GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2005/09/25/if-iraq-is-like-vietnam-how-come-the-rallies-keep-getting-smaller/trackback/

  1. The thing is that this was nothing more than a huge Bush hate fest. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking these “people” actually give a damn about the soldiers serving in Iraq.

    The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam that I see is that the 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.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 25, 2005 @ 3:00 am - September 25, 2005

  2. Cindy Sheehan Watch: Anti-War Demonstrations BORE Washington

    L-R: Civil rights leader Rev. Jessie Jackson, Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, NAACP chairman Julian Bond and Rev. Al Sharpton march with thousands of other pro-peace supporters through the streets near the World Bank Group/International Monetary Fund…

    Trackback by FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog — September 25, 2005 @ 3:42 am - September 25, 2005

  3. I already have a week’s worth of blog material from the Moron Festival.

    Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 8:48 am - September 25, 2005

  4. I’ve been looking into the protest in London Saturday and, as well as not being able to muster enough marchers to fill a bath, it appears the only parents of soldiers willing to speak out against the war didn’t even lose their kids in Iraq. Pathetic.

    Comment by sortapundit — September 25, 2005 @ 9:02 am - September 25, 2005

  5. BBC – Lying in the Streets of London

    Much has been made this weekend of the apparent anti-war slant taken by many of those reporters covering the recent Iraq war protests. I notice this morning the same problems arising in, surprise surprise, the BBC. Long regarded as the last word in unb…

    Trackback by Sortapundit — September 25, 2005 @ 9:05 am - September 25, 2005

  6. Not to spil your day but the rallies may be small or getting smaller but the numbers of those opposed to the war by every worthwhile poll indicate a growing percentage of Americans now oppose the war and want it ended. These figures grow, esp.with hurricane costs rising.

    Comment by fred lapides — September 25, 2005 @ 9:05 am - September 25, 2005

  7. the numbers of those opposed to the war by every worthwhile poll indicate a growing percentage of Americans now oppose the war and want it ended.

    Those would be the same polls that gave us president Gore and Kerry.

    You guys keep winning the polls, we’ll keep winning the elections.

    Comment by TomB — September 25, 2005 @ 9:25 am - September 25, 2005

  8. OK, so our mission this morning is to spin down estimates of the size of the protest yesterday in Washington (which the Wash Post called the “largest of any in DC during the Iraq War” and where the police chief, when asked if the crowd exceeded 150,000, replied “that’s as good a guess as any. It was their protest, not mine. It was peaceful. That’s all I care about.”). Go read it yourselves: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401701.html

    Are we also minimizing the size of crowds in dozens of other cities across the U.S. on the same day? What’s our Gay Patriot spin on those?

    I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to take any cues from Mad Michelle Malkin, the one who gave so much love to internment camps.

    I would rather know how the American public feels about all this and, for that, let’s go to the latest Gallup Poll (only one week old), which shows that by a margin of 59% to 39%, the American people now consider this war to have been a mistake, and that Americans disapprove of their President’s handling of the war by a margin of 67% to 32%. (source: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).

    What’s the spin on that, Gay Patriots?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 9:36 am - September 25, 2005

  9. I think our spin on that is who gives a shit.

    If you lefties decide to stop supporting gay marriage because 60-70% of the American public opposes it, then maybe we can give a shit about your poll numbers. Until then, we’ll support the war in Iraq because no matter how you guys spin your poll numbers, it was, and is, the right thing to do.

    Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 9:40 am - September 25, 2005

  10. Just a small correction. You say that: Even the organizers don’t claim more than 100,000 attended yesterday’s rally.

    Well, according to this Yahoo! News story, “by late afternoon organizers of the anti-war demonstration said 300,000 people had assembled.

    To which I can only respond, “Riiiight.”

    (via LGF)

    Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 9:43 am - September 25, 2005

  11. No. 9, getting a little testing about the poll numbers, eh?

    In the interest of full disclosure, those are not my numbers, 9. Those are Gallup’s numbers.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 9:47 am - September 25, 2005

  12. Ah, I see you have no way to resolve the contradiction between claimng poll numbers prove your point on the War in Iraq, but ignoring higher poll numbers against gay marriage. So all you can do is accuse someone who points out this contradiction as being ‘testing.’

    How lame is that? Not only can you not come up with an argument, you can’t even get the word right.

    Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 9:56 am - September 25, 2005

  13. Gunn Nutt is going today. He should have lots of pictures up tonight or tomorrow–he’s good at that.

    As to poll numbers and support for the war, polls also show Americans are overwhelmingly against pulling out.

    Believe it or not, we learned from Vietnam — like not to let anti-American “activists” dictate our national defense.

    Comment by rightwingprof — September 25, 2005 @ 10:02 am - September 25, 2005

  14. The other big difference with Vietnam: This war doesn’t directly affect very many people (particularly wrt the draft). That is both good – most of us are going on with our lives and have no interest in the anti-war crowd – and bad – with no vested interest in the outcome support is as tepid as the opposition.

    BTW: Your “live preview” brings back 300-baud modem CompuServe Forum nostalgia – I haven’t been able to type faster than characters display since 1988.

    Comment by mrsizer — September 25, 2005 @ 10:19 am - September 25, 2005

  15. I think QP’s missing GPW’s point. The poll numbers may be shifting against the war, but there is not a corresponding increase in protest activity. It seems while anti-war sentiment increases in the polls, the moonbat fringe remains firmly the moonbat fringe, without a large swath of middle American support. The BushHitler message simply isn’t resonating. Depsite the best efforts of people to have a Vietnam domestic protest redux, it simply isn’t happening.

    Which is pretty interesting.

    Comment by Robbie — September 25, 2005 @ 10:22 am - September 25, 2005

  16. No. 12. At least I can blame “testing” on my spell-checker not understanding that I meant “testy”. To what do you attribute “claimng”?

    And Lamer, dear, the topic here is opposition to the War On Iraq, not Gay Marriage. If your goal this morning is to get into the mix on Gay Marriage again, let me suggest the thread below entitled “Getting Gay Marriage The Old-Fashioned Way — Earning It”. Perhaps you’ll go there and help us figure out whether Gay Patriots are only bi-sexual, and “not really gay”.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 10:25 am - September 25, 2005

  17. By what standard can GayPatriot claim that we are winning the war? Opposition to the war is growing because it’s not going well. For those of us who knew this was the wrong battle to fight, it comes as no surprise that we find ourselves in the earily familiar position of not being able to win, yet being unable to leave or succede in our stated goals. There are more simmilarities to Viatnam than differences. Keep drinking the coolade gaypatriot. This war is going to hell in a handbasket along with all who advocated it.

    Comment by randy — September 25, 2005 @ 10:41 am - September 25, 2005

  18. Oh I understood GayPatriotWest’s point, Robbie. It was this: if we can spin down the size of the anti-war rally, we’ll also spin down the polls and perhaps prevent even more Americans from realizing that we’ve driven the country into another Vietnam-like mess.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 10:44 am - September 25, 2005

  19. QP seems to think Iraq is “another Vietnam”. Of course, those who favor peace at any price will dengrate any and all military efforts as deleterious or unwinnable. What else is new? What QP cannot say is when violence is necessary, and therefore should be supported.

    It is clear that no amount of evidence about Saddam’s work with AQ and other terrorists, the genocide of his own people, or the fascist rule he endeavored to extend to all the middle east would sway him to fight. QP is happy when he’s left with his cumfy self. Until, of course, the islamofascists come for him, which is high ontheir list, given their, um, dislike for all things gay.

    Comment by Kevin F — September 25, 2005 @ 11:06 am - September 25, 2005

  20. The “protest” in our city of a quarter million was maybe two dozen people ambling through main street with signs. The oldest son (reactionary, as opposed to middle son whose character runs to revolutionary and therefore could not be trusted not to throw things) and I stood on the sidewalk and made comments. “Mom, is it a circus?” “I don’t know. Must be. But it’s all clowns.” Got dirty looks but no one took a swing. Fact son is built like a brick shi*thouse probably helped, too.

    Polls have been a tool of the left since the seventies. I don’t think anyone believes them any more. Well, anyone who doesn’t have a vested interest in believing them.

    P.

    Comment by Portia — September 25, 2005 @ 11:10 am - September 25, 2005

  21. Poll numbers show dissatisfaction regarding the war, in part because many people wish Bush were being MORE aggressive.

    The number of lefty America protesters isn’t increasing (not proportionally to dissatisfaction anyway); rather, the number of people who want to WIN are getting impatient. This latter group are not likely to show up at protests holding signs that say “We support our troops…when they kill their officers”, and such.

    Most polls will show not only the answers to their main questions, but follow-up and elaboration questions too.

    Comment by gnargtharst — September 25, 2005 @ 11:11 am - September 25, 2005

  22. O my, de Nile’s at floodstage.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 11:32 am - September 25, 2005

  23. If a pollster came to me today and asked me if I was satisfied with the president’s handling of the war, I’d say no.

    Conflating that with not supporting the war is in error. I support it. I just think the president is doing a not so great job with it at this point in time.

    Comment by Robbie — September 25, 2005 @ 11:35 am - September 25, 2005

  24. randy wrote : ” This war is going to hell in a handbasket along with all who advocated it.”

    Really? Are you sure? I both advocated it and went to fight in it, and if the above is what you believe, then I must question either your sources or your interpretation of your sources.

    Iraq is by no means perfect, but the country is getting better by the day. Could the administration handle some things more effectively? Of course. Leaving al-Sadr alive was (and is) as huge mistake. Disbanding the Saddam-era army in 2003 was a blunder, one that we’re paying for right now, and will be paying for for some time. Do the presence of some ineffective policies, past and present, make for “hell in a handbasket”? I think not.

    Iraq has been liberated. Do you think that’s a false statement? Too bad, then, because every Iraqi I talked with over there, even captured insurgents, agreed with me. Of course, the insurgents had a quite different view of how things should be after the liberation, but the country was freed from Saddam nonetheless. The positives in Iraq far outweigh the negatives, but you don’t want to hear that.

    I am, with this response, breaking my rule about not trying to convince anybody. I’m sure you won’t be swayed by my post. I could go on and on about building schools, upgrading infrastructure, elections, Baathist death squads out of operation, etc, but it won’t make a difference. You think this war is Vietnam 2 because you want to believe it. The views, thoughts, and opinions of a guy who spent a year of his life in Iraq won’t make a dent, so with that, I’ll sign off.

    Bye.

    Comment by File Closer — September 25, 2005 @ 11:46 am - September 25, 2005

  25. [...] Gay Patriot asks: “If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller?” We propose the photo above as one answer. (HT: Bruce Kesler) [...]

    Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Our boring, tedious peaceniks — September 25, 2005 @ 11:56 am - September 25, 2005

  26. The majority always supported the Viet Nam war. It was a very vocal minority that stopped that war.

    Comment by travis — September 25, 2005 @ 12:10 pm - September 25, 2005

  27. The poll numbers are primarily a tribute to the media’s ability to hype bad news and bury good news. Despite which, the Sheehan/Vietnam option — pull out, surrender, and let the terrorists have Iraq — also does not poll well either … even when the polls, as they often do, deliberately oversample Democrats.

    Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 12:14 pm - September 25, 2005

  28. It looks like you’ve got it backwards, GP. The rally is getting bigger by the hour. Remember when I pointed out that ANSWER estimated the crowd at 300,000? Well, now the shmucks at DailyKos have upped that to 500,000.

    So, to those referring to GP’s post as “spinning down” the number, let me point out that it is the shills for the left wildly throwing numbers around that has cost your side its credibility. Is it any wonder that any number put forth by your side is automatically suspect?

    Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 12:18 pm - September 25, 2005

  29. Interesting that it is the MSM, usually accused of spinelessness in their lack of opposition to the Bush machine, who are accused of inflating the numbers for this demo.

    Comment by TomChicago — September 25, 2005 @ 12:44 pm - September 25, 2005

  30. Well, I was there for the Vietnam protests, and they had one thing that these protests seem to be missing — hot chicks and lotsa sex. In fact, my opinion was that about 80% of the protesters were basically there for the sex and the drugs. Just one guy’s opinion. That would, however, go a long way in explaining the disparity in numbers of protesters 60s/70s vs today. Take a look at the nasty women in today’s protests. Gah!!

    And, as an expert crowd estimator, I am estimating the size of the DC crowd at 10,000,000,000. (Gimme another crack at that bong, willya?)

    Actually Mr. Queer, all most of us are asking from the lefties and the moonbats is a modicum of honesty. Not that we’re, like, expecting any, but it would be nice.

    You might also show us that you’re pushing for other things that Americans back in large percentages, like: restricting late term abortions; parental notification of abortion; the death penalty; private ownership of guns and concealed carry; tax cuts; tougher controls on welfare; and treating illegal immigrants as if they’re breaking the law.

    I’ll eagerly await your response that, since the American public (via Gallup polls) support the above by upwards of 2/3 and more, you will put your shoulder to the wheel and help make them happen.

    Thank you.

    Comment by JorgXMckie — September 25, 2005 @ 12:59 pm - September 25, 2005

  31. Yeah, so I was actually AT the “rally” yesterday along with a large number of other Americans who actually love our country and support our President. And ya know what? The hippies were just going thru the motions…not at all enthusiastic, just there because it’s yet another opportunity for them to blaming Bush for (fill in the blank) instead of sitting home smoking pot and avoiding work.

    As the pics that are floating around on the ‘net clearly demonstrate, it was the same collection of Leftists stereotypes you see at these types of things…the dirty “students” (or at least college-aged people who aren’t actually in school but don’t have a Phish tour to follow), the dirty senior citizens who still think it’s 1968 (and don’t have a Grateful Dead tour to follow), the not-as-dirty but no less unattractive overweight radical feminists, the dim-witted union types with their color-coordinated T-shirts demanding equal something for somebody, the generally angry and, of course, the wacked-out conspiracy theorists who are convinced that Martians – and Bush – are destroying their DNA with inivisible gamma rays. They always have the most ‘interesting’ signs.

    But curiously, there were very, very FEW minorities. Nope, almost all of them appeared to be well-fed, middle class folks who took the short spin downtown from their 4-bedroom homes in the leafy Maryland suburbs in their Volvos still with the “Kerry/Edwards” bumper stickers on them. (Those types actually comprise a fairly large sub-culture in the DC area – mostly goverment workers on the high end of the pay scale who couldn’t get a job in the private sector to save their lives). These are the one’s who actually look like Cindy Sheehan, both the men and the women.

    And perhaps most glaringly absent was anyone who was even remotely associated with the military. And wasn’t this what this march was supposed to be all about anyway? Certainly no soldiers were there, but I didn’t even see anyone who claimed to be the family member of a soldier, such as Mamma Moonbat. Seems that the moms and dads with kids still over in Iraq and Afghanistan actually support their children’s efforts and understand that to pull the rug out from under them at home only puts them in greater danger overseas . Unfortunately, Cindy must believe that since her own son’s gone then everybody else’s kids are now fair game and she’s gonna do her level best to make sure other parents can share her grief and – therefore – will join her so-called movement.

    So, don’t you believe that this anti-war movement is “broad-based”, people. It’s not. If this sentiment were really a growing as Daily Kos, Queer Patriot (only the newest incarnation of “Reader”, in case you couldn’t tell), and other delusion asshats would have you believe, then we’d have actually seen a broad-base of American society turning out instead of the usual suspects from the Left.

    I hope they enjoyed their little party because that was their big chance to show the world that America is really a nation of pacifist cowards who are never prepared to fight and who will always flee in the face of adversity or challenge. And unfortuately for them, they failed.

    And I also hope they cleaned up after themselves for the big figgin’ mess they left on the Mall this weekend (because all that cardboard causes global warming and hurricanes, don’t ya know.) But I don’t expect they will becuase these people are actually the most selfish, least considerate humans mankind can produce, always willing to tell YOU what you’re doing wrong but never, ever willing to take responsibility for their own words and actions. But when you’ve made a career out of being bitter, I guess it’s just easier to throw darts from the sidelines than to actually DO something constructive. Like pick up your own trash. Or get a job. Or take a bath. Or put down the bong. Or…

    PS: Yes, I’m back.

    Comment by glisteny — September 25, 2005 @ 1:06 pm - September 25, 2005

  32. I think the anti-Vietnam war movement (as in large scale public demonstrations) collapsed after Nixon got rid of the draft. I’ll bet if you asked people to pay for this war directly with progam cuts, higher taxes, or military conscription you’d see some pretty big anti-war demonstrations.

    Comment by anon — September 25, 2005 @ 1:07 pm - September 25, 2005

  33. No. 23, then you’d be among the differential between the 59% of Americans who consider the war to have been a mistake and the 67% who disapprove of the President’s handling of it. Like you, about 8% don’t think it was a mistake, yet disapprove of the President’s handling of it.

    No. 24, if you served there, thank you for that service. And you’re right to point out the good that our troops have done there and to insist that no Americans, not even the most ardent anti-war of us, should ever denigrate what Americans at troop level have tried to do. And you have indeed helped liberate Iraq of Saddam. The real worry from this side of the issue is that we will have done that at huge costs in blood and tax dollars and in the process, left an opening for something even worse to follow him in the next few years.

    No. 26 is simply in error when he writes, “The majority always supported the Viet Nam war. It was a very vocal minority that stopped that war.” Here’s a link to see for yourself that Americans began to turn against the Vietnam War midway during its nine years, and by its conclusion were 60% opposed. Source: Gallup as found at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11765

    Perhaps because No. 27 is such a hard-set partisan, he thinks everyone else is hard-set into one of the two parties, and he doesn’t understand that Americans shift around on party identification and that poll proportions reflect those shifts. So, No. 27 sees a few more Democrats in a poll’s composition and charges that pollsters “deliberately oversample Democrats” — for which he will never provide you with any evidence.

    No. 28. If our side has “lost its credibility”, it’s certainly not reflected in the 59% and 67% cited above, is it? It’s your side which has lost credibility with the American people, but you’ll never realize it, at least not while you’re struggling in those deep waters of de Nile.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 1:09 pm - September 25, 2005

  34. Oh, yeah, if the crowd ‘estimates’ of 100,000 (or especially 300,000) are correct, there should be some really, really good pictures of all those people, shouldn’t there. I fully expect Mr. Queer to quickly link us to these so we can see for ourselves the truth of his compratriots statements. (Who you gonna believe? Us Moonbats or your lyin’ eyes?)

    Comment by JorgXMckie — September 25, 2005 @ 1:11 pm - September 25, 2005

  35. Robbie makes an excellent point. The hard left fringe is just that – the hard left fringe. Regardless of shrinking Presidential approval ratings, mainstream America won’t touch this group with a long pole and gloves.

    I know your links mention it, but a couple of points of interest: CNN also spun the numbers at 600,000 for a while, then rescinded (and one of your commenters now cites Kos’ claim of 500,000). One gets the impression there aren’t a lot of hard facts here, just hearsay spun both ways. But then there is the fact that the 2005 National Book Festival was held in this same area, attracting around 70-80,000 people (as it had in previous years). Considering the apparent sloppiness in gathering the numbers (something no one has adequately addressed), it is possible – in fact, it seems likely – that these crowds were simply lumped into the antiwar rally crowd. Also left out of the equation was the numbers of people coming out in support of the administration. I have no estimate of that number, but again it does not seem to have been broken out seperately. All we really know is that there were people in the area. We have little hard information as to their individual reasosn for being there. As the police quote mentioned, the cops “didn’t care”, as long as there was no trouble. Cops who don’t care about why the crowds are there aren’t stopping people and asking “Why are you in DC today?”.

    (Side issue: The fact that cops aren’t emotionally involved is a good litmus test. During the zenith of the Vietnam protests, arguments over the war reached into the cop houses, a fair reflection of middle America. That signaled the beginning of the end of support for the war. Nothing like that seems to have happened here. There’s a gap between poll numbers and actual convictions.)

    Again, as Robbie said, the numbers don’t matter much unless the crowds become reflective of something in addition to the hard left. There is no evidence of this at all as one looks through pictures of the event. In fact, the available images of those coming out to support the administration and those who hate the administration are strikingly different in the kinds of people portrayed. It is when they begin looking the same that one senses some veracity in the comparisons with Vietnam.

    Comment by Mr. Snitch! — September 25, 2005 @ 1:17 pm - September 25, 2005

  36. I watched some of the broadcast, it was indeed a Bush Hatefest. When I watched the final speaker, a black activist who brought out the race card and Katrina again, the camera finally panned to the crowd. Which at that point consisted of maybe 25-30 people! Inflation of attendance is SOP for these people, when Cindy Sheehan went through Raleigh they reported 1000+ people showed up. I was there, counted the crowds at both her appearances, not more than 300 max, and of those, a bunch had come with her on the buses. It’s all part of the disinformation/propaganda campaign; let’s hope a lot of people see through it.

    Comment by NamPhotog — September 25, 2005 @ 1:33 pm - September 25, 2005

  37. All Clear

    Whew, looks like Houston dodged a bullet. Lair’s photo-journal of the damage near his place is a must see. While…

    Trackback by Quite Early One Morning — September 25, 2005 @ 1:46 pm - September 25, 2005

  38. O my. I’ve never seen such a commotion over estimates of crowd size. Odd how this worries you so much, while you’re apparently unconcerned about the steep decline in support for the war among the larger American public.

    No. 31, who are you? Who were you? Who do you hope to be? And where are you back from?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 1:50 pm - September 25, 2005

  39. You’re right. I took the Metro in this AM (had to work), and I saw A LOT more people headed in to the game than hippie protestors.

    In fact, the only group I saw at L’Enfant were two OLD women and an old man. It was almost sad, watching them try to figure out how to work a Metro card just like every other tourist moron.

    p.s. I hate tourist season.

    Comment by Joe Blow — September 25, 2005 @ 2:02 pm - September 25, 2005

  40. So you don’t see any significance in the difference between crowd sizes and polling numbers? Really? It’s easy to answer a poll question. People tired of it all who wish it would end answer the same way as people who live and breathe the desire that the US roll over and die.

    To whomever upthread claimed we’re losing the operation in Iraq, where do you get that information? From the media that doesn’t leave the green zone? That’s pretty much inexcusable in this day and age when soldiers in theatre are virtually sitting at your elbow typing their experiences and impressions on the keyboard next to you. Same with Iraqi bloggers, and Kurds, and little girls who love cats. TIME magazine has a cover “Is it too late to win” well, that’s a whole lot more interesting than “this is going to take a while and be really boring”. The first implies not only uncertainty at the outcome but the likelyhood of failure.

    Go to the blogs. Read about life in Iraq from the Iraqis who live it. See pictures of school children at a sidewalk art festival. Read about vacations to the north where it’s cool and beautiful. Ponder what it means when a Kurdish young man muses about the elections and the fact that women outnumber men by a sizable number in Kurdish communities just because Sadam killed so many of the men. See the incredible artwork by a famous marsh arab painter, maybe even buy a print. Listen to our guys when they talk about driving through Shiite neighborhoods and then driving through a Sunni one. Listen to them when they talk about the smiles or glares they recieve and who looks at them what way. I’ve read side splitting accounts of imagined dialog between the terps (interpretors) and the locals.

    If you think we’re losing, think about where you’re getting that information and ask yourself why the soldiers on the ground dealing with real Iraqis every day think we’re winning.

    Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 2:32 pm - September 25, 2005

  41. “The views, thoughts, and opinions of a guy who spent a year of his life in Iraq won’t make a dent, so with that, I’ll sign off.”

    Just wanted to say *thank you* for serving. Thank you for being our representative to all those Iraqis that you had contact with.

    And unfortunately, you’re right. :-(

    Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 2:37 pm - September 25, 2005

  42. I think the only people who watched the actual protest speeches were the people who will blog of their insanity and Al Jazeera so they can show Al Qaida “spokemen” for their talking points.

    Comment by Ethan — September 25, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - September 25, 2005

  43. It looks like the pull out folks standard for Iraq after the American pullout is “No Worse Than Rawanda”. Being such great humanitrians and all.

    Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 2:46 pm - September 25, 2005

  44. Not one more American life. Who gives a sh*t what happens to the Iraqis when we leave.

    Not our problem.

    Not our business.

    And this from *liberals?* And the signs say that Bush hates brown people. Uh huh.

    Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 2:57 pm - September 25, 2005

  45. Let’s put it this way. The Iraq war has its own, utterly unique immoral stupidities.

    Not that I think the US should leave. I don’t think that. Nor do I think the US should stay.

    I think that as long as Bush is president, it makes little difference as he would screw up a withdrawal just as badly as he would screw up staying in Iraq.

    Tragically, we cannot even hope for a possibility of an improvement until the Bush administration is history, meaning January, 2009.

    Comment by tristero — September 25, 2005 @ 2:58 pm - September 25, 2005

  46. Some of the reason for decline in support for the war is that some folks believe it is not being fought hard enough.

    That does not translate into Dem votes.

    That does not translate into a desire for cut and run.

    Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 3:23 pm - September 25, 2005

  47. Tristero,

    Ever wonder why no one takes you seriously? Here’s a hint, drop the Chimpy McBushitler “Bush is an idiot” spiel. Instead, focus on thinking about a room full of adults seriously thinking about strategic goals and coming up with a final decision. Consider that another roomfull of college kids disagrees with this strategy because their goals are not the same as the adults’, and that their response is to label the adults as incompetent and stupid.

    Get the picture as to why no one listens to the college kids?

    Comment by Same Guy — September 25, 2005 @ 3:31 pm - September 25, 2005

  48. Something is very wrong here…….. this story is now on our news sight…… Help us Michelle Malkin, set them straight….

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170344,00.html

    Comment by UH OH — September 25, 2005 @ 3:40 pm - September 25, 2005

  49. Some of us get into a commotion over crowd size because it’s a useful surrogate for the general honesty of those pushing a viewpoint. If they lie about, or are unwilling to give evidence for, that, what else are they being less than honest about. Answer: just about everything.

    Mr. Queer, how old are you? Were you there for the Vietnam protests, as I was? Those Gallup numbers are based on questions that dumped even those who thought we should nuke Hanoi into the ‘anti-war’ numbers. The questions didn’t differentiate among the various reasons why people were unhappy. Many Viet vets and Viet Era vets (like me) wanted the war either prosecuted right (more vigorously and no ‘safe zones’) or not fought at all, but we preferred to fight.

    Like I say, a little honesty would go a long way, but I don’t expect it now any more than I did back then. Some people’s arguments are just too weak to stand on truth and facts and they know it.

    Comment by JorgXMckie — September 25, 2005 @ 3:46 pm - September 25, 2005

  50. Just found your blog. I’m not homosexual, but I am a conservative who, at the very least, doesn’t spend all my time worried about how gays and lesbians are taking over and corrupting the values of America, precisely because they are not and are deserving of the same rights as heterosexual Americans. Anyway, I think your blog is great, a huge kick-in-the-pants of the secular, leftist gay rights movement. Keep it up!

    Comment by Jess — September 25, 2005 @ 3:49 pm - September 25, 2005

  51. Nice try, QP, but I won’t let you obfuscate my point that easily. You know perfectly well that the poll numbers you cited have nothing to do with your team’s credibility problem that I was talking about.

    It is a FACT that your side is bandying about wildly varied estimates of crowd size. (Or will you try to deny that it’s a fact that 150, 300, and 500 thousand are wildly varied?)

    It is also a FACT that political groups tend to put forth numbers that present the best case scenario for their own side.

    And, finally, it is a FACT that, when a group has a history of making incorrect estimates/predictions, and when those errors have a history of being in the same direction (overestimation), any new claims they make are judged as likely to be following the previously established pattern.

    So, do you think it is beneficial to your side’s reputation as it relates to future estimates of ANYTHING that this disparity in crowd size estimates is occurring now and has occurred in the past?

    There is NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL about saying that, in the presence of multiple, incompatible claims about X by Y, Y’s credibility will take a hit. This is true regardless of the nature of X or the political leanings of Y. And yet, when I pointed that out, you responsed with, “I know you are, but what am I?”

    This is a perfect example of one of the major obstacles your team faces: Refusing to acknowledge a problem doesn’t make it go away. (If Lefty fails a test, his grade won’t improve simply because he points out that Righty failed it, too.)

    But, hey. If you wish to keep pretending that your team is above facing up to the problems that plague every team on the field, knock yourself out. As a matter of fact, I would encourage you to continue with that strategy. Because, while you’re busy patting yourself on the back, I’ll be over here trying to improve my team’s handling of those very same issues.

    We’ll see whose team gets to the top first.

    Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 3:54 pm - September 25, 2005

  52. Gaypatriot is right on the money again

    And I might also add Sane people were protesting the war back then to. Now the lunatic kooks are out in force protesting.

    Look at the election in ’04… the polls went big for Kerry. When you corrected the sampling Biases designed to -MAKE- the po…

    Trackback by Inside Larry's head — September 25, 2005 @ 4:02 pm - September 25, 2005

  53. In the Yahoo photo we’ve all seen, I see a crowd filling a romboid area about 400 feet wide and 400 feet tall. That’s 160,000 square feet. At 4 square feet per person (which is quite tight), that would give us 40,000 people. I don’t know if the Yahoo photo was taken at the peak population, or didn’t miss some separate but related crowd, but I am pretty sure that the photo includes a number of people within a factor of 2 of my estimate (i.e., 20,000 to 80,000). If beyond this range, the true count is more likely to be lower; because the Ellipse wasn’t even full, it is more likely that the crowd was slightly less packed than would be the case with a larger crowd (or the same crowd in a smaller setting).

    Comment by DWPittelli — September 25, 2005 @ 4:06 pm - September 25, 2005

  54. O my. The InstaPundit crowd they let in here today are even wilder-eyed than we’d been led to believe. And what a gang of sharpies they are! One of them keeps referring to a “Mr. Queer” and nobody here can figure out who’s supposed to answer. It’s called “Gay” Patriot for a reason fellas — we’re all “Mr. Queer”.

    In No. 48, Uh Oh brings (with a good meaure of humor) the depressing news to many here that they gave an anti- anti-war party in DC today and virtually no one came. Not even a thousand there for us to work with in making some of the same comparisons between public opinion polling and protest rallies that the Gay Patriots and the InstaHooligans are making. Here’s how the Associated Press put it (and you can take your Down With The MSM diatribes to them, I didn’t write it):

    —”Support for U.S. troops fighting abroad mixed with anger toward anti-war demonstrators at home as hundreds of people, far fewer than organizers had expected, rallied Sunday on the National Mall just a day after a massive protest against the war in Iraq.”

    No. 51, Dexter Green, please tell us again: what was the point that you feared might have become obfuscated? And can you please supply it in 20 words or less? After all, it’s Sunday (after a wonderful Saturday night spent in the bowels of a half-dozen smoky, beer drenched queer bars, doing you know what) and we’re not supposed to be working.

    Oh, it’s that time once again…time for Tea Dance. Toodles.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 4:36 pm - September 25, 2005

  55. QP: Ah, changing the subject again. At least you’re consistent. Answer my question, and I’ll consider answering yours.

    Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 4:59 pm - September 25, 2005

  56. Welcome back, glisteny. You’re a treat to read as usual.

    Tristero said: Not that I think the US should leave. I don’t think that. Nor do I think the US should stay.

    Is that the same as Kerry’s “I first voted for the war and then I voted against it?” Sounds like typical liberal schizophrenia to me.

    Comment by PatC — September 25, 2005 @ 5:06 pm - September 25, 2005

  57. No. 55, I didn’t ask you a question, so there’s nothing for you to answer. But you seem to have a question for me — so, once again, out with it, man. What’s all your pussy-footing about?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 5:21 pm - September 25, 2005

  58. If size matters, what of the comparatively paltry few hundred attending the “pro-Bush” rally?

    Comment by John P Slevin — September 25, 2005 @ 6:05 pm - September 25, 2005

  59. So, how many were at the Pro-War counter rally?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050925/ap_on_re_us/war_rally

    Wow! All 400 war supporters showed up! And how much did Bush raise in private funds for the war effort?

    http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html

    $600.00! People must really support this war to pony up that much cash!

    I think it’s pretty obvious that the tide is turning against this ill-conceived and poorly executed war- most people want to rebuild New Orleans by reducing our spending in Iraq. 67% percent now disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war.

    Anyone who still believes that Iraq will be a peaceful democratic utopia which is a friendly nation to the US and a beacon to the middle east is seriously delusional. Do you really want to stay until “Falluja Disneyland®” can be established?

    Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 25, 2005 @ 6:18 pm - September 25, 2005

  60. glisteny,

    I support the war and the Pres. I miss the Grateful Dead Tours.

    Could we stick to the issues and skip the stereotypes?

    Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 6:28 pm - September 25, 2005

  61. NVC, Viet-Congs, and terrorists and insurgents realize they can win by not losing. I don’t understand why conservatives believe if we kill enough insurgents they’ll stop. The point is, they’ll never stop and there will always be another insurgent. Americans are realizing this and it’s being reflected in the polls.

    We’ll withdrawal before next year’s 06 election. Our military is be stretched and is beginning to be degraded. The military won’t allow this to happen. We can infuse the Iraq with more troops, but that would require a draft and that will never happen.

    The only option is withdrawal. Declare victory and leave. That’s why the insurgent is targeting the government. The insurgent strategic goal is to ensure the Iraqi security force remain weak. It’ll make it that much easier for them to take over when the Americans leave. Does anybody here really think we’re doing a good job of preparing the Iraqies?

