Gay Patriot Header Image

If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:48 am - September 25, 2005.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,War On Terror

While anti-war activists hoped their rally yesterday would be the “largest peace rally in the nation’s capital since the Vietnam War,” it doesn’t seem they reached their goal. In order to make the rally seem larger than it was, the BBC and other new outlets relied on the organizers’ claim that 100,000 turned out. Little Green Footballs found this picture of the rally at Yahoo and observed that “it looks like the turnout was much less than 100,000 people.”

A reader wrote in to Glenn Reynolds to report the same thing: he did not see 100,000 there either. Jeff Goldstein shows how the MSM has been spinning news of the rally to make it appear larger and more diverse that it actually was.

It seems that every critic of the Iraq war claims that it is another Vietnam, that not only are our troops in the process of losing, but that public opposition is growing. Yet, while polls may show that more Americans oppose the war than did at the time we liberated Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, the number of those who are fervently opposed to the war does not match that of the Vietnam era.

There were few (if any) large-scale protests when, in August 1964, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution effectively declaring war on the Communist government in North Vietnam. Yet, hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) rallied in cities across the country in 2003 to oppose the impending U.S. (and coalition) war against Saddam’s regime. Even the organizers don’t claim more than 100,000 attended yesterday’s rally. And as I noted above, most observers believe that number to be inflated.

As the war in Vietnam escalated so too did the protests back home, that is, the rallies got bigger. But, as our troops continue to fight the terrorists in Iraq, the size of the rallies has not so increased. Those who follow what’s really going in Iraq know that our involvement there is nothing like that in Vietnam. Although we are experiencing a few setbacks, we are winning the war. And the inability of the anti-war movement to draw a large crowd for their rally yesterday shows that the situation back in the U.S. is nothing like it was in the Vietnam era.

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!! While you’re here, take some time and browse around at one of the blogosphere’s leading gay conservative voices.

ADDENDUM: Michelle Malkin photoblogged the rally. Her pictures show how uncorked some leftists have become.

UPDATE: Fellow Bear-Flag Blogger Baldilocks (and very nice gal) has pictures from a sparsely attended rally in LA.

UP-UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein provides information suggesting that the MSM is massaging the protest numbers. HT: Instapundit.

UP-UP-UPDATE: PrismWarden provides a picture from the rally that is just too creepy to describe.

UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: California Conservative has pictures from a sparsely-attended (and hate-filled) rally in San Francisco.

UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt provides the details which make my point. The first anti-Vietnam War protest in 1965 brought 16,000 to the White House. In November 1969, more than 250,000 protesters — some estimates went as high as 500,000 rallied against the Vietnam War. In other words, back then, the protests got bigger as the war escalated. Thanks, Hugh.

Share

289 Comments

  1. #231
    ThatGayConservative:

    No, I don’t think you were way off. I saw where you would get that impression. I thought so myself. To be fair, though, I had a discussion about it with Dan last night and apparently, they are two different people.
    Unless, of course, QP was using security software and masking his IP which is entirely possible. I could appear as two different people at the same time right now if I were that petty. The only time I’ve been on here as two apparent folks is when I changed over from EMT907 for clarity’s sake.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 5:17 pm – September 27, 2005

    So….

    You want people to give their addys, while you share them with your cronies?

    You must be insane.

    I wouldn’t trust TGC with a head of lettuce…..and you are exchanging personal information?? Discussing private information with your groupies???

    BEWARE!

    Comment by GOParrot — September 27, 2005 @ 9:45 pm - September 27, 2005

  2. I don’t think anyone should be foolish enough to give a true address after this last revelation. Next you’ll be saying that glisteny and VtheK have our information. ThatGayConservative is frightening enough….for Cripes sake.

    Comment by GOParrot — September 27, 2005 @ 9:50 pm - September 27, 2005

  3. No. 246, thank you for trying to ease Joe out of his paranoid state by confirming that I am not all those people he thinks I am. We appreciate that and to show it, will share with you the latest Gabby Patriot volumetric. At the 253 mark, we have as…

    #1 Jingo Joe – 20% of ALL comments but an eye-popping 33% of the last 153 comments – how does he ever find his “e” and “o” keys?

