NC Media Watch

A quest for reason and accuracy in letters to the editor, guest editorials and other issues of interest to the citizens of Western Nevada County.

Monday, September 05, 2005

Mental disorder?

Jean-Jacques Legras puts another liberal mind set on display in the "War is about money," September 5, 2005
We all know that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism. In reality; Mrs. Sheehan, your son and the 1,844 young soldiers killed in Iraq died to allow, Halliburton Co., Betchell Co., weapons manufacturers, oil companies and other subcontractors to amass several billion of taxpayers' money.
Only a small and very sick mind , clouded with rage over loosing an election, could continue to believe this is only a war about money for defense contractors. It has been said that liberalism is a mental disease, and this letters seems to add to the growing pile of evidence.

Click here for a private e-mail comment. For public comment select comments below.


Blogger none said...

it's not 100% about making money for defense contractors, only about 70% - still bad enough.

Mon Sep 05, 09:49:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Sherry said...

I'm afraid a "small, sick mind", , is what runs the country---"a small, sick mind", is what OK's a horse club administrator to a top FEMA job, and AFTER making sure that FEMA is "in name only". A "small, sick mind", (along with the small, sick minds that elected him), are what provides for some of these "lapses" that continue to be SUPPORTED by anyone who CAN'T sit back in wonder (admitted or not) as Mr. Bush senior continues to empire build--"sick minds" BELIEVING that George and Jeb, (and now Bill, riding in on their coattails/monarchy), have always had more to "offer"--(isn't it just a little bit amazing---and divinely truth telling)-- than dozens of other, (no doubt, as with the horse guy's experience"), MORE QUALIFIED? No, it's not ALL ABOUT giving defense contractors MORE MONEY---it's cronyism at it's finest, which includes the guarantee of "stick with me and I'll make you king" distribution of wealth. The only PROBLEM with the "liberal minded" is THEIR OWN FEAR of BIG BROTHER BUILDUP while they sit in their living rooms, afraid that "law enforcement", (one more joke in the country), as in "government troops", will one day knock on the door, haul them away, for being stoned. There has never been a more, "painted into the corner", group of sheep than THAT! THEY just never really grasped the realities destined to follow them, (and any that OPENLY shared their "philosophy" about marijuana), as THAT ISSUE helped create the monster we're all going to come to recognize---the "monster" now free to roam the country and that's GOT US right where it WANTS US. (Heads planted firmly in sand.) Tell me, did you ever inhale? IF NOT, then I suppose that makes you EQUALLY QUALIFIED to determine that "liberalism" is a mental disorder, and MORE THAN QUALIFIED to "shoot to kill", and with the gun that the NRA supports being in your cold, dead hands! Of course, Mr. Steele, we should live so long---you to see your "civil war" and me to realize ANY REAL SENSE OF "world peace".

Mon Sep 05, 10:44:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Only a small, sick mind could believe something that evidence supports? After all, your cut-out-of-context ignores that the article at hand had plenty of evidence and nuanced arguments, in a 200 word letter to the editor. Yes, the war isn't just about corporate greed: also sparking arms races with China, proving the National Security Strategy of permanent war with the planet, etc. etc. But renata's argument stands: EVEN IF you can prove that the WMD/terror/freedom initiatives weren't frauds, that alone doesn't prove that Bush didn't also act to secure oil and arms manufacturer's profits.

The notion that someone who disagrees with you is tiny-minded and must be suffering from a mental illness is in fact not only making psychological analyses that practically NO ONE who makes these arguments is at all qualified to make (see Tim Wise slapping Horowitz all over the place on this one at Z Mag's Debates section), but is also the worst of ad hominem argumentation.

We didn't "loose" an election, as Palast notes, because in a world where all ballots are counted and the President is named with some correlation, Kerry won. Only in the corrupt world of American politics has Bush ever been President. Luckily for Republicans, that's the world we live in.

Mon Sep 05, 11:53:00 AM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...


as Palast notes, because in a world where all ballots are counted and the President is named with some correlation,

Who is Palist, and by what authority does he (she) speak? If Palast is right, where it the proof?


