July 12, 2006
Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham appeared on The O’Reilly Factor Tuesday evening to discuss news organizations undermining the Bush administration, such as The New York Times. Ingraham, who is always right, says the NY Times thinks America is the “single biggest danger to the modern world”, which is why they keep writing about how America tracks’ terrorists. When asked if she thinks Keller and the Times want America to lose in Iraq, Ingraham said that they don’t want us to lose, but it would be better for them if we did.
By: Ian at 1:28 am in Iraq, Politics, Video, Republican News, In The (MS) Media, President Bush | | Permalink
33 Responses to “Ingraham: NYT Thinks America Is “Single Biggest Danger to the Modern World” (VIDEO)”
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register to comment here.
1:48 am [ Quote ]
Ingrham is always right?
You’ve just proved John Dean’s point.
7:42 am [ Quote ]
John Dean, a Barry Goldwater conservative on today’s Conservatism.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-John-Dean-07-10-06.wmv
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-John-Dean-conservatives.mov
7:43 am [ Quote ]
Conservatives Without Conscience by John Dean
8:54 am [ Quote ]
Laura Ingraham was right in her comments during the interview and has very good insight all the time. To state that is to give fair recognition to her abilities.
In contrast, John Dean is a left wing flack whose observations are always warped and at times downrihgt dumb.
9:34 am [ Quote ]
Of course the Times along with the left want us to lose this war. At least in the same way we “lost” Vietnam. Any loss of power and presitge that the United States incurs is exactly what the left wants.
10:34 am [ Quote ]
Laura gives a very good assesment of the “progressive” world view.
10:36 am [ Quote ]
Poor poor libs, no ideas and nothing but hate and vitriol to offer.
Ingraham, like most conservative pundits, nails the left yet again. Its why they hate you Laura, you own them.
10:37 am [ Quote ]
Laura Ingraham was right in her comments during the interview and has very good insight all the time. To state that is to give fair recognition to her abilities.
In contrast, John Dean is a left wing flack whose observations are always warped and at times downrihgt dumb.
John Dean is a left wing flack? Do you remember for which president he worked?
10:49 am [ Quote ]
John Dean is a left wing flack? Do you remember for which president he worked?
That was then and this is now. Have you listened to what he says now? He certainly sounds like a raving, goose-stepping little neo-con to me. Right
11:42 am [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 7): I know very well that John Dean worked for Richard Nixon over 30 years ago, I remember very well his 15 minutes of fame in the Watergate fiasco and I read his book “Blind Ambition” back in the 1970s. John Dean was lionized by the liberal media for his role then and ever since went over to their side. Today, John Dean is a left wing flack, making (among other things) wholly untenable arguments for the impeachment of President Bush—very much a far left cause. He is doing so today because John Dean is attemping to re-live his “glory days” of Watergate. That is why I say that John Dean’s observatins are warped and at times dumb. He is attempting to cast everything in terms of what went on during Watergate over 30 years ago, and it does not remotely work for what is going on today in the first decade of the 21st century.
That once upon a time, decades ago, a person worked for someone does not mean that today that person stands for what he once worked for. Two examples suffice to illustrate the point. First, Robert Kennedy as a young lawyer worked for Senator Joseph McCarthy, but RFK is not considered a McCarthyite. Second, there is a well known photograph of Ronald Reagan at the 1948 Democratic Party Natinal Convention sitting behind a standing Harry Truman, but Ronald Reagan is remembered—indeed, cherished among conservatives—for being a conservative Republican.
12:39 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 7): I know very well that John Dean worked for Richard Nixon over 30 years ago, I remember very well his 15 minutes of fame in the Watergate fiasco and I read his book “Blind Ambition” back in the 1970s. John Dean was lionized by the liberal media for his role then and ever since went over to their side. Today, John Dean is a left wing flack, making (among other things) wholly untenable arguments for the impeachment of President Bush—very much a far left cause. He is doing so today because John Dean is attemping to re-live his “glory days” of Watergate. That is why I say that John Dean’s observatins are warped and at times dumb. He is attempting to cast everything in terms of what went on during Watergate over 30 years ago, and it does not remotely work for what is going on today in the first decade of the 21st century.
That once upon a time, decades ago, a person worked for someone does not mean that today that person stands for what he once worked for. Two examples suffice to illustrate the point. First, Robert Kennedy as a young lawyer worked for Senator Joseph McCarthy, but RFK is not considered a McCarthyite. Second, there is a well known photograph of Ronald Reagan at the 1948 Democratic Party Natinal Convention sitting behind a standing Harry Truman, but Ronald Reagan is remembered—indeed, cherished among conservatives—for being a conservative Republican.
Typical right wing character assassination. Slime the messenegr, don’t deal with the facts.
12:59 pm [ Quote ]
Typical right wing character assassination.
Ill try to keep that in mind next time some liberal here refers to Bush as “chimpie”.
1:03 pm [ Quote ]
Typical right wing character assassination.
Ill try to keep that in mind next time some liberal here refers to Bush as “chimpie”.
Or Ann Coulter refers to people as Harpies, enjoying their husband’s death, Bill Clinton being assassinated, all liberals – without exception – of being guilty of slander and treason…
1:06 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin: So pointing out that Dean is a convicted felon, a self confessed ‘rat’ who sold out his boss to save his own ugly buttocks is ‘character assassination?’ How can someone assassinate the character of a man having none?
Since his conviction Dean has been a Republican hating, Bush hating extreme Left Wing Liberal jackass and that is the simple truth!
1:11 pm [ Quote ]
please use your own head.
1:17 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 11): Come off it, my my post 10 did not constitute character assassination at all, not even remotely. You may not enjoy having it pointed out how John Dean moved left in the course of his career after being lionized by the liberal media and how his Watergate past is affecting what he says today, and you may not enjoy reading examples clearly showing why a peron’s political affiliations from decades earlier cannot be said to define what that person is politically more currently. But that is all far, far from character assassination.
1:24 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 13): I think that you should read “Godless,” “Treason,” “Slander” and “High Crimes and Misdemeanor.” They are books that analyze issues. Ann Coulter does use some language that I would not because such language gets focused on as opposed to the analysis she provides. But she is making substantive arguments and is not just throwing invective around. She correctly argues, for example, that persons who enter the political arena in the way that the New Jersey widows did are not immunize from criticism for highly partisan actions simply because they have suffered a tragedy and that Bill Clinton did commit the crime of perjury.
2:13 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 13): I think that you should read “Godless,” “Treason,” “Slander” and “High Crimes and Misdemeanor.” They are books that analyze issues. Ann Coulter does use some language that I would not because such language gets focused on as opposed to the analysis she provides. But she is making substantive arguments and is not just throwing invective around. She correctly argues, for example, that persons who enter the political arena in the way that the New Jersey widows did are not immunize from criticism for highly partisan actions simply because they have suffered a tragedy and that Bill Clinton did commit the crime of perjury.
I read a few chapters of Treason – I had to put it down because they would have thrown me out of borders for throwing up in the store. If you really think Ann Coulter is a reasoned… anything… you need to wake up and smell the coffee.
What’s almost disturbing is that she is showing signs of actually believing her own shtick.
2:28 pm [ Quote ]
People lets stick to topic, Ian I know you all love to questions someones patriotism but cmon:
When asked if she thinks Keller and the Times want America to lose in Iraq, Ingraham said that they don’t want us to lose, but it would be better for them if we did.
That has to be one of the dumbest opinions of the year but (to no surprise) nobody is even questioning such a broad and foolish statement such as that.
I have news for the idiots and misinformed about the NYT. Do you all really think that the NYT sources are more advanced than say the governments and the terrorists networks? I mean do you all REALLY think that the terrorists first time hearing about that program was through the times? You dummies, the terrorists R SMARTER THAN U. They have networks that pick up on anti terror tactics way before they can be disclosed in a damn paper but count on your party to lead you to the well and drink it. Have some kinda self imposed logic. I cant believe Im still debating the NYT being brought up on treason
Damn robots the lot of you at times
!!
3:11 pm [ Quote ]
It doesn’t matter who John Dean is. What matters is that many of his points are turning out to be true. Lets look at some issues:
1. Arresting political opponents and sending them to G’tmo? Well, Ann Coulter has stated and implied that many times and certainly she has quite a lot of fans. All the right wing pundits accusing liberals of treason, this is nothing else than a tactic that’s been used in the beginning of almost all totalitarian governments in order to intimidate or eliminate political opposition.
2. Allowing the government unlimited surveliance powers? While, obviouslly, it hasn’t come clsoe to that, plenty on the right on various blogs and op-eds have stated that they’d be perfectly fine with that.
3. Bombing the NY Times? Well, enough said.
4. Making it legal for the US government to torture? Well, Cheney is all for that.
All these traits are traits of authoritarian governments. I know very well, because I have lived through one and there are many relatives which I never got to know because of #1, 2, and 4. I still have a lot of faith in the American people and I doubt when it comes down to it they’d let it go that far. But even one step in that direction is not acceptable to me.
