Video: Bozell, Colmes spar on meaning of Turner’s remark
posted at 11:16 am on October 11, 2006 by Ian
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
MRC’s Brent Bozell was on last night’s Hannity & Colmes to discuss Ted Turner’s treacherous remarks about the War on Terror. At the end of the segment Bozell got in a somewhat heated argument with liberal co-host Alan Colmes concerning whether Turner was speaking about Iraq or the War on Terror.
Colmes, as you can expect, claims Turner’s remark was about Iraq, not the War on Terror. Colmes said Turner “made the mistake” of saying with us or against us. Since when did he become Ted Turner’s press agent? Everyone knows that the “with us or against us” remark is in reference to the War on Terror. More on this below.
ALAN COLMES: The question, was whether the Iraq war, Brent, was a good idea.
### BRENT BOZELL: Look, it doesn’t matter what the question was, his answer specifically twice referenced the War on Terror, not Iraq.
COLMES: Not specifically.
BOZELL: His answer referenced the War on Terror.
COLMES: He made the mistake of saying ‘with us or against us’ pertains to Iraq.
BOZELL: — on the War on Terror.
COLMES: But the question was about Iraq.
BOZELL: No, no.
COLMES: He clarified what he meant.
BOZELL: He specifically talked about the War on Terror, Alan. And look, you show me where Ted Turner has ever rallied American support around the War on Terror.
Here’s what Turner said:
TED TURNER: There are a lot of things about this war that disturb me and one of them is the attitude, that you know, that was well expressed by our President. He said it very clearly, he said either you’re with us or you’re against us. And I had a problem with that because I really hadn’t made my mind up yet. You know, what if you haven’t made your mind up? You know, what if you’re thinking about it, doing some studying, doing some reading because it’s an important decision to go to war or whether or not to go to war. I mean, you’re either with us or you’re against us, that’s pretty black and white.
The “you’re with us or you’re against us” quote that Turner butchered was referring to the War on Terror, Iraq. The real quote is: “you’re either with us or against us in the fight against terror.” President Bush said this in November of 2001, seventeen months prior to the invasion of Iraq, as noted in today’s Vent.
Newsbusters has the entire video.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
So, there’s no room for thinking about it? How about if I am partly with you, insofar as wanting to protect American civilians, but not so much with you when it comes to bombing civilians? Any room for that?
GregH on October 11, 2006 at 11:57 AM
Colmes is so dizzy from his own spinning he doesn’t know what’s what anymore.
Lawrence on October 11, 2006 at 11:59 AM
I was unaware, Greg, that bombing civilians was part of the GWoT.
I think all Americans are against the bombing of civilians. Which is why we don’t do it.
Hoodlumman on October 11, 2006 at 12:01 PM
I think you should break out your history books. Nagasaki ring a bell? Hiroshima? You think those bombs falling in Iraq or Afghanistan don’t kill women and children? Pretty difficult to ferret out the good guys from the bad guys at 30,000 feet…
GregH on October 11, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Like most Bush-haters, Turner has taken a quote of the President’s out of context and uses it for his own purposes. And Colmes follows along. It is the same as the lib meme that President Bush said the sole reason for invading Iraq was WMDs, when that was one of a dozen-and-a-half statements in the war resolution.
Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 12:06 PM
Maybe the Gloablist TT has lost the grasp of the English language being spoken in context. Having interperters translate for him all the time has made his brain lazy? Maybe he could hire AP to translate English for him? TT is the same guy who thinks KJ IL is a good guy and I believe TT wanted to have a playground park built where the DMZ is between NK and SK. Wacko!
Drtuddle on October 11, 2006 at 12:08 PM
The insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan hide behind civilians, GregH, so how are civilian deaths to be completely avoided?
I take issue with the Rosie O’Donnels who accuse my husband of intentionally targeting and killing innocent men, women, and children. And this is exactly what I inferred from your post.
BlueStateBlues on October 11, 2006 at 12:14 PM
GregH on October 11, 2006 at 12:04 PM
Why dont you move to Japan in 1944…Oh you cant. Or Poland, or France. We know you cant be jewish, because there were 6 MILLION innocents killed for NO reason, you might shut up if you understood evil. OK? So move NOW to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran , North Korea. Those atomic weapons used in a world war SAVED MILLIONS of lives, and I’d do it again in a second. Maybe you’re of fighting age? Probably not, just a mouth of rhetoric with stupid half truths and no real point. Monologue-ist drive-by.
And No, I wont recognize you again, ever.
shooter on October 11, 2006 at 12:35 PM
BSB: Unfortunately, the libs have no understanding or won’t acknowledge how much restraint our forces use in carrying out thier duties. Because they use “moral equivalency” reasoning, they assume that since the terrorists have no qualms about blowing up civilians, our forces act in the same manner. I have seen it stated that our troops are fighting with “one hand tied behind their backs.”
Mallard T. Drake on October 11, 2006 at 12:35 PM
Who really cares what ‘Turd’ Turner says or thinks? He is a total nut case and should just be ignored. Allan Colmes is also a turd.
