Michael Savage Slams The Weekly Standard discusses Military-Industrial Complex [Archive]

Zatch

07-09-2010, 07:19 PM

YouTube - Michael Savage on the Neocons (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nREXjl0rxWo)

YouTube - Michael Savage- Oakland Riots, Oscar Grant, White Liberal Media Provoke, Why are we at War?pt.1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg0oXcUjthA)

YouTube - Michael Savage- War Machine; How Obama Was Voted in pt.2! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgBR-a1n28A)

YouTube - Michael Savage - Slams War, Bush, Neo-Cons, Obama, Republicans!pt.3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-POv1OIE3_0)

YouTube - Michael savage- Republicans, Democrats New World Order; Savage Predicts Pre-Election War with Iran (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0r8cgEOFBw)

TheConstitutionLives

07-09-2010, 07:23 PM

Brian4Liberty

07-09-2010, 07:23 PM

Lol! I was just going to post some of those!

Highlights:

- Praise for Oscar Grant's grandfather.
- Local media trying to incite Oakland riots.
- Communist-Anarchists inciting riots.
- Calling out Bill Kristol and the neo-conservatives for their "permanent war" strategy.

Brian4Liberty

07-09-2010, 07:31 PM

Savage is showing signs of having done a 180 the past year. I want to believe the reason has more to do with a real awakening and less to do with Obama and democrats being in charge. I really wonder who is influencing him these days. What books he's reading. Who he's getting these ideas from. Seriously. It's actually really weird. Que the Twilight Zone music.

I've been listening to Savage since he started. Like almost everyone in the media, he was for the Iraq war. Just like Howard Stern was at the time. Savage has always talked about the military-industrial-media complex and the Oligarchy. He was adamantly anti-war during the US war on Serbia.

As did almost the entire media (left and right), he felt that Iraq (more specifically Saddam) was a threat to Israel primarily, and the US secondarily. Was it worth it? It would be nice to hear him address that.

YumYum

07-09-2010, 07:36 PM

I've been listening to Savage since he started. Like almost everyone in the media, he was for the Iraq war. Just like Howard Stern was at the time. Savage has always talked about the military-industrial-media complex and the Oligarchy. He was adamantly anti-war during the US war on Serbia.

As did almost the entire media (left and right), he felt that Iraq (more specifically Saddam) was a threat to Israel primarily, and the US secondarily. Was it worth it? It would be nice to hear him address that.

Savage has been 100% for a war with Iran. He isn't anti-war.

Brian4Liberty

07-09-2010, 07:52 PM

Savage has been 100% for a war with Iran. He isn't anti-war.

Is that inconsistent?

Savage now believes that Iran (and Ahmadinejad) is the primary threat to Israel. He has given in to paranoia once again. At what point does a person believe that some loudmouth (like Ahmadinejad) is an actual threat? At what point do you believe that the cost to the US taxpayer, and the destruction of property and innocent lives is offset by the possibility that a loud mouth idiot will carry out a threat? Pre-emptive war is the preferred war of the paranoid...

(edit: Pre-emptive war is the preferred war of the paranoid, and the war-mongers, and the power-mad... :)

Liberty Star

07-09-2010, 07:53 PM

Don't have time to listen to all the clips but is the mentally unstable neocon freak finally seeing the daylight? May be he is not the racist he used to be but how does a man change at his age.

Only time he does not seem like a lunatic is when he goes after Dennis Kucinich.

YouTube - Michael Savage TV Show on Dissent & US Troops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKDxIfggxCs)

But how we are "winning this war" I fail to see his point.

Zatch

07-09-2010, 08:03 PM

Was it worth it? It would be nice to hear him address that.

He talks about how the war in Iraq made Iran stronger in the region so no he doesn't think it was worth it.

YumYum

07-09-2010, 08:04 PM

Is that inconsistent?