    Of course, converservative will blame the liberals. They forget it was Nixon who drew down our forces in Vietnam. Perhaps, we should give more credit for our adversaries. The North Vietnamese had a plan, the will and beat us…not the liberals. The Iraqi insurgents have a plan, the will and because we have an incompentant conservative government, we’re going to lose.

    Our best bet is to partition the country, Kurds to the North and Shiite to the South. The Shiites will create an alliance with Iran. Baghdad will just have to remain a mess.

    Of course, we have an incompetant government so who knows how this will turn out.

    Comment by TellTheMan — September 25, 2005 @ 6:41 pm - September 25, 2005

  62. No, TellTheMan,

    That won’t work.

    Partioning Iraq by outside government was and is a large part of the problem. Kuwait didn’t exist before the British sliced it out of Iraq—that dissed the Iraqi people. That was incompetent government; and that, of course, is an oxymoron.

    How about we just respect the Iraqi people (Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites), rather than trying, again, to choose a leader for them? Respecting them, first, by leaving them alone.

    The last tyrant was ours and we heavily armed that monster (Reagan/Bush). That, truly, was and is incompetent government; again, an oxymoron.

    Comment by John P Slevin — September 25, 2005 @ 7:00 pm - September 25, 2005

  63. I was at the march (because I love my country) and I think that the picture Little Green Footballs linked to doesn’t show the whole crowd. I’m trying to figure out from that where I would have been and I’m pretty sure there was an entire section in front of the Commerce building and lining the street that isn’t shown there. People were jammed for blocks and jammed into a park section that isn’t shown. Perhaps the picture was taken later in the afternoon when some people were gathering near the Washington monument for concerts but most were leaving or had left?

    Not to upset anyone, but it was a huge gathering. And it was passionate. And there were veterans there. I stood near a group called “Veterans for Peace.”

    I wish people like at this site would realize that liberals aren’t the cardboard cutout the conservatives love to demonize. Yes, I’m against the war because I didn’t think the Bush administration was honest or capable. (And was against it from the beginning. I thought the inspectors should have been allowed to continue and that we should have kept our eyes on Osama Bin Ladin.) Yes, I would have been against a war to bring democracy to Iraq because I don’t think you bring democracy on the point of a bayonet. But I’m for a stable democratic Iraq. Duh. However, I’m for my country’s best interests, and so I am worried about the way in which we’ve delivered political power to Iran with an ill-conceived, badly waged war and occupation.

    And of course I abhor waste, and the amount of money we’ve poured into Iraq without building infrastructure and a stable labor force shocks and appalls me.

    I’m just your average, ordinary, American liberal.

    Cheers.

    Comment by Leslie — September 25, 2005 @ 7:04 pm - September 25, 2005

  64. So right wing ideologues did not see 100,000 at the rally. SURPRISE! It shows shows that people see what they want to see and don’t see what they don’t want to see.

    According to the Washington Post WHICH SUPPORTED THE WAR:

    Antiwar Fervor Fills the Streets

    Demonstration Is Largest in Capital Since U.S. Military Invaded Iraq.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 25, 2005 @ 7:21 pm - September 25, 2005

  65. Actually we are about to send Karen Hughes over there to win the hearts and minds….. let’s see if they greet her with flowers and candy. God knows she will appreciate the candy. It’s clearly obvious that 10 minutes from Normal is only 5 minutes from McDonalds!

    Comment by Jim Beam — September 25, 2005 @ 7:26 pm - September 25, 2005

  66. “Although we are experiencing a few setbacks, we are winning the war.”

    That’s what we kept hearing from supporters of the Vietnam war too.

    This type of argument is just one of the ways Iraq resembles Vietnam.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 25, 2005 @ 7:28 pm - September 25, 2005

  67. Tell The Man:

    Actually, after Tet 1968 the North could only defeat the South with a conventional (armored) invasion. When Nixon was President they made an attempt, easily beaten back by US air support and ammunition supplies to the South. But in 1975, with a weakened President Ford and strongly Democratic Congress, the North invaded again, the US could not be bothered even to send ammo to the South, and so the North won. So I don’t think we can blame Nixon merely because he achieved Vietnamization, a US pullout, and a peace treaty, when the position he left us was readily defendable.

    Comment by DWPittelli — September 25, 2005 @ 7:43 pm - September 25, 2005

  68. We should leave Iraq now.

    It wouldn’t turn out any worse than Rawanda.

    Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 7:48 pm - September 25, 2005

  69. I blogged some photos from the LA rally. I was in downtown LA and just by chance happened upon the protest going on. Interesting folk, those moonbats.

    Comment by wordsmith — September 25, 2005 @ 8:11 pm - September 25, 2005

  70. #67 — And after we left Vietnam, the result was a genocide in which millions were brutally killed and their skulls were stacked in pyramids. The ultimate legacy of the 60′s Peace Movement. Now, they want the same thing in Iraq.

    And now they bitch and whine and shriek “failure” because the first draft of Islamic democracy isn’t quite as liberal as Norway. (And, oh, how they shrieked, “Failure! Failure!” when the Iraqis were a whole three days late in finishing the draft constitution.) Obviously, the left prefers the perfect brutality of Saddam or the Taliban to a flawed democracy. Little wonder, then, that they sing the praises of Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il…

    Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 8:28 pm - September 25, 2005

  71. What a bizarre blog. The same dozen people making comments, which is the entire readership I’m sure. No gay person I know holds these right wing views, and the whole country knows that tens of thousands of people were marching in DC this weekend. You guys have such a lame case supporting Bush that you resort to lying, even to yourselves. How pathetic.

    Comment by Don — September 25, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - September 25, 2005

  72. Well, QP, I’m pretty sure the question mark serves the same purpose on your side of the political spectrum as it does on mine. I already asked the question; if you don’t have the reading comprehension skills to find it, that’s not my problem. Similarly, if you’re just trying to jerk me around because you don’t want to address the question–also not my problem. As I said, I’m perfectly happy for you and yours to keep pursuing your “head in the sand” strategy. Good luck with that.

    Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 9:04 pm - September 25, 2005

  73. “Anyone who still believes that Iraq will be a peaceful democratic utopia which is a friendly nation to the US and a beacon to the middle east is seriously delusional.”

    And this is typical.

    Who deals in absolutes here? Who can’t fathom nuance?

    Who gives a flying rat’s behind if Iraq is friendly to the US? A sovereign nation can be expected to operate in it’s own best interest. Turkey is hardly our bussom buddy but not anywhere near an enemy either. That would be plenty good enough. Pakistan can take us or leave us. Fine and dandy.

    The thing is, and this is proven again and again, that the sorts who set up the straw man that RULEZ did above, don’t really believe that freedom and autonomy are good things. They don’t believe that, given freedom, people or governments will make good, or at least *functional* choices.

    A free society is always to some measure chaotic. Duh. No nation exists where there isn’t crime or strife. Duh.

    Iraq won’t be perfect but maybe they can face a future without xenocide, huh? Maybe they can be a model for the region (along with Afghanistan) that shows how to function in a system that expects and allows dissidents to express themselves freely?

    But OH NOOOOOO…. if it’s not immediately a UTOPIA we’ve FAILED.

    Sheesh.

    Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 10:00 pm - September 25, 2005

  74. Don-

    After the 1972 presidential election (Nixon in a landslide), Manhattan theatre critic Pauline Kael famously remarked, “How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon.”

    I’d suggest that perhaps there’s a selection bias in the people you discuss politics with. About a quarter of self-identified gays and lesbians voted for GWB in the last election. You’ll find some of them here, and at a dozen or more blogs in the blogroll, if you’re interested in finding out why.

    Comment by Clint — September 25, 2005 @ 10:02 pm - September 25, 2005

  75. Let’s see, there’s around 150 Iraqis to every 1 US or British soldier. If the Iraqi people were so upset about having their country invaded and their great leader thrown out of power, there would be a lot more dead soldiers by now……..a HELLUVA lot more dead soldiers.

    The invasion of Iraq has put Arab dictators in a pickle. If democracy succeeds, they lose. If the insurgents (i.e. Islamist terrorists) succeed, they also lose. Mubarek, Assad, and all the rest of the little Hitlers thought we’d just invade Afghanistan and go home.

    But the 9/11 terrorists didn’t target Alaska or South Dakota, they targeted two of our major cities. Arabia is the birthplace and spiritual HQ of Islamic extremism. They attacked our Mecca and Medina, so at the very least, we had to attack their Chicago (Bagdhad) or Los Angeles (Damascus) in order to send the message….WE KNOW WHAT YOU BASTARDS ARE ALL ABOUT.

    Comment by The Fop — September 25, 2005 @ 10:06 pm - September 25, 2005

  76. #71

    Hey Don… you don’t suppose that there are a few people in the world who don’t conform to the ones you know?

    Must be a pleasant place to be, able to dismiss what seems strange to you.

    Lord knows that gay people are all identical. They’re all far left liberals who like show tunes and promiscuous unsafe sex…

    Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 10:15 pm - September 25, 2005

  77. TellTheMan (#61)-

    There may be conservatives who believe that the way to win is to “kill all the terrorists”. Thankfully, George W. Bush is not one of them. Read any of his speeches on terrorism and the War. Any of them. In September of 2001, he told us, and he told the World, what the strategy was: drain the swamp.

    Iraq used to be an active aggressor against the United States, and it used to sponsor terror. In the President’s metaphor, it was a swamp. There are still terrorists (or insurgents, if you prefer) in Iraq. But, more and more, they are relying on support and funding and even manpower from Syria and Iran.

    If you want to see how the War is going, take a minute out from the new Chief Justice and the latest hurricane (not that those aren’t both important news) and read a bit about the latest offensive in Tal Afar. As you say — body counts aren’t the true sign of our victory there (though those lopsided figures tell us quite a bit about the relative competence of the Iraqi troops we’ve trained and the “insurgents”). What you should be looking at are: (1) The new Iraqi military took the lead, and kicked the ever-living-sh*t out of the Syrian-supported terrorists. (2) Syria responded, as it has continued to respond to our military victories in the west of Iraq, by decreasing its support for the terrorists and backing off.

    Of course our troops aren’t going to keep fighting the war in the frontlines 24-7-365. That’s why (1) was so important — the Iraqi troops have proven that they will be able to (increasingly) take over that role. We could argue over whether it’s 30,000 Iraqis or 60,000 Iraqis who are now ready to step into that role, but it’s definitely in that range. And far more are ready to step into the supporting roles our National Guard and Reserve troops have been fulfilling. There will be far fewer U.S. troops in Iraq next summer than there are now (perhaps a factor of two less?) — but not because we’ve “declared victory” and washed our hands of the place.

    To answer your question: Yes. I think we’re doing a good job of training the Iraqis to fight. The proof, as always, is in the pudding — and Tal Afar was a very good start. It could be two years before Iraq is ready to stand on its own against the “insurgents”, with our troops just based there to provide backup in case of a major invasion, but there’s plenty of time for us to get there before we risk having a “bring-them-home-now” incompetent in the White House.

    Comment by Clint — September 25, 2005 @ 10:40 pm - September 25, 2005

  78. #75 “Let’s see, there’s around 150 Iraqis to every 1 US or British soldier. If the Iraqi people were so upset about having their country invaded and their great leader thrown out of power, there would be a lot more dead soldiers by now……..a HELLUVA lot more dead soldiers.”

    There are so few US soldiers getting killed in Iraq that the news is able to report each death individually. There are so few US soldiers getting killed in Iraq that the US news has started to report total “deaths” including Iraqi military and civilians. Though usually the headline leaves that part ambiguous so that we might be led to believe that the deaths were our guys. This is a curious thing, because the “not one more American death” crowd doesn’t care why kind of unrest or genocide follows our withdrawl. Bring our troops home NOW! Let the brown skinned non-Americans slaughter each other, who the heck cares? It’s win-win, really because Bush can be blamed for that too! Yay!

    How much do these people bother to learn about Iraq? Sistani has a nice web site, btw… The Sunni minority was doing well under Sadam. No one else was. The Kurds were buried in mass graves or else gassed and left to rot. The Marsh Arabs faced systematic genocide. Most of the Shiites lived in enforced poverty. But we don’t want *them* in power because the Iranians are mostly Shiite! All these internationally sophisticated idiots not having a clue that Iraqi and Iranian Shiites are different ethnic and language groups.

    But, but… the US *supported* Sadam!

    Yeah? So we have to continue with the same “reality based” policy of supporting evil warlords in the name of stability as we did in the past despite the inescapable evidence that it only makes matters worse?

    And who upthread complained that we don’t build infrastucture in Iraq? Do some research. IED’s make far more dramatic headlines than opening schools or roads or water treatment. Our military has civil affairs units going outside the wire every day to work at rebuilding what Sadam let rot to dust while he built another palace for his chums. Those units don’t make the news unless they get blown up.

    I wonder why that is.

    Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 10:43 pm - September 25, 2005

  79. you guys (2? 3?) are nuts! If your take on this is that the anti-war crowd only numbered 100,000 and therefor represents a very small group of folk, how do you explain the less than 200 who showed up to support the war?

    Comment by chezchas — September 25, 2005 @ 11:32 pm - September 25, 2005

  80. (which the Wash Post called the “largest of any in DC during the Iraq War”

    Aren’t these the same folks who said there were actually a million men at the Million Man March?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2005 @ 12:40 am - September 26, 2005

  81. “we had to attack their Chicago (Bagdhad)… in order to send the message….WE KNOW WHAT YOU BASTARDS ARE ALL ABOUT.”

    What total nonsense. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a threat to U.S. security.

    The war against Iraq was an unprovoked war of agression against a country that used to be our ally and had not done us any significant wrong.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 1:29 am - September 26, 2005

  82. “Interesting folk, those moonbats.”

    When you cannot win a debate with rational arguments or appeal to evidence, all is not lost. You can still call your opponents bad names.

    A majority of the American people now believe that the war against Iraq was a mistake and that we should at least begin withdrawing some troops. Apparently the majority of the American people are moonbats. Why do right wing ideologues hate the American people?

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 1:33 am - September 26, 2005

  83. “O my. The InstaPundit crowd they let in here today are even wilder-eyed than we’d been led to believe. And what a gang of sharpies they are! One of them keeps referring to a “Mr. Queer” and nobody here can figure out who’s supposed to answer. It’s called “Gay” Patriot for a reason fellas — we’re all “Mr. Queer”.”

    You have to face the reality that a large majority of right wingers, supporters of Bush, and supporters of the war think that Gay people are evil and depraved and will go to hell. That they should have no legal protections, much less the right to marry or even form domestic unions. On the other hand, the looney liberal moonbats you attack and diss want to end discrimination against gays and give them the right to marry.

    Have you considered that you are supporting the wrong side?

    Not gay, but a patriot.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 1:55 am - September 26, 2005

  84. “The proof, as always, is in the pudding — and Tal Afar was a very good start.”

    In Tal Afar Kurd and Shiite troops were fighting Sunnis. What we have in Iraq is in many ways already a de-facto civil war. We are supporting the pro-Iranian faction. Go figure.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 2:01 am - September 26, 2005

  85. how do you explain the less than 200 who showed up to support the war?

    Unlike the left, the right does not employ vast numbers of people whose only job is to go to protests.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 6:19 am - September 26, 2005

  86. “a few setbacks” – to describe the mess we’ve created as a few setbacks is ignorance of what is transpiring in iraq.

    Comment by propensity — September 26, 2005 @ 7:55 am - September 26, 2005

  87. Wow, what a bunch of idiots on this website — eyes wide shut, you guys are pathetic and just scared of your own shadows… since when did right-wingers get to be so frightened of the Other?

    Comment by adw119 — September 26, 2005 @ 9:23 am - September 26, 2005

  88. Have they left yet? (The InstaVandals)

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 9:34 am - September 26, 2005

  89. “…how do you explain the less than 200 who showed up to support the war?”

    Most conservatives have jobs and families to attend to unlike the anti-war hippies. Also conservatives are not collectivists with a herd mentality.

    Comment by PatC — September 26, 2005 @ 10:12 am - September 26, 2005

  90. I’m not a hippy, I am a person, and I do support our troops, even the ones you all forgot in Afghanistan. While our soldiers fight and die, you all congratulate yourselves on supporting them, you mongers of the death-culture. You thank each other for showing support, but you don’t seem to realize that supporting our troops’ isn’t about wishing them to die nobly for a cause, but in using them to protect our country, which, by sitting like ducks in a Middle Eastern shooting gallery, they’re not.

    Support our troops, and be a real patriot, instead of a jingoistic fool.

    Comment by Ethan — September 26, 2005 @ 10:21 am - September 26, 2005

  91. Hey Hey what do you say? How many brown people has the GOP killed today?

    Comment by Ethan — September 26, 2005 @ 10:26 am - September 26, 2005

  92. Most conservatives have jobs and families to attend to unlike the anti-war hippies. Also conservatives are not collectivists with a herd mentality.

    Snicker.

    Um… yeah.

    Puddintame.

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — September 26, 2005 @ 10:35 am - September 26, 2005

  93. “And as I noted above, most observers believe that number to be inflated.”

    actually, you quoted a handful of people who looked at a cropped photo — with no time stamp — of the beginning of the march route and made assertions you’d like to believe. but “most” observers? not hardly.

    and the number of book fair attendees have no bearing on the march numbers — while plenty of people went to both events that day (i did) the march had a clear designated path through the middle of the city, several blocks away from the book fair. none of the people walking down those streets were lost tourists on their way from the metro to the museums; they were all there for the same purpose. metro alone reports that ridership was 120,000 people higher than normal (link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401525.html) on saturday. not all of them were there to see tom wolfe.

    take another look at the photo, and then look at the march route itself. (link: http://www.unitedforpeace.org/article.php?id=3091) the length of the march was 2.82 miles (use google earth’s path tool and see for yourself). the reuters photo only captures the starting point of the march (funny how lgf, and others who desperately want to paint the march as smaller than it actually was, refer only to the cropped version of the photo — a wider angle of the exact same photo on news.yahoo.com (link: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/ss/events/iraq/010403armedforces/im:/050924/ids_photos_ts/r1123866861.jpg;_ylt=Aj0CdfdkPMwwX1lCRiSganLmWMcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5bGcyMWMzBHNlYwNzc25hdg–) CLEARLY shows a long column of thousands more people snaking up 15th street towards lafayette park.

    i’ve misplaced the link, but i saw one photoblog (possibly linked off of one of the links above) that had photos from the washington monument’s observation deck taken at 2 pm showing scores of people at the march’s end point.

    without a number of photographs taken in succession over the entire march route (there were certainly enough helicopters in the air — funny how the mainstream media, the ones that you want to believe hates this administration so much, hasn’t coughed up a handy photocollage [for drudge, hannity, et. al.] showing how there were only a few dozen people on the streets that day), any estimates on the size are pure conjecture.

    i was on the ground the whole day. just like the marches before the war, i know there were hundreds of people in any direction, but i never got a clear sense of how many people there were at the entire event.

    i’m even willing to acknowledge the possibility that the untimed reuters picture of the beginning of the march and the 2 pm picture of the end of the march shows only the same 10,000 people at two different times of day.

    and yet. what if there were that many people spread out over almost three miles of dc streets?

    Comment by why do the facts hate america? — September 26, 2005 @ 11:13 am - September 26, 2005

  94. #92 – See Bob, we knew you’d be back! No ban can keep you away. And, none of your own threats/promises/decisions to leave can keep you away.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 11:16 am - September 26, 2005

  95. Wow, what a bunch of idiots on this website — eyes wide shut, you guys are pathetic and just scared of your own shadows

    Gotta love the ad hominem attack, that way even morons can participate in big people conversations. Yeah, that was a cheap shot. Also true.

    Anyone that thinks we’re ‘losing’ in Iraq is a moron. We’ve just invaded a rogue state, destroyed it’s armed forces, captured and jailed it’s former dictactor, formed a government, and held monitored free elections (the first in the Arab world) for the cost of under 2k combat deaths. We haven’t lost and engagement in Iraq above the squad level and the enemy has been so successful in open combat against coalition forces that their primary targets are now civilian crowds. By any objective standard, that’s a clearcut victory.

    But objectivity is for pussies. Spins the name of the game. Set an impossible standard aka “Disneyland Fallujah”, a ridiculous timeframe, and a conveniant amnesia with regard to history (The war against Iraq was an unprovoked war of agression against a country that used to be our ally and had not done us any significant wrong.…except for invading a country, repeatedly violating the terms of the ceasefire, a little attempted genocide, mass murder, systematic and institutional rape and torture, corruption of the UN program designed to feed it’s people, and unlawful WMD research. No biggies). But a few roadside pipebombs a week – while the first Constitution in the region that makes the government responsible to the people is debated, while Kurds live as a free self-determining people for the first time in centuries, while 2 decades of infrastructure are repaired and rebuilt – constitutes ongoing victory for the heroes of the progressive movement. The kind of heroes that pull walls over on homosexuals and treat women as cattle. Yeah, I’ll feel so much safer in a world where we declare failure and run from a bunch of wannabe 13th century theocratic murderers. I’ll feel so much more morally superior when some 13 year old girl is denied an education, threatened with constant violence lest the honor of the men in her family be offended and given as a wife to a 40 year old man, because while that truly sucks for her, we didn’t interfer in their ‘culture’ so at least my hands are clean. And after all, my comfort and moral stnanding are what count, fuck the huddled masses. I’m so proud to have lived to see so-called liberals hating the forces fighting for freedom and self determination and rally in favor of religious fanatic murderers. Land of the free, home of the brave, indeed.

    Comment by junyo — September 26, 2005 @ 11:41 am - September 26, 2005

  96. Heh.

    Having been to every rally, and endured the insane numbers put forth by the organizers, I can assure you this was, without a doubt the largest.

    That Yahoo photo cropps out about 1/4-1/3 of the crowd. While I was there, there was a MASS of people streaming down 14th (or maybe 15th… the road East of the ellipse) from Metro center (the closest metro station) all day. Further, the ‘festival’ portion of the rally was located below the ‘bottom’ of the photo shown. In it there were MANY people milling around looking at Maoist propaganda, whathaveyou. This photo also misses the people milling around the stage that had been set up for the bands that were scheduled to play that evening.

    Comment by J. Meoff — September 26, 2005 @ 11:42 am - September 26, 2005

  97. Actually, the supreme irony to me is that if those hundreds of thousands of people who were allegedly at these “peace rallies” had been herded into trucks, carried off to be shot, imprisoned, and tortured, and then had their villages leveled and families killed in reprisal for their actions, the worldwide outcry would have been deafening. Anyone who said that reacting to this or putting an end to it was “unnecessary and unjustified”, or “morally wrong”, would have been made an outcast.

    But when Saddam does that and more, the liberal racist left blocks any attempt to remove him and then, in retaliation, tries to smear and destroy the people who did it.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2005 @ 11:57 am - September 26, 2005

  98. But so many other first-hand observers say it was a sparsely attended rally. Isn’t it interesting how reports can conflict?

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 11:58 am - September 26, 2005

  99. #94 – junyo – Many interesting reports in the last 2 weeks on StrategyPage, Belmont Club, etc. about the insurgency reaching a new low in its activity statistics, being condemned even by Sunni clerics in Iraq, etc. – I wonder if the timing and “desperate smell” of this past weekend’s rallies have anything to do with International A.N.S.W.E.R. panicking that in Iraq, their side is finally going down the tubes?

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 12:04 pm - September 26, 2005

  100. #17 – What a pity for you that the counter-insurgency in Iraq is actually going well, and that Iraqis are about to enjoy there first-ever genuine constitutional/democratic elections. Keep spinning yourself into Negative Crazyland, though.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 12:10 pm - September 26, 2005

  101. re: Numerous posts from QP….

    I would like to know in what sense QP is a “patriot”.

    “Queer”, yes. We can all see that. But the first point of patriotism is: You actually want your country to win. You actually want good things to happen to and for your country.

    And you feel proud when your country does good things in the world, like liberating 50 million muslims from awful gay-hating, woman-hating, people-hating dictators.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 12:13 pm - September 26, 2005

  102. Re: my QP question -

    Never mind – if QP really is just the new incarnation of Reader, I expect psychosis (not a rational answer).

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 12:20 pm - September 26, 2005

  103. #97

    anyone who attended who said it was sparsely attended had an agenda. There were WAY more there than any other.

    I was never for the war, but I also loathed the ninnies who put the protests on… I usually attended only watch the crowd, and be a body in the mass of people.

    Comment by J. Meoff — September 26, 2005 @ 12:27 pm - September 26, 2005

  104. #90 – #91 – LOL – Ethan, what a nut you are! Of course our troops are protecting us, by defeating Islamo-fascism in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that’s why they’re there. And we’re grateful.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 12:31 pm - September 26, 2005

  105. #99, then why is it the Saudis are suggesting to anyone who will listen the constitution is going to drive a wedge between the factions, that will likely lead to civil war and draw in neigboring states, destabilizing the entire region?

    In point of fact Saddam was a pig, but he like Tito gave the people something to hate other than each other providing overall stability.

    ANYONE who knew ANYTHING about global geopolitics knew this, and would have been against throwing him out without a serious plan of action… by serious I mean something more than ‘domini-domini-domini, you’re all free and democratic now’…

    The only way ANYONE could have brought peace to that country after picking off Saddam was to go Roman on them and kill the eldest boy under 18 in every town… The best strategy (IMHO) would have been to wait for Saddam’s death, and see who came to the top. The only problem with this strategy though, the oil fields would likely have remained soley in the hands of the government with NO/limited control by outside (Read American) companies.

    Comment by J. Meoff — September 26, 2005 @ 12:33 pm - September 26, 2005

  106. “On Saturday, demonstrators opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White House in the largest anti-war protest in the nation’s capital since the U.S. invasion.” – FoxNews

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170344,00.html

    Comment by FarmerMe — September 26, 2005 @ 12:36 pm - September 26, 2005

  107. For the record – Bremer’s disbanding of the Iraqi Army in 2003 may well have been the right thing to do: http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20050923.aspx

    The Iraqi Army of that era was heavily dominated by Sunni, Baath Party diehards. Rather than have them sabotage all peacekeeping operations from within, better to build a new Iraqi Army fundamentally inclusive of Kurds and Shia.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 12:41 pm - September 26, 2005

  108. Anyone remember “The Domino Theory’?

    Comment by mike — September 26, 2005 @ 12:46 pm - September 26, 2005

  109. The best strategy (IMHO) would have been to wait for Saddam’s death, and see who came to the top. The only problem with this strategy though, the oil fields would likely have remained soley in the hands of the government with NO/limited control by outside (Read American) companies.

    Yep, it was all about the oil. And having that oil sold, and you know, even slightly benefiting the people of Iraq is so much worse than waiting out a homicidal dictator in his 60′s and relatively good health, with 2 sons that were probably bigger psychopaths than him. Wait and see if it gets better (while tens of thousands are murdered annually); that’s some bold strategic thinking. Neville Chamberlain would no doubt approve.

    Comment by junyo — September 26, 2005 @ 12:57 pm - September 26, 2005

  110. Anyone a fan of Extreme Makeover: Home Edition?

    Last night, they had an amazing episode: the Rodriguez Family. The father, Luis Rodriguez was a combat medic who lost his leg in Iraq last year. He re-enlisted and is now an instructor.

    It was an amazing show. Luis and his family are so proud of his time in the service and of what he was doing, sad that he lost his leg, but proud that, as one of the daughters put it “he wasn’t a quitter”. You get the impression that, despite everything, the family can’t imagine a place he’d rather be. Lillian, Luis’ wife, gives counseling to other army families in similar situations.

    And everyone involved was so respectful. After the nonsense Hollywood types usually put out, it was amazing to see people who said things like “I can’t believe they were thanking us. We have so much to thank him and the other soldiers for, we should be thanking them.”

    I’m reminded that, despite living in NY, there are many people in this country who wholeheartedly support our soldiers.

    Comment by Dina Felice — September 26, 2005 @ 12:58 pm - September 26, 2005

  111. #106:

    Clearly you are an idiot and not worth my time.

    It isn’t possible to say after the fact something is ‘more right’. The decision was the decision. Who’s to say that given the die-hards wouldn’t have been moved to tears and a need to share power after seeing both the rose-petals thrown in front of the feet of the invaders, and the purple fingers of old ladies?!

    Or, more cynically if you prefer, they could have seen the writing on the wall and been used to motivate those under their command to cooperate. This was after-all what was purported to have happened during the invasion making it more of a cake-walk than anyone imagined…

    Comment by J. Meoff — September 26, 2005 @ 12:59 pm - September 26, 2005

  112. An article from today’s Washington Post on how our Iraq strategy is going pretty well: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501298.html

    The report(er) is by no means free of liberal bias. The strategy he breathlessly describes as “new” or “a shift” has, in fact, been the actual strategy/plan of the war from day 1; the MSM has simply failed utterly to report it, focusing instead on each individual bomb explosion or death. But, at least the guy is reporting it now!

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 1:02 pm - September 26, 2005

  113. #110 – Wow – I’m “not worth your time”, then you go and spend so much time on me. What great logic. And I wish your other comments had some logic too (or weren’t self-contradictory). Good luck to you.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 1:07 pm - September 26, 2005

  114. So, if ONLY 100,000 showed up for the protest what does that say about the counter march, a support march that only drew approx 400. The protest drew 250 times what the support drew.

    Actually, that’s probably about the ratio of protest to support in the general population.

    Comment by rick — September 26, 2005 @ 1:16 pm - September 26, 2005

  115. #104 “The best strategy (IMHO) would have been to wait for Saddam’s death, and see who came to the top. The only problem with this strategy though, the oil fields would likely have remained soley in the hands of the government with NO/limited control by outside (Read American) companies.”

    And we’d have been able to buy that oil cheap. Only people without a clue about market forces and capitalism can convince themselves that the invasion of Iraq was to put their oil into our hands. It’s like Dr. Evil holding the world for ransome when he could make so much more money by investing. It’s exactly that irrational.

    The common enemy bringing stability to the region, thus justifying tolerance of the various genocides, obviously, is old school thinking. It’s *conservative* of past policies and understanding and quite frankly, it didn’t work very well. Social injustice never works! Why the heck am I having to point this out to supposed liberals? And I do mean “supposed.”

    Social injustice, economic injustice, can not and will never lead to stability. So please lets try something different, hm?

    Who’re the progressives here? Who is moving forward and embracing change? Who is stuck in the past insisting on more of the same over and over? Who fully believes in the potential of the Iraqi and Afghan people, and who is convinced that they simply can’t be modern? Who has more respect for the ability of Islam to be flexible and adapt, and who actually, truely, fails to believe and *live* tolerance? Words are nothing.

    It’s truely a strange thing when a libertarian has to argue social and economic justice. Proof that we live in very strange times.

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 1:16 pm - September 26, 2005

  116. #113 – Taking your numbers as true (which they probably aren’t) for sake of argument: What it means is that all the tens of millions upon tens of millions who support our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have real lives, and don’t care what Mother Sheehan, Code Pink or International A.N.S.W.E.R. were up to that weekend.

    Seriously.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 1:21 pm - September 26, 2005

  117. The numbers actually seem to be on the conservative side from what I’ve seen. And I do support out troops, having been one for 27 years, but I don;t support Bush’s Folly.

    Comment by rick — September 26, 2005 @ 1:23 pm - September 26, 2005

  118. #114 – But Synova – libertarianism is exactly about social and economic justice. I mean, real justice. (Not allowing individuals, or governments, to live by looting others at gunpoint.)

    You’ve hit the nail on the head.

    If liberals (in the neo-socialist / neo-communist sense) had any real understanding of business or economics, they would know that launching a $200 billion war on a dictator is in no way about getting to his oil. If you wanted his oil, you’d leave him in power and give him arms-for-oil deals, like the French.

    And if today’s liberals had genuine concern for the oppressed, the weak and the disadvantaged, they would be supporting that war against that dictator, period.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 1:31 pm - September 26, 2005

  119. #116 – Active duty military in other discussion threads (and also other blogs) have told us in no uncertain terms that if you don’t support the mission, then you don’t support them, period. I will leave you to argue with them.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 1:33 pm - September 26, 2005

  120. Well, as I said, I was active duty military for 27 years and I would respectfully disagree with them.

    Comment by rick — September 26, 2005 @ 1:39 pm - September 26, 2005

  121. “Anyone that thinks we’re ‘losing’ in Iraq is a moron.”

    Childish name calling again! Grow up.

    Let’s look at some facts:

    After more than 2 years of fighting, we can’t even secure the road from the airport into Bagdad. We can’t even prevent the insurgents from lobbing mortar shells into the green zone. Iraqi government officials have to be in constant fear of their lifes because a sizable number of them have been assasinated, and more can expected to be assasinated. The number of terrorist attacks has been increasing. The Sunnis strongly oppose the new constitution. And the list goes on and on.

    So what if we win all the battles. Guerilla war is not about the guerillas winning conventional battles until the last phases of the war. It is about hit and run attacks that prevent the occupying force from having secure control of the country and gradually wear it down.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 1:40 pm - September 26, 2005

  122. What fun to watch you wing-nuts try to whistle past the graveyard of your neo-con fantasies. Bush’s hubris is bringing you down, hard.

    A couple of items to think about.

    Just how many Iraqi suicide bombers do you suppose read the NY Times? Are you really that dumb or are you all such tools of RNC talking points that you don’t even think about what you’re saying any more?

    For “junyo” – How can you so casually dismiss the sacrifices of the thousands of our dead and wounded? I wonder how you would feel if it were your child being described as part of the “under 2k” dead, as if that was a trivial cost? I’ll bet you still believe in everything Colin Powell told the UN, Santa Claus and the tooth fairy. If you do, I have some prime Louisiana beachfront property to sell you.

    For “V the K”: Unlike the Right, the Left has 100,000+ people willing to voluntarily show up for something they believe in.

    It’s OK. You all just keep telling yourselves Bush didn’t lie to you. Overlook the Halliburton corruption. Ignore the cronyism, the graft, our dead and wounded. And that’s just New Orleans.

    I just hope there’s a country left for the grownups to clean up after the Bushies are done.

    Comment by Percy's PoP — September 26, 2005 @ 1:47 pm - September 26, 2005

  123. Captain Video in #82, no, conservatives are not calling all opponents of the war moonbats, just those with the hateful anti-American rhetoric and signs. And as to your comment in #83, it doesn’t seem you’ve spent much time with Republicans. As a gay man who has, I’ve found that most don’t conform to the media-image of the gay-hating kookoohead (though I acknowledge that those do exist). Most Republicans, most conservatives, indeed, are not as you describe us.

    And as to propensity’s comment in #86, if you would read about the good news in Iraq that the MSM seems not to highlight, you could better see that they do not report what I call setbacks in light of the overall context of the liberation of Iraq. They report deaths of American troops, but do not devote much attention to the battles we are winning or to the good will our troops are building with the Iraqi people.

    Finally, many note that the rallies were quite large. I never disputed that they were large. Indeed, the D.C. may well be the largest protest in the nation’s capital (as FarmerMe in Comment#105 notes) “since the U.S. invasion.” But my point has been that the rallies are smaller than they were at the outset of the war. In the Vietnam-era, the rallies got bigger as the war progressed. Here, they’re getting smaller.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 26, 2005 @ 2:03 pm - September 26, 2005

  124. #144

    Irrational, ehh… Then why did China just try to pay a premium for Unicol? Using your analysis such a play is not rational.

    IF we are actually nearing ‘peak oil’ the current understanding of ‘global oil’ will be turned on it’s head.

    Comment by J. Meoff — September 26, 2005 @ 2:14 pm - September 26, 2005

  125. #114:

    Irrational, ehh… Then why did China just try to pay a premium for Unicol? Using your analysis such a play is not rational.

    IF we are actually nearing ‘peak oil’ the current understanding of ‘global oil’ will be turned on it’s head.

    It’s *conservative* of past policies and understanding and quite frankly, it didn’t work very well.

    nonsense. It is utterly akin to thinking that people on welfare need to be responsible for making their own way. Welfare was a crock then, and it’s a crock now. Similarly, you can’t force a cultural change by continually priming the pump with ‘liberty’ put forth by a bayonnet.

    Waiting for the fall of Yugoslavia, and the Soviets allowed there to be marking of a true cultural change by both the strongmen that ruled them, and those being ruled. Coming in and forcing the change with an overthrow is absolutley the same as giving the households money, emasculating the men, and then wondering why there are all these women raising only children.

    Who’s the liberatarian, here?

    Comment by J. Meoff — September 26, 2005 @ 2:20 pm - September 26, 2005

  126. #117:

    they would know that launching a $200 billion war on a dictator is in no way about getting to his oil. If you wanted his oil, you’d leave him in power and give him arms-for-oil deals, like the French.

    They didn’t launch a $200B war. They launched a $200M war that was supposed to finance itself after the first year. Everything else is about politics and saving face.

    Comment by J. Meoff — September 26, 2005 @ 2:22 pm - September 26, 2005

  127. #120 – “After more than 2 years of fighting, we can’t even secure the road from the airport into Bagdad…”

    But fundamentally, it is not our job to secure any Iraqi roads, airports or officials. It is the job of Iraqis.

    Let’s look at some facts. After 2 years of fighting, we have:
    - captured or killed thousands of terrorists
    - captured or defused hundreds of thousands of bombs, pounds of ordinance, etc.;
    - built native Iraqi security forces to 30-60,000 strong, and rising;
    - built a native Iraqi government that (gasp!) actually stands for its people and cares about them;
    - shepherded the Iraqis through their first free elections – which were a massive success, and more to come – and internal negotiations for their new Constitution.
    - built huge amounts of new physical infrastructure for the Iraqis.

    Our job is to complete the process (begun haltingly, 2 years ago) of turning Iraq over to its people, including to reasonably well-trained and effective native Iraqi Security Forces. And, in the meantime, to continuing capturing or killing as many Zarqawi / al Qaeda terrorists as possible.

    Read the Washington Post article I quoted in #111 for a fairly realistic picture of our progress and prospects.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 2:22 pm - September 26, 2005

  128. #24 – Not you, Jack, that’s for damn sure.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 2:26 pm - September 26, 2005

  129. Sorry, meant #124.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 2:26 pm - September 26, 2005

  130. Here’s another gallery of the Anti-American protesters in Lalaland. Seeing this mob of geriatric hippies, self-proclaimed communists, Jew-haters, America-haters, conspiracy nuts, and hate-filled whackjobs pretty much tells the story of who is really protesting the war.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 2:28 pm - September 26, 2005

  131. One of the things that argues against a “huge” turnout in the hundreds of thousands for the 24 Sept 05 Rally is the lack of traffic and ‘crowded hotel’ stories in the press. Even in a city the size of D.C. moving large numbers of people into the city (above the normal numbers) will generate an impact on highway/bus/subway traffic. I haven’t heard any such reports. As for “on-the-scene” size reports, they’re pretty much meaningless except in terms of “crowded where I was” or “not-crowded where I was”.

    Estimation of crowd size from the inside is like a minnow trying to estimate the size of the school he’s swimming in. Everywhere he looks he sees fish!

    As for Iraq – terrorist attacks are pretty much down to car bombs and IED’s – there are NO military actions taken by the insurgents. Of course they have a large pool to draw from… approximately 1/3 of the population (the Sunni’s) had a good life under Saddam. They’d like it back. Unfortunately, the other 2/3 of Iraqi’s are probably not much interested.

    Comment by Lokki — September 26, 2005 @ 2:34 pm - September 26, 2005

  132. D.C. Police Chief Ramsey was quoted in the Washington Post on Sunday saying that 150,000 was a good guess. Organizers say 300,000. I was there and believe me it was a huge crowd. I’ve lived in D.C. a long time and it was the biggest crowd I’ve ever seen. Now, what was that about someobody looking at an aerial picture. Let’s try and deal with reality here not wishful thinking.

    Comment by zanne — September 26, 2005 @ 2:35 pm - September 26, 2005

  133. The sons of bitches behind the attempted money grabs – in this case, in Iraq, in little-known plans to try to ‘privatize’ much of Iraqi society by selling assets into private hands at low prices and such – need to be better understood by the public for the threat and scandal they are.

    I’d like to see things get better in the middle east, too, and have some sympathy for the *stated* agenda of ‘spreading democracy’ – but too many on the right are like the small-town fools who believe all the snake oil salesmen and support the bad guys who tell them the nice stories.

    These are the same bastards who have been behind so many wrong things in the middle east following the British, from the 1953 installation of the Shah in Iran (overthrowing democracy), to arming the violent muslim extremists as our proxies against the USSR (google for Carter’s national security advisor who has now written the plain truth how we knew quite well what we were doing, and simply felt the muslim extremist army was a much better threat than the USSR to deal with, which we’re now doing), to our support of bad regimes from the House of Saud to Saddam until 1990. And we expect them now to suddenly have an agenda of ‘democracy in the middle east for the good of the people’? Sorry. Give me credible people to pursue that.

    Now, the right’s dupes are out to spin how the war is going wonderfully – while some who are informed, such as, say, the Saudi foreign minister, point our that the facts don’t quite match, expressing concern that our war has put the iddle east into risk for a large war and instability.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/23/politics/23diplo.html?hp&ex=1127534400&en=12534e77fbaab43c&ei=5094&partner=homepage

    Sadly, the question about this regime is – ‘was that their plan?’

    The likely answers seems to be ‘no, they’re just incompetent ideologues’.

    Comment by Craig — September 26, 2005 @ 2:39 pm - September 26, 2005

  134. #125 – “They launched a $200M war that was supposed to finance itself after the first year.”

    What an absurd claim. If I’m even sure what you’re talking about: it’s nothing that was remotely claimed or “supposed” by anybody, at any time. (Except maybe off in wacko Left nutjob land ;-) )

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 2:41 pm - September 26, 2005

  135. #121 “Just how many Iraqi suicide bombers do you suppose read the NY Times? Are you really that dumb or are you all such tools of RNC talking points that you don’t even think about what you’re saying any more?”

    I’m really not sure what point you’re getting at here. Please clarify. I doubt that the suicide bombers are quite up on the information available to their handlers even if they are the entirely voluntary kind of suicide bomber.

    The *leaders* do not blow themselves up.

    Can we pause for a moment and agree to that statement?

    As for the leaders… are you suggesting that the leaders are not aware of what is printed in the NYT? If that is what you are suggesting, might you please support that? To do so you must explain how people sophisticated enough to use the available connections to the global communications network and news services and technology to launch their own propaganda and vile films of butchering people without getting any information back again.

    Or is this just the general attitude that those “others” are primative?

    What is logical about assuming that the enemy has neither the capacity nor the understanding of the vital necessity of propaganda and public opinion in waging a war? Is it a case of not being able to credit others with understanding that you find complicated and difficult? Now that’s hubris.

    And here, again, what the heck am I doing lecturing a supposed liberal about having a dismissive view of the “other” as primative and otherwise unsophisticated?

    Of all the battlefields were a war is fought only one involves direct conflict between armies. *Human beings* have known this since before Sun Tzu wrote it down. The knowledge is ancient. And when it comes right down to it, the enemy quite likely has a better understanding of that than people in our quite “civilized” culture.

    They *are* paying attention to our media.

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - September 26, 2005

  136. VdaK, those are powerful images, but you can’t do any BETTER in capturing the lunacy (or is it loon-I-see) than you did on your site with the Rev Jesse Jackson playing pimp to the Cindy-Zero media hero whore. Perfect representation of the newLeft’s love of lunacy. No wonder MickeyMoore and HowieDean can hold their attention span beyond the usual 15 seconds.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2005 @ 2:45 pm - September 26, 2005

  137. #135 – Speaking of All That…..does anyone have Rush’s parody of “Windy” (for “Cindy”) that he started playing Friday? It is hilarious!

    (Just tried to google it and didn’t find it. Also tried his site; not up.)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 2:53 pm - September 26, 2005

  138. #104 “then why is it the Saudis are suggesting to anyone who will listen the constitution is going to drive a wedge between the factions, that will likely lead to civil war and draw in neigboring states, destabilizing the entire region?”

    Wow… I can’t think of *any* reason for the Saudis to find a functional constitution and democratic nation in the region a threat. Can you?

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 3:00 pm - September 26, 2005

  139. Is this what you were looking for, joe?

    http://www.goyk.com/flash.asp?path=1952

    Comment by GOParrot — September 26, 2005 @ 3:02 pm - September 26, 2005

  140. Asian Ladies? Ewwww! Hint for the clueless: this is the GAY patriot site.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 3:09 pm - September 26, 2005

  141. #124 ” …you can’t force a cultural change by continually priming the pump with ‘liberty’ put forth by a bayonnet.”

    Nor can you do it by counting on conditions to get so horrible for the population that they rise up and overthrow their government, which is the basic premis of all sanctions. To spread misery to accomplish political change.

    This is NOT the moral high ground, no matter how much you insist there is no blood on your hands.

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 3:10 pm - September 26, 2005

  142. And you can force a cultural change by making clear to people which way the wind is blowing.

    “You had an evil dictator. We got rid of him for you. We’re getting rid of his diehards and other terrorists. You can do whatever you want with your country now, except, (1) let the people vote and (2) stop killing each other.”

    Like all positive cultural changes, it does not happen overnight. It takes time. (But it is happening, say the vast majority of Iraqi and/or military bloggers.)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 3:14 pm - September 26, 2005

  143. I withdraw those snotty comments above about “InstaVandals”. Turns out you’re a bunch of InstaSweeties is what you are, and some of us here are thrilled to see you. So welcome, welcome, welcome to Nos. 63-64-65-66-68-71-79-81-82-83-84-86-87-90-91-95-102-104-105-107-108-110-113-120-121 – in other words, virtually all posts in the past 24 hours that were NOT from a guy named “Joe”.

    Speaking of Joe, who in #100 wanted to know what’s patriotic about “Queer Patriot”: well, wouldn’t we first have to know what’s so patriotic about Joe that would qualify him to question the patriotism of anyone else? And Joe, playing with your flagstaff every couple of hours and shooting blanks on Gay Patriot do not qualify.

    Special note to Captain Video: you did a little friendly fire thing there on QP in No. 83, dear. Read more carefully please.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 3:16 pm - September 26, 2005

  144. “Veterans for Peace” – sure . . . Just ask them to produce a DD214 (without an Other Than Honorable or a Bad Conduct Discharge attached, that is).

    Fact is, claiming veteran status is a good way to clean up as a panhandler or to plus up justification for your lunatic beliefs.

    Anyone who served honorably in the service spent enough time hemmed up and miserable with thousands of strangers to waste time at some worthless political “protest”.

    Comment by Brian — September 26, 2005 @ 3:21 pm - September 26, 2005

  145. So what if we win all the battles. Guerilla war is not about the guerillas winning conventional battles until the last phases of the war. It is about hit and run attacks that prevent the occupying force from having secure control of the country and gradually wear it down.
    Morons are as morons do. Or in your case, type. More than 100 years after the Civil War, somebody’s murdered in most American cities every night. Booga booga! Guess that means the Confederacy won the war since that dang Federal Army can’t even secure Detroit.

    Unrest and voilence are to be expected from the small minority that controled the country for decades and has nothing to look forward to but a continuing loss of power and influence. Sunnis strongly oppose the new Constitution? Last I checked, the Sunnis were around 20% of the population. They stopped having the right to dictate the course of Iraq pretty much when we invaded.

    Guerilla war is about wearing down the opposing force. Other than in the media, where and how is that happening? The ‘guerillas’ trade 20 of theirs for 1 of ours on their best day. The guerillas haven’t represented a serious threat to our supply chain or command and control since the early days of the war, which is why they prefer nice soft targets like politicians, and children and oil ministry workers. Successful insurgencies get bolder and more ambititous in the targets they attack as they transition from a marginal force to one that dominates the battlefield. Does anyone seriously believe that a) the insurgents can get more than a couple dozen guys in one place without catching a missile, and/or b) that their tactical situation is improving? The only real hope that they have is that they can convince their useful idiots in the West that their mere continued survival and noisemaking can be spun as the victory of spunky underdogs. As opposed to desperate random murder and terror in the name of a return to dictatorship that it actually is.

    Comment by junyo — September 26, 2005 @ 3:21 pm - September 26, 2005

  146. But, junyo, they can’t possibly know what’s going on with our media and public opinion! They’re just little brown people living in the desert, don’t cha know.
    ;-)

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 3:32 pm - September 26, 2005

  147. Whether it was 100,000 or 40,000 anti-war protesters in DC (plus the thousands in other cities across the country) there were still more protesters on one corner then the umm…dozens of pro-war patriots who showed up your side.

    I guess the Bush team was to busy showing “leadership” by going to Colorado to wait out Rita and therefore forgot to send out the memo mandating that all Republican staffers in Washington were required to go to the pro-war rally. Guess that Redskins game was more important.

    Comment by Joe D — September 26, 2005 @ 3:54 pm - September 26, 2005

  148. Please, please someone tell me why this whole blog is relevant to any of the underlying issues. Is this some sort of game that is being played: Gotcha the actual number of protestors was only 99,900; what a bunch of liars, cheats and traitors those protestors are.

    If I were to play this game I might point out that the participation numbers in “counter” protests supporting our current administrations handling of this war were several orders of ten less. What, is there no underlying “truth” to be found in the fact that just looking at the size of the crowds, one must come to the conclusion that the anti-war sentiment in this country dwarfs the pro-war sentiment. GOTCHA.

