Gay Patriot Header Image

The Anti-War Protests That Weren’t

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 5:01 pm - March 18, 2006.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Liberals,War On Terror

Only 500 showed up in Sydney. Only 15,000 of the expected 100,000 in London. And on and on. Or less and less as the case may be.

I love this quote from British defence secretary John Reid who said that “the crowd ought to be supporting the United Nations and the Iraqi people rather than protesting.” I bet the moonbats brains started to ooze out of their ears at that one.

Meantime, poor PatriotPartner is in San Francisco for work this weekend and is surrounded by thousands of moonbats. He reports the crowds look larger than they really are because they are all walking in a circle. He’s seen the same signs twice in less than an hour. He also says the protestors haven’t seen the inside of a shower in about a week, and are mainly comprised of senior “Sixtian” hippies.

And he also agrees with ATG’s observation: this is mostly an anti-American, anti-Bush protest…. not a anti-war protest. Of course, it is being run by the last vestige of Communism on earth — A.N.S.W.E.R. — so what else would you expect?

[RELATED STORY – Moonbat Global Anti-War Protest Underwhelming – Stop The ACLU]

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Share

56 Comments

  1. They’re all on spring break, getting drunk and showing their boobs. But speaking of moonbats, what’s your favorite license plate?

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 18, 2006 @ 5:07 pm - March 18, 2006

  2. Meantime, poor PatriotPartner is in San Francisco for work this weekend and is surrounded by thousands of moonbats.

    Land-love has its limits.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 18, 2006 @ 5:51 pm - March 18, 2006

  3. I know how he feels –from my living here in Ann Arbor… which is moonbat east.

    We had an anti-war protest on the campus this morning, gays were out in force with rainbow flags helping the Democrats. About 60 people showed up and they had planned to draw over 3,500. But from the TV coverage, it was deemed a “success”. One of the organizers said “If our effort here today convinces just one young man to reconsider joining Bush’s imperial army, today will have been worth it.” There ya have it: anti-war, anti-military, anti-Bush. Lots of homemade “Bush = Hitler” placards, “Blood is on his Hands” signs, “Impeach the Chimp” signs and, strangely enough, “World Bank is Evil” banner. Oh and free condoms and a chance to sign up on petitions to raise the minimum wage, end the hunting of mourning doves, divert money to k-12 education and protect affirmative action.

    What a zoo.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 18, 2006 @ 6:39 pm - March 18, 2006

  4. I have about decided that war protest marches are mostly for the young, childless, or total loons. I haven’t figured out how people find time to go to these things around work, and children’s activities. Today alone I had to take two kids to a pine wood derby, and another to a end of year parent child basketball game. My weekends generally resemble similar schedules. Even if I wanted to protest something, I don’t think I could fit it into our schedule.

    I work with two young women who would fit all three of the above, and they were planning to go to a protest march this weekend, I ended up just leaving the teacher’s room laughing-not even worth the time of saying anything.

    Comment by just me — March 18, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - March 18, 2006

  5. Here’s my question: Given their fascnation with President Bush’s poll numbers, will we start to see headlines on the major networks like, “Antiwar Popularity Down”, “Is Cindy To Blame?” or “Moonbats Turn on ‘Antiwar’ Movement- Grow Up, Bathe, Get Jobs”?

    Comment by DaveP. — March 18, 2006 @ 8:01 pm - March 18, 2006

  6. 5: Alas, no. The anti-war movement is not dying; it is metastasizing into the mainstream. When William F. Buckley starts telling us to Give Peace A Chance, you can figure the infiltration is well-nigh complete.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 18, 2006 @ 9:11 pm - March 18, 2006

  7. I’m all for Peace and I can’t really blame people for wanting it, as far as that goes. But what do these Anti-War people think the alternative is? Is the alternative to war actually peace? Is it?

    Being Anti-War is easy when you don’t have to figure out how to make it work.

    Comment by Synova — March 18, 2006 @ 9:18 pm - March 18, 2006

  8. Maybe all the protestors are preoccupied in France – stupid, stupid socialists… did I just write a sentence with occupied and France in it??? I believe I did!!!

    Comment by sonicfrog — March 18, 2006 @ 9:34 pm - March 18, 2006

  9. And GP, you can let PatriotPartner know that there is a small islet of red here in San Francisco….me! 🙂

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 18, 2006 @ 9:44 pm - March 18, 2006

  10. I guess that France proves that you don’t have to be Muslem to burn cars.

    Gad.

    Comment by Synova — March 18, 2006 @ 10:16 pm - March 18, 2006

  11. #7 – Synova, exactly right.

    Comment by Calarato — March 18, 2006 @ 10:41 pm - March 18, 2006

  12. the law would allow businesses to fire young workers in the first two years on a job without giving a reason

    Socialism sucks. God I’m glad I was born an American.

