Democrats & Liberals Archives

A March for the Message of Peace

More than four years ago, in the dead of winter, my teenage son and I attended a march and rally against the upcoming war against Iraq. The march, hosted in Philadelphia, was only one part of a globally coordinated event to stop a war before it began. This past weekend, they marched (link)to stop the war that had already started.

The coordinated march in February of 2003 came directly after Colin Powell's powerfully impassioned, yet factually flawed, speech before the U.N. Yet me, my son and other families like my own, marched peacefully from one area in the city to historic Independence Hall in an effort to have someone hear our message before the inevitable war began taking its deadly toll. We carried banners that said: "Let the inspectors finish!", as if to say: 'Please wait until all of the facts are in." Because, at that time, Hans Blix and his group of U.N. Inspectors were busy trying to find the WMDs that Mr. Bush claimed Hussein was hiding. We sang songs and shouted peaceful chants. We wanted so desperately to be heard above the loud drumbeat to war.

This march didn't come without adversity. Along the way there was a small group of Bush supporters, waving professionally manufactured signs and shouting disparaging things like "If you don't like it here, leave!", "Commies" and "Go back to Osama Bin Laden." (It was later discovered that this group was organized and funded by the local conservative radio station.) I began to question why I would subject my son to this type of ridicule. Was I nuts?

We thought, surely, our message would be heard. There were millions worldwide demonstrating against this Bush Doctrine during these marches; I'm sure someone would notice. But boy, were we wrong. The media regurgitated administration claims of fear and doom. Talking-heads downplayed our demonstrations as naïve and idealistic. The newspapers published commentaries and pseudo-news stories of planted administration material as the Bush Administration's public relations arm ran at full-tilt. Our message of peace was drowned out.

But what a difference a few years make.

This past weekend, although not as globally connected as the 2003 event, marches were held in many cities throughout the nation. This time, the Bush supporters weren't covered by the media, as they were in 2003. This time, the message of peace was supported by the media, supported by the politicians and finally heard throughout the world. People read letters from our brave soldiers asking to come home and questioning the reasoning for the war. We finally had a drumbeat toward peace.

I guess after 3,200 American soldiers gave their lives for a pack of lies, that a message of peace might make it through the propaganda Victrola. I guess after 25,000 sons and daughters were wounded in combat during a civil war, some people may wake up and question why this war is still important to the safety of the Americans at home. I guess after $11 Billion dollars are funneled, per month, into this quagmire to fund a civil war and line the pockets of campaign supporters, some people will finally awake from their government-sponsored 'coma of fear' to find out that, for as much as Mr. Bush and his admirers say that their clothes are the finest in the land, that the Emperor is merely naked.

Mr. Bush, it's time to put your clothes back on, get real with the situation in America, Iraq and the world and recognize that a policy of peace is the only sane way to make America safe.

Posted by john trevisani at March 20, 2007 10:26 AM
Comments
Comment #212839
“This past weekend, although not as globally connected as the 2003 event, marches were held in many cities throughout the nation. This time, the Bush supporters weren’t covered by the media, as they were in 2003. This time, the message of peace was supported by the media, supported by the politicians and finally heard throughout the world. People read letters from our brave soldiers asking to come home and questioning the reasoning for the war. We finally had a drumbeat toward peace.”

How disingenuous! They weren’t “covered by the media” this time b/c the MSM is biased, lazy and deceitful! There was supposed to be 100,000+ anti-war supporters; instead there were 5,000-. And there were a good number of “pro-troops/war crowds”out there; yet the MSM didn’t cover that.

“Over the weekend, anti-war protesters gathered in Washington DC to march on the Pentagon, reminiscent of a similar march back in 1967. There was plenty of coverage of this demonstration, and that of sister demonstrations around the world. What many of you might not know was that there was a gathering of people who not only support the troops, but are tired of the anti-war crowd getting all of the publicity. Surprised? If you depend on news sources like the Washington Post, New York Times, and television stations like ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN, then it’s no wonder that you are.

The Gathering of Eagles joined forces with Move America Forward’s pro-troop caravan to meet at the Vietnam Memorial Wall, which is originally where International ANSWER wanted to kick off their march on the Pentagon. The idea behind the gathering was to stop the possibility of protestors from desecrating the Wall, like they desecrated the steps of our Capitol Building last January. It grew into something much, much bigger.”

Posted by: rahdigly at March 20, 2007 11:16 AM
Comment #212844

rahdigly:
You forgot to post your source: American Thinker Blog. (link)

But if you want coverage of your anti-anti-war crowd, how about this one:
(link)

In 2003, there were thousands of people that marched for peace and a handful, i mean maybe 20 or so, that were pro-troops/war. Yet on the tele, the pro-war group received the same amount of airtime as the anti-war protesters and they made the puny crowd of 20 look much larger. (creative editing). This time, they just reported more fairly.

Posted by: john trevisani at March 20, 2007 11:28 AM
Comment #212855

Being a Vet of the Viet Nam War, I wonder if our troops in Iraq will be treated the same shameful way we were when they eventually come home. Will there be parades all over our country honoring our brave warriors? Will they receive the respect they have certainly earned? Will John and his “teenage” son join in honoring our soldiers? I wonder. Jim

Posted by: Jim at March 20, 2007 12:04 PM
Comment #212856

I knew about the counter protest, and was left with the impression that it was significantly smaller, As was this Anti WAr march on the mall compared to Vietnam era marches.