    #2 V the K – 8% (most of them meaningless, but those still count here)

    #3 Synova – 7% (there you are, dear, you made it!)

    #4 Queer Patriot – 7% (all brilliantly conceived and executed)

    #5 ThatGayConservative – 6% (nfc at this time)

    #6 GOParrot – 2% (new, but noteworthy)

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 27, 2005 @ 10:11 pm - September 27, 2005

  4. The idea that certain members have privileged information from
    GP and/or GPW is most upsetting. I don’t trust this info, otherwise, I would have posted it. Seems my fears are substantiated.

    This COULD get out of hand, the way I see it. Be prepared.

    Comment by GOParrot — September 27, 2005 @ 10:28 pm - September 27, 2005

  5. No. 255, I agree with you — the appearance of sharing of inside info between blogger and commenter, as hinted at in No. 246 above, is very disturbing — for that would be unethical, at best. Of course, the “Dan” mentioned there may have simply and honestly informed No. 246 that there was no linkage between two posters in order to tamp down the paranoia that’s rampant here, so in fairness, there may have been no sharing at all. Let’s assume the best.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 27, 2005 @ 10:58 pm - September 27, 2005

  6. Are you nuts?

    Assume the best??

    Jebus!! You’ve lost me!!!!

    Comment by monty — September 27, 2005 @ 11:06 pm - September 27, 2005

  7. You guys have you foil hats on cinched a little too tight.

    The only thing Dan shared with me was the IP addresses. He didn’t say which was which. I determined for him that they were from opposite ends of the country. All you can find out from IP addresses is the location of the provider, not the user.

    BTW, IP addresses are not private information. There’s some blogs and messaqge boards that display your IP when you post a message, but I’m sure you already knew that. It wouldn’t fit your nucking futs agenda, though, to admit it.

    One would assume that if a person were actually frightened of people sharing their information on a blog, that person would at least leave and never come back. But as you ass clowns show every day, you’re all hat and no cattle.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 28, 2005 @ 2:24 am - September 28, 2005

  8. No. 258, you’ll note in No. 256 that I gave the benefit of the doubt. That is, until you revealed in No. 258 that you and one of the bloggers here are in cahoots with each other, sifting through IP addresses and trying to sort out who’s who. This would not be so bothersome were you a person who was trying to uphold standards of decency in language and conversation, but you happen to be one of the 2-3 people who regularly engage in hateful language and conversation. If the bloggers are colluding with someone like you, what won’t they do?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 28, 2005 @ 8:25 am - September 28, 2005

  9. Actually, knowing what gay leftists like Reader/Queer Patriot support in terms of privacy, their hypocrisy on this issue is stunning.

    However, that nicely explains their paranoia. They know that when they have this information, they start spamming, sending harassing emails, and trying to get people fired from their jobs. Thus, they live in terror of someone doing to them what they have done to others.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2005 @ 11:02 am - September 28, 2005

  10. #246 – Many people have 2 computers – say, a desktop and a work laptop. It would take nothing more than that for QP / Reader to have generated different IP addresses and cookie tags.

    #249 – GOP – I have an idea for you. Why don’t you simply google “puddin tame” and read through the first 10 or so references? (Helps to do research before your grand pronouncements.)

    #254 – How funny that QP still thinks “I think he is all those people”, when “all those people” are names that only QP brought up in connection with himself. 🙂 Refer to #233.

    QP is in the position of going “I’m not Monty! I’m not Domain Lord!” when, to my knowledge, no one in this thread (at least) suggests he was. That’s weird. Or as they say, “the lady doth protest too much.”

    #255, #256 – What a couple of jokers you guys are. You yourselves can “share information with Dan” anytime you want: e-mail GayPatriotWest@aol.com. (Dan will show good manners and ethics. The point is, cut your baloney about the simple process of e-mail, which you yourselves can engage Dan in, if you want.)

    #258 – TGC, part of me would want to ask you a bit more about “opposite ends of the country”. A person’s Comcast account could route through one part of the country, while their DSL routes though another part of the country. HOWEVER – on another level it’s beside the point. My main suspicion was more that QP had coached ISM. (When the longer posts from ISM started showing up in QP’s style and content, AFTER QP and ISM had made a giant show of supposedly kissing each other goodnight. Fits one of the past patterns we’ve seen from QP / Reader, of “over-committing to the bit”.)

    #260 NDT, touche 🙂

    Comment by joe — September 28, 2005 @ 11:33 am - September 28, 2005

  11. (#258 – or their dial-up could route through another part of the country…etc.)

    Comment by joe — September 28, 2005 @ 11:44 am - September 28, 2005

  12. Final P.S. – QP / Reader, I can tell from your posts that you are smarting because you have sunk a lot into this thread and your tricks haven’t worked. I am going to be very honest with you (not pretending friendship here): That makes me feel good. 😉

    Comment by joe — September 28, 2005 @ 11:54 am - September 28, 2005

  13. I hereby request that the Gay Patriot bloggers — GayPatriot and GayPatriotWest — ask that North Dallas Thirty publicly withdraw his lies in No. 260, where he tries to leave the impression that I personally spam, send harrassing email, or try to get people fired. Just because Thirty and I disagree on most things (including his anti-gay rants in lower threads) does not give him a license to lie.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 28, 2005 @ 1:23 pm - September 28, 2005

  14. Nos. 261-262-263, Jingo Joe — you think I’ve “sunk a lot into this thread”? LOL. Try running your name count feature and check out how it’s YOU who’s posting one in every five comments (20% so far) and one in every three (33%) of the last 163 comments. Little wonder that you haven’t noticed all the references to QP being 5 other people here and in the other threads; you don’t take a breath between your comments.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 28, 2005 @ 1:45 pm - September 28, 2005

  15. Hmmmm……OK, I’ll modify my statement. While I can’t say for certain that Queer Patriot/Reader himself does these actions, I am quite certain that he supports, condones, and funds people who do do them, as well as the actions themselves.

    I think the argument is the John Aravosis one — that is, I’m not liable for the illegal actions committed by the person I paid and supported to commit them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2005 @ 1:48 pm - September 28, 2005

  16. That was quick. Thank you bloggers for forcing North Dallas Thirty into at least a partial retraction of outrageous lies. But in begrudingly posting a partial, he’s managed to slip in another lie — something about me “paying people to commit illegal actions”. Humble him again please.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 28, 2005 @ 2:11 pm - September 28, 2005

  17. LOL….I think I shall let the second statement stand.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 28, 2005 @ 4:53 pm - September 28, 2005

  18. #259

    Sounds just like Readtard to me.

    Yes. We know you’re an idiot. Quit falling over yourself to prove it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 28, 2005 @ 5:31 pm - September 28, 2005

  19. Queer Parotits sure sounds like Reader what with all the excrutiatingly detailed analysis about the percentga of posts etc. And Parrot sure is paranoid. It’s like they are in a cult.

    Comment by PatC — September 28, 2005 @ 6:49 pm - September 28, 2005

  20. #270 – Yes Pat – QP is pretty definitely Reader.

    QP / Reader could conceivably be some others as well, but we (or at least I) don’t know anything definite. QP / Reader has offered some suggestions (that I hadn’t raised or thought of) on whomever else he/she/it might be.

    Now my main point: in RealClearPolitics today, a Democrat, former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, answers Cindy Sheehan beautifully: http://realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-9_27_05_EK.html

    Comment by joe — September 28, 2005 @ 7:06 pm - September 28, 2005

  21. Hey Pat –

    Pretty cool blog post! I didn’t know. Thank you for letting us know! 🙂

    Comment by joe — September 28, 2005 @ 7:11 pm - September 28, 2005

  22. There are a lot of responses here, but I’m particularly interested in the first one:

    “…liberals are hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory just like they did when they spun the Tet Offensive victory into a U.S. failure.”

