Fisking Kristof



It's time for that right honorable blogger activity borne of frustration: the Fisking. Today's victim: today's New York Times op-ed column by centrist liberal Nicholas Kristof. Kristof, some will recall, believed that the war in Iraq should be given a chance to succeed because there was always a chance that some good might come out of it.



Oh, and before I start: the book offer (scroll below) remains in force. For now.



Calling Bush a Liar

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF



So is President Bush a liar?



Plenty of Americans think so. Bookshops are filled with titles about Mr. Bush like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," "Big Lies," "Thieves in High Places" and "The Lies of George W. Bush."



A consensus is emerging on the left that Mr. Bush is fundamentally dishonest, perhaps even evil — a nut, yes, but mostly a liar and a schemer. That view is at the heart of Michael Moore's scathing new documentary, "Farenheit 9/11."



In the 1990's, nothing made conservatives look more petty and simple-minded than their demonization of Bill and Hillary Clinton, who were even accused of spending their spare time killing Vince Foster and others. Mr. Clinton, in other words, left the right wing addled. Now Mr. Bush is doing the same to the left. For example, Mr. Moore hints that the real reason Mr. Bush invaded Afghanistan was to give his cronies a chance to profit by building an oil pipeline there.

Kristof seems like a smart guy, but he displays one of the quintessential personality traits of a moron: the unwillingness to check things out for himself. A quick run of Nexis/Lexis would bring up hundreds of articles from mainstream news sources--the BBC, even the Times itself--that confirm the Administration's prurient interest in building the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline. This is not the stuff of conspiracy. It's fact, as lazy journalists like Kristof would learn if they started turning over a few rocks now and then.



Did conservatives look bad in the '90s? I guess not, since they now control all three branches of government.

"I'm just raising what I think is a legitimate question," Mr. Moore told me, a touch defensively, adding, "I'm just posing a question."



Right. And right-wing nuts were "just posing a question" about whether Mr. Clinton was a serial killer.



I'm against the "liar" label for two reasons. First, it further polarizes the political cesspool, and this polarization is making America increasingly difficult to govern. Second, insults and rage impede understanding.

By this reasoning, calling Hitler a murderer created polarization in Germany. Bush is a repeated, sociopathic, over-the-top liar; what's the matter with saying so? Maybe, with luck, he'll respond to his critics by, well, telling the truth. Rage? Anyone who doesn't feel rage at the stolen 2000 election, two illegal wars that have killed tens of thousands and injured hundreds of thousands of people, and transforming a government with a balanced budget into a debt-ridden mess is devoid of thought, much less emotional response mechanisms.

Lefties have been asking me whether Mr. Bush has already captured Osama bin Laden, and whether Mr. Bush will plant W.M.D. in Iraq. Those are the questions of a conspiracy theorist, for even if officials wanted to pull such stunts, they would be daunted by the fear of leaks.

I don't subscribe to either of those theories. But why be so quick to dismiss the possibility? This Administration, after all, still wants Americans to believe that Saddam, and not Osama, was responsible for 9/11.

Bob Woodward's latest book underscores that Mr. Bush actually believed that Saddam did have W.M.D. After one briefing, Mr. Bush turned to George Tenet and protested, "I've been told all this intelligence about having W.M.D., and this is the best we've got?" The same book also reports that Mr. Bush told Mr. Tenet several times, "Make sure no one stretches to make our case."



In fact, of course, Mr. Bush did stretch the truth. The run-up to Iraq was all about exaggerations, but not flat-out lies. Indeed, there's some evidence that Mr. Bush carefully avoids the most blatant lies — witness his meticulous descriptions of the periods in which he did not use illegal drugs.

Obviously someone at the Times read my column from last week. Do I get royalties or a footnote?

True, Mr. Bush boasted that he doesn't normally read newspaper articles, when his wife said he does. And Mr. Bush wrongly claimed that he was watching on television on the morning of 9/11 as the first airplane hit the World Trade Center. But considering the odd things the president often says ("I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family"), Mr. Bush always has available a prima facie defense of confusion.



Mr. Bush's central problem is not that he was lying about Iraq, but that he was overzealous and self-deluded. He surrounded himself with like-minded ideologues, and they all told one another that Saddam was a mortal threat to us. They deceived themselves along with the public — a more common problem in government than flat-out lying.

Did Kristof really read "Plan of Attack"? The book, which the Republican Party has officially approved, doesn't read like paranoid lunatics working themselves up into a lather. It reads like determined ideologues using 9/11 as a pretext to do what they wanted to do years ago: invade Iraq. And if Kristof is right, what kind of defense is that? I'd rather be led by lying fascists like the Bushies I perceive than the delusional psychopaths Kristof portrays.

Some Democrats, like Mr. Clinton and Senator Joseph Lieberman, have pushed back against the impulse to demonize Mr. Bush. I salute them, for there are so many legitimate criticisms we can (and should) make about this president that we don't need to get into kindergarten epithets.

Great. Two Republicans-in-Democrats-clothing defend Bush. Big deal.

But the rush to sling mud is gaining momentum, and "Farenheit 9/11" marks the polarization of yet another form of media. One medium after another has found it profitable to turn from information to entertainment, from nuance to table-thumping.

Or, alternatively, the American people are turning to formats whose practitioners are honest enough to say in public what people like Kristof believe privately. The "polarization" that Kristof derides has been with us for years. Now it's out in the open, where we can have an open exchange of ideas. Kristof's whining reminds one of genteel Southerners decrying unruly civil rights protesters. Why can't the oppressed be more polite?

Talk radio pioneered this strategy, then cable television. Political books have lately become as subtle as professional wrestling, and the Internet is adding to the polarization. Now, with the economic success of "Farenheit 9/11," look for more documentaries that shriek rather than explain.

What's there to explain, Nick? Haven't you read your own paper for the last three years? For Chrissake, man, your "president" opened concentration camps, encouraged torture and disappeared thousands of innocent people! Your "president" is a neofascist. People need to wake up and channel their anger. Explanation time is over; perhaps we can find you a tutor so you can catch up with the rest of the class.

It wasn't surprising when the right foamed at the mouth during the Clinton years, for conservatives have always been quick to detect evil empires. But liberals love subtlety and describe the world in a palette of grays — yet many have now dropped all nuance about this president.

Alleluia! It's about time.

Mr. Bush got us into a mess by overdosing on moral clarity and self-righteousness, and embracing conspiracy theories of like-minded zealots. How sad that many liberals now seem intent on making the same mistakes.  

All we're doing is fighting fire with fire. Don't worry, we can all go back to sipping sherry while listening to NPR after we get our country back.

San Diego Union-Tribune Reviews GENERALISSIMO EL BUSHO



The San Diego Union-Tribune Book Review has reviewed my new collection of Bush-era essays and cartoons GENERALISSIMO EL BUSHO:

Mixing incendiary prose with disturbing, deceptively simple, quasi-cubist art, Ted Rall's "Generalissimo El Busho: Essays & Cartoons on the Bush Years" (Nantier Beall Minoustchine, $19.95) will have you seething in five pages flat. Four, maybe. Exactly why Rall ticks you off will tell your whole story, bucko. Three pages should do it. Two, maybe. Introduction by Tom Tomorrow. Keep a defib handy.

Boston Globe Mention



Alex Beam reviews the "Killed!" anthology in today's Boston Globe.



Beam mentions my 1997 essay "To Hell With Father's Day":

Another gem is Ted Rall's scathing Father's Day "tribute" to the man who abandoned him and his mother. After an attempted reconciliation, Rall's father reneged on a promise to pay his son's college tuition, just as the boy was packing his bags for Columbia. "This year on Father's Day, I'm calling my real dad," Rall writes. "I'm calling Mom." The New York Times Magazine killed the essay. "I heard that it made some influential people on West Forty-Third Street feel `uncomfortable,' " Rall recounts.

I'd Like to Defend Michael Moore, But—



Christopher Hitchens and other neoconservative critics are all over Moore's new "Fahrenheit 9/11" like flies on shit. And if half the stuff they say is true, well, that'd be terrible for him, for moviegoers, and for patriots (i.e., Americans who see Bush as the neofascist that he is). Of course, it's entirely possible that they are lying. You know, as usual.



Anyway, Hitchens especially focuses on the film's discussion of the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project and the war in Afghanistan—pet topics of mine, as readers know. I'd sure love to know who's on the side of the angels here, but there's no way. Why? Because Mike didn't bother to save one of the several thousand seats at Manhattan's Ziegfield Theater premiere for the only writer in America who has actually written an entire book about the pipeline and the Afghan war. I didn't see the film, and as a resident of NYC will not go see it until several days after it opens. I'm too busy to wait in line, you know?



So, Moore aficianados, if you wonder why so many lefties seem to leave Mike twisting in the wind while the rightist vultures peck away at him, now you know. You wanna help out, you really do, but the dude just won't let you.

Limited Offer: Signed Copies of WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL and GENERALISSIMO EL BUSHO



As long as they and I last--probably a month or two--you can buy your copies of my new books WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL: HOW WE CAN TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE RIGHT and GENERALISSIMO EL BUSHO: ESSAYS AND CARTOONS ON THE BUSH YEARS directly from me. And I'll sign the books to whomever you want!



