Roger L. Simon: Steyn(no)way...and a bit of Hizzoner

I was trying to think of a better title pun, but I don't have much time [Excuses, excuses.-ed.] and did want to add my voice to that of others to say how disturbing I found the censorship of Mark Steyn by The Telegraph... and not just because I agreed with Mark's piece, which does have a witty title (yes, for a grisly event) - The Quality of Mersey. Normally The Telegraph cannot be accused of holding back on matters regarding the WoT and I take this as more of a sign of the deteriorating atmosphere in the UK than of the paper's own demarche.

Apropos of deteriorating conditions, I just this minute received via email the following dispatch from Ed Koch:

Many members of the New Labor Party in Britain would like to bring down Tony Blair because his philosophy and actions in support of the war in Iraq are in accord with those of President Bush. On this issue, Tony Blair's opponents are the intellectual descendants of Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, who, until the very end when Hitler marched into Poland, sought to placate the Nazi dictator, foolishly believing that negotiations could achieve peace with Germany, safety for the world, and in Chamberlain's words, "peace in our time." Now Chamberlain's name is a synonym for appeasement.

If Senator John Kerry is elected, I have no doubt our determination to hunt down terrorists who threaten the security, not only of the U.S., but of our allies, will diminish. Terrorists have had major successes in imposing their demands on nations like Spain, the Philippines and Turkey, all of which have given in to terrorist threats by removing military or civilian personnel from Iraq.

We are in a war with Islamic fanatics willing to sacrifice their lives in a way not seen since Japan sent Kamikaze pilots against the allies in World War II, except that the Kamikazes attacked only military targets. Their stated goal is the revival of the Islamic Caliphate that once ruled a major part of the world. They seek to destroy not only Western civilization, which they despise, but also moderate Muslim governments like those of Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan and even Saudi Arabia, because those countries want to maintain good relations with the U.S.

When I make these points to my fellow Democrats living in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio (the latter of which I will be visiting this week) they respond, "yes, but we disagree with the president on so many domestic issues." I, too, disagree with the president on every major domestic issue from taxes to Social Security. Yet I believe those issues are trumped by the overriding need to defeat international terrorism, the biggest threat to our freedom.

What he said.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

The Telegraph is submitting to PC. As somebody said, today in England you can critisize anybody and anything except Islam.

I have to agree, but I am not comfortable making comments about Bigley's words at the end of his life. I hope that if I were in his situation my last words would be "I will show you how an American dies" but who knows what they will do?

I do think the media is to blame for this here and abroad. Life has become reality TV, instead of the other way around. I would not be surprised if Brits look back at this and wonder at their own behavior.

Steyn (no way) is a witty enough title; you shouldn't have any key bored players.

But I think that by spiking the story The Telegraph has brought more attention to it. I have seen links to it all over the internet today.

It is rather like the movie Stolen Honor Sinclair wants to run. By the time the Democrats stop bitching about it the whole country will have heard about it.

This is a brilliant and brutal article. Thank you Mark, for having the courage to rip away the smothering veil of political correctness, and shining the light of truth on who is responsible for Mr Bigleys death. I feel sorry for Ken Bigley's family, but his death is a crime that must be avenged, and his killers must be brought to justice.

My guess is that The Telegraph editors still regard it as unseemly to speak ill of how the undeservingly dead died and/or lived their lives. If so, I find myself agreeing with them. Who would have guessed that I'd find myself ever agreeing with the editors of The Telegraph.

I dont know how many votes he can influence. (probably not many) but I respect his forthright opinion which he delivers as an American and not a Democrat solely interested in an election at the cost of deceiving the people about the war being waged against us.
The other side of the coin is McAuliffe and his troops on lying misfits led by the Kerry and Edwards. These two men have contradicted everything positive they have said in recent years. They have no sense of being

Mark Steyn is like a very cold shower; you get wet, but it's not very comfortable. I agree with his philosophy and would like to extend it.

The vast majority of "free world" has been enjoying a free ride. By having the U.S. foot the bill for the defense of freedom around the world, countries like Germany and France, have been able to spend very little on defense. So little, they are incapable of sending a division of combat troops anyplace. Instead, they take this money and use it to give their citizens things like free medical care, six week vacations, generous umemployment benefits and comfortable retirements. Even neighbors like Canada are playing the "free ride game". To Canada's dismay, their used military equipment has been self destructing without any assistance from a real enemy.

This scenario suggests a MODEST PROPOSAL to cure these "stiffers". When no threat exists that can prompt these countries to defend themselves, the U.S. should provide the incentive and introduce the threat. How can we present a threat that has enough meaning for France and Germany to create a defense force?

I must confess that I am not qualified to list the possible ways to present this threat. We could sieze the entire Canadian Navy and have them paint our ships for a few weeks. On a more serious note, we can and should deliver real threats. Threats that demonstrate their powerlessness, and the humiliation that can result from this.

I am open to hearing more possible ways to implement this Modest Proposal (other than eating the babies). This could be fun!

I believe that there are enough righteous shoulders in the USA to not only fight the good fight for Western Civilization but to also bear the burden of dragging the domestic and foreign freeloaders behind us.

As reprehensible as the Europeans were in the 30s, isolationists in the USA were also the majority. Eventually people come around. It's unfortunate that the price paid will probably be so much higher, but we will pay it. As we must.

The nerve Mark Steyn hit tells me that I can no longer excuse, rationalize, or defend those who will not participate in the defense of the USA.

Roger,
I don't think that your commenters realise the consequences of dissing Liverpool.At the moment they are in a collective trough of grief,Liverpool is proud of its solidarity and also its toughness remarks like,
"entire city of Liverpool going into a week of Dianysian emotional masturbation over some deceased prodigal son with no inclination to return whom none of the massed ranks of weeping Scousers from the Lord Mayor down had ever known,"
uttered in a bar down the Dingle would result in Mr Steyns hospitalisation,gun or no gun.
This was equivalent to using the N word in parts of the US.I think the Telegraph rather than bowing to PC was thinking about burn't out newsagents.

This isn't about freedom of speech. The Telegraph's decision not to publish Mark Steyn's article in no way abridges his freedom of speech. He is still free to, for example, post it on his website, which he has done. It is greatly to his credit that he is not claiming that his freedom of speech is being abridged.

It may also be worth noting that a) the Telegraph is an English newspaper and not subject to the US Constitution, and b} Mark Steyn is, as far as I know, not an American citizen; he's Canadian, although he resides at least part time in Vermont.

Liverpool reference or no, I agree that line should have been struck on grounds of taste.

I don't disagree though with attacks on Bigley's behavior. The line from Churchill was also hugely effective. It seems most of the European public still wishes to believe that terror is, as Kerry would say, a "nuisance" to be dealt with via law enforcement, like loan-sharking or prostitution. They could use a splash of editorial cold water about now.

"These two men have contradicted everything positive they have said in recent years. They have no sense of being." Ted M.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Zell Miller and Ed Koch, right? I suspect when they finally kick off, their respective autopsies may show the same malignant growth affected their reasoning centers late in life.

Still, if we are going to fight terrorism in a country that has nothing to do with international terrorism (home grown guerillas or "insurgents" don't count- they're practically everywhere we've ever invaded in our nation's history- i.e. Philippines, c. 1898) and which has never, not for one minute, threatened any American's freedom, couldn't we have picked a nicer locale than Iraq? Perhaps the Bahamas- a more seasonal climate without the intolerable summer heat and lousy sanitation facilities of the Fertile Crescent. Plus, the travel expense would be so much less (it's closer).

Dollars to donuts all the posters on this site would be falling all over themselves to justify Bush's Bahamian invasion (hey- Reagan got to do Grenada and the first Bush got Panama- why not?) and how the terrible terrorists in the Bahamas were a sinister threat to the American way of life. And how the treasonous, vacillating, French loving, wine drinking, war hating, unpatriotic, un-American, French loving (it deserves repetition) liberals just don't get the "Bahamian threat" and how our victory there will be a landmark in the war on terrorism.

As for the Democrats in Congress: no doubt, 85% or more (especially including Senators Kerry & Edwards, the spineless weasels) would vote for the Bahamian invasion so as not to look soft on terrorism. I've yet to figure out why any of the brilliant minds who post on this site have failed to notice the timing of the vote to authorize use of force to enforce U.N. resolutions against Iraq (not war- they never did declare war, as required by Article I, Section 8). Hint: look at when the Republicans scheduled the anti-gay marriage vote. The timing alone gave away the game that Bush's handlers were playing with the "threat" posed by Iraq.

And brilliant ones: why didn't Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey want us to invade and take out Saddam? If he had WMD's and was itching to use them "imminently", wouldn't they have been first in line asking us to do it? They wouldn't (and didn't) have to lift a finger or pay a dime.

Oh yeah- if the U.N. is such an awful organization that needs to be deposited on the dustheap of history instanter, remind me again whose resolutions the authorization to use force was supposed to enforce?

P.S. to Msr. Flenser: Mr. Soros' check finally cleared and I got my daily DNC talking points. (See my post from yesterday for my real views).

I believe Steyn like PJ O'Rourke lives in New Hampshire, not Vermont. The difference is like Orange Country vs Marin County.

I guess you are right. Steyn does have a place to have his say and the Telegraph is free to print or not print what it likes.

But....It just seems wrong somehow. The press is behaving like a conduit for these monsters and to worry about feelings after the fact seems wrong. But the Telegraph is not really the issue there. I think CBS was wrong in making the AbuGhraib pictures public. The people were being court martialed and all that was accomplished was making a bad situation worse. I even wondered if that helped feed the current video frenzy. But that was justified on the grounds of freedom of press and speech. So there you go.