I got that from the MSM. Was that impression wrong?

I do have experience that local media sometimes distorts the drama of events. In the early seventies, I attended a Nixon dedication of an AirForce museum in Dayton, Ohio with my family. There were a few protesters carrying caskets and shouting protesting chats. They were summarily arrested, though they did not appear disruptive. It was a minor event.

When I watched the news that evening, the cameras were zoomed in on the protesters and the arrests. There were thousands attending the dedication, there were a dozen protesting. The news made it appear as a big protest and arrest scene. It wasn’t.

Posted by: gergle at March 20, 2007 12:12 PM
Comment #212858

“You forgot to post your source: American Thinker Blog.”


No I didn’t. Just click on the pro-troops/war crowds.


“This time, they just reported more fairly.”


Yeah right! They didn’t report anything “fairly”!! The MSM (once again) showed more anti-war crowds than the pro-troop crowds back in 2003; in fact, they always show the anti-war crowds in abundance. Always! The reason why they can’t get the big crowds like they did back in the Vietnam day is b/c the US doesn’t have a draft; it’s an all volunteer military and if they didn’t want to go to this war they wouldn’t have to enlist or re-enlist. So, the MSM will do whatever they can to amp up the coverage of the anti-war nuts; in opposition to the pro-troops/war crowds.

“There are a couple of other things you won’t read about in the mainstream media (or as Rush Limbaugh likes to call it, the Drive-By Media), that I’d like to outline here. Move America Forward had a program that began with the Pledge of Allegiance, a beautifully sung live rendition of the National Anthem, and a prayer led by Rev. Ed Anthony, a Vietnam War veteran. I doubt International ANSWER began their event in that fashion. There was also lots of chanting of “USA!” in between speakers, which kept the crowd excited and supportive. Speakers included Blue and Gold Star parents who thanked the “silent majority” for being silent no more, and war veterans who were also grateful for the outpouring of support for our military. One mother, whose son is currently in Iraq, sung a lovely song she had written about the bravery of her son and others who are willing to bear arms to keep the freedoms we take for granted alive.


I also personally heard the term “baby killers” being thrown at the veterans who lined the street. So if anyone tells you that all the peace marchers support the troops, please remember that this lovely phrase is still being bandied about by people who have never had to really stand up for anything other than their own selfish agendas.


Another item that isn’t being reported on is who helped to swell the ranks of the anti-war protestors. It wasn’t just “peace” activists out there. They were joined by people bearing placards touting the murderous Che Guevara, as well as those who are looking for the liberation of Palestine. What do those movements have to do with the American presence in Iraq? Nothing on the face of it, but you should wonder about a peace movement that is comfortable welcoming certain groups who are not shy about what they really stand for: Che Guevara’s murderous commitment to communism, and those who would drive Israel into the sea by any means possible.”

Posted by: rahdigly at March 20, 2007 12:37 PM
Comment #212860

Being a Vet of the Viet Nam War, I wonder if our troops in Iraq will be treated the same shameful way we were when they eventually come home.

They already are: Walter Reed

Posted by: Steve K at March 20, 2007 12:45 PM
Comment #212865

Jim:
There are those that believe that there is only one true way to support the troops. And during the past four years, some have called those on the anti-war side, Un-American and traitors for calling for the troops to come home.

That type of one-way discourse, in my opinion, betrays the very nature of our democracy and our founding fathers.

i support the troops in many ways. Maybe not by the narrow definition of some, but i do support the troops. i have organized food drives in my area for the families of the deployed troops. But this isn’t about one person does for their community; it’s more about understanding what’s right and what’s wrong.

Hopefully, in the context of history, we learn a little bit more with each conflict. Because it was some very bright individual that stood against the masses to say that we, as a species, flourished because of adaptation, not being the strength. We need to learn from our mistakes not just repeat them.

In my opinion, staying the course does not support the troops. In my opinion, not supplying our troops with the proper protection (armor), does not support the troops. In my opinion, not giving the proper medical treatment (Walter Reed) for all of those wounded comrades, does not support the troops.

There are many ways to honor our brave troops; i honor the troops by trying to get them home to their loved ones.

Posted by: john trevisani at March 20, 2007 1:14 PM
Comment #212870

The march in Washington was not very big and there were nearly as many counter marchers. The media covered it about as much as it should have.

You know how you can tell the size of a protest, BTW? By how much garbage they leave behind.

Giving peace a chance is a good policy if you have someone who wants peace.

It is getting very old that you guys still try to talk about the war being based on a “pack of lies” and trying to use dead American service men and women as pawns in your PR game.

Let’s go through this.

Before Bush was in office, did President Clinton say Iraq had WMD? Did Saddam deny it at the time? Did we have any great revelation that should have changed minds?

Did President Clinton declare regime change in Iraq a U.S. policy?

Did Saddam violate 17 UN resolutions?

Did Saddam shoot at U.S. & UK aircraft on a regular basis?

Did Saddam cooperate fully with inspections?

Did Saddam expertly violate sanctions?

Did some organiztions claim sanctions were killing 50,000 (some of the same ones who are counting high now)?

Did most prominent Democrats vote for the Iraq resolution?

Did most of them have access to intelligence data, including BEFORE Bush came to office?

Is Bush smarter than those prominent Democrats?

He is a tricky one. Did President Bush ever refer to Saddam as an imminent threat or did he say it was a gathering threat that should be addressed BEFORE it became iminent?

I expect the “pack of lies” is based on those quesions. If you answer them correctly, neither you, nor the President will be a liar.

You can question the President’s judgement or the results he has obtained w/o demonizing him and your fellow Americans who disagree with you.

I thought the Republican Clinton haters were unpatriotic when they lost sight of their country’s interest to bash the president they hated. The same goes for Bush haters now.

Posted by: Jack at March 20, 2007 1:29 PM
Comment #212875

John,

“There are those that believe that there is only one true way to support the troops. And during the past four years, some have called those on the anti-war side, Un-American and traitors for calling for the troops to come home. That type of one-way discourse, in my opinion, betrays the very nature of our democracy and our founding fathers.”

The founding Fathers wouldn’t have stood for the discourse of the (bias) media and anti-war nuts we seen for the past 4 years. Try to imagine these same nuts telling Washington and his troops that they were shooting at “innocent” Brits and Hessians, or (my favorite) “acting like the enemy”. They would wipe those (enemy defending) idiots right out! Nice try though.

Take a look at what the troops think about having the (same) amount of troops to more in Iraq. 51% of the troops believe we should have the same amount to more troops there; only 26% felt we should have less to none. That’s a big difference that feel we should be there with the amount of troops we have. So, don’t go throwing out the “you’re doing them a favor to come home”, crap. The troops and the American people want to complete the mission before they come home!

“13) We currently have 145,000 troops in Iraq and Kuwait. How many troops do you think we should have there?

Zero 13%
0-50,000 7%
50,000-144,000 6%
145,000 13%
146,000-200,000 22%
200,000+ 16%
No opinion/Don’t know 23% “


Posted by: rahdigly at March 20, 2007 2:07 PM
Comment #212877

It is getting very old that you guys still try to talk about the war being based on a ‘pack of lies’ and trying to use dead American service men and women as pawns in your PR game.

Well, Jack, the administration keeps giving us good ammunition to follow that line: New lies on top of old lies, and more and more dead servicemen.

Personally, I protested against the war both before (Jan 03) and during (Sept 05 and Feb 07), and my reasons haven’t changed one bit: Iraq was no threat to the US and there was no way an American military occupation would make things better.

Posted by: Steve K at March 20, 2007 2:10 PM
Comment #212879

Jack,

“Did President Bush ever refer to Saddam as an imminent threat or did he say it was a gathering threat that should be addressed BEFORE it became iminent?”

He didn’t have to, he had his toadies do it for him.

“Before Bush was in office, did President Clinton say Iraq had WMD? Did Saddam deny it at the time? Did we have any great revelation that should have changed minds?

Did President Clinton declare regime change in Iraq a U.S. policy?”

And just how much support did Clinton have in Congress for any of these declarations?
I seem to remember that anything that Clinton did or declared at the time was just said to distract America from his pending impeachment.
Remember “wag the dog”?
It is disingenuous of the right to use any of what Clinton said as evidence, as they flat out stated it wasn’t relevant at the time.
How does that which was a “distraction” at the time, become a “truth” when it suits the circumstance?

In the “surge” of patriotism after Sept, 11th, anyone that wasn’t in lockstep with giving Carte Blanche to Mr. Bush was an America hating, traitorous, treasonous, un-American, terrorist loving, commie scumbag.

Mr. Bush was going to invade Iraq.
It didn’t matter what Saddam did or didn’t do. It didn’t matter what the UN voted. It didn’t matter what the weapons inspectors found.

It was a feit accompli.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2007 2:23 PM
Comment #212881

Jack, first off, that was a fantastic Comment! You actually bit down and “showed some teeth” with those truthful facts.


I’ll tell you what, I saw some of the anti-war coverage on C-span and I noticed a bunch of Americans Flags on dispay (alot of them!). I thought, “man, these libs smartened up and used the American Flag to represent them (w/out burning them) for a change.” Come to find out, it wasn’t the libs, it was the pro-Troop/War crowd!! I couldn’t believe there were that many of them; looked like they trumped the anti-war crowd. It figures that the anti-war crowd wouldn’t carry around American Flags. Just pathetic.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 20, 2007 2:34 PM
Comment #212884

Jack,

Did President Bush ever refer to Saddam as an imminent threat or did he say it was a gathering threat that should be addressed BEFORE it became iminent?

This will make Bush doctrine a “pre-pre-emptive one”, wont it?

PS: Does Bush said imminent? Nope. Urgent? Yep. Keep playing rethoric. It’s fun. Really.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 2:48 PM
Comment #212887

How does that which was a “distraction” at the time, become a “truth” when it suits the circumstance? Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2007 02:23 PM
Rocky, you are confusing the word “distraction” and compare it to not giving a damn. The current Congress is “distracted” from the promises they made while running for office. Distracted from outlawing “earmarks”, distracted from protecting our borders, distracted from reforming health care and social security, distracted from punishing members who accept something of value for their vote…and on and on. When will these promises “suit the circumstances?” When I watch demonstrations at any ralley and see someone burn the American Flag, I know for certain that they hate us and U.S. Jim

Posted by: Jim at March 20, 2007 2:54 PM
Comment #212890

Let’s go through this. Ok, Jack, lets.

Before Bush was in office, did President Clinton say Iraq had WMD? Yes, and in 1998 Clinton bombed his WMD sites.

Did Saddam deny it at the time? Yes. When he told us this in 2002 and 2003, he was right, he had no WMDs.

Did we have any great revelation that should have changed minds? The UN inspectors in Iraq in 2002 and 2003 had found nothing and called for restraint and more time, because they found no WMDs. Despite right-wing myths, they were not kicked out by Saddam. The left when the US attack was imminent.

Did President Clinton declare regime change in Iraq a U.S. policy? Yes. Specifically this was Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. This was to “provide assistance” for regime change, such as for broadcasting, military education and training, and humanitarian aid. Of note, the Act is pretty clear, that QUOTE “Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces in carrying out this Act.”

Did Saddam violate 17 UN resolutions? None after 1998. Hmmm, who put him in check in 1998? What event happened then? In any case, is violation of UN Resolutions the rationale to declare war on a country? Look out Israel.

Did Saddam shoot at U.S. & UK aircraft on a regular basis? Not in 2002 or 2003 when he was in check. I’m unaware of this after 1998. Are you talking about during the Persian Gulf War?

Did Saddam cooperate fully with inspections?In 2002 and 2003, yes. Again, more right-wing myths that he wasn’t. Did he ever not cooperate? Yes. But in 2003, the UN inspectors were “able to perform professional no-notice inspections all over Iraq.” This was not a secret, nor is there anyone contesting on a factual basis (i.e., not right-wing blogs) that he was not cooperating.
Blix Statement on cooperation

Did Saddam expertly violate sanctions?
Expertly? Like, he violated, but them we just didn’t know about it? Sort of like Bush and the “secret plans for success in Iraq.”

Did some organiztions claim sanctions were killing 50,000 (some of the same ones who are counting high now)? Yes. I guess these organizations are against killing innocent civilians whether it’s Saddam, sanctions, or the US. What do you mean by counting high? Like, 3,223 American troops have been killed? Is that counting high? Or over 50,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Is that counting high? Are you suggesting they stop counting at, oh, say, 100? Are these the new GOP talking points, 1) it’s all the media’s fault and 2) some groups are counting high?

Did most prominent Democrats vote for the Iraq resolution? Yes. More evidence that their opposition to the war is not based on their own political protection. Did most call for restraint in March 2003?

Did most of them have access to intelligence data, including BEFORE Bush came to office? No. Another right-wing myth. These questions all make nice bumper stickers, but they simply arent factual. Quotes regarding the myth that Congress had the same intel as W. There are lots more, this is just another source, Graham’s comments on the intel lie.

Is Bush smarter than those prominent Democrats?No.

He is a tricky one. Did President Bush ever refer to Saddam as an imminent threat or did he say it was a gathering threat that should be addressed BEFORE it became imminent? Why is this so tricky? The WH Press Secretary told us Saddam was an “imminent threat,” Rumsfeld said “immediate threat,” if it’s quotes you’re looking for. But no, Bush didn’t use the word “immenent” (3 syllables). He on multiple occassions told us Saddam was an “urgent threat.” Are your wordsmithing here Jack?

We’re not Bush haters, Jack, we’re America lovers.

Posted by: Boomer at March 20, 2007 3:16 PM
Comment #212892

I liked The House Minorities breakdown of “Misleading Statements” at the direction of Waxman:

http://oversight.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/pdf_admin_iraq_on_the_record_rep.pdf

They dotted every ‘i’ and crossed every ‘t’ so it’s pretty hard to argue with.

Posted by: KansasDem at March 20, 2007 3:57 PM
Comment #212893

Jim,

“Rocky, you are confusing the word “distraction” and compare it to not giving a damn.”

Typical hyperbole.

I wouldn’t expect less from the right.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2007 4:08 PM
Comment #212897

HELLO PEOPLE!!! THE LARGEST PROTEST EVER WAS HELD IN EUROPE BEFORE THIS WAR STARTED!!!

Between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_2003_Iraq_war

Posted by: Max at March 20, 2007 4:35 PM
Comment #212898

Rah…

it’s an all volunteer military and if they didn’t want to go to this war they wouldn’t have to enlist or re-enlist.
Of course, a $40,000 re-enlistment offer while “in country” is not a bad incentive…….. and once again you have cherry picked details to flaunt on here. In the Military Times poll you referred to, the categories and totals almost overwhelmingly are NOT in support of Bush, or the war effort !
I have not seen, nor read or heard of any returning Iraq vet being treated as abominably as the Viet Nam vets were….. except through their lack of medical treatment and attention. The one still little-known exception to that is the hospital in Texas, built totally from private funding…check it out… http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 20, 2007 4:43 PM
Comment #212899

Boomer,

At the end of Blix’s statement in which you say he says that Iraq was cooperating fully:

Against this background, the question is now asked whether Iraq has cooperated immediately, unconditionally and actively - with Unmovic, as required under paragraph 9 of resolution 1441 (2002).

