Andy Rooney's lost it - I tuned in to 60 minutes tonight an was shocked at the comments of Andy Rooney, CBS's resident curmudgeon.
As our nation prepares for a day of remembrance and mourning, Mr. Rooney's comments were sanctimonious and out of line. I listened as he said "America needs to learn how to behave as a nation in a way that wouldn't make so many people in the world want to kill us".
Our enemies hate us for our freedom. Freedom of religion, personal beliefs, and actions. Indeed, we are the nation most envied in the world. People spend years to legally come to the US and become members of society. Others risk their lives floating on rafts or running through the desert for a chance of the life of opportunity America offers all it's countrymen.
Rooney advises we should change our behavior to appease those who have declared war on us? No thanks Andy. I think it's time for him to be put out to pasture.
God Bless America.
posted by jimavolt to commentary at 9:35 P.M. EST (27 Comments)
Comments ...
You're one misguided little man. Way to buy into Cheney propaganda.
Respected Source:
America's Image Slips, But Allies Share U.S. Concerns Over Iran, Hamas
If you look at some of the tables set up, you'll notice that globally people are increasingly becoming fed up with American foreign policy. You'll find that only the US and Germany feel that Iran is a greater threat to the world than the US in Iraq. Globally, people feel the US in Iraq is a greater threat than Iran.
Same Respected Source:
The Great Divide: How Westerners and Muslims View Each Other
This one is my favorite. The report really is correct in their findings in how one views the other. Read through it. I think both sides are justified in how they view each other, and I can explain further if I need too. Perhaps it could be those perceptions that work as a seed for Islamic fundamentalism.
An excerpt from CNN regarding a taped message released by Osama bin Laden in 2004:
Bin Laden: 'Your security is in your own hands'
"Contrary to what [President George W.] Bush says and claims -- that we hate freedom --let him tell us then, 'Why did we not attack Sweden?' It is known that those who hate freedom don't have souls with integrity, like the souls of those 19. May the mercy of God be upon them.
We fought with you because we are free, and we don't put up with transgressions. We want to reclaim our nation. As you spoil our security, we will do so to you.
I wonder about you. Although we are ushering the fourth year after 9/11, Bush is still exercising confusion and misleading you and not telling you the true reason. Therefore, the motivations are still there for what happened to be repeated." - From Osama bin Laden (But you never know, that could be cryptic for "I hate your damn freedoms".)
So, I offer you some different perspectives from different sources as to why people might have an unfavorable opinion of the US and why some take it a step further and radicalize. Offer me something in return as a rebuttle, so long as it isn't a transcript of a Bush or Cheney speech.
Now, in regards to Andy Rooney. I too saw his clip. Would you have preferred that they didn't allow for it or to censor it? Were his comments out of line? After all, he was exercising one of those American freedoms that the terrorists so very much envy.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 01:03 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
Sorry, I meant "American freedoms that the terrorists so very much hate."... not envy.
Read the articles. You'll see a common point being made in all three articles that American foreign policy is the reason for general disapproval of the US in the world and as a motivator for radicals to utilize terrorism for their cause.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 02:12 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
I didn't see Andy Rooney's rant on this one, so can't say for sure.
I do know that there are times when I can't tell how to take him. He's gotten pretty difficult to interpret as he's gotten older.
No matter what he said, he still has the right to say it. I don't agree with a lot that's said in this world, but if those people are refused the right to speak, then eventually I would be refused that same right. I'm not willing to give it up.
So while we may be offended by one person't rant, and we may certainly disagree with it, I can't honestly say that he should not be allowed to say it altogether. Perhaps he could have tempered it, but then again, that would go along with censorship.
It's a tough call.
posted by DoknowDocare at 06:56 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
And yes Jim, most of our enemies despise our freedoms. That's why they either want to be here with a passion unmatched, or they want to harm us in order to disrupt our lives as we know them.
God Bless America - and all her 'children'
posted by DoknowDocare at 06:57 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
Our enemies hate us for our freedom.
Now there's a line directly from the Bush propaganda team.
What the hell does it mean?
posted by politics_in_mudville at 08:03 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
jim - good post. There were a couple of other broadcasts from familiar faces in the last couple of years that were (or should have been) an eye opener that something was drastically different and probably wrong with the speaker.
A Christian televangelist pops into my mind :-)
Anybody taking these fellows for a CATscan?
posted by katie82640 at 08:06 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
mudville - sorry, missed your question.
It is perplexing - why do you think we were bombed (9/11?)
posted by katie82640 at 08:17 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
It is perplexing - why do you think we were bombed (9/11?)