I agree with Ed Koch that international terrorism trumps domestic issues in the coming election. But I cannot agree that it is the greatest threat to freedom. The greatest threat to freedom is international socialism.

It was Stalin, I think, who said that one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is only a statistic. It is in the spirit of that observation that I compare Islamofascism with Socialism. I substitute Islamofacsism for international terrorism because Islamofascism is really what we are talking about.

A single death is, indeed, a tragedy. And, in a sense, Islamofascists are killing us one at a time. These evil of these killings are easily grasped because they are so grotesque, and are, obviously, the work of sadistic fanatics. We are, and should be, violently repulsed by their actions. But, we must be careful not to be held hostage to our emotions in this matter. We must not be so distracted by their hideousness that other threats slip under the radar. This, in no way detracts from my support of President Bush and his wartime strategy. His imposition of a democractic goverment in the enemy's backyard is just the right antidote to eradicate the threat of Islamofascism.

When Stalin said that a million deaths was only a statistic he meant that the tragedy inherent in a million deaths is not easily grasped and, therefore, more likely to pass unnoticed. So, consider, then, what International Socialism has done in the last century. The deaths involved certainly number in the tens of millions perhaps, even, in hundreds of millions if one were to count deaths by starvation and malnutrition. Try to wrap your head around those numbers. Make the numbers more manageable: 500,000,000 deaths in 100 years; 5,000,000 deaths for 1 year; 14,000 deaths for 1 day; 600 deaths per hour; one person, one actual living, breathing human being every six seconds.

Why don't we think about these things? People in North Korea are dying by stavation in the millions, so I am informed. Does the WTC disaster or what goes on in Iraq or all the terrorist attacks around the world compare with this atrocity? The tragedy is too big to comprehend. And, of course, we live in an age where the latest philosophical conundrum is: if a person dies without it recorded on videotape, did the person really die? I'm not trying to be a smart aleck here. We simply don't have any means by which we acquire the sensibilities to grasp the enormity of mass starvation let alone the moral sensibility to judge politically induced mass starvation.

It is the ideology of socialism that underpins North Korean politics. Besides all the deaths, Nork is an economic basket case. Socialism killed the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. It is bankrupting the EU and Canada. Socialism! After a whirlwind tour of the planet, now coming to a country near you! And who are the latest political impresarios to bring this ideology to you? Is it the Republicans?

Not only are the barbarians at the gate, they have brought with them a horse called social justice but inside the horse is a theory that there is no such thing as human nature so, therefore, humans can be shaped in any image you care to shape them. What a mere thing freedom is, when compared justice, they might say.

Islamofascism may be, presently, the greatest danger to Americans but it is socialism that is the greatest threat to America. The American constitution is the greatest bulwark against tyranny. That is why it is the greatest impediment to socialism. That is why socialist hate America.

You are absolutely right on both points. I was evidently suffering a brain cramp.

Still, if we are going to fight terrorism in a country that has nothing to do with international terrorism...

Presumably Mr. Clayton never heard of Abu Nidal. Or Hussein's "rewards" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

"Still, if we are going to fight terrorism in a country that has nothing to do with international terrorism (home grown guerillas or "insurgents" don't count- they're practically everywhere we've ever invaded in our nation's history- i.e. Philippines, c. 1898) and which has never, not for one minute, threatened any American's freedom,....."

If Iraq had " nothing to do with international terrorism," how do you explain these:

- The only member of the al Qaeda unit responsible for the first WTC bombing to have escaped justice is an Iraqi, who fled to Iraq after being initially questioned, and was provided asylum by Saddam.

- Saddam provided safe haven for other international terrorists such as Abu Nidal and Abu Musab al Zarqawi.

- It is widely believed Iraq provide Sudan (and quite possibly bin Laden) with the technological expertise to make VX nerve agent, resulting in the 1998 bombing of the Shifa plant by Clinton.

- The Clinton administration, in its 1998 indictment of bin Laden (the first ever indictment), included the following: " Al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq."

If one death is a tragedy and one million is a statistic, we are fighting the wrong kind of war. We allow the media to run excruciating stories about the single, slowly sawed off head. This gives the Islamo Fascists the enormous advantage of having the world media occupying prime time with the butchery moment.

Perhaps we should go for the statistic and remove Falluja in a heartbeat. All of it, all at once. To occupy the media, we could present a number of stories of poor little injured children, being helped by American soldiers. Dimes for Denise and Denephew.

I find it hard to accept that we are being outmarketed by a few guys with knives and a video camera. As awsome as our military is, it should pale in comparison with our marketing might.

That's what it has become for the leftist. If it is not politically correct it is a 'hate speech'.
Sickening.