Savage now believes that Iran (and Ahmadinejad) is the primary threat to Israel. He has given in to paranoia once again. At what point does a person believe that some loudmouth (like Ahmadinejad) is an actual threat? At what point do you believe that the cost to the US taxpayer, and the destruction of property and innocent lives is offset by the possibility that a loud mouth idiot will carry out a threat? Pre-emptive war is the preferred war of the paranoid...

(edit: Pre-emptive war is the preferred war of the paranoid, and the war-mongers, and the power-mad... :)

Michael Savage is an Israeli Firster, and war with Afghanistan does nothing for Israel's security. I think Obama put our troops in Afghanistan to tie them up so we are not capable of invading Iran when Israel makes their air-strike.

jmdrake

07-09-2010, 08:13 PM

Michael Savage on Bush and Iraq: "Absolutely one of the stupidest men in the presidency in history. I know we are supposed to say he was great compared to Obama. My friends, I'm not going to say that. The man created the greatest blunder in history with the Iraq war. And the fact is, that war single handedly bankrupted our treasury."

Two thumbs up for Michael Savage! This is the first time I've heard any of the right wing media types who cheerleaded the Iraq war admit it was a bad idea! I know Alex Jones was always against it as was Pat Buchanan. But this is the first "flip" I've heard on this issue. I need to save this to my phone! I have some conservative friends who need to hear this!

Zatch

07-09-2010, 08:18 PM

Cowlesy

07-09-2010, 08:19 PM

I just listened to all of those clips, and the guy made a new fan out of me. Yes I understand rhetoric, but there was a core of anti-war in there, and a hate for the neconservatives.

Now I see why Savage has Jack Hunter on almost once a week.

Interesting times.

jmdrake

07-09-2010, 08:21 PM

Michael Savage is an Israeli Firster, and war with Afghanistan does nothing for Israel's security. I think Obama put our troops in Afghanistan to tie them up so we are not capable of invading Iran when Israel makes their air-strike.

Bush had already started a "quiet surge" into Afghanistan before Obama came into office. And I don't think a ground war with Iran is possible whether we have troops tied up in Afghanistan or not. The minute we attack Iran all hell will break loose in majority Shiite Iraq. They'll be no pacifying Muqtada Al Sadr and half of the new Iraqi Army will join him.

Just noticed your avatar. I had no idea there was a Michael Tyson - Michael Steele connection. :)

jmdrake

07-09-2010, 08:23 PM

He even said Bush lied about wmds. His rant was mostly directed at Weekly Standard types instead of Obama so it didn't seem like partisan hackery like when Glenn Beck called for ending the war.

Glenn Beck called for ending the war? :eek: I'm falling behind! Man I'm getting a good feeling about 2012. A real good feeling!

paulitics

07-09-2010, 08:37 PM

I've been listening to Savage since he started. Like almost everyone in the media, he was for the Iraq war. Just like Howard Stern was at the time. Savage has always talked about the military-industrial-media complex and the Oligarchy. He was adamantly anti-war during the US war on Serbia.

As did almost the entire media (left and right), he felt that Iraq (more specifically Saddam) was a threat to Israel primarily, and the US secondarily. Was it worth it? It would be nice to hear him address that.

I guarantee that you can write the same thing X years from now, and replace Iraq with Iran and Saddam with Ahmidinijad, and it would be a true statement.

Liberty Star

07-09-2010, 08:38 PM

Savage has been 100% for a war with Iran. He isn't anti-war.

That would be right.

This neocon seems to have the intelligence of a worm.

YouTube - Michael Savage - Bomb Iran Now (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgNT080_4v0)

Zatch

07-09-2010, 08:38 PM

Glenn Beck called for ending the war? :eek: I'm falling behind! Man I'm getting a good feeling about 2012. A real good feeling!

http://video.foxnews.com/v/4152789/price-of-keeping-the-peace/

Zatch

07-09-2010, 08:50 PM

That would be right.

