Comments on: OF GRASSY KNOLLS AND BLOOD FOR OIL

By: elisa

elisa — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:22:20 +0000

@Larry your brother: “But he sees part of the solution in solving issues like AIDS, so that the terrorists donâ€™t have a breeding ground in orphaned children. Or finding a way for the Palestinians to live in proximity to Israelâ€”recognized by Israel.”

Okay, I call BS! What proof is there - ANY proof - that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with AIDS, that orphaned children are a “breeding ground,” or that Palestinians would EVER give up their religious mandate to exterminate the Jews? I totally agree that world conflicts are never simple and fighting is not the only answer - and often is not the best answer - but the whole idea that Middle East conflicts would end if only the U.S. would change its foreign policies is just fantasy.

By: Robert Francis

Robert Francis — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 18:02:13 +0000

Very clever article, for some no doubt. Typical (Anti) Defamation League type syndicated put down. Does not deal honesty with any of the material covered, only mulling over, with a presupposed conclusion. Please let me know if you ever deal with these issues honesty. I would like to know how you explain the magic bullet, the fact JFK was very clearly shot from the front, or any of the other countless inconsistencies in the Warren cover up. Mulling over like this is not enough, when there are now countless web sites that show the truth. Argue with them, not yourself. Verbal arguments are no longer convincing. You must deal with the facts, and showing total disregard for realities, weakens everything you say.

I give you 9 of 10 for verbal skills, 1 out of 10 for reality principle.

By: Drongo

Drongo — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 15:04:21 +0000

“OF GRASSY KNOLLS AND BLOOD FOR OIL”

I love the juxtaposition of a conspiracy theory and an obvious statement of geopolitical reality.

By: Larry your brother

Larry your brother — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:11:44 +0000

While Helgerson uses a little too colorful language and goes too far for my taste, I have to agree that it constantly amazes me that there is an assumption that liberals are anti-American. Kennedy’s assasination does NOT control my world view and, being in my 50s, I think I’m probably the “average” liberal out there. Liberals I know–the classic “government as a potential source of good for those in need”–are not anti-American. They may be unhappy with the direction America is going (has been taken?), but they don’t hate America. As for joining the war on terror, many liberals I know are extremely worried about the consequeces of Islamic terrorism. But few are convinced being in the middle of a civil war is the solution. One of the most liberal people I know–former head of an international NGO–worries all the time about terrorism. But he sees part of the solution in solving issues like AIDS, so that the terrorists don’t have a breeding ground in orphaned children. Or finding a way for the Palestinians to live in proximity to Israel–recognized by Israel. The list can go on, but the only solution, at least the one so vocally advocated by the conservatives, is to take up arms and fight. But fight who? We need to fight the reasons people are so desperate they will drive a truckload of explosives into a mosque, not arrest everyone who we think may want to do it someday.

By: Joe Helgerson

Joe Helgerson — Wed, 20 Jun 2007 02:37:51 +0000

everything Grognard said, I second. The hard core conservatives have made a cottage industry out of ripping “the left” ( or anybody who doesn’t worship Bush)I don’t know what scares me worse, radical Islam or radical neo-cons. Both are nutty and dangerous.I guess I just can’t unite with a group that is CONSTANTLY questioning my patriotism. Tell ya what, when the neo-con crowd admits that Iraq was a horrible mistake, I’ll think about uniting with them. As a proud Democrat, the Rush Limbaugh wing of the gop is my mortal enemy until the day I die. Bush will burn in Hell!

By: the Fly-Man

the Fly-Man — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 22:13:07 +0000

Interesting that you bring up some sort of bell wether notion bout the demise or shattering of Liberalism while the Rome of conservativism burns with Bush as Nero.

By: Cinnamon Stillwell

Cinnamon Stillwell — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:35:44 +0000

Speaking of leftist conspiracy theories, the 9/11 “truthers” come to mind. I wrote about them a while back and also referenced Hofstadter’s essay:

The Truth About 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
http://tinyurl.com/yrd2al

My theory is that these people are unable to cope with the scary reality and so they turn to familiar demons.

Pipes’ book, although a few years old (CSPAN recently replayed a 1996 interview with him on the subject) is also very useful. He wrote another one on the Mideast and conspiracism (his term) that’s quite apropos to today.

Great blog, by the way. Will add you to the blogroll…

By: Steven Donegal

Steven Donegal — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 20:08:01 +0000

I think he has the wrong Kennedy. The pessimism of the left grew far more out of the assassinations of MLK and RFK than JFK.

By: Juan Paxety

Juan Paxety — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:16:57 +0000

It has always interested me that one of the earliest critics of the Oswald as lone assassin conclusion was Sylvia Meagher, a widow who lived in Greenwich Village and who had worked for the U.N. for a couple of decades. She was exactly the kind of liberal idealist who became disillusioned after Kennedy’s death. Her second book, Accessories After The Fact (1967)actually accused the Warren Commission members of actively covering up a conspiracy.

BTW, Jim Garrison never appeared in the courtroom during Clay Shaw’s trial. He forced a couple of his assistants to actually try the case.

By: grognard

grognard — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 18:31:09 +0000

And the best way to facilitate the left coming back into the fold is to call them every name in the book. Everyone knows that when some one is calling you every vile and despicable name they can think of you are listening intently to their message and not thinking anything about the stream of bile.