Here's what you do:



1. Send an email to me at chet@rall.com letting me know: (a) your address, (b) which books you want, (c) how many of each you want, and (d) how you'd like them all signed. I'll email you back; don't do anything until you hear back from me.



2. Figure out your payment. WAKE UP is $15.95 a copy. Priority mail is $3.95 to anyplace in the United States, so send me $20 (money order or check) for EACH copy of WAKE UP you want. EL BUSHO is available in hardback and softback. EL BUSHO hardback is $19.95 each, so send me $24 for each EL BUSHO hardback. EL BUSHO paperback is $13.95 so send me $19 for each EL BUSHO paperback.



3. Send your payment to:



Ted Rall

P.O. Box 1134

New York NY 10027



4. Payments by cash or money order result in quick shipping, within a week. Checks must clear first, so that means more like 2-3 weeks.



5. EXTRA BONUS OFFER: For an extra $50, I'll throw in a unique 7x10 sketch of whatever I feel like--a rough draft of a published cartoon, an EL BUSHO, whatever. I'll even take a request--but won't honor it unless I feel like it. I will only do this for people who buy at least two books. Price is $200 for all others.



6. I will post notice on the Rallblog when this offer expires.

Frank Rich



There's a small reference to me in tomorrow's New York Times.



Brilliant media and culture columnist Frank Rich writes:

To conservatives, anyone who opted for even modest restraint in Reagan coverage (like The New York Times, with its three-column headline announcing his death) was guilty of insufficient sentimentality; anyone who criticized the man was a traitor. "Thoughtless, mean, hateful" were just some of the epithets heaped by Fox's Sean Hannity on a rare Reagan dissenter who showed his face on TV, the political cartoonist Ted Rall.

Fahrenheit 9/11



My best friend the film critic saw it at Cannes. He says it's great; we should see it.



That said, there's something a little odd about the way publicity for this film has been handled that demonstrates how disorganized and plain stupid the American Left is so often.



There was a sneak preview of the film a few days ago here in New York City. One would think that Michael Moore and the film's promoters would want people like me to attend. Who knows? I might write something up.



In reality, I receive more offers and free tickets to attend right-wing and Republican functions than from liberals. I didn't get invited to the screening, an advance DVD, or jack shit. Many of my fellow liberal-minded cartoonists and columnists say they get treated the same way. Is it any wonder that the majority's progressive message can't get out? We're disorganized as hell.



Moore DID invite, however, right-wing Fox demagogue Bill O'Reilly.



Nice priorities, Mike.

Errata Slip For This Week's Column



Several readers wrote to point out a glitch of omission in this week's op/ed column:

Great column on the potential downfall of Kerry picking McCain as a running mate. One minor historical quibble, however. You mention 1796 as the last time a cross-party ticket was elected. I believe in 1864 Lincoln was re-elected on a "National Union" ticket with Democrat Andrew Johnson as his running mate. This even emphasizes your point, as that match didn't turn out that well, either.

They're right.

Killed: Great Journalism Too Hot to Print



I have an essay in a anthology of essays killed by newspapers and magazines called KILLED.



My essay, about Father's Day, was killed by the New York Times Magazine in 1997 because it struck one of the editors a little too close to home. There are also 23 other awesome killed essays, mostly by better and more famous writers than me, so check it out and buy it!

The Pointless Death of David Johnson



In the grim calculus of death and mayhem in the Middle East, the videotaped beheadings of Nick Berg and Paul Johnson are somehow supposed to count as "told you sos" for the prowar right wing. The brutality of the killings, coupled with the grisly footage thereof, are supposed to elicit disgust, not just for the men who murdered these men but by extension to the Iraqi resistance and Muslims in general.



Obviously the murderers are first and foremost to blame. But a share of the responsibility also lies at the feet of those who have made America so despised throughout the world: presidents, policymakers and spooks past and present. They made "American" a dirty word. They made Americans targets.



It's also true that Mssrs. Berg and Johnson took a risk by, respectively, traveling to the active war zone of occupied Iraq and, in Mr. Johnson's case, working in Saudi Arabia—a nation ruled by a widely despised U.S.-puppet dictatorship under siege from internal dissidents and outside Islamists. Having a risk go bad doesn't make one responsible for the consequences, but the risk should be acknowledged. Both men would be alive today had they chosen to work in stable, democratic nations.



Johnson's killers are naive if they believe that Americans or their Saudi puppets will release prisoners or alter any of their policies in response to his beheading. Ditto with the Al Qaeda group that killed Berg. Americans are revulsed by these deaths, but they don't change anybody's minds. Supporters of U.S. foreign policy under Bush view the deaths as confirmation that Arabs are inhuman; opponents see them as further indicators that we should act to become less reviled.



As we consider these gruesome murders, we should consider them on par with the gruesome murders of 800+ American servicemen and women and close to 100,000 Iraqi and Afghan civilians and soldiers killed during Bush's two wars. Bush's hands are dripping with their blood, just as surely as the men who drew the knives across Berg and Johnson's throats. They're all tragic; unnecessary and pointless. The difference is that their deaths aren't on tape.



And even if they were—as we see in the case of the still yet to be seen Anu Ghraib videos—the American media wouldn't broadcast them.

The Critics Chime in on WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL!



I've been nervously awaiting critical reaction to my first all-prose political book, WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL: HOW WE CAN TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE RIGHT.



Early indications are good.



As you might expect, Press Action takes issue with my belief that the Democratic Party can be saved. But overall they like it.



And Las Vegas City Life calls it "a powerful, persuasive call to arms."

When's the Right Time?



Dan Rather spoke for many last week when he suggested that the time for a balanced, non-gauzy analysis of the Reagan presidency would be after he was interred.



That was last weekend. Which means we should expect a sober look at the good, the bad and the ugly. This week.



So where is it? A search of major newspapers finds that the number of pieces offering a critical look at Reagan this week is:



Zero.



Which is why I and Christopher Hitchens and others offered our corrective to the Republicans' mass masturbation ceremony last week. Because, when it comes to speaking ill of the Republican dead, there's really never a right time.

Leaving Baghdad



I've been saying it for more than a year: no occupying army has ever been viewed with anything other than distaste by its subjects, and Iraq is no different.



Now Michael Hirsh, writing in Newsweek, has dug up a poll of Iraqi public opinion the Colonial Provisional Authority tried to keep secret—because it shows that the people of Iraq, contrary to statements from the White House and their media parrots, hate our guts and want us to get out of their country.

The first survey of Iraqis sponsored by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal shows that most say they would feel safer if Coalition forces left immediately, without even waiting for elections scheduled for next year. An overwhelming majority, about 80 percent, also say they have “no confidence” in either the U.S. civilian authorities or Coalition forces. Sixty-seven percent of those surveyed also said they believed violent attacks have increased around the country because “people have lost faith in the Coalition forces.”



The poll numbers were reflected in the anger seen in the streets of Baghdad after a series of car bombings on Monday. While U.S forces and Iraqi police hung back, crowds set some of the vehicles on fire, threw bricks and shouted insults at U.S. soldiers. According to the poll, a mere 1 percent of Iraqis now feel that the Coalition forces contribute most to their sense of security; only 18 percent described Iraqi police the same way. By contrast, a total of 71 percent said they depended mostly on their family and friends and neighbors for security.



The poll results, which have not been released publicly but were obtained by NEWSWEEK, indicate that the April publication of photos depicting the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison accelerated a long-term decline in support for the U.S. occupation. Of the Iraqis surveyed, 71 percent said they had been surprised by the Abu Ghraib revelations. Most, however, said they now believe the abuses were widespread. Fifty-four percent agreed with the statement that “all Americans behave this way,” and 61 percent said they believed no one would be punished for the abuses. A CPA spokesman said Tuesday that he had not yet examined the numbers.



The poll reflects an inexorable decline in support for the U.S. occupation since the fall of Baghdad over a year ago. In November 2003, 47 percent of those surveyed still expressed confidence in the CPA; those figures plummeted to 9 percent in April and 11 percent in May. In the latest survey, 81 percent of Iraqis also expressed “no confidence” in Coalition forces. Seventy-eight percent expressed the same grim opinion of the outgoing CPA, which is slated to dissolve when sovereignty is handed over to the interim government on June 30.

There is no good news out of Iraq, and it's only going to get worse. There is zero chance of this misadventure working out. Let's bring our troops home, begin to restore honor to our nation and start to atone for what we've done.



Then brace for the blowback: Iraq, and possibly Turkey, in civil war. All courtesy of Bush and his media suck-ups.

GENERALISSIMO EL BUSHO Hits Stores Next Week







WAKE UP, YOU'RE LIBERAL: HOW WE CAN TAKE AMERICA BACK FROM THE RIGHT is my new political manifesto that tells Democrats, the Left and progressive organizations how they can make a comeback and why most Americans are liberal--but don't know it.



But if you're looking for my infamous cartoons and columns from the soon to come to an end Bush era, you also need the perfect companion piece: GENERALISSIMO EL BUSHO: ESSAYS AND CARTOONS FROM THE BUSH YEARS, which is being released in both hardback and paperback.



EL BUSHO contains more than 60 columns, speeches and non-archived essays about the stolen 2000 election, 9/11, the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq and the neofascist Bush regime's attacks on our precious freedoms. These are clarion calls from the wilderness, declarations of anger and patriotism issued from the front lines of political battle. These cartoons and essays resulted in calls for my being imprisoned or executed by public officials and were, until recently, among the few mainstream voices of dissent in this country.



Sprinkled liberally (of course!) throughout the 208-page tome are my best and most notorious cartoons from 2000 to 2004. Bear in mind: there are currently no plans to issue a book that just collects my cartoons.



You can order EL BUSHO now through Amazon or get it anywhere where books are sold except WalMart.

Democrats Under Siege



As Generalissimo El Busho's polls drop, the Bushies are becoming desperate. Which means that to espouse left-of-center politics these days is a dangerous business.



People like me, Michael Moore, Al Franken and Bill Maher have been targeted by right-wing hate groups and their repugnant anonymous warblogger allies. Their goal is to deny us an income and a voice by deluging our employers with hate email--99% of it from people who don't actually read the publications in which we appear. Because the right can't win the battle of ideas, they're forced to resort to the next best thing: silencing their opponents.



Make no mistake: it's neo-McCarthyism, and it's been in full swing since 9/11.



There is, however, something that you can do.



When you see a cartoon or movie or column or other form of expression that you agree with, don't just smile and turn the page. Send an email or, better yet, a real letter to the editor. Thank them for supporting work you enjoy and/or consider important, and ask your friends to do the same. If you have a website or liberal-minded blog, post a link so other likeminded souls can do the same. And, of course, buy their books. Among cartoonists, readers are notorious for requesting cartoon collections that they don't support by purchasing.



I'm still getting emails from readers of New York Times Digital and MSNBC.com asking where my cartoons went. If these fans and others like them had written to say they liked my stuff when it was still around, they probably wouldn't have to ask now.

The Guardian UK on Ted Rall



The venerable UK Guardian, the paper that keeps many Americans sane and informed during the Bush occupation, has an article about yours truly in today's edition.

'HUMOUR IS HIS OFFENSIVE WEAPON'

He mocked 9/11 widows and a dead president. But Ted Rall is one of the few prepared to take on the US right

by John Sutherland



It's harder to offend people than it used to be. Young Stephen Fingleton, an undergraduate at UCL, uses the word "fuck" 77 times in a 400-word farewell column (headlined "Fuck You") in the London Student newspaper and raises barely a "What the heck?" Time was Fingleton would have been rusticated. Or at least noticed.



Top of the list among America's most offensive is Ted Rall. If Doonesbury and Michael Moore are the cutting edge of American political comedy, Rall is its bludgeon. He believes liberals should reclaim America from the rightist-Christianists. Humour is his offensive weapon.



He campaigns on many fronts. He's an author, a print journalist, a tireless blogger and - most effectively - a cartoonist. Throughout the 1990s he built up a following as a "guerrilla artist" among the young and mad-as-hell in New York. He won awards and published a graphic novel, The Worst Thing I've Ever Done.

Hey, I'm flattered. But I've actually published two more graphic novels, MY WAR WITH BRIAN and the Orwell parody 2024. And TO AFGHANISTAN AND BACK, which contains a 50-page graphic-novel-form comic. Back to the Guardian...

There are various schools of thought about the worst thing Rall has done. Some would say his 2002 cartoon satirising the 9/11 widows (very sacred cows) as money-grubbing harpies; others might nominate his comic strip lampooning Pat Tillman, NFL football star turned US Ranger, as a "sap". Tillman was no national hero, Rall jeered, but a "cog in a low-rent occupation army". He deserved to die by friendly fire. The Tillman strip attracted 6,000 emails and enough death threats to make Rall wholly uninsurable.

Ted again. Hey, I never said Tillman deserved to die. And I don't feel that way, either. I do think he was stupid, and possibly ill-intentioned, and I've said so. The uninsurable thing is pretty funny, though.

Most, however, would agree that the acme of Rallist offensiveness was his comment last week that Ronald Reagan (the "Proto-Bush") was char-broiling in the flames of hell and "turning crispy brown right now": Kentucky Fried President. It was accompanied by a cartoon showing an Alzheimery Gipper in the underworld.

Maybe he's right, but if so it's a little weird. Surely it should be more offensive to satirize Tillman than Reagan. Reagan, after all, was the devil incarnate...and the president! No president is beloved by all.

Rall's Reagan was not the "national treasure" that President Bush eulogised, but the scourge of America's poor; the man who abolished student aid and let Aids rip; the purveyor of "quack economics" (ie, tax cuts for his buddies); the despoiler of national parks, etc. In short, to borrow a proto-Bushism, Reagan was downright evil. "If there is a hell, this guy is in it," Rall declared on the day Margaret Thatcher paid her respects before the flag-draped coffin. "And just how old is that nasty old crone?" mused Rall.



It was, however, the cartoon and "turning crispy brown" that really got through to middle America. There were so many emailed protests that his website (TedRall.com) crashed for 24 hours after the remark and the offending cartoon were posted on the US website Drudge Report.



Typical was "Doug" of West Virginia: "You are a cocksucker. Go back to the USSR, that failed like you. Go to France, cocksucker. Do everyone some good and move down to Cuba. Thank you. Jerkweed Burn In Hell!!!!" Another ill-wisher wrote: "Fuck you Dickweed. I hope the maggots won't even eat your dead carcass."

It's pretty damned awesome that a mainstream British newspaper can print such vulgarities rather than the infantile f*** y** you see in our papers.

"Sexuality", Rall notes, is an obsessive theme among his critics. "I could tell by the way you talk," wrote one US army veteran, having seen Rall on TV, "that you've consumed much sperm, and are addicted to homosexuality." Rall is (I believe) straight, anti-abortion, and was pro-impeachment for Clinton.



The last time America was embroiled in a divisive war, protest mobilised in the campuses and in papers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post. Today the universities are dormant and the press too fearful about circulation to raise its voice above a dissenting murmur. Politicians keep their heads down and salute the flag - it's election year.



Only the tasteless comedians (Al Franken, Michael Moore, Bill Maher, Rall) and the "leftwing Hollywood kooks" (Barbra Streisand, Tim Robbins, Martin Sheen) are prepared to take on what they perceive as the Great Rightwing Hegemony. It's a depressing spectacle: intransigent prejudice (Fox News) versus intransigent protest (Fahrenheit 9/11). You want reasoned debate? "Go to France, cocksucker."

Overall, a great piece. (Although an assertion that I'm "anti-abortion" is incorrect. My stance on abortion is nuanced; I'm 100% pro-choice while acknowledging that life begins at conception. I believe that women have the right to murder their unborn babies, in other words, and that it's a right that should be used as sparingly as possible--except in the case of pregnant teens, for whom it should be the first choive.) Does Britain offer political asylum?

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

jreyn@charter.net sends me this hilarious email, entitled "More Liberal Lies":

I read the piece on financial aid during the Reagan years, and I had to laugh. I was a freshman in college in 1979 and took out many student

loans. Most of the loans I received were at 5 or 9% interest at a time when the prime rate was approximately 17% thanks to Jimmy Carter.

They also were paid back ahead of schedule. I never had a problem or was denied any of these loans.

Why do you make up things that are obviously untrue? Keep up the good work, you are a walking talking billboard for the re-election of George Bush!!

Thank you.

JR

The Reagan education budget cuts went into effect on October 1, 1981. They hit schools for the spring 1982 semester. Which means that JR would only have been subject to one of his eight semesters--his last one--before graduating in May 1982.



Who's telling lies now? The scary thing is that JR actually gave credit to Reagan for Jimmy Carter's low-interest student loans.



Oh, and if Bush wins this fall: it won't be re-election. You have to win once to be re-elected.

Randi Rhodes Slams Hannity



Yesterday Air America's Randi Rhodes--as Rallblog readers know, she's my favorite Air America host--held forth on the Reagan "controversy" and the way Sean Hannity treated me on his radio show.



Check out www.randirhodesarchives.com, click on the 2nd half of June 9th.

What About His Family?



One emailer asks:

Mr. Rall, you have the right to say anything that you want. Mr. Reagan is dead. But Mrs. Reagan is alive and can be hurt by what you say. She is suffering right now and having to go through the funeral of her husband. I know, I've been there, done that. Couldn't you wait until after the funeral before beginning your rant?

First of all, everyone has family. When Fidel Castro dies, his relatives will be sad, but I doubt that'll cause Republican commentators to lay off. (And yes, I'm comparing Reagan to Fidel--even though Castro isn't quite as bad as Reagan.) Nor should it.



Second, the only time America will talk about Reagan's legacy is now. In two weeks, no one'll care. That's why we're talking about this now. On the other hand, if editors opened their pages to old topics, that would change.



Finally, liberals would lay off Reagan if conservatives weren't laying it on so thick. Suggesting that RR belongs on Mt. Rushmore, trying to evict Alexander Hamilton from the $10 bill for Ronnie, calling him one of the best presidents ever, giving him credit for ending the Cold War--it's all so over the top, so absurd, so exagerrated that someone has to point out the obvious: it ain't so.

Teddy, Are You Queer?



Well? Am I?



That's what a lot of Republicans want to know. My hate mailers love dimestore psychology. Maybe I was beaten up as a kid--that's why I dislike Reagan and Bush. (Though, it must be said, I was never a male cheerleader.) Why'd I bring up the AIDS crisis of the 1980s, during which Republicans suggested that detention camps were the best solution...as opposed to say, more funding for research? Could I be...gay?



If I am gay, if I love to partake of sins of the flesh with tight, rippled he-men, then it's none of anybody's Goddamned business.



If I am straight, I shouldn't declare that either. Being gay isn't bad and being called gay isn't an insult. Progressive straights who point to their heterosexuality help propagate homophobia.

Rush Declares Jihad On Your Humble Narrator!



I don't understand why so few of my fellow Democrats are afraid to say in public what they say in private, over beers with their friends. And I can't imagine how anyone, even hard-right Reaganite Christianists, can find it surprising or confusing that not everybody is convulsing with grief now that the guy has finally admitted, 20 years late, that he's dead.



After all, millions of Americans became homeless because of his budget cuts of psychiatric facilities. Millions more lost their jobs because he bankrupted the federal treasury. And half a million people died of AIDS because he refused to fund research into the disease. Millons of college students were forced to drop out of school because of him, and millions of other Americans earned, and still earn, less because of his union busting and corporate welfare. Surely conservatives must recognize that those people--most people--might still hold a grudge, what with the death and maiming and poverty and all.



Alas not. For we must all kneel at the casket of a man who didn't give a shit about his own children, much less the citizenry at large.



Well, not me, anyway. And for that unpardonable sin, right-wing talk radio king Rush Limbaugh lambasted me on his nationally syndicated radio show yesterday. It should be pointed out, by the way, that this cowardly drug-addled blowhard didn't dare go toe to toe with me on his program to discuss Reagan.



Some lowlights follow:



RUSH: We go to Raleigh, North Carolina. Hello, Wendy, nice to have you with us.



CALLER: Hi, Rush. I don't know that I can even get through this. I loved Reagan so much, and for four days I have just really been heartbroken, but then when I heard what Ted Rall wrote about Reagan and hoping that he was turning a crispy brown right now because of his policies in office. These things need to be told, Rush, and I'm so glad you're going to tell them because these people are the ones that are supporting the Democrats, they're supporting the liberals and this is the hate that they have, and it has nothing to do with reality, it has nothing to do with who the president was at that time. He was a great man.



OK, so the caller is upset Reagan's dead. Fine. But "heartbroken"? For God's sake, woman, the dude's been in a vegetative state since today's teenagers were born! You might have seen this tragedy coming.



RUSH: You did great, Wendy.



CALLER: I'm sorry.



RUSH: No, no, no, no, this is good. Ted Rall did write some things, I'm sure many of you have heard about it. He did say that he was sure or he hoped that Reagan was turning a crispy brown, meaning he's burning in hell for what he did to people. You know, Wendy, the best thing I can say to you at this time of your grief and your pain is probably to tell you how Reagan would react to this.

CALLER: He would have ignored it.



RUSH: He would have ignored it and he would have laughed about it, and he would have taken it as a measure of his success.



On this point Rush and I agree.



CALLER: But he can't defend himself so, Rush, you have to.



RUSH: Well, but you know, we were just discussing this in the break. Ronald Reagan was bigger than the media in life, he's bigger than the media in death, and he's certainly, Wendy, bigger than this little leprechaun, Ted Rall. This is simply Ted Rall trying to get some light shining on himself. This is one of the reasons why I have a conundrum here about talking about these people. All he's trying to do is get noticed, all he's trying to do is bask in some of the light that naturally shines on Ronald Reagan.



Leprechaun? But I'm not even Irish!



CALLER: But he also said those horrible things about Pat Tillman. People just really need to see the hate speech that comes out of that side.



RUSH: I think more and more people are. The media, you know, there's no condemnation of this guy.



CALLER: There isn't.



RUSH: You know, I say one little joke, one little thing they take out of context about the Abu prison photos, and it's news for two weeks, right?



Um, nice joke, Rush. The dude called the murder of at least 25 Iraqi prisoners, and the sexual humiliation and beatings of hundreds more, akin to a "Skull and Bones" frat prank. One little thing, indeed.



CALLER: Yes.



RUSH: This guy, there's no condemnation of him. In fact, there are people trying to understand what he's doing. You must understand from where he's coming, and you must understand that, well, this is a free speech era, and he's in the media, and he can say whatever he wants, and it would be terrible to shut him down, don't you think? Those are the reactions, because the thing is there are people who are glad he's saying it. There are people on his side of the aisle happy he's saying it, so that they don't have to. And the more outrageous it is, the more coverage it gets, the more successful they think it's going to be. It's just the opposite, Wendy. These people are nailing themselves in their own coffins is what's happening here. This is not how you build a movement. You do not build a movement on hate. You don't build loyalty and trust and expand your base of influence with this kind of emotion and rhetoric, epitomized by Ted Rall. And so when I first saw it, I've gotten so accustomed to these people saying things, I think they're in a contest now to see who can out outrage the other on the left. I look at this stuff, and I must tell you that a smile comes to my face when I see it, there's some anger in there, but ultimately I end up smiling because you have to know, you've lived your life, you probably haven't known anybody personally like this, have you?



RUSH LIMBAUGH says you don't build a movement on hate? RUSH LIMBAUGH? Argggghhhhhh!



(snip)



RUSH: Well, you're very kind. You're very kind. I appreciate it. I'm going to play these two sound bites. And I should point out this Ted Rall guy is a cartoonist and his work appears in the New York Times now and then. His work appears in major newspapers. Major leftist newspapers don't have a problem with this guy. I think the Tillman cartoon did get yanked by the syndicator or a couple papers. Let's set the stage. Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Ted Rall, and Colmes, a rare liberal with some class stood up to Rall. He said, "I have problems with my fellow liberals who can't get over the election of 2000. They should be focusing on winning 2004, but you, by doing this you make those on my side look bad by showing no grace, no compassion, no sense of humanity for a man who served this country, whether or not you agree with the things he stood for."



Yep. Alan Colmes, Sean Hannity's pet faux liberal--whom I have NEVER seen espouse a genuine, strident liberal position--is a "rare liberal with some class." If that's class, call me déclassé.



RALL: Well, I have more sympathy for the 290 million Americans who are living worse lives under a worse economy, being paid less with worse health care, with more homelessness, with more poverty than there would have been had Ronald Reagan never become president. So for me, you're right, I don't have that much sympathy for him.



RUSH: Folks, seriously, what am I supposed to do with this? This is so asinine that it is beneath all of our dignity to even set it straight. But I know some of you want, okay, homelessness, health care, wages, economy, 290 million Americans living worse today because of Reagan. What is sad about this is that such an imbecile and such an ignoramus ends up as a prominent cartoonist in major newspapers. This guy could not pass a basic civics test. This guy could not pass a recent American history test. This guy could not get a college diploma today. He couldn't get a high school diploma with what his view of history is.



Columbia University, Rush. Class of 1991. Major: history. With honors. Sorry, try again. Thanks for playing.



Do we need to go back and retrace what this country was like during the seventies, particularly the last four years of the seventies under Jimmy Carter? Do we need to go back and trace the misery index? Do we need to go back and trace the double-digit inflation, the double-digit unemployment, the double-digit interest rates?



I hate to steal from the estimable Al Franken here, but here are more Limbaughian lies. Under Jimmy Carter, suffering from a post-Vietnam War deficit hangover, unemployment was less than it was under Ronald Reagan. And wages increased faster than inflation. The average American did much better under Carter--and a hell of a lot better under Clinton--than Reagan, who presided over a stunning increase in the gap between rich and poor.





Do we need to go back and trace all that? Do we need to look at what the economy is doing today, what it did during the nineties, all since the Reagan revolution of the eighties? To say that this economy and the people of this country are in worse shape today than they were in the seventies or any time period is simply -- I don't have the word. It's not the breathtaking, it's not stupid, it's not idiotic, it's just... you simply have a bomb thrower here who is purposely trying to --



Set things straight? Like when Sean Hannity asserted on his radio show that we bombed Libya to get even for the Lockerbie bombing of Pan Am Flight 103--years before it happened?



(snip)



RUSH: Look, folks, if we're going to do this, we've got to keep something in mind here. We need to be real careful that we do not slip into judging our hero, Ronald Reagan, based on the liberal agenda. We're going to judge Reagan based on our values and our principles which we share with the vast majority of the American people.



This is one of the things that just instinctively I said, "Don't give these people any credit because I don't want to appear defensive." I don't want to appear reactionary. I don't want to sit here and have to spend any time defending this man. He doesn't need to be defended. These are the people that need to somehow be able to defend themselves. These wackos with these charges, it is silly to take Ted Rall seriously, it's silly to give him any serious amount of time at all, in my book. It's not worth it. It's not even substantive. If you're going to talk about AIDS, what did Bill Clinton do about AIDS when he was in office? He did next to nothing. All he did was have an AIDS czar, and the AIDS czars were unhappy, and he went to a couple of human rights meetings with Anne Heche and what's her face, Ellen DeGeneres, and they thought, "He loves us." He didn't do anything about AIDS.



