PDA

View Full Version : Mike Malloy calls for Navy SEALS to execute George Bush


operative
05-09-2011, 11:43 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/caution_words_can_inflame/2011/05/06/AFjx47BG_story.html

Once again illustrating that the hate on LW talk radio is actually more intense than on RW talk radio.

miceelf
05-09-2011, 12:00 PM
Demonstrating an example of hate on the left isn't the same as demonstrating that the hatred on the left is greater than that on the right.

kezboard
05-09-2011, 12:16 PM
Mike Malloy calls for Navy SEALS to execute George Bush

Is that what he said now?

Demonstrating an example of hate on the left isn't the same as demonstrating that the hatred on the left is greater than that on the right.

Did you actually read the article?

miceelf
05-09-2011, 12:35 PM
Did you actually read the article?

Yes.
The article cited examples on both sides.

operative
05-09-2011, 12:42 PM
Demonstrating an example of hate on the left isn't the same as demonstrating that the hatred on the left is greater than that on the right.

No, it's just one example. Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, etc. have never wished for Barack Obama to be executed.

In fact it's not the first time Malloy has veered into violent wishes:
http://radioequalizer.blogspot.com/2009/08/libtalker-malloy-i-hope-glenn-beck.html

And Malloy's not alone in violent thoughts:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/04/montel-williams-has-a-murder-wish-for-rep-michele-bachmann/

Here's a longer list:
http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2011/01/13/a-chronicle-of-leftwing-death-threats-against-conservatives/

operative
05-09-2011, 12:47 PM
Yes.
The article cited examples on both sides.

Yes, in a desperate attempt to equate the two sides. There is objectionable material on both sides. But I only see outright violent fantasies by prominent left wing commentators, not by right-wing ones.

miceelf
05-09-2011, 01:59 PM
Absolutely false.

Glenn Beck openly talked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, stated that obese Americans should just die, earlier, we had Ann Coulter calling for the assasination of Clinton. Etc.

handle
05-09-2011, 02:01 PM
Absolutely false.

Glenn Beck openly talked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, stated that obese Americans should just die, earlier, we had Ann Coulter calling for the assasination of Clinton. Etc.

And who could forget "second amendment remedies? Made by a candidate no less.

chiwhisoxx
05-09-2011, 02:04 PM
Absolutely false.

Glenn Beck openly talked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, stated that obese Americans should just die, earlier, we had Ann Coulter calling for the assasination of Clinton. Etc.

lol really? he's not exactly thin as a reed himself.

operative
05-09-2011, 02:41 PM
Absolutely false.

Glenn Beck openly talked about poisoning Nancy Pelosi, stated that obese Americans should just die, earlier, we had Ann Coulter calling for the assasination of Clinton. Etc.

Do you have a link concerning that?

miceelf
05-09-2011, 02:42 PM
Ah, but he was clear that he was talking about people who were really fat, i.e., fatter than him.

http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/12280440/Glenn_Beck_To_Fat_People_I_Say_Let_Them_Die

When I heard this I thought, get your damn hands off my fries, lady. If I want to be a fat fat fatty and shovel French Fries all day long, that is my choice. But oh oh, not so fast anymore. Because now we have the new fact, whether you like it or not, we have government health care now…You know those fat people sitting on their couches? And I mean really fat. I don’t mean like me. I mean the people who’s skin grows into the couch…I say let them die. I say punish the person who’s been brining them the milk shakes that allowed them to eat and not get up off the couch. Am I too harsh?

stephanie
05-09-2011, 02:57 PM
Yes.
The article cited examples on both sides.

I assume kezboard was taking issue with the characterization with what was said as calling for Bush's execution. I think what Malloy said was stupid, as (among other things) I think the idea that Bush's crimes were worse than OSB's is false. However, even based on the bit quoted in the article, he clearly wasn't calling for an execution, but making a sarcastic comment on those who were justifying the supposed execution of OBL based on his past crimes.

stephanie
05-09-2011, 02:59 PM
lol really? he's not exactly thin as a reed himself.

That was my first thought. Heh. It must be like the old joke about the speed at which others drive -- those thinner than me are anorexic or obsessed with their weight*, whereas those fatter than me are a burden on our healthcare system and should just be left to die.

*Or joyless liberals who don't enjoy a good steak or cheeseburger -- see mocking of Obama for supposedly inauthentically eating a hotdog or whatever.

operative
05-09-2011, 03:29 PM
Ah, but he was clear that he was talking about people who were really fat, i.e., fatter than him.

http://www.cafemom.com/group/99198/forums/read/12280440/Glenn_Beck_To_Fat_People_I_Say_Let_Them_Die

When I heard this I thought, get your damn hands off my fries, lady. If I want to be a fat fat fatty and shovel French Fries all day long, that is my choice. But oh oh, not so fast anymore. Because now we have the new fact, whether you like it or not, we have government health care now…You know those fat people sitting on their couches? And I mean really fat. I don’t mean like me. I mean the people who’s skin grows into the couch…I say let them die. I say punish the person who’s been brining them the milk shakes that allowed them to eat and not get up off the couch. Am I too harsh?

