I just called Dennis Prager and damaged his credibility

[Enrique]

(yes it's possible)

Dennis Prager has been touting the Op-Ed article today by the big war supporters Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, supporting extending the surge through 2008.

He twice called Pollack and O'Hanlon "anti-war activists," and posed a challenge to any anti-war folks that might be listening: does this new blockbuster editorial by two "anti-war activists" make you rethink your opposition to the war, or are you too blinded by Bush-hatred?

Armed with ThinkProgress's Research, I rang Prager, and pointed out how Pollack authored a 2002 book subtitled "The case FOR war in Iraq" and how O'Hanlon got a January 2007 op-ed published in the Wash. Post titled "A skeptic's case FOR the surge."

He addressed Pollack's book first. He said, yeah, I should have mentioned that book. But Pollack has since regretted that book and has become anti-war since then. Yeah, right.

Then he addressed O'Hanlon. He said, yeah, I should have mentioned that O'Hanlon supported the surge.

Some anti-war activists.

Answering his challenge, I told him that I react to this editorial by not even bothering to read it, since it's just another pro-war article by just another couple of huge war supporters.

He cut the call off and said to his listeners, "I'm not sure I actually called them antiwar."

In fact, he had twice called them, verbatim, "anti-war activists," and never hinted at any support by them of the war, as many of his listeners will remember clearly.

[annabanana]

1. Excellent. This baloney has to be challenged in public. That

was a good call you made!
:toast:

[shenmue]

2. Congratulations

I can't stand that guy.

:patriot:

Glad someone called him on his garbage.

[Enrique]

6. he's the worst

twice as dishonest as any of the rest of the RW propagandists, ten times as pompous, and utterly without charm or wit.

[shenmue]

7. He's such a barking RW chucklehead...

Prager used to be on Politically Incorrect from time to time. What a hardhead, always seemed very dictatorial and unkind. Reminded me of Neal Boortz, another creep. Ugh. There isn't a sane person in RW broadcasting. Per definition.

[ellacott]

3. Cool

You did a great job. :)

[Kingshakabobo]

4. You must be one of those "left-wing smear-merchants."

Who do you think you are, using facts, quotes and Prager's own words?

[poverlay]

5. Top notch work Enrique. Take a bow. Prager and his ilk will someday be relegated to the gargage

pit when more people learn to pay attention.

Thanks

[A HERETIC I AM]

8. Prager is factually wrong more often than not. I sent him an email a month or so ago.....

when he was commenting on Edwards "The war on terror is a bumper sticker slogan" remark.

Here is what i said:
Prager's show is broadcast rather late here where i live so i couldnt call in (i tried) to respond to the bullshit he was saying today regarding John Edwards statement that the "War on Terror is a Bumper Sticker slogan".

Prager was carrying on how if you believe that the WOT is a bumper sticker slogan ...well....you should just go ahead and vote for Edwards and (essentially) YOU WOULD BE WRONG!

What an ass.

So, I penned this Email to him. I just hope he calls!

Mr. Prager,

As you can see by the time stamp on this email, I heard your comments regarding the Democratic debate rather late today. Your show is broadcast on a delayed basis here in Fort Myers, FL in the evenings. Since I am rarely in my car when your show is on (AM 1040 in Ft. Myers) I have only rare exposure to your opinions and your radio show.

Your comments today regarding the "Bumper Sticker" nature of the so called "War on Terror" (For simplicity, hereinafter referred to as the WOT) made by Senator John Edwards cause me to write this Email. You inferred that if one was to believe that the WOT was merely a bumper sticker slogan and not somehow real and terrible that one should just go right ahead and vote for Senator Edwards and by that inference suggesting that such a vote is a vote for defeat.

I am quite sure you have heard the argument that it is impossible to have a war on a tactic. This is, regardless how much you and pundits of your stripe wish it to be otherwise, an undeniable fact. The WOT is unwinnable. There will not, nor can there ever be victory against a tactic. For no other reason, Mr. Edwards statement bears truth.

Mr. Prager, my Father was C.I.A. (Known to insiders as "The Company") for 22 years from the mid 50's through the 70's. One of his first assignments overseas was at the Pakistan/Afghan border in 1956. Since you claim to be so knowledgeable of United States History, (insinuating this evening that your knowledge was superior to the average Americans) perhaps you can enlighten me and your listeners why on earth the CIA had personnel on the Afghan Frontier 53 years ago.

My bet is you have no idea, in fact and if you think you know it is also my bet your assumptions are wrong, both historically and factually.

This so called WOT is little more than a distraction designed to keep the American public from noticing what the US Government has been doing for decades, only this time what they are doing is noticed by the world stage

The WOT has NOTHING TO DO WITH IRAQ, IRAN OR ANY OTHER MIDDLE EASTERN STATE except that is provides cover for the real intentions of the current administration and those that pull its strings. The so called "Terror Plot" recently in the news involving blowing up a fuel depot at JFK was the result of police work, not military action and had, as has been reported by numerous sources in the various media, no chance whatsoever of success.

This entire exercise undertaken by the current administration, cloaked under the laughably transparent cloak of a WOT is nothing more than an attempt to wrestle control of the second largest known reserves of oil in the world away from those that previously controlled it. To suggest that this expedition in Iraq is a vital part of the WOT or anything other than what it clearly is, amounts to a deliberate and malicious attempt to mislead and misinform the public.

YOU Sir, are the one ignorant of History in this regard. The United States has had a long and politically sordid history in its dealings with the Arab, Muslim and Far Eastern world and the fruits of that history came tragically home to roost on September 11, 2001.

I would have absolutely no problem shooting a man between the eyes if he was bent on killing me or my family. I would have no problem killing man number two, either. But when they start lining up to kill me, the prudent path is to question what precisely i have done to anger them so and change that circumstance. Men like you, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others of similar points of view appear to be of the opinion that I should instead, just burn down the village from whence they came instead of changing whatever it is that i have been doing that makes so many of my fellow humans so predisposed toward my destruction. So much so in many cases that they are willing to sacrifice their own lives and that of their children to facilitate my demise.

Try, just for once Dennis, to understand that we are not in this fight for our freedoms, our way of life, our right to worship as we see fit or to keep from fighting them here or our right for anything. We are in this fight because it serves the long term goals of Chevron, Exxon, BP, Halliburton and Royal Dutch Shell, among others. You can bet it isn't going to be for the benefit of TOTAL, Fina, Agip or any German or Russian petroleum concern.

You are out of line, Dennis. You are wrong in your take on the larger picture of current world events and you are wrong to suggest that Senator Edwards remarks have anything less than the validity which every thinking and truly informed person in the world accredits them.

I am available for further discussion via appointment on this topic should you desire and if you were inclined, available for a recorded conversation for your radio program with sufficient forewarning so that my workday is not distressed.

You or your staff may reach me by cellular (239) 8xx xxxx
I rely on your integrity to keep my name confidential.
This letter will be published on a popular progressive website this evening with my name and phone number removed.

Sincerely,

xxxx xxxxxxx
Fort Myers, Fl.

[judaspriestess]

9. Good job!!

prager is such a douchenozzle

[KT2000]

10. Very nice!

Wish I had hear that! Love it when they are faced with the facts.