that we've seen over and over again throughout history. But the kind of thinking this O'Donnell advocates would open the door to that, if followed to it's logical conclusion, to wit: only the "military" is fit to judge reasons for war, or analyze them, advocate them, or implement them.
So all it would take would be the proper "charismatic leader," at the right time, to decide the time had come for a "Second American Revolution," and we could go the way so many fragile "democracies" have in the past.
That's REALLY the true danger of his viewpoint, IMHO. Fortunately, I don't think many will buy it.
Thank God.....
Interesting. I've never bee
November 22, 2006 - 07:30 ET by ckc1227"Hello, my name is Lawrence O'Donnell, and I've got the brain God gave an ice cube".
Interesting. I've never been a doctor, and have no personal connections to any doctors. Does that mean I can't support doctors and advocate they do as much as they can do to help people?
On a related note, isn't it interesting that the party who many would consider the anti-slavery party advocates forcing Americans to serve, which is quite similar to slavery?
Good point, ckc. The "an
November 22, 2006 - 07:50 ET by Indiana JoeGood point, ckc. The "anti-slavery" party fought Reconstruction, and, if it was solely up to them, there would NEVER had been any "Civil Rights Act" in the 1960s.
But history and facts are, sadly and dangerously, irrelevant topics to most of today's voters.....
ckc1227,I work with abused an
November 22, 2006 - 10:02 ET by msh1973ckc1227,
I work with abused and neglected children, does that mean that I can't be their advocate because I myself was not abused or neglected? This entire theory has so many holes in it one could drive a semi-truck through it. How stupid.
Only the Military can Support the Military
November 22, 2006 - 07:37 ET by allanfImagine a country where only the military supports the military. Sounds a bit like a police state.
Larry -- I take it you join every organization you support?
Whew-ee! Ol' Larry was sure
November 22, 2006 - 08:33 ET by GalvanicWhew-ee! Ol' Larry was sure worked up in a lather that night! O'Donnell, who has not served in the military himself, is calling another non-vet a coward for not serving. Yeow. I guess being the brother of a veteran qualifies him to point fingers."But the previous generation ALL served, in WWII, or Korea." -- Indiana JoeActually, that's not true either. Many millions of military-aged males remained in the US in war-production related occupations, especially during the Korean War.And among those who did serve, millions never heard a hostile shot fired.SCARBOROUGH: ". . . Hold on! Lawrence, you are so out of line, I don`t even know where to begin! Walter Cronkite -- I don`t know if Walter Cronkite served in World War II or the Korean war."
Cronkite was a war correspondent in WW2. Among the battles he covered was Operation Market-Garden in September 1944.
"But the previous genera
November 22, 2006 - 09:56 ET by Indiana Joe"But the previous generation ALL served, in WWII, or Korea." -- Indiana JoeActually, that's not true either. "
No, no, galv, you misunderstood me, or maybe I wasn't clear. I meant "previous generation in MY family!" All my uncles, my father, that sort of thing. I know not all males always served, EVER.
Sorry if I wasn't clear.....
Regards,
IJ
Oops. Sorry I misunderstood
November 22, 2006 - 10:19 ET by GalvanicOops. Sorry I misunderstood, I-Joe. I stand corrected.
No prob, bud.
November 22, 2006 - 12:39 ET by Indiana JoeNo prob, bud.
I'm so grateful that I can co
November 22, 2006 - 09:00 ET by rimskyI'm so grateful that I can come to the NB site and read transcripts of these shouting matches rather than having to sift through the annoyingly rude back and forth, often overlapping verbiage. It's a total pain! I don't even know who this idiot L.O. is, and I don't care. For him to inject the President's daughters into the discussion of who should be forced to serve in the military is the lowest of the lowest tactics. The President doesn't deserve such disrespect. President Bush is a morally courageous man who has made many very difficult decisions regarding the WOT. For the rest of his life he will live with the loss of brave American Soldiers, and civilians, weighing heavy on his heart. All of this without any regard to his political legacy.
Draft
November 22, 2006 - 09:41 ET by EllisWyattThe most ridiculous aspect of the anti-war draft supporters is that it was the anti-war protestors of the Vietnam era who made us get rid of the draft! Now they want to bring it back!?