This neocon seems to have the intelligence of a worm.

Neocons believe in nation building and spreading democracy. Michael Savage just wants to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to defend Israel. He's not technically a neocon.

Liberty Star

07-09-2010, 08:53 PM

Neocons believe in nation building and spreading freedom. Michael Savage just wants to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities to defend Israel. He's not technically a neocon.

So technically he's just a genocidal maniac who calls for bombing of countries that do not pose direct threat to America and for indiscrminate killing of civilians in other countries. But he's not a neocon, that's a relief.

I'm surprised Obama hasn't sent his ass to Gitmo yet for advocating genocide. He is violent neocon but he probably could plead insanity as his defense. So you may be right technically.

Zatch

07-09-2010, 08:55 PM

So technically he's just a genocidal maniac who calls for bombing of countries that do not pose direct threat to America and indiscrminate killing of civilians in other countries. But he's not a neocon, that's a relief.

I'm surprised Obama hasn't sent his ass to Gitmo yet for advocating genocide.

As far as I know he hasn't called for a nuclear strike on Iran.

brenden.b

07-09-2010, 09:02 PM

Liberty Star

07-09-2010, 09:12 PM

As far as I know he hasn't called for a nuclear strike on Iran.

I have listened to his radio show for years and am pretty familiar with his shticks. I used to like his colorful commentaries until he started calling for mass murder of Iraqi civilians and turning whole of Iraq into parking lot. He used to get mad at Bush not for invading Iraq but for not killing enough of their people.

He may not necessarily be a committed terrorist or racist that he tried to come across as on air and was just trying to put food on his children and wife/boyfriend. But his message had poisonous effect at the time nonetheless and he was vocal ally of neocons. He's most likely being a fair weather opportunist now that the tide has turned and no one wants to listen to his genocidal rants anymore.

Zatch

07-09-2010, 09:19 PM

I have listened to his radio show for years and am pretty familiar with his shticks. I used to like his colorful commentaries until he started calling for mass murder of Iraqi civilians and turning whole of Iraq into parking lot. He used to get mad at Bush not for invading Iraq but for not killing enough of their people.

He may not necessarily be a committed terrorist or racist that he tried to come across as on air and was just trying to put food on his children and wife/boyfriend. But his message had poisonous effect at the time nonetheless and he was vocal ally of neocons. He's most likely being a fair weather opportunist now that the tide has turned and no one wants to listen to his genocidal rants anymore.

Idk about that. I've never heard him call for intentionally killing civilians. You probably misunderstood him. I heard him a long time ago make fun of a caller who called in and ranted about how we should kill 'em all.

jmdrake

07-09-2010, 09:23 PM

All I have to say is that I am enjoying this whole new onslaught against the Neo-cons. Some of their traditional allies, Ann Coulter and Michael Savage, are now turning their guns on them... Strange times indeed...

I'm sure politics and money are a huge factor for both Coulter and Savage, as well as Beck, but I must say that it is nice to have some of the big names on the right assaulting the Neo-cons along with us, instead of defending them against us...

^This. Some folks are missing the point. Savage is not one of us. (And he owes Ron Paul an apology)! But regardless this is great news! It seems like everyday a new chink falls out of the neocon armor. It's one thing to cheer on the likes of Savage, Beck and Ingram when they agree with us on stuff they always agreed with us on like being against cap and trade or Obamacare. It's a totally different thing when they finally begin to turn the corner on foreign policy. And no, they haven't fully turned the corner and I do think they may be faking etc. That said, they will have a hard time in 2012 bashing candidate Ron Paul (or whoever runs in his stead) or calling for an end to Afghanistan and Iraq if they have essentially done the same thing.

Brian4Liberty

07-09-2010, 09:43 PM

I guarantee that you can write the same thing X years from now, and replace Iraq with Iran and Saddam with Ahmidinijad, and it would be a true statement.

