« Monday, Monday | Main | attention whores get all the attention »

The Gall of Rall and the Traitors of the Left

Of course I am worried about Iraq. It's a frightening situation and it's gotten to the point where I dread turning the news on. But, this is war. And it would be frightening no matter what. It's not the war being waged in Fallujah and Sadr City that scare me the most, though. It's the war being played out against America - by Americans. Each day brings more obvious proof that the anti-war crowd (AWC) wants us to fail. Now, silly me, I thought anti-war meant pro-peace. You know, flowers in the hair, make love not war, I'd like to teach the world to sing. That kind of stuff. I'd even settle for a little "bring the troops home now" if that phrase was spoken by the basic desire to keep our young men and women safe, instead of used as another way to make sure the U.S. fails in all attempts to make Iraq a safe, democratic place. The spin that these people put on everything that happens in Iraq or directly relating to Iraq is startling. For instance, take my favorite whipping boy, Ted Rall. Here's part of what he wrote today (in a column titled Cut and Run Now, which is another thing I'll get to): bq. Occupation viceroy Paul Bremer likes to rattle off statistics: 2,500 renovated schools, three million vaccinated children, 18,000 reconstruction projects underway, healthcare spending up 30 times, a 29 percent increase in the value of the Iraqi dinar. Hey, it's the least we can do--after all, Iraq wouldn't need new schools or hospitals if we hadn't bombed their old ones. But, in the end, infrastructure doesn't much matter. Really, Ted? I guess those run down schools that taught kids how to worship a tyrant and kill for him were good enough. And I guess those hospitals, with their lack of basic supplies, shortage of doctors, unsanitary conditions and little hidey holes for Saddam's torturers were good enough as well. There has never before been a war where the attacking force took such great care to not harm innocent people or the infrastructure of the city. For Rall to even consider putting that paragraph in his column is a frightening testament to just how far his head is under the sand. And even with his head buried like that, you would think he would still be able to add even a glimmer of truth to his lies. Well, what do you expect from a guy that thinks Saddam's forces are the bastion of truth while his own country has lied to him about every single thing that has gone on in Iraq? And that's another issue. The truth, or even perception of truth. No matter what the news prints, no matter what Bremer or Kimmitt say, no matter what the Iraqi bloggers or Iranian bloggers or American soldiers based in Iraq say, the gutless, ever present response from the AWC is this: They are lying. That is their response to everything that may shred their little tales of conspiracy or ruin whatever theories they have been concocting. They are lying. Condi lied. Bush lied. The FBI is lying. The soldiers are lying. Bremer is lying. Fox News and CNN are lying. If the only people you trust to deliver you the truth are the psuedo writers over at Indymedia and the tin foilers at DU, you have more problems than I can help you with, and I'm not even talking about your paranoid delusions. Let's get to another sad mark of the AWC. We already know they do not care about the Iraqi people. Witness their cries to pull the troops out now, leaving the Iraqis high and dry. Witness their blustering about WMDs and how the freedom of the Iraqi people isn't a good enough reason to be fighting the insurgents. But these things are no surprise to me nor, do I suspect, is this line of reasoning a surprise to you, either. However, I have to say, I am a bit - if naively - stunned to see how little the AWC care about the American and coalition soldiers. Here's a nice little tribute to our boys overseas (And there's plenty more where I found that). Now, before you start hammering away at your keyboard, preparing a comment about a) taking things out of context; b) Photoshopping or c) one sign out of thousands, let me give you these basic facts. The sign is not taken out of context. There it is, in full living color. No words cut off, no words added. Photoshopping? No. I've seen the placards on tv and other websites. Prefab signs, handed out by the hundreds, thanks to organizations like ANSWER and Not in Our Name. There's another one for you. Yep. The real war is the war against America. How very nice. Do you know why these Americans have declared war against their own country? Because we have the temerity to want to bring freedom to the rest of the world. Because we are so arrogant as to think that other countries deserve clean hospitals, good schools and the right to practice (or not practice) whatever religion you desire. And mostly because we think terrorists are bad. We think jihads are wrong. We think people who want to blow up buildings filled with innocent people should be fought against. But no, the AWC supports those people. They support the taking of American hostages, the killing of American soldiers and, by proxy, the jihad against America. Witness this guy for an example of that. We know who most of America's enemies are. Now there is a new group to add to that list: the anti-war crowd. Anyone who encourages the use of force against our soldiers is our enemy. How sad that our enemy then lives right among us, working in our schools, using our roads, reading in our libraries, getting healed in our hospitals, drinking our clean water, enjoying our freedoms and enjoying the right to support those who would like our freedoms crushed. Our country has reached a very sad point. I am old enough to remember Vietnam and remember the divide in the country. I saw the protests, I read the papers and watched tv and I never remember that divide being so unfixable. There was always a common road to walk on back then; we all loved America, we all loved Freedom. I doubt very much that is true right now. I asked my father about those days, thinking that perhaps I was too young at the time and I didn't see the complexities of the protests or my parents protected me from the real ugliness. Sadly, that's not the case. And everyone I spoke to this weekend - from Vietnam vets to Vietnam protests vets - said this same thing - this is much uglier. Much darker. Back to Ted Rall. bq. Read and understand: They hate us simply because we're there. Leave, and the hatred goes away. If you doubt that, visit Hanoi as a tourist. I no longer give Rall the benefit of the doubt and call him misguided or naive. Now, he's just an idiot. A blind, foolish idiot. The don't hate us just because we are there. They hated us before this. Way before this. And "they" are not just Iraqi insurgents. They are Iranians and Syrians and members of the UBL fan club. They are followers of Hamas and Arafat. They are worshipers of the culture of death, whose goal is one thing: to convert the world to their religion, thereby making everyone in the world subservient to them, to their ideals, to their power. Iraq is not Hanoi. Fallujah and Najaf are part of a bigger picture, part of a large group of jihadists whose only motivating force is a bastardized religion. That religion gives them the basis for the hatred and violence. That religion okays the murder of those who refuse to accept Allah as their God. This is not about us being in Iraq, Ted. It's about us being at all. We weren't in Iraq on 9/11, yet friends of al Sadr decided to attack us. What was the excuse then, Ted? And please, don't even bother to tell me that the two are not connected. Once al Sadr, al Qaeda and all the other gangbang terrorists decided that Americans must die, they became connected because the dots demanded it. Count, Ted. 1..2.3...4...you remember those little connect the dots books from your childhood, right? That's what we are doing here. bin Laden...as Sadr....Arafat.....Khomenei....not that hard. Just grab a pencil and start drawing lines. Soon enough, the big picture emerges and surprise, surprise, it looks just like burning towers and crashing airplanes. And there's a little message at the bottom of the picture that says we want to do this again. And we will if you back down from us and show any sign of weakness. bq. The Iraqi resistance wants us to retaliate; provoking us into lashing out is why they attack us in the first place. Each act of retaliation kills and injures innocents, proving to the opportunists that we're the monsters the patriots say we are. We're radicalizing the previously moderate segment of the population. Alright, Ted. We'll just pack up our bags and go home, then. The hell with retaliating. After all, they were only mercs, not civilians, as Rall puts it in the preceding paragraph. And hey.... maybe if those crazy insurgents didn't hoard their women and children into mosques and then start shooting at us from said mosques, those women and kids would still be alive. But don't let that stop you from viewing the American soldiers as murderers, Ted. Always an excuse. As for Rall's use of the word moderate - al Sadr and his followers could hardly be construed as moderate. Moderate is throwing up your hands and saying, wake me when it's over and then I'll decide whose side I am on. Moderate is not forming an army of suicide bombers, terrorists and animals to do your dirty work. So Ted wants us to cut and run. Of course he does. Why would Rall and the AWC care about what happens after we leave the good citizens of Iraq helpless and defenseless? If we pull out, the AWC wins. They can chant and sing and claim victory while the new schools and hospitals in Iraq get turned back into prisons and hellholes. The AWC will shrug their shoulders and move on to the next phase in their anti-American activities. After viewing the protests this weekend on tv, and seeing the photos and hearing the audio, I can say without hyperbole or exaggeration that many of the AWC are calling for the death of American soldiers. They have aligned themselves with terrorists who want to destroy America, not to mention undo everything that's been done in Iraq. I defy one of you AWC people who regularly stop by here to stomp on my words to defend the actions of your brethren. Defend these signs. Defend these people. Go ahead, tell me how American soldiers deserve to die so that the terrorists in Fallujah and beyond can live. I get sicker every day over this. I get more and more discouraged, more upset at the tone the AWC has taken. I will not this time apologize for calling them traitors. I will not back down from those words. When you support an insurgency against your country's soldiers ,when you declare that you are in bed in with the enemy, then you are a traitor. And you should be treated as such. I wish that every vet who has returned home from Iraq would see those signs and act upon them. I wish that the families of those still in Iraq would see those signs and act upon them. If it is ok for those people to wish death to those who defend their freedom, to wish harm upon those who make this country a place where you can shout your slogans from the highest rooftop without being hung in town square, then it's ok for me to wish that those people would be set upon by a crowd of enraged citizens. The AWC has declared war against their own country. Bring it on. If I should ever come within five feet of someone who is shouting for US soldiers to die, I will be shouting MISSION Accomplished as I drive the wooden stake from your sign through your eye socket. Hyperbolically speaking, of course.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Gall of Rall and the Traitors of the Left:

» Havin' a ball from Inoperable Terran
Michele brings back Bitchslap Ted Rall Day. Excellent.... [Read More]

» Pride, Strength, and Determination (Update) from resurrectionsong
A friend of mine forwarded an email to me that was sent to her from the family of a Marine... [Read More]

» Hate is worse than war. from Babalu Blog
I'm glad Michele made this entry about the anti-war crowd at A Small Victory becuase if it were me, given the level of disgust and frustration lately over the subject, you would be reading four letter word after four letter... [Read More]

» A Small Victory - The Gall of Rall and the Traitors of the Left...Michelle from the 3-point line...swish. from The PinkFlamingo Bar Grill
Anyways Michelle shot from the 3 point line and it went swish..... [Read More]

» Facing the music from Classical Values
Roger L. Simon thinks it's time for the blogosphere to recognize the sinister role of the Iranian mullahcracy in the widening war (especially in light of Iranian puppet Muktada al Sadr). The media are engaged in the presidential campaign, as... [Read More]

» Troubling questions, no good answers from Cold Fury
You need to go right now and take a good, long look at these photos Charles links to, of which is this is only one shameful example: ...and then you, and me, and every other American who is truly concerned about how the hell we're going to en... [Read More]

» Traitors in our midst from Musings of a Techno-Geek
I often see bumper stickers and signs in the windows of cars that say "Dissent is Patriotic." I agree with this, provided that you are dissenting because you think the current path the country is taking is not in its best interests. If you think a di... [Read More]

» Open Thread from The Weigh In
After reading this recent post by Michele of A Small Victory, I got to thinking about the following questions: Would it be wise to vote a standing president and his... [Read More]

» If a "News"man vanishes down a tunnel, does anyone care? from Who Tends the Fires
The Word for the Day is: "Damned with Faint Praise" Was having a bit of a hard time getting immersed in blog prowling, so this is kind of a "Spam Light" today. Ever have one of those days when you... [Read More]

Comments

Go and read VDH at www.city-journal.org
As you he clamly leads through the long road to where we now are and where we have to go.

Time and energy are wasted on the Ralls of the world.

Michele, why waste the time? Rall has spiraled into a dillusional world. If anyone reads him for anything other than morbid curiousity, they cannot be reasoned with.

The good thing is his passive stance will allow anyone with power to crush him and control his life. His freedom will not be taken away from him, he will willingly give it to his masters.

I will waste my concern on people like him no more. I prefer to save that energy into helping build a better world unlike Rall who can only survive in a bitter one.

Trouble is, Rall and his ilk aren't mere "blind, foolish idiots." There are a lot of well-meaning idiots on his side, and for them I feel a mix of pity and incomprehension. I can feel pity for those who have been more or less brainwashed by living in a bell jar where no non-leftist thought can penetrate. Incomprehension for some people I know to be both highly intelligent and critical thinkers on most issues, but who unquestioningly swallow every hyperbolic statement or lie from the AWC. Does the brainwashing really go so deep as to overcome all reason? During the Cold War, Soviet intelligence officers had a memorable name for these types, who might even from time to time drop in on a Soviet embassy and ask "how can I help?" - "the shit-eaters." They really don't realize they're the unwitting supporters of a monstrous evil.

But it's people like Rall, who know better, who are well aware of the consequences of their actions, who are truly contemptible. Just as incomprehensible in their own way, but far more reprehensible, knowing that their actions would bring about the fall of civilization, and cheering it on.

Hey Michele,

Just wanted to remind you that there are a lot of sensible anti-war or otherwise left-leaning folks out there. I am anti-war, but I do not support insurgents or violence against our military. In fact, although I strongly opposed the war, I think a massive infusion of our troops is now the only thing that can save us in Iraq. John Kerry, to take another example, is not out there telling us that we have to cut and run.

Not that you were, but don't hold those those protesters against the whole anti-war crowd, and I promise not to hold the various nazis on the right against the rest of y'all.

t.b.

David C,

While I agree with most of what you wrote, I don't quite agree that he (or they) know better. I find, among my non-war, anti Bush friends, that they insulate themselves by firmly believing that we are not at war; no threat exists; that the Islamists are a small group of religious nuts who will go away sometime or other. Therefore, they believe, that we must return home where they think we belong.

Deal, Mark. I do believe that when I write about this stuff, the readers know exactly what I mean.

I do believe that there are honest, good, well meaning anti war protesters. Hell, I used to be one. I know many.

The people who marched yesterday in solidartiy with Iraqi insurgents are not among them.

"It's the war being played out against America - by Americans."

Thank you, Michelle. My greatest fear, and those of Iraqi's, is the lack of resolve in the face of Hate.
Haven't thumped a bible in a long time, but remembered thinking that the devil never showed up in cape, with a pitchfork, flowing cape, in sharpened horns.
It always came well dressed, dapper, and with friendly advice, regarding "needful things."
Mixing my metaphors.....but,
Not sure why I'm in this place, now.

Throughout history, there are those who would lead with love, and those who would lead with hate.

Choose your Party, your religion, your politics, your opinions. Regardless:

Throughout history, there are those who would lead with love, and those who would lead with hate.

Ted Rall is the only man I know who parlayed awful cartooning into an even more putrid column.

When reading Rall or Maureen Dowd, it is best to recall what Truman Capote said after reading his first truly awful script:
"That's not writing. That's typing!"

Do not despair.

These demonstrations are a good thing.

Two years ago, when ANSWER ran a demonstration, there were enough sincere deluded college kids in it that the media could ignore the nature of the folks at the heart of it all. That is no longer the case.

The America-hating wing of the left has been among us for a long, long time. Now they are becoming fully visible.

The hate is in the open for all to see.

Another way of looking at it is this: In the '60s, you had a wide mixture of people opposing Vietnam: True pacifist dreamers, kids who just didn't want to get drafted, isolationists, people who agreed with the goals of the war but thought the way it was being fought was so fouled up that it had become a pointless waste of lives, and in addition a few folks who really "were not for peace, just on the other side," including Jane Fonda and many of Kerry's VVAW buddies (can't really say if he was/is one himself, too.)

This time around things are so much more clear-cut that the only folks left willing to protest are the absolute pacifists and the NFPJOTOS folks. This will make the ideological war far simpler.

