Posted on 08/26/2007 12:43:22 PM PDT by SandRat
As the new season of HBO's "Real Time" began Friday night, I watched with great trepidation, especially given host Bill Maher's disgraceful special on that network back in July wherein he spent virtually two-thirds of the program bashing President Bush and anyone with an "R" next to his/her name.
With that in mind, my stomach started turning during his opening monologue as he made joke after joke about our president. I was put in further unease as he introduced his first guest, New York Times correspondent Damien Cave, currently in Baghdad, who seemed likely invited on to speak the liberal party line about how the surge is failing, and how things are much worse in Iraq than the Administration wants to admit.
Miraculously, my concerns were all for naught, for Cave, much like the Times' Baghdad bureau chief John Burns, sees good things happening in Iraq, which appeared to catch Maher off guard. For instance, when Maher asked, "What is the morale of our troops, because I know President Bush always says that the troops are steadfastly all behind him - uh, I have my doubts. What is your view?"
Cave's response was clearly not what Maher was expecting (video available here courtesy of our friend Ms. Underestimated):
You know, it's actually kind of a mixed deal. I mean I talked to a commander the other day who said that the political debate at home is bizarro-land and something that he doesn't connect with at all. He's just here to do his mission. And I think that's probably the view of most soldiers in Iraq. They're just here to do their job and they don't think too much beyond that. Morale, I would say, is probably surprisingly high in some units. And then in other units, there is the sense of ‘well, gosh, is this really working?' ‘why am I here for the third time?' But, I have to say that's probably rare. Most of the units that I spent time with, again are just focused on trying to do the job in front of them. It's about clearing the neighborhood that they're in, or trying to get the guys that they know are there. But you don't hear a whole lot of the chatter that you might hear in Washington when you're out with the soldiers.
This didn't make Maher happy. So like a typical liberal, he moved the argument in the direction of whether or not our enemy was happy:
But what about the morale of the insurgents? Is there any doubt among these people that we are not going to outlast them? I mean we do have debates on how long the surge will last. It seems to be a debate about a matter of months, sometimes a matter of years. Come on...these guys are gonna wait us out for as long as it takes. Isn't that the bottom line in Iraq?
Amazing. Just another liberal who can't possibly believe that America indeed can win this crucial battle in the war on terrorism regardless of what's being said to him by someone there.
However, Maher's position became even more disgusting when he posed the following to Cave:
If Saddam Hussein were alive and running for president right now, and he used the old Reagan line, "Are you better off now than you were four years ago," do you think that would attract voters?"
Extraordinary. Yet, to fully comprehend the nature of this disgraceful question, the reader has to watch the video to see the sickeningly smug look on Maher's face after he posed it. Fortunately, Cave didn't see it Maher's way:
Well, I mean, I have to say that there's a lot of people who do believe that their lives were better under Saddam Hussein. But to think that they would want Saddam Hussein back is I would say probably incorrect. I mean, what they're trying to say when they say that is that "We don't want to be part of an occupation. At least he was one of us, and at least then we knew what the rules were." I mean, in this situation, walking down the street could get you killed for reasons that have nothing to do with anything but your name. Under Saddam Hussein it was a little more organized, and for a lot of people, that's what they'd like to return to. But the idea that Iraqis want a dictatorship is, you know, is something that's, I, I just find hard to believe.
Not for people like Maher, of course, who has stuck to this absurd view for years that Iraqis were actually better off with a murderous dictator than the possibility of democracy. Sadly, Maher wasn't finished trying to get Cave to bash the Administration:
Do we have a moral obligation, you think, to this country that we're not living up to now that we've pretty much wrecked it?
Almost as if Maher wasn't listening to anything this man said, wouldn't you agree? Cave responded:
Well, it's funny, one of the things that comes up a lot here among commanders and among the press corps is the way that the debate at home seems to be mainly focused on the impact on Washington or among constituents. You know, it's hard to see that there is deep, there is some real deep thinking going on about what the moral responsibility is to Iraqis. I think Americans forget often that, as I said, most Iraqis are victims of violence and not perpetrators. And, we, you know, I think the country needs to figure out a way to decide what role we need to play or what the responsibility is. You know, for the Iraqi woman who has three kids and has fled her house, or the college students who I talked to a few months ago who were forced out of their country because they might get killed because they have a degree. You know, what America owes these people is something that at some point public officials and the public at large need to decide and need to think about beyond just the political debates at home.
