Yesterday, I pondered what Ted Rall would do for a follow-up to his smear job of Pat Tillman. I wondered if he would 'deny that the Holocaust ever happened."
Well, I was at least in the ballpark. Instead of denying the Holocaust, he merely hints that Americans soldiers are morally equivalent to Nazis. In his latest op-ed entitled 'Army of Scum (Or, We're Looking For a Few Good Homosexual Rapists)", Rall writes:
Now it's official: American troops occupying Iraq become virtually indistinguishable from the SS. Like the Germans during World War II, they cordon off and bomb civilian villages to retaliate for guerilla attacks on their convoys. Like the blackshirts who terrorized Europe, America's victims disappear into hellish prisons ruled by sadists and murderers. The U.S. military is short just one item to achieve moral parity with the Nazis: gas chambers.
I’ve heard about all I want to hear from this clown. From now on I refuse to support any publication that carries UExpress features until they drop Rall as an editorial cartoonist and columnist. Like Erick Erickson, I’ll start by boycotting Men’s Health.
While I would give my life defending Rall’s freedom to speak his mind, I won’t waste another second of my life supporting any publication that spreads his bile.
2
The only way to get their attention is to hit 'em where it hurts.....in the pocketbook.
posted on 05.05.2004 6:14 AM3
I came across a link to this article on Pharyngula this morning. It's about Tillman, and goes beyond some of the one-note deification that's been going on, to provide a glimpse of him as a person, an individual. It was affecting for me - hope it is for some of y'all as well. I think we all lost a good one. We need a hell of a lot more like him.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/05/04/SPG5K6FD091.DTL
posted on 05.05.2004 8:04 AM4
I think UExpress keeps Rall as a counter-balance to Ann Coulter. What a terrific pas de deux they make.
posted on 05.05.2004 11:55 AM5
Ted Rall has done nothing for the past three years but paint this administration for the hatemongering, bigoted, world dominator wanna-be, chickenhawks that they are.
True American patriots are dead because they believed the lies told by the White House. Lying, the only thing GWB has consistently done throughout his political and personal life.
At least with Clinton the country could see the truth behind the politics. Now you're just blind to the truth. You will believe his lie because to do otherwise would be to admit your culpability in this evil.
posted on 05.05.2004 12:36 PM6
Rall's latest editorial is his worst yet. He is either a complete idiot, or so blinded by his own hatred of the President that he will say or do anything to achieve his purposes.
We have seen his kind recently at work in Fallujah. Blinded by hate, people who debase themseves and their victims, with no sense of justice or morality.
If Bush were assassinated, and Rall had the opportunity, I have absolutely no doubt that he would be the guy tying Bush's body to a car or dousing it in gasoline or hanging it from a bridge.
And if it's not traitorous, doesn't it give aid and comfort to the enemy? (Who by the way, really know how to run a Nazi-like government!)
posted on 05.05.2004 12:51 PM7
Rob,
Not even. While Coultier is terribly tendentious and unfair, she is at least rational.
posted on 05.05.2004 1:03 PM8
JBP: In reference to Muslims, Ann Coulter wrote: "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity." Setting aside the obvious rabid intolerance, would any rational person believe that a modern day crusade would work any better than the medieval ones? Even our president, who is not known for his profundity of thought, knows this is impracticable.
The woman is rash, but not rational. We may disagree, JBP, but I gotta like a guy who has "tendentious" in his vocabulary and applies it so aptly.
posted on 05.05.2004 3:04 PM9
Rob,
Good counter example.
Nonetheless, given that the reason the region is Muslim is because a 1000 years ago the Muslims invaded the region, killed the leaders, and converted them to Islam, her recommendation is not necessarily irrational. It was, after all, primarily a Christian region before that. The Crusades were, in point of fact, a failed war to repel a Muslim invasion. (Which is not to say that the Crusaders did not do some darned evil things like sacking the Hagia Sophia.) Back to my point, her advice is not so much irrational as immoral.
posted on 05.05.2004 3:59 PM10
JBP: Conversion was probably more easily effected back then. Islam was a fairly new religion,but the Muslim conquest was a fait accompli by the time of the crusades. I won't judge the motives or actions of either the crusaders or the Muslims. My point is this: if the combined (if somewhat disorganized and undisciplined) strength of Europe couldn't pull it off then, then the United States can't pull it off now without resorting to genocide. I know of no rational person who thinks this is possible (in the short run, at least). These folks seem pretty attached to their faith, even if they don't agree with regard to its tenets.
At least we both agree that Rall and Coulter are both a bit off-the-wall!
My, but aren't we off topic?
posted on 05.05.2004 7:21 PM