    Comment by John — March 18, 2006 @ 11:29 pm - March 18, 2006

  13. He reports the crowds look larger than they really are because they are all walking in a circle.

    Trying to remember from Ken Burns’ Civil War (maybe GPW can help), didn’t Gen. Jackson do the same thing? Are libs borrowing from military history to help them hate on the military?

    Does anybody else remember one of the “big” protests after the war started where the libs were orgasmic about the number of people who protested world-wide, but it wound up being less than 1/10 of 1% of the world population?

    #4
    Even if I wanted to protest something, I don’t think I could fit it into our schedule.

    See the difference is that you give a damn about your kids and your life. If you have no interest in responsibility, you can get away with crap like that.

    I remember telling my brother about a protest in San Francisco or somewhere where the protestors blocked ambulances responding to emergencies. I told him that I can guaran-damn-tee you that when I’m responding to an emergency, no smelly hippy or anything else would stand in the way. The siren drivers are usually mounted in the grill. All you have to do is keep the siren running and keep moving. The smelly hippies will move when a few thousand pound ambulance is pushing.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 19, 2006 @ 3:10 am - March 19, 2006

  14. Is the assumption by the ‘peaceniks’ that if all US troops are withdrawn from Iraq, Afghanistan and anywhere else a US soldier brandishes a gun that peace will spontaneously break out world wide and ALL people including the extremists will clasp hands and sing ‘kumbaya’?

    Sure, I expect the left to say…”we can try it, right?” Sure, let’s try it- see what happens when the US unilaterally withdraws from all foreign lands. Meanwhile, eBay will do well to stock up on prayer mats and Gillette can go out of business as we seek peace with those who have one purpose- to destroy the west as we know it….naive today and naive 40 years ago.

    Comment by benj — March 19, 2006 @ 7:05 am - March 19, 2006

  15. Collectivists protesting Liberation, what else is new?

    Comment by syn — March 19, 2006 @ 9:35 am - March 19, 2006

  16. I heard on Drudge Report that they are going to make a movie about caseys mom starring susan sarandon as you know who (refuse to say her name)……would much rather see a movie about casey

    Comment by nuyorker — March 19, 2006 @ 11:20 am - March 19, 2006

  17. Tim at #6: you gotta quit wearing Stephen’s tin foil cap, your ability to discern the truth is fading fast. Exactly when and where did Bill Buckley say that we needed to “give peace a chance” or anything even close to that? Is this messgae hidden in secret code only available to the moonbats?

    Yeah, I thought so.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 19, 2006 @ 11:45 am - March 19, 2006

  18. 17: Exactly when and where did Bill Buckley say that we needed to “give peace a chance” or anything even close to that?

    When: February 24, 2006.
    Where: http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp
    What he wrote: [Bush] will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies. Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
    In other words: “US Out Of Iraq.”

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 19, 2006 @ 1:07 pm - March 19, 2006

  19. From what you quoted… how do you get “US Out Of Iraq” from “survival of strategic policies?”

    Just wondering.

    Comment by Synova — March 19, 2006 @ 1:34 pm - March 19, 2006

  20. 19 From what you quoted… how do you get “US Out Of Iraq” from “survival of strategic policies?”

    Actually, I got it from “the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.” The upshot of Buckley’s column is that we’ve lost in Iraq, and it’s time for our military to cut and run. I think he’s dead wrong, but right now that’s almost beside the point. The godfather of modern conservatism is ready to give the anti-war movement what it most desires — a concession of defeat.

    The anti-war movement no longer needs demonstrations and street theater. It has numbers, clout, and now a place in the political mainstream. Its members will show up in force for this year’s midterm elections.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 19, 2006 @ 2:08 pm - March 19, 2006

  21. National Review‘s editors took issue with their founder’s column.

    And it’s clear that anti-war movement does not have the energetic support it once did. It’s just not a motivating factor for all that many people any more.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — March 19, 2006 @ 2:51 pm - March 19, 2006

  22. Tim, I don’t see, read, nor have I heard anything from Buckley that would affirm your assessment of his “cut and run” advice to “Bush” as you imply. Nor would any consistent reader of Buckley.

    Buckley’s reiteration of the Iraq postulate is: American forces could topple Saddam, Iraqis would set aside their sectarian and tribal differences in favor of peace and civil discourse, and the collation forces could train Iraqi police/military to quell the insurgency.

    Buckley specifically says: “This last (e.g., the training part, Tim) did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure.”

    For you take that kernel of Buckley’s assessment and conclude he’s arguing for a “cut-and-run” time is lunacy, chap. And with a heavy dose of intellectual dishonesty. Just like others here have tried to translate Buckley’s comments into: a) Bush has failed, b) time to end our adventure in Iraq.

