Global Cop
FYI: I'm deleting some posts in the comments section, only because they are duplicates. Someone keeps posting the same newspaper article over and over.
posted by Edward at 9/26/2005 09:47:00 AM
Monday, September 26, 2005
Contributors
Previous Posts
- Sorry for the sideways picture posted below, just...
- American Solider
- Final photo-blog postings from Saturday's Defend t...
- United for Peace and Justice, which was a main co...
- I wish the MSM spent enough time with us to take a...
- How could the anti-military protesters yell at the...
- What a crazy day - a woman, who is advocating pull...
- Part of our line
- No radicals, no nutjobs, just people who apprecia...
- Faux-hawks were very popular this year among the f...
33 Comments:
AAAH! Truth! It stings! Stop, stop!
Why are the anti-war protesters so ugly and poorly dressed and the Pro-Bush crowd so nice looking and well dressed? Is it a moonbat requirement to be dirty and slovenly?
You tell them, Jim! All the libs are wearing band t-shirts and dirty jeans while our boys are wearing USA t-shirts and ball caps.
And don't get me started on that tramp in the "American Soldier" tank top? Libs are so shameless. COVER UP, HIPPIE!
A HUGE print up of the moonbats yelling and throwing their tantrums would go well with a caption quoting "v" here, would be good.
Then putting that up on billboards during the 2006 mid-term elections would be real helpful to enlarge the GOP majority in the House and Senate.
Any party that embraces these goons and clowns deserves to have its clock cleaned, again. And again, and again.
Sirc_Valence
Global Cop
I've used a couple of your photos in my post over at
http://foreignobjectdamage.blogspot.com/
I've included a link back to you.
Regards,
Fod
That is the problem with libertards....
----------------------------------
AAAH! Truth! It stings! Stop, stop!
You can thank cindy and her moonbat brigade for making that even more possible in 2006.
:)
-----------------------------
Then putting that up on billboards during the 2006 mid-term elections would be real helpful to enlarge the GOP majority in the House and Senate.
Hey Ed,
Thanks so much for taking the time and effort to go to DC and support our troops. Also for reporting back to us and for the pix.
We really wanted to go but we attended the take back the memorial rally on 9-10, so it wasn't in the finances.
We also live in Chicago, nice to know there's at least one other Conservative in town. I do wonder sometimes.
Well, thanks again!
I guess the Left's message just isn't getting out yet. They'll need to shout a little louder in 2006. I mean, more than 60 million folks missed out on the fact that Bush is really Hitler! How that escaped the notice of so many people is beyond me.
Yep. Shout a little louder to get that message out. (/smirk)
What a great photoblog. Thanks for being there. For standing against the insane among us. And for taking pics which reveal just how hateful they really are.
You DO understand the irony of making fun of a group of people who are marching for what they believe in and then ridiculing them for being hateful, right? I mean, much of this photoblog is about shouting at people who are standing up for what they believe in - right or wrong - and then taking pictures when they get upset at you. Then the rest of you sit around making fun of their clothing and hair and then say they're hateful. I'm not trying to convince you they're right, I'm just saying you're as low on the civility scale as those you're attacking.
Ha. Nice "counter-protest". Whats there, like a dozen people?
Ohhh, but the counter protesters dont look soo craaaazeeee!!!
Do you wingnut inbreds have ANY idea how stupid you sound? Any clue whatsoever?
If you do, pass it on to your fello 11 protesters! LMFAO
i noticed you guys had david dukies marching with you. you may have recalled chanting something about u.s. aid under the direction of a guy representing nowarforisrael.org.
S.F. is politically dominated by some pretty sick puppies.
What irony are you talking about? Ironic that people express an opinion about crazy behavior? Passions run high on both sides, obviously.
But the Left seems determined to prove they're more unbalanced than the rest of the nation.
It would be irony if I was going out for pro-war marches and screaming at the peace protesters. But the civility scale you're talking about doesn't make sense. Writing an opinion on a blog and getting in someone's face to shout it are very different things.
The hateful nature of the Sheehan crowd isn't just reflected in the pics on this blog. There are pics of them popping up all over the blogosphere.
I'm just amazed at the people who stand up to defend what they say and how they act as normal.
They have a right to protest, sure. But they're far from normal.
Since you asked, I'll tell you the mentality of a left winger. Do I feel that Sheehan and the others go about things brashly? Sure. I happen to think the liberal side of the spectrum has alot of vocal extremists. The two things I can say, though, are that (A) I agree with the underlying message that the war is unjustified, wasteful, and ultimately doing more harm - politically, economically, and to the brave soldiers who are caught in it - than good, and (B) that the conservatives were just as crazy - moreso perhaps - over Clinton throughout his entire presidency and the economy was GROWING (whether you feel it was due to him or congress.)
Of course you see the left as imbalanced because you are looking for examples of the left as imbalanced. If you looked at Ann Coulter Little Green Footballs from a humanitarian point of view, you'd think they were insane for all their calls to assassinate Islamic leaders and force our beliefs on them. I can defend the protesters because I don't think calling a war a mistake is unAmerican and, as such, I don't think it's crazy.
As I said, this whole photoblog is based on going to a protest rally and yelling at people who are marching for what they believe in, then taking pictures when they look angry or upset. How is that a noble cause? It's like Operation Yellow Elephant. It may make you feel good to get the goat of a group who disagrees with you, but it's a dirty trick.
Despite what you may think of us liberals, we do care about our country and our troops - perhaps fanatically so. The difference is that we see soldiers who are under-equipped, coming home handicapped in abject poverty due to a system that isn't supporting them, and all of this over a war that (we feel) inspires anti-American sentiment more than disuading it. We want America to be strong and safe, but starting a conventional war with unrelated countries rather than going after known terror leaders - especially bin Laden - seems like a horrible waste of lives and resources. And being called unAmerican for our fanatical love of our country and our troops is maddening.
If you want to understand us, ask. If you just want to criticize and berate us, don't be surprised when we act hateful back to you.
if you saw a march of 100,000 people which was being organized, funded and led by various strains of the national socialist movement and saw that the mainstream media was moderating their message for them, rather than reporting on it's nazi roots, would you react by hoping the truth would come out?
the tactic you speak disapprovingly of here is called counter-protest, and it has a much longer and more robust history and has taken far less civil and restrained forms as practiced on the left.
it has become the only way supporters of the war in iraq are able to be visible to a media which has chosen sides in this conflict. even then not so much, as evidenced by the media blackout of pro-bush and pro-iraq families which make up the staggering majority of families who have lost loved ones in this conflict. despite having been given an opportunity to cover the views of over a dozen of these families on sunday, the ap decided to write a 400 word article on the event without mentioning one of them.
it's a closed loop that way. because all you are allowed to read in the mainstream news are accounts in which our slogans are "shouted" as theirs are "chanted" you conclude that it is we who approach the national discussion with closed minds and vitriol.
i'll tell you though, as the plane on my return flight was emptying, a woman in a teeshirt bearing a graphic which mocked the yellow ribbon insignia saw an american flag lapel pin on a seated woman and initiated a tirade against this woman. the woman sat silently as two of her verbal assailants further back in line joined the fray. the original sin of "divisiveness" and "disunity" belong to women like her and not to the people who are only now starting in small numbers to respond to it.
another example: when marchers passed our way bearing professionally printed signs whic described war supporters in insulting terms, i'm pretty certain it wasn't a "reaction" to our presence there that day. they were filled with that hatred some time before they sent the order off to the printer.
I'm not saying there aren't people who are just angry, nor am I saying that there wasn't a socialist contingent. People are mad because they feel the government is acting against their best interests with their tax money and their children. These people may include fringe groups like socialists and groups with personal agendas (like PETA) but your "counter protest" is essentially just another personal agenda tacking onto the protest rally.
You're right that the media won't equally cover the counter protest because it's not the big event but rather a response to it. There was a pro war rally of sorts on September 11 which marched from the Pentagon to the National Mall and Clint Black played a concert at the end and nobody covered the protestors at that event.
I am not saying that you as a party or an ideology are cheapening discourse, but rather it is things like this where you take pot shots at the other side's event and treat them like unAmerican idiots - often by saying they're ugly and hateful-looking. Nobody likes being called unpatriotic yet nobody was calling conservatives unAmerican for attacking Clinton and I'm sure you all thought you were justified for trying to impeach him.
If you want to show your support, hold your own rallies and come out with a message that involves more than just "War: Support it or you're a traitor" and people will listen.
I do support our troops, but I think we as a country are betraying them by not supporting them as human beings. They deserve to be treated better than poverty when they come home and they deserve to be kept out of a fruitless, seemingly infinite war. That's why I don't support the war. If some idiot laughs at a grieving mother, you're right that they are scum, but don't use that as proof that you are right and we are wrong.
JN, read Regime Change in Iraq and Why.
I'de recommend that you do so carefully before replying. No rush.
jn, i know you can't see why, but your response is as if you read nothing of what i told you. the fact that you refuse to recognize any of what i've said drives me to want to respond by talkng at you while looking past you in a similar fashion. you see that don't you?
"I'm not saying there aren't people who are just angry...These people may include fringe groups like socialists..."
they are not "fringe", jn. they are the organizers. i don't want to repeat it in a mocking fashion three times, but i simply cannot understand why people on the moderate left persist in portraying the organizers of the anti-iraq-war movement as the fringes of that movement.
i'm certain that you are not unlike me: you work jobs to maintain a modest life in which you have other primary personal pursuits aside from politics.
organizing huge protests is beyond our means, but we will participate enthusiasticly if more dedicated people would furnish the opportunity.
certainly there are odd people of no consequence who collect early sosoc benefits and dedicate themselves to standing on street-corners handing out hand-written mimeographs. but i can't believe that it's your belief that the tens of thousands this weekend or at any similar event simply formed around one of these guys like pearl around a bit of rock.
no. these things are organized by dedicated professional protestors who operate from national organizations with substantial resources and leadership over a national network.
they do not shamble through town with food in their beards ranting, or with their faces covered as the spray anti-meat grafitti on the kfc. they enjoy a dignified style of life as professional ideologues.