You know who's done the most about AIDS of American presidents? I'll give you one name: George W. Bush. George W. Bush has spent more money, offered more money, suggested more money and more seriousness about AIDS than any American president. And who do they hate? They hate George W. Bush.



Um, it's been well documented that Bush moved the AIDS money for Africa from other AIDS initiatives. Net increase: zero. That's why we hate Bush: because he's a liar. All politicians are, but Bush takes the cake.



This is not about money; it's not about fixing the problem. It's they want a president who's going to mouth their agenda. I'm talking about the whole left. If they don't get a president that mouths their agenda, they're going to hate the guy. This is all a result of their having had power, unchallenged, for over 40 or 50 years and they don't anymore. This is all positive signs.



Actually, that's untrue. We didn't hate Bush's father. He was misguided, clueless, did some evil stuff, but no more than, say, Clinton. And you have to love the fact that Bush 41 was willing to publicly lambaste (via a surrogate) Bush 43's misguided war against Iraq. Nah, dad's OK. Relatively.



To see people crack up like this, to see people implode like this, to see people make abject fools of themselves like this, I do not want to sit here and have to defend Ronald Reagan or define Ronald Reagan in terms that the left sets forth as their agenda. Because he didn't do that. He didn't care what they thought. He didn't bother reacting to them, he did what was in his heart and what was in his mind and what he knew was right, and he let them cry over spilt milk and they're still crying over it.



What the right calls implosion, other people call telling it like it is. And millions of Americans who remember the Reagan years don't seem to have any trouble with it.

Media Appearances for Thursday, June 10



I'll be on "Unfiltered" with Chuck D on Air America tomorrow morning, from around 11:20 am to 11:50 am East Coast time to discuss my new book "Wake Up, You're Liberal." Check local listings to see whether there's an Air America affiliate near you, or you can livestream it through their website.



Also, I'll be on Alan Colmes' radio show tomorrow night, talking about Ronald Reagan.

Ronald Reagan Fallout



Before I went on Fox News' "Hannity and Colmes" tonight to discuss my rather picayune blog entry from earlier this week--the one where I noted the fact that, if you buy into the Christian concept of Heaven and Hell, Ronald Reagan is probably turning crispy brown by now--Sean Hannity turned to me and asked me whether I "do this for the publicity."



I've gotten asked that a few times this week, which I find amusing if for no other reason than the fact that publicity doesn't really get you very much except, in my case, a free taxi to midtown Manhattan and some pancake makeup smeared across my delicate pores. They don't pay you to appear, you get insulted and abused and you end up with several hundred angry emails from right-wing psychopaths whose aim is hopefully on par with their grammar. Yeah, it's a great life if you don't weaken and all that.



Truth is, when I was starting out as a cartoonist I quickly discovered that I had no way of predicting reactions to my work. Certain cartoons are widely reprinted; others ignored. Some cause offense, most not. Same thing with books--I had no idea that "2024" would do badly because so few people remembered the source material I parodied, "1984." I thought "To Afghanistan and Back" would do poorly; wrong again.



Had I suspected that my blog entry about Reagan would draw national media attention through a link on the Drudge Report, I would spent more time on it, crafting it carefully. As my best friend says, blogs are like a column but without the responsibility. They're dashed off miscellany, random thoughts you log as you think of them. So no, Mr. Hannity, I had no idea that I would be one of a few public figures with the temerity to note that Ronald Reagan was a shitty president who caused a lot of misery and hurt this country that I adore. Frankly, it never occured to me that so many of my fellow liberals would be so lame, so cowardly, as to ignore his true legacy. But there you are,



So why do I do it? Why do I go on Fox and let assholes like Hannity yell at me?



The answer is simple: because someone has to. To be liberal in America nowadays is to feel desperately alone, alienated even from a Democratic Party that's totally unwilling to fight for its own principles. Believing in true (liberal) American values nowadays is like working at a job where you're represented by a corrupt union: you'd probably be better off without a union at all. Ditto for the so-called liberal media; the delusion that we're represented prevents us from getting organized.



I go on those stupid shows to let other liberals know that they are not alone, that millions of others feel exactly the same way that they do about the direction that this country is going. It's a thankless task to be sure, one I'll happily give up when other, more prominent, more articulate liberals step up to the plate. Frankly, the only thing I really want to do is stay home and draw cartoons and write columns.



By the way, my Hate Mail postings have become so popular that I can't resist sharing my latest batch, most of these as a result of my appearance on Hannity and Colmes. Enemies like these--violent, illogical, pedantic, ignorant, uneducated--help keep self-doubt at bay. These, my friends, are the voices of Republican voters. These are supporters of George W. Bush. They support the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. They have no problem with prisoner abuse in Iraq. They represent the dark, racist underbelly of America. We must never forget that they are out there, and we must never, ever stop working to make sure their kind gets to impose its will on those of us who think.



Here goes...a journey into the mind of a Fox viewer:



From USPropMgnt@aol.com:



I live in NYC!!! God I hope to see you sometime. I promise I'll introduce myself. I know your a dumbass, so any chance you can provide your adress? Thanks! HOPE TO SEE YOU REAL SOON



It's "you're." Dumbass. Of course, maybe this person went to a school suffering from Reagan's budget cuts.



From jeanijon@netscape.net:



You are truly the ugliest thing I have ever seen on TV.



Now that's saying something.

From craigusnret@yahoo.com:



Teddie, for once for proving how irrational you truly are on the Hannity show tonight, thus furthering the cause of the Right and showing the true colors of the Left. Wow, what a performance! By the way, Teddie, it doesn't take a cartoonist to figure out that AIDS was spread by unprotected anal sex amongst homosexuals back then (and still is), not by the President. Now Teddie, you wouldn't be familiar with that practice, would you?

In any case, Teddie, keep up the good work, and God bless the soul of President Reagan!



Yes, let's pick on the fags. Reagan let 500,000 of them die without a passing thought, but evidently they haven't suffered enough.



A thinly-veiled threat from rdlynch@alaska.net:



Should you ever need a lifeline, I will just watch. I hope it is soon.

Ralph Lynch

Anchorage, Alaska



A lovely missive from laprentke@yahoo.com:



Ted,

You miserable shred of human debris.

I will pray every Sunday that you find aids in one of your lovers' asses, turn "brown & crispy", then die without taxpayer concern!

Lawrence A. Prentke

Lake Almanor, Ca.

From douglasice@yahoo.com:



You are a cocksucker,Go back to the USSR, that failed like you.When you are a fag, you need to pull your head out of your ass.Do every one some good and move down to Cuba.

Thank you.Jerkweed Burn In Hell!!!!

Doug

West Virginia



"Jerkweed"?!?

From junky54@bellsouth.net:



I just saw your interview on Hannity and Colmes and really hope you are "turning a crispy brown" soon. You do not deserve to breath the same air that I do. I hope you die and rot in hell.

From carpenterathome@hotmail.com:



I just scanned thru the last two months of your articles and cartoons. It's pure trash. I hope you see the light when iraq ends up a victory for bush and the free world. You would love to see the war fail. The more dead US servicemen the better. Your lucky you can write this crap and earn a living.

If you were in Iraq before saddam was overthrown, you most likely would be a statistic.

mike



Can you believe it? They actually think we can win in Iraq...That's what you get when you rely on Fox for your news.



From warphead@hotmail.com:



President Reagan was a great man. You are but garbage stuck between the treads of my boots.

When it is your time to leave this world how will you be remembered? Not sure? I can tell you.

YOU WONT. You live your life as a piece of garbage, you are remembered as garbage. If your vile disgusting comments at a time when the nation mourns moves me to speak. Then I can only imagine the millions of e-mails you must be receiving. All of which reflect the same feeling toward you as I do. There are only a few things I can do to silence the poison in which your sick vile body spews. These are to educate myself as to how you finance and spread your sickness.Then to make certain I never unknowingly spend a cent

to further your sickness. To vote and by voting oppose all those who are afflicted with your illness. To speak out against all the vile sick digusting things in which you stand for. To bring your ideals to light and make sure your name is associated with each and every vile statement and act that you make. To educate and educate all those who will listen. Lastly I will become active in as many causes that are just, legal and moral to oppose everything in which you stand. I am an American. I am one of the millions and millions of average Americans who do not believe in your sickness. I am part of the majority and I am joining the fight to regain my country from the politically correct liberal communists that you are a part of.



Very Very Sincerely,

Kevin Egan

Lebanon, TN.



I just want to point out that "warphead" is an appropriate username for someone (there are a lot of these guys) who believes that every Democrat is a Communist.



From sjellis@ecentral.com:



I just saw you on Fox and felt the urge to tell you what an ASS you are. I suppose your behavior is directly due to your being a four-eyed geek, since, according to you, hair, complexion, and ones overall genetics make a person what he is. I pray to God that you don't have children, if that be the case!

I can't believe how completely classless you are, to write (poorly, I might add--good thing you're just a cartoonist and not a real writer) as you did about a man who gave his all for the country he loved and has just passed away, leaving a family that is already in pain.