A few pictures of signs like this, a few quotes from KOS, Ted Rall, etc., and you can freely question the other sides patriotism, as you can back it up!

Good. I'm glad they are showing their true face.

It does seem to me that there are fewer and fewer "anti-war" protesters at these events lately. I think the extremism is starting to be off-putting for most sensible people.

Which is actually a good thing.

Just remember, Michele, the majority of people are not at either extreme of the political spectrum.

Well said, Michele.

"Not that you were, but don't hold those those protesters against the whole anti-war crowd, and I promise not to hold the various nazis on the right against the rest of y'all."
-The Bellman

"I do believe that there are honest, good, well meaning anti war protesters. Hell, I used to be one. I know many."
-Michelle

Michelle, typical of the so-called anti-war crowd is The Bellman's last smart ass "Nazi" comment. There are no well-meaning anti-war types.

We are at war. There is us. There is the enemy. The so-called anti-war types have chosen to join the enemy against America.

They must be dealt with as the traitorous scum that they are.

Serious question - if someone holds up that "Support Armed Resistance In Iraq" sign, isn't that treason? I mean, to me it goes well beyond simply being anti-war and falls right on the side of aiding and abetting.

Kevin:

The burden of proof for treason has to be set very high for what I would hope are obvious reasons. Showing suppport with signs is not enough, nor is marching. I think sending money or munitions might put you in the treason camp, but even then, it gets sticky. You'd probably be charged with something besides treason in that case.

Not that I am on the side of those who carry such signs. They are complete idiots, and do help the enemy. But I don't think we can call it treason.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on T.V. Maybe Volokh(sp?) has something on this.

"For Rall to even consider putting that paragraph in his column is a frightening testament to just how far his head is under the sand."

I'm not sure that "under the sand" is where Ted's head is stuck.

The problem with some of these protesters is that we have had it very good in America. We have no real concept of tyranny, only the theoretical knowledge that it exists/existed. I would even guess that some of these people would want to be "persecuted" so that they can really be heroes in their own minds.

Also, we cut and ran in Afganistan after the Soviet Invasion fell apart. Do any in the AWC think that that might have came back and bit us yet?

I defy one of you AWC people who regularly stop by here to stomp on my words to defend the actions of your brethren. Defend these signs. Defend these people. Go ahead, tell me how American soldiers deserve to die so that the terrorists in Fallujah and beyond can live.

Obviously the initial thesis in its entirety is indefensible. There's no way to stack logic to suggest that American soldiers deserve to die so that terrorists can live. Generally speaking, there's no circumstance where American soldiers deserve to die at all. I can think of some exceptions, but most depend on the individual conduct of the soldiers. From a policy perspective, no soldier deserves to die, American or not. There are soldiers who are brave, and soldiers who aren't. But few soldiers are so active in deciding their own course that they deserve anything, except to go home in one piece.

But.

I don't think you'll have to work very hard to recall a circumstance where the killing of American soldiers has been necessary and morally correct. After all—John Brown wasn't hung by Confederate soldiers. He was hung by U.S. Army regulars, on the order of a federal judge.

I daresay that many of the AWC who demand the blood of American soldiers imagine themselves to be modern-day John Browns. That they see the current policy in Iraq as being wrong on the scale of slavery, and the current government in Washington as corrupt as any antebellum regime. Horseshit, obviously. But if your thesis is that anyone who calls for the death of an American soldier under any circumstance is necessarily in the wrong, I must disagree.

I can imagine circumstances where the killing of an American soldier might be necessary. Though I would argue that anyone who has the luxury of holding up a sign demanding such a thing is not, by definition, living under circumstances that would require it. Indeed, what I can't imagine is a circumstance where it would be necessary to kill an American soldier in which I would not be compelled to do the deed myself. Some will no doubt read that to suggest that I'm a traitor, but all I mean to say is that any situation so extreme as to demand such action would be sufficiently extreme as to proscribe the chanting of self-satisfied slogans, or the waving of signs.

I'm sure we all know that famous quote from Frederick Douglass, but I'll post it here again;

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

The tragedy of these signs you show here, Michele, is not, in my opinion, that anyone would contemplate taking up arms against their government. I'm old fashioned enough to believe that anyone who believes in democracy must, somewhere in the back of their mind, be prepared to pick up a gun and assert their sovereignty. But soft living has deprived some people of any decent sense of scale. We're many hard miles from a place where such a thing should even be contemplated, let alone advocated.

Frederick Douglass would, I feel certain, laugh at these sign-waving idiots.

How he would feel about the invasion of Iraq is another question entirely.

Whoops. Mistagged. That second paragraph:

This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what a people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

Is also part of the Douglass quote. In case it wasn't obvious.

The anti war-types I know aren't anti-war, they are anti-Bush, and the reasoning stops there. They don't look beyond their anti-Bush stance to see what the consequences are/would be, if things were the way they think they want them to be.

In 98, when Clinton supported action in the Balkans, I supported it. I had no great love for Clinton, to tell the truth, I was at the point that all politicians pissed me off. But the slaughter that was taking place horrified me and all I could think of was "this has to stop!"

Several of my friends were in full agreement.

On 9/12/01, my Nat'l Guard husband was activated. We had no clue where he was going, what he would be doing, or for how long. When I told those same friends he had his orders, one of them said to me "I can't believe Bush is going to start a war". The towers had fallen one day earlier, but to her this was all about Bush "starting" a war. Not a word about my husband going into the unknown, just words about Bush.

In December of 2002, my husband received another set of orders. They didn't say where he was going, but we had a pretty good idea. Her response "I can't believe Bush is getting us into MORE crap" Again, all about Bush, not a word about my husband or what he might be facing.

When my husband received orders this year, I didn't bother to tell her. From her earlier replies, I knew what this one would have been, her previous remarks were already burned into my head. Oh, I heard her comments when word got around, but I just refused to respond anymore..why bother?

But then, just last night she made a comment, and I couldn't stop my mouth from responding.

"Pretty scary all this stuff coming out about Bush knowing about 9/11". I said "really? I read the memo and I didn't see anything he could have acted on" Her reply? Well I guess I'm just mad because he didn't do anything in retaliation for the Cole"

Um..Hellooooo?

The Balkans under Clinton, Good.
No response to the Cole under Clinton,not even a blip on the radar screen.
Bush not responding to the Cole, Bad.
Any response to 9/11 under Bush, bad.
Iraq, Bush, bad.

In her eyes, no matter what Bush does it's wrong, what he doesn't do, that's wrong too. That's not anti-war, that's just anti-Bush and absolutely no regard for those who are affected, soldiers, civilians..none of them matter, all that matters is Bush is wrong.

By the way, politicians still piss me off, just some way more than others.

I just went to John Kerry's site and listened to half of his foreign policy speech. Now there's someone who deserves fisking.

Ted Rall is a waste of time.

Wow Michelle, it didn't take long.

YOu were talking about americans was the death of UsS soldiers and suddenly one of those characters jumps on your site.

I can't believe what I just read by Joshua Norton. I quote, "I don't think you'll have to work very hard to recall a circumstance where the killing of American soldiers has been necessary and morally correct."

I read through the rest of his "argument"

What a fatuous obtuse load of moral of relativism.

Thank you for putting to words what I have been feeling. I too wonder how we will come back from this gulf we have reached. Perhaps someone with far greater knowledge of history might be able to tell me if we have ever reached another point this low in history. The Civil War I know about and indeed if that is the only comparable moment in time I believe we need to be very very cautious. I worry about the country.

But indeed these people are traitors...I have believed that Rall was a traitor for a while.

Pierre

Well, the insurgents of fallujah even share political viewpoints with the anti war characters. See http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040412-031514-2639r

" In the other house on Monday, Ahmed is more eloquent on how the fighting can end and peace can come to Iraq.