in the case of the anti-iraq-war movement, they also happen to be the people who believe we should trade in the first ammendment for universal health care per cuba, call for an operational alliance between the western left and the middle-eastern right, and think that "bush is rhe symptom, capitalism is the dissease, and revolution is the cure."
international answer organized the rally and march, securing the permits, raising the millions, providing for insurance costs, arranging charter busses in each city to shuttle people to dc just for the march and providing the greatest number of speakers.
one of these speakers was ramsey clark, the founding signatory of the international action center, which is the parent organization of international answer.
he was also saddam's attourney.
the parent organization of the international action center is the workers' world party. they are the part of the original socialist movement which remained loyal to the soviet union after the invasion of hungary. they have taken positions supportive of both north korea and the soviet invasion of afghanistan.
it is not a strawman or an exaggeration to characterize any event for which they are the lead organizing force as a communist event.
let's also have this be clear: international answer did not march it's group into an event organized by moveon.org. moveon.org marched it's group into answer's event.
where is the moderate left in all of this? they are there amongst the horrors, wearing some red, white and blue and holding moderately-worded signage, but gazing at it all through doe-eyes misty with romance...
25,000 people over here chant "palestine must be free, from the river to the sea!"
"ooh, that's nervy," you say.
40,000 people over there cheer when the speaker onstage calls for solidarity with the insurgency.
"wow, that's brash. perhaps even overly brash."
if it were not for the wwp and the other organizations like it, there would be no mass gatherings. the antiwar movement would be similar in size and sophistication to the opposing rallies this weekend.
imagine please, if you are capable of empathising with me for argumant's sake, that the sunday rally for the troops derived it's mailing lists, the rental of it's stage and sound system, all of the signage and many of the featured speakers from the national organization of the ku klux klan. imagine that it's not even a secret; they are selling their newspaper at the event and when you call to get information on the rally, you're calling the national kkk offices.
if the mainstream media reported simply that it was a patriotic rally to support the troops attended by citizens eager to express their support for the war, what would you conclude of the press?
"You're right that the media won't equally cover the counter protest because it's not the big event but rather a response to it."
i'll be working soon on a contrast-and-compare presentation between the article the ap submitted for the anti-war demonstration on saturday and the one they submitted for the pro-war demonstration on sunday.
easily five times as many words were devoted to the counter-protesters at the latter event than to the former.
and the principal i suggested before was constant between the two: they "chant" their slogans, we "shout" ours, and similar adverb games.
while the military presence at the anti-war rally and march was statisticly insignifigant, it was featured. while the military participation in the pro-war march was probably better than a third, according to a show of hands called for by one of the speakers, it was almost not mentioned at all.
"I am not saying that you as a party or an ideology are cheapening discourse, but rather it is things like this where you take pot shots at the other side's event and treat them like unAmerican idiots - often by saying they're ugly and hateful-looking."
if you are not ugly or hatefull, and do not regard yourself as being associatable with the people we are mocking, then you shouldn't personalize what we're doing over here.
but do not pretend that they are not the ant-war movement. they are the anti-war movement while you're out on dates, doing your laundry and off on vacation. and they'll tell you so.
"Nobody likes being called unpatriotic yet nobody was calling conservatives unAmerican for attacking Clinton."
i can't endorse clinton's impeachment, but the right was indeed characterized as unamerican for it. we are characterized as unamerican now. i undertstand that it is intended as a pre-emptive smear, but you have to wonder why the threat of being named as a traitor thumps like the telltale heart so closely beneath the surface of every leftwing argument that they need to always frame their views as "true" patriotism.
beyond that, none of clinton's assailants were motivated by a definition of revolution which expliscitly endorsed changing the constitution or the overthrow of the entire government. the social justice movement is.
"If you want to show your support, hold your own rallies and come out with a message that involves more than just 'War: Support it or you're a traitor'..."
i invite you to go to www.defendthewhitehouse.org and find anything even indirectly resembling that argument.
"I do support our troops, but I think we as a country are betraying them by not supporting them as human beings. They deserve to be treated better than poverty when they come home and they deserve to be kept out of a fruitless, seemingly infinite war. That's why I don't support the war."
i don't know where to start with this inversion. you do realize that 80% of the armed forces voted for george bush post iraq invasion and after months of occupation? the soldiers do not feel they are humanized when the left infantalizes them and portrays their service as a scam they unwittingly fell into. they do not feel honored when the left uses their names as props in political theater like the foamcore crosses i saw crammed into garbage cans at the end of the march on saturday. in fact, many are seeking legal recourse that may prevent displays like arlington west and eyes wide open from using their names posthumously.
you may truly feel that you are directing you sympathy towards the troops rather than merely directing your hatred towards bush, but the troops by and large disagree with you on both the war and bush. you must recon with this. if the position you're defending is a self-serving mirage, then you should stop for your own sake.
"If some idiot laughs at a grieving mother, you're right that they are scum, but don't use that as proof that you are right and we are wrong."
i agree. so you agree then that it is bloodless, cowardly, dishonest exploitation to present cindy sheehan as a mother of a soldier lost in the war? it's only her views on the war, stripped of her identity, which should count, right?
What's to discuss here? Read some reports that don't come from your own delusional supporters: it's over. You folks are in the minority, the greater percentage of Americans oppose the war, and oppose your man in the White House, who, having done what he always does best--take a functioning company and drive it into the ground, then move on--has finished his work, and consequently his ratings are in the toilet.
As another site said so well today "In sketching the contour of American political cycles, historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. once noted that its chief characteristic is that once the left positions the country into proper working order, the resulting prosperity leads the electorate to start thinking like Republicans. So the right finds itself swept into power, only, of course, to foul things up. This prompts a return to leftward national thinking, which once again improves matters, which once again leads to Republican complacence, and so it goes, on and on."
Okay, first off, I will read the article that sirc suggested in a bit. Also, as a favor to those of you who are talking civilly, I will ignore the anonymous poster's lame attempt to taunt me.
@$$, I admit that I mostly ignored your comments because it's a rule with me that the minute anyone brings up nazis into legitimate debate, they've lost any legitimacy. I mean, it's like comparing someone to Satan. The obvious association is that if you defend them, you're defending Hitler and nobody wants to defend Hitler.
Beyond that, your socialism argument rings hollow to me - especially since you associate them to both the nazis and the communists. Hitler hated communism and communist Russia was our ally during WWII. If you're going to go off the concept that communism is evil, we won't find a common ground because, while I prefer capitalism, I feel that certain degrees of communism (like Israeli kibbutzim and certain degrees of social welfare) can breed a healthy society.
That aside, let me explain the "fringe" comment. I don't know who organized the protest, but I do associate with the anti-war message. I didn't need Cindy Sheehan to make me see how ill-advised and poorly planned the war was and I don't need to subscribe to every philosophy to agree on one issue. I've seen lots of talk about David Duke but I remember his bid for the Republican candidacy for president and I don't think it would be fair to categorize it as "Republican politicians stood with Cindy Sheehan," would you?
I know the liberal end of the spectrum involves lots of extremists and, while I don't like their tactics, I know that we share key political interests. I mean, I'd assume that if any of you are fiscal conservatives, you've got to hate Bush's rampant spending but you do agree with him on something, otherwise you wouldn't frequent this site.
I also noticed that liberals tend to be characterized as "ultra-liberal" way too loosely - especially through outlets like Fox News. I mean, John Kerry, John Edwards, and Joe Lieberman are fairly moderate - far more moderate than Bush and Cheney are - yet they were all categorized as "the most liberal" during their elections. The midpoint has been pushed so far to the right that anyone who suggests any taxation is suddenly an ultra-liberal.
The majority of Democrats earn money and support families just like Republicans and, as is always the case, the only reason the socialist extremists are so noticeable is because they ARE so vocal. But, I mean, it's not the weekend enthusiasts who set up car shows - it's the devotees. That doesn't mean that everyone in attendance is a fanatic, just that they share an ideal.
While I don't personalize the insults you all post, I do empathize with the people. All you are doing is dehumanizing your enemies rather than refuting his ideals by calling them ugly or hateful. If you just want a nice cathartic two-minute hate, I'm sorry for interrupting, but know that it just polarizes the sides. And, yes, I know we do it too and it's just as dirty.
As far as I'm concerned, the Clinton impeachment was a revolutionary process. They saw a liberal tax-and-spend, pro-social welfare president and decided to take the lowest path to deal with him. From before he even took the oath, they were trying to pin crimes - some as bold as murder - on Clinton and his wife until the Monica Lewinski opportunity appeared. It was never a search for truth. It was always an attempt to destroy someone they didn't agree with politically. So basically it was an ultra-capitalist coup instead of a socialist one.
As for the troops, whether they support Bush or not is not my point. As I said, I've seen articles and footage about soldiers who come home handicapped with no money because the government slashed their benefits. (Watch this video: http://www.archive.org/download/When_I_Came_Home/When_I_Came_Home_Part_II_Iraq.mov It's heartbreaking.)
On top of that, troops are continuously being strong-armed into reinlisting. Even if you haven't read any so-called liberal articles, you must know that soldiers were deserting and suing to try to get out of service. How is this doing honor to our soldiers?
In response to your final question about Sheehan, you're right that it is her word that is important, but the fact that she was essentially the ideal of conservative motherhood - leading her son to service of the scouts, the church, and ultimately the service - should earn her enough respect to not be instantly dismissed as an unAmerican terrorist-sympathiser. How is it fair to marginalize her and attack her personally when she is trying to fight to keep other mothers from suffering her loss? You feel people should be judged on character and actions, yet you treat her like she's never done anything for our country because she disagrees. Once again, it's just a two-minute hate.
Look, I'm sorry you feel that the media doesn't show your side enough, but our side has felt the same since the war started. Of course a 100,000+ person march is going to get attention - a 100,000+ pie eating contest would get national attention. The fact is that you support the establishment so whenever Bush speaks, your side is being represented and, trust me, he gets far more face time than Howard Dean.
Oops. Sorry. Didn't see that anonymous was trying to argue my side. Like I said, I was ignoring it. Apologies.
Okay, Sirc, I'm going to try to take this step by step.
First off, you should know this blog you sent me is the most abbrasive thing I've seen in a while. You either found or made up a real dupe of a liberal and read him the riot act in a very Jack Chick fashion. If this is intended to convince liberals you are right, start by not making it seem like you think this yutz is a typical liberal. Give us some credit. We're the same "liberal elite" who are poisoning our colleges, right, so don't take the dumbest among us as a benchmark.
Again, I don't know if it's on purpose, but you make your first point in the most irritating way - linking to Fox News. Fox News, besides being notoriously pro-War if not pro-Bush, loves to make statements without linking to the article they are paraphrasing. Basically, without the full report, you have to assume that Fox isn't taking things out of context and, after "I voted for the war before I voted against it," no liberal is going to trust a conservative source to not take something out of context.
Frankly, I find most of the evidence fairly vague and litterred with assumptions. The "Prague Connection" yields nothing except the possibility that Al-Ani MAYBE gave Atta $8,000 - not exactly a huge sum for someone in bed with terrorism - and even that hinges on one member of the Czech counterintelligence community who only outed Al-Ani AFTER he was kicked out (for completely unnamed reasons.)
The only real link that is offerred in the Weekly Standard article is that bin Laden agreed to stop undermining Saddam. That's hardly a friendly statement. Otherwise, everything else is based on anonymous sources and unnamed officials who only spoke once Saddam fell which smells more of selling out a fallen leader than genuinely wanting to aid the US.
All of this, however, is moot because it is a smoke screen to avoid the big issue about the war. We were told that we needed to strike first because Saddam had WMDs which the administration itself now admits did not exist. Whether you trust Saddam or the UN, there were investigators in Iraq - Saddam was cooperating - and we didn't even wait for the report. We didn't even demand to send our own investigators and troops to aid, we just decided to invade when Blix's daily reports didn't support our hypothesis. So, whether it was based on bad judgment or bad information, we still jumped the gun by declaring preemptive war.
And then, of course, are the other issues. I know you've heard them so I will just mention them. We still don't have Osama, we haven't investigated Saudi Arabia despite the plurality of 9/11 terrorists from there, we didn't go in to "free" Iraq despite what we say now, democracy does not equate to America-loving, and the country is growing closer and closer to civil war in the vacuum of power. Not to mention that the new president admires and feels a strong love for Iran and, of course, the fact that nobody wants to compare terror numbers before and after the war started.
You want to do justice to our troops and the dead from 9/11? Work together with other nations to set up an international intelligence network to weed out terrorist cells at their root, don't invade countries that are POTENTIAL terrorist aids. But, of course, that ship has sailed - we burned our bridges with our allies and our troops are so entrenched in Iraq that it takes half a week to clear them to come to their home town when it gets flooded.
What have we accomplished? We ejected a dictator, sure, but America is not safer now than before. Economically we are weaker, militarily we are weaker, and geopolitically we couldn't get more than a handful of countries to trust us enough to fight the martians. Meanwhile al Queda is still in business, Iraq is still in turmoil, and every day shows a new reminder how vulnerable we are since Homeland Security has done almost nothing at HOME to boost SECURITY.
But it's not a mistake. It's a huge miscalculation that is harming this nation and the soldiers more than a million peace protests could.
jn,
i can respect a reflexive aversion to dignifying accusations of affinity with nazis in place of a rebuttal.
but if you read far enough into what i wrote to read the word "nazi" you cannot credibly claim to have misunderstood my use of it.
upon a second reading you seem to have discovered that i was not calling you or anti-war marchers nazis at all, but rather classifying fascism and communism together as powerful radicalisms with brutal histories.
but you've done this only to move onward to misuderstand my argument to be one of "nazism IS communism," which would be a silly argument for me to make. if that's what i thought, then it would hardly be nessesary for me to attempt an anaolgy in the first place, and so it would be silly to argue back at it.
when you actually engaged the analogy i did draw, you made the point that kibbutsism is a relatively benign communism. certainly, and of course there are "socialist" forms which are highly regarded on the right, such as families, which are thought to be benign and good.
this is why i made it a point to specify the stalinist-lenninist brand of communism which characterizes the leadership of the anti-war movement. there are other violent radicalisms with detestable allegiances which were involved in the organizing of saturday's rally and march, but i stuck to one in a vain attempt to keep the argument on track.
to be honest, it was a little surprising to see you take such an absolute position on the use of the word "nazi" to begin with, having taken such a grey attitude towards the associations within the antiwar march and rally i cited. particularly since those marchers displayed on their signs, banners and teeshirts, a near uniform inability to spell without swazticas. if you discounted those people with such reflexivity, i would wonder how you find yourself amongst them at all!
i'm certain you didn't intend it, but it looks as if you've cited godwin's law in the manner it's violators would violate it. and for the same reason. LOL!
i'll grant you that that the practical results of totalitarian socialism is a difficult thing to stomach. the tens of millions of innocents murdered, the dozens of entire nations swallowed, the apparent foolishness and gullibility of it's western apologists, the quixotic blood lust expressed in such notions that if all but a few remain at the end of revolution, that it would have been worth it, the vain hubris in the policy which prescribed that it is the people who are to be fixed when the system fails.