The answers can be seen from the factual descriptions I have provided. However, if more direct answers are desired, I would say the following: The Iraqi side has tried on occasion to attach conditions, as it did regarding helicopters and U-2 planes.

Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.

It is obvious that, while the numerous initiatives, which are now taken by the Iraqi side with a view to resolving some long-standing open disarmament issues, can be seen as “active”, or even “proactive”, these initiatives three to four months into the new resolution cannot be said to constitute “immediate” cooperation.

Nor do they necessarily cover all areas of relevance. They are nevertheless welcome and Unmovic is responding to them in the hope of solving presently unresolved disarmament issues.

In other words, Iraq was doing what it had to do to appear somewhat cooperative while still trying to attach conditions and cooperate only when being pushed to comply.

The requirement was full and immediate cooperation and here Blix admits that they did not fulfill the requirements of Resolution 1441.


Posted by: Rhinehold at March 20, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment #212901

Hey folks, when you get a chance to “go cruising” online a little….. check this out. I’m sure it will result in at least a few chuckles.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at March 20, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #212900

“Typical hyperbole. I wouldn’t expect less from the right.”


And, according to Rocky’s comments (in the past), we know the “right” is the “True Enemy; even more ‘insiduous’ than the ones who murder and cut peoples heads off w/ a dirty knife in the name of Islam”! So, be careful what you say, righties!! :-)

Posted by: rahdigly at March 20, 2007 4:56 PM
Comment #212907

john,

Maybe, if our enemies were marching in peace protests to end the war, I would consider it. But since they still want to wage war against us, you should be taking your protests to them.

Posted by: wkw at March 20, 2007 5:32 PM
Comment #212909

rahdigly,

“And, according to Rocky’s comments (in the past), we know the “right” is the “True Enemy; even more ‘insiduous’ than the ones who murder and cut peoples heads off w/ a dirty knife in the name of Islam”! So, be careful what you say, righties!! :-)”

Hopefully someday you’ll actually get what I wrote right, and stop this bogus lie.

But I guess that’s what I have to expect.

Posted by: Rocky at March 20, 2007 5:36 PM
Comment #212910

Jack,

I recently watched an old Gregory Peck movie, I believe it was called “The Yearling” In it Peck sells a useless hunting dog to a neighbor by telling him how useless the dog is. The neighbor assumes Peck is lying and buys the dog.

Peck later tells his son, ” My words were true,son, but my intent was as crooked as [some local river].”

Bushco and politicians in general are skilled liars. Defending them by twisting through your contortions only confirms it to middle America. We don’t need a divining rod to find the truth. The longer Republicans stick to this tactic the worse off they become. It’s a losing strategy.

Clinton lied about sex. Bush lied about war. Which one do you think concerns more Americans?

Posted by: gergle at March 20, 2007 5:42 PM
Comment #212915

Rhinehold,

So, you are trying to indicate that the UN wasn’t being cooperated with, despite the Blix’s quote that you listed here:

“Iraq has not, however, so far persisted in these or other conditions for the exercise of any of our inspection rights. If it did, we would report it.”

So, Saddam may have said, “We don’t want you to use helicopters and U-2s, and if you do, here are our conditions.” The UN said, “No, we’ll use them if we want to, we don’t agree to any conditions. And Saddam said, “OK.”

In the end, it’s a red herring. Saddam told us he had no WMDs, and while his believability is certainly suspect, the UN inspectors also told us there were no WMDs found. Looks like they were both right. And, as we all know, plenty of intel by the time W declared war was sketchy enough that it’s clear W was on a road to war, facts be damned. For sure, one that was wrong was Bush who told us all that Saddam had “stockpiles of WMDs.”

Oh well.

Posted by: Boomer at March 20, 2007 6:31 PM
Comment #212916

wkw:

Maybe, if our enemies were marching in peace protests to end the war, I would consider it. But since they still want to wage war against us, you should be taking your protests to them.

i’m not sure what you mean. Which enemy? The Iraqis? al Qeada? Taliban?

i can only ASSUME that you’re referring to al Qeada and their ilk and not the Iraqis. And if you’re referring to al Qeada being the reason that we waged war against Iraq, then you must know by now that Iraq had nothing to do with 911.

So again, i ask you… which enemy?

Posted by: john.trevisani at March 20, 2007 6:47 PM
Comment #212919
So, you are trying to indicate that the UN wasn’t being cooperated with, despite the Blix’s quote that you listed here:

No, I’m saying that Saddam didn’t cooperate to the level required by the UN Resolution 1441. If this was the first inspection team and the first time we tried to determine the level of their compliancy with the terms of their surrender, I would agree that we should be more lenient. But this isn’t the case as you well know.

So, Saddam may have said, “We don’t want you to use helicopters and U-2s, and if you do, here are our conditions.” The UN said, “No, we’ll use them if we want to, we don’t agree to any conditions. And Saddam said, “OK.”

Again, had this been the FIRST time, sure give him some slack. But 12 years of subterfuge, hiding, misdirection, attempting to keep their WMD programs going, etc… It wasn’t enough. They knew what they were suppose to do and chose to try and alter the process to their benefit again.

In the end, it’s a red herring.

No, it isn’t.

Saddam told us he had no WMDs, and while his believability is certainly suspect, the UN inspectors also told us there were no WMDs found.

Yet. AND don’t forget that before we invaded Blix admitted that if we did find WMDs he wouldn’t have been surprised.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/06/06/sprj.irq.blix.wmd/

Looks like they were both right. And, as we all know, plenty of intel by the time W declared war was sketchy enough that it’s clear W was on a road to war, facts be damned. For sure, one that was wrong was Bush who told us all that Saddam had “stockpiles of WMDs.”

As I stated back in the day, it wasn’t just that he might have WMD, but also the fact that he was one of the major supporters of international terrorism at the time. He also was killing and torturing his own citizens, etc…

BUT, I also understood those who chose to believe that Iraq had done enough to show that they had no WMD and would not support terrorism, etc. I didn’t agree with it but understood people could take that position.

I didn’t understand those who throught they didn’t have WMD but wanted to keep the sanctions on, that just seems mean to me…

However, IMO it does little to try to label the other person as ‘too stupid to see the truth’ or somehow less of a human than you just because you disagree with them on this issue. But that is just want both the Republicans and Democrats have done for four years and it’s doing little to help solve anything.

Those who disagree with you in this country are not your enemy, they just have a different point of view.

Oh well.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 20, 2007 7:16 PM
Comment #212932
the UN inspectors also told us there were no WMDs found.

Yet.

What a coincidence, the US soldiers also tell us there is so far in Iraq no security found.
Yet.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 8:52 PM
Comment #212934
I didn’t understand those who throught they didn’t have WMD but wanted to keep the sanctions on, that just seems mean to me…

They were not a majority at UNSC in 2002, that’s no secret. And I’ll bet it play a bad part in Bush rush to Iraq War in fact.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at March 20, 2007 8:57 PM
Comment #212989

Rhinehold,

It IS a red herring regarding WMDs.

No matter what anyone thought, who they trusted or not, what the UN inspectors saw, or not, who voted how in the Congress, who read the intel or not, whether Wilson was right or not, whether Valerie Plame was technically covert or not, whether Bush said “imminent” or not, whether Blix told us Iraq was cooperating, whether Saddam supported Al Qaeda (as Bush told us) or not (as the 9/11 Commission told us)…

THE issue you can’t get around with the red herring is that we have had 3,223 dead troops, and have more there still fighting in the Iraq civil war. Let’s deal with the present. Spinning the past doesn’t matter anymore.

Posted by: Boomer at March 21, 2007 10:06 AM
Comment #213015

john,

When the mullahs stand up and decry violence against western culture, when the people who would beat your daughter for showing her face in public become respectful of both genders, when the zealots who would kill a person for being homosexual become tolerant of alternative lifestyles, when they would allow us to live freely without the prospect of terrorism and laid down their arms against us, that is when I will stop fighting. It is those people who are our enemies. These terrorists aren’t fighting for freedom, they aren’t fighting to protect the innocent. The are fighting Western Civilization and culture and wish to destroy it. They aren’t fighting against President Bush, they are fighting against you and me.

Posted by: wkw at March 21, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #213019

Rocky,

“Hopefully someday you’ll actually get what I wrote right, and stop this bogus lie. But I guess that’s what I have to expect.”


Oh, so it’s a “bogus lie”?!! Here’s my comment and here’s your EXACT WORDS, Rock. Remember, you said it, this was your choice.

“The problem with Coulter, and those of her ilk, is that they are the true enemy of America.
They don’t blow up buildings, or chop off peoples heads, but the damage they do is much more insidious.”


Posted by: rahdigly at March 21, 2007 2:11 PM
Comment #213021

rahdigly,

“Oh, so it’s a “bogus lie”?!! Here’s my comment and here’s your EXACT WORDS, Rock. Remember, you said it, this was your choice.”

So tell me, how does your quote;

“And, according to Rocky’s comments (in the past), we know the “right” is the “True Enemy; even more ‘insiduous’ than the ones who murder and cut peoples heads off w/ a dirty knife in the name of Islam”

compare to my actual statement?

“The problem with Coulter, and those of her ilk, is that they are the true enemy of America.
They don’t blow up buildings, or chop off peoples heads, but the damage they do is much more insidious.”

Enough spin already rahdigly. Your quote on this thread was at best a blatant exaggeration, and a troll. At worst it was an out right lie.

So, now who’s telling the truth?

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2007 2:30 PM
Comment #213031

Rocky, in an effort to save some blog space, I will ask you directly: what does Ann Coulter and those of “her” ilk mean exactly?!


Posted by: rahdigly at March 21, 2007 3:11 PM
Comment #213119

Boomer

“THE issue you can’t get around with the red herring is that we have had 3,223 dead troops, and have more there still fighting in the Iraq civil war. Let’s deal with the present. Spinning the past doesn’t matter anymore.”

I agree 100%.

The current situation is that we are fighting in what is a mix of civil war, insurgency and terrorism. The insurgency and civil war would be bad enough. The terrorism will follow us home.

The question we should ask is between the extremes about whether the cost and dangers of staying in Iraq are greater or lesser than the costs and dangers of leaving.

We all want to bring the troops home as soon as possible. We disagree about when, how and what “possible” means.

I believe a quick retreat would be a disaster all around. We lost 3000+ Americans over the past four years. I believe that a quick retreat would mean even more loses over the next four years.