Agreed. I wrote the same thing on the first page of this thread:

Is that inconsistent?

Savage now believes that Iran (and Ahmadinejad) is the primary threat to Israel. He has given in to paranoia once again. At what point does a person believe that some loudmouth (like Ahmadinejad) is an actual threat? At what point do you believe that the cost to the US taxpayer, and the destruction of property and innocent lives is offset by the possibility that a loud mouth idiot will carry out a threat? Pre-emptive war is the preferred war of the paranoid...

(edit: Pre-emptive war is the preferred war of the paranoid, and the war-mongers, and the power-mad... :)

robert68

07-09-2010, 09:47 PM

In the third video down, among other things, he claims Obama ran for President against the Afghanistan war. Actually, when running for President, Obama favored putting more troops there.

Justinjj1

07-09-2010, 09:53 PM

Brian4Liberty

07-09-2010, 09:54 PM

In the third video down, among other things, he claims Obama ran for President against the Afghanistan war. Actually, when running for President, Obama favored putting more troops there.

For the informed, yes they knew that. I personally know people who voted for Obama purely on his "anti-war" stance. The mainstream media spins it the way they want to...

jmdrake

07-09-2010, 10:02 PM

In the third video down, among other things, he claims Obama ran for President against the Afghanistan war. Actually, when running for President, Obama favored putting more troops there.

Listen again. Savage didn't say Obama said he was against the Afghanistan war. Remember there are two wars going on. The quote was "The reason the blue collar white vote moved away from McCain to Obama was because he said he'd end the war". At the time Iraq was still the hot zone and Afghanistan was relatively quiet. And Obama hasn't ended either war. (And I know Obama declined to promise he'd have the troops out by 2013, but he also said he'd have the troops out by 16 months after being elected president). Obama played a shell game with the left. He said enough antiwar things to convince a lot of schmucks he was antiwar. But he said enough pro war things to give himself political cover later to do what he really wanted all along. What's interesting now is that Savage is coming out against the Iraq war, something he had always championed (as far as I know) while Bush was in office. Better late than never I suppose.

jmdrake

07-09-2010, 10:07 PM

Savage is the biggest zionist idiot on the radio. He's already discredited himself about 10000 times. If he seems to be coming out against the wars, it is only because they are against the wrong Muslims or that they are not killing enough Muslims for his genocidal tastes.

He's an awful propagandist and a scumbag human being.

Or because he's an opportunist and smart enough to see the whole country is starting to turn against both wars and so he's a rat deserting a sinking ship.

Or he's having a genuine change of heart.

Or this is part of some grand political strategy.

Whatever his motive is doesn't matter. All that matters is how we capitalize on this. It's time to stop worrying about whether or not certain people are allies and instead look at how we can use them as assets. Yes use. These people have been using and manipulating the gullible public. Now that they are fighting among themselves, with one side taking our position on certain issues, we've got to see how to turn this to our advantage. I say at the next t-party rallies we set up tables and blast out Michael Savage, Laura Ingram and others pushing this new anti-neocon, somewhat antiwar message.

brenden.b

07-10-2010, 06:00 AM

Or because he's an opportunist and smart enough to see the whole country is starting to turn against both wars and so he's a rat deserting a sinking ship.

Or he's having a genuine change of heart.

Or this is part of some grand political strategy.

Whatever his motive is doesn't matter. All that matters is how we capitalize on this. It's time to stop worrying about whether or not certain people are allies and instead look at how we can use them as assets. Yes use. These people have been using and manipulating the gullible public. Now that they are fighting among themselves, with one side taking our position on certain issues, we've got to see how to turn this to our advantage. I say at the next t-party rallies we set up tables and blast out Michael Savage, Laura Ingram and others pushing this new anti-neocon, somewhat antiwar message.

Exactly... Motive at this point really doesn't matter. As long as everyone remembers not to fall head over heel for anyone of these goons. Use their comments against the Neo-cons, but don't ever actually believe that somehow they have transformed into an instant lover of liberty.