Ray,
That is what has puzzled me about the WoT,despite having awsome advertising and marketing skills the coalition has been pathetic a selling its point of view,mere nobility of intent is not enough.
Is it perhaps that those with the expertise are in general against prosecuting the Wot,certainly the MSM sems to regard itself as the "loyal" opposition.
At one time simple patriotism would have prevented the publication of stories that gave aid and comfort to the enemy.I cannot imagine any paper in WWII publishing such defeatist material.
The picture of a casged Ken Bigley was splashed accross the front pages of many newspapers,thus ensuring unprecedented pressure on the government to "do something" which in reality reduced its options.

God help me I'm agreeing with Goof here, re: the Steyn piece. I posted this in the earlier thread:

I'm not saying a lot of people are talking like this, but I kind of get the idea that some are thinking of this piece not being run as some kind of "chill wind of censorhsip" thing. I think we need to be careful not to be like the left who complains whenever something or the other isn't published, and acts as if it is somehow related to censorship. The publishers of the Telegraph obviously have the right not to publish one of Steyn's columns and from the language on his website it seems like they went back-and-forth on a lot of drafts and really tried to publish it. It seems likely that their objection was not to the thesis of the column, i.e. that the reaction of the British public, media, and government to the Bigley kidnapping and murder revealed weaknesses that will only make other Britons in the Middle East less safe, but to his appearing to cast aspersions at the Bigley, his family, and his hometown. Any newspaper, right or left, is going to want to avoid that appearance. They've never spiked anything he's written before, even though he's routinely called "anti-Muslim" and so forth, so I'm hardly going to call them members of the PC censorship squad just because they didn't publish this one column. (Again, I'm not really saying that anyone was. I'm tired and hungry here. Please take it easy on me.)

Now I see the Roger's explicitly going for the "c" word here. Man I just couldn't disagree more. Roger, speaking as someone who's been "anti-left" for my whole young life, I can tell you that one of the things that's always annoyed me about the left is their crying "censorship" anytime their latest vile excresence wasn't published as widely as possible, and preferably with public funding. "Censorship" is something the government does. This was a business decision. I may agree that Lord Conrad Black's minions were cowardly in making the decision, but it's their decision to make.

I think you've got a point, Eric. I want overboard on this one. But you know us writers - we don't like anyone screwing with our words... or worse, not publishing them!

I share a certain kinship with PeterUK, having once lived north of London in Peterborough. Peter shares my puzzlement (a la The King and I) concerning America's failure to effectively compete with weapons of mass distortion.

As a U.S. Senator (was it Dirkson from Illinois) once said, "a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon your talking real money". A billion invested in swaying public opinion in all liklihood would have the effect of several combat divisions. Does not using this weapon of mass distortion represent the same repugnance as the use of the real WMD?

I'm with Eric D. and, ahem...Goof on the Steyn column. It wasn't censorship, and I'd be a hypocrite if I said it was.

Mark is always best when he's writing breezily. Sometimes he can combine serious and breezy, as with his infamous take-down of Robert Fisk for accusing the Yanks of not knowing whether they were at the Baghdad Airport or not. But when he's all serious he has a tendency to misfire.

I think the "fighting words" paragraph PeterUK referenced above was probably what got the column spiked. It was in fairly poor taste, even if it was in the "stiff upper lip" category of polemics. In this case, Steyn should have exercised a little self-censorship of his own. He didn't need to pour acid on the carcase, as it were.

Here's one other point for all the lefties out there: We all read the column even though it wasn't published. Censorship, or what is more properly termed "editorial suppression," doesn't really even exist anymore thanks to the Internet.

Whatever you do, don't turn on PBS' frontline. If, so far, you've been successful in avoiding watching Fahrenheit 9-11 (while holding rock solid views on everything about it and its maker), then don't risk the dissonance and brain cramp that watching George Bush on televison could bring on. Damn that liberal media for showing the President and the people who knew him when. It's just unfair.

We have already had a adminstration who turned over our decsion making to the Europeans. The Clinton administration allowed that to happen in the Balkans. First, the Euroweenies decided that they would do nothing and allow a toothless UN peacekeeping force to stand around in their blue helmets. When that didn't workout as planned they got Clinton to bomb the the Serbs and fund the Croatians to get Slobo to Dayton. Same thing happened in Kosovo. Slobo would have sent the Euroweenie armies packing if they attempted to enforce a settlement favorable to the KLA narco-terrorists. So they enlisted Clinton to do it for them. When the same group of Albanian narco-terrorists started going after the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia they got us to back the Muslim thugs again.

Given the history of the 1990s and re-emergence of the Clinton team in any Kerry administration we can see what is going to happen. The Euros will enlist Kerry to destroy Israel, validate Islamic extremism and undermine and democratic institutions in Iraq and Afghanistan. To be fair to the Euros, it really doesn't take much to get Kerry to endorse a Communist or a Islamic Radical. It is very natural for him. For all the talk about Haliburton and greed, I find it strange that nobody brings up his family’s sweetheart business deal with the Communist thugs in Hanoi. I figure its about $100 a head in blood money from the communists to the Kerry family.

