Redstate

"Left wing protesters forget what cause they're championing"

When will these reconstituted Stalinists realize that the moment has passed? Marxism has failed everywhere it's been tried. Even Castro is a closet capitalist. He's worth over $500,000,000.

Someone please talk this woman off the ledge before she hurts herself.

by calling them names, but what i have witnessed is large groups of average americans gathering for the largest anti-war protests seen since the vietnam conflict.

there were those who attempted to marginalize the protesters during nam in the same way. It was a mistake.

The fat code pink girl, priceless. Hope she can sing, these has beens need something to sooth them.

the largest anti-war protests seen since the vietnam conflict  isn't saying much really..

other than the widely popular 1st gulf war, this is the first "major" conflict since Vietnam....

"Nattering nabobs of negativism"

Where are today's Spiros spouting such wonderful phrases instead of discussing the issues at hand?

Have we learned nothing from the past?

Here's a definitional challenge. Aside from  athletic events, and church (which in some cases is the same thing) when do Americans gather in large groups? If anything, a demonstration of this sort is the very definition of a large group of abnormal Americans, not that there's anything wrong with that, but the average American isn't likely found in this group.

Here's a description of a larger group or Americans who "are part of a huge invisible picket line that circles the White House twenty-four hours a day.":

http://www.cato.org/speeches/sp-orourke.html

The single cause they united around is anti - Americanism.  The hardcore protesters aren't Americans in any meaningful spiritual sense...

That was my point. It didn't appear to be much of an anti-war protest, in that it apparently married with an IMF/World Bank/Hugo Chavez/Humvee/Whatever protest. At the end of the day, that probably equaled a crowd.

How many causes did you see represented and

What was the weirdest one?

Big? Do you have any verifiable numbers that can be fact-checked?

I grew up during the 60s. I saw protests that covered the entire mall. I saw protests on college campuses that were so big they had to call in the National Guard. I used to be a stark raving liberal until I took a look at the facts of history and found that the facts, nature and common sense don't support the left's world view.  This was no protest. This is not a movement. This was a picnic for a bunch of people whose time has passed.

We will be in Iraq until the job is done. Cindy and a bunch of masquerading Marxist groups like A.N.S.W.E.R. (Google the article on them in the Washington Post) will not change that.

When do you think we should withdraw our troops from occupied New Orleans?

POOP:

People Offended by Offensive People!

is what marginalizes the protesters, plus the fact that we have actually won this war by any historical measure and are now in the reconstruction phase with a spectacular election, constitution and an unpopular enemy that is reduced to killing women and children shopping.

Plus, Walter "the most trusted man in america" Cronkite and his ilk are trusted less than used car salesmen and Americans get the whole truth now.

Plus, these protesters don't have 58,000 dead Americans in a cause the govt wouldn't let them win.

Plus, all the same arguments they make were made ad nauseum before the election, which was the REAL POLL.

Average americans? They look less than average to me.

By what historical measure have we won this war?  

From AP http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2005/09/24/spirited_a
nti_war_rally_one_of_largest_of_iraq_conflict/

"While united against the war, political beliefs varied. Paul Rutherford, 60, of Vandalia, Mich., said he is a Republican who supported Bush in the last election and still does -- except for the war.

"President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let's move on," Rutherford said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein "a noble mission" but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded.

"We found that there were none and yet we still stay there and innocent people are dying daily," she said."

I have heard numbers between 100,000 and 300,000 for the number of protesters.  That is comparable to the number that protested the Ukraine election (100,000?)last year.  We called them heroes for expressing their freedom of speech.  The whole point of freedom of speech is to be able to protest the government without retribution.  I don't have to agree with them, but I will support their right to express themselves about "whatever."  If they want to use this protest as a catch-all, that's fine.  

Conservative protests draw some unsavory groups as well (white supremacist, fascists), so I guess some anarchist might show up.  It's an American perception left over from the cold-war that communists are by definition bad.  There are plenty of communists in democratic countries whose main platform is prosperity for all, bar none.  I do not understand why environmentalists are part of the negative group.  Environmentalists, as I understand it, just want to be good stewards of the earth. I do not think it is necessary to trivialize or ridicule them.

In another day, or if the president right now were a democrat, the whatever protesters might be from the right rather than the left.

Shorter comment to the diary: whatever.

...of the people we went there to defeat?

The PEACE is what hasn't been won, but the WAR is over... (even I know that ;) )

I counted at least 10 different causes.Some of those protesters had a few different causes.That could be another fun game.Who had the most causes?Cindy has appointed herself to speak for pretty much everyone in the world.I don't even want to count hers causes.

When we went to war Saddam Hussein was the leader of Iraq.He is no longer the leader.The people were opressed.They are no longer.Uday and Qusay were free to rape and murder at will.The women in Iraq no longer have to be afraid to walk down the streets.Men in Iraq are no longer afraid to voice opinions.We have won this war in every way you can win a war.We are now rebuilding a government.We are doing something that is very rare in history.We are building a democracy.That's the great thing about Americans.We love our freedom so much we want others to have it to.In Saddams Iraq nobody could have said the things about him people say about George W. Bush.

of the regime. And the establishment of a government. Our enemy and main threat, terror nation-state, has been de-clawed.

Our main objective was to make sure post 911 that Iraq ceased to be a SAFE haven for jihadists and that Saddam, given his history and 11 year refusal to come clean on wmd, could not provide wmd to terrorists that had already proven their ability to attack our soil. These are accomplished and will remain so, as we will make sure of it.

Moreover, we could not continue to allow defiance of a cease fire, especially post 911, when we vowed to take the war to the terrorits and terror sponsoring states. Our credibility was at stake, especially after Bin laden concluded we were a paper tiger ripe for taking after our feckless responses to prior attcaks since 1979 and our continuing Vietnam syndrome, as evidenced by leaving saddam in power in 1991, running in Somalia, and only being williong to fight short wars from 10,000 feet.

The further purpose that is ongoing, is to build up the Iraqi ally we are now binded with against a common enemy, which includes Zarqawi's al qaida battalion, so that they can run their country free from zarqaewi like havens as saddam allowed, not have wmd, and bring fredom to the region that produces terroritstds.

The war against jihadists may go on for decades or centuries, but the battle, if you will, of iraq is won. Iraq is no longer the threat to us. There are terrorists that have invaded Iraq and former regime members engaged in murder given that they can have no life with the people they tortured and oppressed for 25 years.

But the money and safe haven of a nation-state openly supporting terrorists has been removed.

The war against radical islamic terror GROUPS and the IDEOLOGY goes on all around the world.

And that poll was pretty much split down the middle.    If you mean that that poll was a poll of war support, then very nearly half of America opposed the war.

...include the phrase 'National Book Festival'?  Specifically, did any of them factor out the 80K attendence estimated for this year (2004 estimate 80K, 2003 estimate 70K), or attempt to distinguish between the two, or, indeed, mention at all that a major, free and non-political event was happening just down the Mall?

In fact, is this the first time that someone's actually told you that there was a National Book Festival today?

Moe

PS: If you have someone who had so factored, distinguished or mentioned, feel free to provide a link.

is that many of the "whatever" protesters were portesting Wal Mart, Dick Cheney, Halliburton and Coporate America and yet they saw no irony in quencing their parched horse protesting voices with a Tall Grande Latte from Starbucks.  Eyewitnesses report a long line full of protesters at several Starbucks locations near the protest points.

Geee...no irony here.

as MLK and his people could not vote.

But in America we can vote, and last November, the anti war protest fell short.

The heros akin to the Ukranians, are our and iraq's soldiers and police and leaders and the voters of Iraq under threat of death,

not any misguided marcher in Washington.

"In Saddams Iraq nobody could have said the things about him people say about George W. Bush.

Which is why I support the protest.