"God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah," he says, combining military and political rhetoric. "If John Kerry wins the election and withdraws the Americans troops from Iraq, and maybe just leaves a few in bases, then we will not fight. But Bush we will always fight.""

capt joe.

Happy day. Iraqis understand democracy.

It's just that the middle eastern version, is "vote for or candidate or we'll kill you"

Beautiful people.

Great post. I remember 1968 very well - Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Min, NLF (that's National Liberation Front, not National Football League) is gonna win, Heh, Heh, LBJ, how many babies you kill today, 2-4-6-8, organize to smash the state, blah, blah, blah. Kerry probably remembers, too, but what he really needs to remember is that the "anti-war," rooting-for-America-to-lose party lost the elections in both 1968 and 1972, the latter time by a landslide. Indeed, it took until 1992 for the Dems to recover from their identification with the anti-American left and this year they look intent on throwing away whatever little credibility they had recovered under Clinton. I suppose I should be glad to see the Dems self-destruct, but I would prefer to see them challenge Bush on the best way to pacify and reconstruct Iraq.

Joshua,

I have no hope that this reply will inspire worthwhile reflection... after all, all dissent is inherently noble, right?

Your post is despicable apologia. Your first paragraph expresses faux sympathy for American troops who are killed. Your second paragraph, consisting of one word, exposes the lie in the first. But. Yes, American troops don't deserve to die to terorists, but...

But what, Joshua? But the soldiers took orders from Bush? But the terrorists are really nice guys if you just get to know them? But the Baathists have families too, and nevermind the other families who just happened to lose a son to the shredder or a underage daughter to a rapist? Maybe we are suck of the buts, Joshua. Maybe if you had a shred of decency and a brain in your head, you'd be sick of them too.

Oh, and comparing the hanging of John Brown to the freeing of children interred in political prisons doesn't fool anyone but the lunatics you defend. Just thought you'd like to know.

daresay that many of the AWC who demand the blood of American soldiers imagine themselves to be modern-day John Browns. That they see the current policy in Iraq as being wrong on the scale of slavery, and the current government in Washington as corrupt as any antebellum regime.

That line of yours above doesn't prove what you think it does, Joshua. Maybe I see the current idiots who watch Michael Moore's movies as being wrong on the scale of Benedict Arnold. That doesn't exonerate or in any way defend me if I go ahead and act on those beliefs, and start hanging them. Being sincerely wrong is not a magical passport into righteousness, ask any victim of a sincerely insane mass murderer.

If I were to carry a sign proclaiming "Niggers, get out of MY COUNTRY or die!", then how exactly would that fit into your If there is no struggle, there is no progress line of argument, Joshua? Don't I get a pass for my sincere beliefs? Hmmm? Not every instance of struggle is progress, Joshua.

And were I to attempt to carry such a sign at a march for one of conservatives' supposedly "racist" agendas, say perhaps the abolition of quotas(oops, I mean affirmative action), I would find myself outside the march, on my ass, probably with the sign shoved up aforementioned orfice. This puts the lie to the claim that giving free reign to despicable, murderous sentiments does not taint the whole rally/march/movement.

As anyone who doesn't have their brain cells towards tied up defending terrorist sympathizers could tell you.

hey captain joe:

Did you also read the part where I called the thinking that calls for the death of American soldiers in the present circumstance horeshit?

Or did that part just not penetrate?

And actually, if you're going to go quoting me out of context, you missed the really juicy one: "Indeed, what I can't imagine is a circumstance where it would be necessary to kill an American soldier in which I would not be compelled to do the deed myself."

If I was going to go quoting me out of context to try and make me look bad, that's the line I'd have used.

I'm old enough to remember that to a certain extent, this element has been there for almost forty years. Remember Jane Fonda going to Vietnam and interviewing prisoners of war and all those Viet Cong flags some of the anti-Vietnam left used to wave? And there was the same total indifference to the fates of regular people. I recall that when reports of the Cambodian genocide started to filter out, most of the left couldn't be bothered. That was one of the factors about liberalism that eventually turned me into a conservative.

The American I see here calling for violence against other Americans is named Michele Catalano. Although her excuse is that those other Americans disagree with the foreign policy of a politician she plans to vote for.

Oh, and comparing the hanging of John Brown to the freeing of children interred in political prisons doesn't fool anyone but the lunatics you defend.

I love it when this happens. I say, "those protesters aren't evil, they're just profoundly mistaken," and the next thing I know I've got some foaming twat slavering all over me about how I'm defending the protesters or, better yet, how I'm defending the protesters' tactics.

Let me spell this out for you as clearly as I can:

1. I don't agree with the protesters who are calling for the deaths of American soldiers.
2. I think they're idiots.
3. I don't defend them, or their tactics.

Got that? Take some time and let it really percolate through your brain, then we can come around to the next set of points. And I'm afraid these are going to be some longer sentences with some bigger words, but please make the extra special effort to keep up, because I don't think I can make it any plainer:

1. I think it's misleading to state that the protesters are wrong just because they're calling for the deaths of American soldiers.
2. I think this because there has been at least one historical instance of American soldiers defending an institution that was, by any reasonable standard, indefensible and which any reasonable person would be willing to kill an American soldier to defeat.
3. That historical instance was when the United States government committed federal troops to the defense of slavery.
4. As an example of a person having done the right thing by setting out on a course that would almost certainly require him to kill American soldiers, I mention John Brown.
5. I do not think that the current situation resembles the situation surrounding John Brown's insurrection or his execution in any way.

Go back and read point number 5 again.

Now I'm going to make one more point. This one's more abstract that either of the previous two, but hopefully you'll be able to follow it:

1. I saw Michele spinning an argument off the baseline assumption that anyone whose political stance includes a provision for the killing of American soldiers is, on the face of it, a traitor.
2. I suggested, purely for the sake of argument, that I could think of at least one circumstance where this would not be true; John Brown.
3. I speculated that the people who are calling for the deaths of American soldiers believe that their cause is similar in severity and righteousness to John Brown's.
4. I stated quite clearly that I do not believe the cause of the AWC is similar in severity and righteousness to John Brown's.

Go back and read point number 4 again.

And just as a point of order, here are the places where I stated that I do not believe the cause of the AWC is similar in severity and righteousness to John Brown's:

That they see the current policy in Iraq as being wrong on the scale of slavery, and the current government in Washington as corrupt as any antebellum regime. Horseshit, obviously.

I can imagine circumstances where the killing of an American soldier might be necessary. Though I would argue that anyone who has the luxury of holding up a sign demanding such a thing is not, by definition, living under circumstances that would require it.

But soft living has deprived some people of any decent sense of scale. We're many hard miles from a place where such a thing should even be contemplated, let alone advocated.

Frederick Douglass would, I feel certain, laugh at these sign-waving idiots.

So how 'bout this for an idea: how 'bout you read my fucking post next time and make sure you understand it before you start crawling up my ass for advocating the death of American soldiers you illiterate knee-jerking prick.

Here endeth the motherfucking lesson.

MQ: arguement by pretending to be too dense to understand what was said, is unconvincing to say the least.

That's because that's all you CHOOSE to see, MQ.

...sigh. Sorry. Long day at work.

Michele -

You've hit the high points.

Just one little bit of Kipling:

Makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than those uniforms - and they're starvation cheap.

God, but I get so angry with these people. They don't even realize that they're on the side of tearing down freedom.

Holy crap, Michelle.

I'm writing this after reading your initial comments and without reading a single response. Some of the all-encompassing comments you made demand such attention.

Hopefully I'm not simply reiterating previous responses.

I doubt it though, considering the content of most of these threads.

As I begin, let me just say that I understand your frustration, indignation and disgust. I feel it too.

What concerns me is your blanket appraisal that all of the "AWC" as you put it agree with everything in Mr. Rall. While I haven't read the article, I'm more interested in your vehement response to his comments than I am in reading every word he wrote. You so viciously attack the idea of an anti-war movement that you mis-read most of what the movement contains.

I feel a need to quote extensively from your rant. I know this will not win me any friends, but I feel a need to point out many instances of assumption and bigotry contained in your comments.

1. "There has never before been a war where the attacking force took such great care to not harm innocent people or the infrastructure of the city."

1A: There has never before been a war fought under such a glaring technological difference between the opponents. The fact that we're able to kill LESS innocent people than thay can does not justify this war. Besides, the intel has to be right for our "surgical strikes" to work. The initial missile-strikes before the "shock and awe" camaign were designed to take out Hussein and his top staff. We muffed it. Significant loss of Iraqi infrastructure with negative progress by US forces.

2. "No matter what the news prints, no matter what Bremer or Kimmitt say, no matter what the Iraqi bloggers or Iranian bloggers or American soldiers based in Iraq say, the gutless, ever present response from the AWC is this: They are lying. That is their response to everything that may shred their little tales of conspiracy or ruin whatever theories they have been concocting.

2A: This is the first (of many) instances where your descent into party-line rhetoric rears it's head. I wonder if you've read the words of the Iraqi and Iranian authors who DON'T agree with you. I wonder if you've heard from the members of the military who think this war is a waste time, money and most importantly - their comrades lives....... of course not. Because they're stifled. The UCMJ specifies Court Martial for any member of the Military who publicly contradicts the Commander In Chief. How many grunts do you expect to risk Leavenworth just to have their say?

3. "Witness their cries to pull the troops out now, leaving the Iraqis high and dry."

3A. For the record, I'm of the belief that we've made our bed and need to lay in it. As are most of the so-called AWC. I understand your assumption that we all follow someone in the media. Since most of you get your "truth" from either Limbaugh or Hannity. The fact of the matter is, most of those you call the AWC have come to their conclusion through independant thought. I have yet to meet an anti-war proponent who uses a media-figure as their bastion. On the converse, MOST of the pro-war folks I've talked to refer to one of the conservative talk show hosts, or the White House press briefings as their deciding force. Get real.

4. "However, I have to say, I am a bit - if naively - stunned to see how little the AWC care about the American and coalition soldiers."

4A: This is just pure, unadulterated bullshit. I, along with the majority of your "AWC" have the interests of our troops foremost in our thinking. To you, the deaths of hundreds of American personell in the overthrow of Hussein and the following occupation is a sign of American might. To us, it's evidence that the lives of our Military are merely currency to the current administration. The real fight was in Afghanistan. Bush went to Iraq. Why? More targets of opportunity. A token victory. I know you truly believe that the past year's death toll means we've made a dent in terrorism. The truth is; our occupation of Iraq is only making the terrorists stronger, becasue people like you are buying the rhetoric. Mark my words; they're getting stronger while you spout off about the AWC.

5. "Do you know why these Americans have declared war against their own country? Because we have the temerity to want to bring freedom to the rest of the world. Because we are so arrogant as to think that other countries deserve clean hospitals, good schools and the right to practice (or not practice) whatever religion you desire."

5A: Very nicely constructed. I especially like how anyone who disagrees with you has "declared war against their own country". I also like how you neatly imply that the only way for a country to have a decent educational system and clean hospitals is if they're a Christian Democracy. I'm constantly surprised that you declare yourself an aitheist, yet seem to turn a blind eye to the obvious Christian overtones of this administration. BTW: Has it occured to you that the people of Iraq might not WANT religious freedom? Or does that not enter the arguement? I'm curious though. Because even now, since the "liberation" I don't see a lot of Iraqi's converting to a different religion. From what I can see, the percentage of Muslims (who you obviously see as your sworn enemy) is exactly the same as it was before we invaded.

6. In defense of your POV you say: "We think people who want to blow up buildings filled with innocent people should be fought against."

6A: A lot of Iraqi's feel the same way. That's why they're shooting at our troops. I understand that you believe everything the administration tells you. I even concede that a lot of it might be true. What you seem to be missing is that a lot of Iraqi citizens are losing their loved ones at the hands of American soldiers. Who would you expect them to retaliate against after a year of this?

7. "They are worshipers of the culture of death, whose goal is one thing: to convert the world to their religion, thereby making everyone in the world subservient to them, to their ideals, to their power."

7A. This is almost too ridiculous for words. First... it shows an ignorant disdain for Islam. Second it shows exactly what most Iraqi's probably think about us. Think about it. Or is it okay for us to expect the world to be subserviant to us, our ideals, our power? Isn't that EXACTLY what we're doing? Hmmm.

8. "That religion gives them the basis for the hatred and violence. That religion okays the murder of those who refuse to accept Allah as their God."

8A. Again, utter ignorance and vilification of Islam without basis in fact. I find it interesting that you chose to ignore the scores of people who have used Chistianity as justification for murder over the years.
Hmmm.

9. "I defy one of you AWC people who regularly stop by here to stomp on my words to defend the actions of your brethren. Defend these signs. Defend these people. Go ahead, tell me how American soldiers deserve to die so that the terrorists in Fallujah and beyond can live."

9A. Again... nicely put. You have a future in GOP spin control. The way you twist my belief that our troops and money would be better utilized in Afghanistan into wanting them dead, that's serious spin-doctoring. Kudos. I guess it makes it easier for you to believe that everyone who disagrees with this war tacitly agrees with Rall. I guess it further makes it easier for you to believe that our personal feelings should determine our foreign policy. So does Dubya. Which is why we're in this fix in the first place. Food for thought.

For the record; I guess my defense of the signs you hate so much would be the first ammendment. There are a lot of viewpoints out there that sicken me and piss me off, but I'm proud to live in a country that allows them.

I really hate it when you write from anger, Michelle 'cause you make Bush-like assumptions.
You're smarter than that.

It ain't that simple.

3. I don't defend them, or their tactics.

I'm mystified. What exactly have you been spending all those words on, then?

You do indeed include all kinds of ass-covering statements to emphasize just how reasonable you are... at the same time as you bring up civil war-era atrocities which have no bearing whatsoever on what our soldiers are doing today.

What you fail to understand is that your "sure American soldiers don't deserve to die" before your but doesn't make it all right to say foolish and idiotic things after the but. Most fifth-graders can see through that tactic.

1. I saw Michele spinning an argument off the baseline assumption that anyone whose political stance includes a provision for the killing of American soldiers is, on the face of it, a traitor.

Coming from a person who says So how 'bout this for an idea: how 'bout you read my fucking post next time , that's a real fucking laugh riot. Tell me where Michele says or even implies that, to use your own example, anyone "whose political stance includes a provision for the killing of" John Brown's executioners is a traitor.

Oh, you can't? You can't back up such a sweeping statement with what she actually said? You're a flaming hypocrite beating straw men to death? What a suprise. What a shock. Yawn.

Lets review your list:

1. You restated Mishele's position, making it overbroad in order to attack it. Anotherwords, you made shit up.
2. You searched far, far back in history for an irrevelant example of atrocity by American soldiers. Chomsky has taught you well, young Padewan.
3. You made the interesting but totally irrevelant claim that anti-war/bush/america (take your pick) protesters saw themselves as latter-day antislavery activists.

3.5: You implied that this self-view excuses or mitigates their behavior. Else, there wouldn't have been any point at all to bringing up 1-3. None. Zip. Zero.

4. You covered your ass. See? I condemn both sides, I must be middle of the road!

Oh, and BTW I'm perfectly well aware the lesson's over. More precisely, the lesson never began since I never had a glimmer of hope of teaching you anything. After all, you already know all there is to know, don't you?

Kevin E. you're a vacuous little bitch. It's that simple.

Oh, and Kevin E.? You haven't the faintest clue as to what the First Amendment entails.

Firstly, it constrains the government. Michele is not the government.

Secondly, it includes freedom of association, which ALSO means the freedom of disassociation. If the mythical 'mainstream anti-war movement', which exists only in your list of debate points and not in reality, wished to not be associated with propaganda that calls for murder, chaos, and death, then they can exclude it as easily as any other group who controls their wingnuts during a march. And CERTAINLY they shouldn't be PAYING for those slogans to be professionally printed.

You have no ground to stand on.

Michelle,

That was a pretty long and angry post. Mostly a rant against a very small portion of America. I suspect you have more worthwhile things to do, and things that would yield a better return on your time and energy.

Best to check your meds.

Good job, anon.

When argument fails, when logic fails, when you don't actually have anything to contribute, just acuse the blogger of being 'off her meds'. That'll work.

I can think of things that would employ YOUR energy more efficently, too. Like sticking your head in a barrel full of wet cement.

BTW, why exactly should the hardcore haters be beneath Michele's notice, while simultaneously NOT be under the notice of mainstream media outlets? Are you saying an ANSWER rally is important enough for TV news, newspapers and more 'official' pundits, but beneath Michele's dignity to notice?

Have you written to uexpress to tell them printing Rall's column (as opposed to Michele's taking it part here) is beneath their dignity? Well, have you? And if not, how do you explain your position?

"Best to check your meds."

That's not funny. When you feel like making a more substantial comment without ending it with a personal slur, maybe you could sign off with a real email address.

Where does the borderline lie, between disputing a government policy you disagree with and actually supporting the Enemy?
BTW- if you refuse to acknowledge that such a borderline exists... you've already crossed it.
I agree with Michelle that many if not MOST of the "antiwar" left is actively working against the good of this country and for teh goals of people who want to see us destroyed.
I do NOT believe in the canard of "patriotic" anitwar activists. If I was campaigning for a political end, and saw that I had the same allies that the "patriotic" Left have and that my asssociates were espousing the same goals that they were ("U.S. out of North America!" "We love our soldiers when they murder their officers!" "I [love] N.Y.- even MORE without the WTC!") -- I'd get the idea that the people I was agreeing with were vermin and that maybe I should rethink my opinions.
The antiwar, "patriotic' left? They shut their eyes, get on their knees, and take what's given to them... because their cause is more important than ANYTHING, even their nation or common sense. They ally with people they KNOW hate our country- they know this, because their new allies TELL them so- and then protest that we're 'questioning their patriotism'.
There IS a borderline between dissent and treason. The antiwar cause, by passively allowing itself to be used by those who DO hate our country, have crossed it long ago.

Kevin E.

For you an old saying; "you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas".

Your friends in the AWC who advocate the defeat of the U.S. military as well as the deaths of American service men and women have no one to blame but themselves for the perception that they are Anti-American. When they spout the slogans and support the statements of those who would see us ALL dead (just because we exist) I and many others see them as, at least, subversive.

Joshua Norton sez:

"I love it when this happens. I say, "those protesters aren't evil, they're just profoundly mistaken,""

And that's where you go wrong:

"The KKK wasn't evil, just profoundly mistaken."
"Neo-Nazis aren't avil, just profoundly mistaken."
"Stalin wasn't evil, just profoundly mistaken."

Just how much letting of innocent blood would I have to applaud before you'd call me something harsher than "mistaken"?

Kevin,

The idea that you are deconstructing my rant against an article and you refuse to read the article leads me to believe that you are a pure idiot. How in the world can you not take my words out of context if you are not reading them in the context they were meant?

And for all of you who have responded to this post by saying that I either misundrestood the protesters, what part of "support the insurgents in Iraq" do you not understand?

In case your brain is too small to handle the details, let me explain: the insurgents are the ones kidnapping and murdering the coalition soldiers and civilian employees. The insurgents are the ones shooting at us from inside the mosques where they have taken their women and children, so the dead bodies of those innocent victims can be used as propaganda against the U.S. The insurgents are the ones planting roadside bombs. The insurgents are the ones who hated us long before the invasion of their country.

So what am I supposed to think when people hold up signs encouraging the insurgents? What am I supposed to think about someone who wants the insurgents to avenge the death of the evil Yassin?

Get your head out of your ass, Kevin. Next time you want to take apart my words, you would do best to actually try to understand them first.

Hey, anon: Fuck you. Your crack about the meds just got you banned.

I have no time to listen to the ravings of a person who a) is too cowardly to leave a name or email address and b) can't get the spelling of my name right.

And Kevin? Please remember that it is Iraqis not Iraqi's. The word is not possesive in the case you stated.

If you are getting depressed by the news that's hitting the headlines, maybe this will help.

I have a bad habit of spending a lot of time that I could be exercising – or paying attention to business – reading the blogosphere. Among the most intelligent bloggers is Steven Den Beste at USS Clueless.

He provides an outstanding analysis of the War on Terror and the current situation in Iraq. His latest comments are well worth reading.

He starts thus: ”The term "fog of war" refers to the fact that it's never possible for anyone to truly know what's going on. That was true even when battles were relatively small and a commanding general could see the entire battlefield with his own eyes, and it's only gotten worse.

“And if it's bad for the command hierarchy, it can only be worse for the civilian population back home in the era of satellite telecommunications. “

During WW II, if you had been reading the Japanese press, you would have heard of numerous battles in which the glorious Japanese navy inflicted heavy casualties on the Americans, sinking most of the American fleet several times. The only way your would have known – if you have been Japanese – that Japan was losing is by noting that month after month, year after year, the Americans were getting closer.

”But if one ignored the short term reports and paid attention to the long term trend, it was clear things were going very badly for Japan. The Japanese government claimed to have won nearly every major battle with the US, and claimed to have deeply wounded the US Navy each time, yet somehow the USN didn't act as if it was losing, and kept coming closer.”

At little risk of exaggeration, we - American civilians on the home front - are in the position of the Japanese, with most of the American and all of the European and Arab press in the position of the Japanese press of WW II. Every American casualty is a headline. In fact, for several news organizations the war news consists of interviews with family members of fallen soldiers.

So how do we know if we are winning or losing? One way of telling is which side is gaining ground. Which side is bleeding more. Which side is taking the war to the other and who is left standing after a battle.

So far the score looks like this: the regular Iraqi army is no more. Saddam is in prison and his sons are dead. A provisional governing council has been established under US control. The opposition is incapable of holding its ground for any length of time. In a fight such as in Fallujah, the ratio of US to enemy killed is 1 to 10.

The lesson from this is to read between the lines and refuse to be misled by adjectives. Adjectives? Yes. When the Washington Post headline reads: “US Makes Plea for Ceasefire in Fallujah” it sounds like we’re on the ropes and asking for mercy, right? If you read Richard Clarke’s testimony you will find he did almost all of his damage with his choice of adjectives by saying –for example - that Bush believed fighting terrorism was “important” but not “urgent.” What in the world can that mean in concrete terms?

What is critically important to understanding what is going on is to avoid getting blinded by daily events and taking a look at the long term trend. That will give you a better view of the state of the war than minute examination of every “news story” that is broadcast by the “All Nippon News Agency” a.k.a. the world press.

You focus on the placard stating "War against America is the real war on Terror". How many terrorists does Jeb Bush allow to reside in Florida, or do we discount the likes of former El Salvador General Jose Guillermo Garcia or his successor, General Carlos Vides Casanova who were instumental in the torture and rape of American nuns. How about General Prosper Avril, the Haitian dictator who liked to display his torture victims on TV, and now lives in Fla. Maybe Emanuel Constant another Haitian mass murderer living in New York or Armando Fernando Larios, torturer and murderer of Chileans now living in Miami. Or are we to assume that that these guys get classified in a different way than your common or garden terrorists?

I no longer trust anyone from the anti-war crowd. I believe everything they say is disingenuous and destructive.

