Hide Comments
Two quickie comments:
1) you're right - one of the problems with being anti-anti-war is that the nature of our language
dictates that the natural structuring of the counter phrase is pro-war - which we are not. Finding the "right" phrase isn't really easy. "Pro-troops" is probably as good as any...
2) Thank heavens for the internet! It may be the only thing that prevents this from ending like Vietnam. I believe that there as many - or nearly as many - who supported the action there, but as you say, they had jobs and just weren't out there protesting. Some of the same dilemna - how do you demonstrate _for_ a war! Everyone wanted out then just as we want out now - but some things just have to be finished, even when they're hard. The internet has given the silent majority a voice and a way to be heard - which wasn't available during Vietnam. And connections to others who feel the same way...and easy quick ways for us to express our opinions to those who are responsible for troop support.
All Hail the Internet!!!
Posted by suek at September 26, 2005 06:03 PM
Also note that their was a book fair happening in DC on Saturday that drew 80,000 people last year. I think that the leftists, being leftists and having only a slight acquaintance with the concept of truth, likely included the homeschool moms and other book fair goers in their already inflated numbers.
I think it is vitally important to remember that, while the leftists can get protesters to turn out for the marches, the patriots can get the turnout when it counts - on election day.
Posted by nope at September 26, 2005 06:10 PM
Nope,
You can "think" all you want from wherever the hell you're located, it doesn't make it true. There were easily 100,000 people there, likely closer to 250k (since I was one of them, I've got a firsthand account). Not to mention the count concerned the march, which was a few blocks away from the book fair, taking place on the Mall.
As many of us have jobs as all of you. The funny thing about an event that takes place on the weekend is, since most of us work M-F, weekends are free to travel to events, through these amazing technological innovations known as buses, trains, cars, and airplanes. Or in my case, living in DC helps.
Another funny thing,
being opposed to actions in Venezuela, Cuba, or what have you doesn't exclude one from being anti-war. Unlike all of you evidently, we liberals are able to focus on several issues at once.
Posted by One of those crazy leftists at September 26, 2005 06:49 PM
One of those crazy leftists: see ya' at the polls.
Posted by Nope at September 26, 2005 07:42 PM
Yea, but did you shower? Thought not...
Posted by Me at September 26, 2005 07:52 PM
Balls! Name a war you guys didn't like. Viet nam? Panama? The first gulf war?
Wingnuts have been out in force for every last one of them like toadies chanting "support our troops".
No one on the right has never a care about how wars start and whether they could have been prevented.
If you are not warmongers, then why didn't you support the UN in its quest to determine whether Saddam had WMD or not?
You are partisans to the very bitter end and could give a rats rear-end about our military. Token flag wavers. That's what you are. And warmongers. selah
Posted by Stephen Forte at September 26, 2005 08:01 PM
nope,
Be careful, those crazies lefties do know how to count. Just recall the Washington State governors elections...they counted dead people...prisoners...people who live in Arizona or Ohio...they counted...and recounted...and recounted again...until they had "counted" enough to win!!!
At first the AP counted 2,000 protestors...then someone else counted 100,000 protestors...then yet another person has counted 250,000 protestors.
I don't care how many there are...anyone who says "bring the troops home now" need to think about this -
HILLA, Iraq, Sept 26 (Reuters) - Gunmen killed five Shi'ite primary school teachers and a driver in a school in Iskandariya, south of Baghdad on Monday, a spokesman for Babel police said
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/ALI645016.htm
Oh yes Rev Jackson, oh yes Answer, Oh yes Ms Sheehan...your "freedom" fighters have no problem skilling elementary schools teachers.
Posted by Soldier's Dad at September 26, 2005 08:06 PM
"anti-war protesters" and the "pro-troops supporters"
This characterization assumes that the ant-war crowd are anti-troops. This does a disservice to the dialogue about the war. I don't support this war, never have, but do support the troops (3 of my cousins are in Iraq).
I went through the same MA program as Condi Rice in political science/international studies and have a right to my opinions as I have spent a lot of time studying these matters. I strongly disagree with the Project for a New American Century agenda which has framed the Bush foreign policy. No, I do not think it is evil or whatever nasty things that the far leftists are saying. There seems to be no place in this discussion for someone like me. I am not a hippy or communist. The assumption that anti-war automatically equates with anti-troops is silly, simplistic, and is reactionary. This idea sells votes though, if I recall correctly voters rejected Kerry's nuanced view of policy matters.
Posted by Shocked at September 26, 2005 08:39 PM
I absolutely take issue with the idea that those of us that oppose this way are not "Pro-Troops." I'm against the mission-- it is illegal, immoral, and inane-- but how can anyone think that a group of people working to stop the death of both innocent Iraqi Civilians and American Soldiers (not to mention journalists, contractors, et al.) is against the best interest of the "Troops?" Old Anti-War slogan: Support our Troops, Bring Them Home.
Now, to belabor what was a piss-poor analogy to begin with: let's say that you invite a thousand people over to build a house. But instead of a thousand you get somewhere closer to a quarter of a million people. Sure, not all of them are going to want to build the exact same house, but they're all pretty interested in building a community and when that many people-- fully 1 tenth of a percent of the nation's population-- take the time to get together to protest a common cause it suggests that there are a whole lot more people who agree. The community may be diverse and with many views outside of the common house that brought them together, but they're all united on this subject: Stop The War. Peace is a pretty nice neighborhood in which to live.
Personally, I agree with former governor bush on one thing: he has screwed this up so badly that to just pull all the troops now would leave the place in ruins. It's also a pretty fair assumption that he's going to leave the place in ruins anyway. Why do more Americans and Iraqis have to die when nothing is going to change.
I wasn't in Washington for this protest, but I did make a weekend at Camp Casey. That was the weekend when that PR firm (of swift boat infamy) managed to fly in all those "republicans" from California. I had a lot of interesting conversations with a lot of people, but NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON could give me a compelling reason for American troops being in Iraq.
"Stay the course?" What?! That's no reason. "You have to support the president." Being patriotic means working to make America a better place; following the lead lemming off of a cliff just because he happens to be right at the front isn't patriotic, it's moronic. There are no WMD's (like we didn't know that ahead of time); even the white house admits that there was no tie to Al Qaeda. Sure there may be now, but that's because we took a nation that wasn't a terrorist threat and turned it into one.
The reason of last resort seems to be "we're spreading democracy." I'm all for supporting democracy, though I don't think that our guns and ammo really do that. As Molly Ivins once wrote, "it's awfully hard to convince a people that you're killing them for their own good." But, I tell you what, you want to help foment democracy? Let's do it in our back yard: Help Spread Democracy, Support Hugo Chavez!
Posted by Shantyhag at September 26, 2005 10:07 PM
How can you continue to support Bush's clusterfuck and call yourself "pro-troop?" To commit US military personnel to Operation Iraqi Fuck-up was criminal from the beginning; to continue to leave them there lacking sufficent body armor, with inadequately protected vehicles, and without any sensible exit strategy--hell, any exit strategy--is unconscionable. To continue to support a failed policy is idiocy.
How much difference do you really think there is between bringing the troops home now, or two or three years from now? Hundreds of American lives? Do you really think that waiting to bring the troops home until just before the 2006 elections--and make no mistake, they will be home in time for that, polling numbers will demand it--will make one iota of differnce when Iraq descends into civil war?
Posted by BiggerBill at September 26, 2005 10:45 PM
Just a few thoughts..
I'm sorry, but it is impossible to say you don't support the war, but you support the troops. Argue with me all you want, but when you undermine the cause for which soldier's fought, you undermine everything they struggled for and that is NOT supporting soldiers at all. I feel that way and always will. If you want to truly support the effort, then get behind it and help us finish the job so THEN we can come home...Soldiers do not have the luxury of politics, agree or not, we follow orders of the governments WE elect. Pretty simple.
Secondly, there is a reason to stay the course. The second one American bled, or suffered, we had to finish this. I had many brothers killed and wounded during our tour and to not finish this would make their sacrifices for nothing. I can't live with that and therefore, we must complete what we started for them.