You say you believe that Presiden Reagan has gone to hell, which means you believe in heaven and hell. That being the case, and it also being the case that heaven and hell only exist to those who believe in JudeoChristian beliefs, then you should know that as Reagan was a believer, he is most definitely in heaven. The works we do here on earth have nothing to do with where we end up, which should give even a nasty and ignorant ASS such as yourself hope for an eternity in heaven rather than hell. Somehow, I don't think you will ever be a believer--you are just to hateful and your heart too hard to ever learn the Truth.

Just as you obviously don't know the truth as to why healthcare costs are so high. Let me see--let's start with the addition of health insurance to the picture. That occurred on Democrat Roosevelt's watch and was pushed by the unions. Being in the health care field, I know darn well where that money is going--to the insurance companies. It sure ain't making it to the hospitals, clinics, etc. who have to fight for every penny (literally). Next comes Medicare. Now, wasn't that the big campaign issue for Democrat Kennedy? Being enacted under Democrat Johnson? And lastly, there's managed healthcare, a failure of a concept from the mind of Presidend Hilary Clinton.

Stick to your cartoons, Ted. You wouldn't have made it through my high school composition class the way you write, much less a graduate level technical writing class.

Happy you're a Democrat because we sure wouldn't want somebody like you--you're actually an asset to the Republican party!

A non-fan (to say the least)



I loved this one.



From wlcook@bellsouth.net:



You are an insult to the public on both Television & your writings. How you can say such terrible things about a great man is hard for a human to understand! I am sure that Ragan will go to Heaven and I am also sure where you will go when you die!

I will be sure to cancel any newspaper or publication that prints your writings.

W. L. Cook, Jr.



All these years, and people still can't spell Reagan. So many hate mails come in praising "Regan" it's scary. For God's sake, how stupid can you be?



From flagators56@hotmail.com:



ted

you're the greatest asshole i've ever heard. i would love to kick your ass, but i'm sure you are such a pussy that you would never show up for a fair fight. i just heard you denegratating the greatest President of the 20th century, i never thought i would see a weasle in real life. teddy boy, you have real issues and i will not help you resolve them. you are filled with such hate and anger that they will consume you and cause you more anguish than i ever could. i look forward to the day when i hear or read that you have blown your two cell brain out.

teddy, you have areal nice warped day.

bill bass

augusta, ga



From ONE900LAWBABE@msn.com:



Ted,

I just saw your interview on Hannity & Colmes. You are a poor excuse for a human being! What a bitter, hateful man you must be to say such rotten things about President Reagan, ESPECIALLY at this time! Even ALan COlmes, who is pretty liberal, was obviously embarrassed and disgusted by you.

Just for the record, President Reagan did not kill 500,000 gays--they killed themselves by having promiscuous sex without protection and leading a perverted lifestyle. Why is it that people can't take responsibility for their OWN actions, and have to blame their troubles on other people?

YOu said that you felt that President Reagan deserved to burn in hell, but what about you? It is OBVIOUS that you are a hateful, bitter gay man without any soul. If we all talked like you, I would say I hope you DO get aids, but that would be really hateful, cruel and wrong, wouldn't it? It is different when the shoe is on the other foot.

You'll be surprised when you do die, because there IS a GOD, but YOU are never going to see him. If anyone will be burning in hell, it will be YOU.

You disgust me and all DECENT people everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



From SilkyErin@aol.com:



I watched your ranting on Hannity and Colms ----- where you berated the greatest president of the 20th century. You are such a totally insensitive and disgusting idiot! I cannot even force myself to call you a human being. It is YOU who will FRY IN HELL ..... and no one deserved that more! You don't deserve to be counted as one of our species.

What kind of upbringing did you have? You're the epitome of a HATEMONGER!! I hope you get a case of Alzheimer's like none other on earth. Let's see how you feel crapping in your diapers, Ted! Couldn't happen to a nicer guy!!

Just to let you know, I spent 8 hours last night driving to the Reagan Library, standing in line for the bus which took us up to pay our respects to this great man and I shed some tears.

No, I was born in 1978 .... and I was a child when Reagan was president, but I read about him and his great work. He is the one who established a Department of Education. He turned this country around for the better. After inherited a total economic mess from that asshole, Jimmy Carter (a man who never met a dictator he didn't like and to whom we owe the islamic mess we're in ..) .... Reagan turned this country around. He changed history! He put an end to the Cold War .... and for that he will be revered forever.

Erin Cummings

Santa Monica, California



Actually Ronald Reagan did not create the Department of Education. He actually attempted to eliminate it entirely upon taking office. And though Carter had many faults as President, he wasn't renowned for coddling dictators--with the exception of the Shah of Iran.



From CWHARTX@aol.com:



You've really increased your exposure with your recent intemperant rants.

Ronald Reagan is one of the most beloved American leaders of the last 50 years. He won 2 elections by landslides and improved the lives of innumerable working class Americans.

Ask Margaret Thatcher who won the cold war, and she will tell you.



Yeah, like Maggie Thatcher is someone I'd ask for advice. Which reminds me...how old is that nasty old crone?



This one from PatriciaWings30@aol.com is pretty damned awesome:



You are one disgusting piece of trash. Your remarks about former President Reagan is totally outrageous. I've listened to you remarks and think hell is waiting for you. You talk about Reagan being in hell, your full of crap. I have heard many undecided voters say that after listening to your trash and other evil Democrats that they want no part of that party. The hate that you and most of the party is spreading is horrible. I agree with freedom of speech, but hate spreading isn't what our forefathers meant. It's to bad that instead of Berg it wasn't you that Zarqawi got a hold of. But the sad thing is that it's the innocence that get hurt and the evil ones go on spreading hate. Hell is to good for you, God should come up with a more server punishment. You have no heart, soul, or feelings. I feel really sorry for you mom. You must bring tears and pain to her heart daily. You give trueness to the word bad seed. You are truly the seed of Satan. I just don't see how God can let evilness such as you walk the face of the earth. There is one thing that the people that your hatefulness has hurt can know is that you'll face a higher power. You'll face God and he will bring judgment on you digesting mouth. You'll feel each ounce of pain that you've caused others. It's coward like you that run your mouth and then hide. Go to Iraq and face our brave troops. Go to the family members of brave troops that have given their life and say the horrible things to them. Our a coward, you want do that. You hide behind a pencil, paper, and a web sight. You use you hate spreading to make money. Your just the most disgusting, sickening, and horrible person on the face of the earth. I hear those talk about the antichrist. Well, they can look at you and see the face of that beast.



From manda0131@msn.com:



Fuck you dick weed. I hope the maggots won't even eat your dead carcass.



This is a confusing insult. Is it more desirable to become maggot dinner than not?



From bgee181@comcast.net:



YOU ARE THE MOST SHAMELSESS PIECE OF SHIT I HAVE EVER SEEN. FOR YOU TO ATTACK REAGAN , AND YOU COULDN’T SHINE HIS SHOES, ON THE EVE OF HIS FUNERAL, TELLS ME THAT YOU ARE A TOTAL MOTHER FUCKING SCUMBAG. FUCK YOU, YOU GODDAMN MOTHERFUCKER. SPITWAD!



From rhagen3@wi.rr.com:

The perfect murder

Just shoot Ted Rall.

Who would ever want to convict?



From trigeek@mindspring.com:



Ted, I will go to bed tonight praying that you die soon.....................very slowly................and very, very painfully. That will give me great glee.

Peter Coblentz

Tucker, GA



From jkucinski@adelphia.net:



I saw you on Hannity and Colmes tonight.

Both Hannity and Colmes were completely right about you.

Check the mirror and you'll see a wessal-like, weak, weak little asshole of a man and maybe even a faggot.

Joe Kucinski

Colorado Springs



Sexuality is a recurring theme in Republican hate mail.



From armyret@hotmail.com:



I watched with interest, your comments on the Hannity and Colmes Show, and your charges towards President Reagan, and America’s hero, Sergeant Tillman. I could tell by the way you talk, you’ve consumed much sperm, and are addicted to homosexuality. Mr. Hannity was correct in saying you are an evil, soulless, hateful, mean person. I fully agree. You have no God, and it is you who will turn to a crisp in Hell.

Anthony Retel

U.S. Army Retired



Another threat from texman4268@yahoo.com:



You have got to be the most weasely looking little

cynical bastard on the planet. Too bad Sean Hannity

couldn't give the location of the studio door you'd be

leaving from so there could be some "mislead

Americans" to give you a proper greeting.

A lynch mob wouldn't be a bad thing to bring back in

your case.

One of these days, you will finally strike the wrong

nerve and someone is going to kick your ass good.

Best wishes loser!!!



From sbrandt@starband.net:



I saw you on Fox News and i think you are a DICK HEAD

you Communist Ass Hole

.you are NOT funny you Dickless Idiot and your cartoons are NOT funny either

I think you would be happier if you would move to France and take the UN with you

Scott



From warology@cox.net:



You deserve a big punch in the nose. And if I ever run in to you on the street, that is exactly what you will get.



From abfbrinlee@att.net:



Ted,

I saw you on fox news. If I had a chance to meet you in person i would go to jail for assalt and battery and it would be worth it. I would beat the living shit out of you for your remarks on Reagan. You better hope we never meet in person. You deserve a good old fasion ass kicking. I can not believe your evil intent. You must have made a deal with the devil and I hope you do burn in hell. I know you will. Our President Reagan is in Heaven and I am sure is weaping for you. Thats the difference in you and him. Your a hater and he was a lover. I will have to ask God to forgive me for this note and I will. I hope that one day you will humble yourself to God also.

Sincerely,

Doug



"Reagan was a lover"?!?!



From info@apsprecision.com:



Fuck you! you cocksucker!... You piss ant twerp… I would shove those gay glasses up your ass… You Cocksucker FUCK YOU



From lwillens@msn.com:



Dear Comrade Rall:



Mother Fucking low life communist faggot pig. You are as much of a virus as the aids virus. The problem with this country is you and the faggotry you practice.



Len and Dana Willens



From tmeans4121@adelphia.net:



MR RALL.....



YOU HEARTLESS PERSON....YOUR COMMENTS REGARDING PRESIDENT REAGAN ARE THOUGHLESS AND HATEFUL...



HE WAS THE GREATEST PEACETIME PRESIDENT IN THE 20TH CENTURY



Except for the war, of course. And the bombing campaign.

From TuAl@msn.com:



You are so ugly and mean spirited I hope someone puts a bullet in the back of your head.

Server Problems



My apologies to those who attempted to access Ted Rall Online yesterday. It seems that the server crashed due to a high volume of traffic. We're working on the problem and hope to resolve it soon. Of course, if you're reading this, things are probably just dandy.

Bush v. Reagan



I've written this week's column, which will go up later today, concerning the similarities between Gov. Dubya and Ronald Reagan. But there's also a major difference.



When George W. Bush dies someday, please bear in mind that, unlike Ronald Reagan--a duly-elected president--Bush will not be entitled to a state funeral or placing flags at half staff. As an illegal usurper who seized power extraconstitutionally, Bush should be buried at sea, in a simple shroud, and returned to the sharks that spawned him. Reagan, for all of his faults, should at least be acknowledged as a former president.

More Hate Mail Follies



The Drudge Report has linked to my blog (see below), and the right-wing psychos are back at it again! Here, for your entertainment, are some of the lowlifes who inexplicably enjoy the right to vote:



From damnuebay@yahoo.com:



Former President Reagan has done more for this country than you ever will, or could dream of doing, you are pathetic speaking about people that can no longer defend themselves. I hope we don't have to wait very long till you join the dead.



From rjohns9797@sbcglobal.net, who sent me more than 30 threatening emails during the Tillman thing:



Re: Ronald Maximus Reagan would have laughed



In the presence of greatness your tiny little prick, just shriveled up, didn't it?

By the way, did you ever get that body guard?

Do you stay off subway platforms and away from dark streets?

You should, you know...



He also sent this:



DO YOU AVOID DARK STREETS?

YOU SHOULD, YOU KNOW...

ALL IT TAKES IS ONE...

SOME DAY, SOMEONE WILL DECIDE TO DO THE WORLD A FAVOR...

YOU SHOULD BE PREPARED...



From SrChief5473@aol.com:



I have finally identified you. You are a miserable little piece of shit

lying on the sidewalk.'

Fathered by a pig and mothered by a dog.



From JJMc@pge.com:



MAY YOU DIE SLOWLY OF STOMACH CANCER YOU PIECE OF CRAP. YOU WERE NOT FIT TO WIPE RONALD REAGAN'S ASS. YOU WOULD BE QUALIFIED TO REPLACE MONICA AND SERVICE THAT TRAITOROUS COWARD BILL CLINTON ON YOUR KNEES.



Dig the username: RomanticArtwork@aol.com:



YOUR OPINION COUNTS.......NOW HERE'S MINE. YOU LOOK GAY AND PROBABLY LIKE

IT IN THE ASS SO I BELIEVE YOU WILL DIE OF AIDS. Anyway, I'm sure YOU'LL BE

turning crispy brown ONE DAY SOON. I ONLY WISH S0ONER. YOU ARE LIBERAL TRASH.

OUT YOU WILL GO. THIS IS NOT A THREAT JUST FACT AND WISHFULL THINKING.



From Bmorganrey@cs.com:



If Ronald Reagan is in hell, I am sure he will save you a seat. Move to

France you piece of scum. If it weren't for people like Ronald Reagan you wouldn't

be able to write your garbage.

God Bless President Reagan, America, and most of all you ,

Brent Reynolds



From Rabel873@aol.com:



I hope you die in prison you SOB!



From ehagemeyer@sbcglobal.net:



Hey Ted,

I'm just writing to say what a sniveling little bitch you are. Why

don't you go join the Iraqi resistance? It sure would be wonderful if

the next thing I read about you said, "Ted Rall Killed by American

Troops in Iraq." That might hurry along your own trip to Hell... where

I'm pretty sure they reserve the best spots for pathetic whiners who

can't get their cartoons published.

Fuck you!

Evan Hagemeyer



From justin@redrightandblue.com (this kind of personal threat is commonplace among Republican emailers):



Im going to post your fucking address everywhere I can.

Enjoy you sorry bastard.

Justin Warlick

www.redrightandblue.com



From Kspearmank@aol.com:



Ronald Reagan was a great leader. You are a socialist bastard.



From Tony.Reeves@sourceonehealth.com:



You better hope that for your sake there is no GOD, because as sure as I

am typing this your sick ass is going to burn in hell for eternity and

according to Webster's that is a mighty long time. I am sure your

children are proud of "daddy".

How Sad...



...that Ronald Reagan didn't die in prison, where he belonged for starting an illegal, laughably unjustifiable war against Grenada under false pretenses (the "besieged" medical students later said they were nothing of the sort) and funneling arms to hostages during Iran-Contra.



Oh, and 9/11? That was his. Osama bin Laden and his fellow Afghan "freedom fighters" got their funding, and nasty weapons, from Reagan.



A real piece of work, Reagan ruined the federal budget, trashed education, alienated our friends and allies and made us a laughing stock around the world.



Hmmmm...sounds familiar.



Anyway, I'm sure he's turning crispy brown right about now.

Depressed in Europe



Just got back from France and Italy. The food was awesome, the people interesting and the weather better than usual. But the usual subject of discussion--the United States and its foreign policy--proved more depressing than ever.



Abu Ghraib was the reason. But not why you might think.



When I mentioned the Iraq prison abuse scandal, people shrugged. "So you murdered maybe 25 people in prison," one woman told me in Mantova, the setting for "Romeo and Juliet." "So what? The U.S. kills thousands every year."



Conservative Bush apologists, it seems, are correct. Abu Ghraib isn't destroying our reputation overseas. Not at all. The truth is, our rep was already so atrocious before--due to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq (both of which are equally despised abroad), our support of Israel in its genocidal campaign against the Palestinians, and years of hypocritical imperialistic misadventures from Kosovo to Somalia to Central Asia--that Abu Ghraib didn't do anything to make it worse. Nothing could.



So maybe it is time for people like me to stop worrying about the torture of prisoners. Truth is, our rep has already hit rock bottom. This is no big deal by comparison.



It's also true, of course, that the French and Italians read reports of abuse in U.S.-run Afghan and Iraqi gulags dating back several years. And they've also published far more graphic photos from Abu Ghraib than we've seen here.



But the bottom line is that Abu Ghraib has only shocked one constitutency: us.



Better late than never. I guess.

More Americans Declare Themselves Liberal



From The Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON – Democrats were crowing yesterday about snatching a U.S. House seat in South Dakota from Republicans. But to 2,000 liberal warriors gathering for a conference here called "Take Back America," the result is just a tiny rumbling of something much bigger.



On the defensive for more than a generation, the American left is seeing signs of political revival. Recent polls show more Americans are calling themselves "liberal" — a term that had been considered something of an epithet — and fewer are identifying themselves as "conservative." Liberal groups, from the National Organization for Women to Moveon.org, are enjoying a big fund-raising surge. The flagship publication of the left, the Nation, claims to have captured the highest circulation of any weekly political magazine.



"The plates have all moved," argues Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg. The combination of hostility toward President Bush, anxiety about the war in Iraq and concerns about tax cuts and other economic issues "make it possible for something fundamental to happen in this election," he says.



Republican strategists say liberals are delusional. Since Republicans seized Congress in 1994, Democratic predictions that they would recapture control have repeatedly proved false.



Still, the proportion of Americans calling themselves "liberal" edged up to 21% in Mr. Greenberg's May poll from 16% a month earlier. Self-identified "conservatives" dropped to 37% from 41%. Similarly, last month's Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed 42% of voters identifying themselves as Democrats, compared with 39% who say they are Republicans. Two years earlier, Republicans had a 37%-to-36% edge.



The same Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll showed Mr. Bush's job approval rating at 47%, the lowest of his presidency.



Liberal organizations devoted to feminist, labor and environmental causes are displaying unusual coordination in hopes of electing John Kerry. Sen. Kerry drew $31 million in donations in April, doubling the take of the President Bush, as liberal groups like Moveon.org, whose antiwar membership helped fuel Howard Dean's political rise in 2003, ape the aggressive funding and recruitment tactics that helped Republicans mobilize grass-roots support in the 1980s.



The National Organization for Women reports daily contributions up to roughly $22,000 from $17,000 a year ago, and estimates attendance at its recent abortion-rights march on Washington was one-third higher than a similar event in 1992.



Liberals also see hope in more anecdotal evidence. Books attacking President Bush, with titles like "Worse than Watergate" and "The Politics of Truth" are selling briskly. The Nation has seen its circulation grow to 160,000 from nearly 140,000 in mid-2003 and just over 102,000 in June 2001. The latest figure exceeds the circulation of longstanding conservative stalwart National Review, which is roughly 155,500, down from about 159,000 in mid-2001.



"When the other side's in power, your people get angry," laments National Review editor Rich Lowry. Under Republican rule, "liberals have become more muscular," argues David Corn, the Nation's Washington editor and author of "The Lies of George W. Bush."



And activists were cheered by the squeaker in South Dakota Tuesday night, in which Democrat Stephanie Herseth edged Republican Larry Diedrich in a special election. That win, like the victory of Kentucky Democrat Ben Chandler in special election earlier this year, came in a state that Mr. Bush carried in 2000 over Democratic nominee Al Gore.

Readers of my new book:







already know that I've anticipated this leftward shift and explained why it's occuring and will continue to do so. Moreover, I also explain how the left and Democrats can exploit disgust with the Republicans to recapture Congress as well as the White House this November and in future election years.

Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline Project Update



Bushie apologists, and far too many anti-Iraq war progressives, continue to believe that the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan had nothing to do with oil. No evidence, they say, despite mountains thereof.



Most recently, that left-wing bailwick the US Department of Energy issued its June 2004 country factsheet for Afghanistan. Among the goodies are this overview of Afghanistan's supposedly fictional energy reserves:

Energy Overview

Between the 1960s and mid-1980s, the Soviets had identified more than 15 oil and gas fields in northern Afghanistan. Only three gas fields -- Khwaja Gogerdak, Djarquduk, and Yatimtaq – were developed in the area surrounding Sheberghan, which is located about 120 kilometers west of Mazar-i-Sharif. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. The Djarquduk field was brought online during that period and boosted Afghan natural gas output to a peak of 385 Mmcf/d by 1978. About 100 mmcf/d of this amount was used locally in gas distribution systems in Sheberghan and Mazar-i-Sharif as well as at a 100,000 mt/y urea plant located near Mazar-i-Sharif. One oil field, Angot, was developed in the late 1960s, but aside from production tests, oil production was intermittent, with daily outputs averaging 500 b/d or less.



Northern Afghanistan has proved, probable and possible natural gas reserves of about 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf). This area, which is a southward extension of the highly prolific, natural gas-prone Amu Darya Basin, has the potential to hold a sizable undiscovered gas resource base, especially in sedimentary layers deeper than what were developed during the Soviet era. Afghanistan’s crude oil potential is more modest, with perhaps up to 100 million barrels of medium-gravity recoverable from Angot and other fields that are undeveloped. Afghanistan also may possess relatively small volumes of gas liquids and condensate.



Outside of the North Afghan Platform, very limited oil and gas exploration has occurred. Geological, aeromagnetic, and gravimetric studies were conducted in the 1970s over parts of the Katawaz Fault Block (eastern Afghanistan – along the Pak border) and in the Helmand and Farah provinces. The hydrocarbon potential in these areas is thought to be very limited as compared to that in the north.



The Soviets had estimated Afghanistan's proven and probable natural gas reserves at up to 5 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) in the 1970s. Afghan natural gas production reached 275 million cubic feet per day (Mmcf/d) in the mid-1970s. The Djarquduk field was brought online during that period boosted Afghan natural gas output to a peak of 385 Mmcf/d by 1978-79. After the Soviet pullout and subsequent Afghan civil war, most gas wells at Sheberghan area fields were shut in due to technical problems and the lack of an export market in the former Soviet Union.



At its peak in the late 1970s, Afghanistan supplied 70%-90% of its natural gas output to the Soviet Union's natural gas grid via a link through Uzbekistan. In 1992, Afghan President Najibullah indicated that a new natural gas sales agreement with Russia was in progress. However, several former Soviet republics raised price and distribution issues and negotiations stalled. In the early 1990s, Afghanistan also discussed possible natural gas supply arrangements with Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and several Western European countries, but these talks never progressed further. Afghan natural gas fields include Djarquduk, Khowaja Gogerdak, and Yatimtaq, all of which are located within 20 miles of the northern town of Sheberghan in Jowzjan province. In 1999, work resumed on the repair of a distribution pipeline to Mazar-i-Sharif. Spur pipelines to a small power plant and fertilizer plant also were repaired and completed. Mazar-i-Sharif is now receiving natural gas from the pipeline. The possibility of exporting a small quantity of natural gas through the existing pipeline into Uzbekistan also is reportedly being considered.



Soviet estimates from the late 1970s placed Afghanistan's proven and probable oil and condensate reserves at 95 million barrels. Most Soviet assistance efforts after the mid-1970s were aimed at increasing gas production. Sporadic gas exploration continued through the mid-1980s. The last Soviet technical advisors left Afghanistan in 1988. After a brief hiatus, oil production at the Angot field was restarted in the early 1990s by local militias. Output levels, however, are though to have been less than 300 b/d. Near Sar-i-Pol, the Soviets partially constructed a 10,000-b/d topping plant, which although undamaged by war, is thought by Western experts to be unsalvageable.



Petroleum products such as diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel are imported, mainly from Pakistan and Uzbekistan, with limited volumes from Turkmenistan and Iran serving regional markets. Turkmenistan also has a petroleum product storage and distribution facility at Tagtabazar ( Kushka – it’s on the Turkmen side) near the Afghan border, which supplies northwestern Afghanistan.



Besides oil and natural gas, Afghanistan also is estimated to have 73 million tons of coal reserves, most of which is located in the region between Herat and Badashkan in the northern part of the country. Although Afghanistan produced over 100,000 short tons of coal annually as late as the early 1990s, as of 2000, the country was producing only around 1,000 short tons.

Then there's this bit on the Trans-Afghanistan Pipeline project (italics are mine):

Afghanistan as an Energy Transit Route

Due to its location between the oil and natural gas reserves of the Caspian Basin and the Indian Ocean, Afghanistan has long been mentioned as a potential pipeline route, though in the near term, several obstacles will likely prevent Afghanistan from becoming an energy transit corridor. During the mid-1990s, Unocal had pursued a possible natural gas pipeline from Turkmenistan's Dauletabad-Donmez gas basin via Afghanistan to Pakistan, but pulled out after the U.S. missile strikes against Afghanistan in August 1998. The Afghan government under President Karzai has tried to revive the Trans-Afghan Pipeline (TAP) plan, with periodic talks held between the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Turkmenistan on the issue, but little progress appears to have been made as of early June 2004 (despite the signature on December 9, 2003, of a protocol on the pipeline by the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan). President Karzai has stated his belief that the project could generate $100-$300 million per year in transit fees for Afghanistan, while creating thousands of jobs in the country.



Given the obstacles to development of a natural gas pipeline across Afghanistan, it seems unlikely that such an idea will make any progress in the near future, and no major Western companies have expressed interest in reviving the project. The security situation in Afghanistan remains an obvious problem, while tensions between India and Pakistan make it unlikely that such a pipeline could be extended into India and its large (and growing) gas market. Financial problems in the utility sector in India, which would be the major consumer of the natural gas, also could pose a problem for construction of the TAP line. Finally, the pipeline's $2.5-$3.5 billion estimated cost poses a significant obstacle to its construction.

All of this, including my longstanding assertion that the TAP project would likely never occur, jibes perfectly with what I've written in essays and my comprehensive survey of TAP, GAS WAR: THE TRUTH BEHIND THE AMERICAN OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN.



Most recently the website Hi Pakistan reported on May 20th as follows:

U.S., Afghanistan and Pakistan hold trilateral meeting

ISLAMABAD: Finance Ministers of Pakistan and Afghanistan and Deputy Secretary of US Department of Treasury held a trilateral meeting in the sidelines of the Annual Meetings of Asian Development Bank, in Jeju Island, South Korea.



They reviewed the economic developments in the region and discussed a number of initiatives to foster close economic links between Pakistan and Afghanistan and the region in general. The meeting noted that the level of trade between Pakistan and Afghanistan was rising rapidly and was likely to touch the billion dollars mark during the calendar year.



It was pointed out that there was scope for further expansion in trade provided new border points were established and transit trade arrangements further simplified.



A number of issues related to fast and unhindered movement of goods were examined. Shaukat Aziz, Finance Minister of Pakistan pointed out that Pakistan was in the process of acquiring scanning machines to be placed at the border points that would discourage smuggling and pave the way for use of trucks for movement of Afghan transit trade cargo.



The meeting also discussed the possibility of gas pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan and noted that Asian Development Bank would soon finalize its report after which further examination of this project will be undertaken.

Because Bushies are stupid, the dream lives.