Employees of a private voter registration company allege that hundreds, perhaps thousands of voters who may think they are registered will be rudely surprised on election day. The company claims hundreds of registration forms were thrown in the trash.

...widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats [by] Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats.

"We caught her taking Democrats out of my pile, handed them to her assistant and he ripped them up right in front of us. I grabbed some of them out of the garbage and she tells her assistant to get those from me," said Eric Russell, former Voters Outreach employee.

Eric Russell managed to retrieve a pile of shredded paperwork including signed voter registration forms, all from Democrats. We took them to the Clark County Election Department and confirmed that they had not, in fact, been filed with the county as required by law."

Rumblestrip makes an important point. President Bush must cease presenting the economy as something he, or the Republicans, or the rich, or the Democrats, simply give to poor people, or not.
Without attempting to assess which presents a greater threat, it is important to remember that both Islamofascism and Leftism share a deep hatred of the United States and her allies as the last, best exemplars and agents of European, Western civilization.
Republicans should not accept the premise that the issue is (primarily a foreign) War on Terror versus (primarily a domestic) War on Poverty. Accepting such terms draws one into a vulnerable defensive maneuver of defending as "merely a temporary distraction" the war with Islamofascism while nervously making a weak attempt of asserting that "the economy is good and it is getting better." Though I reject the substance of the Democrat counterpunches, it must be said that the Democrat litany of woes and supposed injustices toward the poor and "regular" Americans is having a wearying effect on the Republican effort to win this presidential election.
No, President Bush and his campaigners must forcefully recast this effort as an integrated effort against tyranny of all sorts. He must do so because it is. President Bush must remind and reiterate that the fight against tyranny must involve resolute military actions against Islamic fanatics, persevering diplomatic work, and some certain sacrifices at home. He must stir the American public and our friends no less than did Churchill his people. He can and he must.
Truculent bravado alone will not do. His opportunities to speak and summarize must be seized upon with enthusiasm and his explanations must be cogent, succinct and they must flow. His great task is redirect American energies from their adolescent hedonisms and self-indulgences the the most excellent of human endeavors. He is going to have to fight our enemies across the oceans, within our borders and in our hearts. What is more, he will have to enlist our aid. In this sense, the least of all of his opponents is John Kerry.
Many of us had parents who fought World War II. We know of their human and material sacrifices. We know of their losses, tragedies, sufferings and discomforts. In this present war, the material cost of war does not assume the form of steel, rubber and gasoline rationing. Though it does mount in the form of a very real budget deficit, this war in the information age does not cause the immediate pinch in our material prosperity as did the earlier war with Nazism and fascism. But as our parents sacrificed material comforts, we must sacrifice comfort of a different sort. We must experience the discomfort of a rent bill long overdue. In this case, we need to have wrested from our clasp not the natural goods and pleasures of prosperity but the self-destructive attachments of an intellectually idle, selfish, vain and self-loathing society. We cannot continue our present path with nation-hating comedy, mockery of that with is historically and religiously sacred in the disingenuous name of sophistication, and that feigned righteousness that attacks every institution designed to ensure a true commonwealth for all of our citizens. Real warriors for justice can, after all, vigorously address the inevitable flaws of institutions without undermining institutions, much less the foundations upon which all institutions stand. Americans need to reject those trends and debasing entertainments, so-called art forms, trivial commerce and personal practices that are eroding our ability to think and function as a healthy, integrated society. Most seriously, the idle pursuit of unrestrained sexual activity for the sake of entertainment surely destroys our human capacity to exert ourselves against formidable foes of responsible freedom as certainly as a short blade slowly sawing the neck.
We can and must address the injustices within our borders, of course. In generations past, such injustices were in fact ameliorated, even corrected, in the very effort to fight foreign enemies. Indeed, American-Black, American-Native and American-Japanese military units did much to right prior domestic injustices while fighting a foreign war. These long injustices will yield to the very same rousing of noble spirits and aspirations as do those pressing enemies promising worldwide terror and tyranny. It is no wonder, then, that many and varied evils fall when single, great evils are countenanced. But pitting my narrow self-interests “domestically” against my great interest of self-survival from without so clearly is an invitation to division and conquest that I am astounded that comment needs to be made.
The full expression of human worth, dignity and expression, at home and abroad, is closely linked with liberty, honest work, innovation, entrepreneurship and sincere religious piety. Without pandering to the politics of victimization, and actually in opposition to such denigrations and entrapments, President Bush must lift once again the American vision of itself as united in a heroic common cause. Yes, he must do so in an intense way against terrorist Islamofascists, but in no less strenuous a way against the slow tyrannies of Leftism and Libertinism that would ensnare us to the slave masters of government, on the one hand, and our own vile weaknesses on the other. Herein is the cure for racism, dependency, poverty and despair. These ugly things are the tools in the hands of Leftists and I dare say Democrats for the demoralization of a people and the destruction of the American free republic which presently have and risk losing.
I would say, if given the chance, Mr. President, I trust that you have at your service aides who can fill in the details with accuracy. I trust that you have speechwriters to call upon to flesh out the vision that I believe you share with us and have well defended. Show us the grandness of our cause, the heroism of our effort and, with clarity, the form of our hope as a republic. If you do not do so in this debate and the remainder of this campaign, perhaps we shall not win this time. More fearful to consider, perhaps, in that sad case, we should not.