On your WMD argument...For the love of God it's a broken record. Guess what, he had chemical weapons and wiped out villages. I picked up Sarin shells myself. Those are WMD's people. Analogy...A drug dealer has a year warning that the cops are going to bust him. Think he will still have the drugs in his house when the FEDS finally get there. This country is a desert, with neighbors that will hide stuff for you if you can't bury or destroy it all. Just b/c he didn't have stockpiles in his "house" (makes him semi-smart actually) doesn't mean he didn't have "drugs" there before or won't after. Wake up and realize the reason they aren't there in mass is b/c we came and forced him to destroy, bury or move them assholes.
Don't forget about the thousands of innocents buried in pits all over the country, that I once again, I have seen and smelled in person.
So you are right.. There is no reason to stay the course. Let's forget the facts, disrespect the Veterans and pull everyone out b/c of our blind hatred of Bush.
Just a Vet's thoughts..
Greyhawk sorry fo the long rant...
Posted by rick at September 26, 2005 11:01 PM
Disclaimer...I am not intending to attack anyone here. I respect other's opinions and enjoy educated and civil discussions.
If I came across gruff, I apologize. Seeing the "worst and best of mankind", so to speak, will make a person feel strongly about certain issues. Namely my brother's in arms...
Thanks
Rick
Posted by rick at September 26, 2005 11:10 PM
Hi Rick,
Let me say that I certainly respect your serving. I understand that you don't want to believe that the horrors that you saw were in vain.
But I can't see how anyone can say "The second one American bled, or suffered, we had to finish this;" it is a cyclical fallacy.
We illegally invade a country. The country, predictably (despite our own goverment's ability to predict it), recoils at the idea of being invaded and occupied by infidels, fights back. American soldiers lose their lives. Now we're stuck.
Rick, it doesn't make sense. I certainly lament any blood lost in violence anywhere, but to say that we must "stay the course" means that we must sacrifice MORE lives, chase bad blood with good. All of this for a war that was, according to Wolfowitz, sold on a false premise that "everyone could get behind." I'm sorry that your brethren died or were wounded in vain. I'm sorry that you witnessed such horrors, but we were wrong to go in and even more wrong to continue killing and dying on premises that have time and time again been proven false.
Onto your weapons arguments. There were no weapons there to begin with. The UN Weapons Inspectors kept arguing that they needed more time, that Hussein was cooperating, and that there appeared to be no weapons there. Even were there weapons of mass destruction (btw, chemical weapons are conventional weapons, not wmd's), the comparison of a drug dealer to the leader of a sovereign nation is specious at best.
Why is it that it's ok for us to decide who gets to arm themselves with what weapons? If the goal was ridding the region of violent potential, why didn't we go after Israel? Their history of genocide is far worse, and they actually possess nuclear weapons. They were certainly in violation of more UN Resolutions (israel: 68, Iraq: 16).
Yes, Saddam did at one point have the chemical stockpiles that WE began arming him with in 1980, but there was never any evidence that he possessed these at any point during this century. Further, we know from Bush's cabinet members-- Paul O'Neill, Richard Clark et al-- that they were looking for any excuse to invade Iraq from well before 9-11. Hell, Wolfowitz wrote that this should be our strategy for stabalizing oil supplies in 1992.
This action is wrong. If just one person from the administration came out and told the truth-- "we are protecting future oil supplies, and justifying massively increased military spending"-- at least I would respect the speaker if not the operation.
But the mission is deeply flawed, and to say that I can't respect the men who are willing to fight and die for our country's freedom just because I don't respect a president who has no idea what the concept of freedom really means is absurd.
Again, Rick. I thank you for your service. Bush's war however has done no service for anyone outside of our lavishly paid contractors.
Posted by Shantyhag at September 27, 2005 12:18 AM
The IMF/World Bank was meeting this weekend in Washington. Every year on this weekend there are nearly a hundred thousand protesters here in DC protesting anything and everything and annoying those of us who have to get around the city. It was no real accomplishment to get this number when the people were going to be here protesting anyway. Perhaps that's why the antiwar crowd picked this weekend? The irony is that due to Hurricane Rita they got almost no media attention. I actually saw more coverage of the "Support the Troops" rally on Sunday.
Posted by Karie at September 27, 2005 12:21 AM
I was at the counter-protest and saw hundreds of marchers who apparently kept marching numerous times around the block. We would see a group of people march but then about ten minutes later see that same group march by again, like they were suck on repeat stupid. Ad nauseum how the the same people kept marching around and around and we kept wondering when they were going to moveon.org.
Anyway, in 1998 President Clinton provided the most justifed reason to remove Saddam from power, that being, he was a threat to the free world. Clinton actually used bombs(ooo...scary) to blow up an aspirin factory but don't let this fact get in the way of fashionable blamebush created by Stalinist ANSWER's lies inflicted upon those "useful idiot" marchers.
President Bush simply acted upon President Clinton's declaration of war against the brutal WMD dictator Saddam Hussein.
Posted by susan at September 27, 2005 12:32 AM
Let me quote a veteran of another tragic foreign policy mistake, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" No one really disputes that Hussein is a dispicable human being, that he murdered and terrorized his own people (not to mention Iranians--with the blessings of the US government). That was not the reason we were given for going to war, however. It was that Hussein was a direct and immediate threat to the well-being of citizens in the United States. That was not the case. I fail to see how pulling US troops out of Iraq dishonors the service of any individual; most have served honorably in an impossible situation. My hatred of the Bushevik policy--imperialism? democracy at the point of a bayonet? maybe I am being too generous in depicting the actions of this administration as policy?--does not mean that I cannot support the warriors while abhoring the war, and what it has done to undermine the security of this country.
Posted by Bigger Bill at September 27, 2005 12:42 AM
Sorry Bill BUT
Bush never said Hussein was an imminent threat as so declared in the NY Times. What he said WAS
"We cannot wait UNTIL Saddam BECOMES and imminent threat"
I am confident you understand the difference between the false quote given by Paul Krugman and Maureen Dowd and what was ACTUALLY said by Bush.
Maybe you are being far too generous with journalist who abuse their supposed "Freedom of the Press" power? Perhaps you are being far too generous with the journalists who have propagandized this war into believing that somehow Iraq is an impossible situation? Perhaps you are not giving credit due to those thousands of boots on the ground who daily state that the situation is improving in Iraq and that there is much more work to be done.
Perhaps you are being far too generous with the idea that a ravaged country which suffered 30 years of brutal dictatorship could be completely rebuilt in a matter of months?
Perhaps your hatred of Bush has blinded your eyes from perspective and truth?
Posted by susan at September 27, 2005 01:30 AM
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of what he was never reasoned into." Jonathan Swift
Posted by Shawn at September 27, 2005 01:34 AM
"Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."
Well, please don't put yourself out on my behalf. I avoid rough and violent men myself, except in my capacity as a prison educator. They ain't pretty up close, let me tell you.
Must have shocked you that so many people demonstrated against the Iraq war and so few demonstrated in favor of it. Where's the organization? I thought you red staters were well organized compared to us scruffy leftists. You just don't have a charismatic leader right now, someone like Cindy Sheehan. Where's Rambo when you need him?
Posted by Hattie at September 27, 2005 02:33 AM
Susan, I really don't want to see this dwindle to attacks of a personal nature, but I've seen two tragically uninformed posts in a row from you.
The first one had to do with Clinton's "Declared War." I am not defending Clinton's bombing, nor will I flippantly "(ooo...scary)" refer to our dropping weapons and inflicting death and damage needlessly. Bombs are weapons of death, Susan, and they're scary. I mean, really.
But here's the thing, Susan: no one has "declared war." Not the congress under Clinton, not the congress under bush. Words have meaning, Susan, and it's important to really understand what you're talking about before you write about them.
You also said, idiotically, that bush never called Hussein and imminent threat. I would like to refer you to the column at the link below. It's not written by Paul Krugman, one of the great economists of our time, nor the prolific and brilliant satirist, Dowd.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html
It is, instead, a press release on the whitehouse.gov website, a TRANSCRIPT of a Presidential speech given by former governor bush on October 7, 2002.
