Going After Conventional Politics (Leftist Ted Rall interviewed)

Columbia (Univ.) Daily Spectator ^ | 12.2.02 | Paul Morton

[Joe Brower]

"The Pentagon literally wanted us all to die. That's not hyperbole. That's a fact."

No, Ted, that's hyperbole. Because if the Pentagon wanted you dead, your bones would be bleaching under the Afghanistan sun right now.

[Registered]

Rall is certifiable.

[mhking]

Rall is certifiable.

That's one of the more polite things he can be called...

[Captainpaintball]

"If I had more energy, if I wasn't depressed, and if I had been eating, I would definitely have kicked these guys' asses."

Why am I having a hard time believing this?

[anobjectivist]

Oh I believe there is a lot of corruption on every level: media, government, everything, however I would not go as far as to say that the pentagon wanted all the journalists killed or the other extremes mentioned.

[KC_Conspirator]

Ted Rall is a national menace and he is a lunatic. Back in my day, he would have been committed for his insanity or arrested for his sedition, not given a platform to spread his lies on a university campus.

[ClearCase_guy]

I'm not into what I would consider wacky theories. I don't know who killed JFK. Nobody knows.

I submit that any normal person who is "not into" wacky theories would feel fairly comfortably saying that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK. The fact that Rall cannot make that statement tells me that is actually "into" wacky theories.

And I love his statement that Pentagon wanted all the journalists to die in Afghanistan. "That's not hyperbole, that's fact." What a moron.

[wideawake]

The Pentagon literally wanted us all to die. That's not hyperbole. That's a fact. They would have liked every journalist in Afghanistan to die.

No, no, no Teddy boy - that wasn't the Pentagon. That was me.

BTW, the poster who made the JFK comment - thank you. Needed to be said.

[ohioman]

To bad Ted made it back from Ashcanistan alive.

[big gray tabby]

When I read that statement, I thought, "If I didn't know who said that, I'd have bet on Ted Rall."

What a pussy.

[lasereye]

The truth is the guys who pulled this off were all Egyptians and Saudis. There is certainly no evidence whatsoever that ties Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban to what happened."

Since bin Laden is a Saudi this is a non-sequiter, to say the least. Also, no one ever said the Taliban themselves orchestrated 9/11. Just a couple of obviously illogical statements.

Look at the first Gulf War [where there were fewer journalists], where there were an estimated one to four hundred thousand civilian casualties.

What is the source for this amazing figure? Wasn't it far lower than that? Or is he counting as casualties people who've died in the years since as a result of economic deprivation?

[ibbryn]

Compare his statement to what he could'a said:

"I was depressed, hadn't slept, hadn't eaten in three days. I saw those scum trying to kick that coffin out of the barge and I got so pissed I kicked all of their asses. Felt much better afterward."

As already stated, what a pussy.

[Billthedrill]

There is certainly no evidence whatsoever that ties Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or the Taliban to what happened.

Uh, Teddy-boy, welcome to the real world - Osama confessed, no, bragged about it, on videotape. It isn't that there's no evidence, it's that a bunch of stubborn, anti-American ideologues refuse to believe that which has been presented already. It's called "denial," Teddy.

It has been my experience that large, imposing, strongly-opinionated guys who threaten to kick other people's butts tend to cry a lot when their own nose gets punched. Teddy might grow up a bit if somebody would do him that little favor.

[LibertarianInExile]

You know, I'm not anywhere near 100% or even 25% with Ted Rall, but what he's saying about Unocal and the Saudis are pretty well supported. Ask yourself if you're accepting the easy ad hominem instead of considering the argument.

I've heard Rall on the radio. He's a whiny lib. No question. But he's got a pretty good argument of convenience about the U.S. attack on Afghanistan based on some good points about Unocal's attempts to get a pipeline and the other lousy options that oil companies had compared to it. And as to Osama's confession, I'm no ideologue in stating that he was there in Afghanistan, Al Queda was involved, and he seemed to certainly approve, but I don't recall him ever saying 'we did it.' Maybe I'm wrong there. Please, seriously, link me to the site that points that out, because I'd definitely LIKE to be proved wrong there.

But the Unocal argument isn't so crazy. Sorry to provide someone like Rall backup. It's just he did a pretty good job of backing it up himself.

Apres moi, le deluge...

[pikachu]

"I felt guilty as an American, paying taxes and tolerating the regime that carries out such barbarism in the name of democracy and freedom.

Hey Teddy, there is no law keeping you from moving to some other country permanently and not have to pay US taxes.

[Billthedrill]

I don't have a link to that tape and I'm unaware of its net presence, if any, but when a guy says something to the effect of "we had planned for casualties where the planes hit, but the entire building coming down was a blessing from Allah," I'm afraid I have to conclude that he wasn't exactly as pure as the driven snow in the matter. But if Rall is right, we didn't really do it for antiterrorism at all, it was all Bush and his big-oil buddies after that UNOCAL pipeline and the vast oil reserves in Afghanistan...neither of which exist. That is one little problem with that theory, but not for Rall.

What is maddening about this is the persistent and repeated demand "prove it to me, no I don't believe it, prove it to me, no, I don't believe it" mantra coming from the left much more eager for a conspiracy theory than to accept the possibility that perhaps Bush attacked al Qaeda in Afghanistan for precisely the reason that he said he did. Further, to argue, as Rall did, that "nothing has changed" in Afghanistan afterward, is a denial of a reality so complete that it obviates debate on the subject - a very great deal has changed, and anyone who doesn't believe it is free to go and ask the Afghan people. That, by the way, is the very first thing that has changed.

"It's all about oil" has been the stale old complaint of the left ever since Vietnam, about which the very same accusation was bruited about with abandon. That would be the same oil that is currently flowing from Afghanistan - none at all.

[Billthedrill]

Great heavens, I did find it - it's

HERE.

"We calculated in advance the casualties of the enemy." Yeah, no proof. Right, Ted...

[big gray tabby]

Or when he claimed that many of the "martyrs" did not know their mission was a suicide mission. What more do you need to hear from the guy?

The pipeline story always slays me. Here's a dump of a country with little to offer in the way of resources. They may have an opportunity to make a shekel or two by allowing an oil company to put a pipeline through the dump. This is a bad thing?

Even were it true, that we're going to build this pipeline through there, are they making the ANWR argument? That pristine Afghanistan shouldn't be spoiled by an ugly pipeline?

And in order to believe this pipeline was motivation for attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan, don't you have to ignore the fact that we gave them three weeks to hand Osama and his boys over?

[weegee]

He's also an admited anarchist-socialist. He does not appreciate or honor our form of government. His political opinions mean nothing to me; if he wants to write about lousy prices secondhand resale agents (used books and albums) that's fine.

If he wants to discuss how white collar workers are exploited in the workplace (not proposing that they unionize, just his trying to understand why workers are "proud" when they realize that they are living in the realm mocked by Dilbert) that's okay too.

But in general, Ted does not take a position that supports the nation that provides him a freedom to dissent. Oddly enough, Ted Rall supported the position that Bill Clinton should have been impeached and removed from office for perjury. Didn't see any articles rallying around Rall to defend that "difficult" or "unpopular" position. I witnessed this firsthand at a symposium of his peers at OSU. Those on the left at that forum that we attended sure didn't support that notion.