My considered opinion is we need some timetable. The timetable is not the best possible solution, but it will allow an orderly withdrawal with some chance of keeping order. If the president sticks to his plan, the withdrawal drumbeat will get louder. The bad guys will understand that come 2008 the new president will yank out the troops. We HAVE a defacto time line. Let’s figure out one that might work.

Posted by: Jack at March 21, 2007 9:54 PM
Comment #213133

rahdigly,

“Rocky, in an effort to save some blog space, I will ask you directly: what does Ann Coulter and those of “her” ilk mean exactly?!”

So now you ask?

I’ll be brief, but some background first.

With the job I have I travel a lot, and the only thing that is consistent across the country is talk radio. I have heard a good many voices, right and left, whose primary job is to maintain the rift that exists in this country.

Coulter’s self proclaimed job is to make a profit exploiting that rift by mining the hate stirred up by talk radio.
These people both on the right and left play to the “stiffs” by telling them what they want to hear, truthful or not.

Mark Twain once said that a lie gets halfway around the world before the truth can get it’s pants on.

The American people are being fed jingoistic bullshit, with just enough truth to make the lies palatable, and this works both ways.
I personally find this practice abhorrent. It eats at the fabric that is truly America and it is protected, and justified as opinion.

Well sorry, IMHO it is merely opinion for a profit.
But hey, their entitled to their opinion, and America is the worse for their efforts.

Posted by: Rocky at March 21, 2007 11:17 PM
Comment #213178

So, according to you, Coulter and her ilk is mostly the right. And, before you go off on a tangent, Talk Radio is mostly Conservative (well, the successfull ones anyway), so that’s why I said mostly the right. Which, is exactly why I made the comment:

“And, according to Rocky’s comments (in the past), we know the “right” is the “True Enemy; even more ‘insiduous’ than the ones who murder and cut peoples heads off w/ a dirty knife in the name of Islam”! So, be careful what you say, righties!!
:-)”

So, my comment was not a “bogus lie”, as you have eloquently put it. It’s factual, you just may not like how it (acutally) sounds.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 22, 2007 8:33 AM
Comment #213221

rahdigly,

Your spinning makes me dizzy.

You missed the point and probably will always miss the point.

I never wrote “the right”, that is your assumption, and your words, and your spin, and you are wrong on all counts.

Read what I wrote. Read only the words that I wrote without your usual spin.
There is no interpretation needed. The words I wrote were exactly what I meant. There is no hidden meaning or hidden agenda implied.
You are reading into my words only what you want to believe.
If you are incapable of understanding just how wrong you are, it would be useless for me to explain it any further.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2007 1:55 PM
Comment #213245

Rock, I didn’t miss the point. Ann Coulter is the “right”; talk radio (the successfull shows) are the “right”! Funny how you just happen to throw in “left & right” with the “ilk” comment, b/c I (certainly) don’t recall you posting about the left’s bomb throwers in the past.


And, to be honest with you, it is you that is completely missing the point. My point is that you (actually) believe that some opinionated Americans (on both sides!) are more insidious than “people that blow up building and chop people’s heads off”. That is what caught my attention!

Posted by: rahdigly at March 22, 2007 4:01 PM
Comment #213255

rahdigly,

Do I need to draw you a map?

The truly sad thing is that you believe that there is a difference between the hate that is spread by blowing up human beings and the hate that is spread by word of mouth.

IMHO each are equally evil, but Coulter’s type of hate rots America from the inside/out, and is spread legally, for a profit, and it is protected by the First Amendment.

That is why it is more insidious, and that is exactly my point.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2007 4:54 PM
Comment #213263

rahdigly,

“Funny how you just happen to throw in “left & right” with the “ilk” comment, b/c I (certainly) don’t recall you posting about the left’s bomb throwers in the past.”

Funny huh? You have a weird sense of humour.

You’ve never seen me supporting any bomb throwers either.

I have told you what my politics are in the past and you have refused to acknowledge them.

Posted by: Rocky at March 22, 2007 6:06 PM
Comment #213335

“The truly sad thing is that you believe that there is a difference between the hate that is spread by blowing up human beings and the hate that is spread by word of mouth. IMHO each are equally evil, but Coulter’s type of hate rots America from the inside/out, and is spread legally, for a profit, and it is protected by the First Amendment.”

Now, that’s a sad, tragic commentary of our time. My goodness! So, according to you, Coulter making “school-yard taunts” to liberals is just as bas as slitting fly attendants throats and crashing planes into American buildings, killing thousands?! Wow!


I will say this, Rock, I disagree 100% (110%) with your view (120%), yet I do thank you for expressing your opinion and letting people know where you stand. I mean that, I’m not being facetious. Most will hide behind comments, dodge questions, whine, complain, and use ad-hominem attacks; yet, you were frank and honest with your opinions.


Posted by: rahdigly at March 23, 2007 11:39 AM
Comment #213379

Most will hide behind comments, dodge questions, whine, complain, and use ad-hominem attacks; yet, you were frank and honest with your opinions.

I’m glad you feel that way towards Rocky’s comments, rahdigly. I was hoping you could be frank and honest about this last post I directed to you: http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004900.html#213038

Posted by: Steve K at March 23, 2007 3:47 PM
Comment #213426

rahdigly,

Let me explain my position in a way you might understand better.