A few quotes:
"Tonight I want to take a few minutes to discuss a grave threat to peace..."
"The threat comes from Iraq."
"It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people."
(ah, the last of these three may be true, at the very least we know he killed many of the Kurds when they were in revolt... truly and horrifically shocking. Please don’t think that I’m excusing this, I’m not.
The first two, however, were categorically, undeniably false).
"Some ask how urgent this danger is to America and the world. The danger is already significant, and it only grows worse with time. If we know Saddam Hussein has dangerous weapons today -- and we do -- does it make any sense for the world to wait to confront him as he grows even stronger and develops even more dangerous weapons?"
"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. And he cannot be trusted. The risk is simply too great that he will use them, or provide them to a terror network."
It goes on and on like this, but let me skip to the end:
"Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities."
One of dozens of examples of the white house attempting to cast Hussein as an imminent threat.
Susan, I am a new reader to this blog, and I understand that there are viewpoints expressed here that are not my own. I know that I express viewpoints that are not shared by all.
But I do take more than a few moments to grasp a concept and know the truth before I castigate someone else.
Shantyhag
Posted by Shantyhag at September 27, 2005 02:36 AM
My personal justification for the removal of Saddam Hussein was reaffirmed with the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. President Clinton clearly determined that the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein needed to be removed in order to for the people of Iraq to join the family of free people around the world and I supported this act of Liberation at that time.
Interesting to note that the transcript of the 2002 speech mirrors the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Read the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. THe Bush Doctrine is merely an extension of what Clinton advocated.
What troubles me is that Clinton made this declaration yet did not follow through, much like the notorious United Nations.
I also supported Clinton's war against ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. I had always thought of myself as a JFK Democrat (we will bear any burden, pay any price) yet when Clinton allowed Saddam to continue his reign of tyranny despite his own Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 I considered it a betrayal of what I considered Liberalism.
Today, I consider the Bush Doctrine to be the definition of Liberalism and am wondering why so many of my former Liberals have rejected their own ideology. Why has Liberalism betrayed it's own principles? What was happened to the Democrat Party?
I appologize for my frustration at those who continue to attack George Bush for liberating the people of Iraq, however, you must understand the frustration of hearing my fellow (now former) Liberals reject every principle Liberalism fought for over the past five decades simply because Democrats hate Bush.
Like Zell Miller I too did not leave the Democrat Party, IT LEFT ME. Because of my lifetime of Liberal principles, I choose to support the Bush doctrine as I did Clinton's Iraq Liberation Act of 1998.
Why do Democrats consistantly ignore the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 each and every time the discussion of the Bush Doctrine is discussed?
Posted by susan at September 27, 2005 12:18 PM
I guess it has already been pointed out that the groups who (mistakenly IMHO) promoted another agenda were protesting against the war as well.
But y'all could only get 400? Bush's Folly is gonna stink up the '06 elections big time.
Posted by John Gillnitz at September 27, 2005 04:34 PM
Good post, Holly. And I particularly like your point about all the thousands of people supporting our troops through those many fine organizations.
I'd like to add that that the leaders of the antiwar movement are a particularly nasty bunch. These include:
Lynne Stewart, convicted of abetting fundamentalist islamist terrorism (when does she start serving her sentence, anyway?).
Ramsey Clark, who never met a tyrant he didn't like. He praised and aided ethnic cleanser Slobodan Milosevic, and volunteered legal help to the genocidaires of Rwanda.
ANSWER, the American front for the communist Workers World Party, formed in support of the Soviet invasion of Hungary.
These are some of the worst people on earth. They and their principles are simply indefensible. They spend their lives defending tyranny and genocide wherever they can find it.
Some of the antiwar folks on this thread sound somewhat reasonable, so they should know that they won't ever start a mainstream mass antiwar movement as long as they are affiliated with this vile element. We have the internet now. It's not like the Viet Nam era, when it was impossible for ordinary people to learn the background of the antiwar leaders, many of whom turned out later to have had fraudulent military histories, or connections to the communist enemy.
Posted by Stace at September 27, 2005 06:41 PM
Sorry, that should have read "millions of people supporting our troops", not thousands.
Posted by Stace at September 27, 2005 06:48 PM
Seems like those who "support the troops" but not the mission are saying something like I support Police Officer Jones, but I do not support law enforcement, or like saying I support 8th grade teacher Mr/Mrs/Ms smith, but I do not support or believe in public education because I think it is a crock and a waste of tax payer money.
Posted by Rey at September 27, 2005 11:11 PM
Shantyhaq:
We illegally invade a country.
Saddam violated the Gulf War cease fire. He constantly played games with weapons inspections. The UN passed SEVENTEEN resolutions pointing all this out ... but did nothing about it ... and then we find out that some of the Global Cops are on Saddam's take. So much for your "legality" ... let alone a timely and decisive response to evident evil.
And as for Congress, they authorized the President to use force to take Saddam out ... including many of the Presdient's present critics regarding the war.
The country, predictably (despite our own goverment's ability to predict it), recoils at the idea of being invaded and occupied by infidels, fights back. American soldiers lose their lives. Now we're stuck.
Phuleeze -- look at the makeup of the "insurgency" you support. It is NOT disgruntled Iraqis who simply want us out ... it is foreign jihadis, Baathists dead-enders, and common criminals, all who want nothing more than to replace "the old boss" with themselves as the "new boss". They care about the rights of NO ONE -- especially Iraqi citizens -- and are fomenting violence and terror OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL.
OTOH, those eight million purple fingers didn't recoil at America's leadership ... to a new government for themselves.
Onto your weapons arguments. There were no weapons there to begin with. The UN Weapons Inspectors kept arguing that they needed more time, that Hussein was cooperating, and that there appeared to be no weapons there. Even were there weapons of mass destruction (btw, chemical weapons are conventional weapons, not wmd's), the comparison of a drug dealer to the leader of a sovereign nation is specious at best.
First, your definition of chem weapons as "conventional" is simply BS.
Second, nothing short of a national proctoscopy -- or the removal of Saddam from power -- was sufficient to assure that he would not continue his proven quest for WMD. From what I saw of the UN inspections, they were not sufficient to assure that -- they were a replay of the inspections in the 1990s, complete with obstructions and manipulations by the regime. Their insistence upon "more time" was driven as much by the diplomat's belief that "ANY negotiation is better than war" as anything else
Third, according to Duelfer, Saddam was telling his OWN FREAKIN' GENERALS they had WMD to use, up until two months before the war. Thanks to Leftists like you over the last three decades, our CIA (among other intel agencies) was in no position to see through that. Ready to accept responsibility for such blindness?
Fourth, also according to Duelfer, Saddam was in a position to restart his WMD R&D and acquisition efforts, once the heat was off. HOW WOULD YOU HAVE PREVENTED THIS FROM HAPPENING ... ESPECIALLY IF SADDAM WAS ABLE -- AS BEFORE -- TO SQUEAK BY WEAPONS INSPECTIONS?
Why is it that it's ok for us to decide who gets to arm themselves with what weapons?
Perhaps because we know by experience that only a properly checked-and-balanced government can prevent the use of WMD ... and Iraq had the most unchecked government around, even less checked than Iran and NK?
If the goal was ridding the region of violent potential, why didn't we go after Israel? Their history of genocide is far worse, and they actually possess nuclear weapons. They were certainly in violation of more UN Resolutions (israel: 68, Iraq: 16).
Because Israel is a rights-respecting, checked-and-balanced government who can be trusted ... far more than the kleptocracies and "workers paradises" who are given a far greater voice than they morally deserve in the UN. The accusation of genocide is such BS ... especially in the light of their opposition, who have shown that they want to render Israel judenrein.
Posted by Rich Casebolt at September 28, 2005 11:30 AM
Rich C.
Well said..
More eloquent and based in fact than I could ever have stated in my emotional rant.
Appreciated.
Rick
Posted by RicK at September 28, 2005 10:38 PM
Hide Comments |
Show/Add Comments in Popup Window(27) | (
Note: You must refresh main page to view newly posted comments here)