If conservatives agree (and I don't know that they do) that THE reason for the war was to give Iraq a democracy, does that set a foreign relations policy that it is America's duty to send our loved ones to die for other people's democracy?  I am okay with it (in principle) if that is truly what our society decides it wants to do. But I am not sure that such a doctrine would help the military overcome its recruitment woes.  Are we now committed to establishing democracies in other countries?  I doubt that conservatives would actually back such a doctrine.  The moderate liberal (dare I speak for them) might be willing if the people from the other country actually asked us to help them establish a democracy, much in the way we asked France to help us in the Revolutionary War.  But do we take it upon ourselves?  What is the criteria for choosing one country and passing over another.  Is it always democracy plus some other consideration?  If so, would it be fair to say that maybe the other consideration was the deciding one?  Then where are we?

Some people are actually saying that establishing democracy in Iraq was the prime reason for the war.  I don't see how that can be a sustainable doctrine of our foreign policy.

Does this look like 100,000 people?

Cindy rally

The left was wrong about Hitler, wrong about Stalin and wrong about Castro. Why should anyone take them seriously?

Let's not let things get out of hand. Libratarian doesn't mean liberal. Libratarians want less government, we don't want to radically revamp the whole system. We just want the government to adhere to the powers given to it by the constitution. The government has radically over stepped its boundaries. And we want to get it back on track. We support the troops. I for one think that this is the greatest country in the world. People have their freedom. And we don't want the government tramping all over that freedom. We want it to do what it is supposed to do. You can be a libratarian AND a republican. I support Bush. I support the war. And I believe that there is too much government. Please check out cato. Its www.cato.org   . Please don't just read it once. If you read it a couple times you will see that we are NOT liberals.

Lets not go nuts here. You are getting a totally unrelated group involved. I am a libratarian and I am NOWHERE near D.C.

I support the freedom of speech and assembly. What this means is that the protestors are not charged with a crime. That's all it means.

I don't support what they say, and those that disagree with the protest, of course, have the same rights to speak, etc.

And all speech is not good. But i am always happy when dangerous misguided citizens expose themselves and admit what they believe.

In the Clinton years, he was the calm cover for the kooks. But it is instructive for the vast majority of Americans to see these people in the raw so as not to underestimate their danger to us should they gain power.

Prime reason? Democracies are good. Tyrannies are bad. We removed a tyrant and we are good people and want to help the Iraqis now not live under a tyrant.

Plus, free people don't choose jihad.

Plus, Kerry was for the war!!! had he ran on the Sheehan platform he would have come closer to his hero McGovern's numbers.

But getting more votes counts. And we increased majorities in the congress.

The anti war citizens lost, as they always do.

very selfish people.

to put a soothing moderate face on them.  Rush has been very eloquent this week about the far left mask coming off and their defeat now for control of the party from the DC establishment. Howard Fineman confirms this. Bill's kerry-like ranys last week confirm his side lost. Hillary is in trouble for the nomination.

The dem party is plit and the far left will not abide compromise and winks anymore.

They really don't care if they win or not. The party is a toy for them. They have cushy lives and its a great thing that they are now exposed.

I am not a libertarian per se as for as the party platform, but am in terms of most issues. I'm a converted former moderate to liberal dem, now a neo-con christian conservative.

But i greatly respect libertarians as allies.

I guess you are part of the "invisible picket line". Me too.

This demonstration is, what is the right word . . . demonstrative! Of what, is anyone's idea, and apparently there are a lot of them.

Technically, yes, the Iraqis have asked just that, both the interim government and the Kurds who did establish a democracy in many respects under the no-fly zone, and the Shites and Kurds who rose up after the Gulf war in response to 41's promise of support.

But ask? My god man, does a man dying of thirst have to ask for water.

After we defeated the tyrant that oppressed and killed over million, what would you have us do? leave the country of disabled victims of decades of terror at the mercy of the dead enders and al qaida?

Democracy, friend, is freedom!!!!!! Its the right of all men.

ask??

but the counter demonstrations only drew a couple hundred at each location.

yes, some of the organizers were groups that have a marxist background, but the people who attended, for the most part, were there to protest the war.

to simply state, "hey, we won the election, so protest to your hearts content....cuz we dont care", misses the point.

there is in fact a growing anti-war movement, it is reflected in the polls and todays protests.

if you wish to bury your heads in the sand, and think they dont count or will just go away...then you are doomed to repeat the errors of both lbj and nixon.

Do you mean specifically the Iraq? Or does the second part of your statement, "as they always do" mean that Americans are reliably pro-war?  Is pro-war something we want to be a characteristic of Americans.  Would that not create an unresolvable conflict with Christianity? Some 40% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, but Christianity is not characterized as a pro-war religion, in fact, just the opposite. In education, we have generally criticized war-like countries in history.  Do we really want to be war-like.  Personally I know that it does not describe me, nor do I beleive it describes most of America who, in poll after poll, favor going to war only as a last resort.  Will we need to redefine last resort?  Are Americans philosophically at sea then?

Washington post for tomorow (9/25) says in their story on the protest "tens of thousands" bla-bla.  That's their way of saying less than 50,000 and probably less than 30,000.  As some have said here, probably around 25,000 at most.  I can't link the Post story because I don't subscribe.  But I believe it -- I live in DC and work in VA.  There are not a lot of people here -- notclose to the numbrs who are here in the anti-Roe demonstrations. Really lame turnout, however.

Actually I though the national book festival was in April which is when most local book festivals are held.  I guess I assumed (shame on me) that the national and local festivals go together.

My point is that they are free to protest, and I have no problem with them exercising that freedom.  Nor will I have a problem with conservatives holding a protest, whether or not I agree with it.

to all the other questions in my post?

...it was a question (well, two): did any of the crowd estimates that you saw take into account - or even mention - the fact that there was a major nonpolitical event taking place at the same time and just down the street*?

And, if they did, what are the links?

Moe

*The two locations are somewhere like half a mile apart, according to the map.  

By the way, I have been monitoring the dKos reaction to the protest.  It is decidely mixed.

About number of protesters: I guess it depends on who talking.  Conservatives seem to be downplaying the numbers and liberals seem to be overstating them.  Maybe somebody everybody trusts will give us an accurate estimate at some point.

president of the US.

We are a free nation that tends toward isolationism by character, but when our elected leaders decide we must fight, then we fight. We are PRO just wars, which are the only ones we fight.

We are not pro-tyrannical "peace" defined as mas murder in private in the middle of the bight rather than on NBC in the daylight.

Not nearly all of the kerry vote was an anti iraq war vote since a lot of democrats actually beleived kerry's own statements and his vote for the war.

Are you a Christian?

I am a Christian. And how some people "characterize" the faith and its application to war does not change the text. Nothing in scripture requires free people to allow war like evil enemies that would deny us freedom and slaughter "infidels."

We are not war-like in the sense of evil invaders tha conquer other people to enslave them or rape their land.

The "last resort" occurred on 911 and sometime between the 2nd and 11th year and 2nd and 17th un resolutiuon.

Libs last resort is to allow 911's and concentrate on quick delivery of bandaids. like the french did in 1940.

2+2 = 4 as well

...is that I want to know whether the sources that you used for the estimated number of people at the antiwar rally took into account the fact that the National Book Festival was going on the same day and maybe a half mile down the street.

And if they did, I would like to read those sources.  Which is much harder to do without a link.

Moe

No argument with that.  I just wouldn't want to extend that to mean that speech I don't agree with is not good.  But given your first line, i don't think you are necessarily making that extension.

The heads in the sand are the folks that keep getting their's handed to them in every congressional election since 1994 and in 2002 and 2004 when war was the issue.

The point you miss is,

we'll see you at the next election, thousands of dead terrorists from now. Dubya ain't Slick Willie Morris poll driven. he's a leader with amandate, an army in the field and enemies to defeat and deter.

I have links to several newspapers including overseas papers.  Since their story was the protest, I don't believe they mentioned any book festival.  But that wouldn't be surprising in a story about the protest.  You don't usually see a "meanwhile over at..." digression.  Maybe the Washington Post has something, but I doubt it would be on the front page or even the front five pages.  In my paper the local book festival makes it to the community happenings page near the end and then only if the executive director sends them a press release.