    But all of this is so tiring. I would like to know if any of the “patriots” here really believe that conduct of this war has been competent. And please provide more than simply a conclusory statement that this war is not like Viet Nam or at least tell me how it is so different by addressing the following:

    A divided country on the verge of civil war.
    Only a select few of the countries natives want us to remain there.
    Initial victory scuttled by a sustained and native “insurgency”.
    Any criticism deemed aiding and abetting the enemy,
    This war is really about a global struggle (then, the communist dominoes falling and forever damaging our security; now, the GWOT, which we have conveniently brought to the neighborhood.

    Comment by eddie — September 26, 2005 @ 4:00 pm - September 26, 2005

  149. eddie, sure I’ll take a swing at your hypothethical curve ball pitch of “why (is) this whole blog relevant to any of the underlying issues”?

    Debunking the nonsense about 100′s of thousands of antiwar protesters goes to the core of many issues: 1) underscoring the abetting role of the MSM in the anti-war, hate-Bush mantra; 2) is the national anti-war protest –with all the time, energy and effort put forward by the LibLefties’ natural and unnatural allies — a “success” or just more redmeat to fuel up donations; and 3) has the anti-war ala VietNam Era Peace Movement been hijacked for cheap partisan gain by the fringe radicals who mostly are behavorial Democrats?

    Second, unlike VietNam Era Peace Protests, this time around the mainstream conservatives in America will not be cowed into sitting back and equally voicing THEIR support of the troops, the Adminstration, and the right of people to worldwide to self determination.

    Those are the reasons why I think this thread has merit, eddie.

    In short, the numbers game points out a lack of credulity on the part of the anti-war protesters and their MSM lackies to spin a sympathetic story of their effort.

    There are others… but for me, those are it in the main.

    Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 26, 2005 @ 4:48 pm - September 26, 2005

  150. #146 That there are any counter-protestors at all is somewhat unusual. Protesting usually means demonstrating against something. People almost never demonstrate for something, and if they do it’s not for something that is already going on and has widespread support. Sure, you can get fundamentalists out there to Right to Life marches but that’s about it. Oh, the Promise Keeper thing in DC also, but that was also religious. In general conservatives just aren’t the right personality to be demonstrators.

    #147 “I would like to know if any of the “patriots” here really believe that conduct of this war has been competent.”

    I’d like to know how those who think the conduct has been incompetent reconcile that with the apparent support of the administration (and the EVIL Rumsfield) with those out on the sharp end of the stick. Can you do it without first discounting them as thinking individuals?

    The answer is that this war is being conducted by imperfect but competent leaders. The conduct of the war has been imperfect but competent.

    I was reading direct reporting from Iraq the other day and I don’t recall if it was a soldier or an embed, but he made the curious statement that the mission the other day had gone exactly to plan and that *never happens*. It was an “OMGosh is this a sign of the apocolypse” moment. It just never happens. Something always goes wrong. Something is always different than expected. Our military is the best in the world because it is designed to be flexible. It is designed to facilitate decision making in the face of the unexpected at the unit level, however small that unit is. “No battle plan survives contact with the enemy” isn’t a cute phrase, it’s the truth.

    The criticisms of how the war has been waged are nonsensical to anyone who understands war. Decisions must be made and most often they aren’t even going to be the best ones, so while arm-chair-general-ing may well point out serious mistakes and after-action reports dissect failures, none of it means anything much to the *present* conflict. Those things mean much more to the *next* conflict.

    In between this war and the next one (though we can hope that’s never) our war colleges will be studying how to properly fight *this* war. In the event of the *next* conflict leadership will, again, make many mistakes but the military will adapt to the new situation and the new war.

    There’s a whole lot of ground between “competent” and “without flaw.”

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 5:06 pm - September 26, 2005

  151. For as long as this thread’s been going, I am impressed at how many viewpoints has been expressed and how civil it has been. For that, I thank those critics who have taken the time to take issue with some things of have said in the spirit of debate and discussion.

    Thank you.

    No one has, as of yet, addressed the main point of my post because even if Chief Ramsey was right and 150,000 showed up, the rally was still considerably smaller than that at the outset of the war. Moreover, rallies is other cities, especially here in LA, were a fraction (and a tiny one at that) the size of those 2 1/2 years ago.

    That said, keep this thread going. In this day and age, a civil discussion is a rare thing.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 26, 2005 @ 5:23 pm - September 26, 2005

  152. If the anti-war movement had majority support then Kerry would be the President.

    Comment by syn — September 26, 2005 @ 5:23 pm - September 26, 2005

  153. #135 — Thanks, Matt. I wrote those when I was tired, and when I read them back today, I thought they were way too harsh. But, I’m glad to see they worked for you.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 5:27 pm - September 26, 2005

  154. It is one hell of a lot more competent to say “Saddam is a problem; 12 years of diplomacy have not changed his threat; in a post 9-11 world we have to do something”, and then step up to the plate and do it, than the opposite – leaving Saddam in power.

    Doing a job that needs doing is always more competent than sticking your head in the sand. The armchair critics are just that (Armchair critics).

    We have a saying, “Hindsight is always 20/20″ and yet even that wise saying is not always true. As I shall now demonstrate.

    One of the top Lefty criticisms of the war is that we did not use enough troops. Or is it we used too many – for having even gone in the first place – thus somehow affecting Katrina response? Excuse me, I’ve forgotten whether today is even-numbered or odd-, and so which set of talking points to use.

    Another top criticism is “We disbanded the Iraqi army”. Well, again showing that not even hindsight is 20/20, that’s very debatable as a criticism. The Iraqi army of that time was dominated by Baathist diehards who would have simply used it as an additional platform for insurgent sabotage.

    It’s quite possible that, say, a Roosevelt administration or a Lincoln administration or a Nixon administration would have done the Iraq war more competently than the Bush administration. We’ll never know.

    But we do know that Clinton had 8 long years to do something about Saddam, and did nothing. And same for al Qaeda. Now that’s real incompetence.

    And we do know that the Democrats / Leftists criticizing the Bush administration’s war conduct today are a sorry lot who can’t keep their story straight (i.e., can’t keep from totally contradicting themselves) even on a good day. That, again, is real incompetence.

    So, however “incompetent” or “imperfect” the Bush administration has been on this war, I’m deeply pained (I mean that) to say no one better is in sight….Clinton was worse….Kerry, Kennedy and that whole sorry lot would have been far worse.

    I was a big Gore supporter in 2000 and the vote-counting fiasco that followed. I was way wrong. Thank God the country did not do what I wanted then.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 5:35 pm - September 26, 2005

  155. (so I guess competence is one of the things in life that is legitimately relative, not absolute)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 5:41 pm - September 26, 2005

  156. #144
    Unrest and voilence are to be expected from the small minority that controled the country for decades and has nothing to look forward to but a continuing loss of power and influence.

    Sorta like the liberals?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2005 @ 5:54 pm - September 26, 2005

  157. #150 – “No one has, as of yet, addressed the main point of my post because even if Chief Ramsey was right and 150,000 showed up, the rally was still considerably smaller than that at the outset of the war. Moreover, rallies is other cities, especially here in LA, were a fraction (and a tiny one at that) the size of those 2 1/2 years ago.”

    Dan: Perhaps because that point is true….i.e., unanswerable.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 5:57 pm - September 26, 2005

  158. I will say this,
    apparently Grassfire.org was representing 400,000 petition signers this weekend. I know I was there in spirit.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2005 @ 6:10 pm - September 26, 2005

  159. Hey, Joe, as to your comment in #156, I have up-up-up-up-update the post with numbers which prove my point.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 26, 2005 @ 6:15 pm - September 26, 2005

  160. In November 1969, more than 250,000 protesters — some estimates went as high as 500,000 rallied against the Vietnam war. Thanks, Hugh.

    Yeah, and that was at a time when the national population was about 30% smaller than it is today.

    People may have doubts about the war (thanks to the circle jerk of anti-war media covering anti-war protesters), but that doesn’t mean they are ready to join up with the Surrender-Now-Screw-The-Iraqis- Jews-Run-The-Country-America-Is-Morally-Repugnant
    Cindy-Sheehan-Fred-Phelps-Michael-Moore-David-Duke Stormfront-Moveon-Code-Pink-ANSWER nutjob brigades.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 6:18 pm - September 26, 2005

  161. You know, even though our many past experiences of Reader/QP only lead me to expect psychosis and I frequently reading him/her/it, I must admit he/she/it can be fun to provoke.

    In #142, Reader/QP said “Speaking of Joe, who in #100 wanted to know what’s patriotic about “Queer Patriot”: well, wouldn’t we first have to know what’s so patriotic about Joe?”

    But back in #100, I set out a fairly inclusive standard for basic patriotism, that almost anyone could meet:

    “…the first point of patriotism is: You actually want your country to win. You actually want good things to happen to and for your country. And you feel proud when your country does good things in the world, like liberating 50 million muslims…”

    We can say confidently that I meet such a standard, without needing to go further with my particular actions to help the country (or our troops, etc.).

    So, question answered.

    Now back to Reader/QP. Does he/she/it hit even the most minimal standard of patriotism-in-spirit? Have we seen any sign or indication of Reader/QP wanting good things for America, or taking some kind of pride in some aspect of America, in some past or present comment?

    It’s an open question. I will be sure to bring it up, until answered. (I mean, to the extent that I am even going to read Reader/QP from here on.)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 6:36 pm - September 26, 2005

  162. sorry, first line should say “…I frequently SKIP reading…”

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 6:36 pm - September 26, 2005

  163. #160 — Ah, but joe, the left has redefined patriotism. Dissent=patriotism. The most patriotic thing a person can do is compare soldiers to Nazis, compare the president to Hitler, compare the government to fascists. The most patriotic thing a person can do is call the terrorists “freedom fighters,” and say that America is “morally repugnant” and a “fascist state” (like Cindy Sheehan did).

    The left have been so successful at deconstructing language that the most patriotic thing an American can do is root for American defeat.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 6:40 pm - September 26, 2005

  164. #163 – Ah, but V, I actually agree that dissent = patriotism, because you still want good things for your country.

    The thing is: to “compare soldiers to Nazis, compare the president to Hitler, compare the government to fascists” is not dissent. I mean, dissent is supposed to have some element of responsibility or rationality to it.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 6:45 pm - September 26, 2005

  165. #163 — Which was my point. The left had commandeered the word ‘dissent’ and treat it as if it means tearing down America. They like the word ‘dissent’ because it sounds more respectable than what they are actually doing — spewing hate and throwing tantrums.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 7:04 pm - September 26, 2005

  166. Just saw this, via RealClearPolitics: U.S. Special Forces killed Al Qaeda’s No. 2 terror mastermind in Iraq.

    Wait…..but wait a minute……they’re supposed to be incompetent!

    And how can al Qaeda be in Iraq, when “everyone” KNOWS Iraq has nothing to do with al Qaeda?

    ……….*call 9-11*………..*too*………*many*……….*New York Times lies*………..*popping*…….*at once*……………

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 7:05 pm - September 26, 2005

  167. Christopher Hitchens intelligently questions the pro-peace / anti-war credentials of the demonstrators: http://www.slate.com/id/2126913/

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 7:18 pm - September 26, 2005

  168. Oh, and… one last point. When you look over all the protest pictures, you know what’s really striking about these “activists?” They look at terrorist thugs and say, “Oh, let’s not solve this with violence. Let’s dialog with them. Let’s try to understand them. Let’s look for a peaceful middle ground.”

    Then, when they look at Bush/Republicans, they advocate assassinating the president, “Castrate Cheney,” torture Karl Rove, burning businesses, violent revolution, the rape of Cheney and Bush.

    Does this seem “askew” to anyone?

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 7:20 pm - September 26, 2005

  169. “….they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, “No to Jihad”? Of course not. Or a single placard saying, “Yes to Kurdish self-determination” or “We support Afghan women’s struggle”? Don’t make me laugh. And this in a week when Afghans went back to the polls, and when Iraqis were preparing to do so…”

    But read the whole thing – some interesting stuff on Left sectarianism.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 7:20 pm - September 26, 2005

  170. #167 – Exactly. Almost none of them make not the slightest condemnation of terrorist violence. Many of them explicitly call for anti-Bush violence, even violent revolution. These people are not peaceful.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 7:23 pm - September 26, 2005

  171. (sorry, meant “Almost none of them make the slightest condemnation of…”)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 7:24 pm - September 26, 2005

  172. I thought we won the war…

    and this is what we got.

    Comment by Sorry-KindOfLiberal — September 26, 2005 @ 7:31 pm - September 26, 2005

  173. The Iraq War will not go down EXACTLY like the Vietnam War. It is similar: a long, open ended war with no solution in which America cannot deterine the outcome terms. But it is not exactly the same. The left uses it as a metaphor for dipship wingnuts to try and explain the perils of wars like this.

    P.S. What have you done to earn the moniker “Patriot” – probably nothing, eh? JOIN UP!

    Comment by BigRed — September 26, 2005 @ 7:47 pm - September 26, 2005

  174. the solution is victory. The end will come when the job is done and not when a bunch of sopping pussies whine for it.

    That’s been the exit strategy from day 1. We don’t have lord BJ commanding our soldiers to turn tail and run.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2005 @ 8:06 pm - September 26, 2005

  175. “And as to your comment in #83, it doesn’t seem you’ve spent much time with Republicans. As a gay man who has, I’ve found that most don’t conform to the media-image of the gay-hating kookoohead (though I acknowledge that those do exist). Most Republicans, most conservatives, indeed, are not as you describe us.”

    So you’re going to ignore how the Bush Administration used gay marriage as a wedge issue to help win the last election, and it may have been the deciding factor. How Republicans in a number of States passed constituional amendments outlawing not only gay marriage, but even civil unions etc., etc., etc.

    The Republicans use wedge issues like gay rights, family values, school prayer, posting the 10 commandments, etc., as well as blind, unquestioning patriotism, to get working people to vote against their economic self interest, and gay bashing is an important part of this strategy. If the Republicans did not have the wedge issues and working people voted for their economic self interest, the Republican party would not have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning elections.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 8:10 pm - September 26, 2005

  176. “Exactly. Almost none of them make not the slightest condemnation of terrorist violence.”

    Such condemnations may make one feel superior and self-righteous, but they accomplish nothing. Of course, the terrorists are very bad people, but condemming their acts isn’t going to get them to stop.

    Therefore the sensible way to use one’s energy is to critizise the clueless incompetents in the U.S. government who mislead us into this quagmire and then hopelessly mishandled it, and continue to mishandle it. One important reason (but not the only one) that we cannot have a positive outcome in Iraq is that the same incompetents who got us into this mess are still making the decisions. They got us into this hole and they are still digging.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 8:19 pm - September 26, 2005

  177. General MacArthur had it wrong.

    In war there are many substitutes for victory.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 8:22 pm - September 26, 2005

  178. “So, however “incompetent” or “imperfect” the Bush administration has been on this war, I’m deeply pained (I mean that) to say no one better is in sight….Clinton was worse”

    Under Clinton the United States defeated Slobodan Milosevich (SP?) without a single combat casualty.

    Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 8:27 pm - September 26, 2005

  179. Ah, the conclusive “join up” argument.

    Anyhow, there are tons of simularities between Iraq and Viet Nam. Both sides occasionally shoot at each other. The enemy in both conflicts occasionally booby trap corpses or booby trap children. (I’m counting the poor kidnapped downsyndrome boy wired up and pointed at a polling area the last election.) Um… okay it’s getting harder… the North Vietnamese had uniforms and armies and a civil governing organization, the enemy in Iraq does not. I really don’t think our guys are having huge problems with foot-rot, and they aren’t getting any nookie either.

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 8:31 pm - September 26, 2005

  180. #177 “Under Clinton the United States defeated Slobodan Milosevich (SP?) without a single combat casualty.”

    Casualty /= Death. Casualty is the term for injured *and* dead. We *had* casualties.

    Though you bring up a really interesting point. Clinton was very careful about “no American life is worth it” and made sure that our involvement was safely from the air. Other people were on the ground fighting and dying. Just not us.

    This is shaky ground to trod upon if you’re planning to take the moral high road.

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 8:37 pm - September 26, 2005

  181. Oh… and just how many years did we have troops in residence as “peace keepers” in relation to that conflict?

    Shaky ground, indeed.

    Comment by Synova — September 26, 2005 @ 8:41 pm - September 26, 2005

  182. The end will come when the job is done and not when a bunch of sopping pussies whine for it.

    That’s been the exit strategy from day 1. We don’t have lord BJ commanding our soldiers to turn tail and run.

    When is “the job done”? When there’s a Jeffersonian-style democracy, a peaceful and stable Iraq, one which is our ally and a beacon of freedom to all of the MidEast?

    Boy, that’s realistic! I bet you’re anxiously awaiting the opening of Falluja Disneyland, as well!

    Ummm, and “lord BJ”? That’s clever! What does the GOP have against oral sex? Oh, I forgot, they want to infringe upon every aspect of our personal lives.