That's quite a bit different than what Malloy, Williams, etc. have said. That's basically comparable to if someone said that we shouldn't spend a ton of money assisting someone who smoked until they developed emphysema. That's arguing for individual responsibility. Malloy was saying that the previous president should be murdered.

TwinSwords
05-09-2011, 03:35 PM
I assume kezboard was taking issue with the characterization with what was said as calling for Bush's execution. I think what Malloy said was stupid, as (among other things) I think the idea that Bush's crimes were worse than OSB's is false. However, even based on the bit quoted in the article, he clearly wasn't calling for an execution, but making a sarcastic comment on those who were justifying the supposed execution of OBL based on his past crimes.
Yes, I think that's right.

I'd like to listen to the segment in question to get a feel for the context, but at first glance it sounds like a rhetorical point that two or three commenters have made here in the forum, basically asking "how we would feel if the Taliban or Iraq or someone was to invade US airspace and do to our leaders what we just did to bin Laden?"

I would not be surprised, in fact, to find out that Malloy even made the point in the context of criticism of the "runaway executive branch" that is now undertaking "extrajudicial executions" and "political assassination." Because for people who find those arguments compelling, a logical rhetorical point is "what if they did the same to us?," or, "when are the Navy SEALs going to go after George Bush?"

miceelf
05-09-2011, 04:22 PM
First of all, it's not at all clear that malloy was actually calling for the actual execution of W, vs. being sarcastic, which would also be dumb, just not what you said (stephanie made this point). And Beck made similar comments about poisoning Pelosi whcih are much more analogous. And, yes, Ann Coulter joked about killing Clinton.
Both sides do this thing.

operative
05-09-2011, 05:11 PM
First of all, it's not at all clear that malloy was actually calling for the actual execution of W, vs. being sarcastic, which would also be dumb, just not what you said (stephanie made this point). And Beck made similar comments about poisoning Pelosi whcih are much more analogous. And, yes, Ann Coulter joked about killing Clinton.
Both sides do this thing.

Do you have links for Beck and Coulter? I'm not familiar with either incident (and I would also note that Coulter's star has substantially waned in the last few years).

TwinSwords
05-09-2011, 05:15 PM
Here is a carefully clipped segment in which Malloy makes the offending remarks. Note that the clip starts with Malloy's reference to the killing of bin Laden as a "summary execution." This is hardly the choice of words of someone who supported the SEALs' action against the terrorist leader. Even from this clip, with its omission of context, it seems likely that Malloy, far from calling for the killing of Bush, was making a rhetorical point -- indeed a point made by some people here in the forum.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtbEwgPY5Xk

It's a stupid comment no matter what his intent, but I don't think operative or the rest of the wingnutosphere have done the work of proving that Malloy said what operative is claiming he said.

miceelf
05-09-2011, 05:33 PM
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908060037

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13227349/ns/politics/t/coulters-comments-often-spark-criticism-anger/

operative
05-09-2011, 05:43 PM
http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908060037

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13227349/ns/politics/t/coulters-comments-often-spark-criticism-anger/

Ah ok, actually the Coulter one does ring a bell. The Beck one was a bit more ambiguous than Malloy's remark but still inappropriate. Coulter's was plain inappropriate (and also part of what diminished her standing in GOP circles). Here's the thing: I'm seeing more people defend Malloy's remark than defend it. Malloy has an established history of making violent remarks (he and his wife are also a pair of racist pigs: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/02/malloy_jindal_indian.html). I just don't see the same condemnation as the right gives comparable remarks.

Wonderment
05-09-2011, 11:44 PM
Here come the Iraqis Seals.... (http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/268-35/5859-noam-chomsky-my-reaction-to-osama-bin-ladens-death)


We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.

chiwhisoxx
05-10-2011, 01:15 AM
We might ask ourselves how we would be reacting if Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush's compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic. Uncontroversially, his crimes vastly exceed bin Laden's, and he is not a "suspect" but uncontroversially the "decider" who gave the orders to commit the "supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole" (quoting the Nuremberg Tribunal) for which Nazi criminals were hanged: the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees, destruction of much of the country, the bitter sectarian conflict that has now spread to the rest of the region.[/URL]

Boy is it disappointing to see you endorsing such utter nonsense, especially the bold portion. When people say things like that, I wonder if they actually believe it or if they simply want to be provocative. In Chomsky's case, it seems to usually be an unholy mixture of those two. Anyway, here's Hitchens responding, and not pulling any punches:

http://www.slate.com/id/2293541/

Wonderment
05-10-2011, 02:46 AM
Boy is it disappointing to see you endorsing such utter nonsense, especially the bold portion. When people say things like that, I wonder if they actually believe it or if they simply want to be provocative. In Chomsky's case, it seems to usually be an unholy mixture of those two. Anyway, here's Hitchens responding, and not pulling any punches.

I don't recall endorsing anything, but I will say that the response by Hitchens is a specious straw man attack. Just as you claim I endorse Chomsky's assertions, Hitchens claims Chomsky believes the USA deserved 9/11.

Or do you think attributing this view to Chomsky is anything short of deranged?

America is an incarnation of the Third Reich that doesn't even conceal its genocidal methods and aspirations.

chiwhisoxx
05-10-2011, 08:40 AM
I don't recall endorsing anything, but I will say that the response by Hitchens is a specious straw man attack. Just as you claim I endorse Chomsky's assertions, Hitchens claims Chomsky believes the USA deserved 9/11.

Or do you think attributing this view to Chomsky is anything short of deranged?

He was obviously exaggerating somewhat for effect; I thought it was pretty obvious from the tone. If you don't actually endorse these views then I'm sorry for saying so, but you did pass along the link without saying otherwise.

Wonderment
05-10-2011, 02:30 PM
If you don't actually endorse these views then I'm sorry for saying so, but you did pass along the link without saying otherwise.

I do NOT endorse the view that there's some real question about OBL's guilt in 9/11. However, I do endorse the view that due process, including a trial, would have been the appropriate course of action. All that has been discussed at length elsewhere.

The reason I thought the Chomsky piece was interesting was because of the ironic title. What would the USA do if its war criminals were hunted by forces from other countries? Bush, in the view of millions of people around the globe, including millions in the USA, waged an illegal and immoral war on Iraq, incurring vast numbers of casualties. I can find no rational reason why he wouldn't be arrested, charged and tried, EXCEPT that he has too much power and influence. It's sobering for people like Chomsky to point that out once in a while. (Of course, Iraq war hawks like Hitchens will take great exception.)

bjkeefe
05-10-2011, 03:30 PM
What would the USA do if its war criminals were hunted by forces from other countries?

Ah, how quickly they forget (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm).

bjkeefe
05-10-2011, 04:44 PM
Sorry, they can't. They're going to be busy with other things (http://motherjones.com/mixed-media/2011/05/sex-toy-maker-thanks-seals-killing-bin-laden-fleshlight).

TwinSwords
05-10-2011, 08:16 PM
On BhTV's homepage:

http://imageshack.us/m/36/3972/capturegk.png (http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/36006?in=69:25&out=70:38)

popcorn_karate
05-19-2011, 04:46 PM
Note that the clip starts with Malloy's reference to the killing of bin Laden as a "summary execution." This is hardly the choice of words of someone who supported the SEALs' action against the terrorist leader.

seems uncontroversially true to me. it was a summary execution. I still think it was the best course of action available. no need to whitewash it to make ourselves feel better about it, sometimes all the choices just kind of suck.

TwinSwords
05-19-2011, 05:13 PM
seems uncontroversially true to me.
Whether it's true or not is beside the point. The phrase "summary execution" carries the suggestion of a criminal act: summary = done without a trial or other legal proceedings. The fact that Malloy referred to bin Laden's killing as a summary execution suggests that he thinks it was some kind of barbaric criminal act.

Of course, not everyone knows what "summary" means in this context; some people just think it sounds neat. So not everyone who uses the phrase is doing so to convey their disapproval of the killing. But given Malloy's politics, I'd bet he condemns the killing, and that his point in making the comparison to Bush was not to advocate Bush's murder, but to make people think about what it would be like if other countries practiced the kind of frontier justice that they think the US practiced in Pakistan.


it was a summary execution.
Again, it depends on what you mean by "summary execution." If the police shoot you in the back seat of a squad car or in an interrogation room, that's a summary execution. If US troops kill enemies on the battlefield, that's not what is generally described as a summary execution*, because there's no presumption that enemy soldiers are entitled to due process in court.


* Although there is nothing stopping people who don't care about precision in language from using the term as a synonym for "killing."


I still think it was the best course of action available.
Agreed.


no need to whitewash it to make ourselves feel better about it
I hope you don't think I was white washing anything. I was explaining why I thought Malloy probably wasn't threatening Bush, but was, rather, probably expressing his outrage at the killing of bin Laden. It's worth noting that ~3 people in this forum used the exact same analogy as Malloy did (suggesting that if it was okay for SEALs to kill bin Laden, it would be okay for our enemies to kill our leaders in similar operations), and all of them did so to express their opposition to the operation that killed bin Laden.


sometimes all the choices just kind of suck.
True. But this wasn't one of them.