Friday, November 18, 2005

TUCKER SUCKS

There is a lot of great stuff like this picture of Tucker at www.allhatnocattle.net . Check it out!

The following is from Tucker Carlson, on MSNBC.com:

Why we can't abandon Iraq immediately (Tucker Carlson)

"It's one thing when Nancy Pelosi attacks the war in Iraq. Pelosi is from San Francisco, and she represents her constituents well. Just about every word that emerges from her mouth is shrill, amusingly leftwing and easy to ignore. Jack Murtha is another story entirely. The Pennsylvania congressman is one of the most conservative Democrats in the House, hawkish on defense and a 37-year veteran of the Marine Corps. It's impossible to imagine him shopping for soy milk at Whole Foods. He is not for the Transgender Amendment.

"But he is for an "immediate" withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. As he put it in an emotional statement on Thursday, "continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America." Notice the wording: Murtha is not arguing, as so many on the Left do, that the U.S. is unworthy of bringing democracy to Iraq (War for Oil! Abu Ghraib!). He is arguing almost precisely the opposite: The war is bad for us. It's a compelling position. It may even be a conservative position. Ultimately, I think it will be a winning argument. In the meantime, here are two problems with what Murtha said:

"An immediate withdrawal would cause Iraq to become Somalia in about a week. There would be chaos and civil war. Many thousands would die. Turkey, Syria and Iran would immediately move to fill the power vacuum in the country. The region would become more unstable than it already is. The White House says it is impossible at this point to withdraw from Iraq safely and with honor. As frustrating as it might be, the White House is right.

"Also, a small but I think significant complaint: In his speech today, Murtha attacked Dick Cheney as someone who received "five deferments" in Vietnam. This is true, but unfair. The implication is, if you didn't serve, you've got no right to send others to die in battle; only war heroes get to make war policy. There's an emotional appeal to this argument, but it doesn't hold up if you think about it. For one thing, it wasn't long ago (I remember it vividly) that the Democratic Party lionized Vietnam War resistors as moral heroes. When did that policy change? For another, what about Bill Clinton? And Sandy Berger? Not to mention the countless women in foreign policy posts -- Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice -- who've had no opportunity to serve in combat? And finally, we have civilian control of the military for a reason. We choose our commander in chief by election. This past election, the voters preferred a man who did not serve to a man who did. Get over it.

"Keep those e-mails coming to Tucker@msnbc.com "


Talk about spin... sheesh... time for some fun dissection:One obvious fallacy/strategy he uses is the name-calling (Pelosi being "shrill"), and another is insinuating that John Murtha is a better person than Pelosi because she is from San Francisco and he is from Pennsylvania (assigning negative characteristics to S.F.) and because he thinks Murtha wouldn't be in favor of a "Transgender Amendment" (insinuating that transgendered folk are bad people, or that people who might support the rights of transgendered folks are also bad).


There is also the name of Bill Clinton being inserted... that's certainly a tired old horse. I think there are a lot of Americans who would like to see Bill back in the White House. The use of his name in an article like this is simply for arousing anger among those for whom the mere mention of Clinton creates the need for attendance in classes on anger management.


Maddy Albright and Condi Rice could have enlisted in the military had they wanted to, and had they made careers of it they might have seen combat. Tucker suggests that maybe they didn't get that opportunity because they are women? Heh... The poor things! They never had the opportunity! Scheise....


Not all on the Left view America as unworthy of bringing Democracy to the Middle East... some may, but certainly not all do. Carlson's fallacy here is suggesting that "if one is like that, all are like that". By saying the Left tends to think America is "unworthy" of the job, he is also suggesting indirectly that the Left does not love America, we do not believe our troops are capable, and that we don't "support the troops". At this point, I must stoop to cheap name-calling and say "Tucker, you are a disingenuous, manipulative jerk!"


He says many of us on the Left support the idea that "If you didn't serve, you've got no right to send others to die in battle; only war heroes get to make war policy." Well, I will counter that by saying that many on the Right seem to support the opinion that because some of us are not in the military (or never have been) and because we disagree with the president, our opinion means squat. I beg to differ with that. My taxes help support our military budget, which in my opinion, is bloated far beyond proportion. There are lots of others like me, and our opinions count. Sorry to have to say it Tucker, but... not only are we real, we also vote!


Carlson says: "An immediate withdrawal would cause Iraq to become Somalia in about a week. There would be chaos and civil war. Many thousands would die. Turkey, Syria and Iran would immediately move to fill the power vacuum in the country. The region would become more unstable than it already is."


The fallacy here is the use of fear to help readers bypass their critical thinking skills en route to agreeing with him. Where is his evidence for his fear-based statements? He has none. How does he know those things will happen? He doesn't know they will, but fear is a great manipulative tool, as the Bush administration and GOP have shown us during the past five years.


"The White House says it is impossible at this point to withdraw from Iraq safely and with honor." He says we can't withdraw our troops "safely"... so, if we withdraw our troops we are putting them in harm's way? I don't get that one. And isn't "honor" a great word for stirring readers' emotions? Okay Tucker, tell us when it will be possible to withdraw with "honor". How do you know when that time is nigh?


"As frustrating as it might be, the White House is right." Hmmm. I might have to agree with Tucker somewhat here, at least in principle. I wouldn't want to leave the people of Iraq high and dry, really... I do believe that our presence there now may be what is saving a lot of them from getting killed. Mostly, I think it is our country that created the mess in Iraq, and I think we need to help clean it up as much as we can before we leave. We were an uninvited guest to begin with, and we while we did rid Iraq of a cruel dictator, the Bush administration has caused loads of instability there (and don't say I don't support the troops, that I think the troops are jerks or that they are at fault for the Iraq mess, because I love 'em. They follow their orders, which they are required to do, and those orders come from the top.) Still, that doesn't mean I think our troops need to be there a couple of years from now, or longer than that. Let's see some strategy for ending our occupation of Iraq and for getting our troops out of harm's way as soon as possible. That is what I think a lot of conservative pundits and GOP leaders DON'T want us to do. I believe they think that as long as we are at war, people will be afraid to change course and vote for the other party.


"This past election, the voters preferred a man who did not serve to a man who did." Well, at least Carlson is admitting that Bush didn't serve... that must count for something. But in regard to the other part of his statement, I still have to wonder about whether or not voters really did prefer Bush.


"Get over it."


Like, you mean we should ignore the dire condition of our country's leadership and ignore our concerns... and our dissent will go away? Sorry, Charlie. We are here to make life miserable for the likes of you.


'Nuff said.

4 Comments:

Blogger Sheryl said...

I think it also is telling that he showed up on PBS right after Bush's GOP picks arrived on the scene and while they were cutting back NOW to half an hour.

I saw the first episode, where he basically said he was there as an alternative to Bill Moyers.

Mom said the GAO just issues a report on how one of Bush's picks was acting inappropriately as far as following NOW's reporting. I need to find out from her where she saw the article and post it to our group blog.

8:06 PM  
Blogger J. Marquis said...

His name should be Sucker Carlson.

3:09 PM  
Blogger Sheryl said...

I think the suckers are the ones who trust him. How about Fucker Carlson?

11:54 PM  
Blogger sleepybomb said...

the funniest tucker snafu was last year when john stewart tore him a new butthole. i wish i had a viddy of that to watch over and over, what a pompus idiot! i used to like msnbc cuz they seemed a little more level headed. but now, with rita (i can't breathe) cosby and tucker (my mom dresses me) carlson, i am having a hard time finding anything worth watching at all ... altho olberman is the goddamn best show on the boob tube today.

8:38 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

RichardDawkins.net