Lou Dobbs ... Con Juevos

[Jeff Thomas]

A rare bird indeed. A CNN reporter con juevos, logic and patriotism for his country. Rare indeed.

http://www.drudgereport.com/lou.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JUNE 06, 2002 18:02:37 ET XXXXX

CNN DOBBS ON HOT SEAT AFTER CALL FOR WAR ON ' ISLAMISTS'

CNN star Lou Dobbs hit maximum controversy after calling for a 'War Against Islamists.'

Dobbs made the comments Wednesday evening during the opening segment of his MONEYLINE program, which airs worldwide on CNN.

Dobbs: "The government and media for the past nine months have called this a war against terror. So have we here. But terror is not the enemy. It is what the enemy wants to achieve. So on this broadcast, we are making a change... in the interests of clarity and honesty. The enemies in this war are radical Islamists who argue all non-believers in their faith must be killed. They are called Islamists. That's why we are abandoning the phrase, "War Against Terror". Let us be clear. This is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them. If ever there were a time for clarity, it is now. We hope our new policy is a step in that direction."

The comments immediately ignited angry phone calls to CNN, according to insiders.

With stunned viewers from Arab countries registering strong complaints.

The Dobbs comments -- which were not labeled commentary -- remained intact during reruns of MONEYLINE.

CNN News Group Chairman Walter Isaacson and Dobbs on Thursday both agreed that Dobbs should explore the "War Against Islamists" -- but in the commentary portion of his show.

Developing...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge

And,

http://money.cnn.com/2002/06/06/commentary/dobbs/dobbsreport/index.htm

Dobbs Report: A war in defense of truth

It's important to describe our enemies honestly, and with as much clarity as possible.
June 6, 2002: 8:09 PM EDT
By Lou Dobbs, Lou Dobbs Moneyline

NEW YORK (CNN) - Last night, I asked for your opinions about the importance of calling this war against those who would destroy this country by an accurate name. And we'll share some of our viewers' opinions with you tonight. I also suggested that "war on terror" is not adequately descriptive, and far too politically correct to have ample meaning, even though that is the term of art favored by the government and the media. Personally, I believe it's important for us to describe our enemies honestly, and with as much clarity as is possible.

We are engaged globally against terrorist enemies far flung... whether in Asia, Africa, or the Middle East. And in each instance, our enemies are Islamists... not Muslims, not Islamics... but Islamists. Last night, I suggested the term War Against Islamists... and we've been talking with experts on Islam and the Middle East for three days about the subject.

This is what three highly-respected authorities had to say on the subject today:

Andrew Winner, Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis:

"What about 'War on Islamist Terrorists'? That way it is not about what they believe, but about what they do to further those beliefs."

Geoff Porter, Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, NYU:

"Osama bin Laden is an Islamist. His Islamism is one strain. I would say Lou is right to say Islamist. Personally, I would like it to be more nuanced. It would be better to say 'Radical Islamist'."

Fawaz Gerges, Author, "America and Political Islam":

"I saw the Dobbs Report last night, and I think the distinction Lou made was brilliant. We are not talking about Muslims or Islam. And he made that distinction. At the same time, Islamists are a highly diverse and complex group.

A Radical Islamist basically subscribes to an ideology that he or she would do anything to bring about the establishment of an Islamic state, including violence."

We'll continue to discuss this on this broadcast, with experts, scholars, and political leaders, as we try to lift the fog of war from our language. Nearly everyone agrees that's important. You and I've begun our dialogue on this issue, and as you know, our viewers' thoughts are important to us.... Let us hear from you on this important matter. moneyline@cnn.com .

Consider visiting www.cnn.com (hold your nose ..), and send a note to CNN / Lou to congratulate him. Hope he has enough juevos to refuse the surely-already-delivered demand for an apology / retraction by CNN management.

Gee. A budding nuclear war between Pakistan and India. Attacks upon innocent civilians in the U.S. Savage, nearly constant attacks upon civilians in Israel. What do these things have in common ... radical, homicidal Islamists. Hello? Let's get a grip here and quit kidding each other. We know the enemy, and it is time to take a lesson from Lou. He is right as rain on this one. And, if peaceful Muslims don't like the message ... well, then they can start putting their own pressure on the murderous thugs that too many of them have sheltered and defended.

Regards from AZ

 

[BigG]

Now, that is a breath of fresh air.

Bet the media elite are crapping their drawers wondering when the other shoe is going to drop...

 

[Russ]

Finally someone with enough guts to state the sentiments of most thinking Americans. I have thought this for some time before the 9-11 murders.

Maybe it's time to re-open places such as Manzanar for some people. No U.S. citizen should be subjected to extra scrtutiny unless it can be proved they have aided and abetted terrorists. Howevr, non-citizens from the middle east should be subject to some scrutiny to prove they are not aiding or are terrorists themselves.

 

[sideshow]

yep any Muslim who had any doubts on weather or not the US was attacking people of their faith doesn't have those doubts anymore. By this reasoning any Christian who uses his faith to attack anybody (pro-life nutjobs) can be shot in the street.

BTW, if you hear anybody use this phrase you can be assured they're a media lapdog and they leave the thinking up to the guys on tv.

 

[Don Gwinn]

By this reasoning any Christian who uses his faith to attack anybody (pro-life nutjobs) can be shot in the street.

Sounds like good reasoning to me. What is your objection to fighting violent nutjobs who attack people because of their faith?

 

[Jeff Thomas]

Whoa!! sideshow, you've got it right. Dead right. Some Christian that attacks me, my family or my community with deadly force, using Christianity as their excuse, then you can bet on it ... they're a dead man.

Message? You want to use religion to gather people in a conspiracy to kill innocent others? Well then, you can expect to be an enemy of the state, and the people. Sounds pretty damn logical to me, my friend.

And, if you don't agree? Then I would say youve chosen your side, my friend.

Regards from AZ

 

[sideshow]

My problem is that a difference between a "religious nutjob" and a some one is just devout is only a matter of opinion. If we call Muslims evil Islamics yet the Christians in the same class of crazyness are just devout. I'm going to be very disapointed in the American people if people see extremely devout Muslims as evil yet see Christians that call for the murders of people at abortion clinics as anything less.

A side note: I don't like Lou Dobbs anyway. He attacked the Justice Dept for falsely (yeah right) accusing Arthur Andersen of illegal accounting practices on national TV while fogetting to mention he mention he used to work for them.

 

[C.R.Sam]

Sideshow....did you miss this.?
"This is not a war against Muslims or Islam. It is a war against Islamists and all who support them."

Sam

 

[Jamie Young]

My problem is that a difference between a "religious nutjob" and a some one is just devout is only a matter of opinion.

But the difference between the fanatical Christianity vs Fanatical Islam issue is, the Fanatical Islam is accepted by a large number of nations and governments spanning the globe. I don't see the Fanatical Protestants with a global network of Protestants going around killing Catholics.


Islam is going to have to reform to fit into Western Civilization. Can it?