Blame the VRWC first
Posted by aogWednesday, 13 May 2009 at 16:30 TrackBack Ping URL

I read things like this and can’t help but think that if some Caliphascist loon manages to assassinate President Obama, it will be blamed on domestic “right wing extremists” somehow, just like the Kennedy assassinations.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
erp Wednesday, 13 May 2009 at 22:17

We can’t let him be martyred.

John Weidner Wednesday, 13 May 2009 at 23:19

“it will be blamed on domestic “right wing extremists” somehow…”

AOG, how could you even come up with such a outlandish concept?

Harry Eagar Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 11:25

OK, I visited the site. I’m not following the steps in your reasoning.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 12:19

My reasoning is

  1. There is a non-zero chance that some Caliphascist will assassinate Obama.
  2. Any assassination or attempt on Obama will be reported as the fault of the VRWC, because that’s the Old Media Narrative.
  3. This will go double for a Caliphascist attack, because Islam is the Religion of Peace.

The article supports only item 1. The rest is my view.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 18:09

So far, I would judge that the Muslims would be less interested in offing Obama. They have hopes.

I’d say the more likely threat would be from the 2nd Amendment nuts, of whom I know a few in my own neighborhood that I can imagine setting off armed for Washington.

Actually, any attack on Obama will be reported as whatever the evidence shows. It was not, for the most part, the MSM that pushed the wilder versions of JFK assassination. They pushed the Russia-Cuba-leftist connection of Oswald.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 14 May 2009 at 20:22

any attack on Obama will be reported as whatever the evidence shows.

Now that’s delusional. Verbal and political attacks on Obama aren’t reported as the evidence shows, so why should a physical one be any different?

Harry Eagar Friday, 15 May 2009 at 00:21

Hmmm. Then how do you know about them?

You yourself have had innings with the nuts over the birth certificate. I’ll grant that the mainstream editors ignored that one for a long time, on the grounds, I suppose, that you might agree with, that it was too silly to bother with.

At some point, even silliness forces its way into the news pages. Murder at Mena, for example.

erp Friday, 15 May 2009 at 08:01

Harry, why do suppose Obama hasn’t put the issue to rest by making his birth certificate public as well as his high school, college & law school transcripts (if they still exist), SAT scores, LSAT scores, passport & law school application and told us when he had his name changed back from Barry Soetero to Barrack Obama and why he no longer has a license to practice law (Michelle too)?

Place me among the nuts who’d like to know.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 15 May 2009 at 08:03

You have clearly overlooked the “as the evidence shows” clause, thereby misreading “inaccurately reported” for “not reported”. But how do I know what actually happened? By reading weblogs, consulting original source material, and reading Old Media like the Soviets used to read Pravda.

I think the COLB was ignored as long as possible by Old Media for the same reason it spins everything else about Obama, not because that incident was special in any way. One need only consider the Alaskan dumpster diving vs. the exposes on Obama’s time at Columbia. Or the reporting on what Rush Limbaugh said about Obama vs. Olberman on former President Bush. Or McCain’s health records vs. Obama’s.

But let’s consider your view. Why don’t you write down the Presidential assassination attempts since WWII, and mark each as “anti-American motivation”, “patriotic motivation”, and “loony” based on what the attacker thought. See what you get. Then ask why you think the 2nd Amendment loonies are a greater risk than Caliphascists, other than Old Media spin. Or just think about how right wing talk radio was pilloried for encouraging McVeigh, but the hate spewed by left wing media is never has any consequences, not even as Al Qaeda parrots it. That is what will happen.

Harry Eagar Friday, 15 May 2009 at 11:48

I don’t follow you again. Why restrict yourself to just since WWII? Disgruntled office-seeking is probably as likely as any of your 3 categories to motivate someone who acts rather than just talks.

Historically, politics has not been, apparently, a factor in most attempts on American presidents. When it has been (I can recall only 3 events, but perhaps you may remember more), it would be difficult to ascribe it to left or right motivations. Puerto Rican nationalism, for example, is (to my mind) neither right nor left but Puerto Rican.

I have never seen, in a daily newspaper, the kind of nutty rancor I have heard out of Limbaugh on the few (about 5) occasions I have ever listened to him. If I had to guess what informational program would be the MOST likely to set off the next assassination attempt, I’d say the Art Bell show, or something like it.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 15 May 2009 at 18:48

Mr. Eagar;

WWII seems a reasonable historical boundary, given that the political and social conditions in the USA are not static. If historically politics has not been a factor in most attempts on American Presidents, why did you bring it up?

I have never seen, in a daily newspaper, the kind of nutty rancor I have heard out of Limbaugh on the few (about 5) occasions I have ever listened to him.

Perhaps you should compare broadcast to broadcast, rather than broadcast to print. Say, Rhandi Rhodes on Air America.

erp Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 13:15

Harry, may we have an example of Limbaugh’s “nutty rancor”?

Harry Eagar Saturday, 16 May 2009 at 13:30

I never have heard Air America, and, apparently, hardly anybody else has, either.

I think you were the one who introduced politics.

As a sort of first cut, I worry more about people who are armed than people, equally angry or crazy, who are yet unarmed. Thus, I am especially wary about 2nd Amendment nuts,

I have no opinion whether, say, the people who tried to kill Ford were ‘political’ or ‘crazy.’ They were certainly crazy, some of which was expressed in political language, but they hardly were a part of a political movement, not even on the scale of, say, Christian Identity.

Have you ever read Bremer’s diary?

Andrea Harris Sunday, 17 May 2009 at 08:27

What’s a “second amendment nut”? As I have always understood the word when applied to people, “nuts” aren’t overly interested in matters of history and policy. Or is a person who supports freedom of speech a “First Amendment nut”?

Harry Eagar Sunday, 17 May 2009 at 13:15

2nd Amendment nuts fantasize that the only thing standing between tyranny and freedom is them and their shootin’ arns. They imagine that if they were allowed concealed carry and that if some crazed killer popped up, they would coolly drag out their shootin’ arn and save the day. They post endless blog comments about how big and how many their personal firearms are.

You used to find them all over the comment’s at Tim Blair’s blog although, for some reason, not so much recently.

The reality is, they mix guns and alcohol, ignore safety considerations, and are — thank heavens — usually more dangerous to themselves and their families than to strangers, no matter how evilly disposed. Their most usual epitaph: Died in hunting accident.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 13:37

Must cite — classic example of hate speech from the MAL. The key point being that people who hold certain political opinions and aren’t members of the Ruling Class are to be hated, abused, and rhetorically tortured as long as they dare to dissent.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 16:04

The only time I ever heard Olbermann, he was on radio making fun of professional golfers for demanding quiet while they putted. Now there’s a Ruling Class issue. Oops. Guess he was with the proles on that one.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 21 May 2009 at 21:58

Help me understand your thought processes. You related this anecdote because

  1. it proves that Olberman didn’t say what was in the video clip of his show.
  2. it proves that what Olberman said in that clip wasn’t hate speech because
    1. he was on the side of the proles once.
    2. your personal experience of Olberman is what determines his praxis regardless of any other evidence.
  3. it makes the clip irrelevant because
    1. hearing him only once was enough for you to make a fully accurate judgement that he is not a hater, and I should defer to that judgement.
    2. you can’t be a hater if you side with the proles
    3. it’s enough to have once sided with the proles.
  4. you were just free associating, it has no relevance or meaning with regard to this comment string.
  5. …?
Post a comment