    Do you read / watch history? We failed in Vietnam because our forces were attempting to fight that war based on our terms. Our military leaders were incapable of adjusting to fight in a way that would challenge the tactics of the enemy. US forces were pummeled time, after time. Take a look at the footage of the escape from the US Embassy at the end. It is US arrogance that lost it for us there and is losing it for us in Iraq. Our president stands around “harumphing” like Mel Brooks’ gubentorial cabinet in “Blazing Saddles”. No one in charge will face the real facts of why/how these insurgents are there, let alone admit that we miscalculate on the “waving flowers to our troops issues. Sure, these people were more than happy to see Saddam disappear, but now our leaders are completely aghast that they won’t do things the way we tell them. Also, as hard as it is to understand, there are countries in the world that (for whatever reasons) don’t want democracy. Let’s face it; cultures that are strongly driven by religious dictates are fairly incompatible with the constitutional government that we have here.

    Comment by Kevin — September 28, 2005 @ 9:12 pm - September 28, 2005

  23. No. 273, thanks for picking up on that earlier bit of absurdity from No.1. You’ll have to forgive us for not having noticed that, but he blurts out so many sillies that most of us have developed a convenient lazy eye when it comes to his posts and just don’t even notice anymore.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 28, 2005 @ 9:41 pm - September 28, 2005

  24. Before I forget: No. 270, where did you go to school darling?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 28, 2005 @ 9:46 pm - September 28, 2005

  25. #273
    Do you read / watch history?

    Yep. History’s my best subject and that’s why I can say that you’re a poor, misguided fool that will swallow anything dumped into your mouth.
    Also, as hard as it is for you to understand, the goal was to give the people of Iraq the ability to determine the government that they want.

    BTW, we know that the same Neosocialist spin and their willing accomplices in the “MSM” that we are seeing today that’s pushing for our defeat in Iraq. Same as in Vietnam.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 29, 2005 @ 4:35 am - September 29, 2005

  26. #274

    Right. Anybody not swallowing the organic load of the Neosocialists are just silly, stupid, dumb etc.
    Whatever helps you live with your ignorance.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 29, 2005 @ 4:37 am - September 29, 2005

  27. No. 273, see what I meant in No. 274?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 29, 2005 @ 6:55 am - September 29, 2005

  28. We failed in Vietnam because our forces were attempting to fight that war based on our terms. Our military leaders were incapable of adjusting to fight in a way that would challenge the tactics of the enemy. US forces were pummeled time, after time.

    Technically true, but incorrectly put.

    It wasn’t that our military was incapable or that our military leaders couldn’t adjust; it was that the war was being fought based on polls and political strategy, not on military tactics or strategy. Our military leaders knew full well what they needed to do to win, but were unable to do it for political reasons.

    If you want to buy a gun to defend your home, two things are required — the gun itself and the will to use it. If you lack the latter, the former is absolutely useless. The Iraqi insurgents and al-Qaeda know that there is no way they can defeat the United States militarily; what they do know is that there is an insane moonbat left who will support even the Taliban and Saddam Hussein if they think doing so is anti-Bush. By exploiting this, they think they can destroy our will to use the gun.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 29, 2005 @ 12:02 pm - September 29, 2005

  29. #279 – and here is a bit more on the military history angle.

    “Our military leaders were incapable of adjusting to fight in a way that would challenge the tactics of the enemy. US forces were pummeled time, after time.”

    – Exaggerated, but might conceivably refer to the pre-1969 phase of the war when Democratic President Lyndon Johnson weighed the military down with absurd directives, personally (mis)directed U.S. air strikes from the White House situation room, and so forth.

    Fact: The Tet Offensive of late 1968 / early 1969 was, militarily, a huge defeat for North Vietnam.

    Fact: By 1972-1973, South Vietnam and the U.S. had, in fact, won militarily. They had crushed both Viet Cong and North Vietnamese forces to the point where they (VC and NV) had to accept a peace treaty in which they abandoned any goal or claim of conquering South Vietnam.

    When and why did South Vietnam fall, then?

    It was later, in 1975. After a post-Watergate, Democratic Congress passed strict resolutions cutting off every form of aid to South Vietnam and making clear that the U.S. would not lift a finger to defend it, the North Vietnamese said, in effect, “Let’s roll!”

    One of my military friends is very politically liberal. When I first described this history of the Vietnam War to him, he could not believe it.

    Six months later, he called me and said “You were absolutely right. I did some research and some asking around, and that’s what happened.”

    Comment by joe — September 29, 2005 @ 1:07 pm - September 29, 2005

  30. Excuse me, my date numbers for Tet were off by 1. Tet was early 1968. So, the U.S. did something right under Johnson!

    Comment by joe — September 29, 2005 @ 1:12 pm - September 29, 2005

  31. So, Thirty, you’re now an expert on the Vietnam War? There’s a point at which people look at your extensive, pseudo-learned comments and say, oh there goes Mr. Wikipedia again. Still I’m glad to see you and Jingo Joe focusing on Vietnam at this point, for it will eventually enhance your understanding of the new war you’re fighting so vigorously at your keyboards. Someday, you’ll both realize you were nothing more than the latest reincarnation of the “America, Love It Or Leave It” crowd of circa 1970.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 30, 2005 @ 9:37 pm - September 30, 2005

  32. LOL…..bitterness somehow suits you, QP, but it doesn’t change what anyone other than you thinks about me. It does, however, change what several people think about you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 2:56 am - October 2, 2005

  33. No. 283, foolish you that you would think I even care.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — October 2, 2005 @ 8:56 am - October 2, 2005

  34. It hurts to be bested by a conservative, doesn’t it?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 2, 2005 @ 7:22 pm - October 2, 2005

  35. […] Gay Patriot: Just over four months ago, when Instapundit linked a piece where I asked “If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller?, we received a record number of comments — and not just from those who agreed with the post. We attracted a number of critics, many of whom expressed their disagreement in less-than-civil tones. And I saw an uptick in the amount of hate mail I received. The same thing happened again last week when Glenn linked my post on the Canadian elections. We got a lot more comments and I got a little more hate mail. […]

    Pingback by Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Blogosphere Illumination II — January 29, 2006 @ 12:29 pm - January 29, 2006

  36. An ideal website which everyone should read.

    Comment by acne treatments — March 11, 2006 @ 1:45 am - March 11, 2006

  37. […] Is it Really About the Iraq War? We are led to believe it is. By the same folks who want us to believe “hundreds of thousands” are showing up to these things. Opponents of the war in Iraq marched today in a clamorous day of protest, song and remembrance of the dead, some showing surprisingly diverse political views even as they spoke with one loud voice in wanting U.S. troops home. and… Students rallied against the U.S. involvement in Iraq at a protest that drew a national crowd of 100,000 people to Washington, D.C., on Saturday. and… Crowds opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White House on Saturday, shouting “Peace now” in the largest anti-war protest in the U.S. capital since the invasion. and… Vast numbers of protesters from around the country poured onto the lawns behind the White House on Saturday to demonstrate their opposition to the war in Iraq… and on and on and on… But despite the media’s portrayal of the protests as purely a commentary on Iraq, one look at the messages delivered throughout the protests shows Iraq was but a small subset of the issues. Here is a sample of the organizations sponsoring the “anti-Iraq-war” rally: […]

    Pingback by Texas Rainmaker » Is it Really About the Iraq War? — April 25, 2006 @ 11:40 am - April 25, 2006

  38. Nice site I found … Plan on coming back later to spend a little time there.

    Comment by Acne Laser — October 10, 2006 @ 3:40 am - October 10, 2006

  39. Maybe both “sides” are wrong. You’ve got to be willing that you might be wrong *too*. Truth is seldom in extremes like left wing or right wing. We may have done something good by getting rid of Saddam, but we put him in power in the first place… so, well, what do you make of that? Perhaps maybe “Good America” is not as good as you might want to think? Not to mention that we frigged the country up so frigging bad we have no clue as to what to do to fix it if indeed anything CAN be done…

    Support the troops — by bringing them home where they are safe. That’s what we need — a way out. Can we “win”? I don’t know. What does it even *mean* to “win”, anyway? How would we go about doing that, about “winning”?

    Comment by mike3 — December 20, 2006 @ 2:23 pm - December 20, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.