Comedian David Cross said it best:
"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! ... If the terrorists hated freedom, the Netherlands would be fucking dust!"
posted by thenick at 08:40 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
If that was the case, why hit civilian targets only?
posted by katie82640 at 08:46 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
I have an oops - the Pentagon was not a civilian strike....
But my question is - if the US military and foreign policy is your objective - why strike civilian targets?
posted by katie82640 at 08:47 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
But my question is - if the US military and foreign policy is your objective - why strike civilian targets?
Because, civilian targets are the easiest. The U.S.A.'s military power is so dominant, that any country or terriorist organization would be foolish to challenge us head on, face-to-face, mano-a-mano, etc.
That's why terrorist groups go after infrastructure and use fear. If they didn't use fear, they'd be called some other term, I suppose.
posted by miked918 at 09:05 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
If they hate us for our freedom, then Bush will keep us safe by taking our freedom away.
posted by SensorG at 11:06 A.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
I agree with thenick, and toledo++. And definitely a funny and accurate comment from sensorg. For those that have Buckeye VOD, check out the movie, "Why We Fight". Saw it last week, and it was a real eye opener. Ironically enough, it started out with Eisenhower's going-away speech that basically warned Americans about the military industrial complex getting too big. Personally I think America would be much better off if we stopped trying to build a world-empire. I'd be happy with our govt protecting us, and not attacking other countries for their resources. It also seems our gov't continues to mesh with corporations and corporate interests. Funny, I read somewhere that the original meaning of fascism (during Mussolini's reign) was the merger of corporations and state. But we would never say the US is becoming fascist, would we? Sorry went a bit off-tangent there.
posted by pink_slip at 12:01 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
thenick- I love the David Cross reference. I am a big fan. He is right on with that statement too.
posted by nick44 at 02:45 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
If that was the case, why hit civilian targets only?
Remember when Al-Zarqawi in Iraq mostly targeted the American military in Iraq? I don't remember seeing a huge mass outcry when one or two soldier's were killed every day; only the days that a large number died. However, the attention it gives them when attacking civilian infrastructure is enormous. Obviously September 11th hit you pretty hard; it hit us all hard, and it grabbed all of our attention.
Also, here is a line from one of the articles I cited above:
"A rare point of agreement between Westerners and Muslims is that both believe that Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they are today. But they gauge the problem quite differently. Muslim publics have an aggrieved view of the West - they are much more likely than Americans or Western Europeans to blame Western policies for their own lack of prosperity. For their part, Western publics instead point to government corruption, lack of education and Islamic fundamentalism as the biggest obstacles to Muslim prosperity."
Middle Easternern civilians feel they are being robbed and exploited of their country's resources for the benefit of the United States.
That, alongside with the unconditional support for Israel. From their standpoint, when the US gives the nod for Israel to attack Palestine or Lebanon, and many civilians die, they view that is blood on our hands as well.
And as mentioned above, the relationship the US has with many Middle Eastern dictators and monarch's (who are considered to have serious human rights abuses in their countries) are an issue too.
To say that they attack us because of our freedoms is easy for a President to use as a rallying tool to support failed foreign policy. Why is that propaganda so effective? Because nothing is more cherished in this country than our freedoms, and the threat of those freedoms in danger only pisses people off.
The only way to begin to attack fundamentalism is to not merely drop bombs on them, but to discover why some people make the crossover from pissed off person to a fundamentalist and cut off those catalysts.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 04:01 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
Personally I think America would be much better off if we stopped trying to build a world-empire. I'd be happy with our govt protecting us, and not attacking other countries for their resources.
While I do not condone attacking other countries for the sole purpose of securing their resources, I do believe in the theroy that The Best Defense is a Good Offense.
By promoting Western stlye Democracy and Humanitarian values to countries where they do not currently exist, it may be possible to convert our enemies into our allies once they enjoy the same freedoms and privilages we enjoy in the USA, hence our government would be protecting us from outside attacts as there would be fewer enemies.
Now how to accomplish that is another question. Guns and bombs may or maynot be the answer or appropriate response to percieved threats. I think each case has to be weighed on their own merits. We may be better off influnecing the populations of our enemies through propaganda, education and economics in hopes that they will rebel against their unjust governments and fight their own battles for democracy much as America did during the American Revolution.
But, if you have a country with deep rooted philosiphies and policies and where the country as a whole accepts them and are happy with them, then it shouldn't be of our concern if they convert to a democracy or not. While I believe we have the best style government and enjoy the most freedoms of any country in the world, should it really be our position to impose these principals on other nations who may not subscribe to our way of thinking?
posted by toledodemocrat at 04:04 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
I know this is going to sound stupid and uninformed, but I'm gonna ask anyway. I keep hearing people rant about "War for Oil", and how we are only in Iraq because of oil. I don't know what Iraq exports, other than oil - but I assume they make money on the oil they sell, that we use. IF it is Iraq's main source of income, then aren't we doing a good thing by buying their oil? Nobody is making them sell it to us, are they?
posted by starling02 at 05:30 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
It isn't just as simple as, say, going to a local market and buying their goods which in turn helps to support their store. There has been deals and arrangements dating back from the 1930's with oppressive Middle Eastern regimes that give access for the US and US companies to the country's oil fields in exchange for US arms.
Source: Ex-CIA chief: Oil key to U.S. security
"They also don't want to think about where some of the money goes when they buy gasoline -- to groups that threaten the U.S., Woolsey said. And it's not just terrorists, but established Middle Eastern regimes that restrict women's rights, have poor education systems and fail to invest in their societies."
Perhaps another reason for pissed off ordinary citizens to make the move to extremism. The US, perhaps, is seen as supporting Middle Eastern regimes who've abandoned their citizens. They don't necessarily want us to come over and 'free' them, but rather the US to stop meddling in Middle Eastern affairs.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 05:52 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
To put it in simpler terms, think about how many pissed off Americans there were when we all saw Exxon's profits. Congress, for a brief moment, threw a huge fit and called for a windfall tax so the American people would share in the profit. Obviously, that didn't happen.
Now, think of Middle Eastern regimes as Exxon. So basically, the regimes win (with money and US weapons) while its' citizens lose.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 05:59 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
I know this is going to sound stupid and uninformed, but I'm gonna ask anyway. I keep hearing people rant about "War for Oil", and how we are only in Iraq because of oil.
The truth is, Iraq is not a huge oil exporting country, but they were the easiest to take over and set up a presence in the area of the world where the majority of the oil is. The war in Iraq is the cost of keeping our easy-motoring way of life going. Until we get serious about ending our national investment in suburban sprawl, more wars like this are the answer.
posted by Kevin at 07:52 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
Good points have been made here and there are surely hundreds of policies that cause other nations to dislike the US.
T++ & Muddville, you won't get any exerpts from Bush or Cheney speech from me. I'm not a student of politics and I wasn't trying to make a political statement. I was expressing my opinion that Rooney's comments were out of line as a lead-in for a 2-hour documentary on the horrors that happened that day.
Maybe I started waiving the flag a bit too much, but the events of the day have that effect on me.
posted by jimavolt at 08:01 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
It is a hard day. September 11th is the Pearl Harbor of my generation. Harder on my parents...they have memories of both.
I heard an Englishman on the news this morning. He said his heart goes out to America when he thinks about that day - but now we know what much of the world lives with.
posted by katie82640 at 08:14 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
jimavolt,
And lucky for us living in this great country, we have that opportunity to agree, disagree, exhange ideas and thoughts, criticize and scrutinize. I didn't mean to come off as attacking your opinion, but I do have a problem when opinions are construed as facts. People actually feel others hate us for being free, and I blame that on Bush and Cheney. Bush uses it as a rallying cry for his failed policies. It's the same tactic Osama bin Laden uses to recruit his followers. Pissed off Middle Eastern Muslims who feel strongly about being exploited by the United States.
posted by ToledoPlusPlus at 08:21 P.M. EST on Mon Sep 11, 2006 #
60 minutes should be put out to pasture, not just Rooney. And it should've been done years ago.
posted by Darkseid at 02:38 A.M. EST on Tue Sep 12, 2006 #
Andy Rooney, George Clooney, Rosie O'Donnell, they're all the same - hollywood or tv celebrities that have an opinion that they think everyone else wants to hear.
There's nothin wrong with havin an opinion and free speech, but when I am given the same opportunity as they are to voice MY opinions, then I'll stop bitchin about it.
They think that their "celebrity" status gives them some kind of special right to spew their political views.
People that have their own radio show have earned the right to do it. It's their vocation/job to do it, but these celebrities are just actors and comedians. Some of them are even high school dropouts.
They make me sick.
Only in America can someone do what they do, so that is the flip side of the coin. Freedom in this country to be an ass publicly. I love it!
posted by Str8talkNoBull at 08:47 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 14, 2006 #
I wouldn't lump Andy Rooney with George Clooney or Rosie O'Donnell. He's a writer and news commentator. It's his job just as much as it is some radio show host, if not more so. I laugh when people get pissed at actors having an opinion, as if they're not allowed. Just ignore them if it makes you feel better, but they get one vote just like we do.
posted by pink_slip at 09:49 P.M. EST on Thu Sep 14, 2006 #
They think that their "celebrity" status gives them some kind of special right to spew their political views.
It's not so much that they have "special rights"; It is that they have the financial means and connections to make their opinions available to a wider audience.
posted by KraZyKat at 12:38 A.M. EST on Fri Sep 15, 2006 #