Seeing how you don’t hear about this guy from anyone else, I figured I might as well lay into Cenk Uygur. The host of ‘The Young Turks’ (TYT) syndicated internet show, he has been scraping the bottom of the barrel for quite some time. After losing co-host Jill Pike in July of 2007, followed by Ben Mankiewicz leaving shortly thereafter, his show was cut from Air America Radio due to poor ratings. After being picked up by XM/Sirius Channel 167, America Left, they were dropped and picked up again. For the most part, it seems this partisan hack spends the majority of his time keeping his show’s “head above water”, struggling to remain relevant by attracting scores of uneducated teenagers, the type that speak about making an impact in politics then don’t show up to vote come election day.
I could spend the rest of this blog post talking about his irrelevancy, about how it took his Youtube Channel four years to get 100 million views, while those he criticizes, like Glenn Beck, have millions of viewers and listeners on a daily basis, but let’s get down to the point. After wasting my time sitting through his videos, reading his nonsense on the Huffington Post, I can tell you that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. A little information can be a dangerous thing, and it is obvious that he has only that. I will pick a handful of his videos and posts and deconstruct them to show just that, so that even the most devoted TYT enthusiast can see that Cenk Uygur is simply wrong. It’s not “blasphemy”, it is the truth.
Part 1: Glenn Beck, Nazis and Cenk’s nonsense
Finished watching? If you can’t stomach it, I don’t blame you. It doesn’t surprise me that he doesn’t know about the treatment of the Jewish people under the Nazi regime, but what do you expect from a man who denied the Armenian Genocide? The Nazis did more than kill the Jews, first they stripped them of their basic rights by passing the Nuremberg Laws in 1935. For those who don’t understand what Glenn Beck is saying, let me start with this.
First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me. – Pastor Martin Niemöller
Glenn Beck’s referenced this poem to point out that under tyrannical rulers, there will always be another political enemy to be targeted. It isn’t a secret that the White House has set its sights on the Fox News organization, not after Robert Gibb’s comments and Anita Dunn’s rant on CNN. For this administration to actually attack a news organization for stories which aren’t favourable to them should raise some eyebrows. Now I don’t agree with Beck on this, I actually find myself in agreement with David Gergen and Gloria Borger on this, that it isn’t a smart strategy and that they can only lose a fight with Fox News. That doesn’t mean, however, that there isn’t merit to compare this to other such incidents, not with what the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) “Diversity Czar” Mark Llyod has been saying. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez has taken action against media outlets critical of him, as the Open Source Center reported in August. While the reference may be a tad extreme, it does go to show that this government is acting in a way which is counter to the teachings of the country’s founding, a point purposely ignored by Cenk during his nonsensical rant with airhead Ana Kasparian. You have to ask yourself, where did Cenk find this twit?
Part 2: Cenk’s delusions on Afghanistan
NATO troops that will replace American soldiers in southern Afghanistan next spring are planning to conduct counterinsurgency missions against Taliban fighters and other militants despite initial opposition from some alliance members, American and allied commanders said Friday…
…Britain and the Netherlands will join Canada in assuming control in the south, along with a much smaller contingent of American support troops. Maj. Gen. Jason K. Kamiya, the senior American ground commander in Afghanistan, expressed optimism on Friday that all three allies would heed pleas that they not limit troop operations.
Such restrictions, called national caveats, have severely limited the kinds of missions allied forces can carry out in Afghanistan and Iraq, and have been a source of frustration for Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his top regional commanders.
With NATO moving into the south, the Pentagon has said it will be able to reduce the overall number of American troops in Afghanistan to about 16,500 troops from 19,000 now. The United States will still have the largest number of foreign soldiers in Afghanistan, and will keep control of the country’s eastern sector, the scene of many firefights and skirmishes along the mountainous border with Pakistan…
How is it that Cenk didn’t read this article or watch any of the coverage about this on CNN? In 2005 NATO was called in to free up American soldiers in Afghanistan and continue the counterinsurgency operations in the country. By this time, America had given up leadership in Afghanistan to its allies. From that point onwards, it was the responsibility of NATO to maintain stability in the region. How is former President George W. Bush to blame for this? Cenk purposely leaves this out, citing an article from the Washington Post which doesn’t even discuss allied troop numbers, let alone how many of the 64,500 International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) troops are American. The number this twit is referring to is most likely the number of non-ISAF American troops are stationed there. Why is this important? Because Iraq was a US-led Coalition effort while Afghanistan was a NATO effort. The reason for the higher US troop levels in Iraq, aside from the 2007 troop surge, was because it was THEIR WAR, not NATO’s. Let’s not forget that the Afghan forces themselves exceed 100,000 troops, while Iraqi forces number only 60,000 (armed and trained). With all the allied troops in Afghanistan, it would be foolish for America not to redeploy some of their forces to Iraq to reinforce its struggling military. Come on Cenk, do your research.
So after getting this wrong, he rambles on about how the Bush administration let Osama bin Laden get away, citing opinion pieces he wrote previously about his belief that they would have captured this man by now if they cared. I don’t think prior nonsense you yourself wrote is proof that George W. Bush didn’t care about Afghanistan, not when he is the one going over to that war zone to visit the troops. Not only that, but this talk about Tora Bora is nonsense, an outright lie. They didn’t know bin Laden was there, as Cenk would like his readers to believe, they only thought he could be, and after overrunning the Taliban in the region (that’s right, they did go after Osama), they couldn’t find any sign of the terrorist leader.
Instead of debating whether or not the previous administration cared about catching Osama bin Laden, let’s talk about a shift in strategy. After a few years pursuing the al-Qaeda mastermind, experts realized that killing him wasn’t going to destroy the terror organization. Aside from his son (who may or may not be dead already), there are a number of potential replacements, including Ayman al-Zawahri, to take up the mantle. Cenk doesn’t seem to care about this as he rants about how Dick Cheney is “downplaying the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden” by repeating what the experts have told him. So why was capturing Saddam Hussein different from capturing bin Laden? Because Saddam was actually an identifiable leader of a state government, and that his capture and execution would in fact mean something, especially to the country he terrorized for decades. There is a difference between cutting off the head of a snake versus cutting off one of the heads of the hydra.
This article doesn’t address any of the real issues with the war in Afghanistan, like the Pakistani support the Taliban has, what will become of the mission when NATO allies reach their pullout dates or how the new rules of engagement are hampering the soldiers’ ability to fight. All it is is simply more raving from someone who is clearly suffering from the later stages of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).
Part 3: Cenk’s continuing BDS, passing opinion off as fact.
This moron’s post, “Presidents Kill, Especially Bush” is among the worst anti-Bush columns I have ever read. Cenk comes out swinging like Mike Tyson with just as much regard for decency as the former heavyweight champion. He says Bush doesn’t have a conscience, calls him a terrible person, and says that the former President “shows sick indifference to the lives of others”. Really? His proof is a story about a wedding being bombed in Afghanistan’s Nangarhar province.
At least 20 people have been killed in a missile strike by coalition forces in eastern Afghanistan.
Locals in Nangarhar province say the group was a wedding party and most of the dead were women and children.
But the US has denied this, saying those killed were militants involved in previous mortar attacks on a Nato base…
…Coalition media officer Capt Christian Patterson told AFP they had received no reports of civilian casualties.
“It was not a wedding party, there were no women or children present,” he said.
In a separate incident on Friday, 15 civilians were reported to have died in a missile attack in Kunar province…
Once again, the TYT host leaves out a few facts. CBS also covered this story, pointing to statements from the military claiming that this is more militant propaganda and that they didn’t bomb a wedding. Could it have been possible that this story is legitimate? Of course, but it isn’t as if we haven’t seen terrorists making up stories to shape public perception on the war. In a time where stories aren’t getting the proper verification, one should be cautious about what they are getting from the news media. Instead of doing this, Cenk throws caution to the wind, claiming this suspicious story as proof positive that former President Bush is a terrible human being. Okay, I’ll see your wedding and raise you a funeral bombing.
An airstrike believed to have been carried out by a United States drone killed at least 60 people at a funeral for a Taliban fighter in South Waziristan on Tuesday, residents of the area and local news reports said.
Details of the attack, which occurred in Makeen, remained unclear, but the reported death toll was exceptionally high. If the reports are indeed accurate and if the attack was carried out by a drone, the strike could be the deadliest since the United States began using the aircraft to fire remotely guided missiles at members of the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the tribal areas of Pakistan. The United States carried out 22 previous drone strikes this year, as the Obama administration has intensified a policy inherited from the Bush administration…
Intensified Bush’s strategy? Doesn’t that mean that Obama is going further than the former President in killing civilians, as per Cenk’s twisted reasoning? The former President and his intelligence officers stated they didn’t feel comfortable bombing funerals, refusing to pull the trigger even if they found high priority targets at Taliban funerals. What does that say about President Barack Obama’s appreciation for life? Once again, following your reasoning, the man in power now must be war criminal for making a decision like that. If that isn’t enough, what about the President not responding to General Stanley McChrystal’s request for more troops? He doesn’t seem to care about the soldiers dying in Afghanistan since instead of even reading the report which was submitted in late August, Obama ran off to Copenhagen to give a speech to the IOC.