    Sorry Tim, you got it wrong –and it’s a BIG “it”.

    Buckley has long been a critic of the Administration’s assessment that the Iraqi people had either the interest or will to govern democratically and set aside centuries old tribal battling. In that context, his remarks you’ve taken out of context, make sense. Iraqis haven’t demonstrated to Buckley’s liking that they are ready for democracy –elections, constitutions, elections and political negotiations aside.

    Back in May, 2003 he razored in on this oft-these when he wrote: “What Mr. Bush proposes to do is to unseat Saddam Hussein and to eliminate his investments in aggressive weaponry. We can devoutly hope that internecine tribal antagonisms will be subsumed in the fresh air of a despot removed, and that the restoration of freedom will be productive. But these concomitant developments can’t be either foreseen by the United States, or implemented by us. What Mr. Bush can accomplish is the removal of a regime and its infrastructure. The Iraqi people will have to take it from there.” Buckley’s staying on message >>his message of doubt about the Iraqis willingness to do the heavy lifting to democracy and stability.

    Again, sorry Tim, but you got the BIG “it” wrong. Try being a regular reader of Buckley’s, try understanding him in context, try being a bit more honest. I know Bill Buckley and he’s no “cut and run” Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, Dean or Murtha.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 19, 2006 @ 3:04 pm - March 19, 2006

  23. But Tim, I can understand how you can come to the conclusion from your reading of any of the 4 following left-of-center blogs:

    Daily Kos: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/3/1102/46391

    US Labor v. War: http://www.uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=10318

    Democrats & Liberals: http://www.watchblog.com/democrats/archives/003297.html

    CoolAqua: http://coolaqua.blogs.com/coolaqua/2006/02/conservative_wi.html

    CommonDreams: http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0227-33.htm

    The only two missing is CindySheehan’s “I’m a big zero” blog or MikeyMoore’s “It’s Bush’s Fault” spew spout.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 19, 2006 @ 3:17 pm - March 19, 2006

  24. Tim at #20: “The anti-war movement no longer needs demonstrations and street theater. It has numbers, clout, and now a place in the political mainstream. Its members will show up in force for this year’s midterm elections.”

    I didn’t know that Denmark or Holland or France had midterm elections?

    The anti-war movement doesn’t need “street theatre”? LOL

    That’s a great platform to rationalize away the Left’s withering base –by discounting the very tool that the Left often uses to show it has moral ascendacy and political viability.

    LOL, Tim. You need to write comedy and skip the movie reviews.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 19, 2006 @ 3:25 pm - March 19, 2006

  25. “The anti-war movement no longer needs demonstrations and street theater. It has numbers, clout, and now a place in the political mainstream. Its members will show up in force for this year’s midterm elections.”

    If this is true, it will be a tragedy and a disaster for America and the world, since the ultimate goal of the “peace movement” is the defeat of western freedom, and the victory of Islamo-fascism.

    Comment by V the K — March 19, 2006 @ 3:36 pm - March 19, 2006

  26. The Left has been promising to “kick ass” each national election and each national election, they suffer humiliation. I can’t believe they have fooled that many Americans into thinking the Left is no longer their enemy.

    The Democratic party that can take back Congress and the White House is a Democratic party few left-wing posters on this site could ever stand, and they would likely despise.

    Comment by VinceTN — March 19, 2006 @ 4:12 pm - March 19, 2006

  27. 23: Interesting links, MM. I don’t read any of those blogs, though I believe I linked once to a post on CommonDreams. I should read them more often, if only to keep track of what the Left is up to.

    Buckley’s analysis of Iraq comes as no surprise, I’ll grant. But the one thing you haven’t explained — and it’s the Achilles heel in your argument — is what an “acknowledgment of defeat” would mean. It sounds to me like a classic “cut-and-run,” in which we remove troops and aid and let the chips fall where they may — which is very likely what it means for him, too. The only other possibility would involve setting up a new despotism to replace the old one, after which we’d pull out the troops and prop up the regime with foreign aid. I don’t think Buckley would go for that one. This may be lunacy, but if so the lunacy is his, not mine.

    You’re right that Buckley’s no Kerry, Murtha, Pelosi, or (increasingly) McCain. He’s an isolationist; they’re internationalists. At the moment, however, this may be a distinction without a difference: Either way, we pretty much declare defeat and throw in the towel. (BTW, the oddest spectacle of the anti-war movement was the strange-bedfellows alliance between paleoconservatives and hard-line Communists.)

    25: For once, V and I agree — except on one minor point: I don’t think the anti-war crowd actually desires the triumph of radical Islamism. Frankly, they don’t take Islamism seriously enough for that.