Actually, Clayton, Iraq has been tied to a lot of terrorism including the first bombing of the World Trade Center. So just why is it again, that you feel it necessary to lie to people?

Oh, and in my state, Democrat voter registration campaigns have been caught by a local TV news station filing false voter registration forms. Forms with dead people and completely made up names.

It is easy to register his complaint here--in his jammies. The same complaint filed at his local sheriff's department would not only be acted on, it would make national news. So he continues malicious attempts to discredit the election process. On November 3, he will be standing in his jammies shouting "we was robbed".

I don't normally engage trolls, although I did ask you if this Vietnam era submariner is a chickenhawk, but I must tell you that you have just confirmed what we already suspect, i.e., that the Democrats are in process of committing mass election fraud. How do I know this? Because the Democrats always project on their opponents the things they themselves do. Here is a good example. We all know how the Democrats claim that Jeb Bush set up road blocks to intimidate black voters. [We also know that a very pro-Democratic US Civil Rights Commission debunked this lie.] Why did the Gore campaign propagate this lie? Well, because they did something like that in New Hampshire primary. They knew that NH commuters to and from Boston were heavily in favor of Bill Bradley [and John McCain]. So the Gore campaign got volunteers to get on I-95 north and clog up traffic to hold down the Bradley vote. So if you tell me that Republicans are trashing new Democrat registrants I know it must be lie. It must mean that Democrats are trashing new Republican registrants.

“John - you're going downhill. I liked you better when you made real arguments.
Have another drink. And then run along.” thibaud

“Thanks John, for your textbook example of trollery.... Memo to the DNC:
Please send another troll. The one you've recently provided us is defective.” Posted by: Mike

Come on guys, lighten up. Those of us who believe in the promises of the Bill of Rights, who have the courage to stand up to our government and point out its errors, are essential to a free country. You don't have to agree with my arguments to recognize that lock step, unquestioning, uncritical agreement with the government, even when it makes terrible mistakes, does no service to our country. You better believe that when Kerry is sworn in as president, he won't get a free pass from me or any other member of the cheese eating, wine drinking (only on religious holidays), French loving... well, you know the drill by now.

Quick question, now: how many of you think that a President McCain or [Colin] Powell would have invaded Iraq in March of 2003? How many of you think that either McCain or Powell would have taken any troops out of Afghanistan to wage a war in Iraq while Osama bin Laden and many of the top leaders of Al Qaida were still loose?

How many of you think that McCain or Powell would have used a gay bashing proposed (but DOA) constitutional amendment to divert attention from a sour economy and a poorly planned postwar debacle in Iraq?

Like the one-liner about which cemetery a Louisiana Democrat would like to be buried in when he passes; when asked he matter of factly replys with the name of a particularly well known cemetary adding, "I'd like to remain active in politics after I go."

I am from Chicago and I have never known a dead man to vote for anyone but a Democrat. This is an old Chicago saying: "If you don't believe in the resurrection wait until election day and watch the dead rise again."

“Actually, Clayton, Iraq has been tied to a lot of terrorism including the first bombing of the World Trade Center. So just why is it again, that you feel it necessary to lie to people?”
Roberts

Roberts: Good thing Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Yemen and Pakistan had nothing to do with terrorism or Al Qaida. You can imagine how thin our military would be spread if terrorism had ever been linked to those countries.

“I don't normally engage trolls, although I did ask you if this Vietnam era submariner is a chickenhawk...” jerry

Jerry: It depends. If you never saw bits and pieces of what used to be a human being, if you didn't have a friend die in your arms, if you didn't see a baby, a small child, or an elderly woman machine gunned or napalmed, and yet you are an ardent advocate for war, then the answer is "Yes, you're a chickenhawk." On the other hand, if you experienced any of those things and are still an ardent advocate for war and use euphemisms like "collateral damage," then you've been stripped of your humanity and you have my sympathy.

Or the old saw, "vote early - and often." I've heard 'em a dozen or more times each but chuckle regardless, have always particularly enjoyed the one about the Louisiana Dem and his cemetery of choice. (And in telling it, it helps if you remember to add the dryly intoned, "matter of factly" description of his reply.)

"Jerry: It depends. If you never saw bits and pieces of what used to be a human being, if you didn't have a friend die in your arms, if you didn't see a baby, a small child, or an elderly woman machine gunned or napalmed, and yet you are an ardent advocate for war, then the answer is "Yes, you're a chickenhawk." On the other hand, if you experienced any of those things and are still an ardent advocate for war and use euphemisms like "collateral damage," then you've been stripped of your humanity and you have my sympathy."