A boyfriend of a former friend of mine is a Bush-hating, American bashing, Republican-hating, against-the-war-because-America-should-be-subsidizing-only-poor-Americans, corporate-hating 23 year old immigrant from the Dominican Republic who has a three day work week and is frauding Americans through a scam he devised by declaring his grandmother is living with him and he needs assistance. The scam is that she still lives in the Dominican Republic. This asshat receives a thousand bucks a month for taking care of his elderly grandmother who is not living under his roof here in America. Not only that, he also believes he is entitled to free universal health care and a free college education.

My guess is that this anti-war socialist leech is not the only anti-war asshat frauding the American people. If one were to look into the real lives of the individuals under this 'anti-war umbrella' you would see they are nothing but self-serving thieves, scammers, frauds and con-artist.

I am beginning to truly hate them with every fiber of my being. They are not against the war they are against America.

From the headline, I figured this would be about Rall's reprise of his "Terror Widows" strip. I don't even bother suffering through his soul-befouling columns anymore. At least his strips are only repellent at a glance.

@sin, well yes, all those who criticise Dubya for leading us into a war with Iraq under false pretences must be ipso facto crpto-commies, every one of them must be scamming the system. And since when did the USA institute the Welware State to allow its citizens universal health care, but hey, dont worrry about stereotyping millions of people like your boyfriend, after all is'nt that the raison detre of this site?

Thanks for the clarification on my Treason question, David.

I've got to take exception with Kevin E.'s statement that the Iraqi people may not want freedom.

That is simply ridiculous! The Muslims may not want Christianity, but there are actually gasp Christians in Iraq. I imagine they would appreciate some religious freedom. Everyone, IMO, wants religious freedom and by your own admission it seems you are stating that Islam is something to be imposed not freely accepted.

What a foolish thing to argue.

"witness the cries to pull the troops out and leave the Iraqis high and dry". Is'nt this the exact scenario that Daddy Bush left the Kurds and the Southern Shia in around 1992 when tens of thousands of them perished because someone was too chickenshit to stand up and be counted, wonder who that chickenshit could be?

You know, a lot of this discussion would be a lot more civil and perhaps even constructive if many of you realized that not everyone who is anit-war thinks the same, just as not everyone who is against Bush thinks the same, and just as not everyone who supports either the war or Bush thinks the same. It is quite possible to not have wanted the war and not hate America. It is even possible to neither support nor like Bush and not hate America. Personally, I think Bush is an idiot and want him out of office for what he's doing to personal freedom in the US and for supporting the Marriage Amendment, but that doesn't mean I hate America or want Americans dead. It's not that simple, people. Not every Democrat or every Republican thinks the same. Maybe if you could all get a grip on that idea, you could get some constructive discussion done.

scotia
You have not read my post correctly, but that's okay since you are an idiot. Your spelling is one piece of evidence which proves my point, the other is your inablity to comprehend along with the fact that your arguments stink.

Those under the umbrella of 'anti-war' are scammers, frauds, thieves and con-artists, after all, they carry the Socialist banner at each and every anti-war protest. It is the very nature of Socialism to scam, fraud, steal and con in order to justify itself as a legitimate form of governing ideology and the ignorant follow the ideology en masse.

Therefore, I am not stereotyping when I see the Socialist banner so proudly displayed by the 'anti-war' asshats themselves.

Good rant Michele, so it's OK to chill a little now.

The AWC, like the Iraqi insurgents, are ramping up their activity because they are desparate. They know they are losing!

There is one reason to fear the AWC and Rall. They will never win an election. They will never persuade enough people to be important. They will never argue coherently enough to make any sense, and although they hate America they cannot hurt her very much. So what's to fear?

Does the term fifth column mean anything to you?

Just how much letting of innocent blood would I have to applaud before you'd call me something harsher than "mistaken"?

Okay Ralph, let's turn this around a little:

1. Pre-civil war Americans (George Washington, Thomas Jefferson…): "evil" or "mistaken"?
2. Jim Crow (supported by most of white America up through the 1960's): "evil" or "mistaken"?
3. The forced sterilization of more than 50,000 mentally ill people in the United States between 1900 and 1963: "evil" or "mistaken"?
4. Iran/Contra: "evil" or "mistaken"?
5. Bay of Pigs: "evil" or "mistaken"?
6. Transorbital lobotomies: "evil" or "mistaken"?
etc., etc.

1. You restated Mishele's position, making it overbroad in order to attack it. Anotherwords, you made shit up.
2. You searched far, far back in history for an irrevelant example of atrocity by American soldiers. Chomsky has taught you well, young Padewan.
3. You made the interesting but totally irrevelant claim that anti-war/bush/america (take your pick) protesters saw themselves as latter-day antislavery activists.
3.5: You implied that this self-view excuses or mitigates their behavior. Else, there wouldn't have been any point at all to bringing up 1-3. None. Zip. Zero.

1. I had already established that Michele's baseline position was, in my opinion, correct:

JN: Obviously the initial thesis in its entirety is indefensible.

I went to what I inferred was the root of Michele's position in an effort to discuss what I saw as a tactical misstep on her part as was, I believe, perfectly clear at the time.

2. I think I see the basic problem in this discourse: you seem to believe that I'm attempting to use John Brown and the Civil War to justify the protesters' behavior when, in fact, what I'm attempting to convey is the protesters' mindset. The trial and execution of John Brown is relevant precisely because it is one of the mainstays of modern activist thinking. You walk into any leftie bookstore, you'll find a dozen biographies of John Brown and that Douglass quote will be, at a minimum, printed up on a poster— and probably quoted in brief on someone's t-shirt. I didn't bring it up to excuse the behavior of the people Michele is attacking: I brought it up as a point of explanation.

I recognize that the distinction might not be sufficiently binary for your tastes, but I'm operating on the assumption that we cannot, at the end of the day, just load all the misguided protesters into a truck and dump them into the ocean. Which is to say, I'm operating on the assumption that the protesters, however mistaken they may be, are American citizens who vote and pay taxes and have a great deal of political passion and therefore may, someday, be useful contributors to American political process— or, if suppressed, dangerous enemies. One of the things I believe was demonstrated quite clearly on September 11th, 2001(or, if you prefer, on April 19th, 1995) is that the time when we can simply write people off has passed. Any enemy can become a profoundly lethal enemy, and there are meaningful practical constraints on how much can be done to mitigate that fact. So I look at Michele's sign-waving idiots and, rather than waste a lot of time hating them, I wonder how they can be turned around. The first step, I believe, is to understand their motives. Michele's treatment of the situation suggested to me that some explanation might be useful in that regard. Because…

3. Attacking the protestors for being willing to kill U.S. soldiers will not dissuade them and will, in fact, only serve to make them more trenchant in their conviction that they are doing the right thing. I believe these protesters consider themselves heirs to a long tradition of direct action activism. And here again: I didn't bring Brown and Douglass up just by way of "stretching far, far back in history… for an example of atrocity by American soldiers". The significance of Brown and Douglass is more immediate than that: W.E.B. DuBois's John Brown is quoted extensively in Prairie Fire: the Weather Underground Manifesto. And, of course, Douglass's famous resistance quote puts in an appearance there as well. Most protesters consider themselves heirs to a long tradition of American dissent, as noble in their way as any soldier. Calling a soldier a murderer will not dissuade him or her, because they know it is their job to kill for their country and that they are part of a heroic tradition of people who do an extremely unpleasant task in the name of liberty. Calling a protester a traitor will make no stronger impression. Protesters feel they are doing an unpleasant task for the right reasons and, to the extent that protesters have been correct in this belief in the past, they are justified. The right and the left both quote Barry Goldwater: "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue."

Spot the irony.