    26: The Dems never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but with Bush’s approval ratings at rock bottom (lower than Clinton’s ever were), they have a much better chance than usual. Expect a few Republicans to break with Bush as well; Buckley has shown the way.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 19, 2006 @ 6:15 pm - March 19, 2006

  28. benj, its not about peace breaking out, it is more about some dumbass going to war without having a plan or even knowing what the end goal should look like. And quite honestly my views are colored as the son of a Vietnam Era vet. I have absolutely no respect for any individual of privilege who uses that privelege to avoid serving his or her country and years later that same individual has the audacity to send troops to a quagmire. From what I saw of the SF protest, many of the SF individuals were Vietnam vets. That says something.

    What immediately comes to mind, is the St. Patty’s day post – people feeling deep love for their own country. Iraqis may not have liked SH, but he ain’t Uncle Sam – so I can see their resentment.

    Truth is many (if not all) of us on the left have nothing against Afghanistan, we are just bothered by His Royal Arrogance and Iraq. Which bring me to the point I could have made earlier and in fewer words – please don’t lump Afghanistan with Iraq.

    Comment by ralph — March 19, 2006 @ 7:30 pm - March 19, 2006

  29. The “plan” for any war the US enters into is simple…WIN IT! How it is accomplished requires constant tactical decision making by those in the field, not on some US College campus.

    Comment by benj — March 19, 2006 @ 7:40 pm - March 19, 2006

  30. I don’t think the anti-war crowd actually desires the triumph of radical Islamism. Frankly, they don’t take Islamism seriously enough for that.

    I think this is so right, and very scary too. The anti war leftists have their heads buried so far in the sand that they don’t realize just how dangerous radical islam is.

    Comment by just me — March 19, 2006 @ 7:44 pm - March 19, 2006

  31. Tim @ #27 “and it’s the Achilles heel in your argument — is what an “acknowledgment of defeat” would mean.”

    Umm, yes I did, sport. The defeat Buckley is speaking to –it’s that BIG “it” you fail to recognize in his writing and his prior writings– is that Iraqis have not demostarted to Buckley’s liking the prerequiste visceral lust for democracy…. come on Tim, it really isn’t this hard if you’ll just put aside the blinders. That’s the defeat in judgment that Bush and his planners must accept, according to Buckley. And the reduction postulate that Iraqis won’t train police/military to put down the insurrection. The BIG “it” you won’t acknowledge ’cause it blows your superficial reading of Buckley to shreds.

    If you don’t read those blogs, then I’m in a quandry how you can come up with the near exact language they use in referencing Buckley’s op ed piece as Buckley cut and run advice to GWB –only on those sites, they call it Buckley’s Cronkite moment… referencing, as all great liberals do, their sense of the critical moment when the Silent Majority turned on RMN and his prosecution of the war in Viet Nam. Of course, it didn’t happen… anymore than the CIA killed JFK, the FBI killed Dr King, or that Bush is engaged in domestic spying over at NSA… which will probably be that darling of the Left Ollie Stone’s next historical fiction.

    At least you didn’t use the silly Buckley-Cronkite comparison in your comments –but the thread is young.

    Nope, Tim. You still have it wrong. As you did at #6 when you wrote incorrectly “The anti-war movement is not dying; it is metastasizing into the mainstream. When William F. Buckley starts telling us to Give Peace A Chance, you can figure the infiltration is well-nigh complete.”

    The anti-war “movement” couldn’t even secure 200 people to protest in Boston over the weekend –the hotbed of liberal, Leftist political activism. Right, it’s not dead –just gone underground. LOL

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 19, 2006 @ 10:32 pm - March 19, 2006

  32. Truth is many (if not all) of us on the left have nothing against Afghanistan, we are just bothered by His Royal Arrogance and Iraq. Which bring me to the point I could have made earlier and in fewer words – please don’t lump Afghanistan with Iraq.

    Wrong answer, ralph.

    Want to see what paid Democratic Party spokesperson Cindy Sheehan says the Dems’ official position on Afghanistan is?

    MATTHEWS: Can I ask you a tough question? A very tough question.

    SHEEHAN: Yes.

    MATTHEWS: All right. If your son had been killed in Afghanistan, would you have a different feeling?

    SHEEHAN: I don’t think so, Chris, because I believe that Afghanistan is almost the same thing. We’re fighting terrorism. Or terrorists, we’re saying. But they’re not contained in a country. This is an ideology and not an enemy. And we know that Iraq, Iraq had no terrorism. They were no threat to the United States of America.

    FREE VIDEO

    • Another perspective
    Aug. 15: Not every military parent agrees with Cindy Sheehan’s vigil. Hardball’s Chris Matthews talks to Debi Bohannon, whose son served two tours in Iraq and one in Afghanistan for a different perspective.
    MSNBC

    MATTHEWS: But Afghanistan was harboring, the Taliban was harboring al-Qaida which is the group that attacked us on 9/11.

    SHEEHAN: Well then we should have gone after al-Qaida and maybe not after the country of Afghanistan.

    MATTHEWS: But that’s where they were being harbored. That’s where they were headquartered. Shouldn’t we go after their headquarters? Doesn’t that make sense?

    SHEEHAN: Well, but there were a lot of innocent people killed in that invasion, too. … But I’m seeing that we’re sending our ground troops in to invade countries where the entire country wasn’t the problem. Especially Iraq. Iraq was no problem. And why do we send in invading armies to march into Afghanistan when we’re looking for a select group of people in that country?

    You see, Ralph, that’s what you leftists stand for. You are flat-out lying when you say that you supported the war in Afghanistan in any way.

    What I find amusing is that Vietnam vets should be able to recognize Jane Fondas when they see one — and they should be willing to acknowledge that sabotage of the war by her and her ilk cost three million lives.

    Of course, those were Cambodian and Vietnamese lives, and the only time Democrats and leftists care about THOSE is when they’re US voters.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 20, 2006 @ 12:47 am - March 20, 2006

  33. NDT – talk to me when you find someone credible.

    Facts are this…republicans derailed a full scale attack on Al-Qaeda during the embassy bombings thinking it was a Wag the Dog exercise.

    And two if you honestly believe that bullcrap the CS was spouting about attacking a country and not the Taliban perhaps you need your head examined. Last time I checked, if I wanted to attack you I am going to have to go to where you are. Please NDT you once struck me as intelligent. You can’t possibly be blind to the facts.

    Come speak to me when you have facts that support a logical argument.

    Note: I have lived in the Bay Area since before 9/11, if there were to be a peep of dissent about attacking the Taliban it would have been here. Rest assured it was not. Again, the recent protests are against the Iraq war – Not the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. You would be hard pressed to find one sane individual who disagrees with kicking some Taliban and Al-Qaeda butt. Even HRA realizes that people like a good Al-Qaeda ass -kickin and tries his darnedest to link Iraq and Al-Qaeda

    Comment by ralph — March 20, 2006 @ 1:38 am - March 20, 2006

  34. I guess ralph believes that Afghanistan was the only country in the world where terrorists were operating.

    Also, a quick Google search, or a scan of the Bay Area Indymedia site, shows there are plenty of people in the People’s Republic of the Bay Area who oppose US Action in Afghanistan as well. Remember, it was at a Bay Area protest that a “peace activist” was sighted carrying a sign that said “I Love NY more without the WTC” It was also at a Bay Area protest that the notorious “We support our troops when they shoot their officers” banner was spotted. And before ralph tries to claim that these people were out of the mainstream of the “peace” movement, we can point out that none of their fellow “peace activists” objected to their signage.

    Comment by V the K — March 20, 2006 @ 5:42 am - March 20, 2006

  35. The usual anti war suspects were lined up against Afghanistan before we invaded Iraq, once we invaded Iraq they decided Afghanistan was okay, but Iraq wasn’t.

    Comment by just me — March 20, 2006 @ 6:43 am - March 20, 2006

  36. 31: The defeat Buckley is speaking to –it’s that BIG “it” you fail to recognize in his writing and his prior writings– is that Iraqis have not demostarted to Buckley’s liking the prerequiste visceral lust for democracy….

    You’ve explained what Buckley means by “defeat,” but you haven’t explained what he means by an “acknowledgment of defeat.” The key word in this passage is “acknowledgement”; if you ignore it, you miss the point. Allow me to explain, then, in the simplest language possible: Acknowledging defeat means we cut and run.

    This isn’t a “Cronkite moment,” if only because Buckley is no Cronkite. But it does suggest that the anti-war movement is winning the war for public opinion. We downplay its influence at our peril.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 20, 2006 @ 8:25 am - March 20, 2006

  37. I love, the liberal postulate: Buckley says that we need to acknowledge the training of Iraqis to support intra-country policing exercises has failed or that the Iraqis don’t have the fire-in-the-belly to battle for democracy and that translates into and endorsement of “cut and run”. How dense.

    Good job, Tim –Al Gore is looking for a speech writer.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 20, 2006 @ 8:38 am - March 20, 2006

  38. Right, it’s not dead –just gone underground.

    The anti-war movement hasn’t gone underground — it’s gone mainstream. You don’t see it on the streets, but in the cinema and on your TV. It doesn’t need protests and street theater to triumph; it just has to bid its time until November. (Which I suspect is what the terrorists in Iraq are waiting for, too.) And we’re not going to stop it by underestimating or belittling it.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 20, 2006 @ 8:41 am - March 20, 2006

  39. 37: MM, once again you’ve mentioned the nature of the defeat (in Buckley’s opinion), but not what an acknowledgment of it would mean. Since you’re lashing out with the L-word more and more with each post, I’d say your back’s against the wall. I have explained what Buckley means by “an acknowledgement of defeat.” But if you have a different idea of what such an “acknowledgment” might entail, it’s time to show your hand.

    “Your sword, Gisbourne.”

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 20, 2006 @ 8:53 am - March 20, 2006

  40. Oh, and Tim, lest we forget: “This isn’t a “Cronkite moment,” if only because Buckley is no Cronkite. But it does suggest that the anti-war movement is winning the war for public opinion.” Right, he’s no Cronkite –that man is a preening, self-basting, ego-centric newsreader.

    I think the distinction you fail to note is that Americans polled never like war –any war with a cost. They don’t like soldiers dying; any soldiers in any place. They’ve been seduced by the those who think wars can be waged via technology and without sustained casualties.

    It doesn’t translate into “support for the anti-war movement”. The anti-war movement couldn’t muster 60 people in the heart of liberal, socialist leaning, anti-everything Ann Arbor on a sunny, warm day for 45 minutes. They coudln’t get 200 in DC for crying out loud!

    The anti-war movement is not a movement –it’s a dream spawned in the dark recesses of big labor, eco-peaceniks, angry GayLefties and hardcore impotent Democrats. The peril comes in not addressing these “dissenters” for what they are: cowards, unpatriotic leemings, and Blame-America-Firsters. Cindy Sheehan is their Poster Grrrrrl.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 20, 2006 @ 8:55 am - March 20, 2006

  41. The “plan” for any war the US enters into is simple…WIN IT!

    There you go. “Exit strategies” are for losers and cowards.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 20, 2006 @ 8:58 am - March 20, 2006

  42. Tim, with all due respect to your sensitivities… as a writer and self-styled critic of film, culture and the arts, you need to go back and READ Buckley –not play the “I’m dense and I don’t get it” game.

    What does “acknowledgment of defeat” by Buckley mean? He was offering a caution to GWB and his Administration. A CAUTION, Tim. The caution is: just because the ground swell for self-determination and Iraqi-led combating of the insurrection in Iraq hasn’t materialized, don’t think that it means the policy of spreading American values abroad is unworthy. Go back and read it, Tim. And you’re flat out wrong about Buckley being an isolationist –you couldn’t be more wrong… unless, I guess, it’s trying to expalin Buckley to others. And you’ve been wacko wrong there.

    You need to really read Buckley to comprehend Buckley. He isn’t a comic strip writer. He doesn’t have a journalist’s sense of telling the story in the first 3 paragraphs. And you have to have read Buckley in context… and you’re not doing either of those –reading for comprehension or in context.

    Til you do, Tim, you’re just going to parse words, split hairs and continue to misunderstand Buckley. But that’s ok –that’s what those left-of-center blogs I noted in #23 have done for you. I loved your dismissal of them, though; right, you don’t read them. LOL.

    You can’t make Buckley say “it’s time to cut and run Mr Prez” no matter how hard you try to stand the 80 yr old intellectual on his head.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 20, 2006 @ 9:17 am - March 20, 2006

  43. ”There are not enough young people here,” said Paul Perchonock, 61, a physician. ”They don’t see themselves as having a stake.”

    The above quote was made by a protester in Utah. I wanted to share it because I think it illustrates how the older protesters just don’t get it. I’m old enough now to have heard the refrain that young people feel they don’t have a stake and are apathetic as a result. I don’t agree. The world and media have changed. I bet younger people today are better informed than their elders because they get their news in a variety of ways and can see glaring inconsistancies when they appear. And being young they are not yet entrenched in ideology. They choose not to go to these stupid protests because they understand what’s going on and what the stakes are.

    Comment by Dave — March 20, 2006 @ 9:31 am - March 20, 2006

  44. “He laughs at the idea that the antiwar movement as a whole shares his radical views. “People on the Right are using [my banner] to show that all of the Left is anti-American.’

    His mvmt is 25 people strong and he is an avowed anti global trade Anarchist.

    Again, I repeat find me someone credible

    Had you made more responsible critiques, I might be less critical of them.

    Comment by ralph — March 20, 2006 @ 10:13 am - March 20, 2006

  45. A clear case that the media and Hollywood have indeed succeeded in indocrinating public opinion while using their monolithic megaphone and financial influences to effectively change government policy and the power of “we the People”.

    Tim, your observation that they are going to ‘bide their time until november’ is right on the nose.

    For the life of me I do not understand how you can see this is a positive influence over a free society. The very idea that both the media and Hollywood have attached themselves to a specific political party should be of great concern; using it’s powerful, all-consuming influence to criminalize another political party, promote socialist activism, alter history and redefine words in order to carefully craft a perfect and just world is creepy.

    Tim, can you see the reflection of Big Brother in all this?

    Ask yourself, if Amerikka really does exist and the Neo-conbushhilteroilchirsters have taken over why then is V for Vendetta the number one movie this weekend?

    Comment by syn — March 20, 2006 @ 11:17 am - March 20, 2006

  46. 45: For the life of me I do not understand how you can see this is a positive influence over a free society.

    I don’t claim it’s a positive influence — in fact, I’ve all but stated it’s a negative one. But it is strong right now, and growing. Even among impeccably credentialed conservatives, there’s a major temptation to advocate a “cut and run” in Iraq — and to dismiss the war on terror as unwinnable (which is a far more extreme position than Buckley takes, or would take). Dismissing the power of anti-war sentiment could set us up for a very nasty surprise this November.

    BTW, V for Vendetta was the number-one movie this weekend because it opened in over three thousand theaters.

    MM: I’ll grant I was mistaken on Buckley’s isolationism. He does support American involvement in other places, at least in a general sense. What he doesn’t support is “nation-building.” Good job calling me on that.

    If, as Buckley claims, the “kernel” in any future US strategy in Iraq is the “acknowledgment of defeat,” then we face the choice of any military power that is beaten and knows it — surrender, suicide or withdrawal. Liberals might choose the first option, in a roundabout, Clintonesque manner (give the terrorists what they want and maybe they’ll go away). Many hardcore leftists, the most prominent being Michael Moore, would doubtless prefer the second option, as a long-overdue comeuppance for Western patriarchal imperialist hegemony. To the extent that he’s advocating any course of action, Buckley is pushing the third one: Withdrawal.

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 20, 2006 @ 12:28 pm - March 20, 2006

  47. Please. Ralph.

    Senator Barbara Boxer supports, praises, and endorses Cindy Sheehan. Michael Moore supports, praises, and endorses Cindy Sheehan.

    Furthermore, Cindy Sheehan is closely associated with CodePink, a leftist hate organization that supports terrorists in Iraq. Guess who endorsed and praised them?

    So in short, Ralph, the facts are there. The Democratic Party, including the head of the DNC, endorses and supports these very same leftist groups who opposed the Afghan war and support terrorists against US citizens and troops worldwide.

    If you don’t like it, feel free to repudiate them.

    As for your “wag the dog” comment, I don’t recall any protests over the strikes against bin Laden; I think you have them confused with the strikes Clinton ordered on Iraq, which WERE suspiciously timed and odd, since Clinton was the one who ordered inspectors to leave Iraq because Saddam didn’t want them there.

    But, the main problem with the missile strikes is that they were ordered against camps that the Clinton administration knew had been evacuated weeks earlier.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 20, 2006 @ 12:54 pm - March 20, 2006

  48. #45 Because it has explosions and Natalie Portman?

    Comment by Synova — March 20, 2006 @ 1:45 pm - March 20, 2006

  49. Dave I wouldn’t go so far as to say young people are informed, because there is a lot of apathy among Americans in general, and especially in that age group-hence their crappy voter turn out, but I do think those who are engaged are skeptical of being fed lines, and do seek out news/information sources outside of the MSM.

    Comment by just me — March 20, 2006 @ 3:43 pm - March 20, 2006

  50. NDT – why do you people insist on sending links to documents that either don’t exist, are headlines only, or don’t prove anything more than one’s ability to copy and paste. I did not see where the head of the DNC endorses Sheehan and one could hardly call that a ringing endorsement from Boxe. Don’t suppose it has occured to you that Boxer represents Sheehan. No NDT the facts are not there. Would you honestly take me seriously if I said Pat Robertson speaks for the Republican party when he calls for heads of state to be assassinated.

    On Wag the Dog “allow me to retort” there were many on the right who did not feel we had credible evidence to bomb the Sudanese after the embassy bombings. They thought Pres Bill was trying to divert attn from the Monica affair. Dem da fax jack.

    If you want suspicious timing, I would go with George, Colin and the Iraq report on WMD. I have long contended that GB had advance notice that the report would be negative and a case for war would be stronger to make. Thus pull the team.

    Comment by ralph — March 21, 2006 @ 1:24 am - March 21, 2006

  51. Would you honestly take me seriously if I said Pat Robertson speaks for the Republican party when he calls for heads of state to be assassinated.

    In that case, I have numerous references I can cite in which those remarks were specifically repudiated by Republicans and the Republican Party.

    Meanwhile, I have presented evidence that Barbara Boxer and the head of the DNC, Howard Dean, not only support Sheehan, but the group she is associated with, CodePink, which has specifically supported terrorists and terrorism directly.

    Feel free to point out where they repudiate those stances.

    On Wag the Dog “allow me to retort” there were many on the right who did not feel we had credible evidence to bomb the Sudanese after the embassy bombings.

    Where? Show me.

    If you want suspicious timing, I would go with George, Colin and the Iraq report on WMD. I have long contended that GB had advance notice that the report would be negative and a case for war would be stronger to make. Thus pull the team.

    Of course, one must also remember that any report the UN gave would be tainted by the fact that UN diplomats and Kofi Annan himself were being paid literally millions of dollars to MAKE the UN inspectors look the other way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 3:05 am - March 21, 2006

  52. I sometimes wonder why i even post on this site you. Except for Bruce and GPW some of you have the intelligence of a gnat. Your previous post illuminated nothing and this post illuminates just as much.

    I can show you the facts and you will dismiss them as bunk. Having an intelligent conversation with an individual not open to differing points of view is like having a conversation with a stone – pointless. At least with Bruce, I get a different perspective. Some of it a bit smug, but I have also been reading Bruce’s writings and post for some 20 years now.

    And as it clear all you want is for me to respond to you tit for tat, I am pulling out the game. Happy.

    Comment by ralph — March 21, 2006 @ 10:18 am - March 21, 2006

  53. 51: Where? Show me.

    Since ralph won’t, I will. Let’s start with some testimony from 2004:

    http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/23/wag.dog/

    … and look at Inhofe’s remarks here, back in 2000 …

    http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/10/27/184031

    But the main GOP critics in 1998, it seems, were Sens. Specter, Ashcroft and Coats.

    Not everyone on the Right blasted Clinton for his 1998 air strikes (in Afghanistan and Sudan, not Iraq). Gingrich offered his support, as did Orrin Hatch.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

    Still, several notable Republicans chimed in with opportunistic criticism, and the result was one of those rare moments in which the anti-American Left and the harshest elements of the anti-Clinton Right spoke with one voice.

    By the way, some folks still believe Clinton’s air strikes were a “wag-the-dog” scenario:

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1177884/posts

    Does this help, NDT?

    Comment by Tim Hulsey — March 21, 2006 @ 11:30 am - March 21, 2006

  54. Of course. It shows very nicely that Ralph’s “many on the right” claim is bunk.

    Furthermore, the FreeRepublic timeline is rather compelling, isn’t it? Especially when one considers what I cited before, that the Clinton Administration knew the camps had been emptied weeks before.

    Meanwhile:

    I can show you the facts and you will dismiss them as bunk. Having an intelligent conversation with an individual not open to differing points of view is like having a conversation with a stone – pointless.

    Quite frankly, Ralph, no you can’t.

    You asserted that no leftists were against the Afghan war; I cited, with links, the remarks of the most prominent leftist in the Democratic Party stating that fact specifically.

    You then tried to assert that she “wasn’t credible”; I provided you clear links showing her endorsement by leading Democratic Senators and of groups she is associated with by DNC leaders.

    You tried to divert the issue by asserting that all Republicans opposed the airstrikes against empty camps in Afghanistan and questionable facilities in Sudan; I provided links to evidence that the strikes were of dubious value, given that the Clinton administration knew said camps had already been emptied and Tim, in an apparent attempt to defend you, inadvertently proved that your main postulate of all Republicans opposing said strikes was incorrect. Furthermore, he also dredged up excellent information showing the repeated fact that Clinton ordered military action in extremely close proximity to political embarrassments.

    Finally, given that you’ve made clear that the only thing you will consider “intelligent conversation” is complete agreement with everything you say, I can do without, thank you.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2006 @ 12:31 pm - March 21, 2006

  55. NDXXX, “Finally, given that you’ve made clear that the only thing you will consider “intelligent conversation” is complete agreement with everything you say, I can do without, thank you.”

    Come on, you didn’t expect a different end to ralph’s intercourse, did you? If you won’t put on the GayLeft feedbag, they’ll try to starve you of discussion. Let’s see, the appropos cliche is: “I’m taking my marbles home ’cause you won’t play my way”.

    Good effort at rebutal and counter assertions; but, in the end, they’ll just take their marbles and head home. Truth is never accomodating to the Left.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — March 21, 2006 @ 2:43 pm - March 21, 2006

  56. I guess that France proves that you don’t have to be Muslem to burn cars.

    All you have to do in France is suggest that these unproductive leeches get a job and work for a living, and they riot. And this is the evil of socialism.

    Comment by rightwingprof — March 21, 2006 @ 3:40 pm - March 21, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.