I'm still trying to figure out what you are trying to say.  Do you think reporters are combining the book festival people with the protest people and counting them all as protest people? Are book festival people known for carrying signs and yelling? Are you expecting that the book festival will be in the same story as the protest?  I just don't understand where you are trying to go with this.

reject the premise

one, prime reason is not required for war

kind of like sex

the concept of "set" a foreign policy and "duty" is a vacuous concept of the left that thinks that unless wecan solve all peoples' problems at once, and before the next commercial, the  we can't do anything. inane

i do favor giving nations in which we are required to remove enemy leaders by force, a chance at freedom. We reconstruct natiuons for our own good and theirs, and because its the moral thing to do.

WE ARE A GOOD COUNTRY!!!! THE BEST IN HISTORY!!!

2 criteria are when nations attcak us, harbour and support terrorists, and violate ceasefires.

you ask good questions

but post 911

we answered some questions

...'no' and 'no' for both questions, then.  Thank you.

those that speak ill of our cause in Iraq as less than noble and the speech of naive pacifists is dangerous and wrong and bad. As are all the slanders  gainst the president. As are those that would leave the courageous Iraqi people at the mercy of head decapacitators. these protestors, like the ones that forced a dem congress to abndone the south vietnamese to 2 million slaughterd give liberalism a bad name. they are selfish elitists and racists.

Now, those that disagree with my preferred flavor of ice cream...

Conservative protests draw some unsavory groups as well (white supremacist, fascists), so I guess some anarchist might show up.

Uh, no, we don't. When we run demos, we don't let fascists, national socialists, or racists anywhere near our events. Your guys do, however. Cindy Sheehan is on record as peddling anti-Semitic propaganda as fact and she lied about it.

Further, this entire demo today was organized by a group of Stalinist anti-Semites called the Workers World Party, who are the intellectual descendants of the thugs who ran Stalin's Russia into the ground.

Please don't tar conservatism with the trash from your side of the aisle simply because you wish to peddle the fiction that "both sides do it". I understand why you make the assertion, as  it makes you feel more comfortable or more self righteous. But you are wrong.

Republicans ran David Duke out of the party in the early 1990's. Indeed, given Duke's recent endorsement of Sheehan and her anti-Israel rantings, I'd have thought you'd think twice before associating conservatism with the Klan or the Nazis.

The notion that the Klan, the American Nazi Party, or Christian Identity attend conservative demonstrations betray your ignorance of the conservative movement in particular and the Republican Party in general.

Which tells me a lot about how liberals think.

that anyone is trying to say that they don't have the freedom to protest. They have the freedom to parade around it tutus and bumble bee suits while they protest if they want. And we have the freedom to look at them like their nuts if we want.

"Blessed are the peacemakers."

You defined peace as something no one would favor. I don't think it works to redefine words like that to make your point.  that is the very essence of a strawman.

I read the "war" resolution, and I believed Bush when he said it was a peace resolution, that it was a diplomatic tool to give teeth to diplomatic efforts.  I just wish that Hans Blix had been allowed to finish his job first.  

We are PRO just wars, which are the only ones we fight.

This statement could be misunderstood as saying that just wars are wars that America fights. Many Republicans believe the last time there was a just war was WWII. I am guessing that they mean all of our other military intervention either were not war or were not just.

As you are probably aware, there are seven principles of a just war.  To say that 9/11 was the last resort is the same as saying the enemy is Iraq, which is basically what Bush said in the debates, when he said we attacked Iraq because the enemy attacked us.  It has been admitted by all sides that whether Iraq was a haven for terrorist before we went in is debatable, but since we went in it surely has become one.  If 9/11 truly were the last resort, we would have gone in long before March of 2003.  The resolution would not have been a peace resolution as Bush said, but an all-out declaration of war.  This appears to be a fair criticism, that Congress did not properly declare war.

a lot of democrats actually beleived kerry's own statements and his vote for the war and Libs last resort is to allow 911's and concentrate on quick delivery of bandaids. like the french did in 1940. appear contradictory.

Nothing in scripture requires free people to allow war like evil enemies that would deny us freedom and slaughter "infidels." I don't understand this last statement.  First, the perpetrators of 9/11 did not deny us freedom.  The only freedoms we lost as Americans are arguably those our own government took away as a trade off for (hopefully) more security.  Second...well I don't know what second is since I do not understand the statement.

We are not war-like in the sense of evil invaders tha conquer other people to enslave them or rape their land.  Granted, but his statement might be another redefinition strawman.  But are we becoming war-like in the sense of crusaders who instead of spreading Christianity at the point of a sword are now desirous of spreading freedom and democracy from a gun barrel.

Is that what we want?  How would Republicans be sounding today if a pro-war Democrat were president.  Given the evident animosity towards Democrats I'm guessing that it is possible we would have seen protests attended by Republicans by now.  But what do I know? I am just a nonpartisan observer.

I hope this means means you'll also be at the forefront of condemning slanders against those with whom you politically disagree.

Hope you are not referring to me personally.  I have taken some trouble to explain that I am a non-partisan independent.  Just because I say I support the right to protest, which is after all, one of our most basic Constitutional rights, does not make me one of "you guys.'  I am most assuredly not a liberal, and I do not doubt that I do not understand either Republicans or Democrats.  The original diarists put environmentalists is his group of unsavories, for pete's sake.

Just like this site is fond of dismissing what they call "left talking points" out of hand, the left does the same with "right talking points."  In that way neither side actually analyzes the merits of the other side's position, and instead keep talking past each other and further polarizing this country.

the concept of "set" a foreign policy and "duty" is a vacuous concept of the left that thinks that unless wecan solve all peoples' problems at once, and before the next commercial, the  we can't do anything. You may be right about the inanity of the left, but I don't know if these kinds of oversimplifications are helpful, any more than the left's oversimplifications of the right.

I can think of no un just war we have fought. I can think of un just surrenders and un just attemots to fight limited wars as in vietnam and

I do consider the democrat denial of funds to cintinue to support the south vietnamese as an unjust surrender.

I do think it was an unjust surrender to refuse to support the cuban exile army at the bay of Pigs.

I do think it was un just cowardice on carter's part to allow Iran to hold our citizens hostage for more than a few days without declaring war.

It was un just for 41 to leave saddam in power after the gulf war and it was un just for clinton not to have removed him after about a year or so of definace.

read the resolution again. It was a declaration of war against all terroists and supporting states period. It is not debateable  that iraq harbored terorists. He did so publiucly for two deacdes. he was on the terrist nation list since the 80's!!

pearl harbour was the last resort

we attcaked germany first

the people killed on 911 are no longer free and the terrorists intend to deny more people their freedom by killing us. And when a nation is under threat, especially proven threats, our freedom is threatened.

When enemies wage war agauinst us, yes, then we get war like.

"pro-war democrat"

I supported all of clinton;s actions as did most all repubs but we wanted more!!!

let's see

I do think its unfair (even when done by hannity whom I love) to Robert Byrd to bring up his breif and very long ago membership in the KKK as a young man. There is much i disagree with him about. MUCHHHH, but we should oppose his ideas, not such a remote association when there is no evidence he harbours ill will to anyone based on race today and for many years.

can't think of any more just now

"pearl harbour was the last resort

we attcaked germany first"

Hitler declared war on the US first, just days (day?) after Pearl.

but, "It was unjust for 41 to leave saddam in power after the gulf war" --- yeah, that was some bull.... oh well...

as Bill Clinton well stated

don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good

and just beacuse we can't do everthing, doesn't mean we can't do some things

I do believe that we should act on principle and I belive that Bush has articulated, and that the original congressional resolution, well defined our principles, which are not that different from the post pearl harbour principle,...

(First, let me say, that I think it was agrave mistake to leave a man in power that invaded another nation, was removed by the blood of our soldiers and then allowed to stay in power. saddam thought he won the 1st war!!! And the muslim extremeists saw it as an act of weakness. And it was. And weakness invites aggression. So, I would have favored removing Saddam at any time after his 1st violation of the ceasefire in 1993.)