John Clayton: What page are you on in the book "Stolen Valour?" I want to read more about you.

I for one am really getting tired of hearing about how the evil Republicans are trying to keep people from voting, and how they "stole" the election in 2000. I am more concerned about "multiple voters," and the harm that they bring. 46,000 registered voters in Florida are also registered to vote in New York. God only knows how many others from other "blue states" have the same status, and who knows how many of these folks voted twice (once in each state) in 2000? The election was determined by less than 1000 votes. Don't even try to tell me that the carpetbagger vote was insignificant.

No, the election in 2000 wasn't stolen, but I suspect that it came pretty close to that. And no, I don't think it was the Republicans who were attempting to commit that crime. Let's just hope that the election in Florida isn't stolen this year.

...widespread pattern of potential registration fraud aimed at democrats [by] Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

America votes is funded by the AFL-CIO, Emily's List, MoveOn, and other "progressive" groups. You seem to be claiming that democrat voters are being disenfranchised by other democrats.

Hmmm. Perhaps Lord Rove has used his mind control powers to subvert key people in Democrat 527's. That would explain everything.

I see that Clayton's only answer for having his dishonesty pointed out is to introduce a non sequitur.

There have been few campaigns in US history as dishonest and as intentionally destructive of the national interest as John Kerry's.

--As reprehensible as the Europeans were in the 30s, isolationists in the USA were also the majority--

John Clayton: I've done some of those things. I've also got phone entries in my phone lists that would ring a phone a hundred stories up in empty air above a downtown New York address; and I've looked at the smoking rubble that contained the last mortal remains of friends and acquaintances, ones who were working happily at their desks until they were murdered horribly.

"John Clayton: What page are you on in the book "Stolen Valour?" I want to read more about you." Mike.

Mike: The fiction written about me has been so much more entertaining than the mundane truth that I've long since stopped denying the more colorful stories. But I don't spread them myself.

So here's a truth that even John O'Neill can't deny: John Kerry was in war, saw people die, and was under fire. He knows that when a man behind a desk issues a command to start a war, men, women, children, babies, die, lose limbs, are blinded, burned horribly, and scarred for life. He knows that war isn't clean, predictable, or neatly wrapped up. He knows that My Lai wasn't a myth.

Neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush ever had that experience of being in combat or in a war zone. But Clinton had the ability to imagine, to see through to the ends of his policy decisions, and Bush couldn't or didn't. So Clinton's intervention in Kosovo worked, saving far more lives than it cost (and did any Americans die? None I recall). Bush's Iraq adventure isn't a complete disaster yet, but it's our worst mistake since Vietnam. Even people who agree with his ends deplore his means. And it's why many responsible Republicans, like John Eisenhower and Lincoln Chafee, cannot in good conscience support Bush.

"Honestly, your claim to moral authority is pretty well invalidated. Go." Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie: What claim to moral authority? I'm just the kid watching the emperor walk naked down the street. That involves perception, not morality.

The claim to the authority to say that jerry has been "stripped of his humanity."

All right, if you don't have sufficient shame to simply recognize your degradation, then explain to me how you can bear to remain in a country defended -- as this one is at this very moment -- by people who have been "stripped of their humanity"?

Or are you simply one of the moral cretins who is willing to be defended by a military that they none the less revile?

If you don't have the money for a plane ticket, I'm sure we could take up a collection.

You are another in a long series of trolls who has attempted combat on this site and failed miserably.

You deploy debunked memes repeatedly. Your grasp of logic is almost as poor as your command of facts and history. Regularly we see from you ad hominems, circumstantial ad hominems, appeals to emotion, appeals to spite and question-begging, just to name a few.

Worst of all, you have taken to posting scurrilous, off-topic comments in hopes of drawing a response and ruining the thread. In short, you exhibit all the earmarks of a troll, and a below-average one at that.

I don't suppose we should even care, and would be best advised to ignore you. But on the other hand, why should we? Why should the thousands of readers who stop by this site every day have to put up with a bunch of crap being slung around because some preening horse's ass with electoral aspirations and a Michael Moore coloring book decided to vomit all over his keyboard?

We take a principled view of trolls here at Roger's place. We don't gaze--we bury them under a mountain of pixels. If you persist, you will meet the same fate as George Cerny, Joseph Maillander, Steve Smith, BevD, Tano, Hollywood and Esmense. If you like DennisthePeasant will fill you in as to their particulars. But trust me: they are not company with whom you should keep.

John Clayton should ne ignored. His arguments are not original and challenging. And I strongly suspect that he is being paid by an ultraliberal group of some sort. The hell with him. We have better things to do. The election is less than twenty days away. This should be our top priority.

It's worth noting that in the UK ever since Diana's death there's been this strange tendency in the public as a whole to degenerate into emotional hysteria when faced with high profile death. I suspect that the Telegraph decision was based more on fear of a backlash to their supposed lack of humanity in publishing the piece, rather than concern about what was being written.

Watching newscasters on the BBC talk about how 'this son of Liverpool would never walk it's streets again'. Might give you an idea of the theatrics that are being employed by the media as a whole over here. We even had a minutes silence for him before the bloody England game at the weekend.

This in honour of an ex-pat who chose to go and work in Iraq. Be nice if we could see that level of empathy for some of our soldiers.

Having read Steyn's piece, I would say I agree much of the sentiment, but the way he expresses his opinion would be unacceptable to any British newspaper at this time.
Would similar comments have been accepted in an American paper about an American hostage - and if now, would they have been pre-9/11?

Starting with Billy Connolly's smartcrack was a mistake. Connolly was mistaken to make it, Steyn is mistaken to re-use it.

I might hope to make an end with more dignity and defiance than Mr Bigley, but I still fear that I might not. It is difficult to imagine the man's state of mind after the torment he likely went through. If Mark Steyn is confident he would do better, well, I envy him his assurance.

The phrase about Liverpool going into "Dianysian emotional masturbation over some deceased prodigal son with no inclination to return" is offensive, plain and simple.
Like PeterUK said.
Repeat that line in a Scouse pub and you'd be very lucky to exit intact at any time.
Right now Steyn would be lucky to exit alive. Seriously.

Liverpudlians, are, and always have been, clannish, emotional and communal about such things. Speaking as a Midlander who lived on Merseyside for several years, their responses to such things are, quite naturally, not those of Middle England.
This is not (or at least not just) BBC-style "feel the feelings" phoniness. And it his hardly their fault that the BBC, and other media chooses to use it in that context. I dislike phony media mawkishness as much as almost anyone. But Scousers ARE different.

While sending a Minister to comisserate with the family may be a mistake, Steyn's comments on Pual Bigley are simply not appropriate while the family is in mourning.

Regarding the rumoured 'feelers' put out by the Foreign Office to Zaqarwi's group, this would fit with denial of negotiation IF the FO were
a) trying to suborn one of the group
b) attempting to gain intel for an operation
What WAS happening cannot yet be certain. Steyn is being premature.
IF he is correct in his suspicion, I would first to attack the government for it. But at present all of it is just speculation.

As for British decadence and defeatism. Well, we shall see.
However, the Sun headline was "Get the Bastards!"

And one Liverpudlian of my aquaintance would likely have this message for Zaqarwi and his followers: "One day we shall find you, 'When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind'."

I guess almost every WWII submariner who survived the war qualifies as a chickenhawk in your mind. When you serve in combat aboard submarines you either all come back or none of you do. You inflict pain and suffering without seeing the effects. Yes, you are terrrifiede when the enemy counterattacks, but there is no blood or shattered bodies until the final moments before your vessel's destruction. Casualties in the Pacific Submarine force were 25%, so I guess that the other 75% are chickenhawks.

"Thee focus of the story is a private registration company called Voters Outreach of America, AKA America Votes.

The out-of-state firm has been in Las Vegas for the past few months, registering voters. It employed up to 300 part-time workers and collected hundreds of registrations per day, but former employees of the company say that Voters Outreach of America only wanted Republican registrations.

Two former workers say they personally witnessed company supervisors rip up and trash registration forms signed by Democrats."

This is from a link on Drudge regarding nasty voter registration tactics. I think the article must be planted and is bs because, yes, it makes no sense that a left group would rip up Democrat registrations.

Maybe Drudge should link that the group destroying Democratic registrations is a left wing group.

"So here's a truth that even John O'Neill can't deny: John Kerry was in war, saw people die, and was under fire."

Stop already, Clayton. As others have pointed out, if you're going to troll, try to good at it.

John Kerry didn't take part in a single engagement during his (partial) tour of duty where an American serviceman was killed. Not one. Of course, Douglas Brinkley goes to great lengths to conceal this in his hagiography, with melodramatic chapter titles such as " Death in the Delta," and rhetoric-laced passages like these:

" Suddenly, being a junior officer assigned to Swift command was the easiest way to earn these medals - and death certificates - in Vietnam." (pg. 321)

" Between January 30 and March 13, 1969, the Swift crew (Kerry's) would execute eighteen missions in and around the Mekong Delta river system; in just one hellish eight-day stretch, their boat would participate in some dozen vicious firefights." (pg. 281)

This is simply yet another element of Kerry's gross distortion and exaggeration of his Vietnam service.

I won't argue with you that Kerry saw people die. They were the Vietnamese civilians he carelessly killed because of his ineptitude, as documented by John O'Neil.

Please Folks, don't scare John Clayton away.
You've got your useful fools and then you got your
useful pinatas. I take a sadistic delight in watching him getting pummeled. Sometimes, I even think he's a creation of Roger's imagination for the purpose of getting everyones juices flowing.

October 12, 2004: Steyn(no)way...and a bit of Hizzoner

Comments

Post a comment

Email This Post