OBX Pete on October 11, 2006 at 1:48 PM
shooter, Burma (Myanmar), the Sudan, Darfur in specific, and Cuba would be nice too – no, oh no, they never kill civilians there either…no, sir!
GregH and his, and the U.N., are too multi-culti and elitist to address this. They love dictators but never want to live under them.
Entelechy on October 11, 2006 at 1:52 PM
I love to hear liberals analyze military tactics. The decisions to bomb civilian populations during WWII were made in a time when millions of American soldier’s lives were in the balance. Leaders determined that saving American lives was paramount in a war of aggression that was started by the Japanese. The bombing of the civilian population was caused by the Japanese leaderships decision to place their industrial machine in the midst of the civilian population. You do remember “cause and effect” from school? Also, those were extremely different times.
We, the military, take extreme caution to minimize civilian casualties, sometimes to the extent of causing danger to our military. Yes, mistakes do happen and civilians are accidently killed but this is for from the norm. Do not bother telling me about soldiers being charged with killing civilians without just cause. These individuals are being tried and you have NO CONCEPT of what led to their actions. Unjustified as it is you do not have a clue.
usarmyretired on October 11, 2006 at 2:00 PM
GregH,
I thank you for being around. Can’t yet tell if you are really as inane as your attempts at political rhetoric suggest, or if you are one of us using this facade to keep us on our toes about why we believe what we do. It really doesn’t matter which, the little fizzle-grenades you toss hoping to shake our foundation serve only to bring out the bedrock truth of an issue, and that is to be commended.
And now for some analysis…
It is such a convenient argument to say that you are for protecting Americans but against killing civilians. I wonder if it would surprise you to know that pretty much EVERY AMERICAN feels the same way. But you know, protecting Americans requires more than words. Believe it or not, it often requires guns and bombs. Please, do some detailed historical research and you will discover that no military force in the history of the world ever spent as much effort in trying to avoid hitting the wrong things, and none has ever been more successful in that regard. The following is from the Presidential speech given after we assumed total control of Baghdad in May, 2003:
You can dare to call such a statement a platitude, but since it is obvious that you have never worn a uniform you can’t fathom how much it means to those of us who served that our military can achieve objectives against an enemy without having to destroy a society. Never before in history has that been possible.
Again, I call upon your vast personal experience to tell us just how difficult it is to hit what you are aiming for.
The bottom line is this. President Bush declared the following on 20 September 2001:
Exactly which words of that are you uncertain about? The good news is, thanks to the bravery and sacrifice of those who employ bombs, bullets and bodies in armed conflict, you retain the freedom to be flippant about the cost of freedom.
Freelancer on October 11, 2006 at 3:29 PM
The President also said it on Sept. 20, 2001, in similar words; see Freelancer’s link and quote, above.
Entelechy on October 11, 2006 at 3:46 PM
In all defense of Ted, he has supported the war on Terror. The Terror of Western Civilization…. :rolleyes:
Tim Burton on October 11, 2006 at 8:39 PM
GregH, your naiveté is endearing, however it exposes the flaw in your logic. To wit, when viewing the world through rose colored glasses one can actually see a world with no conflict. However, in reality, we know mankind is, by nature, violent. And in order to protect ourselves, our interests, our future we must, at times, use great, even unthinkable, violence as a means to a more peaceful end.
In those instances civilians do endure some of the horrors confluent to military action – this has been true throughout history. It’s a cold, ugly fact and will continue to be so. It’s one of the reasons why we should never let loose the dogs of war lightheartedly.
Just as we endured civilian casualties in 9/11, the enemy should expect the same. In fact we should reciprocate civilian casualties in such a disproportionate manner that it would shock the conscience of even the most radical fundamentalist….think Dresden, Kobe and Osaka. Their losses should be so great and unbearable that they can no longer continue to bring the fight as the ensuing losses could not be withstood.
This idea of an antiseptic war is the pipedream of desk jockeys and politicians. Until we get the stomach of our forefathers for the violence germane to war and take this fight outside the politically correct box it has been put in by the international community we will continue to be our own worst enemy.
Alden Pyle on October 12, 2006 at 9:55 AM
Eureka! That’s it. I’ve been searching for an answer to the question of why a liberal American would favor a blood-thirsty animal who kills and maims in the name of a holy war over the republic founded on the principle of individual liberty, and the answer has been right there in front of me the entire time. Thanks Alden.
Jihad Envy!
The massive internal conflict of a person who pretends to pacifism, while desperately wishing he could choke the life out of anyone who sees a valid reason for a just conflict, must be immense. With the tiny shred of sanity remaining to them, they can see that taking violent action to make the point that violence solves nothing would be a bad move, so they adopt the terrorists as emotional proxies. “America had it coming!”, they cry.
Now if I could only figure out why the islamo-terrorists would prefer that America elect politicians who are pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-pornography, pro-alcohol, and anti-religion.
Freelancer on October 12, 2006 at 7:55 PM
Comment pages: