all-encompassingly

we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Jul 1st 2005

Brian Williams: The Founding Fathers May Have Been Terrorists

How’s this for some celebratory 4th of July banter?

Tom Brokaw replacement Brian Williams on his blog:

Many Americans woke up to a curious story this morning: several of the former Iran Hostages have decided there is a strong resemblance between Iran’s new president and one of their captors more than 25 years ago.

and then later on the broadcast:

“What would it all matter if proven true? Someone brought up today the first several U.S. presidents were certainly revolutionaries and might have been called ‘terrorists’ by the British crown, after all.”

As The Dread Pundit Bluto succinctly put it:

If anyone needed another example of the insanity of the liberal doctrine of moral and cultural equivalence, which came into fashion during the Cold War, this is it. It’s actually less offensive for Williams to imply that our Founding Fathers were terrorists than it is for him to put them on a par with the bloodthirs[t]y, unevolved barbarians who took over Iran in 1979.

Huge hat tip to Michelle Malkin.

13 Responses to “Brian Williams: The Founding Fathers May Have Been Terrorists”

  1. LaurenceB

    For those who don’t have time to read through it all, here’s a condensed version of all-compassingly:

    1. Brian Williams said something we disagree with. We are outraged.
    2. NPR said something we disagree with. We are outraged.
    3. An interesting point of view from a Portuguese minister. Go read it.
    4. Barack Obama said something we disagree with. We are outraged.
    5. Jonah Goldberg is being whimsical.
    6. Karl Rove said something that Daily Kos disagrees with. He is outraged.
    7. A very interesting article on PBS. Go read it.
    8. A funny video.
    9. Karl Rove said something that liberals disagree with. They are outraged. We are outraged at their outrage.
    10. An article about gays who divorce.
    11. A movie review.
    12. The Associated Press says something we disagree with. We are outraged.
    13. A tech story.
    14. A lion saves a girl.
    15. Senator Durbin said something we disagree with. We are outraged. LaurenceB makes some unbelievably stupid comments.

    It sure seems like there’s a lot of outrage being tossed around lately. Is it just me, or is anybody else sick and tired of hearing about how some media person, or Senator, or administration official has said something that is obviously “treason”, or “will cause our troops to be killed”, or “divides the country”, or is “partisan hackery”? It’s just getting a little stale for me. I’m rapidly losing interest in this game.

  2. doug

    For those who don’t have time to read through it all, here’s a condensed version of all-compassingly:

    It’s just getting a little stale for me. I’m rapidly losing interest in this game.

    For an uninterested troll you do come back often…

  3. ‘Terrorists’? Um, yeah, because those wild eyed founders quite often commited suicide combing runs on innocent British citizens to… wait, no, no they didn’t.

    Alright, then they quite often shouted “Crusade!” while waving the Holy Bible around and…

    No, not that either.

    The Crown at most would have called them ‘traitors’ and had the British won, the founders would have been rounded up and hung as traitors.

    The tactics, the motivation, the basic thought behind the American Revolution is so different from terrorism it takes a well marinated in post modern deconstructionism of the left could see them on the same level. It takes a highly educated buffon to misunderstand the two cases.

  4. LaurenceB

    Although I’ve never considered myself a troll – just someone with a differing opinion – your point about my visiting too often is actually quite valid. I’ll stay away more.

  5. for those who don’t have time to read through it all, here’s a condensed version of laurenceb’s blog:

    1. n/a
    2. n/a
    3. n/a
    4. n/a
    5. n/a
    6. n/a
    7. n/a
    8. n/a
    9. n/a
    10.n/a
    11.n/a
    12.n/a
    13.n/a
    14.n/a
    15.n/a

    laurenceb has no blog. but he has commented here on our stale, uninteresting blog about 50 times this year. one commenter said this of his trollness:

    even if i don’t know much about the subject of a particular post, i like to read the comments in hopes of another confrontation between LaurenceB and Travis [blog post]

    keep coming back troll. or leave. that’s the great thing about squatting at someone else’s blog. you’re free to come and go at any time. just know that more people read our stale, uninteresting ultraconservative right wing crap because you’re here.

  6. for those who don’t have time to read through it all, here’s a condensed version of laurenceb’s comment history:

    1. laurenceb is outraged
    2. laurenceb is outraged
    3. laurenceb is outraged
    4. laurenceb likes luxembourg
    5. laurenceb is outraged
    6. laurenceb is outraged
    7. laurenceb is outraged
    8. laurenceb is outraged
    9. laurenceb is outraged
    10. laurenceb is outraged
    11. laurenceb is outraged
    12. laurenceb is outraged
    13. laurenceb is outraged
    14. laurenceb is outraged
    15. laurenceb is outraged
    16-50. laurenceb is outraged again and again.

  7. Mr.Goodstuff

    Laurenceb makes an excellent point regarding the proliferation of buzz words like “terrorism” outrage” “US troops” etc that cloud the issues at hand–which at this point is that neither group on either side of the fence can find a common ground for debate. What is sad is that a bunch of trigger-happy, wanna-be pundits (what a lowlyaspiration for each of you so desperate to command an audience like Brian Willias you take to knocking him down a peg) REFUSE to even cosider what someone who disagrees with them may be saying.

    What are the chances Brian williams or for that matter Laurenceb (who I don’t know from Adam) are in favor of terrorism or in support of the Muslim fundamentalist terrorists??? Not very likely. the truth is to understand an enemy (which we do not, not well enough anyway, regarding the radical jihadists) in order to defeat them you must consider them from all sides particularly the parts you might not like. It may be a fine line between the terrorism of the jihadists and the founding Fathers, but there is a line and no one is saying they are the same thing. but history is written by the victors and had Britain won the War, the founding fathers would have been jailed for terrorism. So, rather than consider this perspective and asses its usefulness for yourself, people are bogged down in the much raking perpetrated by the media: the rightwing bloggers and the liberal left bloggers and talking head pundits have clouded the facts (and for the record, FACTS are not [expletive] debatable; they are either corrupted or simply ignored in favor of opinion). So, before you all jump down someone’s throat for simply being fed up with a culture of politics dedicated to the almighty sound bite and the politics of fear, why not take a minute and realize it is okay to consider another side of a discussion. Jeez, it’s so [expletive] frustrating having to explain this to everyone–there is no prize to be won you twits; there is no red or blue trophy awarded to whichever side wins the most because the truth is there is no red and blue, it is a lot closer to purple–different people with different ideas and opinions and the joke is most of them share the same concerns: family, health, money, career, etc…but then I suppose I must have wandered on to a Swift Boat for Veterans web blog here.

  8. doug

    Mr Goodstuff,

    I refer you to Rusticus’ reply to LaurenceB, where most of your arguments are succinctly dealt with.

    As Rusticus points out:

    The tactics, the motivation, the basic thought behind the American Revolution is so different from terrorism it takes a well marinated in post modern deconstructionism of the left could see them on the same level.

    Words have meaning.

    There is a difference between the Founding Fathers and terrorists.

  9. Mr.Goodstuff

    that’s what I said Doug. there is a difference. Once again proving you either do not read clearly or are not interested in a intelligent discussion.

  10. doug

    It may be a fine line between the terrorism of the jihadists and the founding Fathers, but there is a line and no one is saying they are the same thing. but history is written by the victors and had Britain won the War, the founding fathers would have been jailed for terrorism.

    Color me ignorant (which you seem more than willing to do) but it sure sounds like your saying “they aren’t the same thing….but yes, they were terrorists.”

  11. Mr.Goodstuff

    I said “would have been jailed for terrorism [had we lost the rev war]. My point is simply that to understand terrorism is to find a way to defeat it. But to understand something we must consider what might pass for terrorism (which I think may be Brian williams aim in his blog), to contemplate why some person or group would turn to violence to acheive an end? what is that end? There is nothing wrong in examining something and looking at it from different angles–it does not mean Brian williams (or I) thinks the founding fathers were terrorists (though I think it may be safe to say that a fair number of Britons were calling the colonists just that the morning following the Boston Tea Party). Let me further illustrate my point by drawing another parrallel: one of the grievances of the colonists which led to the tea party and the revolutionary war was the Quartering Act which said colonists would be forced to house, and feed british soldiers hanging about following the french-Indian war. you have to admit that it sound eerily like the complaint of many Muslims that western countries are in fact occupying their land. Now a quick point of information, I firmly DO NOT believe that this is truely what Bin Laden and his thugs are after–I do honestly believe they are on a good old fashioned take over the world kick disguised as a religious crusade (which is what makes it such an unholy undertaking…and is also one of those fine lines between the acts of the founding fathers and those of islamic jihadists that mark the distinction between what passes for “terrorism”) However, it is worth looking at similarities, it is worth discussing and turning it over and trying to figure out what it is all about and how to stop it–so that maybe we can present an opposing ideaology to terrorism, to help defeat it in addition to all the guns and fighting and killing (which is proving marginally successful at best) Maybe this examination yields nothing for me, you, brian Williams or anyone else who thought on the idea which Williams suggested at in his blog, and so meanwhile what’s the harm?–we learn a little more about ourselves, we take one step closer perhaps to winning the war against terror (and it will most certainly take an “ideaological alternative” to jihad islam to properly do so) and we all still show up at picnics on July 4th and cheer at the fireworks and love this country (I know I do). But what I cannot tolerate is this need…no, scratch that, the desire of everyone to so quickly “jump down the other guy’s throat”; too often merely for proposing a suggestion, or god forbid a possible solution because it just maybe doesn’t jive with whatever political-social-religious philosophy that group/person subscribes to. We need to open our minds. Rhetoric is what got us into this mess in the first place. And it is a mess. The very idea that this country on the one hand can invoke religion and God’s name to keep Terry Shaivo alive, while our president has the audacity to ignore a mother whose son gave his life….HIS LIFE! for his country–what happened to “life is sacred?” and “god is compassion and love”? And the truth is we are incapable of working out solutions to either of these issues because Terry Shaivo or Cindy Sheehan and countless others (Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson…) they have been politicized by pundits and bloggers who are doing nothing more than endlessly spewing or regurgitating sound bites that serve only the interests of the people who utter them and serve only cloud the issue until no one even remembers why we all felt the need for a discussion in the first place–sound bites along with close-minded pig headed comments, do nothing towards findingat a solution and fixing what is undoubtedly a big problem.

    Quite honestly, the only reason I even got involved in this discussion on this blog was because the way people were all over laurenceb for his comments without taking a moment to consider what he was saying (and I am not sure I understand even now what it was that got people on this blog so upset). So, seeing this kind of sensless berating of someone for merely disagreeing as it took place I felt compelled to weigh in and say simply we need to learn to admit we may have made a mistake and that maybe someone else has a solution when we don’t.

    And just for the record, I was very much in NY on 9-11 and this war in Iraq and this administration who perpetrated it, has cost me the justice I and the rest of this country was promised with a fierce determination by Pres GWB as he stood atop the rubble of the Trade Center by not pursuing Bin Laden and the Saudis and anyone else truly involved in 9-11. As we speak the Iraquis are likely calling a stalemate on forming a constitution and will either push back or abandon hope of ever doing so yet again, thus making another promise/reason for the War in Iraq, as offered by the Bush administration, untrue. We have been duped. We have allowed this administration to operate with no acountability to the American people or to the world and it has cost us dearly. The only road avg citizens have for turning this terrible tide is through open debate and discussion–something Bush clearly is not interested in, and perhaps more frightfully, neither are any of the people out there in the country who have given up caring about what the hell is going wrong and instead given into apathy.

  12. doug

    Quite honestly, the only reason I even got involved in this discussion on this blog was because the way people were all over laurenceb for his comments without taking a moment to consider what he was saying (and I am not sure I understand even now what it was that got people on this blog so upset).

    For someone so critical of others for “not taking a moment to consider” you sure do make a lot of assumptions.

    You assume that because I don’t agree with either LaurenceB, or yourself, that I must have not taken the time “to consider” your point of view.

    Newsflash: I took time to consider LaurenceB’s comments…and I found them to be completely disagreeable.

    Fact: Brian Williams floated the idea that the Founding Fathers were akin to terrorists.

    Aside from being in bad taste to say something like that as the July 4th weekend was starting, I find the implicit comparison of Ben Franklin to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi a supremely ignorant attempt to “understand” the terrorists.

    All ideas are not equal. And when incredibly dumb ones are expressed by incredibly important people, they are worthy of criticism.

  13. […] –LaurenceB and Mr. Goodstuff, July 2005 [link] You sad losers….Tossers. [You are] a bunch of right wing oligarch cigar chomping republican wildcats! […]