The following image appeared on the well-travelled left-wing web site known as "Indymedia," a.k.a. "The Independent Media Center," on 22 December 2003:
That's right. One of the most popular left-wing sites on the internet published the above cartoon less than six months ago.
Now, any rational person should be willing to conclude that this is an outrageously hateful, hurtful, demeaning, and bigoted steroetype, at the very least. It's hard to imagine a bit of more vile hate-mongering, isn't it?
I think the very best response to this hateful, hurtful, and demeaning cartoon was drawn by Cerdipity. A beautiful cartoon that, in my view, perfectly captures the raging hatred and irrational animosity that so characterizes the "anti-war" (i.e. "hate-America") left.
And yet, oddly enough, this person and this person and this person seem to feel that it's perfectly acceptable to compare our all-volunteer forces fighting overseas to National Socialists.
Indeed, they seem to believe that anyone who questions what they believe is somehow evil.
No? I'm wrong? If so, what am I missing?
By the way, I'd like to issue an open challenge: Will Yella Dog and Hal and this guy who won't give his name openly disavow the above graphic?It's a simple request, guys. Just say it clearly and unequivocally: "The above graphic disturbs and disgusts me and it is not representative of what I believe."
Come on boys. Will you denounce the above image as vile hatemongering? As something that doesn't represent your point of view?
All you have to do is say, "that's disgusting, I don't believe that," and I'll believe you.
I really will.
Yes, I think the image above is disgusting. And I strongly object to your classifying ME as someone who thinks that it's okay to compare our troops to Nazis. I don't. I never have. And my post which you link to doesn't even suggest this.
Two seconds with Google would have fetched up my name, dear chap. It's not like it's a state secret or anything.
??
Ye gods, Dean. I followed the other links and not a single post ever makes the comparison you claim. All of them are merely critisizing your linking to that cartoon. You really should understand that critisism of you doesn't equate to sympathy for those who compare our troops to nazis.
Geesh.
Talk about strawmen.
Dean you are right, that graphic is clearly a cheap shot.
The only reason those shits at Indy aren't speaking German with a Nazi accent is because of the US military. Likewise Russian with a Soviet accent.
You kind of see how Europeans are too stupid to realize how much they owe the US military, but for americans to share that stupidity is far worse.
Geez... speaking of straw men...
Maybe you could read my post again? And then tell me where I called our troops Nazis? Not only does that weird thing you got from IndyMedia offend me, I find it way off target. Now, a picture of Don Rumsfeld with the same armband wouldn't bother me a bit.
Let me try and clarify-
I was drawing a parallel between the highly offensive cartoon that was on your blog that accused the American Left of stabbing US troops in the back and the same imagery used in the Weimar Republic to fan anti-Semitic hatred. How that relates to this, I am not sure.
Dean. Wherever you're coming from, tell me what color the sky is there on your planet so I have some idea.
You could also consider switching to decaf.
"I was drawing a parallel between the highly offensive cartoon that was on your blog that accused the American Left of stabbing US troops in the back and the same imagery used in the Weimar Republic to fan anti-Semitic hatred. How that relates to this, I am not sure."
But most of the far left in this country dislike the troops. Why, everywhere I turn they're throwing the "Nazi" or "fascist" hand grenade. You're offended because the cartoon simply conveys the truth about the far left in this country.
"You could also consider switching to decaf."
You could also consider switching to sane.
Imagery imbecilic for even a five year old.
One of the most popular left-wing sites? I surely hope not. The protesting marxist left, perhaps. Indymedia is the gutter of the gutter, a most vile swamp of anti-semitism, anti-americanism (truly), and vicious irrationality.
Why, everywhere I turn they're throwing the "Nazi" or "fascist" hand grenade.
You guys just crack me up.
All I have heard from the majority of the left is how we should support the troops who are following orders and question the motives of the leaders who are putting them in harm's way.
Just to be clear, I said most of the far left, not left. :)
In response to your comment on my TrackBacked article, Mr Esmay:
First of all, it's sad that you equate respect for the current administration and the monkeys-in-suits that run it with respect for our nation.