These new comments against "permanent war" are going to be devastating to not only the Neo-cons, but the leagues of Republicans that have duped by the Neo-cons. This whole moment is a serious game changer.

YumYum

07-10-2010, 06:57 AM

How can you be anti-war and scream "Bomb Iran, and bring the troops home?" If we bomb Iran we will be at war with Iranians. If we bomb Iran the 7-8 million peaceful Persians living in this country will go ballistic and fight us here at home to the death. Persians are like corn-fed rednecks when it comes to fighting; they are fearless and crazy. Bombing Iran is dumber than the Iraq war.

Israel never wanted the Iraq war, the non-Jewish neocons (Chaney Gang) pushed for it. Israel wanted Bush to attack Iran, but the Chaney Gang persuaded Bush to go into Iraq first, and once Baghdad was secure (that was supposed to take only a few months), America could then invade Iran.

Israel was against an invasion of Iraq, but acquiesced because they were promised and given a guarantee from the president that once we had Baghdad in the bag, we would then go to war with Iran. Also, by taking Iraq, we could have guaranteed air space for the Israelis to do some air-strikes.

Nothing has changed. Iraq was a distraction and a bad mistake in the Israeli government’s eyes. That is why the Jews hate Bush. Had we not gone into Iraq and done what Israel demanded, Iran would not be pursuing nuclear weapons.

The Jews are turning on the neo-cons because they failed miserably. That includes Kristol, and any other Jews who are neocons. What then will the Jewish neocons do? They will either leave the neocon movement and denounce Bush/Obama wars and demand an invasion of Iran, or they will no longer have a career. Watch Kristol change his tune. Watch Cheney have has 9th heart attack and finally die. Watch his daughter, Liz, settle down and marry Rachael Maddow.

So where does that leave the Evangelicals? A little voice in my head just told me that Armageddon is going to be in Iran; not Iraq.

robert68

07-10-2010, 11:58 AM

Listen again. Savage didn't say Obama said he was against the Afghanistan war. Remember there are two wars going on. The quote was "The reason the blue collar white vote moved away from McCain to Obama was because he said he'd end the war". At the time Iraq was still the hot zone and Afghanistan was relatively quiet. And Obama hasn't ended either war. (And I know Obama declined to promise he'd have the troops out by 2013, but he also said he'd have the troops out by 16 months after being elected president). Obama played a shell game with the left. He said enough antiwar things to convince a lot of schmucks he was antiwar. But he said enough pro war things to give himself political cover later to do what he really wanted all along. What's interesting now is that Savage is coming out against the Iraq war, something he had always championed (as far as I know) while Bush was in office. Better late than never I suppose.

I know what Obama was doing; however beginning at 2:42 (third video down), Savage says “And they didn’t want to see their children die unnecessarily in Afghanistan. So they said ‘you know what, Obama’s antiwar, I’ll take a chance on him…’” This suggests Obama had opposed the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, which he certainly did not; to the contrary, he clearly favored increasing the troop levels there, in at least one of the debates especially. That was my only point.

Brian4Liberty

07-10-2010, 12:25 PM

Israel never wanted the Iraq war, the non-Jewish neocons (Chaney Gang) pushed for it. Israel wanted Bush to attack Iran, but the Chaney Gang persuaded Bush to go into Iraq first, and once Baghdad was secure (that was supposed to take only a few months), America could then invade Iran.

Israel was against an invasion of Iraq, but acquiesced because they were promised and given a guarantee from the president that once we had Baghdad in the bag, we would then go to war with Iran. Also, by taking Iraq, we could have guaranteed air space for the Israelis to do some air-strikes.

Wow. That's a different take on things. There is no doubt that there are a lot of anti-war people in Israel. They have a right and a left, but the Likud Party (Right) has been in power for a lot of this, and they would probably be very surprised to learn that they were against invading Iraq and taking out Saddam...

Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby and others in the Bush Administration would also be surprised to hear that they were against the invasion of Iraq.

lester1/2jr

07-10-2010, 01:06 PM

he's some kind of neo neo con

also

Or because he's an opportunist and smart enough to see the whole country is starting to turn against both wars and so he's a rat deserting a sinking ship

this

james1906

07-10-2010, 01:49 PM

Wow. That's a different take on things. There is no doubt that there are a lot of anti-war people in Israel. They have a right and a left, but the Likud Party (Right) has been in power for a lot of this, and they would probably be very surprised to learn that they were against invading Iraq and taking out Saddam...

Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby and others in the Bush Administration would also be surprised to hear that they were against the invasion of Iraq.

In countries where polls were taken on if the US should invade Iraq, only the US, Poland, the Philippines, and Israel had the majority in favor.

YumYum

07-10-2010, 04:06 PM

Wow. That's a different take on things. There is no doubt that there are a lot of anti-war people in Israel. They have a right and a left, but the Likud Party (Right) has been in power for a lot of this, and they would probably be very surprised to learn that they were against invading Iraq and taking out Saddam...

Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, Libby and others in the Bush Administration would also be surprised to hear that they were against the invasion of Iraq.

My source? "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy"

by John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M Walt

robert68

07-10-2010, 04:10 PM

Israel never wanted the Iraq war, the non-Jewish neocons (Chaney Gang) pushed for it. Israel wanted Bush to attack Iran, but the Chaney Gang persuaded Bush to go into Iraq first, and once Baghdad was secure (that was supposed to take only a few months), America could then invade Iran.

Israel was against an invasion of Iraq, but acquiesced because they were promised and given a guarantee from the president that once we had Baghdad in the bag, we would then go to war with Iran. Also, by taking Iraq, we could have guaranteed air space for the Israelis to do some air-strikes.

From the "Forward", March 7, 2003:

Jerusalem Frets As U.S. Battles Iraq War Delays (http://web.archive.org/web/20040607031813/http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.03.07/news2.html)
Nation's Ills Await 'Deus ex Machina'
THE SITUATION
CHEMI SHALEV
JERUSALEM — Israeli policy-makers are growing increasingly nervous about the Bush administration's mounting diplomatic difficulties — at NATO, in Turkey and at the United Nations Security Council — and the increasing likelihood of a delay in the launch of an American campaign against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Israel's top political, military and economic echelons have come to regard the looming Iraq war as a virtual deus ex machina that will turn the political and economic tables and extricate Israel from its current morass...

YumYum

07-10-2010, 04:19 PM

From the "Forward", March 7, 2003:

Once Israel agreed to the Iraq war, which was before 9/11, they were committed. Before agreeing to the Iraq war, they wanted Bush to invade Iran; not Iraq. They initially did not want the U.S. to invade Iraq. The Chaney Gang convinced the Jewish neocons, who in turn convinced AIPAC, who in turn convinced Israel. Please read "The Israel Lobby and Foreign U.S. Policy".

jmdrake

07-11-2010, 10:02 AM

I know what Obama was doing; however beginning at 2:42 (third video down), Savage says “And they didn’t want to see their children die unnecessarily in Afghanistan. So they said ‘you know what, Obama’s antiwar, I’ll take a chance on him…’” This suggests Obama had opposed the continuation of the war in Afghanistan, which he certainly did not; to the contrary, he clearly favored increasing the troop levels there, in at least one of the debates especially. That was my only point.

Point taken. But how many people that voted for Obama really caught on to what he was actually saying? I talk to Obama supporters all the time who think he "had his arm twisted" into sending more troops into Afghanistan. I know Obama was never really antiwar, you know Obama was never really antiwar, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of people who voted for him were clueless about this. Look at all of the libs that defended him getting a Nobel Peace Prize. :eek: