November 12, 2009

With the departure of Lou Dobbs, Wolf Blitzer picks up the slack

CNN’s now-reigning dumbass Wolf Blitzer questions how Hasan's lawyer can represent 'someone accused of mass murder.'

“I fully appreciate the importance of ensuring that everybody in America has a fair trial, you fucking commie," Col. John Galligan should have answered.

That wasn't quite enough for Blitzer. Before the interview ended, the CNN anchor said of Hasan, "I'm sure he will get a much fairer hearing than those 13 Americans who were brutally gunned down the other day. I'm sure he will get all of the rights that are applied by the military code of justice."

Galligan bristled. “The difficulty that I have, of course, is when people end discussions with me with references like the one that you just made."
"I oughtta come over there and strangle you with your own nutsack, you unAmerican little asshole” he should have snarled.

5 comments:

One Fly said...

if only just once-how sweet that would be

big em said...

That's always so bogus when right-wingers (and 'channelers' like Blitzer) equate a horrible, criminal action (like this serial murder) with courtroom proceedings by saying things like "..he will get a much fairer hearing than those 13 Americans who were brutally gunned down the other day." Of course he will get a 'fairer hearing' - - that's WHY he's being charged with a heinous CRIME... because his actions WERE/ARE so beyond of the pale of civilized behavior, civilized behavior that includes a calm, rational gathering of the facts and similar adjudication so that we get as much of the story as possible. Would Blitzer & his like-thinking friends advocate that our courts NOT behave BETTER than serial killers/rapists/robbers/thieves/etc?? That perhaps the courts should kill 13 innocent people to somehow 'match' the actions of Hasan and gain some perverse parity?

::mwah:: said...

it's apparent that wolf is a fan of cops who provide instant justice and tazer execution of their suspects

Anonymous said...

I think it's the difference between seeing justice as vengance or as prevention.

big em said...

'Anonymous' makes another good point about justice. If you think calmly & rationally about it awhile, I believe most people will come to the conclusion that a formal legal justice system should ideally NOT include 'vengeance' as a component, but should be about reformation & repayment for small crimes, and prevention/societal protection from 'big' violent crimes. Vengeance is a very visceral/hormonal thing and it's not easily quantifiable or 'equate-able'. I might think that somebody who cut me off on the highway should be pulled out of his car and have the shit beat out of him, but most of us would agree that that's not the appropriate action/sanction, especially if society's goal is to reform that individual -- and NOT turn him into something WORSE in the process. (Someone else whom is cutoff by the same individual might not even care much -- so how would vengeance be equitably applied? Depending on the subjective anger/shock/horror of the aggrieved party? So the drama queens/kings get to have the most vengeance on their violators?) And obviously people who commit violent crimes can not be trusted in the open society and need to be incarcerated for the safety of the rest of the population.