In America, a family is sitting around the kitchen table when they get the news that their family member was killed in a fire fight because this President refused to give his soldiers the support they needed. How can Obama even sleep at night knowing his indecision is killing Americans? And why won’t he act? Political reasons. See? I can play that game too Cenk.
Part 4: Cenk’s obsession with a 14-year-old boy’s sexuality.
If anything, this is the most disturbing video I could find from the ‘The Young Turks.’ 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn is still very young, so there is a reason why he has a higher voice than the average political pundit, but Cenk and Ana don’t seem to realize this, nor do they bother actually addressing any of the points he raises (Social Security is going broke Cenk), discussing instead about why is lips are so pink and of course whether or not he will have sex before he is 22. Yes, that’s right, these two perverts are obsessed with whether or not 14-year-old Jonathan Krohn will be having sex soon. As I discussed before, I find it downright disturbing that anyone would sexualize a child, so it is fair to say that I was pretty upset while watching this video. This is just one more reason why TYT won’t be getting a show on MSNBC, because even that network, as awful as is it, has enough dignity to not stoop this low. THEYOUNGTURKS (TYT) BOYCOTT blogged about this story and here is what one commenter, Richard Wagner said,
I saw that clip. He said that the kid is so nerdy that he will never get laid. I thought that was pretty pathetic…I canceled my subscription and haven’t watched them since…there are other liberal sites I can get my liberal fill in everyday. No more tyt for me.
Is it any surprise that Cenk’s ratings on Air America Radio were so low? Common sense dictates that you don’t talk about little boys and sex at the same time, especially in jest. It’s pretty clear that neither he nor Ana realize this. Instead of sounding like smart and savvy political pundits like Jonathan Krohn does (both Fox News and CNN had this kid on, so you can imagine these two were pretty jealous), Cenk and Ana come off as sexually disturbed individuals picking on a defenseless little kid. The only thing that can be said about these two is that they lack even the slightest shred of morality, that there is no line they won’t cross. Sooner or later, it is Cenk who will be sued and it definitely won’t be something to laugh at.
Part 5: Cenk’s anti-gay bigotry and his desire to be sued
As if his obsession with the sexuality of a 14-year-old-boy wasn’t creepy enough, here he is living out his gay conservative host fantasy. The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) just tore out Perez Hilton for this kind of nonsense, so what does Cenk think he is doing by repeating it? No one is being fooled by his “not that there is anything wrong with that” disclaimer before and after calling these conservative hosts homosexuals, it isn’t a pass on political correctness, let alone common decency. Instead of further discussing the content (or lack thereof) of this rant, how about we discuss the content of the statements?
In the late 1980’s, there was a revival of talk radio. The repeal of the FCC’s “Fairness Doctrine” by the Reagan administration had allowed editorial commentary to be broadcasted without the need to present an opposing view point, which allowed Rush Limbaugh to host his talk show from KFBK in Sacramento, California. His success brought about the modern talk radio market, which allowed for other conservatives like Sean Hannity, Mark Levin and Glenn Beck to find their own success. Even Air America Radio owes its existence to Limbaugh’s pioneering. It was because of Rush that there is a market for any kind of political talk radio, something Cenk would know if he bothered researching it.
Rush’s influence is undeniable, and many people including myself, credit those like Limbaugh for our own personal awakenings to politics. My political beliefs were heavily influenced by Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin and Larry Elders, aside from my own experiences in Nantong, China, and my time following Canadian politics. I will also admit that I am a fan of PajamasTV’s Bill Whittle and Joe Hicks, two pundits I encourage my modest readership to listen to. Just because you enjoy this sort of political discussion, it doesn’t mean you should have your sexuality questioned, especially by those who are confused about their own.
I could go on and on, but I think I have made my point. Cenk Uygur continues to play the political game “without a full deck”, refusing to report the news honestly or with any sense of dignity, instead substituting fact for fiction and mindless nonsense. Whether it is his Bush Derangement Syndrome, his sexual perversions or simply the fact that he doesn’t bother with the facts, it should be pretty clear that ‘The Young Turks’ isn’t even worth the bandwidth necessary to watch their Youtube videos. Depending on how well this post performs, I might just write more on Cenk’s continuing stupidity.
An endless source of clueless, creepy and downright disturbing material. Mind-boggling…