Mon Sep 05, 07:58:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

"Who is Palist, and by what authority does he (she) speak? If Palast is right, where it the proof?"

This makes me think that you're not reading the Left or doing much research of contrary views. Greg Palast is an investigative reporter whose book The Best Democracy Money Can Buy is probably ranked up with Dude, Where's My Country? and Noam Chomsky's Understanding Power on most progressive reading lists. He did the investigative work that led Michael Moore to declare that Bush lost in Florida. He did the same in 2004. Don't take my word for it: Go to, more particularly, the article "Kerry Won",

Tue Sep 06, 05:53:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Sorry about that - Palast's website cut the article prematurely.

Tue Sep 06, 05:56:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Russ Steele said...

Frederic keeps quoting Chomsky, and that prompted me to look around on the Internet. I found he is one of the most quoted hard left intellectuals. According to FrontPage magazine, David Horowitz here are some of the ideas that Chomsky promotes:

• According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off."

• According to Chomsky, during the Cold War, American operations behind the Iron Curtain included "a ‘secret army’ under US-Nazi auspices that sought to provide agents and military supplies to armies that had been established by Hitler and which were still operating inside the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe through the early 1950s."

• According to Chomsky, in Latin America during the Cold War, U.S. support for legitimate governments against Communist subversion led to US complicity under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, in "the methods of Heinrich Himmler’s extermination squads."

• According to Chomsky, there is "a close correlation worldwide between torture and U.S. aid.

• According to Chomsky, America "invaded" Vietnam to slaughter its people, and even after America left in 1975, under Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, "the major policy goal of the US has been to maximize repression and suffering in the countries that were devastated by our violence. The degree of the cruelty is quite astonishing." (6)

• According to Chomsky, "the pretext for Washington’s terrorist wars [i.e., in Nicaragua, El Salvador, Chile, Guatemala, Iraq, etc.] was self-defense, the standard official justification for just about any monstrous act, even the Nazi Holocaust." (7)

• In sum, according to Chomsky, "legally speaking, there’s a very solid case for impeaching every American president since the Second World War. They’ve all been either outright war criminals or involved in serious war crimes."(8)

According to Chomsky, what America really wants is to steal from the poor and give to the rich. America’s crusade against Communism was actually a crusade "to protect our doctrine that the rich should plunder the poor."(9) That is why we busied ourselves in launching a new crusade against terrorism after the end of the Cold War:

More here. Chomsky does not look like anyone I would spend my valuable time reading. It is easy to trash America, if you do not have to provide any proof.

Tue Sep 06, 07:15:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

The fact that you didn't know Chomsky before, despite saying you grapple with the left regularly, and are quoting the famously non-responsive Horowitz, who regularly spreads vitriol in lieu of argument, scares me.

" According to Chomsky, in the first battle of the postwar struggle with the Soviet Empire, "the United States was picking up where the Nazis had left off."

Which is true, and not just Chomsky says it. I wrote an entire article about the film industry's collusion with fascism before the war, and after the war the US reconstituted Nazis such as Reinhard Gehlen, smuggling them to places like Latin America to do experimentation. But notice how Horowitz takes this out of context without noting the background evidence. The claim may be true or false, but it doesn't sound so ridiculous anymore, does it?

The bit about correlation between torture and US aid is actually quoting a study done by Lars Schoultz. Ed Herman has also documented this quite well. As a heuristic case: US support for Saddam, a famous torturer who allegedly kept a professional rapist on staff.

Notice how, Russ, you didn't read CHOMSKY or his documentary materials (footnotes pages thick, in Hegemony or Survival, Understanding Power, Necessary Illusions, Manufacturing Consent... just go to and read some random footnotes to see how well Chomsky documents), simply took Agitprop from Horowitz to rebut it. This is horrendous argumentation.

Tue Sep 06, 08:13:00 PM PDT  
Blogger Frederic Christie said...

Let me also point out to you, Russ, that Chomsky's outlook is not partisan: it groups Democrats and Repubs quite nicely. He discusses the general imperial system and not any particular administration. He has comments on Clinton you'd probably very much appreciate.

Tue Sep 06, 08:15:00 PM PDT  

Post a Comment

<< Home