But, protests, like wars, are sometimes carried out for the wrong reasons. One misguided young person will pick up a gun; another will pick up a sign. And there are some of each on both sides of every conflict, though obviously there is a difference in their levels of commitment.

3.5 Of course that self-view mitigates their behavior. In much the same way self-view mitigates the behavior of a soldier who is, without the lens of duty, simply committing homicide. This gets back to my "no soldier deserves to die" thing— all solders, if one gives them the benefit of the doubt (and I generally do), are doing what they believe is right. The same is often true of protesters.

My point? I would think it would be obvious, but I'll spell it out for you: hating the protesters, satisfying as it might be, is dangerous, counterproductive, close-minded, and a scandalous waste of resources. Calling them traitors is a total waste of time in every respect except that it helps angry people get their self-righteous rocks off and, as a method for behavior modification, it's like using a sledgehammer to pound a threaded bolt through a tapped hole; it is manifestly a case of using the wrong tool for the job. But, if you get a wrench and spend some time turning their arguments, demonstrating differences between the present conflict and the conflict they imagine themselves to be protesting, you can screw the bolt into its housing, and the system will function better for it.

I posted my initial comment by way of suggesting that Michele is only jamming the protesters more firmly into place by pounding on them with the sledgehammer of her anger, and that perhaps I might offer a wrench that would be more effective.

Oh, I almost forgot:

4. You covered your ass. See? I condemn both sides, I must be middle of the road!

And what, pray tell, am I covering my ass from? I assure you, the disapproval of you and yours doesn't sting as badly as all that.

In any event, I try to avoid condemning either side. As I believe I suggested above, condemning is, by and large, an unpardonable waste of time and energy. As far as that goes, my post from last night was very poorly executed. But, as I said, it had been a long day at work.

syn
yes I read your post correctly,and I thank you for your concise, constuctive comment. Its great to see that the US education system produces such razor sharp wit and repartee. You pick up on a couple of typos I made, so I feel I must correct you on your use of grammer, frauding is not correct dear, it should read, defrauding. Your knowledge of Socialism is encyclopeadic, I have never come across one so steeped in the dark machinations of socialists as you, I bow to your intellect and to your psychic abilities which allow you to take one personal example( your friends boyfriend) and transpose this to every anti-war demonstrator in the whole United States. Have you ever thought of using this psychic ability to make money, I hear Las Vegas is fertile ground for this type of enterprise. Finally, viva, bande la rosa.

Joshua Norton sez:

"Okay Ralph, let's turn this around a little:

2. Jim Crow (supported by most of white America up through the 1960's): "evil" or "mistaken"?"

Thank you. You just made my point for me.

Imagine someone in 1930 parading in support of the KKK after a particulary gruesome lynching. I think I'd say both evil and stupid.

Now look at those folks in the streets of NYC chanting in support of that Iraqi "insurgent" lynchmob. They are no better.

And noting that there are evil people among you, and that a frighteningly large number of your fellow citizens think they're just a bit misguided when to you they look more like modern Brownshirts, is not a waste of time and energy.

Thank you. You just made my point for me.

Imagine someone in 1930 parading in support of the KKK after a particulary gruesome lynching.

Sigh.

Jim Crow is not the same thing as a lynching. There is a difference, reactionary histrionics aside, between simply being a racist and committing a hate crime.

Say, apropos of nothing, your name looks familiar to me. You didn't, by any chance, used to be a high school vice principal, did you?

Nice to know you people can't spell. Beyond that, you're worth even less time than you think the Ted Ralls, are, you "left-wing anti-America" conspiracy theory peddlers. Actually, we're trying to save America's future from wingnuts like you.

The moral bankruptcy of my "peers" (I live in San Francisco) is remarkably disappointing to me.

It's actually really starting to disgust me. Don't they understand that this is serious business, not bullshit to impress each other with at parties?

=darwin

For most of the hippie moonbats, what it really comes down to is that they like to complain. I went through that socialist anti-American phase for a few months when I was fourteen, then realized how detached it was from reality. These people are spoiled. They have trouble accepting that they were born on the side of the good guys; it leads them to think, "it can't be that easy." Their main concern is a sense of their own superiority, so they see that the unwashed masses are basically patriotic and assume that that attitude must be wrong. The reasons are just an after-the-fact justification for posturing; they look at all the bad foreign policy stuff from the 80s and mangle the definition of fascism and so on all to convince themselves that we're actually the worst force in history, willfully ignoring the historical context that vindicates America's actions as the lesser evil by far.

well.its totally enlightening to see the collective amnesia on this board. Two days ago I posted a few facts here about the terrorists Jeb Bush has allowed to reside in the Sunshine State, so far, the reaction to these easily verifiable facts has been nada. Does this mean that the pro-Bush folks on here condone these rapists and murderers living among them and do they applaud the vile terrorist acts these men committed, or are we to take it that the there is one law for repugnant Latin American terrorists and another for Muslim terrorists?

For most of the hippie moonbats, what it really comes down to is that they like to complain.

Moo-- you're projecting. And it's dangerous to write people off like that.

Michelle,

Since my last posting, I have read Rall's article. The reason I posted before without reading it was simply a matter of saving time. I thought I had a pretty good idea of what he said through your initial rant. I was right.

I don't agree with the guy. I guess I thought you knew that. Just because I'm not a fan of Bush, doesn't mean I don't recognize there are actions that need to be taken. It also doesn't mean I ignore the good that is being done in Iraq.

The point I was trying to make was that it IS possible to be against the war and NOT think like Rall, or the idiots with the signs. And that to lump all of us who are against the war into the same group is ridiculous.

For example: I'm not against war per se. I'm against the way the administration is going about waging this one.

I think I've made it pretty clear (which is supremely difficult for a vacuous little bitch like me) that I'm NOT part of the cut-and-run crowd, nor do I necessarily believe that John Kerry has the answers.

What I believe - very strongly - is that our current stance in Iraq (indeed, from the get-go) is short-sighted and in need of adjustment.

We should have concentrated our forces in Afghanistan for a longer period before invading Iraq. Had we done that, the situation in Iraq would be more stable by now.

As to my comment (noted by scott) that the Iraqi people may not want freedom; I should have been more clear on that. The larger point of that comment was that so far, the Iraqi people don't see us as liberators. They see us as occupiers. Some have gone so far as to say they wish we would just leave. Obviously we can't do that. I was implying that for many of them, what is happening in their country right now does not feel like the beginnings of a free society. It feels like the beginnings of an Empire. That to them, if that is our definition of freedom, it's not what they're looking for. It's a matter of perspective. We take it for granted.... they don't know what it is yet.

I shouldn't have said it without clarification.

I tend to rush my writing when I'm here, that comment was a casualty of that. As was the punctuation mistake you so kindly pointed out.

As a side note: I've noticed a sprinkling in my hit-and-miss visits here lately pertaining to your meds. I was on wellbutrin a couple of years ago, with horrible side effects. High blood pressure, nasty time for me. My wife has been trying to get a handle on what works for her for several years now. Zanex (alprazolam) has been a lifesaver for me. Half a tab to take the edge off, or a whole one if the anxiety gets really bad. I don't know your history or your specific situation, but kudos to you for taking the bull by the horns. The answer is out there... sometimes it's just ellusive. And anyone who uses your willingness to share that publicly to insult you needs a hot poker in the eye.

So Ted Kennedy says Iraq is Dubya's Vietnam? That preposterous! Dubya actually WENT to Iraq.

Those AWC "hippy moonbats" are definitely undermining this country. I agree with this quote from Dick Cheney, or was it Donald Rumsfeld, no wait... Paul Wolfowitz (it's too cerebral for Bush to have uttered it):

"Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

Umm... actually that quote is from Hermann Goering (almost 58 years to the day), but no matter, it may has well have been issued by today by this administration. As those "cheese eating surrender monkeys" the French say, "the more things change the more they stay the same".

Yawohl Michelle!