Julianne Malveaux, Semi-regular USA Today Columnist: USA, Bush Are 'Terrorists'

[ProAmerican]

Monday July 11, 2005 5:04 p.m. EDT

Semi-regular USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux said Monday that President Bush is "a terrorist" and that America is "a terrorist nation... "Terrorism in the United States is as old as we are. You want me to go on to what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921?"... "George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."

more...http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/11/170630.shtml



This was featured on Hannity & Colmes last night. They played back the discussion that took place between her and Sean Hannity on his radio show. I saw it as I was switching over from CNN.

It is outrageous for her to compare things that took place in the U.S. years ago, with what is taking place now by Muslim terrorists. This is the problem with the 'moral equivalancy' discussions that are taking place within liberal ranks.

She stated that "the chickens have come home to roost."

How does two wrongs make it right?

 

[ProAmerican]

Monday July 11, 2005 5:04 p.m. EDT

Semi-regular USA Today columnist Julianne Malveaux said Monday that President Bush is "a terrorist" and that America is "a terrorist nation... "Terrorism in the United States is as old as we are. You want me to go on to what happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, in 1921?"... "George W. Bush is evil. He is a terrorist. He is evil. He is arrogant. And he is out of control."

more...http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/11/170630.shtml



This was featured on Hannity & Colmes last night. They played back the discussion that took place between her and Sean Hannity on his radio show. I saw it as I was switching over from CNN.

It is outrageous for her to compare things that took place in the U.S. years ago, with what is taking place now by Muslim terrorists. This is the problem with the 'moral equivalancy' discussions that are taking place within liberal ranks.

She stated that "the chickens have come home to roost."

How does two wrongs make it right?

If USA Today allows her to continue writing for them, that would just compound this outrageousness. But, I wouldn't be surprised if they did. I would expect no less from them.

 

[rosenherman]

Their poor choice in columnists would certainly keep me from buying it.

 

[anathema]

Free speech is the darndest thing you know...

 

[ProAmerican]

Free speech is the darndest thing you know...

Yet, in this case, free speech has apparently morphed into outrageous, unjustifiable and incendiary speech.

 

[Jonathan David]

How does two wrongs make it right?

I fail to see where she made that argument. Contrary to Bush's articulation of the conflict (either you are with us or you are with the terrorists), one can be critical of both sides of the conflict. I see nothing in this article to suggest that she condones the attacks of 9/11... which is what I assume you are suggesting by what you have said above.

 

[charmtrap]

Got a link to a transcript? I wouldn't trust Newsmax to tell me the correct time, let alone anything more complicated.

 

[rahma]

Hmm, what did happen in Tusla, Oklahoma in 1921? As many as 300 people were killed in race riots, and corpses were dismembered and stuffed into coal mines. 21 churches, 21 restaurants, 30 stores, 2 movie theaters, a hospital, a bank, the post office, libraries, and schools were all destroyed in the arson attacks.

Why? Because a young black man tripped and fell infront of a white girl, who got offended. The next day, the local paper ran the headlines "Nab Negro For Attacking Girl In Elevator," and ran editorials calling for his lynching.

Sounds a lot like terrorism to me.

 

[Voegelin]

When Ward Churchill called those killed in the World Trade Center "little Eichmann's" liberals immediately changed the issue to free speech. When Howard Dean said he hates Republicans, Republicans are white Christians and Republicans haven't worked a day in their lives, liberals again brough up free speech.

When Senator Dick Durbin compared American troops to Pol Pot, Stalin's gulag guards and Nazi concentration camp guards, liberals brought up his right of free speech.

We see the same reaction to Julianne Malveaux's comment. In fact, whenever liberals trash the USA and Americans they always create a straw man, beside the point, argument.

Yeah...we have freedom of speech. Everyone knows that. It ain't going nowhere. Nobody is going to take away Ward Churchill's freedom of speech. Or Dean's. Or Durban's. Julianne Malveaux's.


A clever tactic however, liberals believe, to mention free speech when you want to draw attention away from the content of a person's speech.

Except for this: the ploy is so transparent it is laughable. And it makes it obvious those who use it agree with the offesive speech. So why not just be stand up about it? Just say..."Yeah...I agree with her and you know what? She didn't go far enough"

That, at least, could be respected. Nobody respects mealy mouthed dodges.

 

[charmtrap]

When Ward Churchill called those killed in the World Trade Center "little Eichmann's" liberals immediately changed the issue to free speech. When Howard Dean said he hates Republicans, Republicans are white Christians and Republicans haven't worked a day in their lives, liberals again brough up free speech.

When Senator Dick Durbin compared American troops to Pol Pot, Stalin's gulag guards and Nazi concentration camp guards, liberals brought up his right of free speech.

We see the same reaction to Julianne Malveaux's comment. In fact, whenever liberals trash the USA and Americans they always create a straw man, beside the point, argument.

Yeah...we have freedom of speech. Everyone knows that. It ain't going nowhere. Nobody is going to take away Ward Churchill's freedom of speech. Or Dean's. Or Durban's. Julianne Malveaux's.

Not as long as people who value free speech stand up for it. There are many many people, some of them in positions of power, some of them even on this very message board, who would happily limit free speech. They need reminding. Yes, every time... Sorry if it disturbs you.

A clever tactic however, liberals believe, to mention free speech when you want to draw attention away from the content of a person's speech.

Except for this: the ploy is so transparent it is laughable. And it makes it obvious those who use it agree with the offesive speech. So why not just be stand up about it? Just say..."Yeah...I agree with her and you know what? She didn't go far enough"

That, at least, could be respected. Nobody respects mealy mouthed dodges.

This is a ridiculous scenario you've dreamed up. I don't have to agree with her to think that her opinion has value. And I don't agree with her much, but I think she has some points. She should tone down the rhetoric some, but I think pretty much everyone on all sides should tone down the rhetoric.

I know, dream on...

 

[jsn112]

Got a link to a transcript? I wouldn't trust Newsmax to tell me the correct time, let alone anything more complicated.

I can vouch for the post. I heard it, too, on Hannity. And those are her exact words.

 

[jsn112]

When Ward Churchill called those killed in the World Trade Center "little Eichmann's" liberals immediately changed the issue to free speech. When Howard Dean said he hates Republicans, Republicans are white Christians and Republicans haven't worked a day in their lives, liberals again brough up free speech.

When Senator Dick Durbin compared American troops to Pol Pot, Stalin's gulag guards and Nazi concentration camp guards, liberals brought up his right of free speech.

We see the same reaction to Julianne Malveaux's comment. In fact, whenever liberals trash the USA and Americans they always create a straw man, beside the point, argument.

Yeah...we have freedom of speech. Everyone knows that. It ain't going nowhere. Nobody is going to take away Ward Churchill's freedom of speech. Or Dean's. Or Durban's. Julianne Malveaux's.


A clever tactic however, liberals believe, to mention free speech when you want to draw attention away from the content of a person's speech.

Except for this: the ploy is so transparent it is laughable. And it makes it obvious those who use it agree with the offesive speech. So why not just be stand up about it? Just say..."Yeah...I agree with her and you know what? She didn't go far enough"

That, at least, could be respected. Nobody respects mealy mouthed dodges.

And yet, they say they are patriotic.

 

[jsn112]

Not as long as people who value free speech stand up for it. There are many many people, some of them in positions of power, some of them even on this very message board, who would happily limit free speech. They need reminding. Yes, every time... Sorry if it disturbs you.

Why is free speech a one way street?

 

[charmtrap]

Why is free speech a one way street?

I don't know. Why is free speech a one way street?

 

[jsn112]

I don't know. Why is free speech a one way street?

Hey, you can't answer a question with a question.

 

[charmtrap]

Hey, you can't answer a question with a question.

Why can't I answer a question with a question?

(Hey, it's your thesis...you defend it. )

 

[Voegelin]

Not as long as people who value free speech stand up for it. There are many many people, some of them in positions of power, some of them even on this very message board, who would happily limit free speech. They need reminding. Yes, every time... Sorry if it disturbs you . . .

Liberals using a dodge doesn't upset me. I find it slightly amusing.

Do liberals mention Ann Coulter has a right of free speech? No. They attack her looks, call her shrill and throw pies at her.

Do they ever mention Rush's right to speak? No. They launch boycotts against his sponsors and try to have the FCC force station owners to give them equal time (the so-called "Fairness Doctrine").

The threat to free speech comes from the left: Authoritarian college speech codes. Protests when Justice Clarence Thomas is invited to speak (at least once his invitation was rescinded because of liberal objections to hearing what he had to say). ACLU lawsuits against Christians who express themselves in places or in ways the ACLU beleives they should not (Barry Lynn turned in a Catholic bishop last year to the IRS because Lynn didn't like a Bishop telling Catholics they should consider the teachings of their church when they vote ).

The left in the EU, the UK and Canada has gone further and passed hate speech laws.

Liberals mention free speech to distract attention when a liberal such as Julianne Malveaux, Senator Dick Durban, Ward Churchill or Howard Dean makes comments they know the majority of Americans will find offensive.

This thread is about the content of Malveaux's speech. Not about freedom of speech.

Liberals don't want to discuss content. That is why the Free Speech straw man was put up in the first few replies.

Right after that came the other usual liberal dodge:Somebody else did something or other or said something some time or another which was as bad or worse.

So predictable.

 

[MadeInOz]

Terrorists killed ~4000 people on 9/11... ~400 people in Bali... ~50 in London... how many innocent people has George Bush killed in his wars?

I for one think she has a valid point, although perhaps it is expressed poorly.

 

[one love]

I don't know. Why is free speech a one way street?

Well, what is "is"?

 

[MaryS]

She stated that "the chickens have come home to roost."

The last time I remember hearing that ideology was after John F. Kennedy died and Malcolm X wasn't the only one to use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malcolm_X
(excerpt:
following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, Malcolm delivered a speech as he regularly would. However, when asked to comment upon the assassination, he replied that it was a case of "chickens coming home to roost" – that the violence that JFK had failed to stop, and at times refused to rein in had come around to claim his life. Most explosively, he then added that with his country origins, "Chickens coming home to roost never made me sad. It only made me glad."