Second - Do you really mean then, that every single person that opposed the war, including Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and other respected politicans, pundits, and journalists all hate America!? How can you say that? Because we don't want to be invading other nations when we have no right to, what does that have to do with pride or respect toward our nation? If you disagree with a decision made by the President, do you then hate the country? I think not.
You can dictionary-define "liberal" all you want, but in the context of today's American political arena, you sir have not only thrown liberal and centrist out the window, you have almost blown straight by any reasonable form of conservatism. You have just declared that anyone who disagrees with any decision made by the government an "America-hater". When, I ask, did America become a totalitarian regime where the "elected" President's word goes? Oh, that's right, when he was appointed illegally to the office he now holds in 2000. (By the same activist judges he now insults regularly).
Finally, I take enormous offense at your statement:
How dare you. I am incredibly disgusted that someone I believed to be a reasonably intelligent man declare that dissent is unpatriotic. What is truly unpatriotic is to vote for, support, or "Blog for" the manicial fanatic that is ruining America and the world as quickly as he can. Me? No respect? Who did you say you were voting for?All I see here is people like Hal and Kip tap-dancing around the fact that this political cartoon was a clear parody of the hate-America left and the scumbags at Indymedia--and then falsly accusing me of saying that "liberals" are stabbing America in the back.
Oh, and Andrew? To be very clear, if you believe that America is a terrorist nation, or turning into one, I have no respect for you or your opinions. Sorry.
You can dislike the Bush administration all you want without descending into such irrational hatred.
By the way, I do not think, and have never so much as implied, that anyone who disagrees with decisions made by our government is an America-hater.
Wow, Dean, you sure know how to pick 'em! Three little asshats, all in a row...
Enh. Hal was classy enough to denounce the cartoon. But he's still saying I attacked everyone on the left merely by linking Cerdipity's parody of Indymedia, so.... I dunno. Half point for Hal I guess, none for the other guys.
"Second - Do you really mean then, that every single person that opposed the war, including Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and other respected politicans, pundits, and journalists all hate America!?"
If Hillary opposed the war, why did she vote for it? Mrs. Clinton also stated she didn't regret voting, either.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/
"If you disagree with a decision made by the President, do you then hate the country? I think not."
I doubt Mister Esmay is upset over the disagreements, it's the attacks which make the far left (like yourself) look asinine and silly.
"You can dictionary-define "liberal" all you want, but in the context of today's American political arena, you sir have not only thrown liberal and centrist out the window, you have almost blown straight by any reasonable form of conservatism."
Perhaps it is time American "liberals" bought a dictionary and started reevaluating themselves as leftists.
"You can dislike the Bush administration all you want without descending into such irrational hatred."
Yes! Just as I thought.
Damn, posted too late. Are you questioning their patriotism, Dean? Huh, are ya?
Heh. What Rob said.
In general, I quite agree with President Clinton and Senator Dole. We're in the middle of a war, for Christ's sake. This crap needs to end.
We're in the middle of a war that should not have been fought in the first place. A war that is being botched by the gang of morons in our administration.
I am appalled at the sheer stupidity of saying that, because we have been dragged into an unjust war, we now have to shut up and support it. I protested before the war began, I continue to protest now, and I will damn to hell the Bush/Cheney administration that perpetrated this atrocity forever more.
I despise that cartoon depicting our soldiers as Nazis. And I'm glad to see Hal and Patrick and Max M. repudiating it, too. Good!
It is despicable to smear our soldiers as Nazis. It is _stupid_ to depict President Bush as a Nazi. Bush isn't a Hitler, he's merely a Hindenburg. The Hitlers, the Stalins, the Pol Pots, in America are scum like Lou Sheldon, Robert Knight, and the rest of that ilk. I'm proud to say that I hate their guts. They are the Enemy and I will deal with them accordingly.
Andrew Quinn wrote:
"Oh, that's right, when he was appointed illegally to the office he now holds in 2000. (By the same activist judges he now insults regularly)."
I support the "activist" Supreme Court decision that says George W. Bush, and not Al Gore, is lawfully the President of the United States. I don't care how unpopular that decision was. The President of the United States is chosen by the Electoral College, not by popular vote. Our Founding Fathers created a Constitutional republic, _not_ a democracy. Let's keep it that way!
I support the "activist" Supreme Court decision, Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas, June 26, 2003, that says I have the right to privacy in my own home. I don't care how unpopular that decision was or how unpopular and hated homosexuals are today. I know they are, and I defend them against the mob that attacks them. I will defend my right to privacy in my own home to the death. Anybody who attacks my privacy, anybody who is out to overthrow the United States Supreme Court, is my enemy, and I will deal with them as such. Yes, I am selfish, elitist, and intolerant. Proudly.
hm. wait a minute.
you want denunciations of indymedia's graphic to coexist with endorsements of a cartoon which contains an equally offensive proposition?
you're suggesting that a graphic equating US troops with Nazis is unbearably odious and that a graphic equating dissent with treason is inherently laudable, but aside from partisan considerations the former and the latter are qualitatively identical. equating dissent with treason is protected by the exact same principles that protect equating US troops with Nazis. either you believe that dissent really is treasonous, or you will be able to provide some other qualitative origin for your prejudicial distinction between the two graphics, or you have no basis whatsoever for suggesting that one graphic or the other is more deserving of condemnation.
my best guess is that in a moment of partisan dudgeon you neglected to think this through to it's logical conclusion, and that you will now denounce the cartoon for the same reasons that you expected a denunciation of the doctored photo. of course it's also possible that you are either an unabashed hypocrite or a principled defender of some principle that's not obvious to the uninitiated. so... I'm waiting for you to either (1) denounce, (2) admit publicly that you believe dissent to be a form of treason, or (3) show why it's not reprehensible and unamerican to equate dissent with treason. and while I personally feel that the US lacks the kind of cultural homogeneity required to support Nazi-like regimes, I would remind you that if you do decide to argue that dissent is treasonous, you will provide an empirically observable instance of the type of proto-fascist public discourse of which Dave Neiwert collects examples. not that he needs more of them or anything...
BTW...
By the way, I do not think, and have never so much as implied, that anyone who disagrees with decisions made by our government is an America-hater.
that's very righteous of you, but it in no way exonerates you from having endorsed a cartoon which implies that dissent is treasonous, since by local rules Hal et al are required to denounce the photo despite never having implied that US troops are nazis...
I repeat - because we are being led by a lunatic whose actions border on terrorism does not make me unpatriotic.
We are torturing and humiliating our prisoners.
Doesn't sound like terrorism?
But that's beside the point which you so cleverly evade -- why do you insist on the left as America-hating? Even your precious Mr Bush would probably disagree with that! I myself have very strong opinions, and yet I do not maintain that everyone right-of-center secretly hates the country. What you mean to say is that we hate "your ideal America", and your war-hungry neo-conservative brethren that would run it. Well, that at least is correct - but we hardly hate America, we vote and pay taxes and participate in government and the armed forces just like those that you claim "don't hate America". So what's your criteria for establishing who hates America and who doesn't - whether some extreme faction, hardly representative of the group, posts offensive material? Okay, and NO right-wingers have ever made innapropriate comparisons?
Post Script -
Dean wrote "if you believe that America is a terrorist nation, or turning into one, I have no respect for you or your opinions. Sorry."
Funny, I'm beginning to feel the same way about you. If you interpret criticisms of our president's idiocy as anti-patriotism, then you are one of the few true patriots. In conclusion:
We don't hate America, we hate the America that people like yourself are trying to create!
Radish--Bullshit. The cartoon you're objecting to is clearly an attack on the Indymedia graphic, and the kind of left-wing hatemongers who trade in anti-American rhetoric. You ought to be acknowledging that such scumbags exist, not getting angry that Cerdipity's cartoon identified them so well.
Andrew: You're mixing issues up, sorry. But if you believe our President is terroristic that means by extension you must mean our troops and the rest of our government are too, and that pretty much makes you a hateful person with vile beliefs.
Try learning the difference between disagreeing with someone and calling him a terrorist, okay? Thanks.
"We are torturing and humiliating our prisoners."
WE are fighting the War on Terror. A few stupid soldiers have abused prisoners, sure.
"So what's your criteria for establishing who hates America and who doesn't - whether some extreme faction, hardly representative of the group, posts offensive material?"
So you're allowed to call the President a terrorist, yet Dean cannot form an opinion on who hates America?
Double standard.
When i saw the "real" Time Magazine cover, I was pretty bothered by it. I personally feel that this war is unjust, and I am scared at how much blood-lust our coutnry has, and that cover seemed to typify it.
Because of this, I don't take too much offense to the Indymedia re-do. I do think that America is Empirical, although more these days through poltiics and economics rather than blood. I do not think that the US is as bad as Hitler-Germany, not by a long shot. but I think with this war (of which i have not heard a good reason why it's going on), with our ignoring international laws and treaties, violating prisoner rights, eliminating environmental laws, and a society which seems to believe the television news a bit more blidnly than I'm comfortable with.... I think it's slippery slope.
So yes, i think the re-do of the picture is a good thing. it gets people to think (and talk a lot, like here). to question in what ways are we maybe acting too empirically, ways we may be violating human rights, and also it asks us (based as much on the oringial image as the re-do), are Americans buying in too quickly to flashy images of flags and "the soldier" being the person of the year.
Just my thoughts.
Oh, and Steven Malcolm Anderson, as far as i know, in November, after a full recount, they found that Gore did take Florida. It's not just a question of the Popular vs. electoral college.
stupid leftists.....get a brain and join the right.....if the terrorists win there could be a nick burg everyday this is why the Far right and left need to be thown into lava they don't know how to look out for the better good for a majority
"Because of this, I don't take too much offense to the Indymedia re-do."
So depicting our soldiers as Nazis isn't offensive to you? Because of th so called "actions of others", you wouldn't take offense to your fellow leftists calling innocent folks Nazis? :
"So yes, i think the re-do of the picture is a good thing. it gets people to think (and talk a lot, like here). to question in what ways are we maybe acting too empirically, ways we may be violating human rights, and also it asks us (based as much on the oringial image as the re-do), are Americans buying in too quickly to flashy images of flags and "the soldier" being the person of the year."
Ever seen a list of broken international treaties and human rights violations perpetuated by Saddam's deplorable regime? Calling soldiers "Nazis" is kind of silly when Saddam himself was, basically, a Nazi himself.
Personally, I supported this war because Clinton himself signed the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 which called for regime change. Lots of people are going to live happier lives, you know. Granted, the Bush administration hasn't had the best "plan", and there have been many setbacks such as the abuse, but we'll get there.
Ah, I'm going off topic. Anyway. Our soldiers aren't Nazis. Period.
Chris B: OKay, just admit it then. You've come to view your country with contempt. You're allowed. Just don't be upset when someone calls you on it.
By the way, not that it has anything to do with any of this, but absolutely and unequivocally won Florida, according to every single official and unofficial recount done by anybody.
There is no excuse for someone not to know this, as it's been in every single mainstream news source multiple times.
I do not think our soldiers are Nazis, and I don't happen to take this picture as being that literal, i don't think it's "calling innocent folks nazis". And I don't think that Saddam's wrondoings can justify our own.
And yes, i DO view our goverment with some contempt, and a good amount of skepticism.
And when someone "calls me on it"? What does that mean? I follow the laws, I can think what i want.
"I do not think our soldiers are Nazis, and I don't happen to take this picture as being that literal, i don't think it's "calling innocent folks nazis". And I don't think that Saddam's wrondoings can justify our own."
Okay, I wasn't clear on your position with the soldiers. Thank you.
What have "We" done wrong? You mean the abuse, right? "We" didn't do that. Deranged soliders (who're being punished, by the way) committed the abuse.
"And when someone "calls me on it"? What does that mean? I follow the laws, I can think what i want."
It means "be prepared to backup your positions".
"What have "We" done wrong? You mean the abuse, right?"
I was responding to your response to me, to which you quoted me, "to question in what ways are we may be acting too empirically, ways we may be violating human rights".
" "We" didn't do that. Deranged soliders (who're being punished, by the way) committed the abuse."
As far as I was aware, it is a broadening investigation, with no current definite conclusions, but with possiblities of deriving from well up the ladder.
For example here or here.
It means "be prepared to backup your positions".
That is fine. It sounded like there was more implication. But, is that true, Dean? are you saying, "don't be upset if someone asks you to back up your opinion" If so, umm. thanks. i won't be.
The cartoon you're objecting to is clearly an attack on the Indymedia graphic
it doesn't matter whether the cartoon is an attack only on the Indymedia graphic in particular, or on the kind of left-wing hatemongers who trade in anti-American rhetoric in general. some but not all dissent is treasonous and some but not all US troops are nazis, but what kind and how many of each is irrelevant to the question I'm asking you. ultimately you think it's appropriate for Cerdipity to imply that [at least some] dissent is treasonous, and inappropriate for indymedia to imply that [at least some] US troops are nazis, yet we agree that "dissent is treason" and "US troops are nazis" are both deeply reprehensible sentiments in the general sense. unless of course you don't agree with one of those?
if we do there has to be some reason why you're insisting that one of these images is reprehensible and the other is laudable while I would ordinarily consider them both beneath comment. you consider one of then not just excusable, but downright upright. why is that?
observing the situation you're in now I resolve in future to think long and hard before committing my own self at all on what exactly is required for a reprehensible sentiment to become laudable, but you have already committed yourself to the idea that there is at least one circumstance in which that happens, and that that circumstance applies to the cartoon but not the photo. now you need to come up either with a retraction (i.e. a denunciation of Cerdipity's cartoon) or a coherent explanation of how you reached that conclusion, which doesn't make you look like an idiot. unless you can explain the fundamental, qualitative difference between the two situations, you can't have it one way for indymedia and the other for Cerdipity.
my point is that you're asking people to agree that indymedia are scumbags and Cerdipity is a fine citizen without providing a definition of scumbag that includes indymedia and excludes Cerdipity. either (1) acknowledge that Cerdipity's cartoon is another example of scumminess or (2) explain to me exactly what rules you use to determine "scummminess" so I can decide for myself whether your call to denounce indymedia but embrace Cerdipity is deeply principled or transparently lame-brained...
BTW sorry but you can't possibly "win" an election based on an unofficial private count any more than you can win it by prevailing in the exit polls...
Dean writes "But if you believe our President is terroristic that means by extension you must mean our troops and the rest of our government are too, and that pretty much makes you a hateful person with vile beliefs."
What are you basing that on? If I don't like you, does that mean I would automatically hate your kids (even if they obey what you say?)
And I don't call everyone I disagree with a terrorist, just those who act accordingly. YOU try learning the difference between disagreeing with someone and calling them "a hateufl person with vile beliefs". Thanks. I enjoy arguing with you, but no need to make it personal.
A couple links that Dean provided in his sidebar here:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
http://americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3364
Ever since that election, I have had my ears full of Democratic and Republican partisans quibbling over these number. I was bored to death with it long ago and couldn't care less. I don't give a damn about partisan politics, Republicans vs. Democrats.
What I do care about is the independence of the United States Supreme Court, which is undermined by these charges that its decision was somehow corrupt and illegitimate because some people didn't like the outcome. It doesn't matter which party, either party would have reacted in exactly the same babyish way if the outcome had been not to their liking. The point is that the Supreme Court makes unpopular decisions all the time -- good!
The only thing, other than my gun, that stands in the way of the Gestapo breaking down my door to look for contraceptives or pornography is the United States Supreme Court's authority to make unpopular and hated decisions.
Therefore, if Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor say that Bush is the President, that's good enough for me. If you don't like him (and I don't), you can vote against him in _this_ year's election.
By the way, if I haven't mentioned this before, whenever I get a $20 bill, I always put it in my wallet in such a way that I don't have to look at the face of the worst President in American history, the man who explicitly thumbed his nose at a Supreme Court decision protecting another unpopular minority, the Cherokee.
Chris B,
No matter how high this scandal goes, it can't possibly involve more than a tiny fraction of the soldiers in the US Army. So it can't justify calling soldiers in general Nazis, which is what that "awful" cartoon condemns.
Maor, correct. And the same goes for this "other" scandal with this stupid picture from Indy media. It can't possibly involve more than a tiny fraction of even the far, far left. But instead, the ENTIRE anti-war movement - except for some pitifully small group that Dean deigns to admit are worthy opponents - are smeared in a fashion reminicent of old style propaganda.
One's good, the other's bad?
Only in Dean's World.