The terrorists may kill a few thousand people, maybe even some tens of thousands of people and I find that abhorrent.
The terrorists will never take over this country, through fear or any other means, they don’t have the manpower or the technology, and the American people (me included), will not allow it.

On the other hand, the American people are buying hate by the bucket full, and that hate is subverting what America stands for. Talk radio, of all types, is pushing this hate to the point where a civil discourse may soon become impossible.
We will never defeat even a common foe if we are fighting amongst ourselves, and the blame lay squarely on all of us, left and right, if we allow this to happen.
I feel the threat from inside America is at least as great as the threat from outside.
Ann Coulter is merely an example of those that would foment the hate that pits us against each other, and do it for a profit, and I find that equally abhorrent.

I hope that this explanation makes my position more clear.

Posted by: Rocky at March 23, 2007 9:11 PM
Comment #213784

Steve,

“I was hoping you could be frank and honest about this last post I directed to you: http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/004900.html#213038”


As I’ve said before, I do not believe the IPCC; IMO, they rely on the scientists that they want to believe, and that (to me) is evidence of a political agenda. The whole notion of a “consensus” in science just doesn’t sit right, at all! Either Scientist agree or disagree that “man is causing global warming” or not.


Rocky,

“On the other hand, the American people are buying hate by the bucket full, and that hate is subverting what America stands for. Talk radio, of all types, is pushing this hate to the point where a civil discourse may soon become impossible.
We will never defeat even a common foe if we are fighting amongst ourselves, and the blame lay squarely on all of us, left and right, if we allow this to happen.”


First off, talk radio is debunking the MSM every single day; they have been for years now. As far as “fighting amongst ourselves”, that’s what the anti-war/Bush crowd has been doing for years and you haven’t said a word about this until Coulter made her “Edwards” comment.


Rocky, it’s a shame you’re not seeing that the terrorists are using the anti-War/Bush crowds to get us to pullout of Iraq and (inevitably) the entire Middle East. They’ve said that’s their strategy all along and yet there are bloggers who are actually saying that Coulter and her ilk are worse than the terrorists. That’s the point. You have a bunch of Islamofascist radicals that will actually kill Americans (via Action) and then hide behind the anti-Bush/War crowds (words) to make their case! That’s what they’ve been doing and that’s why it’s dangerous.

Speech is nothing; some idiots mouth off, good. At least you know where they stand and you have enough info to decide whether or not they’re worth listening to in the future. Moore, Franken, Sarandon, Baldwin, Odonnell, etc. are just a few of the “idiots” (IMO) that I’ve heard their views and believe they are not worth listening to. I don’t view them as just as insidious as the terrorists!


So, I’m glad you spoke up; I (now) know where you stand as far as the terrorists/Coulter’s ilk are concerned and I know not to take you seriously with that issue.

Posted by: rahdigly at March 26, 2007 1:58 PM
Comment #213793

Either Scientist agree or disagree that ‘man is causing global warming’ or not.


rahdigly,
Scientists DO agree that is causing global warming. And they agree overwhelmingly.

Can you come up with the names of hundreds of scientists who have gathered their research together to reach the opposite conclusion? No, you can’t. Neither can you explain why the scientists who support your viewpoint are extremely few in number.

You must think these scientists are part of some sort of global conspiracy. If you don’t, then why do you think all these scientists have reached this conclusion?????????

Posted by: Steve K at March 26, 2007 2:49 PM
Comment #213794

rahdigly,

“First off, talk radio is debunking the MSM every single day; they have been for years now.”

If this statement wasn’t so sad I would be laughing my ass off.
The history of hate radio didn’t start with George W. Bush. Point of fact, it didn’t even start with Clinton.

“As far as “fighting amongst ourselves”, that’s what the anti-war/Bush crowd has been doing for years and you haven’t said a word about this until Coulter made her “Edwards” comment”

This is such crap, what exactly is your point?

“So, I’m glad you spoke up; I (now) know where you stand as far as the terrorists/Coulter’s ilk are concerned and I know not to take you seriously with that issue.”

Couldn’t posibly leave with anything less than an insult, eh?

Posted by: Rocky at March 26, 2007 2:53 PM
Comment #213934

Rocky,

“This is such crap, what exactly is your point?”


No it’s not crap; I didn’t hear you complain when Moore and the other idiots ran their mouths (on a daily basis) and nothing from you. Soon as Coulter says something (Bam!) “Coulter and her ilk” are more insidious than the terrorists.


“Couldn’t posibly leave with anything less than an insult, eh?”


No. It’s the “shoe fits” outlook.


steve,

“Scientists DO agree that is causing global warming. And they agree overwhelmingly. Can you come up with the names of hundreds of scientists who have gathered their research together to reach the opposite conclusion? No, you can’t. Neither can you explain why the scientists who support your viewpoint are extremely few in number. You must think these scientists are part of some sort of global conspiracy. If you don’t, then why do you think all these scientists have reached this conclusion?????????”


Scientists do not agree (overwhelmingly) that man is causing global warming! There are (indeed) thousands of Scientists that don’t agree with “man causing global warming”.

“15,000 scientists dispute theory of global warming…There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”


Posted by: rahdigly at March 27, 2007 12:45 PM
Post a comment