Milton Friedman was hardly
November 22, 2006 - 09:46 ET by sarcasmoMilton Friedman was hardly the protestor-type, and he was the idea-man behind getting rid of the draft. As I've said, his death makes the timing of this push for a new draft seem....Interesting....
JMR
Does O'Donnell believe that h
November 22, 2006 - 09:56 ET by SMGalbraithDoes O'Donnell believe that having served in the military is now (convenient timing, no?) a necessary qualification for office of the presidency? (that, of course, rules out FDR who didn't serve in WWI; he contracted polio in his 30s after the war).
Since we can never know beforehand whether a president will have to committ troops into combat, if we use the O'Donnell standard (if we can call his rantings a standard) every candidate for that office from now on must have had military experience.
It's either that or any candidate running for office who did not have military experience must promise the electorate that he or she will never send troops into combat.
Really?
The man is a loon. Is there something in the water over at MSNBC? Sick building syndrome?
SMG
As I used to tell recruits wh
November 22, 2006 - 10:10 ET by slvrwlfAs I used to tell recruits when they first came into basic training, "no one twisted your arm and forced you to sign your papers to join, you came here of your own free will".
Mr. O'Donnell is typical of the clueless left and the morally-bankrupt Tinsletown. Whatever his opinion regarding the president or the war, for him to say that George Bush's daughters should be over here is both unprofessional and ignorant. Does he honestly think that everyone who is in uniform today is over in either Afghanistan or Iraq? What about all the uniformed personnel here stateside, in Europe, Africa, or South America? Are their contributions any less? Is the fact that George W. Bush was a Texas Air National Guardsman instead of an active-duty Air Force officer dilute his military service? Is the fact that George W. Bush is the son of a WWII veteran who - according to his official biography - flew 58 combat missions and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross (which ranks behind the Medal of Honor) somehow mean that the current president has no understanding of the military?
And how does John Kerry's military service in the brownwater Navy of Vietnam compare to George W. Bush being a test fighter pilot? Is floating down a river in a time of war any more dangerous than flying a test fighter jet?
If Mr. O'Donnell truly believes that military service is the prerequisite to understanding war, then military recruiters across the country should line up in front of Tinseltown studios and start signing up the likes of Ben Affleck, Barbara Streisand, Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Bill Maher, and of course, Lawrence O'Donnell. How about it Lawrence? Sign your papers and join the rest of us who have served our country and who, by the way, support this president and our boys and girls over there in-country who are working to kill the enemy before they kill another innocent American.
What say you Lawrence? Yeah...I didn't thnk so.
While Geroge Bush did fly fig
November 22, 2006 - 10:33 ET by GalvanicWhile Geroge Bush did fly fighters in the Air National Guard (I don't believe he was ever a test pilot, though), and flying military jets is a hazardous job in peace as well as war, I would say that Kerry's service in the brown water Navy was riskier than Bush's service in the ANG. The Navy's riverine force suffered heavy casualties at times, and I'm sure the casualty rate exceeded that of the Air National Guard during the same period.
I think it's wrong to demean or dismiss Kerry's service in the Swift Boats, regardless of how much we dispise the man. That isn't to say that we --- as the Swift Boat Veterans rightly did -- can't challenge his recollection of 'facts.' Kerry certainly has been prone to embellish his time on the river, and challenging his accounts of events is fair game. But he did volunteer for the duty, and he did share the risk with his crew, and for that alone, he shares that distinction with the other Brown Water Navy vets.
His subsequent betrayal of Vietnam vets is a separate issue.
Galvanic,I stand corrected.
November 22, 2006 - 11:10 ET by slvrwlfGalvanic,
I stand corrected. I thought I read somewhere that George Bush was a test fighter pilot, but now I can't find the reference, so I can't use that statement. I wasn't trying to demean Senator Kerry and his service, but I was trying to point out that critics of the president are quick to laud the senator's service in the brownwater Navy but downplay the president's service in the ANG.
According to an article Byron York wrote in 2004, George Bush entered the ANG in 1968 and subsequently went through 6 weeks of basic training, then 53 weeks of flight training, followed by 21 weeks of fighter-interceptor training. The minimum number of points one had to accrue to have a good year in the ANG was 50. George Bush had 253 points his first year, 340 points his second year, 137 his third, and 112 his fourth. And he had 56 points in each of the years up to his honorable discharge.
Like I said, I'm not criticizing Senator Kerry's service, I just question why people think his service is more important than George Bush's or why they think the senator is more qualified to comment on war than the president.
I think the distinction being
November 22, 2006 - 11:46 ET by GalvanicI think the distinction being made is simply that Kerry volunteered to serve in combat, whereas Bush served in the ANG. Both performed military service, but I think most vets would tell you that beyond that statement, there's virtually noting in common.
That having been said, I don't think spending a few years in the military necessarily makes one smarter on issues like war. For one thing, each war is different from the past wars. For another, many soliders -- even professionals -- are experts at their respective roles, but do not know much about Big Picture stuff --- particularly politics. Certainly, personal experience sheds valuable insight, but it doesn't make one a superior military strategist. It's probably more important who a President relies on for advice during wartime. I don't think Kerry was any more qualifed to run a war than Bush.
If there's a criticism of Bush, it would be that his team planned for Situation A with such apparent confidence, that it didn't consider what to do if Situation B developed, and the lack of flexibility left them wont for solutions. They've been adjusting somewhat, but to what extent this is coordinated at the highest levels (vice local commanders' initiatives) is speculative.
I think the distinction being
November 22, 2006 - 11:46 ET by GalvanicI think the distinction being made is simply that Kerry volunteered to serve in combat, whereas Bush served in the ANG. Both performed military service, but I think most vets would tell you that beyond that statement, there's virtually noting in common.
That having been said, I don't think spending a few years in the military necessarily makes one smarter on issues like war. For one thing, each war is different from the past wars. For another, many soliders -- even professionals -- are experts at their respective roles, but do not know much about Big Picture stuff --- particularly politics. Certainly, personal experience sheds valuable insight, but it doesn't make one a superior military strategist. It's probably more important who a President relies on for advice during wartime. I don't think Kerry was any more qualifed to run a war than Bush.
If there's a criticism of Bush, it would be that his team planned for Situation A with such apparent confidence, that it didn't consider what to do if Situation B developed, and the lack of flexibility left them wont for solutions. They've been adjusting somewhat, but to what extent this is coordinated at the highest levels (vice local commanders' initiatives) is speculative.
According to a Boston Globe
November 22, 2006 - 11:58 ET by lnthompAccording to a Boston Globe interview some time ago (sorry, I don't have a link), John F. Kerry volunteered for swift boat service because he did not expect the swift boats would be going to Viet Nam. -- They weren't being used there at the time he volunteered for that duty.
I don't have the full story on GWB's unit, but I have heard (or read) that at the time GWB signed up, members of that unit had been deployed to Viet Nam and could reasonably expect additional deployments there. If that is true, then his "avoidance" of combat was based on needs of the service more than his actions.
LNTHOMP previously posting as LEENT. U.S. Navy (ret.)
My success and happiness are not determined by who wins elections.
Regardless of whether Kerry o
November 22, 2006 - 13:54 ET by GalvanicRegardless of whether Kerry or Bush expected to see combat, it would be an incredible stretch of logic to assume that Kerry went to the Swift Boats to avoid combat and Bush joined the ANG in order to see combat. Had Bush sought combat duty, he could've readily joined the regular Air Force --- the USAF fighter pilots were certainly seeing lots of combat over SE Asia.
Kerry reportedly asked for a transfer from the frigate USS Gridley -- on rescue patrol off Vietnam --- to the Swift Boats, which were already in Vietnam. It's my understanding that at the time he volunteered, the Swift Boats were doing coastal patrols, but by the time he arrived at his squadron, they had joined the Brown Water Navy on the Mekong. He wasn't specifically looking for combat duty, but he did request transfer to another combat unit, and not a REMF billet. No one gets to pick and choose when and where his/her unit fights.
The point is that there's no evidence that Kerry tried to avoid combat by volunteering for the SBs. One might be suspicious of his abbreviated 4-month tour in the Swift Boats following his 3rd Purple Heart, but that's another issue. He was in combat, and he was decorated for valor.
Not Really
November 22, 2006 - 14:33 ET by CGatton"...it would be an incredible stretch of logic to assume that Kerry went to the Swift Boats to avoid combat ..."
Not really, because when Kerry reported to the Swift Boats they were considered a nice safe sinecure. It wasn't until two weeks after he reported for duty on the Swift Boats that they were detailed to hazardous duty.
"...he was decorated for valor."
Again not really, because Kerry was never awarded a "V" for valor. While it might be argued that the Silver Star, which is awarded for "gallantry," implies valor, it simply confuses the issue to state he was given an award for valor.
R/
Clyde
"...the aspirants to tyranny are either the...men of the state, who in democracies are demagogues,... or those who hold great offices, and have a long tenure.." - Aristotle, Politics, c350BC
O'Donnell
November 22, 2006 - 11:13 ET by iveseenitallI've never seen this guy O'Donnell but it sounds to me like he sniffs something before he goes on the air. Many people act agressively when they're on (or coming off) something.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Typical liberal trick--shou
November 22, 2006 - 11:21 ET by Richard RomanoTypical liberal trick--shout over everyone else, and stifle debate. I wonder how many of us have relatives who are firefighters and police officers? Does that mean we can't support them or their initiatives? What a sham.
Loony Larry...
November 22, 2006 - 13:11 ET by Clear thinkerSo Larry has joined the ranks of Charlie Rangel thinking that a draft is a good idea, though his reason is slightly different.
He seems to suggest that we are not winning the war in Iraq because "the people" are not invested in it and thinks a draft would make it more personal to more people. Unless you are braindead everyone knows what he and Charlie are really up to, but I'm not wanting to argue that now. Instead I want to point out the real reason why the average American does not feel invested in this war...IT'S THE MEDIA STUPID!
That's right, the liberal MSM has managed to convince the American public that Iraq was a mistake. As long as they continue to carry the water (cool-aid) for the Dems, the public will have a negative view of what's really happening.
Our own media is destroying our country!
media
November 22, 2006 - 13:33 ET by iveseenitall"Our own media is destroying our country!" Clear thinking from Clear Thinker. Succinct and to the point. Bravo!
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Thanks for the props.It amaze
November 22, 2006 - 13:40 ET by Clear thinkerThanks for the props.
It amazes me how so many supposedly intelligent people refuse to see that our media is working against us.
Our economy is a good example... we have had an incredible economy but not according to the liberal MSM. Same with Iraq, the war on terrorism, healthcare, etc, etc, etc.
"We have a military cult
November 22, 2006 - 22:07 ET by"We have a military culture in the United States"
Insane and some of the other right wing lunatics that reside on this site are prime examples! I agree with much of what Odonnel said except for the draft.
Bush is a draft dodger just as clinton was.Clinton didnt start a war he couldnt finish.
Bush would gladly start another war if he could sidetrack the americans some more and was guaranteed his beloved twins wouldn't serve.
If Bush put himself on the front lines. I would think he was crazy but at least an honest commander in chief instead of being "Chief Chicken HawK"!
Yo Rhayes why are we still in Kosovo & Bosnia-it ain't finished
November 22, 2006 - 22:14 ET by terrigRhayes, here's a bit of info for you-we still are sending troops to Kosovo and Bosnia on a regular basis.
BTW please stop disrespecting the military. We lost one of the groomsmen from our wedding nearly 6 years ago. Captain Mark C. Paine was a hero and was willing to give his life so you can be an obnoxious jerk. Put that in your ass and stuff it.
Rhayes, here's a bit of info
November 22, 2006 - 22:29 ET byRhayes, here's a bit of info for you-we still are sending troops to Kosovo and Bosnia on a regular basis.
and how many troops die there each month, each year??
how many a widows do we have because of a greedy chicken hawk who got us into this mess??
BTW please stop disrespecting the military.
if you think disrespecting it by questioning the military credentials of a chicken hawk commandeer in chief is wrong then go live in one of the military dictatorships around the world that wont allow dissent!
bush led us into this war for lies so that our leader could continue being an obnoxious jerk with his soapbox jerks as blind supporters of him~ so go eat some troll!