Which is we will act pre-emptively, against terrorist groups, not just al qaida brand, and nations that support, harbour, etc them.

On Dec 8, 1941 we resolved to remoive all fcaist threats, not just japan.

the world changed on 911. and the wmd genie in the hands of non-gepgraphic terrosist that cannot be deteerred, dem,ands that we not wait and that doubts be resolved in favor of action.

The left is in denial about the threat much as bullied children at a father who insists the child take its hands of its ears and hear that the threat is real and mustb faced now.

and qultimately it is a simple proposition and choice

simple but hard

and the left is soft

"On Dec 8, 1941 we resolved to remoive all fcaist threats, not just japan."

No, no NO.

Hitler declared war on the US after his allies, Japan, attacked.  THEN the US reciprocated.

amen x 2 on leaving saddam i power

we don't attack every nation that declares hostility towards us. Of course, i would have efavored going to war aganst germany when they were violating the versailles treaty in building up their military in the 30's!!

its just that so many on the left are stuck in vietnam loserville or pacifism

war ain't waiting to prosecute attcakers or just about revenge

its about preventing future attcaks

saddam violated a ceasefire for 11 years and 17 resolutions, which included an assasination attampt on 41 and firing on our planes

he also harboured one of the three main conspirators in the 1993 wtc bombing

We can't continue to think like it was still 9/10

i know of the germany resolution, ok

but we went to war with them not because of words on paper

we went to war beacuse of their threat on the ground and over britain

and we didn't require a 'direct link" to any particular attack, a/l/a the lefts 911 direct link requirement red herring

that's silly

like cindy's staement that we shouldn't have attcaked afghanistan, but only the taliban and al qaida

inane

get it

over at the other diary.  His political history is much more knowledgeable than mine, (For nearly all of my adult like, I lived overseas.  My entire knowledge is based on what I remember from my Time magazine subscription, my only source of news in English at the time.  I was probably much more knowledgeable about local politics where I lived but I had no right to vote) and he made many of the points I would have wanted to make.

they considered us to have been at peace with a "stable" Iraq under saddam

despite all the pre911 facts, mostly from Clinton and his admin's lips, the ceasefire violations for 11 years, open suport for terror, open safe haven for terrorists, refgusal to prove that he had destroyed all wmd, firing on planes, and assassination attempt on 41 and ongoing massgrave filling in the hundreds of thousands

"stable peace"

hans blix was never going to be able to guarantee compliance

and after 911, we can't take a chance on our survival with a un inspector

11 years of it

911 made that game over

re-read the resolution

and instead of reading it like you would the word "no" of a paramour as "yes" since she is removing her shirt as she speaks, actually read the words as written, and go back in your mind to the post 911 world and disabuse yourself of any notion that Dubya and congress had any such notion of this as a diplomatic tool.

Bush never said iraq attcaked us or bought 911 plane tickets.

this is so d**n tiring to re-hash fcats that you guys just deny with straight faces

what is really funny is that we all remember clinton's statements and history with sadam back to 1991. we know what saddam is and has done publicly. we know clinton's justificvations for bombing and the resolution to remove him.

and we know clinton said that we would have too one day remove himso he couldn'y give wmd to terrorists

he said it on tv

its just that he didm't take actions that fit the threat

not all dems are libs

so, therefore, not contradictory

where did you live?

and please, in order to fully remove all anti-bodies of time mag infection, you are hereby prescribed 6 weeks of daily listening to El Rushbo!

President of Iraq Talabani:

"Thank you for liberating my country. Please don't leave before the job is done."

"American forces are in Iraq at the invitation of the democratically elected government of Iraq, and with the backing of a United Nations Security Council resolution. Your soldiers are in my country because of your commitment to democracy. Moreover, during my visit to Washington, Mr. Bush reaffirmed the United States' complete support for the Iraqi political process toward sustainable democracy, and for the fight to defeat fascist and jihadist terrorism in Iraq."

"Without American forces, the vision of American leadership and the quiet fortitude of the American people, Iraqis would be almost alone in the world. With its allies, the United States has provided Iraqis with an unprecedented opportunity. Iraqis have responded by enthusiastically embracing democracy and volunteering to fight for their country. By giving us the tools, your troops help us to defend Iraqi democracy and to finish the job of uprooting Baathist fascism."

I encourage you to read the whole statement from the President of Iraq.

Your anti-war friends want to bail on him while he is asking for our help.  Fortunately the President of the U.S. is a decent enough man not to turn his back on those in need asking for a helping hand.

thanks

I don't think that 9/11 should be the before/after point of our foreign policy.  (it is -- that's not what I'm arguing)

IMO, 9/11 is over.  Bin Laden won.  Since he had nothing to lose, there was no way for us to "win."  The best we could do is to prevent him from "playing another game," which we have done.

Again (as you and I were discussing) learning from history (even history of yesterday and the day before) is how we forge a better present.

In America at least we get to participate in the formation of that better present.

Actually, I do listen to Rush from time to time, for as long as I can stand {;)}... it pays to know what EVERYONE thinks, not just the people with whom you agree.

I'm a rabid consumer of media (not just "the media") ... books, books, books ...

Use every source available to you ... but you need to know when to stop reading one thing and move on to something better ...

...eventually you get to the point where you can competently determine from BAD information what the GOOD information actually is ...

Thanks, featherstone ... I think you've got some potential :D

...offended me as a strategic military action because we had been bombing radar & SAM sites for ten years... the guy had nothing except(potentially) wmd's to hand out to "dead-enders."

Has anyone said these people don't have a right to protest?  Who said that?

The Republicans in this thread are pointing out that this group is far outside the mainstream of America, is liberal, and is part of the Democratic Party.  And by doing so hopes that voters will not vote for them.

I hope they have more protests run by communists and anti-semitic groups.  They have every right.  And we have every right to mock them and beat them in legitimate free and fair elections.

So drop the straw man.

You suggest learning from history and yet you see 911 as an isolated event whose only lesson is that bin laden won, that he had nothing to lose, and that preventing him from playing another game is not winning?

Come 'daddy, this is not your usual quality work. I have come to respect your mind. where is it bro? Too much PJ at the tailgating party.

Cocks covered Trojans!! really my USC gamecocks beat the Troy trojans. great ain't it?

Muj really man, i think you need to re-phrase this post before I freely dispense more phi beta kappa, summa cum laude, juris doctor, conservative epiphanied conversion from a dem party chair over 40 wise guy who played qb in high school and was the only caucasin starter on the basketball team!

come now

how old are you and what do you do?

I was a fan from day one even when i was lib dem party chair!! i was also a regular guest on mike gallaghers show when he started in spartanburg sc. iwas the liberal foil!

Also got to meet Bo Snerdly and have spoken to Rush twice, both times trying to convince hin clinton was a moderate.

i converted in june PRE-911 of which i am proud, to conservatism, but waited a few months due to my lib girlfried's sensibilities, to be a full elephant

suggest a good book for me

you should read Bork's Slouching Towards Gomorrah

well all humans should

you and featherstone work me pretty hard and and y'all ain';t no kook lefties

compliments over

(Forgive me, I'm VERY tired --- worked 30 hours in 2 days --- I almost deleted that whole post)

I didn't say 9/11 was an isolated incident --- it was (as everyone should know) a link in a long, long chain of criminal, despicable murders.

"not winning" in the sense that the SYMBOLISM of 9/11 can't be reversed --- in the US, it's a rallying point, but around the world it could be interpreted as a chink in the armor, if you will.

What's PJ? Beer?  I'm a whiskey man, meself...

I saw that Spurrier finally got his win ;) Gratz!

I'm (barely) under 35, and on Redstate.org I'd rather not say what I do for a living right now (for fear of a prejudiced "oh, brother, THAT explains it" :D )... JD? nice ... I almost went to law school, but they found out my parents were married...

(j/k, of course)

If so, consider the full strategic implications, since

"nothing except(potentially) wmd's to hand out"

doesn't move you.

