Garofalo Awards Announced at White House Press Dinner

[Richard G]

This is funny. I wonder if any award winners will show up?
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/4/26/211816

[Ladewig]

Isn't it a little early to say that predicting doom as a result of this war was foolish? Some of these terrorist cells are very patient, Bin Laden may still be at large, already there are anti-American protests in Iraq, and there is no idea who will be the future leader of that country.

[tamiO]

Not that I agree with New Republic, but by their own criteria they should also give the award to former president, George Bush, Sr.

Take your pick of sources here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=george+bush+sr.+against+war

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Isn't it a little early to say that predicting doom as a result of this war was foolish? Some of these terrorist cells are very patient, Bin Laden may still be at large, already there are anti-American protests in Iraq, and there is no idea who will be the future leader of that country.

Yes, Ladewig, it is too early to tell whether we are doomed since we went into this war into the heart of the Arabian world with a U.S. led effort against world opinion."

It sounds more like the New Republic people are doing the very same thing they accuse the winners of their award of doing.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by tamiO
Yes, Ladewig, it is too early to tell whether we are doomed since we went into this war into the heart of the Arabian world with a U.S. led effort against world opinion."

It sounds more like the New Republic people are doing the very same thing they accuse the winners of their award of doing. Fact, training camps were established with the express goal of training terrorists to attack America. They succeeded in destroying the twin towers. Having done so they were buoyed by their victory preparing for more assaults.

America did not sit idly by twiddling its thumbs waiting for the next attack. We took the fight to the enemy. We defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and then brought down the regime in Iraq. Those planning for future attacks on America know now that there will be consequences for their actions. There is no question about our resolve.

The paradigm that America does not have the heart to carry out such an enterprise has been debunked and the ghosts of Mogadishu and Vietnam have been mostly exorcised.

America is a potent fighting force, if you want to take us on then their will be a price to pay.

That being said we must also depend on diplomacy to solve many of our problems. We can't realistically launch an invasion against all nations that harbor terrorists.

That being said we are far less at risk today than the day after 911 IMHO.

BTW, when is Garofalo going to get down on her hands and knees and offer an apology to Bush as she had promised if the people of Baghdad cheered the United States soldiers?

[tamiO]

Originally posted by RandFan
America is a potent fighting force, if you want to take us on then their will be a price to pay.

That being said we must also depend on diplomacy to solve many of our problems. We can't realistically launch an invasion against all nations that harbor terrorists.

That being said we are far less at risk today than the day after 911 IMHO.

BTW, when is Garofalo going to get down on her hands and knees and offer an apology to Bush as she had promised if the people of Baghdad cheered the United States soldiers?

Yes, we have made it very clear to the world that we will use force against a nation and it's people as we feel it is necesary. The world has witnessed the mighty war machine of the United States and would rightly think twice before giving us the impression that they want to take us on.

Yes, we must rely on diplomacy to solve our problems with all the other nations that harbor terrorists. Just because we did not rely on diplomacy to solve the problem of Iraq, doesn't mean we will not rely on diplomacy in the future.

Other nations would like to believe that we will rely on diplomacy in the future, but our actions indicate that we will dismiss diplomacy and world opinion if we feel it is in our best interests and the best interests of the rest of the world.

If I am understanding things correctly, the Anti-American sentiment held by the majority of people in the middle east is based on our past actions or inactions. Namely that Isreal is allowed to break UN resolutions and have our support, while other countries that break UN relations are sanctioned.

It is my opinion that the basic reasons for the hatred of America's might has now been further substantiated by our show of might and our unilateral action and disregard for the United Nations.

There has not been enough time to evaluate whether our actions were a good thing or a bad thing in the long term. I suspect that it will be a mixture of both.

All that being said, I cannot say that taking over Iraq has made the world safer from terrorism, as you pointed out there are still many countries that harbor terrorists and we simply cannot overtake them all.

I doubt that Ms. Garofalo will get down on her hands and knees and apologize to Bush, but it would be admirable of her. If she did it on live TV she would have the opportunity to point out that just because someone is wrong on one point doesn't mean they were wrong on all points.

George W. Bush and his advisors didn't even say they would apologise if they were wrong.

[arcticpenguin]

More on the Hollywood left in retreat: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20030427/en_nm/iraq_hollywood_dc

[RandFan]

Originally posted by tamiO
Other nations would like to believe that we will rely on diplomacy in the future, but our actions indicate that we will dismiss diplomacy and world opinion if we feel it is in our best interests and the best interests of the rest of the world. I don't think so. We had 12 years of diplomacy, we went to the UN, we got a vote. France said that it would never vote for action. Given that time was on Saddam's side it seemed clear to me that diplomacy was not going to achieve the objective.

There has not been enough time to evaluate whether our actions were a good thing or a bad thing in the long term. I suspect that it will be a mixture of both. I applaud your honesty. I believe that you are right.

All that being said, I cannot say that taking over Iraq has made the world safer from terrorism, as you pointed out there are still many countries that harbor terrorists and we simply cannot overtake them all. On balance I believe that it has made it safer. However I am concerned that our actions will carry negative consequences and I hope we work to mitigate those.

I doubt that Ms. Garofalo will get down on her hands and knees and apologize to Bush, but it would be admirable of her. If she did it on live TV she would have the opportunity to point out that just because someone is wrong on one point doesn't mean they were wrong on all points. Agreed.

George W. Bush and his advisors didn't even say they would apologies if they were wrong. No they didn't. I'm not sure if such would be wise politically.

I doubt that Garofalo's remarks were anything more than rhetorical. Such rhetoric would not serve a politician in Bush's shoes. Not that it would be inappropriate. I just don't think it would be wise politically.

If George Bush is found to be wrong then I wish he would apologize.

[tamiO]

More conclusion leaping from the right:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20030427/en_nm/iraq_hollywood_dc
:D:D

[tamiO]

George W. Bush and his advisors didn't even say they would apologies if they were wrong.

No they didn't. I'm not sure if such would be wise politically.

I doubt that Garofalo's remarks were anything more than rhetorical. Such rhetoric would not serve a politician in Bush's shoes. Not that it would be inappropriate. I just don't think it would be wise politically.

If George Bush is found to be wrong then I wish he would apologize.

I don't think it is in his best interest to apologise, either. Not politically.

Since he has played the "might" card, he must now maintain the show of strength and not start apologising. An apology would be perceived by our enemies abroad as weak. He must now find a way to justify his actions to his worst critics.

President is not a job I would want.

And I do wish there had been such intense diplomacy early on in those 12 years, perhaps we would not have had to use such force to accomplish our goals.

[HarryKeogh]

my fave garafolo line was from her appearance several weeks ago on bill maher's HBO show

"hollywood liberals are being blacklisted...if that's happening"

in that case can't i say martians are living under my bed...if that's happening.

[a_unique_person]

Bill Clinton gets an award for saying this



Clinton is being honored with a Garofalo for his for remarks to a New York business group last week, where he accused the U.S. of trying to bully the world.

"Our paradigm now seems to be: something terrible happened to us on September 11, and that gives us the right to interpret all future events in a way that everyone else in the world must agree with us," Clinton told the Conference Board. "And if they don't, they can go straight to hell."



Now, that seems to be succinct and true. Why does he deserve an award?

[Ladewig]

America did not sit idly by twiddling its thumbs waiting for the next attack. We took the fight to the enemy. We defeated the Taliban in Afghanistan and then brought down the regime in Iraq. Those planning for future attacks on America know now that there will be consequences for their actions. There is no question about our resolve.

Those planning future attacks don't give a rat's ass about the consequences for their actions or about America's resolve. We are talking about religious fanatics who believe that martyrdom ensures them a special place in heaven.

As for those directly or indirectly supporting future attacks against the U.S., Saudi Arabia seems to have not suffered any consequences for their actions.

I still maintain that it is too early to mock the people who warned of enormous negative consequences, that is, if it is ever appropriate to mock people for a specific interpretation of international affairs. Several right-wingers have mocked France as if we will never have to ask them for anything ever again. It is one thing to publicly disagree with their position and to question their logic and assumptions, it is another thing to call them surrender-monkeys and liken them to traitors.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Ladewig
Those planning future attacks don't give a rat's ass about the consequences for their actions or about America's resolve. Damn straight and they had it in for us before we invaded Iraq. It's a two edge sword.

But political leaders like the Taliban leaders and Saddam want to be in power. They will be forced to reconsider their options when asked to fund or host terrorist training camps. It is the consequences of THEIR actions that we care about. And trust me, there are leaders today weighing those very options.

Remember how Kadhafi (sp?) moderated his attitude when we bombed the bejezus out of him. He was forced to consider his

I still maintain that it is too early to mock the people who warned of enormous negative consequences, that is, if it is ever appropriate to mock people for a specific interpretation of international affairs. No one knows if toppling Saddam's regime will bring more tragedy to America than if we had not. Experts, including Bush and his administration have been saying since shortly after 911 that another attack was a question of when and not if. The important point is that we were successful and that there has not been another attack.

Several right-wingers have mocked France as if we will never have to ask them for anything ever again. It is one thing to publicly disagree with their position and to question their logic and assumptions, it is another thing to call them surrender-monkeys and liken them to traitors. France not only plunged the dagger into our backs but they twisted it while wearing a sneer. The pain is deep. We did not need to concern ourselves with liberating France but we did and our boys are buried in French soil having died freeing French citizens who are alive to this day. George Bush has said that they are our friends and will continue to be so. I am glad that he is the diplomat and not I. I could not have said such a thing. That is why I am not president. Logically it is not in our best interests to burn our bridges. That being said it would be real comforting to burn this bridge. It sure hurts to play the fool.

as if we will never have to ask them for anything ever again. It's tragic that France conducted its affairs as though it would never have to ask us for anything again. I guess they new that there would be no real consequences for them to turn their backs on us. At one point a third of the French hoped that we would lose the war. Cest la vie which translated roughly means "big deal, there just Americans".

[Richard G]

I owe no allegiance to any country but my own, America. All others can whither/starve/ eat sh*t and die. Makes no difference to me anymore. Don't ask me or my countrymen for aid any more. You will not be abliged. And if you are, my representatives will get no rest, day or night, because I, and others of likemind will be giving them grief to no end.

Weazles of the world, you've made your beds, now sleep in them.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by RandFan

France not only plunged the dagger into our backs but they twisted it while wearing a sneer. The pain is deep. We did not need to concern ourselves with liberating France but we did and our boys are buried in French soil having died freeing French citizens who are alive to this day. George Bush has said that they are our friends and will continue to be so. I am glad that he is the diplomat and not I. I could not have said such a thing. That is why I am not president. Logically it is not in our best interests to burn our bridges. That being said it would be real comforting to burn this bridge. It sure hurts to play the fool.

Oh, come on. How did they do this, exactly? Because they disagreed with US foreign policy? Because they didn't think that Iraq was a real threat? BTW, where are all these WMD's that they were supposed to have?

I absolutely hate it when people from the US bring up WWII as some sort of reason the french need to tow the line on all US foreign policy. If you want to use WWII, at least be honest. France was entitled to sit back and wait until one of Iraq's buddies attacked them before getting involved, even if the US was attacked and overrun for a couple of years. Isn't that the truth about WWII?

The "with us or against us" attitude sucks. Each country is entitled to make their own foreign policy - and it hasn't been shown yet that the US policy choice here was correct.

[Gregor]

How exactly

Well, (if news reports from this weekend are accurate), they passed along secret policy briefings that the US gave the French to the Iraqi government.

I'm trying to find a link to the story.

[aerocontrols]

Originally posted by Gregor
How exactly

Well, (if news reports from this weekend are accurate), they passed along secret policy briefings that the US gave the French to the Iraqi government.

I'm trying to find a link to the story.

There was an article in the London Sunday Times, which is only available by subscription. There's a secondary report here (http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,6344726%255E1702,00.html)

and an article in the Telegraph, here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/28/wfra28.xml)

MattJ