Exactly right, and something that is missed on folks like Maher.
The reality is that to Maher and his ilk, Iraq is exclusively a political issue at home to be solely used to bash Bush and Republicans. As such, they ignore the millions of Iraqi lives at stake, as well as what happens to the war on terror if America loses this battle.
Sadly for them, this is only about poll numbers and the next election, and this is why folks like Maher and most of the media can't bear the thought of the surge working, and America turning what looked to be a huge loss in this region into an historic victory.
Alas, you have to wonder what kind of a person puts vindication and political opportunism ahead of America and Iraq's future.
“...the Times’ Baghdad bureau chief John Burns...”
Who said the same to a thoroughly confused Charlie Rose last year.
Just Amazing. A NYT correspondent to the right of Maher. Maher is a total jerk,
Bill Maher is a snake...the lowest of the low.
Interesting.
Did the correspondent attribute a lot of the misguided political debate to his own paper and its lies?
Didn't think so.
Mahr is a black propagandist for our enemy. He exists professionally for only one purpose at this time. That is to sow defeatism, division and despair in an effort to secure a victory for our enemy.
He is an active and willing agent of our enemy.
I like "ugly, ignorant, Democratic troll" better.
Ugly Bill Maher doesn’t deserve to live in this country...he should go to any of the Socialist holes he pines for!
The question to liberals is, “If you and your family had to live in Iraq for the rest of your lives, would you want the US to finish this or get out now?”
Why are you then willing to write Iraqis and democracy off?
I can’t stomach watching Maher any longer. It’s been years since I turned his program on and listened to him belch out comments as if on cue from Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden.
I can’t remember hearing of a comment about the war he has made, that wouldn’t have furthered the cause of these two men in some way.
“Wouldn’t Iraq be better if Hussein were still in power?” Just damn, isn’t that a line old Bagdad Bob would have used. “Doesn’t the US owe Iraq more than this. Shouldn’t we just leave?” Wow, I’ll bet Laden would cringe at that question. NOT!
Maher thinks he’s cutting edge. No, he’s just an unwitting appologist for genocidal maniacs. The old poop-head still hasn’t come to grips with the millions who died after this side had their way last time. Now he wants a repeat. Tell you what, if he wants more millions to die, I suggest he and his friends be the first to go. If millions aren’t worth remembering, he and his few thousand fellow travelers sure as hell aren’t.
People of Cambodia and Vietnam who were related to or knew some of the millions who were brutally savaged and or killed, I appologize for my fellow countryman’s ignorance. People of Iraq, this appologist for brutal tyrants and terrorists will not get his way if I can help it.
Bill Maher, you are an ignorant embarassment to the human race. Millions have died due to the interference of people just like you. And you don’t care enough to do a little self-examination and change your ways. You’re a worthless piece of s—t!
People are getting just about all the abortion and sodomy they can possibly handle. What they want, however, is total acceptance of abortion and sodomy on the part of everyone, with no dissent. While Bush and most Republicans pose little threat to abortion and sodomy, they do stand in the way of total acceptance of abortion and sodomy. And that’s why people like Maher hate Bush and Republicans with every fiber of their being. They oppose the war because of that, and no other reason. When did Maher ever raise a peep against the bombing and warmongering of the Rapist?
How does anyone take that Maher creature seriously?
He’s the ultimate 97 pound weakling. Just a sniveling, effiminate little wretch trying to tear down real men.
I've recently read a number of books about America's other wars, notably the War of 1812, Mexican War and WBTS.
Actually, this kind of crap sounds a lot like what went on in those earlier wars. There is nothing new at all about grandstanding congressmen opposing the administration in time of war, both out of conscience and for political advantage. During the Mexican War, one of them was named Abraham Lincoln. During a later war he got to deal with it from the other side.
From what I can see, the only war we didn't have this going on was WWII, during which the obvious existential nature of the war tended to keep criticism under control. We didn't have much during WWI, but that was because Wilson more or less repealed the 1st Amendment for the duration.
Admirable rant.
The commie libs are all alike...this guy is disgusting...
If I were even thinking of getting HBO Maher is enough to make me reconsider.
Thank you.
Apparently Bill O'Reilly does. He had Maher on his show this week and he was actually asking serious questions to Maher as if he had any clue what he was talking about. Maher is a total idiot.
Like many men in Hollywood, small frame, short stature, always surrounded in public places by an entourage of bottom feeders expecting him to pick up the tab. You know the types, REAL FRIENDS!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.