I guess you would similarly dismiss as offensive, the dialing of 911 if a burglar sans radar and sam only had gun he could shoot you with!

haha

weekends aren't you

first of all, wmd's aren't only hand-outable to dead-enders of the baathist stay at home variety

the 911 hijackers were also deadenders of a different sort

but even w/o 911 it is of strategic importance that a ceasefire be enforced not only due to the violator but also potential enemies

bush gave a great speech this week in between pain feel-ins in the bayou about the paper tiger aggresion inviting weakness that encouaged bin laden

also

the terrorist harbouring

untenable ongoing situation of cat and mouse

and the strategic davantage to est a presnce in the region that is producing the threat and to est a deocracy and muslim allies

its agreat success and on of the US's finest hours

...that Desert Storm should have ended the Baath regime.  We could have had all this anti-war hemm-hawwing 12 years ago.

So was Bork (and I taught a Business law course for 2 years while a trial lawyer)

but then again do prof's work 30 hours in 2 weeks much less 2 days..

plus prof's know what pj is

its grain alcohol and fruit usually mixed in a large tub or even bath tub at college dorms

have to think on this. union. post office. govt bureaucrat.

i do admire you if you went to law svchool and then didn't practice law. i was a trial lawyer for 13 years and it does take a toll on one's character! now i'm a corp lawyer

we also beat central fla the first week

lost to jawja and bama in between

if so, you have fallen into the nam trap

and ya, i guess we will wait and see what happens during the next election cycle.

but if the polls remain as they are, i believe many canditates on both sides will be running on how to start withdrawing the troops.

it was an offens that 2 had to be

...who doesn't prepare for war...but who also doesn't invite it.

To bastardize the phraseology of "Hero" (Jet Li, not Dustin Hoffman) ...

"The ultimate ideal for a warrior is to lay down his sword."

...we just call that "grain punch" ...

(and all those guesses were wrong...mwhahaha)

On political conversions, "I Was a Teenage Rush Listener," but I went the other way --- no, not LEFT, outside the whole frikkin' corrupt, weak-kneed political system, lol...as I said in another topic, "my people" think that agriculture is just a fad...

But it is a factor and

while I usually protest during ballgames to the question of "whose winning" since who ever ultimately wins, was, in one sense, always 'winning", (the proper question during sports updates, is "whose ahead")

we could have won in vietnam had lbj not been enamored of the historucally bankrupt concept of "limited war" and the south vietnamese would have won and was winning after we pulled out when the dem congress a year later cut off funds to arm them.

result: 2 million slaughterd by the commies

In Iraq, we have won the war of liberation and removal of the main threat and are now winning the  fighting against invading jihadists and deadenders as reconstruction and domocracy development progesses.

One caution on these polls. A large % of the dissatisfied with bush number are conservatives that want bush to be more conservative and who would never vote for a lib.

What will be interesting is whether the dems will nominate a rabid anti war candidate or a fake pro war candidate. Rush thinks that the far left now rules and will not tolerate any clinton games.

I would like to know what you think on that?

I do think that we will have reduced troops by a lot come the 2008 campaign and that the iraqi army will continue to increase in strengh etc

The repub candidate, will have one exit strategy: victory

...what a nice, round, focus-grouped, poll-tested and impressive number, and Reuters/AP/WAPO/NYT got that number from....the ANSWER folks who organized the protest?

ANSWER's famous for making up protest attendance numbers.  and note the ANSWER honcho's stinging rebuttal

Oh, and the National Book Fair was in town today, too, and in the same neighborhood, with attendance estimated at 70,000-80,000.  Reuters/AP/WAPO/NYT wouldn't try counting the book fair attendees with the Lifestyle Leftovers tossing rose petals at Mama Sheehan's feet, would they?

Frankly, the crowd shots I've seen on the news weren't exactly wide-angle and far away, but rather narrow and close in, so as to not draw attention to a turnout lower than expected.

Peace thru strength

is the only way after the fall and before the second coming

at least civil peace

the peace that passeth understanding and that can last an eternity cannot denied by any enemy

The laying down of the sword follows victory or surrender. That is our choice.

Our weakness invited bin laden's aggression and saddam's defiance. Bodanshy's pre-911 book on bin laden is very deatiled about bin laden's evolution towards us in the clinton years./

the book "reagan's war" is also vital

I mention book sall the time because after leaving SC and all consuming private law oractice and child rearing, I read a lot of conservative books that i has never read given my yellow dawg dem status, but found myself agreeing more and more with conservatives and bush's positions. And i had the time to read a lot. And i found myself re-thinking a lot of what i had believed  for decades. And also had to admit that reagan's policies worked and found a profound hostility to peaople of faith in the atlanta dem party and  also found that the loathing of racism that caused me to be a dem since the 70's seemed to be present in a lot of liberals in their condescention towards blacks and assumption of theoir inability to acheive without their help.

more later in my book

...and I'm an Eagle Scout, btw ;)

Plus, free people don't choose jihad.

People who feel America is an oppressor sometimes choose to reduce tall buildings to rubble

Like Timothy McVeigh.  (A free American.)

Other people might choose to attack subways in London.

Like Hasib Hussain, Mohammad Khan, and Shehzad Tanweer.  (All free British citizens.)

We could do a comparison of the not-free people under Hussein and the free people under the new Iraqi rule.  Which group had more car bombs explode in their midst?

Sorry, but we have ample evidence that bringing freedom to a country doesn't significantly reduce the ability of terrorists to attack it.  Or elsewhere.

The whole idea that spreading freedom to Iraq will reduce the number of terrorists is greatly misguided.  The oppressed people weren't the ones terrorizing us to begin with!

We are PRO just wars, which are the only ones we fight.

No one fights an unjust war.  If we took a poll of everyone who fights, how many of them would say they were fighting for an unjust cause?

Everyone thinks they're fighting the good fight, which is why they fight in the first place.  Even the infidels.

You highlight a crucial difference between liberal peaceniks and conservative warhawks in this very statement of yours.

Peaceniks tend to be very empathetic toward the enemy.  They want to understand their opponent, what makes him think, what drives him.  They want this in order to find the best humane solution to the conflict.  Often this manifests itself as something along the lines of "since they feel mistreated by us, why don't we try treating them better?"  Peaceniks are much more likely than warhawks, when looking at the sitation from the enemy's point of view, to see the US war as unjust.

Conservative warhawks don't really take the opposing view, since doing so is a waste of time.  It's really quite simple: they already hate the US, they want to hurt us, and therefore we will crush them.  Warhawks might even feel a bit annoyed that there is even any discussion about the matter since it's so clear-cut.  Further understanding of the terrorist's grievances will not help the situation, and force will be the ultimate solution.  We are defending ourselves, and there is no more just cause than that.

Fortunately, the one binding goal between the two groups is to stop having the terrorists attack us.  The means to this end are, of course, wildly different.

and so I should amend my blanket statement which was too simplistic and incomplete.

First of all, no matter what the prior economic or political condition, of those that commit acts of terrorism against us, any who do, must be utterly denounced and defeated no matter the reason given, including delusional feelings of being oppressed by America.

By the way, Bin Laden's statements about the reason for jihad made for years prior to 911 traces the roots for same to Ataturk's abandonment of the Caliphate after WWI, I think (the 1920's) and to wahhabist demands for world domination under islam,

and the defeat of all that stand in its way.

Like, especially us. And Bin Laden sees teh rulers in the Middle East as infidels as well. And he sees, as zarqawi has stated, the freedom of the iraqi people as anathema to his vision.

So the "people" that attcaked us since 1979 thru 911 and in Iraq and many nations since 911 and who continue to plot our demise are not representative of the generla population by far.

My point about freedom as a major weapon against jihadism, is many fold. First, after removing the taliban and Saddam, we, of course, must not leave the countries in conditions that would faciliate the return of safe havens for terrorists with the power of a nation state. Nations of free people who choose their own leaders, inevitable choose to maximize the conditions for a happy life, which conditions do not include frequent attcaks from nations attacked by terrorists based on their soil.

This is so d**n basic.

Free people will be allowed to pursue hapiness and less likely to be drawn to an ideology of blame for supposed oppresion.

The vast majority of the people of Iraq voted and hate the baathist that oppressed them for deacdes and hate the terrorists. Your characterization of a terrorist band of deadenders and foriegn jihadists from nearby nations ruled by dictators is laughable and unworthy of one that usually makes more sense.

In fact your seeming defense of these wicked creatures is quite depressing.

But there is some truth in your last statement, which i'll get to later.

Tens of thousands of un-free muslims trained in bin ladens camps before 911 and nearly all of the terrorist attacks since the 1972 olympics have been by non-free muslims.

Now, it is an ideology that appeals to a minority of socially alientated youth living in western countries. Most of these reside in europe, and especially Britain and Germany which have been the most politically correct in their own self loeathing of their culture and tolerant therefore of radicals due to moral relativism.

That is changing!!!

Buy my main points about the positives of a free vs unfree society as related to the prodcution of terrorists and any other imprtant issue is not arguable by sane free people.

And given that we remoive dictators, we must help the previously oppressed take over. Would you have us suggest any other system but freedom?

Then your confusing:

"Sorry, but we have ample evidence that bringing freedom to a country doesn't significantly reduce the ability of terrorists to attack it.  Or elsewhere."

I never said that freedom reduced the ability of terrorists to attack it. I said that "free people don't choose jihad" by which I meant that free nations are much less likely to produce terrorists.

And you really afirm this 3rd grade level point when you suggest that feelings of being oppressed is the root of the prodcution of terrosits.

Freedom is the answer. i agree. i don;t agree at all that we have oppressed bin laden or his ilk or any nation. But clearly  removing the actual oppressor removes any pretext of oppresion claims by anyone about us.

If they aren't being oppressed, then we can't be oppressing them!!

But the fcat is that Bin Laden and the jihadists are oppressed in their mind beacuse the whole world is not under islam,ic rule.

So all we vcan do is kill them and free other people thjat will also want them dead and will help us.

Its happening now. And its wildly succesful.

I'll never understand the lefts' identifiucation with this minority of pagan barbarians as being "the people" and how they ignore the masses that are theor victims and who by courageous acts demonstate the clear will of the people.

Peaceniks and leftists (especially those above the age of 25 - most young leftists grow out of this)are the advanced stage of western affluent decdence akin to the sam e trends in history  from similar cultures that leads to weakness and evntually domination by a stronger enemy.

The ability to discern just and unjust acts of aggression requires that one judge the present in light of history and with reference to beleifs and values one considers authoritative.

The left rejects any moral absolute authority and so are incapable of determining what is just and so,

unlike the majority of americans who understand that there can be NO MORAL JUSTIFICATION for terrorist attacks intentionally targeting innocents,

and since lacking the ability to make moral judgments also blinds them to the miracle in history that is  America,

they childishy imagine humane alternatives in situations that can only be resolved thru the aggressive use of force against the inhumane.

That everyone thinks their cause is just is irrelevant, some are right andsome are wrong.

The Kaiser and Hitler were wrong,,as was saddam and bin laden and zarqawi.

we are right.

Good and evil exist. And it exists because of flaws in men, we call sin. Evil cannot be removed from men thru socia; constructs./

History shows that freedom does reduce evil as this is the closest we can come to what God intended and the dynamics that place between free people.

Whittaker Chamers in "Witness" describes the underlying reason for the dichotomy you describe and it is that leftists reject God and choose, as Eve did, to be her own God. To reject God's authority and re-make man in his image.

Most All of the slaughter of the past century is born of this in socialism-communism and weakness born of a rejection of God by an affluent society that thinks it doesn't need God is what leads to vulnerability to barbarians like the jihadists.

One will look in vain for examples of weakness in the face of evil leading to humane solutions. until  jesus returns, the world will be governmed by the aggresive use of military force. And the good will stay free only thru the shedding of blood.

I suggest that anyone that sees the US as unjust in afghanistan and iraq is a moral cripple. Its repulsive to even think how one could think such a thing. its born of another planet. Its mad.

Not a close call.

If it really were a close call, they would escape this country today and move over there if they really believ in "justice.'

But of course, they know that over there, under the bin laden rule, they can't vote, and that's not just. And yet, in this free nation, they suggest that attcaks on innocents could possibly nbe jstified to the extent that we not defend ourselves.

The things the enemy consider s unjust and which you suggest that we consider in changing behavior would require submission to their will.

so they can hav e at it. they don;t to stay in an unjust country..

You see , the adults mst choose whether they deem themselves moral and just and their country the same.

Thoise that are incapable of choosing are a comfort to the ennemy.

the means to the end is victory

the left's means lead to surrender

While I agree with your list of unjust acts*, with the qualified exception of Carter/Iran (to be blunt, the American military wasn't reliable at that point in time**), I'm afraid that the Mexican-American War pretty much was a land-grab prettied up as... actually, it was prettied up as a land-grab.  I have no intention of giving the Southwest back, mind you, but we weren't really in the right on that one.

Moe

*Although I think that we have to accept collective responsibility for the betrayal of South Vietnam.  That Congress wasn't a Democratic or a Republican Congress; it was an American Congress, and the same principles that cause me to reject the 'Bush's War' complaints cause me to not give me a bye on South Vietnam just because I can shift the blame.  We're all Bozos on this bus.

**And thank God for Ronald Reagan.

I would say that Carter was primarily responsible for the  Military's deficiencies as well as his unwillingness to use it.

I appreciate your point concerning shared responsibility for our actions in Vietnam and today. And, I must say, that a significant minority of repubs voted with the dems to deny Ford's continued aid to the South Vietnamese. And that while Nixon did improve the situation in Vietnam and did, even try a shot a victory in the Cambodian attack on the safe haven, that he did not do all he could have probably before the so-called peace with honor by Kissinger. Plus he campaigned to "get us out" not win? Or did he have the secret plan to win?

Moreover, and more in support of your point, a majority of dems voted for the first war on trror resolution soon after 911 under which Bush was authoriazed to go after all terrosists and all sponsoring states anywhere in the world, and sepcifically mentioned Iraq, and then alos voted for the iraq resolution.

My point was and is the moral blindness to the dangers of appeasing evil that has infected the dem party for decades, and which now dominates much of the party in an overt way. And that it is vitally important that the American people understand that the dem party today cannot be trusted to defend this country and so must not be given power.

and thank God for Ronald Reagan!!!!!!!!!!!

amen

I think they believe you can rationally reason with evil-shoot I think at times they don't even believe in evil-other than maybe rich capitalists.

The Republicans in this thread are pointing out that this group is far outside the mainstream of America, is liberal, and is part of the Democratic Party.

Apparently dKos agrees with you there.  The democrats and liberals don't seem to be happy with some of the riff-raff that showed up.  They don't like ANSWER. So while some of the riff-raff is definitely outside mainstream America, all the polls show that most American now oppose the war.

And by doing so hopes that voters will not vote for them  I am sorry that you see the issue in baldly partisan terms.  As a non-partisan independent, I find both parties sorely lacking.  I will cast my vote on my evaluation of the individual, and not on the basis of party affiliation.

For example, this exchangewas off-putting.  Streiff said, "I believe you play the hand that's dealt you. I don't expect that my cards will be equal to yours but I do expect the chance to play my cards. How I play those cards is on me.

I said, "I agree that everyone should be given the chance to play the cards they are dealt.  that is the crux of the issue.  Not everyone, even in America, is getting that chance."

He replied, "I'm sorry. But that happens to be life. Those are the cards."

Then I further replied, "I thought when you said that you just want to have the chance to play your cards, that you meant everyone should also get the chance.  I didn't realize you meant that having the chance to play was also one of the cards."

He basically said that he believed he was entitled to have a chance to play the cards he is dealt in life.  I agreed and said that everyone is entitled to the same chance.  He demurred.  What does he mean? He clearly has a sense of entitlement, but only for himself (and I suppose a few choice others).  Liberals are criticized on this site for supporting a sense of entitlement.  The only difference I see is that liberals say everyone is entitled to a chance while conservatives (if streiff speaks for them) say only the ones who have it already are entitled to a chance.  This sounds like the very difference between democracy and not-democracy.