and what did it result in? a backward accelleration in the wealth and quality of life for it's subjects where ever it was inflicted upon them. catostrophic failure. a monopolar world in which, thankfully, the good won out.
perhaps to soften this for your own consumption, you have corrupted some words and mangled their meanings to create false paralells. for instance, a "revolution" is different from a revolution and "coup" spoken as a metaphor is different from an actual coup.
castro, for instance, led a revolution culminating in a coup which cost much blood, and claimed actual lives. the change he promised to his country for this very real mortal sacrifice was a return to the 1943 constitution and the resumption of political liberty. instead, he has ruled as a dictator since.
this is not to be confused with the "revolution" ending in a "coup" you call to in which legislators from one party wasted money and time trying to catch the chief executive in a lie. their success didn't quite result in a "coup," if the word is meant to describe a swapping of power, as clinton served out his second term. the whole process left the republic intact, if stinking a bit more of partisan folley.
even so, i understand why you drew the comparison. i agree that it was an ugly campaign and i confess that, as someone who has come to the party afterwards, it's not an episode i'm particularly proud to be associated with. also, it's probably soothing to imagine that one's own zealotry is proportional to the other side's, and thus the blood of innocents is thought to be equal to sacrifices of time and money.
but regardless of how you triangulate between your critisisms of the war in iraq, the pro-tyrrany network at the helm of it's opposition, and your own concience, each of those points remain what they are. and my argument that the second of those mertits the opposition of all who are honestly loyal to ideas of free speech and free minds, likewise remains. i assure you that you'll be better able to address my argument taken straight, as i wrote it.
similarly, characterizing the unpresidentedly high re-enlistment rate as being the product of "strong-arming," doesn't make it true. nor does describing cindy sheehan as the "ideal of conservative motherhood." she herself has stated the exact opposite in unambiguous terms, claiming to have offered to drive her son to canada and stating flatly, "this country is not worth dying for." of this, i can only conclude that you've managed to confuse yourself, as i've not heard your characterization of her from even the most dishonest of her supporters.
you've conceded to us that you don't care what the troops actually think, or rather, that you care in spite of what the troops actually think. i thank you for this candor, which is so infrequently shared accross the political divides.
i would suggest, however, that life goes on while you remain locked in this feedback loop between your own projections and your perception of them as they bounce back to you from others of like mind.
i'm also glad you aknowlege that your own side enjoys their "two minutes of hate." in fact, a couple from your side have chosen to come here to have their "two minutes of hate," and though its an annoyance, i don't think our side would have it any other way.
but having aknowleged that, i'd suggest that you would accomplish more in the way of elevating the debate by directing your admonishments at your side, where your critisisms are likely to be understood as being delivered in good faith and bound by broader loyalties, rather than coming all the way over here, where most will probably be suspicious of your motives.
WE DID IT!!!!!!
Governor George Pataki has cancelled plans to build the controversial International Freedom Center at the World Trade Center site - and representatives of the center say the location change has forced the entire project to be scrapped.
The center had drawn criticism from some 9/11 victims’ family members because it would not focus exclusively on the terror attacks. Family members also said the IFC could potentially contain exhibits that were anti-American.
Pataki said Wednesday that he’s given the center a chance to clarify its intentions, but there’s just too much opposition.
In a statement, Pataki said: “The creation of an institution that would show the world our unity and our resolve to preserve freedom in the wake of the horrific attacks is a noble pursuit. But freedom should unify us. This center has not.”
The governor asked the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation to work with the IFC to explore other locations for the center, but representatives of the center have decided to scrap the idea completely.
In a statement, the IFC said: “We are deeply disappointed that the will could not be found to continue the development of the International Freedom Center at this hallowed site. We do not believe there is a viable alternative place for the IFC at the World Trade Center site. We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end.”
http://www.takebackthememorial.org/
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS OF 9/11!!
-----------------------------
You want to do justice to our troops and the dead from 9/11
"It's a huge miscalculation that is harming this nation and the soldiers more than a million peace protests could."
There you go with the disconnected abstractions. Protests must be judged by their content and their subject. Iraqis are fighting actual terrorists, this issue is larger than uninformed opinion. Iraqis don't want to go back to being ruled by terrorists. They are our allies in this war.
--
"All of this, however, is moot because it is a smoke screen to avoid the big issue about the war. We were told that we needed to strike first because Saddam had WMDs which the administration itself now admits did not exist."
I rebutteed that incorrect statement here, already. I didn't tell you to read it for no reason:
"Twelve of the clauses [in the war authorization] refer to Saddam's violation of 16 UN resolutions – resolutions which constituted the terms of the truce in the 1991 Gulf War, and which most commentators on the war seem to have forgotten. Thus, it was Saddam Hussein's violation of these 16 resolutions and a 17th – Resolution 1441, a final ultimatum – that caused us to go to war. The presentation to the UN by Colin Powell about laboratories for producing weapons of mass destruction, which was the only significant White House presentation of such a case – took place after the decision to go to war was made.
"We went to war against Saddam Hussein in the spring of 2003, because to withdraw the 200,000 troops without a war and without Saddam’s capitulation to the UN demands would be a catastrophic defeat for the forces of freedom and peace. It would mean with absolute certainty that Saddam would reactivate the weapons programs he had launched and spent more than 40 billion dollars to implement before the United States obstructed them..."
Seriously, go back and read the whole thing. You are insulting the intelligence of whoever is depending on you for insight. Don't expect me to reply to you again. I told you to take your time with this.
--
"Frankly, I find most of the evidence fairly vague and litterred with assumptions. The "Prague Connection" yields nothing except the possibility that Al-Ani MAYBE gave Atta $8,000 - not exactly a huge sum for someone in bed with terrorism - and even that hinges on one member of the Czech counterintelligence community who only outed Al-Ani AFTER he was kicked out (for completely unnamed reasons.)"
Actually, Al Ani was officially expelled for "engaging in activities beyond his diplomatic duties".
I don't know if Atta "only" recieved $8,000, the State Department reported that the 9/11 conspirators had somewhere around $26,000 left over after the attacks.
And by no means is what Saddam did with billions worth of smuggling and graft through the UN Oil For Food program. There was that "firm with close ties to a Liechtenstein trust that has since been designated by the U.N. itself as 'belonging to or affiliated with Al Qaeda.'" as Claudia Rosette has reported in the past.
And what about this: "Atta's business appeared to be extremely time sensitive and specific to May 30. When Atta learned in Hamburg that his Czech visa would not be ready until May 31, he nevertheless flew on May 30 to the Prague International Airport, where he would not be allowed to go beyond the transit lounge. Although a large part of this area is surveiled by cameras, he managed to spend all but a few minutes out of their range. After some six hours, he then caught a flight back to Hamburg. From this visaless round trip, Czech intelligence inferred that Atta had a meeting on May 30 that could not wait, even a day—and that whoever arranged it was probably familiar with the transit lounge's surveillance. Finally, the BIS determined that the Prague connection was not limited to a single appointment since Atta returned to Prague by bus on June 2 (now with visa BONN200005260024), and, after a brief wait in the bus station, disappeared for nearly 20 hours before catching a flight to the United States." (--Edward J. Epstein) ?
--
"You either found or made up a real dupe of a liberal and read him the riot act in a very Jack Chick fashion."
That dupe was reflecting the views of his/her fellow leftist constituents and the views of the left's intellectual leaders, for example Chomsky, Soros, Kennedy, Ward Churchill, and many many more. In your mind, or at least rhetoric, "there is no connection, there is no connection, there is no evidence, no its not true, its not." You're practically asking me to recite a freakin' almanac to you here.
JN, I'm not making the dumbest among you the benchmark. If you noticed, that mark was left by a huge dishonest Marxist slob at the Democratic Convention in the seat next to Jimmy Carter, America's worst president ever!
My friend, the reason I am even bothering with this stuff is because the insane are running the asylum on your side. Its really a kookyness epidemic. I guess I'm supposed to act like nothing when someone says the most incredibly ridiculous things and keep a straight face.
I never use the term "liberal elite", some conservatives stupidly do. I'm not them. Its lib elitists that are the problem in academia and politics. The typical lib is a politically insane (and likely otherwise) yutz. Say there's a culture geared toward homosexuality or being gangstaz or blowing themselves up. They will not view themselves as having a problem. Like an alcoholic.
Take yourself, here, for example.
If millions of people and their "intellectual" leaders (professional kooks) have been denying even a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, you can be damn well sure that they will dismiss the smoke emanating from a probable and likely asymmetrical fire. There are not that many coincidences in intelligence as there are with al Qaeda and Iraq and 9-11.
But rather than acknowledge that, you choose to support the assumption that Saddam would not cooperate with al Qaeda in attacking the United States in a 9-11 style attack yet President Bush launched an illegal or immoral or deceitful war. Incredible.
Lawyers get murderers and other criminals off the hook in this way all the time, by selling out reason like a cheap whore in order to get their client off. The method parallels your own, which has been to get pieces of evidence and to take them out of context or ask the judge to throw the "prejudicial" evidence out of court. IT HAPPENS all the time.
You somehow forgot to mention that the Clinton indictment against bin Laden was one that charged more than an agreement to stop undermining eachother, it charged that among the charges in the 1998 indictment against bin Laden was that Iraq and Al Qaeda had reached an agreement to cooperate with eachother. And that's only the tip of the iceberg and at the same time an example of the feckless and weak approach that only emboldened America's enemies abroad.
-
You questioned my honesty, but you are in a very very bad position to do so. Especially after adopting the materialist (leftist) "truth is inconsequencial and whatever you say" approach to serious matters. That's the default for leftist so-called intellectuals, I'm sorry to say.
Look at John Kerry, who in his first presidential debate said there was "no connection" between Iraq and al Qaeda. I have to say that I see you engaging in silly selectiveness - in light of that. The way that you make the claim that I was using the straw-argument, by seeking to deny damning evidence wherever you can, turning the known into just abstractions (as though there were really a rational rebuttal to the case for the overthrow of Saddam "somewhere, somehow" out there). That's why I'm careful to use the term "political insanity."
-
Did Fox make you mad, or were you already? I seem to recall Kerry saying “We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today," on ABC. Yet in the middle of the war, before that appearance, on August 2004 he said that he would have. Differently, of course. He said that it was reckless to abandon our troops while voting for the $87 billion supplemental for Iraq and Afghanistan, but he voted against it because it contained tax cuts as well; the wormy weasel. This guy is worse than "Liberal American" because he talks out of both sides of his mouth all the time.
While campaigning he told an Arab or Islamic group that Israel's security fence was a barrier to peace. He called it provacative and counterproductive.
Then, he called it a legitimate act of self-defense in front of a Jewish group, I think it was.
There's more, but I think that it wasn't the case for Operation Iraqi Freedom that is vague and littered, it is the opposition.
-
You say al Qaeda is still in business. Yeah, to an extent. But you have to recall what their business was. They oppose freedom and we have been advancing it.
They probably didn't expect their pal, Saddam to be overthrown. They probably expected the Islamo-fascist Taliban regime to create another Vietnam. The word "quagmire" was in vogue in the early stages of Operation Enduring Freedom, as I recall.
And as for our "allies". Please, if that has become an empty cliche it is their the result of their own foolishness. France and the Germany in decline and with an unemployment rate double that of the U.S. are not American states, anyway; the ones who said that they would veto any authorization to use force against Saddam Hussein, thus repeating history by making the argument, once again, that bluffing aggressive tyrants ("Ok Saddamy, this time we're going to wag my finger at you in a really really mean way") is the proper way to deal with them.
I've always said that the former Nazis and the surrendermonkeys were the last two countries to consult with on matters of security and peace.
-
I don't think that someone in their right mind could read the same thing and respond the way that you did. And actually, I don't believe that you read it completely. You probably just this piece or that.
I wasn't very happy that I had to post all of that publicly available information, so that might explain some of the abrasiveness there.
But try to overlook that, I believe that was the real flaw in my presentation.
Why is it abrasive to cite the cable news channel that more Americans trust instead of leftist propaganda magnets? Kerry is a sleazebag and sellout, you can't blame Fox for that. You want to be outraged by that comment? I learned a long time ago that people who have trouble defining what morality is in the first place should be treated as decently as possible, but not taken seriously.
In Iraq today we now have an ally in the War on Terror in a free Iraqi people where for decades there was a tyrant who had plenty of opportunities and leeway to correct himself rather than become an obstacle to winning the WOT as well as an enemy and threat to our nation and her citizens in a bad time to be so. Americans voted for leaders, not followers.
I believe that the source of the current flood of confusion, lack of common sense, and ignorance is something that has gone definitely awry in education today. Though my thesis isn't complete yet, I'm sure I'm not the only one that has noticed this.
America should be producing elites, not dangerous elitist clowns.
"We consider our work, therefore, to have been brought to an end.”
Yeah, jerks, I'm sure that America feels terrible about the Governor's rejection of this latest offering of lib CRAP.
Skye, you have to see this link to the video and transcript about Debra Burlingame, whose brother died on 9/11 being mistreated by Richard Tofe the president of the IFC museum. The guy was a real turd.
"SKYE said...
WE DID IT!!!!!!"
yes we did, didn't we?!
last week the attempt to construct a memorial to the terrorists who felled flight 93 was foiled, just as the passengers of that flight foiled the terrorists' plans.
so the ugliness and hate of this weekend is bookended with two very satisfying victories.
Today is a very sweet day for Americans and especially Debra Burlingame.
"Nice Try" indeed...
-----------------------------
"After the segment ended, all right, Debra Burlingame, whose brother was a pilot on one of the planes that was forced to crash into the World Trade Center, and this Richard Toefel, the president of this proposed museum, walked back into the green room.
You also walked back with them. Then this guy Toefel put his — actually patted her on the back and whispered "nice try." In a sarcastic way, would you say?"
Why does Bush hire this scum?
According to FrontPage, David Safavian, recently arrest by the FBI, used to work for Alamoudi, a lobbysit group respresenting Hamas and Hezbollah. Bush gives him a job as Chief of Staff at the GSA, as head of procurements:
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19597
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17681
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/20/AR2005092001758.html
Good thing the FBI are watching goons like JAck Abramoff and this scumbag, who was in charge of Katrina re-construction contracts until he was picked up by the FBI:
"Safavian is just the latest figure to be ensnared in a widening investigation of high-powered lobbyist Jack Abramoff. The criminal complaint against Safavian also alleges he improperly applied his influence in 2002 in an unsuccessful attempt to help Abramoff, a friend and former colleague, acquire two federal properties. At that time, Safavian was serving as chief of staff at the General Services Administration, which owns and manages federal properties. "
http://federaltimes.com/index2.php?S=1130126
Political retribution? This guy represented Hamas and Hezbollah, and Bush put him in charge of doling out huge contracts!!!
Your welcome,Ed!
I believe the best is yet to come...
:)
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home