3:25 pm [ Quote ]
If the terrorists are smarter than us, than I guess we better work harder on strengthening our defenses, think Patriot Act on steroids.
Also, if they are smarter than us, why make it easier for them?
You moron.
3:53 pm [ Quote ]
If the terrorists are smarter than us, than I guess we better work harder on strengthening our defenses, think Patriot Act on steroids.
Also, if they are smarter than us, why make it easier for them?
You moron.
You can start by installing a telescreen in your room and contacting your local NSA office telling them that they can have full audio, and video of your apartment at any time. If you’re thinking to add a bonus such as bugging your own phone, there is no need to do that since they can already listen to it.
4:23 pm [ Quote ]
Zim (re port 20): John Dean’s points are not turning out to be true. Your list of problems is the product of politically motivated distortion and misstatement.
1. There have been no arrests of political opponents for political opinion—none; and there will be no arrests of political opponents for political opinion. All that has been discussed (and only doscussed) is whether the NY Times has violated the espionage and treason laws by publishing the details of national security programs that are lawful and on which Congress has been briefed when those disclosures have compromised the ability of those programs to combat terrorism.
2. Domestic surveillance?!? Baloney. You cannot complain about what has been done—to interdict communications from suspected terrrorist sources abroad into the United States. The President is the Commander in Chief, and just as he has the authority and responsibility to interdict the sending of a bomb-laden missle from abroad into the United States, so also does the President have the authority and responsibility to interdict communications that may be for the arrangement of the setting off of bombs within the United States.
3. No one is seriously talking about bombing the NY Times building. The Coulter jab that the country would be better off if the NY Times building were the target of terorists is a hyperbolic statement intended to communicate the point that the NY Times is acting in ways that hurt the country’s security.
4. The U.S. Government has never attempted to make torture legal. Torture is proscribed by an international treaty to which the United States is a signatory. The issue of whether al Qaeda detainees are protected by the Geneva Convention and thus are properly subject to coercive interrogation short of torture is a wholly different question. The Bush Administration position until yesterday was that the Geneva Convention does not apply to al Qaeda terrorists as they do not comply with the conditions stated in the Geneva Convention for the protections of the Convention.
Once you get a firm grip on reality, then you may also start to appreciate the efforts that the Bush Administration have made to keep us safe from terrorism of the kind that struck yesterday in India.
4:44 pm [ Quote ]
The Leak (re post 19): It is not a dumb opinion that the NY Times wants to lose the war with the jihad terrorists; quite to the contrary, it is what a rational reader concludes reading the NY Times and assessing its actions.
The basic problem is that the NY Times has become so partisan that in seeking to attack the Bush Administration, the NY Times has acted in ways to compromise the national security and has developed an investment in America’s defeat. The NY Times is trying to recreate the Vietnam years when the mainstream media were successful in ending American support of the democratically elected South Vietnam government, leading to its defeat and America’s defeat and the victory of the communist North Vietnamese.
You further argue that the terrorists are really smart and thus the NY Times’s publication of national security programs such as the NSA surveillance of communications of terrorists abroad into the United States and the SWIFT tracking of terrorist financing has been harmless. That’s a crock of you know what. The democratically elected Bush Adminsitration’s position is that these have been very effective programs, and the unelected eltist NY Times did not publish page one stories about these programs because it did not matter. The NY Times published because it wanted to create the impression that the Government was acting to invade personal privacy, which it wasn’t doing.
4:44 pm [ Quote ]
Phil Byler,
You must have misunderstood what I stated. I was not refering to policies that are actually implemented, but rather to the rantings by bloggers, posters, and pundits, such as Ann Coulter, for example. You can keep arguing that she is only joking and that nobody takes her seriously, but in every joke there is a grain of truth and she is certainly taken seriously by at least Fox news and all her fans.
Regarding the torture case, the VP actively lobied congress to have some exemptions in the anti-torture legislation. I take this at face value.
To summarize, I agree with most of your points. I don’t think the government has went too far at this moment. However, judging by what people here and on TV say every day, there seem to be a growing number of people who wouldn’t mind if it went further in becoming more authoritarian.
Just today, a Justice Department lawyer or deputy ended his comments to the senate by saying “The President if always right.”. If you do not see danger in such statements now, I can guarantee that you will if you spent living a few years under a totalitarian government such as China’s or Iran’s for example.
5:25 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 18): You must be quite the fragile creature that in reaponse to reading political discussion not to your liking, you are on the verge of throwing up. Of course, I have no idea from your post what were the substantive points made by Ms. Coulter that would prompt such a strong physical reaction on your part. Was it that the disclosure of Soviet government files in the 1990s after the fall of the old Soviet Union showed that there were in fact many Soviet spies working in the American government after World War II? Was it that those files established that Alger Hiss was guilty? Was it that the Democrats unwisely followed a course of appeasement to communism that did not work, whereas Ronald Reagan’s more confrontational approach did?
Inadvertently, you confirm one of Ann Coulter’s points about liberals—that your response to ideas contrary to your own is to get emotional and either have a hissy fit or throw up.
5:36 pm [ Quote ]
Sorry zim, but my post was in reference to the person who claimed the terrorists were smarter than us. My retort was simple; if they really are smarter than us, then why make it easier for them by publishing our secrets?
As for the rest of your screed, all I heard on 9/12/01 was that Bush hadnt done enough to protect the nation. Now the libs are screaming that he is doing too much.
When the nation gets hit again, and it will, you wont give a crap what happens if you live in the city that got hit, youll just want to be protected.
Dont bother denying it, I know the left too well; a group of people who whine about police brutality but scream for the cops when the mugger gets near.
6:16 pm [ Quote ]
Winston Churchill once described the appeasers as “those who want to feed the crocodile, hoping it would eat them last.” Come on liberals, get a clue!!
7:49 pm [ Quote ]
Sorry zim, but my post was in reference to the person who claimed the terrorists were smarter than us. My retort was simple; if they really are smarter than us, then why make it easier for them by publishing our secrets?
As for the rest of your screed, all I heard on 9/12/01 was that Bush hadnt done enough to protect the nation. Now the libs are screaming that he is doing too much.
When the nation gets hit again, and it will, you wont give a crap what happens if you live in the city that got hit, youll just want to be protected.
Dont bother denying it, I know the left too well; a group of people who whine about police brutality but scream for the cops when the mugger gets near.
Ray, you’re assuming that there is only one way to protect our nation. When I say that I don’t want to live under an authoritarian regime, I don’t mean that we should let the terrorists get a free pass. We do need strong intelligence and strong surveliance, however, the one major requirement for that is checks and balances. You might trust the government with unlimited surveliance power, but I don’t.
In any case, if anyone in congress was actually serious about the war on terror, they’d triple the number of border patrol agents and survey far more than just 5% of incomming shipping containers.
8:09 pm [ Quote ]
Phil Byler,
You must have misunderstood what I stated. I was not refering to policies that are actually implemented, but rather to the rantings by bloggers, posters, and pundits, such as Ann Coulter, for example. You can keep arguing that she is only joking and that nobody takes her seriously, but in every joke there is a grain of truth and she is certainly taken seriously by at least Fox news and all her fans.
Regarding the torture case, the VP actively lobied congress to have some exemptions in the anti-torture legislation. I take this at face value.
To summarize, I agree with most of your points. I don’t think the government has went too far at this moment. However, judging by what people here and on TV say every day, there seem to be a growing number of people who wouldn’t mind if it went further in becoming more authoritarian.
Just today, a Justice Department lawyer or deputy ended his comments to the senate by saying “The President if always right.”. If you do not see danger in such statements now, I can guarantee that you will if you spent living a few years under a totalitarian government such as China’s or Iran’s for example.
Zim I think you are one of the few liberals with a brain…..but “The President is never wrong” is no more dangerous than “The President is always wrong.” And the later happens to be the belief of a vast majority of liberals.
A stark example would be the liberal intellectual dishonesty when they were angered during the Dubai (spelling?) port deal. The liberals should have been excited that we werent’ playing a hard line towards the UAE. And most of all they should have been excited that we weren’t racially or ethnically profiling. But instead they showed consistency towards hating Bush and all of his ideas as opposed to showing any kind of intellectual honesty.
9:25 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 18): You must be quite the fragile creature that in reaponse to reading political discussion not to your liking, you are on the verge of throwing up. Of course, I have no idea from your post what were the substantive points made by Ms. Coulter that would prompt such a strong physical reaction on your part. Was it that the disclosure of Soviet government files in the 1990s after the fall of the old Soviet Union showed that there were in fact many Soviet spies working in the American government after World War II? Was it that those files established that Alger Hiss was guilty? Was it that the Democrats unwisely followed a course of appeasement to communism that did not work, whereas Ronald Reagan’s more confrontational approach did?
Inadvertently, you confirm one of Ann Coulter’s points about liberals—that your response to ideas contrary to your own is to get emotional and either have a hissy fit or throw up.
I’m here responding to your views without any notable gag reflex. The problem with Coulter – well, one of the problems – is that her writing is 90% hate and slander, and 10% substance.
I would wonder if you think that Coulter’s central thesis in “Treason” – that all liberals for the last 50 years, the Democratic party en masse, even the very idea of liberalism is Treason? Isn’t that the precise kind of intellectual totalitarianism that the Evil Empire practiced?
9:58 pm [ Quote ]
Bill McGubbin (re post 31): Your description of Ann Coulter’s work as 90% hate and 10% slander and your misdescription of her thesis in “Treason” reflects that you have not read her books.
Let’s begin with “Godless.” She argues that contemporary liberalism has become a godless materialistic religion in opposition to traditional Judean-Christian morality, and with that thesis, discusses abortion, crime and punishment, the state of public education, the role of religion in public life and science in terms of how liberalism has led to unwise public policies and how more traditional God-based thinking leads to more souund public policies. That is not hate and slander. But let me ask you: Is denouncing the liberal love affair with abortion and advocating the pro-lide position a matter of hate and slancer? Is denouncing the liberal support of such programs as prison furloughs for murderers and advocating the strict enforcement of the criminal laws with tough criminal penalties a matter of hate and slander? Is severely criticizing the state of public education and advocating merit treatment of teachers a matter of hate and slander? Is exposing the scientific improbability of Darwinian evolution to explain the complexity of life and advocating intelligent design as exponded by top scienmtists a matter of hate and slander? My answer to all of these questions is that I don’t think so.
Now after reading “Godless,” then you may really be ready for “Treason.” And before you reject what she writes, realize that the disclosure of Soviet government files and Ronald Reagan’s directed and inspoired victory in the Cold War over Soviet communism helps her thesis in that book. Hiss was really guilty, and what he did was really treason.
10:56 pm [ Quote ]
Zim (re post 25): You misunderstand what Vice President Cheney did and thus misstate what ge did with respect to the torture isssue. Vice President Cheney did not lobby for exemptions to allow torture and could not do that as a matter of law. He lobbied for something different, which I will explain.
The U.S. is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Cruel, Inhumane and Degrading Treatment, often referred to by the acronym UNCAT. That Convention has two basic prohibitions. The first is against torture, and that restriction according to the terms of the Convention is non-reciprocal. In other words, a signatory nation has obligated itself never to commit torture no matter what provocation might occur and no matter if it dealing with persons not affiliated with a country or organization that is not a signatory. The second prohibition is against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment, which abusive treatment falling short of torture. That prohibition is not non-reciprocal unless the signatory nation so binds itself. Until late 2005, the U.S. had not so bound itself, which meant that the U.S. could consistent with UNCAT use coercive interrogation techniques with al Qaeda detainees because: (i) al Qarda detainees were not affiliated with a signatory nation to UNCAT and (ii) Geneva Convention protections under Common Article 4 were deemed not applicable (I think correctly) for two main reasons: one, al Qaeda was and is an international movement and not involved in a civil war within the meaning of Common Article 3; and two, al Qaeda combatants have not satisfied the conditions in Common Article 4 for the protections to apply (they do not wear uniforms and they target coivilians).
In late 2005 that changed with the McCain anti-torture law. Much was made of the anti-torture provision of the McCain law, but that was already law and that has always been firmly embedded in military practice. What the McCain law changed was the U.S. position under UNCAT to make non-reciprocal the prohibition against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.
What Vice President Cheney sought were exemptions from that portion of the McCain law so as to allow coercive interrogation techniques that fall short of torture and thgus arguably within the scope of the prohibition against cruel, inhumae and degrading treatment. His argument was that these techniques had been very effective in getting critically valuable information from captured al Qaeda detainees; and in the war with jihad terrorism, information is vital tro defending our nation’s security to thwart terrorist attacks. What Vice President Cheney did not do, however, is to seek exemptions from the torture ban. That was not possible legally.
Senator McCain’s position was that politically as a nation we needed to be public about rejecting torture and anything that might be considered as approaching torture. Senator McCain’s approach also reflected military practice, which is to follow Geneva Convention procedures as a matter of practice and following George Washington’s policy of humane treatment of captured uniformed enemy soldiers.
The passage of the McCain law effectively means that the UNCAT prohibition against cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment fallig short of torture is now non-reciprocal for the United States.