I am probably like most of America who goes to work every day, takes care of their families, goes about their business, and expects the government to be running the country according to the principles we learned in our high school civics class.  I expect the government to tell us the truth.  But I came of age in the sixties and seventies and learned the government cannot be relied on to tell its citizens the truth, and I have been a cynical, apolitical, nonpartisan independent since.  I vote for individuals, not party affiliation.  

Looking back, most individuals I have voted for have been Republicans, but as the prospectus says, past history is not a predictor of future performance.  Maybe it was true in the past and I just hadn't noticed, but it seems like partisanship is on the rise at the expense of the best ideals America has to offer.  For example, the debate on torture was truly appalling.  I never thought I would see the day when people in my church defended torture, or even the abrogation of a person's human rights.  Our entire criminal justice system is based on the ideal that ALL people, even the most heinous criminal, has basic human and civil rights.  

I am just an everyday American, but one with world-wide experience. I have been in rich countries and poor countries, free and not so free countries.  I never thought I would see the day when people called the world's currently poor opinion of America a threat to our sovereignity.  People really said, "We're a sovereign nation.  Who cares what the world thinks?"

some argument you're having with other posters.

Republicans drummed David Duke out of the party because his views were so heinous.  When I see liberal/progressive/Democratic leaders doing the same to ANSWER, the communists, and others I'll take your point as valid.

But repeating "I'm independent, both parties suck" only takes you so far.  I prefer to change a party from the inside to fit my views better.  And the one that has thrown out racists is better than the one who welcomes them.  At least that's my take.

Finally, you dodged my point real effectively.  No one is arguing they can't protest.  We're just making sure mainstream America sees where the left stands today.  It stands with Michael Moore, with anti-semites, with former KKK members, with communists, and with ANSWER.  They could denounce those groups anytime, but they don't.  They have every right to stand with those groups.  And people have the right to vote against them until they grow up and come back to the reality based community.

I feel for those on the left who do reject these crazies.  They must be getting pinched between a philosophy they disagree with (conservatism) and groups who espouse open anti-Americanism.  I hope they take back their party from the crazies.

David Duke was not just some random nut-job marching around in Washington with an offensive poster.  He ran as a Republican and won the governorship of Louisiana.  The Republican party rightly decided that they didn't want him associated with them and "drummed him out of the party".

It's not at all clear to me that ANSWER has anything to do with the Democratic party.  They probably think the Democrats are way too right wing for them.  The Communists have their own party.  I'm not sure why the Democrats should have to run around decrying every crazy group in the world, any more than Republicans should have to precede every public gathering "If any members of the Klan happen to have  shown up today, I just want to make it clear that we're not in agreement with you".

I have written many legal columns on the subject of the powers of the commander in cheif in war and  I may have been the first to write of the probability that the terrorists captured in war would not be entitled to POW status.

But more to your point opposing the torture of enemy combatents with reference to the civil rights of accused criminals in the US.

Former reagan atty gen Barr gave brilliant testimony and has written extensively on the wholly different principles between the rights that apply domestically owed by WE THE PEOPLE to each other under the constitution and the treatment of enemies with whom WE THE PEOPLE are at war.

Our constitution and the govt we create is a compact between us whose main purposes are to protect WE THE PEOPLE from foreign enemies and protect our rights by limiting the power of govt as applied to us as citizens.

Domestically, we choose to risk the consequences for a greater good that the guilty go free rather than the innocnet be wrongfully convicted by requiring near absolure proof.

But we do not risk the loss of our freedom as a people to an enmey at war by the same standards.

When we go to war, war means that we kill the enemy on the battlefeild and any other lesser action, as in taking the enemy prisoner, that we deem helpful to achieing victory.

Now, we may decide not not torture the enemy for diffrent reasons, but the constitution is not one of them.

and, we could decide to turture domestic accuesed in situations of dire immediately preventable mass death. Alan dershowitz advocates this in extreme circumstance with ajudge's apprioval whre massive loss of like can be prevented. the ticking time bomb

One thing you can be sure of

all nations including us do torture the enemy to get vital info

whe one goes to war, the reasson is usually survival of the natiuon ultimately and the fcat that we risk killing innocent lives to save more inncoent lives a;lso justfies torture

its just never admitted in public

the facts of life

If its helpful, imagine having custody of one of a kidnapping gang that has your child...

their tolerance of bill clinton's perjury and obstruction of justice and public cover-up incl soliciting defenders he lied to?

He should have neen asked to resign.

and the NJ gov

and barney frank (although i do respect his intellect and enjoy his debates!0

and gore's no controlling authority

and leahy's leaks of cia intell

their are no consequences for bad conduct in the dem party

because all that matters is power and abortion

oh yeah, and reid's racist attack against estrada and thomas

and schumers attack against pryor

You should try www.hijackingcatastrophe.org and judge for yourselves. I was floored by it! It is a must-see.

I have to take issue with your statement that "It's an American perception left over from the cold-war [sic] that communists are by definiton bad."  If that were only true!  Unfortunately, as demonstrated by your post, the surviving perception, particularly dominant among people of the left-leaning persuasion, is that Communism is a great ideal, it just wasn't implemented correctly.

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.  Communism, the total ownership of the means of production by the State, is a disastrous idea, that has had monstrous consequences for those who either chose or were forced to endure it.  There is simply no rational or historical basis upon which to believe in the idea of Communism.  Given the body count, naivete is no longer a sufficient defense.  Therefore, those who continue their faith in it's ideology are simply saying that 70 million innocent corpses are not enough to be lain on the altar to convince them otherwise, and such a person truly is "bad" by any objective measure.

In concert with my father, for our small business.  In fact, we're both the workers and the bourgeoisie, but we do try not to be too haute about it.  

He just got back from a long trip, taken himself, as a worker (I guess) to Ohio to pick up two large machines in a truck he bought with his own liquid capital that we're going to use to produce all kinds of nice things for businesses in our area.  Is he a worker, or an owner, or what?  The truth is that he's both.  That's the basis of the American dream.

Every morning when I talk with him we flip a coin to decide which one of us is going to be "bourgeois" and which will be "proletarian" that particular morning.  It's fun, everyone should try it.

He was beaten because Republicans like George Bush Sr. publicly repudiated him.

except that I would substitute the word "communism" for "communist"

and the perception that communism is always bad is inarguably correct for anyone that deems mass slaughter and slavery to be bad

Now, many communist true believers were not consciously bad

and many were useful idiots for those that knew the ideology was a joke and merely useful as a tool to gain power

but the most important aspect of communism that is the source of its evil results is its atheism

it is man without god

more accurately man choosing to reject god and instead be his own god about the business of perfecting himself

it denies human nature

which makes slaughter and slavery inevitable as people rebel

...for levels of research here.

For example, a small amount of research would have indicated that David Duke was never governor of LA: he ran for the office independently, with not only no sanction but an actual official statement from the state GOP disavowing him.  The only reason that he made it to the general election is because of LA's practice of having the two top candidates participate in a runoff. Nobody sane wanted him in office; hence the famous bumper sticker "Vote for the Crook.  It's important."  His only elected positions has been two stints as LA state rep, which he won in 1989 despite efforts by Presidents Bush and Reagan, both of whom campaigned for the real Republican candidate.

Link.  

So, no, he wasn't a Republican, and ran as a Republican in much the same way that a member of International ANSWER claims to be for peace and justice - ie, talk is cheap, but in this case it has no basis in reality - and certainly did not become governor.  And he has spent his entire political career being disavowed by the Republicans, so I'm missing exactly when we 'drummed him out of the party'.  That implies that we wanted the [expletive deleted] around in the first place.