    At least Lord BJ was intelligent and not a dipshit like our current commander in chief- did you see that only 49% of registered voters now believe the president is “well-informed and intelligent”? (Undoubtedly most of those answering “yes” are pretty stupid themselves):

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9280375/site/newsweek/

    I know that conservatives in general hate intelligence and education, but wouldn’t it be nice to have a well informed and intelligent president for God’s sake?!?!?!?

    Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 26, 2005 @ 8:51 pm - September 26, 2005

  183. Actually #174, a number of polls, some cited on this blog back in November or December showed that the president’s showing in states with marriage amendment did not increase by as much as it did in states without such referenda.

    And you’re suggesting that Democrats don’t have wedge issues?

    No, I don’t think these people are voting against their economic self-interest, but then again, I don’t buy Thomas Frank’s theory either, but it seems you do.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 26, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - September 26, 2005

  184. #174 – “The Republicans use wedge issues like gay rights, family values, school prayer, posting the 10 commandments, etc., as well as blind, unquestioning patriotism, to get working people to vote against their economic self interest…”

    What a striking statement.

    Since the 2 parties act as mirror complements, it strongly implies – or admits? – that for Democrats, “economic self interest” is a wedge issue that they try to use to get people to vote against their own moral values, their religion, their common sense patriotism, etc.

    And of course, the Democrats’ conception of the “workers’ economic self-interest” is entirely wrong and misleading…but that is a story for another time.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 9:02 pm - September 26, 2005

  185. #175 – “…condemnations [of immoral actions, such as terrorist violence] may make one feel superior and self-righteous, but they accomplish nothing…”

    On the contrary.

    What they accomplish is: Letting us know where you stand.

    So let’s hear it, CV – Are you willing to unequivocally condemn terrorist violence?

    “Of course, the terrorists are very bad people, but condemming their acts isn’t going to get them to stop.”

    You just made a great argument for why we’re fighting them in Afghanistan and Iraq!

    In other words – So how do we get murderers to stop? If moral condemnation has “no effect”? Do you think capturing/killing the murderers might have something to do with it? (Or are you talking about appeasement now? But appeasement won’t stop them.)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 9:08 pm - September 26, 2005

  186. #177, #179, #180 – And just how much mass killing did Milosevich get away with, while Clinton’s incompetent policy slowly worked itself out? Anyone care to quote the numbers?

    “Shaky ground” isn’t the half of it, Synova ;-)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 9:11 pm - September 26, 2005

  187. BR,

    #186 encapsulates how you have lost your way and why you will continue to lose elections.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 9:19 pm - September 26, 2005

  188. BR,

    #186 encapsulates how you have lost your way and why you will continue to lose elections.

    Just trying to fit in, Joe. I see a lot of protester-bashing around here and thought I would interject some of the same, since most here are bashing the position of the vast majority of Americans (67% according to the latest polls).

    I haven’t run an election yet, but thanks for your concern.

    If you think, however, that the Republicans will keep winning, you are seriously deluded and haven’t looked at the latest polls and the President’s approval rating.

    Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 26, 2005 @ 9:26 pm - September 26, 2005

  189. No, BUSH RULEZ. I’m sure you meant to say you haven’t WON an election yet, not RUN an election.

    And it’s a helluva lot better to have to look forward to finally not winning elections than have to look forward to winning just one. LOL!

    Comment by Stinger! — September 26, 2005 @ 9:30 pm - September 26, 2005

  190. BushRulez… winning a Gallup Poll is a lot different than winning national elections. Obviously you, Terry McAuliffe and Howard Dean haven’t figured that out yet.

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 26, 2005 @ 9:59 pm - September 26, 2005

  191. Hey Bruce and Dan, the live preview thingy is great.

    Oh just shut up, Queer Pair-of-tits or whatever your new troll-moniker is. Sure joe makes lot’s of comments. In fact I wish he’d put them all on one blog for me to read at my leisure instead of having to hunt for them in your pile of QP poop.

    And Synova, you’re a treat.

    Someone anti-war type justified his position by saying: I was active duty military for 27 years…

    Okay, I’m just a lowly immigrant and don’t know all the idioms but I thought that “active duty” meant “being in action” – in other words in combat. Was his “active duty” during the Thirty Years War?

    Washington Times:

    The groups gathering in Washington this weekend to protest President Bush and the war in Iraq have ties to radical left-wing groups and communist organizations and have enjoyed the support of the left’s biggest financial supporter, George Soros. …

    The leaders of ANSWER, founded three days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, are connected to the Workers World Party, a Marxist group that has expressed support for such dictators as North Korea’s Kim Jong-il, Yugoslavia’s Slobodan Milosevic and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein. The latter two have been ousted from power and jailed.

    Other groups associated with ANSWER are the Free Palestine Alliance, U.S.-Mexico Solidarity Foundation and the Muslim Student Association of the U.S. and Canada.

    UPJ, founded by liberals who say they were concerned about the radical tactics and smorgasbord of issues trumpeted by ANSWER, says it organized the “S24,” or Saturday (Sept. 24) protest first, but Mr. Dobbs said there’s “a big overlap” between the protests and “the major point is that we’re in D.C. to stop the war in Iraq.”

    The hippie-peacenik Marxist/John Lennonists are fnanced and controlled by hardline commies who manipulate the demented Cindy Sheehans types (those whom Lenin called “left-wing communists” mostly British and American , simpering vegetarian, Theosophist Fabians whom he despised as being “useful idiots.”)

    If you want to know how the USSR and other Communists have organized and financed so-called American “anti-war” and “peace” groups, read some of Ion Mihai Pacepa’s articles that he’s written for National Review.

    General Ion Mihai Pacepa is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc. He is currently writing a new book, “Red Roots: The origins of today’s anti-Americanism.”

    Seeing Red: Spontaneous anti-American demonstrations? Think again, by Ion Mihai Pacepa

    Comment by PatC — September 26, 2005 @ 10:04 pm - September 26, 2005

  192. In No. 160, a hyper-jingoistic joe re-states his standard for patriotism as specifically including support for the War On Iraq and says that because Queer Patriot doesn’t support that war, then Queer Patriot must not be patriotic. Guess in his fervor to go after QP, he’s forgetting that he’s also broadbrushing two-thirds of America as non-patriotic.

    Given that so few Americans now meet his main standard for patriotism, perhaps he’s got some others he’d like to apply – one of those he alludes to when he writes: “We can say confidently that I meet such a standard, without needing to go further with my particular actions to help the country (or our troops, etc.).” Ahem: what actions to “help the country (the troops, etc.)”? Pulling all-nighters at your keyboard, bravely fighting the battles of Baghdad, Fallujah, etc.?

    Finally, since jingo joe likes to shadow Queer Patriot (all the while feigning disinterest but still managing to trip over his feign – a sad act we’ve all seen too often from too many barflies), let me offer him a little advice: get your freaking scattered thoughts together and give us a few of them all at once in a single post, rather than using up 60 of the 180 posts here to rain down single opinions upon us. Your repetitive tripe is tiresome enough in a single post, but having to wade through a whole poppy field of it to get to the next non-jingo comment is wearing out my arrow down key.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 10:05 pm - September 26, 2005

  193. QP – Reality check for you. Nobody likes people who refer to themselves in the third person.

    It is creepy.

    Evidence – Bob Dole.

    Comment by GayPatriot — September 26, 2005 @ 10:09 pm - September 26, 2005

  194. I just stumbled onto this site from another page. I decided I needed to clear up some errors in Number 31′s post. My son deployed to Iraq last month. My husband and I are members of Military Families Speak Out. (MFSO) This is the first war in which military families are vocally opposing a war and the administration’s policies. There has always been a strict code of silence out of fear of retaliation. The fact that military family members, Iraq veterans, and even active soldiers are speaking out against this war speaks for itself. MFSO started with one family 3 years ago and now has 2400 families. Hundreds of us attended the protest in DC. I personally approached every media person I saw to explain my opposition. There were also hundreds of members of Gold Star Families for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Veterans for Peace and Vietnam Veterans for Peace. Trying to portray this protest as a pot-smoking, hippie festival does a disservice to the tens of thousands who participated, especially those of us whose loved one’s life is on the line every single day.

    Comment by Iraq Soldier Mom — September 26, 2005 @ 10:14 pm - September 26, 2005

  195. The Republicans use wedge issues like gay rights, family values, school prayer, posting the 10 commandments, etc., as well as blind, unquestioning patriotism, to get working people to vote against their economic self interest, and gay bashing is an important part of this strategy.

    Actually, there are two problems with that:

    – It is not in your economic self interest to vote for a party that is going to punish you, by increasing your taxes and calling you evil, for working harder, getting a better education, and earning more money.

    – People support family values, school prayer, and respect for religion. The only reason those are wedge issues is because the Democrats don’t. When the DNC stops being the party of antireligious hatemongering bigots who raise endless court cases to chase religion out of public life and promote teenage sex, THEN these might be wedge issues. Right now, they’re a stark reminder of what Democrats hate.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — September 26, 2005 @ 10:20 pm - September 26, 2005

  196. Trying to portray this protest as a pot-smoking, hippie festival does a disservice to the tens of thousands who participated…

    Well, someone claiming to be the mother of a soldier posting on a public forum with no email and no way to fact-check the claim … certainly makes me want to discount those hundreds of photographs of pot-smoking hippies and America-haters waving crudely lettered and mis-spelled signs threatening violence against members of the administration and bashing the American system.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 10:23 pm - September 26, 2005

  197. … and I’m sorry if that seems insensitive, but if Cindy Sheehan has taught us anything, it’s that you can have a close relative serving in the military… and still be an America-hating whackjob.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 10:29 pm - September 26, 2005

  198. Dear Iraq Soldier Mom,

    Some of us here deeply regret that you’ve been exposed to the venom of commenters No. 31 and 196 above.

    Thank you for your family’s service and again, apologies for those two sad characters above.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 10:34 pm - September 26, 2005

  199. Republicans in a number of States passed constituional amendments outlawing not only gay marriage, but even civil unions etc., etc., etc.

    Oh, balls! Several of those states were as blue as you can get – such as my state, the People’s Republic of Oregon where the anit-gay-marriage amendment passed with a two-thirds majority and two-thirds also voted for Kerry.

    Synova, comparing Iraq with Nam: I really don’t think our guys are having huge problems with foot-rot, and they aren’t getting any nookie either.

    Also they don’t have the LSD, pot, heroine and other mind-bending drugs that the draftees in Nam used – so much so that many of them ended up afterards becoming bitter demented anti-war hobos.

    Comment by PatC — September 26, 2005 @ 10:40 pm - September 26, 2005

  200. PS glisteny you’re a delight: These are the one’s who actually look like Cindy Sheehan, both the men and the women.

    And all of their nipples are erect beneath their organic hemp tee-shirts.

    Comment by PatC — September 26, 2005 @ 10:47 pm - September 26, 2005

  201. No. 193, GayPatriot, I defer to you on this sad day and thus will not engage in a rejoinder, other than to say I agree wholeheartedly with you that Bob Dole WAS, as you put it so well, “creepy”. By the way, do you really think the fellas here might like me if I was to simply switch to first person?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 10:47 pm - September 26, 2005

  202. So, 198 doesn’t question that ISM is real, but evidently thinks the pictures are fake. As long as we have that cleared up.

    Comment by V the K — September 26, 2005 @ 10:47 pm - September 26, 2005

  203. No. 202, could you dig your hole any deeper?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 10:52 pm - September 26, 2005

  204. Hello again,

    I did type in my e-mail address but it says here that it will not be published. This is my first time on this site and I do not know how it works. However, to have the first reponse to my post be accusatory rather than asking for clarification or beginning a respectful dialogue does not make me feel comfortable to share my e-mail here.

    “Close relative?” Nothing is closer than the child you bore.

    I also find it so interesting that number 196 automatically assumes that because Cindy Sheehan and I oppose this war that we hate America. I am proud to be an American, I support a defensive military as a necessary evil and I support the troops as they are our family members. I also support the Iraqi people in search of a peaceful country. I do not support the current administration’s policies in Iraq.

    Laurie

    Comment by Iraq Soldier Mom — September 26, 2005 @ 10:53 pm - September 26, 2005

  205. Hello again Iraq Soldier Mom, and a gracious welcome on behalf of all good Gay Patriots. When you wrote in No. 204 that you “find it so interesting that number 196 automatically assumes that because Cindy Sheehan and I oppose this war that we hate America”, I nearly fell over thinking “well, welcome to my world dear”. I also oppose the war and am constantly accused of hating America and as recently as tonight, accused of being completely non-patriotic. It seems to be how those supporting the war and finding themselves within an ever narrowing band of public opinion deal with their anger and regret — by lashing out at anyone who disagrees with them. Hopefully, someday when Mr. Bush’s Folly comes to a close, we can all be compatriots again and put this ugly period behind us. Many thanks again to you and yours for your very real sacrifice and commitment to the America we all hold so dear.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 11:06 pm - September 26, 2005

  206. #177

    General MacArthur had it wrong.
    In war there are many substitutes for victory.

    Huh. So a General of the Army, who served in three major wars is wrong and a keyboard kommando liberal douchebag is right.

    I’ll be damned.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2005 @ 11:12 pm - September 26, 2005

  207. Thank you Queer (and dear) Patriot, and with that, being very tired after traveling from D.C., I will get some rest.

    Laurie

    Comment by Iraq Soldier Mom — September 26, 2005 @ 11:13 pm - September 26, 2005

  208. Perhaps you will, No. 206 — especially for using such language while the lady Laurie is present. Don’t you read?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 11:15 pm - September 26, 2005

  209. ISM,

    We have disturbed individuals on this newsgroup who pose as different “characters” at different times, for their own mentally disturbed reasons. Queer Patriot / Reader, who keeps making a big show of “graciously” greeting you, has been one of them.

    This is a pretty anonymous medium. If, in fact, you were a real person and not just another creation of mentally disturbed Queer Patriot, there is no one anyone here could know for sure, unless (say) Bruce or Dan were to communicate with you by private e-mail and vouch for you.

    I will address the rest of my comments to the content of what your said.

    I don’t think anyone here believes that, because Cindy Sheehan disagrees with Bush Iraq policies, she hates America.

    Rather, people believe that because Cindy Sheehan herself proclaims that she is on the side of the insurgents and actively wants America to lose in Iraq, she hates America.

    Where do you stand? Do you merely think the Iraq war was ill-advised, or do you want the Iraqi insurgents to win?

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 11:18 pm - September 26, 2005

  210. P.S. It escapes the attention of no one who is a regular here that you and Queer Patriot (who, again, is known to be disturbed) have been posting back-to-back.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 11:19 pm - September 26, 2005

  211. Goodnight, Iraq Soldier Mom, and goodnight fellas. By and large, you were pretty well behaved during Laurie’s visit here. Impressive. Especially given that so many of you have indicated that you were just itching to get your keyboards out after an anti-war mom.

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 11:20 pm - September 26, 2005

  212. #208, #211 – Man, QP, you are twisted! LOL :-)

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 11:29 pm - September 26, 2005

  213. (musing on this a little more)

    We should start a pool or something on how low QP is willing to stoop.

    Comment by joe — September 26, 2005 @ 11:33 pm - September 26, 2005

  214. QP and SoldierMom the same person?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2005 @ 11:39 pm - September 26, 2005

  215. Uh oh, can’t leave yet. Jingo joe’s back in Nos. 209, 210, 212, 213 – probably part of a run of another 10 in a row.

    So, joe, you now say I’m also “Iraq Soldier Mom”? As well as “Reader”? As well as “Domain Lord”? Let’s see: who else have you credited me with being in the past couple of days? Oh, “Monte”, right? And “Gaycowboybob”? Anyone else? How about the deluge of liberals you found on this thread this morning? Maybe you ought to credit me with a few of those while you’re at it. And, look, ThatGayConservative just posted! Maybe that’s Queer Patriot, too.

    Can you possibly be any more paranoid? Or any less skilled at discerning differences between commenters?

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 26, 2005 @ 11:50 pm - September 26, 2005

  216. America has already lost the war in Iraq, and there is no such thing as the War on Terror.

    Comment by Railroad Stone — September 26, 2005 @ 11:58 pm - September 26, 2005

  217. Dear Joe,

    Thank you for a reasonable response to my posts. I had to refresh the page again to see if anyone else said anything before signing off.

    I have been posting as fast as I can refresh the page and type in a response to something said. I admit that I sit here thinking about how to phrase things because of the rather mean way some people post here. I try to avoid name calling /labeling.

    If I knew about Dan or Bruce I would have been happy to connect with them. As I said, I typed in my e-mail address as it said it was required. No one contacted me. Whether QP is mentally disturbed I have no way of knowing, but his posts were polite and welcoming compared to the other one.

    To answer your question, I will answer in two ways, the first being the MFSO position and then some of my own thoughts.

    I also want to say that the Cindy I know would not say what you said she did. I don’t know where that came from. I can’t speak for her, except to say that I think she would feel similar to me in that she loves America, but not this administration.

    The MFSO position is 1. Support the troops. 2. Treat them right while they are in active duty 3. Bring them home now and 4. Take care of them when they come home.

    It would take quite awhile to detail #2 but I think most of us are familiar with the stories of the initial invasion – mostly National Guard and Reserves unprepared, lack of armor, unarmored vehicles and soldiers writing home to their parents to ask them to send water. This type of mistreatment in various forms continues to this day. You need only to talk with family members to hear the current stories.

    My thoughts:

    I think the war was ill-advised and I do not want the insurgents to win.

    Military families generally start out believing their Commander in Chief and follow his orders. But as the events unfolded (the government itself admitting there were no WMD), military families began to question our role there. Then the President said the mission was to free Iraq from Saddam. A worthy cause, although we could free many other countries from atrocious dictators, so we should look at why this particular country?

    We then captured Saddam and completed that mission. Now what has happened is that the Shiites, Kurds and Sunnis have begun their 1000 year old civil war again. Only this time our soldiers are hired guns to kill one group.

    At this point I believe that the US should stop running the show. It is time for the UN peacekeepers to step in and help the Iraqis form their new government.

    We have done too much physical damage to the country to leave them without financial support to rebuild their country. However, I see no reason why the people cannot design and build the country themselves. They have engineers and constructions workers who are now unemployed while we pay US corporations millions to do the work instead. Something is wrong with that picture.

    The military families who want the war to stop believe that our troops have accomplished their mission and it’s time to return to the US. The recent hurricane disaster has only fueled that perspective, especially with the National Guard troops who were in Iraq instead of the states that needed them.

    I personally do not want my 21 year old son to be wounded or die for a war that I feel is politically-motivated and not at all about freedom or democracy. I am proud of his accomplishments in the military to date, although it has just been two years of training. “just” – I pray it will be enough.

    There has probably been a string of postings since yours, but as I said, I took the time to really think about my answer to your question.

    thanks for writing, Laurie

    Comment by Iraq Soldier Mom — September 27, 2005 @ 12:03 am - September 27, 2005

  218. #194 “There has always been a strict code of silence out of fear of retaliation.”

    Retaliation? Just what do you think would happen to you? Now, a obnoxious family could undoubtably destroy the career of an officer, but that could be anything, not just political activism.

    Generally, family stays silent or supportive because they understand (or have it explained to them by their soldier) that it puts our service persons in greater danger. If you get them home, sure they’d be safe then, but in between now and then they would be in far greater danger because of the things that people like Sheehan do. You play with the enemy’s propaganda machine like babies playing with guns. Ignorant and dangerous.

    #217 “It is time for the UN peacekeepers to step in and help the Iraqis form their new government.”

    And where do you suppose the UN gets its soldiers from? If we pull out and the UN takes over and the U-freaking-N turns around and sends your son back there again… do you think he’ll be *safer?*

    If I were still active duty I think I’d desert before deploying under UN command.

    Comment by Synova — September 27, 2005 @ 12:25 am - September 27, 2005

  219. #217

    I call shenanigans!

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 12:29 am - September 27, 2005

  220. As I said, I jumped in to correct the impression that there were no military families at the protest. There were plenty.

    I see this could never end, and I’m really tired, so I think it’s just to agree that we disagree.

    goodnight, Laurie

    Comment by Iraq Soldier Mom — September 27, 2005 @ 12:31 am - September 27, 2005

  221. Wow. So we don’t what the insurgents to win, but we want to surrender to them just so we feel better?

    Then we want our soldiers (about 10% of the entire military) to return home to rebuild so that the terrorists we left alone, so others would feel good, have something to fly airplanes into.

    Then we want the U.N. to take over, nevermind that they had they chance, but declined because that would cut off major cash flow to their pockets.

    I know a lot of soldiers who have been there or are there. I also know many of the families. I’ve NEVER ONCE heard ANYBODY writing home to their families to send water. I would love some evidence of that.

    All the soldiers I know DON’T WANT armored Humvees. They weren’t armored in the first place for a very good reason.

    I call shenanigans.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 12:40 am - September 27, 2005

  222. That should read

    don’t want the insurgents to win

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 12:41 am - September 27, 2005

  223. Glanced through very quickly after gym – Not going to bother reading any of QP / ISM’s further stuff tonight – let’s just say that

    (1) I was NOT AT ALL surprised to see that both QP and ISM magically continued after my comments, after ISM supposedly “said goodnight”…nor that ISM turned out to have a dense writing style and content similar to QP/Readers’s ;-)

    (2) TGC, I think you are right to call shenanigans :-)

    (3) As I’ve said before, 90% of the time I would just rather not read QP/Reader, but every once in a while, he/she/it can be fun to provoke.

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 1:01 am - September 27, 2005

  224. I don’t know that I’d call shenanigans. Maybe, maybe not, but the fact is that while our military is 100% volunteer, the families of military members are essentially drafted. There isn’t any reason at all, other than security and morale and whatnot, for any of them to be publically supportive of the war.

    And I can, most certainly, understand the desire to have one’s children out of harms way.

    Comment by Synova — September 27, 2005 @ 1:22 am - September 27, 2005

  225. In #194, Iraq Soldier Mom writes, “This is the first war in which military families are vocally opposing a war and the administrations policies.”

    Every article I have seen on this issue, even in the MSM, has noted that while some families are speaking out, most remain supportive of the war and the president. If you have information which would show this to be in error, could you please e-mail it to me.

    And if you don’t think this war is about freedom or democracy (Comment #217), how do you explain the elections? And the fact that Iraq much more freedom of the press than any Arab nation? But, then again, the MSM, too focused on body counts isn’t reporting the good news in Iraq.

    Your son made a choice when he volunteered for the armed forces and I salute his courage and commitment to our country. He is a brave man and you should be proud of him.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 27, 2005 @ 2:48 am - September 27, 2005

  226. oh . . . and, this is now officially the longest thread ever on GayPatriot and the first to get over 200 comments!

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — September 27, 2005 @ 2:49 am - September 27, 2005

  227. I also find it so interesting that number 196 automatically assumes that because Cindy Sheehan and I oppose this war that we hate America.

    No, I think Cindy Sheehan hates America because she is on record as calling America a “morally repugnant” country that is “not worth dying for.” She has also called the terrorists that murder our troops “freedom fighters,” and said that America is basically a “fascist state.” She denigrates her own son’s service by saying it was to “spread the cancer of Pax Americana, imperialism in the Middle East.” All of which is well-documented. And all of those quotes are in context.

    Also, the “Gold Star Mothers” have aligned themselves with the Crawford Peace House, an organization that advocates the destruction of Israel, and International ANSWER, a Stalinist organization that calls for the destruction of the United States and praises dictators like Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, and Kim Jong-Il. And this is not a matter of “guilt by association,” Code Pink and Cindy Sheehan’s GSM’s openly embrace those groups.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2005 @ 5:48 am - September 27, 2005

  228. The longest thread, GayPatriotWest? Everyone’s to be congratulated. It was a fine thread. But credit should go to where credit’s really due — to Joe, for his yeoman’s work in commenting here. As of the No. 226 mark, here were the top contributors to this thread:

    #1 (by far) Joe = 20% of all comments
    #2 Queer Patriot = 8%
    #3 V the K = 7%
    #4 ThatGayConservative = 4%

    Comment by Queer Patriot — September 27, 2005 @ 7:33 am - September 27, 2005

  229. Haloscan keeps choking on the post where I document Cindy Sheehan’s anti-Americanism, so I posted it here.

    When I take out the links, it reads: Cindy Sheehan is on record as calling America “morally repugnant” and “not worth dying for.” She has referred to the terrorists that murder American troops and butcher Iraqi civilians as “freedom fighters.” She denigrates her son by saying he died to spread the cancer of American Imperialism. She calls America a “Fascist state.”

    Furthermore, Cindy Sheehan and her Gold Star Families for Peace openly align themselves with Crawford Peace House, an organization that overtly advocates the destruction of Israel, and International ANSWER, a Stalinist organization that advocates the destruction of the United States, and praises dictators like Mugabe, Castro, Chavez, and Kim Jong-Il. This is not a matter of “guilt by association,” the GSFfP and Code Pink are closely integrated and coordinate their activities with ANSWER and CPH.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2005 @ 8:24 am - September 27, 2005

  230. Oh, look, still more pictures of pot-smoking, America-hating hippies and other losers opposing American self-defense against terrorism.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2005 @ 8:34 am - September 27, 2005

  231. #227 – No no no – QP, the credit goes to you, for have faked a debate with yourself, and thus given us an example of your mental disturbance more entertaining than even I thought possible :-)

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 9:27 am - September 27, 2005

  232. Also: The thread was already approx. 100 comments long when I joined.

    Bruce, Dan, Synova, TGC or V: if any of you think I’m way off here, in perceiving that QP faked or at least coached ISM, kindly let me know.

    #228 – V, that’s strange – if you are using A tags (and it looks like you are), you should be able to get multiple links in a post.
    #228 – V,

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 9:34 am - September 27, 2005

  233. #215 – Oh and by the way, QP – No, I never credited you with being Domain Lord, Monte, or any of those others you referred to….showing a guilty conscience?

    And someone else was first to credit you with being Reader, and with being ISM as well. I merely perceived they were right.

    I don’t know of anyone ever thinking you were GayCowboyBob. And I still do not. (So if you are GCB, pat yourself on the back! and check into a hospital)

    The various things you have tried to say to me personally have all fit your previous sick pattern. Really, you are too obvious.

    Cheers! :-)

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 10:42 am - September 27, 2005

  234. FWIW,

    I’m monty (with a Y). I’m not nor have I ever been Reader or any of the other names mentioned.

    The only times I’ve been “otherwise” is when glisteny hijacks my name to post sick, deranged posts, especially the twisted one in the Romper thread, which caused it to close. I’m sure GP and GPW can tell the difference, especially by looking at how I sign my e-mail addy (not that it really works or not). :)

    I may get a bit nasty at times, like some of the regulars on this board, but that trick was just unimaginably VILE, and I’m sorry my name was chosen to be used by glisteny to spew it.

    Take this or leave it. I don’t much care.

    Comment by monty — September 27, 2005 @ 12:20 pm - September 27, 2005

  235. So Bruce/Dan…..Can we have Typekey registration?

    Not that it’s foolproof (it isn’t), but when sickos start the Impersonation game, the value of the discussion declines fast.

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 12:52 pm - September 27, 2005

  236. Wow Bob – so are you saying that you are QP, ISM, Reader and the rest? LOL!

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 1:55 pm - September 27, 2005

  237. #227 I’m dissapointed that I didn’t make the top four for this thread when I felt like I was overdoing it… maybe in total volume rather than number of comments? I feel so left out.

    Though it does seem that this has finally devolved from conversation into something else. That it took over 230 comments for that to happen is amazing. :-)

    Comment by Synova — September 27, 2005 @ 2:20 pm - September 27, 2005

  238. Puddintame.

    Bunch of hot headed dopes more easily stirred up than a hornet’s nest on a sweltering day in July.

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — September 27, 2005 @ 2:22 pm - September 27, 2005

  239. Well, we all knew you couldn’t stay away, dear ;-)

    For those who would like to know the #235 reference – Bob ties himself to the expression “What’s in a name? Puddintame.” In other words, he hinting at name games.

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 2:36 pm - September 27, 2005

  240. But, joe, surely a left-winger would never pretend to be something they’re not just to discredit the war.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2005 @ 2:56 pm - September 27, 2005

  241. JoeMama,

    It initially refers to someone asking your name to which one responds “Puddintame. Ask me again and I’ll tell you the same.” So you kind of actually got that phrase a little twisted.

    But further it refers to my so far correct assertation that most of the right wingers who post here are radicals and that they do not represent, in the slightest, a centrist viewpoint. It’s therefore pointless, and more importantly imprudent, to give your arguments some form of validity as if they represent even a minority viewpoint, rather than a radical viewpoint.

    Your whole set of ethics and morality change to suit your viewpoint rather than the other way around and you all represent the worst possible scenario of political discourse and it would be in everyone’s best interest to ignore you and therefore quit giving this site the fuel of rhetoric.

    Your end is for your personal aggrandizement rather than civil deconstruction of politics. Your end is like the goals of Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin, Bill O’Reilly et al. in that you don’t care what crazy right-winged thing you have to say as long as it creates the necessary ripples to get more public attention, therefore more celebrity.

    Therefore, what valuable message do Dan and Bruce have for us today? Puddintame. Ask them again and it’s still just the same. Same BS, inflamatory right-wing nonsense that represents a radical viewpoint for the sake of their own celebrity.

    So from now on, instead of taking any time to debate with any of you, which has proven to be absolutely fruitless because you can’t get past your radical position for any kind of dialogue, I’ll simply say Puddingtame. Because you’re all always the same.

    Comment by GayCowboyBob — September 27, 2005 @ 3:27 pm - September 27, 2005

  242. #228

    Let’s not forget her buddies at Code Pink, who gave over half million dollars to the enemy.

    I was told early on, via e-mail, from one of her “close friends” that Michael Moore was just a “hanger-on”. Then she started blogging on his website a few days later.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 3:54 pm - September 27, 2005

  243. #241 — Good point, TGC. I wonder if ISM is at all bothered that the Code Pinko’s are helping the enemy to kill American soldiers… like her son. I wonder if ISM has ever considered that these “peace” protests send a message to the enemy that if they kill enough soldiers like her son, we’ll turn tail and leave.

    Comment by V the K — September 27, 2005 @ 4:23 pm - September 27, 2005

  244. #240 – And yet here you are, Bob. You get your fix here, don’t you?

    And who knows, maybe one day the penny will drop and you will even learn something here.

    In the meantime, if you are just saying “puddintame”, at least you’re staying out of the way of the grownups’ discussion! I mean, it’s an improvement for you. We know how you have struggled with the issue of rage vs. civility in the past (as well as being able to admit certain basic facts in our discussions), so I will give you some credit.

    Thanks for the progress!

    Comment by joe — September 27, 2005 @ 4:36 pm - September 27, 2005

  245. But further it refers to my so far correct assertation that most of the right wingers who post here are radicals

    Radicals or just plain folks sick and tired of the bullshit from leftards like you? Talk about always the same. Jeez!

    Your whole set of ethics and morality change to suit your viewpoint rather than the other way around

    Wow. A liberal pontificating to others about what the entire left lacks. Ethics and morality. Talk about always the same.

    So from now on, instead of taking any time to debate with any of you,

    Hell, I was waiting for you to start debating anybody. Talk about the same.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 5:12 pm - September 27, 2005

  246. #231

    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

  247. #227

    First of all, I’m surprised that with all the posts here that mine constituted 4% at that time, but then I suck at math.
    Second, where did you find the time to figure that out?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 5:19 pm - September 27, 2005

  248. LOL, GCB.

    How else would such a lame excuse of a “kindablog” exist without the right taking on multiple aliases? Reminds me of regional theatre.

    I’m sure they create them to argue amongst themselves….making it seem they are all smarter, until the REAL opposition comes along…then they don’t like it much. :) Now they can’t decide between friendly aliases and honest visitors. Such irony makes me howl.

    But we are on to them….aren’t we?

    And joe, I thought you might be good for something after all: explaining nursery rhymes….but it seems you even failed with that.

    Put in a resume with FEMA, maybe??? :)

    Comment by GOParrot — September 27, 2005 @ 6:49 pm - September 27, 2005

  249. #249

    But the “opposition” is full of shit. You’re another fine example of how the liberals are “still the same” after about 4 decades.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 27, 2005 @ 7:43 pm - September 27, 2005

  250. Oh..TGConservative,

    Well said! LMAO!! You almost made a sentence. :D

    Comment by GOParrot — September 27, 2005 @ 8:33 pm - September 27, 2005

  251. #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

  252. 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

  253. 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

  254. 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

  255. 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

  256. Are you nuts?

    Assume the best??

    Jebus!! You’ve lost me!!!!

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

  257. 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

  258. 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

  259. 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

  260. #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

  261. (#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

  262. 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

  263. 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

  264. 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

  265. 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

  266. 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

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

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

  268. #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

  269. 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

  270. #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

  271. 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

  272. 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

  273. 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

  274. 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

  275. #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

  276. #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

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

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

  278. 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

  279. #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

  280. 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

  281. 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

  282. 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

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

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

  284. 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

  285. [...] 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

  286. An ideal website which everyone should read.

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

  287. [...] 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

  288. 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

  289. 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

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

1.263 Powered by Wordpress