Over-ruled?

I didn’t want to do this, but Scottie put me up to it. I couldn’t find any logical way to defend the systematic racism of David Duke. I invite the millions and millions of Logifans out there to attempt to do so for themselves by clicking the link above (you’ll have to search his name) and coming to their own conclusions. Perhaps if the Isreali ambassador simply held a contest to pay cartoonists to insult Asians or Arabs, as Ahmadinejad had done against Israelis, he would have been fine. There’s good diplomacy. Excuse me while I NOT self-flagellate.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Over-ruled?”

  1. scottie Says:

    all fine and dandy, johnny b

    but really what is the point of reading the david duke article?

    my comment was you that if you are going to defend the israeli ambassador for his obviously rascist comments, then you should also feel morally obliged to defend david duke for his rascist views, and defend daniel pipes for his blatant rascist views towards arabs.

    so you find an article with david duke interviewed saying the neocons started this iraq war.

    so what?

    thats common knowledge for those who have read “against all enemies” and “plan of attack” and other readings

    in “plan of attack” i just re-read it, Bush had Elie Wiesel at his crawford ranch, and this is the dialogue :

    on page 320, and i quote Woodward:

    Bush told Wiesel, “If we don’t disarm Saddam Hussein, he will put a WMD on Israel and they will do what they think they have to do, and we want to avoid that”

    Notice what Bush didn’t say. He didn’t say that Saddam will put a WMD on the US, which is what the American people were told why we had to disarm Saddam immediately; that he threatened the US.

    Now I do not consider this a smoking gun. It does partially explain why we went into Iraq, to secure Israel.

    But if you had followed previous discussions more closely, you would understand that I maintained that securing Israel was a facet for the driving push to war, but not the only facet. Dollar hegemony was a factor, the PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” was a factor. In fact, I argued that dollar hegemony was a more compelling explanation than any other one I had read.

    Now if your inclusion of the David Duke interview is meant to intimidate me because we have a few views in common, it won’t work.

    I believe that Walt and Mearsheimer got it right. That David Duke also publicly supported the findings of Walt and Mearsheimer is irrelevant.

    You think that you are casting me in the same light as David Duke. I think that I am in agreement with 2 renound scholars who researched the issue carefully, and reached inescapable conclusions.

    I am pretty sure that David Duke knows 2 + 2 = 4. Would you reject his answer on this query simply because he is a known bigot, the former grand wizard of the KKK in Louisiana?

    But your little attempt to emotionally blackmail me has backfired, I am afraid.

    And all because you cannot admit that you were wrong to say exposing an israeli ambassador as a rascist was a “total yawner”

  2. scottie Says:

    Oh, yeah, PS

    Ahmadinejad inclusion is a red herring.

    If you do not know what that means, say so and I will explain it for you.

    I mentioned David Duke and Daniel Pipes in the original post. I would not consider the president of Iran to be a diplomatic person.

  3. JohnnyB Says:

    Ahmadinejad can do and say as he pleases but the Israeli ambassador is racist. There is a double standard on your part Scottie. If the Syrian ambassador to Iran said they share the same struggle with the Jews, who control the banks and media of America and Israel is the new Nazi Germany, you would totally be giving them ideological high-fives. That is a worse stereotype than “yellow skin and slanted eyes”. Even if you disagreed with such a statement you wouldn’t get huffed up enough to post on it.

  4. scottie Says:

    johnny b, hasty generalization upon hasty generalization

    nothing in your last reply adequately reflects my discussion points

    i never discussed the syrian position, nor can you surmise my position on this facet

    stick to the facts that YOU introduced

    i am guilty of no double standard, and I can copiuously document issues where you are guilty of your charges against me.

    Be forewarned, young grasshopper, if you fence with those who are more well-read than you, be prepared to live with the embarassing consequences ….

  5. Logipundit Says:

    Dripping sarcasm and baiting has a distinct lack of effectiveness in intelligent discourse…and condescending tones are equally ineffective and most definitely not welcome.

    Noone here cares what David Duke has to say, and you have both made your point.

    That’s all I have to say. Move on.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: