ALARMINGNEWS_1_1.jpg

May 20, 2004

Why am I on Ted Rall's site at 3:30am?

Ted Rall on the Sarin discovery:

Sarin,Schmarin

The report that a roadside bomb attack may have used a shell that contained sarin nerve agent has the right wing media all atwitter. Aha! WMDs!

Not yet.

While there's something to the notion that where there's one mouse there are a dozen more living in your wall, the possible presence of sarin in one cannister hardly justifies invading Iraq at a cost of more than $150 billion, 30,000 dead Iraqis (the number comes from the Bush Administration, courtesy of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack") and 1,200 dead coalition troops.

More to the point: Even if we were to discover enormous warehouses full of nuclear weapons, the war still wouldn't have been justified. The point being, the US claimed that it KNEW that Iraq had WMDs when it clearly did not. Guessing correctly doesn't count, not that that's what happened here.

So, let's review: it might not be sarin. One canister of sarin does not justify the war. But, if it is sarin then there's probably more of it. But even if there were nuclear weapons, the war still wouldn't be justified. And, if these weapons are discovered, it's nothing more than the US getting lucky. Ted Rall is voting for John Kerry. With this kind of nuance, that makes sense completely.

Reading Rall's site (forwarded to me by Matt Margolis because there is a Blogs for Bush mention on it), my overwhelming thought was 'who talks like this? who writes like this publicly?' He doesn't seem like a real person who has friends and a life, just an angry, frightened egomaniac who puts up a front and says outlandish things for fame. He makes wacko comments like 'At this point, anyone who votes for George W. Bush tacitly admits they favor torture. Living next to such morality-deprived scum should make the skin of any red-blooded American patriot crawl' and seems to revel in his hate mail, referring to it as having 'arrived'. Rall aims to appall but he just doesn't do it for me in the same way, say Michael Moore does. Moore is talentless and Rall isn't even as good as him. I think the spotlight craving natures of both Moore and Rall is a good thing for Bush. The more people see men like these lining up with Kerry, the better Bush will look. I hope some Republican 527 group will run ads showcasing statements by these two lunatics, maybe alongside some anti-war protestor shots. The ad should show who Kerry is leading, who his base is and who he will cater to. I think voters should know.

Posted by Karol at May 20, 2004 03:45 AM | TrackBack
Technorati Tags:
Comments

Karol:

Does Ted Rall say anything particularly unreasonable in that comment? He points out that the Bush adminstration certainly did not know there were WMD when they claimed they did know. And $150 billion, 30,000 Iraqi lives, and 1,200 coalition lives is a lot to spend on a war based on pure guesses.

And unless Bush fires some people, such as Rumsfeld, it makes you wonder how much the administration really cares about torture (other than the bad PR associated with it).

Dan

Posted by: Dan at May 20, 2004 10:04 AM

I loathe Rall as much as the next guy, but how does it taint Kerry that Rall (or Moore) is voting for him? Is it up to Kerry to disavow the votes of anyone who's to his left?

Posted by: Stephen Silver at May 20, 2004 11:27 AM

Stephen,
It seems like by voting, people affirm their identity. Also, by voting for a candidate, you implicitly identify with his most vocal supporters. Now, do you want to identify with whiny baby-men who will say absurd things such as "war based on pure guesses" to get attention - or do you want to identify with people who are trying to get things done? That's how I see it.

Posted by: Ivan Lenin at May 20, 2004 11:44 AM

I guess what I'm saying is, it's impossible to run for office in America without true knuckleheads voting for you, and you can't go around and disavow the votes of everyone.

Posted by: Stephen Silver at May 20, 2004 01:00 PM

ISRAELI TERRORISTS STRIKE (ONCE AGAIN) IN GAZA

What's the difference between strapping a bomb onto your body and detonating it on a crowded bus full of innocent civillians and firing tank shells into a crowd of innocent civillians? The tank shells by far and away! Both are acts of terrorism and both types of actions should be treated the appropriate way.

An Israeli missile and four tank shells ripped through a large crowd of Palestinians demonstrating Wednesday against the Israeli invasion of a neighbouring refugee camp, killing at least 10 Palestinians and wounding dozens. Hospital officials said all the dead and many of the wounded were children and teenagers.

Israel acknowledged that soldiers fired four tank shells, a missile and machine-guns to stop 3,000 Palestinian demonstrators they tried to claim were heading toward a battle zone in the Gaza Strip.

I wonder what the terrorist appeasing Reich Whingers have to say about this act of terrorism? Let's go see.

Hmmm, the sound of silence. I just went through my entire Reich Whinger blahgroll and not one of them had anything on this most horrible terrorist attack. But it's early. I'm sure they're all just too stunned to blahg about it right now and as soon as they compose themselves will begin issuing strong condemnations against this vile terrorist action.

Update: Faramin has more on the terrorist attack and some thoughts on the hypocrisy of the Israelis.

Right after hearing this Breaking News at that Radio station, I heard an ad which was inviting people to participate in a planed demonstration in the coming Sunday in Toronto. The motto of that demonstration:

"Walk for Israel, Walk against hate"

I then remembered the usual bullshit of "Israel does not target civilians". I also couldn't resist the obvious that walking for Israel IS in fact "Walking for Hate". And also that the Zionists are the ultimate hypocrites of the modern time. Zionists are the cause of almost all the hatred in our world. And as identified by the majority of the enlightened Europeans. The genocide of the Israeli government, has made Israel the biggest threat to the security of the world and the greatest source of violence.

Posted by: Robert McClelland at May 20, 2004 01:10 PM

I went to this troll's blog...Robert forgot to mention that the "innocent civilians" were armed.

Posted by: Ivan Lenin at May 20, 2004 01:17 PM

Stephen,

I think it's more about being against whomever these guys are for. It's not unreasonable.
Presumably, he is on the same side of issues as they are, and will advocate their issues (they are his supporters, after all).

Posted by: Karol at May 20, 2004 02:38 PM

My sympathies that you got the McLelland infection.

Anyways, have you ever heard Rall on a talk show? Besides the fact that what he says does not make logical sense, he's soooo condescending and unlikeable and he has a really whiny voice. i hope he does more public appearances.

Posted by: annika at May 20, 2004 07:09 PM

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/617068/posts

A source put the 9-11 worldwide economic damage at 639$ billion and $80 billion on building property alone.

Given a gas attack could kill 4-5 times the loss of life, why not assume the that a WMD terror attack would cost 2,400 billion or so? Even with a probability factor attached to the intelligence estimate, it justifies a lot.

Posted by: Researcher at May 20, 2004 07:31 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?