And this would have all been clear if you had simply spent some time doing research.  Thirty seconds on google.  Wikipedia right there.  Is it too much to ask that you make an effort?

the repubs really get a bad rap due to the southern strategy that brought disaffected dixiecrats into the gop, because the GOP, unlike the dem party, never supported segregation. the converted dixiecrats got nothing for their votes for repubs of any substance.

meanwhile the dem party substituted itself as daddy and built a new plantation on which to enslave the poor in dependency and keep them dependent

kind of like the old plantations banning of the teaching of english

and let me once again ask forgiveness from God for my nnaive swallowing of the dems as morally superior line for so long and for my efforst for the party

amen

posters.  It's about whether the sentiments expressed should be taken as part of the Republican or conservative philosophy.  Do you see it streiff's way or not?  Since I have typically voted Republican, I'd like to know if the party endorses the views he expressed, especially as I have spent my entire life trying to help students born with fewer chances.

And while we're at it.  Democratic Governor George Wallace (of fire hose fame) was still service as a DEMOCRAT in the office of Governor in the 1980s.  There was no drumming him out of the party.  No standing up to the racists inside their party.  And although the Wikipedia entry whitewashes his 1983-1987 term, the Dems never repudiated having Wallace serve under their banner.

Compare/Contrast to David Duke.

Since you're the legal mind remind us of the passage that guarantees human rights to ALL people, not just citizens. It's there.

I once was in a job where I had listen to a Geneva Conference lecture once every three months.  We were told in no uncertain terms that the behavior you now defend was wrong and beneath America's standards.

So is this a domestic gang that has my child, or a foreign one?  Would American authorities put me in jail if I tortured one of them?  You bet they would.

And what about cases of self defense?  Check out some of the self-defense cases that made the papers.  Even when self-defense is stipulated by the prosecution, you can still end up convicted.  If you have to hurt or worse, kill someone in self defense, it will be just the beginning of your nightmare.

I was typing overly hastily, and got the governor thing wrong.

First, since I seem to have touched a nerve, I agree that Duke was disavowed by Republicans.  Doesn't my post say that?

According to the Wikipedia article you link to, Duke ran and won as a Republican for the Louisiana House of Representatives, and ran as a Republican for governor.

In any case my point was the Duke held himself out to be a Republican candidate for office, and thus it was reasonable for the Republican party to announce that they wanted nothing to do with him.  People from ANSWER and Cindy Sheehan do not hold themselves out to be Democratic candates for office, and thus it is not really the concerns of the Democratic party or most of its members to worry that much about them.

My view is that private charity and volunteerism is an integral part of civil society and helping those less fortunate than myself.  That's why I was in the Peace Corps.  That's why I ran a community service fraternity and a charity dance marathon in college.  And it animates many of my goals in life.

I don't think government imposed "charity" (i.e. welfare) is an effective way to create civil society, create community, or help those in need.  We need more charity, less welfare.  That's a conservative stance... I might even call it compassionate conservatism.

Incidentally, streiff--since apparently you didn't like what I originally posted at all, I'm curious about what was so inappropriate about the post?  I admit that I incorrectly claimed that Duke won his election for governor, but that seemed pretty quickly cleared up and wasn't exactly central to the overall message.  Am I missing something?

but I think you may be saying he does not represent your views, at least in the linked thread.  that's fine, and if true is what I wanted to know.  If that htread does represent your views, but given what you have just said I have trouble seeing how it could, that would be worth knowing as well.  I just want to know where Republicans stand so I can properly evaluate different statements that I see here.  If the view expressed is not a Republican view, then I will know not to take such sentiments seriously.

Adam, if your point is that the Democratic party has an ugly history with regards to racists in the South, you'd have one.

I'm just not sure how it translates into any of the debate today.

and the main reason I was a dem inclu county party chair for a time was my family's work  to integrate sc in the late 60's and 70's.

But TODAY , which is the main reason i switched parties a few months BEFORE 911 is that many libs are now racists.

Dems are the ones that apply different policies based on race!!! ipso fcato

When i moved to Atlanta many of the lib dems here, had a verry condescending attitude towards blacks much like the attitude one has towards a chils, especially one that's kind of dull. they see themselves as their caretakers due to their weakened state due to the treatment of theo 1860's and before ancestors and due to the fact that they are morally superior to repubs who would actully expect the poor ceature to compete just like whie people.

oh yes

and mant dems have said, about the arab amd muslim peple in iraq and afghanistan, that

"we don't need to be heloing "those people"

for shame

and many white libs hate their own race

also witness harry reid's statements about clarence thomas and schumer's about estrada

white supremacy

i left the dems for the same reason i once embraced them

i will not abide racism

And wanted to add one final note.

The example of David Duke and the fact that he was "drummed out of the party" was lifted directly from Adam C's post that I was responding to, in case that wasn't clear.

So Adam C needs to be more careful in his research as well.

There.  Denunciation of carelessness on both sides, and we'll all be remembering that Google Is Our Friend in the future; problem solved.  My work here is done.

with egregious falsehoods being portrayed as facts in a cheap attempt to win an argument. So other than that, I didn't have a problem with your post.

The fact that you don't seem to think that was terribly important leads me to believe you've probably passed your half-life on this site.

I get the feeling you're not a moral relativist. :-)

The ability to discern just and unjust acts of aggression requires that one judge the present in light of history and with reference to beleifs and values one considers authoritative.

But Bin Laden is judging the present in light of history and with reference to beliefs and values he considers authoritative.

So there must be more than this for determining if an act is just or not, otherwise we're just using the same thinking as the terrorists.

Or is this just a case of, "My values are more authoritative than yours?" followed by, "Says you!"  Of, "We're right" followed by, "No, we're really right!"

That everyone thinks their cause is just is irrelevant, some are right andsome are wrong.

We can amend the poll: Do you think the cause you are fighting for is just, and, if so, are you right?  Are you double-secret right?

Do you believe everyone on the planet thinks our actions in Iraq are right?  Or even that most people think that?

One will look in vain for examples of weakness in the face of evil leading to humane solutions. until  jesus returns, the world will be governmed by the aggresive use of military force.

I'm sure that'll leave a great first impression.

So do you believe that we will kill all the terrorists?  What about those guys in London?  Why didn't we kill them before they set off the bombs?

Nations of free people who choose their own leaders, inevitable choose to maximize the conditions for a happy life, which conditions do not include frequent attcaks from nations attacked by terrorists based on their soil.

So what of the people listed in my previous posting?  Or is that just an acceptable attack rate from a free nation?

I never said that freedom reduced the ability of terrorists to attack it. I said that "free people don't choose jihad" by which I meant that free nations are much less likely to produce terrorists.

I never mean to misstate your position, so I apologize for doing so.  The fault with my misinterpretation is my own.

So this time I think you're saying, applying the generalization to Iraq: we're going to free the people in Iraq so they don't produce terrorists to attack us.  Why were they attacking us before?  (Were they attacking us before?)  Because they were under the iron grip of a dictator?

People tend to rebel against pressures put upon them.  It is unlikely that someone who had been persecuted by Saddam Hussein would say, "You know whose fault this is?  The Americans!"

Oh, but yes, so you do say that right here:

But clearly removing the actual oppressor removes any pretext of oppresion claims by anyone about us.

Ok...I guess now that we've gutted the government and reformed a new one, no one can say we're the oppressors of Iraq anymore.

But the fcat is that Bin Laden and the jihadists are oppressed in their mind beacuse the whole world is not under islam,ic rule

This is not the only thing that drives terrorists.  There are many reasons, and only the most fanatical people kill other people simply because they are not of the same religious persuasion.  Even in Northern Ireland, the reasons are many and varied.

It's tough to get a large crowd to kill people just based on religion.  A few here or there, but seriously, how many battles between Catholics and Protestants are there in the world per capita?

Mostly Christians and Muslims are peace-loving.

There are a lot of reasons terrorists claim to be upset at the West.  At the very least, even if we don't care about how they feel, wouldn't it be most efficient in terms of US lives and money spent if we at least understood the terrorists' motivations?

Sun Tzu knew this 2400 years ago--and I doubt he was a bleeding heart liberal.

"If you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one."

"One hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful.  Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful."