Redstate

should be easy with all this photo evidence, right?

Not holding my breath.

...a single group of 10-20 people, traveling all over the country, performing these acts.

we'd hear about their free speech being stifled by the Gonzalez (Formerly Ashcroft) -Dissent-Crusing-Brigades.

I was assured yesterday by a lot of folks that this was only a small fringe. I wonder if they took one or two busses from Chapel Hill to Minneapolis?

From the Strib article:

Riva Garcia, 15, a freshman at Minneapolis South High School, told the crowd that she believes the war is racist and that the military is using dirty tactics to get minorities to enlist.

"We, as working class, minority and immigrant youth, deserve equal access to education," she said. "We don't deserve to die for our country just because someone told us to. We deserve to be heard, and to be recognized as the future of this country."

(Hmm, wonder if she's here legally.) If this country is so bad, why are she and so many others like her here? I still think it's ironic that it is the very military they are protesting against that defends their right to protest (not vandalize). And I'm sure that irony sails right over little Miss Riva's mush-filled head.

Here is a superb essay by an immigrant about what makes this country great.

have a chat with this guy.

The tight camera angle makes it look like its a huge crowd, but if you panned out a bit you'd be able to see its really quite small.  The rightwing media strikes again!

stories. I read the entire link...had tears in my eyes at the end.

I read something recently in the MSM that talked about the "discredited" domino theory in Southeast Asia. I guess M/Sgt Sar might have other thoughts on how "discredited" that theory really was!

tight camera angles...yeah that's the ticket!

It was probably the same people that were here: http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2006/04/26/68214

And half of the people in that photo are probably just standing in line for the Chipotle that's next door.

When you care passionately about an issue, when you think it is terribly important, it is easy to become frustrated then angry with people who persist in disagreeing with you.  I know this personally.

Studies consistently show that once you're angry, you begin to seek out facts that justify that anger and discard others that don't fit into your views.  The internet and blogs make this much easier with partisan echo-chambers that funnel up the worst stories they can find about the other side.

That's why it's very hard to fairly judge political opponents, which makes it so important to seek out broad-based non-anecdotal data.  Good tools to assess the opinion of the "left" would be to me elections, polls, broad behavioral measures.

Take a moment and look at this for example: http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.14889/pub_detail.asp

In it, you'll see that 97% of Americans in the most recent poll are "very proud" or "somewhat proud" of our military.  In four polls listed, there were never more than 4% that were "not proud at all."

There are some breakdowns by party and Republicans do self-identify as being prouder of the country and more patriotic.  But almost no one is less than "moderately proud" of our country.

I have seen no real evidence to support the kind of broad accusations that Streiff likes to make.  Of course, he does have a photo of 30-40 people,and he did read an essay in an on-line magazine.  Oh and he personally knows some Democrats.  What could be more conclusive than that?

Tom

Is it that these people aren't despicable ?

Is it that Streif is offbeat about being upset about this ?

Is it that we (the people reading) shouldnt be upset  about this cowardly act of defiling a millitary recruitment center. I say cowardly because these people only apparent reason is worry that hey might have to serve.

Is it that left is more in line with the poll results than the protest would indicate ?

Please illuminate.

one of the problems with "polls!"

In it, you'll see that 97% of Americans in the most recent poll are "very proud" or "somewhat proud" of our military.  In four polls listed, there were never more than 4% that were "not proud at all."

There are some breakdowns by party and Republicans do self-identify as being prouder of the country and more patriotic.  But almost no one is less than "moderately proud" of our country.

Only the Wade Churchills of this world are going to say, in a poll, that they "hate" this country. And I would be willing to bet that even he would say he is "moderately" proud!

Actions rather than polls betray what the left is really thinking, and their actions belie the polls!

I think his point is that his studies consistencey show that we're stupid.  You see, we're angry and therefore we don't listen to facts and therefore we're closed minded and therefore we pick little pieces of anecdotal evidence and ignore all the mountains of evidence that his polls and the MSM constantly try to educate us with.  

I have more to say, but you know, I'm angry and therefore I'm stupid so I'll probably just go beat up the nearest gay guy or minority that I can find.

I doubt that any of the people in that crowd admire the Armed Forces of the United States or are willing to serve in them during time of war.  Indeed, the photograph shows demonstrated contempt and slight regard for those serving in it today, as you see in the photograph.

I doubt that any of the people in that crowd will vote Republican in November.

I doubt that anyone in that crowd voted for Bush in 2004.

I doubt that anyone in that crowd will vote for Condi, Rudy, McCain, or George Allen in 2008.

I strongly suspect that everyone in that crowd will vote for Hillary in 2008, despite her vote for the war in 2002.

"They support the troops but they don't support the war".

How many other patronizing falsehoods about your party do you want to peddle here before you realize that you have some major repair work to do on your side of the aisle. That picture you see is your party's future.

There's a reason, a demonstrable reason, why Americans don't trust Democrats with the national security of the country. Your party has gone pacifist, despite all your efforts to deny that it is so. Look at the photograph. Tommorow's Democratic Party is in that photo. I know, we're supposed to be polite and say that it's the "moonbat" left. But I'm sorry, we're a two-party Republic, and all the moonbats have infected your party.

The Deaniacs have taken over the Democratic Party, even if Dean himself lost. Hillary may have the money, but Dean has the heart and soul. That picture is your party's future. Period.

Americans will not like that picture.

Those aren't Young Americans for Freedom in there. Nobody's subscription to The Weekly Standard lapsed in that crowd.

...go beat up a lesbian and a minority. It'll be a threefer. Woman, gay, minority.

Helps with the demographics.....

examining these archives and organizational charts that pertain to the anti-war left.  They are in abundance.

Upon completion, you may wish to reevaluate this statement:

"I have seen no real evidence to support the kind of broad accusations that Streiff likes to make."

It seems to me that the evidence supporting streiff's "broad accusations" is overwhelming.

...I was too stupid to consider that.  Of course, if I wasn't so angry, I'd just find a lesbian minority and save myself some time.  Do most studies show that we're lazy as well as stupid?

I suppose their next stop will be the nearby abortion clinic, right?

Right?

Minneapolis/St. Paul is home to a large and vocal group of antiwar activists, "social justice" keynote speakers, and assorted variety of leftists.  

More on this protest from KSTP.

The march was organized by a group called the Anti-War Organizing League, which is apparently a recognized student group at the University of Minnesota.  Their website is hosted on University of Minnesota servers.

The Minnesota anti-war, "social justice", Socialist movement is fairly large.

Being Wealthy white, inbred people who live in trailer parks, get their news from jerry springer and eat their young.

I would say more but the youngest is on the BBQ.

Yes, those people won't vote for Bush and probably will vote for the Democratic candidate or Green party candidate if one exists.  So you imply, therefore, that everyone who votes for the Democratic candidate shares these people's views.

You're logic is false (see law of contrapositive) and only serves to set up a straw man that you can rip to shreds in your partisan fervor.  If that's the level of discourse you favor (which is just the right-wing equivalent of what these morons are doing), then fine.  But don't take the moral high ground when you're being just as unreasonable.

Most people on the left are aghast as you are at what these people are doing.  Most support the armed forces but fervently disagree with the administration's plans for the war and their strategy for fighting the GWOT.  Because we disagree with you on these points doesn't make us any less patriotic.

The link to the Minneapolis Star Tribune becomes a registration-required link after the first pageview.  I posted an alternate link to coverage of this story by local ABC affiliate station KSTP in my comment below.  This antiwar protest was apparently organized in concert with the Anti-War Organizing League at the University of Minnesota, and surprise!  They're also rolling out the red carpet for the Mayday Boycott!

Twin Cities "social justice" action is a fairly large contingent of people.

how appropriate..

They all look like high school kids to me--but then I guess I'm getting to that point where everyone starts to look young--wonder who inspired them?  

Still, I'm not really worried about a bunch of 15 year olds with flourescent bracelets and dirty hair.

on being so candid with the country, finally...

...that most of these nitwits won't even vote in November? They'll be too disaffected, filled with ennui, or stoned.

That's one thing that the Left has yet to figure out about politics: "statements" don't mean squat; motivated, passionate voters who actually go to the polls and pull a lever for something they believe in, that's what wins elections.

One of the most interesting twists in the antiwar strategy post-Cindy Sheehan has been to not just organize at college campuses, community centers, and churches but also to organize and recruit new members at local high schools across the country.  That's one of the new pages in the United for Peace and Justice Playbook designed to swell the ranks for the protests they expected to be hosting this spring with Mama Sheehan at the lead.

Voting Rights for 15-year olds! Get 'em early, before they have a chance to learn about the real world!

To being young and impressionable, organizing and dragooning high-school students into adult protests has a number of other benefits:

1. America is a youth-obsessed culture and the more young faces you put on TV the more people think that it's something they should be watching.
   
2. Minors aren't going to be prosecuted for their actions in the same way as adults but their numbers are great for filling out a crowd and their enthusiasm is boundless.
   
3. Once you have them at 15 years old, you have them at least until they're 30.  
   
4. Police are going to treat them with "kid gloves" and if they don't, it becomes a national police-brutality case against children.

See also:  Human shields and the practice of drug dealers to use children as "runners."

Of organizing and recruiting high school students by the antiwar Left is deliberate and calculated.  It's not a laughing matter.  I've been reading some of the other comments in this thread that are playing this down as a kind of fringe-group activism.  If you think so, you're seriously underestimating both the size and the motivation of these groups across the country.  Everyone is going to see just how determined they are on May 1st.

After we disengaged from Vietnam (and Cambodia), Thailand did not become communist and is a thriving capitalist country.  Laos is now a member of ASEAN.  Vietnam will probably become a member of the WTO this year.  I think it's clear that the domino theory has been discredited.

in this country, the indoctination starts early and often!  We were traveling last weekend, and sitting in a fast food restaurant that had a television playing. "Captain Planet" was on! I told my friend, who has three small children, and has never watched the show before, that it is leftist pap, all about evil corporate interests destroying the world.

He laughed, until we had watched a few minutes of it, and he saw I was right!

The kids today get it in cartoons, in school, in the MSM, it's a wonder they can even THINK until they turn 30 and get some braincells working!

I don't think the implication was that all Democrats feel like that and I think you know that implication was not made.  You are trying to turn this kind of despicable behavior in your favor by focusing on the justified criticism from the Right.  Because a certain faction of the Democrat party, a faction that wields the greatest influence over the elected Democrats, is associated with that party does not make you a martyr.  Your argument is the straw man.  Is this a persecution of all Democrats?  No.  Is it indicative of the base of the party that influences its elected officials' policies and motives?  Yes.  Are you a martyr because these moonbats are being harshly criticized and identified with the modern American Left?  Absolutely not.

I would point out that these misguided children are not representative of all in their generation.

From the 'Strib article.

"As military workers began cleanup outside the rented storefront, a group of students pitched in.

"They disgraced our country and our military," Ole Hovde, 19, a freshman, said as he wiped down the windows."

There is hope, there are those who still, "get it"!

as long as she doesn't ----Volunteer-- to join the armed forces!   In her emotion she missed that minor detail.   I wonder what city she'll be helping to close down Monday.

Streiff describe the photos here as "A gathering of the non-fringe, patriotic left."  He implies this crowd represents a large chunk of Americans.  Previously he has implied that Democrats / the left are not patriotic.

My point is that the evidence I could could dig up does not support his smears.

It's completely appropriate to be upset at the people in the photo - you need some evidence though before you tar tens of millions of Americans with the acts of a few dozen.

Tom

  Yes, that's the word.  I will check out the NY Times for some Aghastness later.  In the meantime Senator Dick Durbin's remarks about concentration camp guards will serve as a guide to liberal Aghastivity.  

Captain Planet was off-limits in my household when I was growing up. My parents would not allow it, I'm pretty sure for the same reasons you mentioned. And to think at the time I wondered why.

I followed your link.  I see a list of names that

1. I have never heard of
   
   
2. Movie stars
   
   
3. One activist I had heard of

Here's my point -

Are those real people in Streiff's photograph?  Yes.  Are there silly people out there?  Yes.  Do movie stars say stupid things?  Yes.

But Streiff is rejecting the idea that the people in the photo are a fringe.  He has repeatedly implied or said outright that left wing or the Democrats are unpatriotic.  He seeks to blame the whole party for the fringe.  This is roughly the equivalent of a left-wing site emphasizing Pat Robertson's comments or highlighting a Klan rally as indicative of what the broad swathe of conservatives think.

The evidence I am looking for is a sign that there is large part of the country that does hate America or the military.  I am not finding it and Streiff is not supplying it.

Tom

I find it curious that there is any debate whatsoever about whether these punks, the vandals at UNC, or the recent free speech opponents at UC Santa Cruz are representative of the left.  Quite a few of the liberals that post here have spent an awful lot of time trying to dissociate the left from these "activists".  I suspect that if I went to Kos the line would be "you bet your $#&@*&% #$& they are liberals and we are $&#^%$# proud of them".  (I prefer the Classic Comics style of representing profanity).  They likely scratch their heads at those who wish to separate themselves from these actions.  After all, dissent is patriotic!

Let's call a spade a spade.  These nutjobs, Code Pink, ANSWER, These Democrat members of Congress that opposed the Solomon Amendment are all variants of the same movement sharing an objective which is to damage our military by hindering recruitment. Its not even about Iraq, after our attack on the Taliban we saw similar protest.  

When the House Minority Leader freely associates with a movement's icon, it cannot be said to be fringe.

Sure I'll buy that.

But what actions are we talking about.  The worst actions of a handful of protesters?  Or do have something broader?  

Do you think a left-wing site might be able to find a photograph of some obscure right-wing group doing something crazy?  Would that photgraph tell us something about the "non-fringe " right?

I doubt those protesters would say that they are very or somewhat proud of our military.  If I am right, then those polls place an upper limit on how large the group of like-minded people are.

Tom

the deep end, can you?  After we left S. VietNam, Laos, Cambodia and of course S. VietNam all went communist.  Perhaps you weren't paying attention or just reading history books written by moonbats.

Whats been discredited is the theory of Communism.  The fact that all those former and nominally still communist countries are turning to capitalism should tell you something.  The fact that you can't see that is very disturbing. Even worse, the fact that there are millions of people in your same boat, who can't see something so fundamentally easy, is hurting this country terribly.

But, Your operating on faulty logic. Lets do this mathematicaly. This is  not researched from my own recollection, the november 2004 battleground poll showed 60 percent of the country self identified as conservative, 40% as liberall. This is itself is probably a misrepresentation as most of the country if given the choice would identify as moderate.

For the sake of argument 40% on the left. You have 4% of the country as being anti military of that 4% virtually none are conservative maybe a .1 percent. So 4%/40% yields the percentage of the left thats anti millitary or 10%. This neglects polling error. Sow we have 10% of a movement that is willing to identify itself as anti millitary. Whats more this is by and large the controlling portion of the movement. The evidence of this is the fact that it is the voice of the movement. Conservatives have radical positions and components to our movement but they are controlled by saner heads not the obverse.

So youre point that you shouldn't tar the left with these peoples actions is rather well refuted. There is of course, the simpler argument that if the left doesn't want these people to represent them why doesn't it say so ?

The influence and control over the agenda that the United States Student Association exerts upon numerous and varied student organizations, such as the one responsible for organizing this protest, seems patently obvious.

Calling itself America's "oldest and largest national student association," the United States Student Association (USSA), founded in 1947, is the principal lobbying group for American students. Its platform includes support for racial and ethnic preferences in academia, the expansion of public education benefits for illegal immigrants, and ardent opposition to America's war on terror.

USSA is a member organization of the United for Peace and Justice anti-war coalition, which is led by Leslie Cagan, a longtime committed socialist who aligns her politics with those of Fidel Castro's Communist Cuba. USSA has participated in numerous anti-war rallies condemning America's post-9/11 military campaigns and exhorting the U.S. government to divest from Israel.

USSA is a sponsoring organization of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride Coalition, an open-borders entity that seeks to secure amnesty and full civil rights and liberties for illegal immigrants, as well as policy reforms that diminish or eliminate restrictions on future immigration.

How do you get from a photo of a small group ofyoung people (known throughout history for doing stupid things) to the future of a political party supported by tens of millions?

That's the "clue" I need.  Until then, I just see repitition of the Streiff's arguments with the throw-away logic that because these kids don't support Bush they are representative of all those who don't support Bush.

Tom

This shows what the liberal wing of the Democrat Party thinks is a military supporter.

What party had the largest percentage of its members oppose the Solomon Amendment?  What party is most closely aligned with the mainstream of academics at our leading (i.e., Ivy League) universities--academics who overwhelmingly oppose (and often actually revile) our military?  Academics whose rantings..er, teachings..undoubtedly fuel behavior such as pictured above?

What party had Michael Moore in a place of honor at its national convention?  

What party is most closely associated with Code Pink, the group that routinely protests outside of Walter Reed and Balboa Hospitals (where, of course, all the decisionmakers in the Pentagon live and work).

What party, knowing that all these perceptions of it exist, has not forcefully tried to correct them?  Has not, for example, had a "Sister Souljah" moment, where a group of prominent party leaders call out Cindy Sheehan or Medea Benjamin or Michael Moore.  Has instead allowed itself to coexist with this anti-military fringe--in hopes, perhaps, of drawing some energy from it?  

This is a rhetorical question, of course.  We all KNOW what political party does this.  And, as long as it does, it needs to take its medicine, and live with whatever implications/perceptions arise from its (in)actions, and the associations it chooses to make.

We are all judged by the company we keep.

...too many Democrats bought the Director's Cut of Farenheit 9/11 and believed what Michael Moore told them. Moore knew exactly what he was doing when he made that film. He was laughing all the way to the bank.

And by the way, how many prominent Democrats attended the Washington premiere of Michael Moore's propaganda screed? Lots, including then party chair McAuliffe and several prominent Senators from your side of the aisle.

Your party hasn't simply let the moonbats in, they've enabled them. And why?

This crowd of latte sippers just happens to have money, that's why.

We ran David Duke out of our party because we were not willing to tolerate an apologist for hate. I wish the same could be said for you people. It can't.

They donate too much money to your cause. So you tolerate them. It will do your party no good in the long run. Trust me on this.

Americans would like to win this war, not tolerate a political party that welcomes those who want us to lose it.

...and vandalize, they're angry enough to vote. I'm not sure what they did rises to the level of a felony, however.

Streiff ever stating, or implying, that the Democrat Party is unpatriotic, but I will let Streiff defend his own position.

However, I am completely amazed by this staement:

"The evidence I am looking for is a sign that there is large part of the country that does hate America or the military.  I am not finding it and Streiff is not supplying it."

You obviously spent very little time exploring the vast number of anti-war groups that my link offered as proof.

Denial, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is quite simply an untenable position.  

I might consider that concept. But the democratic party has a nearly 40 year history of not just embracing these people, but promoting them and letting them set the agenda.

You couple this with the Media's customary reaction of how to spin every one of these protests as the mood of the country has turned on bush, well you get  a clear picture. Not as clear as the one above but pretty clear none the less.

My thoughts then

1. The 4% was the highest number of any of the polls.  The more recent numbers are 1% and 2%.  Which by your math would leave us at 2.5% to 5%.
   
2. The polling error to me seems more likely to work in the other direction.  Consider if 90% of people have green eyes and 10% have brown eyes.  Now  if we poll the people and we are right 90% of the time, then, then our erros would be (assuming we polled a representative sample of 100 people):
   

The 90 green eyes polled would show up as 81 green eyes and 9 brown eyes.  The 10 brown eyes would show up as 9 brown eyes and 1 green eyed.  The total would be 82% green eyed and 18% brown eyed.  If there is measurement error (people mishear the question, pollster writes down the wrong answer ...), that measurement works against the larger group.

To your following points,

1. You assert that the kids in the photo are part of the "controlling part" of the movement.  Can you provide some evidence?  They are the "voice of the movement" only conservative websites.  I read a fair number of popular liberal blogs and somehow I've never see these kids there or their points of view their.
   
2. "Why doesn't it say so?"  How is the left supposed to say so?  How does the right tell the world that Pat Robertson does not represent them?

Tom

are back!

Staged or unstaged, mass rally or professional moonbats - makes no difference.  Witness America's bottom dregs employing their 15 minutes of fame attempting to elevate themselves to the level of pond scum.

Pick a modern war - any war; these creatures slithered from under the rocks to abuse the 'rights' purchased at the ultimate expense for them and their like throughout our history by others whose graves these creatures aren't worthy enough to dig.

"Rights' without responsibilities.

Actions without consequences.

Ain't it grand?

Mass media and the current brand of Democratic (anti) politics make it possible for millions to witness the discreditable acts of scores, and assume their relevance.

"Whiff of Grape? . . .  Anyone?

Or, perhaps, mass parachuting the assault elements of the American Left into Iran and Sudan where their antics would doubtless receive immediate and proper attention?

Just a thought.

But Buchanan's book is not much compared to the books coming out from the Left.

Yet the Dems will sooner run out Lieberman, who is mostly liberal, for supporting the war.

nothing happened in Cambodia, nothing happened in Laos, nothing happened in Vietnam. No killing fields, no genocide of Hmong and Meo, no reeducation camps, no depopulation of cities, no refugees.

I guess I was still suffering the side effects from my secondary major in recreational pharmacology and just hallucinated several million dead and millions more displaced.

what more do you want? To say they are really holograms and don't exist at all and the same people who faked the 9-11 faked this, too?

Leave your bogus pop psychology at the door. If you want to psychoanalyze do it some place else. Word.

I await with baited breath the outraged Paul Krugman column lambasting these high-spirited young Democrats for their excessive tomfoolery.

Anyone want to take some bets on an over and under on the date on whose column in The Nation will express a greater level of spastic anger towards these Fifth Columnists, David Corn or Katrina Vandenheuvel?

Yup. Let's Support the Troops, even if We Don't Support the War!

You know, a Krugman column lambasting these clowns might be worth getting Times Select.

I've searched high and low for a Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi or even John Kerry quote saying they disagree with this. Can't find one. Care to help out?

Are smart enough to lie about how they feel when they aren't in mobbed frenzy mode. I'm sure many would say somewhat proud. After all, there are some anti-war people in the military. Then there's that guy who attempted to frag his own unit in Kuwait a couple years ago. I suppose they could be proud of him as well.

Most of them no longer go around spitting on servicemen and calling them baby killers... but that doesn't mean they aren't still thinking it. They just realize the colossal error they made in the Vietnam era and have adjusted their rhetoric accordingly. That's where all this "support the troops but not the evil BushHitlerBurton regime" stuff comes from.

...that the Dems are the party of Dick "US troops are like Nazi concentration camp guards" Durbin.

Or that disgrace of a former POTUS Jimmah "I certify this Hamas victory" Carter.

Or the traitorous Vietnam-vet hating, John "Whoopi Goldberg and hollywood is the heart of America" Kerry.

Or the Dkos "Screw them" attitude that is on display over there 24/7, where the likes of John Kerry, Babs Boxer, Cindy "Let me urinate on my son's grave that is STILL without a tomb stone" Sheehan, et al., like to post...

Birds of a feather indeed.

I think that there may be a small (but much larger than 15-20; probably several hundreds to a thousand) instigators travel the campus circuit. But they are just instigating, the local ls are doing the damage. Leftist defeatist anti-Americanism is far larger than a few dozen roving vandals.

Between the moonbat left and Democrats in general. This is about the moonbat left which is perhaps 25-30% of the population. The same people that think Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, that think he needs to be impeached, etc.

Previously he has implied that Democrats / the left are not patriotic.

I don't recall any place where he implied that; no implied involved at all.

at anytime that I think the left is unpatriotic I can only blame my lack of writing skills. I have never implied that at any time.

that a handful of people exercising their civic rights to protest committed acts of vandalism.  That is wrong; should be condemned; if criminal should be prosecuted.

Do many, or the vast majority people who could be members of the "Left" oppose the war in Iraq?  Certainly.  Look at the poll numbers and you'll find the list includes many whom you cannot classify as leftist.

Among those tens of millions opposed to the war in Iraq, you'll find a wide range of positions.  It is not a monolithic movement of shared belief.

For myself, you can say that I considered the war ill-conceived, misrepresented and badly executed.  I also believe that we can't just abandon the field.  We have now fostered a threat that we cannot ignore.  Many feel this same way; many do not.

I realize the these photos can be stretched to support one of strieff's pet issues, but to give them more weight than they deserve is simple polemic.  A broad brush is excellent for painting barns but it is a tool that, in politics, has only one purpose:  bolster the us versus them sort of diviseness that makes constructive policy action so rare in our polarized environment.

Streiff immediately above:

"I say they are fringe and patriotic"

Streiff original post:

"A gathering of the non-fringe, patriotic left"

I assumed the original post meant that Streiff thought the idiots in the photo were not a part of the fringe, but representative of the left wing.  

Part of the reason I assumed that is I had read previous posts by Streiff like

"We are told over and over that we can't question the patriotism of those on the left ... So yes, I do question their patriotism. No, I don't believe we are on the same side in this war"

But if Streiff believes the people in the photo are fringe that I have no argument with him.

Tom

I gotta tell ya, with all the stuff going on in the world, I can't say I'm so excited about these people  exercising their free speech rights with their particularly insulting and treasonous message.  We got a shooting war in progress with Al Qaeda and Baathists, and impending (many think inevitable) war with Iran.  These people are wayyy out of line.  

I wish I could think of a way to fix these guys' red wagon and shut them the heck up, but I haven't found a solution that doesn't create a moral hazard.  Darn morals.  

Maybe a focused group of private citizens to research these people and put their bios on the Internet.  Since many employers Google their prospective clients before hiring them, maybe they can be hurt that way.  Send the webpage to their parents, friends, and families.  Talk about a fun topic at the next family reunion!

These 'fringe groups' are deeply entrenched throughout academia and our university system, and their virulent ideology has spread to the general populace.  They are well organized, well funded and extremely dangerous.

We have distanced ourselves from that claim to be on the right but are pursuing radical and more than a little insane agendas.

The elected or selected leaders of a party need to denounce and shun this type of behavior. The democratic leadership doesn't distance itself from the loonies. In many cases they are the looniest. Howard Dean comes to mind.

Vietnam.  The Democratic controlled Congress of the US cut all funding to the South Vietnamese at a time when they actually had chance of holding their own against the North.  The Democrats applied their policy of "cut and run", leaving out-gunned allies in the breach to be butchered.  The cowed Republicans did nothing to stop the Democrats juggernaut of surrender.

As a result, millions of Vietnamese were either murdered or "reeducated".  In Cambodia, the original Pol Pot of Dick Durbin's memory, one third of the population was murdered by the communist government.  Similar story in Laos.

You don't credit anyone or anything for your proud comment about the Southeast Asian countries move toward a more free society.  I would suggest you point your prayer rug in the general direction of the Reagan Library where Ronald Reagan is buried.  He had the vision and the courage to stand up to both Communism and the Democratic Party and as a result, the Evil Empire fell.

I'll be right over with beer!  Them young 'en's are right tender and tasty.

Heh.

That's why Michael Moore was given a seat in the "Presidential Box" at the Democratic National Convention.

That's why the Democrats nominated a man who accused millions of fellow veterans of the war in Vietnam of being war criminals with the full knowledge and participation of the chain of command.  A man who, while and officer in the Naval reserve, went to Paris to engage in talks with the NVA and Viet Cong.

That's why Dick Durbin likened US military personnel to Nazis and to Pol Pot.

That's why the defeated Democratic candidate for President in 2004 accused the US military in Iraq of being terrorists.

And that's why there has been a consistent drumbeat from the left for all of the above national political leaders to apologise for their outrageous comments and actions and for them to resign from office in disgrace.  

The people on the left are generally patriots.  I just can't figure out what country they are aligned with in their patriotism.

About what happened after we pulled out of Vietnam.  You might learn something.

The Vietnamese are now a Capitalist country in all but name not because Communism works.

Reagan didn't have much effect on Vietnam.  They did That themselves.

They looked at us and said "We want ours."  And they're doing their part to Get theirs.  This and the fact that they are tired of being ruled by China even via proxy are why they have taken such Successful steps toward the ultimate goal of escaping the suicide pact that is Commuunism.

As the ones this thread is about, then we of the Military Might, just maybe, possibly, think they aren't lying through their teeth.

When the Military doesn't draw over 80% of its volunteers from the ranks of the Republicans, we'll believe that they truly are proud of us.  After all, what is the sincerest form of praise?

When Democratic politicians are not behind every move to weaken us to the point that we can't complete Peacetime missions (see Clinton military policy) let alone Wartime neccessities, we'll perhaps change our opinion that the Left is actively seeking to destroy us...

Can you answer these?

cia leaks that endanger the troops

it depends on what the meaning of "proud" is

Isn't that basically what they were doing last summer with that cazywoman leading them?  I can't think of her name, but I'm sure everyone here knows who I'm talking about...

Federal Property is a felony by virtue of its location and/or target.  Speeding on a military installation is, thus, a felony.  So, yes, this is a felony.

Average Democrats don't pay attention to politics all the time, and support the military like you and me. They aren't in the equation. We're not really talking about them. They're Donkeys cause Daddy was a Donkey. They're apolitical until about two weeks before  the election. The Base, on the other hand, is another story. They've got Charles Lindbergh disease, and they've got most of the money....

The Democratic leadership is hogtied by its base. The DLC doesn't control the Party anymore, not after George Soros showed up and started playing the role of Colonel Blowfeldt. In essence, six years of Bush has given voice to the Torchlight Parade By The Fuhrer's Window crowd in the Democratic Party that Bill Clinton tried to hide in the closet and appease. He was successful because he was bubba and he beat the Republicans.

Hillary can't do this. She hasn't a tenth of Bill's political talent. Anyone who saw the Coretta Scott King funeral knows this. Against a Condi, Rudy, or McCain, she's doomed. The Donkey Base knows this, which is why they're making their demands known now.

Expect a Eugene McCarthy revolt against the Hillary faction in 2008 by the Dean faction. They don't care about how Hillary does-she's seen as a Right Deviationist. They want their Torchlight Parade, their Impeachment, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Condi to be tried as War Criminals before the World Court at the Hague (True Fact! Democrats go on all the time about trying Bush and Condi at the Hague-they love the ICC for just that reason...). If you've seen the anger on DemocraticUnderground and Kos, you know this.

Such nice people.

As opposed to the Republcian leadership which currently seems to be totally unaware that there even is a base :-)

...when he said we should have let the Adolf and Uncle Joe have at each other. Winner gets to build the Autobahnen to Moscow.

Sounds like Pat won too many arguments in Jesuit school....

FISTICUFFS!!!!

I thought that was a great book. I agreed with most probably although I think he is a bit too pessimistic about the chances for assimilation success under a controlled immigrtion policy with secure borders.

But all should read THE seminal book from 1995...

Alien Nation

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060976918/sr=8-4/qid=1146337615/ref=pd_bb
s_4/103-2679406-8627012?%5Fencoding=UTF8

Cambodia and Laos were destabilized in part because of American action.  From Wikipedia:

'Prior to 1970, the Communist Party of Kampuchea was an insignificant factor in Cambodian politics. However, in 1970, the pro-western General Lon Nol overthrew Sihanouk, because the later was seen as supporting the Viet Cong and North Vietnam.

In protest, Sihanouk threw his support to Saloth Sar's side. That same year, U.S. President Richard Nixon ordered a military incursion into Cambodia in order to destroy Viet Cong sanctuaries bordering on South Vietnam. Sihanouk's popularity, along with the U.S. incursion into Cambodia, drove many to Saloth Sar's side and soon Lon Nol's government controlled only the cities.'

In other words, our Cambodian bombing caused that country to become communist.  It wasn't our departure that led Cambodia to become communist, it was our presence in Vietnam that destabilized the neighboring countries.  Read your history books!

You can go to wikipedia this afternoon and in a matter of minutes change WW II so that Japan and Germany were victorious and that it was state by Poland bombing Pearl Harbor.

interpretation of facts.

Maybe something like Germany and Japan were destablilized by the incessant bombing raids of the US airforce and the eventual occupation by US military forces.

From a Leftie site saying thatthe Klan is representative of the Right.

The Right has repeatedly taken steps to limit and eliminate groups like the KKK and Westboro Baptist Church and has gotte rid of politicians that claim to represent the Right but only support those organizations.

The Left has done of the above with their fringe.  And in many cases (see DailyKos) they celebrate them.

Oh, and if You don't recognize the people in that link, you might want to ask your parents.  After all, the people linked are the ones who put the current Democratic leadership in power.

afterall, it's "fake but accurate", or "accurate but fake", or something. Libs understand anyway.

"Ignorance is No excuse"

Yes, I think that's it.

Captain Planet for the longest time.  Then I stared watching other things and when I saw a couple episodes again a few years later, like Scooby Doo, etc, I was shocked by the stupidity of the shows that I used to like.

We need to bring back the original G.I.Joes.  And Exo-Squad.  Trasformers, etc.  The good stuff...

do not need me to speak for them. That said, I found your drive-by editorial both amusing and irritating.

Overall, you will find his posts are well sourced, broadly support by a majority of public opinion and historically accurate (a few minutes reviewing any of his articles would show you that).

On the other hand you have offered nothing BUT emotion and platitudes (oh I forgot a singular AEI article). Throwing rocks and talking about "non-anecdotal" data certainly does nothing to help your point or display any intellectual prowess.

Specific to this issue, yes it is on one level emotional because it is so despicable. But it is also broadly supported by a collection of liberal groups. That is aptly supported by the cleverly crafted and corrosive anti-war statements by liberal Democrat politicians that lead the pack. It is then put into action by their supporters down the line and institutionalized in places like college campuses.

Here is some real research. Go to any local college campus and seek out the schedule activities/event. My bet is you will find at least one anti-war speech or gathering and the young Republicans will not be sponsoring it. That's not anecdotal it's factual.

Is that the US Armed Forces can't do their job even passably well, but you want them to continue doing it...

We appreciate that...

Lefties all over the country sould have to go see that movie, to be reminded of what we are fighting against.

its too soon :-)

And besides, if they see it they might get upset and there is a remote chance that some might be overcome by a sudden urge to destroy the bad guys; and we can't have that, its so ... so ... so Bush-like.

I took my 14 year old son and 11 year old daughter to see United 93 this afternoon. My son is old enough to remember the events of that day. He was in 5th grade, and said that all students returned to their homerooms to watch the news as it unfolded.

My daughter, OTOH, who was 7 at the time, didn't even realize that there were four hijackings that day.

I took her to that movie today because I wanted her to understand why we are fighting in the Middle East. I want her to understand what kind of world these terrorists would have us live in. And I want her to understand and be thankful that our military is protecting us from the prospect of living in that kind of horrid world.

Because I don't trust the public schools to do it.  Because they aren't doing it. Obviously, Minneapolis South High School hasn't taught it to Riva Garcia.

Those students are to be commended.

...bolster the us versus them sort of diverseness that makes constructive policy action so rare in our polarized environment.

We currently have over 100,000 troops in the field, in Iraq and Afghanistan, in harms way fighting terrorists.  They have thus far successfully brought down two fascist theocracies and 50 million people are now struggling to establish secular democracies in their place.  Our military is in the process of helping to recruit and training local police and military in both countries and in both, the locals are beginning to step up and take responsibility for large sectors of the country.

Is it pretty?  No.  Could it have been done better?  Maybe, but I have yet to hear a plan from ONE of the critics that would have likely turned out better.  

We've lost about 3,000 KIA in these two actions.  In advance of each, the left was blaring in their howl about how both actions would turn into, and after they started, were turning into a "Vietnam quagmire".  Note that at the height of conflict in Vietnam we were losing about 500 KIA per WEEK.  The only place there is a Vietnam quagmire is on the front pages of the NYT and WaPO and at the Democratic National Committee.

I am stunned that you seem to think that "your" position will not simply abandon the field.  You seem more thoughtful that than, but apparently you are every bit as ignorant as Murtha, Durbin & Co.

We are at war.  It is "us vs. them".  You are either "US" or you are "THEM".  No middle ground.  Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, John Kerry, Jack Murtha, et al, are "THEM".  

Pick a side, there are only two.

Is that the best photo Pelosi's PR people could come up with? Both women look hideous in that picture.

It's just as well. Both women are hideous, politically speaking.

Case in point that many are forgetting why we are fighting.

"Fostered a threat"? As if there was no threat to us before we invaded Iraq? Jmaier has apparently forgotten that Islamist terrorists attacked us on our own soil. We have fostered no threat, we are eradicating one.

...besides being conservative, we're easily led, as well.

and a Code Pink anti-war rally broke out.

I am highly cognizant of the fact, having served in both the military and DOD (civilian) including many years throughout the middle east.

Islamic fanaticists did us harm.  Deplorable as he was, Saddam was not the immediate threat or concern.  Perhaps he might have evolved into a credible threat but that is conjecture.

Global terrorist networks were the issue and frankly they operate with greater support, or at least impunity, in countries other than Iraq.

for the capability of the U.S. to complete any well defined, appropriately planned and provisioned mission.  

Subsequent to crossing the border to engage in the race to take the country, their mission has been none of those things.  The problem, with minor exceptions, hasn't been military it has been political and civilian.  And yes, Democratic politicians have a share of the blame.

inclined people would agree with you.  For the vast majority, Afghanistan was warranted.  Show me the clear and compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had any role in UA 93 or 9/11 and you might have a stronger point here.

Even the President has disavowed that there was such a compelling connection.

when you have clearly and accurately identified the true enemy.  By and large, it wasn't the Shia in Iraq.  

The rest of your post is a fine opinion and it isn't my purview to argue it with you or attempt to influence your beliefs.

In 93 would it have been enough to show the bomber was associated with Al quaeda and the taliban were giving Al quaeda sanctuary.

Would the Cole have been enough ? The Beirut Barracks Enough ???

If I told you that a country had invaded its neighbors, involved us in a war, developed missiles, was developing weapons of mass destruction, ruthlessly repressed its neighbors, and was bribing the U.N., funding terrorists, giving terrorists aid and comfort, and screwing generally with middle east situation would that be enough ??

If the above aren't enough what is ??

perspective.  My oldest will be 11 in 3 weeks.  My children all know about 9-11, although my oldest one is the only one that remembers any events from that day.

I probably won't take her to the theatre to see it, but I will buy the DVD and watch it with her at home.  I will use it as an explanantion for why Dad must still continue to go to the desert on a very regular basis.

I'm trying to find the time for a babysitter and a break so hubby and I can go see it together.  I don't think I want to see it without him.

active and as a civilian.

Thank you for finding other work.

served in both the military and DOD (civilian) including many years throughout the middle east

you are certainly acting naive about the war in Iraq. Iraq provided training grounds for terrorists. Iraq provided haven for terrorists. Iraq sponsored terrorism. Someone who claims to have served many years throughout the Middle East ought to know these things, but you apparently don't.

Furthermore, Iraq had already committed at least two acts of war against the US. To claim that invading Iraq was not a legitimate part of the war against Islamic terrorism is just plain wrong.

link.

but unfortunately I believe you live about 3000 miles away from me.

Please tell c17husband that we here really appreciate his trips to the desert, too.

Riva Garcia, 15, a freshman at Minneapolis South High School, told the crowd that she believes the war is racist and that the military is using dirty tactics to get minorities to enlist.

Since when do the opinions of children affect our foreign policy. Apparently, these are kids whose major setback in life is the lack of a good Drama program at their school.

Judging from the pictures, they are destined for a career in drama. As for foreign policy, maybe I'll listen to them in about 15 years when they're old enough to know the differnece between right and wrong.

There's nothing wrong with them that a few years of hard manual labor won't cure. They are surely brats of The Golden Age In America.

wikipedia is not a history book, were that the case you'd be well read. As it isn't you don't look very bright here.

I am completely sympathetic with your views.

Michelle Malkin has some photos of today's NYC anti-war demonstration. Notice the person holding the big "Bush" sign. Tell me again that part where the problem does not reflect the rank and file of the liberal left.

How many such camps do you think exist in a wide range of countries:  Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, Pakistan, Sudan and many others across the glove.  The marines found an instant of what was probably such a camp near Baghdad.  Hardly solid justification for launching an invasion unless we have a long list of such actions queued up.   Several hundred billions of dollars spent because a few training camps were in Baghdad?  A solid investment.

Saddam paid Palestinian suicide bomber families.  Old news.  These operations are funded in large amounts by Iran, by private investments from wealthy Saudis, Bahrainis, Yemenis, etc.  Again, lets saddle up the troups and go after these guys.

A single Mirage incident in 1987.  Perhaps you've forgotten that we already responded to that event, indirectly in 1991.

I do know something about what I posit and you are simply stretching to use incidents such as these are a valid pretext for the current war.  There are a lot of bad guys out there and if we don't target properly, muster international and domestic support and engage with precision and wisdom then we are spending a national treasury and human lives to simply make ourselves feel better.

sheesh.

post in which I've shown you disrepect.  I'd appreciate the same courtesy whether we agree or disagree on the issues.

I respect your service.

And if you're not on board with the mission, I'm glad that you are working elsewhere than DoD.  I've worked places where the mission of the business changed, I didn't agree with it and I left.  It's difficult to perform at one's highest levels if you don't agree with mission and/or the management.

I apologize if you were offended, offense was not intended.

are also "a small fringe", does that stop the left for smearing all conservatives?

(for the second picture) http://www.redstate.com/redstate/hands.jpg

University of Minnesota students demonstrate at downtown Pro-Life rally chanting "All life is sacred! Overturn Roe vs. Wade! The blood of innocents is on all our hands!".

(which have already been proven time and again, btw)

And you're left with:

1) the fact that several times he declared that a state of war existed between him and the US

2)His Numerous act of war, including, but not limited to firing on our aircraft patrolling the no-fly zone; violating the terms of the truce; and deliberately seeking out alliances from our other enemies...

Now Why exactly, should we NOT have gone and finished the job we started in '91?  Explain to me this.

OUR survival.

United 93 is a perfect example of the kind of people we're up against.

And despite the fact that you and half the nation want to be like the stewardess who sacrificed the Pilot and Co-Pilot in the hopes that she would live a little longer, the rest of us realize that they WANT US DEAD.

  Hell, they say it every other day, and Publicly, too.

While you and half the country seem to want to drop to your knees and beg for mercy with your appeasement, the rest of us have decided that if we're going to die, we're going to Die On Our Feet.  We're going to die fighting for our lives rather than Begging for them.

Up to you to join us or join them or get the hell out of the way.  Just remember that whatever choice you make, you're still a target...

Did you look at both? You said:

The marines found an instant of what was probably such a camp near Baghdad.  Hardly solid justification for launching an invasion unless we have a long list of such actions queued up.

From the link you apparently overlooked:

THE FORMER IRAQI REGIME OF Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq. The existence and character of these documents has been confirmed to THE WEEKLY STANDARD by eleven U.S. government officials.

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000.

If you don't believe training 8000 terrorists is justification for toppling Saddam, I daresay that nothing will ever convince you.

As far as having similar actions queued up, how do you know we don't? I would hope that that kind of information would be kept secret, because informing you and me about it would have the effect of informing bin Laden, Zarqawi, Ahmedinejad, Assad, et al.

Also, I brought up Saddam's prior acts of war in response to this:

Saddam was not the immediate threat or concern.  Perhaps he might have evolved into a credible threat but that is conjecture.

 I was pointing out that Saddam had already committed acts of war against us, and would almost certainly be willing to again.

It's very...

Disturbing.

Btw, if your husband ever wants to switch jobs with me so he can stay home awhile, I'd Gladly deploy in his place...

This stupid desk job has me tied down for another 21 months...

"Politically speaking"?

Try sticking with jus plain old "Hideous"

The invasion of Iraq was not about the GWOT.

It was, and is, about oil.

The invasion of Iraq has proven to be the single largest error of this administration, and may well cost the GOP the White House in 2008.

With that said, the world is an undeniably better place with Saddam behind bars. Hopefully our efforts will eventually enable the Iraqi people a chance to govern themselves in peace and rebuild their country.

It is my opinion that the Iraq invasion was a huge mistake, but now that we are there we must see the mission through until the end. I think that will be a long long time, at a huge cost to generations of taxpayers. This war was bad business.

For having "served in both the military and the DOD" you are being worse than naive about war.

We only have so many troops.  We can't attack all those nations simultaneously.  Umm, DUH.

Mustering international support, as proven by the "international support" we had for the economic sanctions that were imposed after '91, is a waste of time.

We, and a SMALL number of Smaller allies are the only ones willing to act.  We need to stop pussy-footing with the pasny-@#$ UN and just get the bloody job done.

The hope is that if we hit the worst of them and hit them HARD, that we won't Have to hit most of the others because they will see what they have to look forward to and correct themselves.

Will it work?  Probably not.  Does it set us up for a series of attacks on enemy nations?  You Betcha.

So, as someone above already said, and as I told someone else:

Join us, or join Them, or get out of the way.  Regardless you're still a target.

I'd like to know if some particular professors or HS teachers incited the students do to this.

In error?  Possibly, as are you.  

I am not a utopian, peacenik.  I supported GW '91 both figuratively and physically.  I believe in aggressive overt and covert intelligence operations.  I believe in a world class military, with world class weapons and world class training.  If I were a utopian, I might also wish for world class civilian leadership.

There is a great deal of evidence that the sanctions against Iraq were, as a matter of fact, containing the situation.  Iran is a greater terrorism threat and N Korea a far greater threat for nuclear proliferation.  Pakistan too for that matter; though it might be inadvertent in their case.

I'm not alone in this position and folks with far more expertise and experience than either of us (probably) share this view.  Are they wrong, possibly?  But their opinion is not without merit simply because it doesn't fit someone's particular world view.

Anyway, thanks for the commentary.  I'm not here to attempt to persuade or inform someone's opinion.  

You can argue on merits, dismiss my opinions out of hand, choose not read or comment upon them at all.  Labeling me with adjectives like 'naive', etc. certainly doesn't contribute to the discourse.

Little white truths won't help you or your arguments.



There is a great deal of evidence that the sanctions against Iraq were, as a matter of fact, containing the situation



There is also "a great deal of evidence that the sanctions against Iraq were, as a matter of fact," described as being too harsh (both before and after the oh-so humane and well-run Oil For Food program was instituted). And because these sanctions were so heartless and cruel, there was also talk that the sanctions should be removed.



Iran is a greater terrorism threat



Of course it is - now that Saddam is gone.

Honestly. People aren't really as dumb or forgetful here as you seem to think.

has been disproven in SO many different places, I can only assume you are being deliverately obtuse.

Both parties do what they feel will get the most votes. Running Duke out of the party made sense politically; inviting Moore in did the same during the last election. If dems came out in force against the anti-war crowds, they would lose some of their base. Same goes for the repubs though - they have only come out against the fringes of their group when it was forced politically (like when Robertson said god was punishing Sharon, or something like that). Neither party is acting on mere principle.

All we need is tet-68, cambodia and the concerned officers movement(maybe we have it with these retired generals) and everything will be as it was.

The Right condemns Robertson, Falwell, etal every time they stick their foot in their mouth.  Condemnations come from the Right before the Left is heard from.  Duke Cunningham was blasted by the Right, and by the President, in much more specific terms than by the left.  

The left has yet to condemn Michael Moore for the lies and fiction he put out in F911.  They haven't said a word about the anti-Semitism of Cindy Sheehan.  They haven't mentioned the outrageous conduct of Cynthia McKinney other than in very tangential terms.  They haven't condemned their Ethics Committee guy who became a multimillionaire while preaching ethics.  And on and on and on.

The Left has NEVER come out in clear terms against the criminals and misogynists in the Democratic party.  They couldn't even manage a rebuke for Clinton's adultery, lying, and perjury.  The Left has NO standards of conduct that are out of line or impermissible.  I'm pretty sure if Ted Kaczynski or Charlie Manson had pled to being on a mission for the DNC, they'd still be walking  among us and would have favored seats at the every Democratic Convention.

It's about time the Dems tried to tame the Noam Chomsky wing of the party.

"Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11."

- the eloquent and noble patriot, Ms. Sheehan

haven't been disproven.  There is evidence both in support of and perhaps against them but the overall position for or against is judgment not fact.

With that, thanks for the conversation.

Would a director kindly take this opportunity to ban me so that I'm not tempted to re-engage!

Thanks.

with you on much of this. I am simply saying that the dems often will not attack or throw out members of the far left because that is a part of their base. I think that many mainstream dems do not identify with the far left, but also do not identify with those they oppose - they therefore remain silent. I think they are sacrificing some principle for some votes, and avoiding the image that the party is even more fractured than it is. I find this to be the turnoff for both major parties, but I also don't think they would be major parties without this quality. The more people a party wishes to please, the more watered down the message becomes.

The republicans are better about controlling their image and speaking with one voice. I do think that they act with votes in mind before much else, just like any successful large party would.

1. The Left does not, has not and will not "expel" or even criticize it's errant members.  Remember Dan Rostenkowski?  Remember the outrage from the Left?  I don't either.  I remember them blather about all the "good" he had done and how we all have clay feet.
   
   
2. I'm willing to be proved wrong.  Find me just one one citation where the Left has addressed an errant member with the ferocity that the Right has put down Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or Duke Cunningham.  Please confine your citation to the last 30 years.
   
   
3. The Left is not sacrificing "principle".  They have none.  Principles on the Left are like their idea of the Constitution.  A "living thing".  For instance, "Regime Change" should be the policy of the US with respect to Iraq as long as a Democrat is President and won't actually DO anything.
   
   
4. The Right is not pandering for votes when they slap down a Robertson or a Cunningham.  They are operating on the idea that right is right and wrong is wrong.  When confronted by wrong, condemn it and get on with life.  Make changes if changes are called for.  Don't excuse wrong because one of "our" guys got caught at it.
   

on that offer.

I'll get the first round of drinks.

I think are representative of the left.  They are representative of the leadership of the Democratic Party.

They may not represent the view of every Democrat, but that's an issue those Democrats should take up with their leadership, not with me.

Where are those on the left, where are the Democratic Party leaders telling these moonbats to go home.  Where are they, telling the kiddies that recruiters have right be there, that ROTC has as much right to be in their curriculum as "Women's Studies".  Where is the famous Nazi hunter Dick Durbin, #2 man in the Democratic Leadership in the Senate calling for calm and the rule of law?  Where was Miss Nancy Pelosi when the kiddies used violence against the military recruiters in Santa Cruz?

They were no where.  Not to be found.  Not standing for the rule of law.  Not standing for the Constitutional idea of free speech.  Not standing for the rights of the students who might want to discuss their future with a military recruiter.  They were hiding under their proverbial beds, letting the painted up kiddies do their dirty work for them.  Because they are cowards.  Cowards with no respect for the law, no respect for freedom of speech, no respect for the freedom of assembly.  

The difference between the kiddies in photo and the leadership of the Democratic Party and the Left is that the kiddies have the courage to go public.

Are these leaders patriots?  Sure.  I'm just not sure what country or organization or idea their "patriotism" is focused on.  It's not America, though.

hogtied by the base.

They are representative of the base.  

it'll be awesome.

I practically agree with you about the left. About the republicans though, I just don't agree with the idea that they act on principle only. I am talking about the politicians, not they average person who identifies as being conservative. I read in the news the other day that there was a republican led effort to reward all tax payers with a $100 check to defray the cost of gas. To me, this is nearly unbelievable that a republican would consider agreeing to this, let alone conjur up the plan for it. Watch how republicans distance themselves from Bush this fall as they campaign. I think the republicans have walked the line with Robertson and others too. They know that many republicans count themselves among the far right Christian populace that has probable agreed with a lot of what Robertson has said. Also, they know that many mainstream republicans do not. What to do then? Well, try to ignore him until the media attention he gets is too hot, and then something must be said.

But like I said, I think we agree more than we disagree.

Spot on. Their allegence is not to this country, it is to some abstract of being smarter than mere Americans and thus entitled to govern.

On the contrary, Clinton had all but given up on them after the few days of bombing in 1998, and had tried to keep Iraq off the front page (that was his entire strategy at that point).

The French and Russians were gaining support to overturn the sanctions.

We were losing support in America, too.

More important is the fact that imposing the sanctions (and the no-fly zones) were tying up a large part of our military indefinitely.  After 9/11, we had to choose whether to retreat, or resolve the situation by toppling Saddam.  If you want to argue for a retreat, I'll listen.  But I don't see how it was possibly practical to keep our military tied up there without a resolution.  

And finally, when you say "contain", what exactly do you mean?  It's true that Saddam was in no position to invade Saudi Arabia, but we also had no idea how close he was to gaining better rockets and WMD.  No idea at all.  The inspectors, when this President finally forced them back in, weren't gaining much info, either, given that they were quite limited in where they could go.  So either we could have kept ourselves in the dark and hoped for the best, or we could have made sure that Saddam wasn't going to acquire WMDs.  Now we're sure.

So I suppose I question your position in three ways:

 - that the sanctions were going to last much longer

• the the sanctions were practical after 9/11
• and that there was truly containment of Saddam

Let me know your thoughts when you get a chance.

Republicans acted on principle.

OTOH, I do believe that Republicans HAVE some principles while Democrats have none.

I said they addressed issues and put them behind them.

With respect to the Religious Right, I'm one of them.  I happen to support both Robertson and Falwell.  (Though not for President)  However, both men have a tendency to take very complex trains of thought, condense them into really long and tendentious statements that must be read in context and with some knowledge of both history and theology to make any semblance of sense at all.  Since no commentator on earth will deal with context, history or theology, Pat and Jerry come off as loudmouthed, brain-dead fools.  And neither of them has figured that out yet.

When that happens, they get blasted from the right.  And usually by me because it's so frustrating that two smart guys can't figure out this fairly simple concept.  

And... oh, excuse me for a second...

There, I had to wipe the drool off my chin.  What was I saying.  I forgot.  Krap.  Oh well.

Don't forget the Libs glorious war hero here.  He helped in a backwards sort of way.  He shut down the MIA hearings in Congress and then handed over the commercial real estate market in VietNam to his cousin who owns Colliers International.  Made a pretty penny for his family.  See Tereysaaaa doesn't have all the brains when it comes to working for the little people.

And thanks for the dialogue. I wish I could take some more time now to continue, but I have so many things to do today. Talk to you later!

-Andy

Like thw SDS of the 60's they will eventually collapse and blend back into the landscape where they can finish at some prominent law school and continue their fight by representing terrorists and gang thugs at legal proceedings.  Of course there will be a fringe of them that will become terrorists themselves with Earth First or such just like the Weathermen.  Then we can track them down like the dogs that they are.  We just have to have patience.

I'm going to defer from addressing them here because I don't have the time to invest in a discussion where I'm referred to as a) naive, b) better off out of national service, c) disingenous or d) simply a liar.

While I don't expect such treatment from you based upon the tenor of your response.  I'm sure that responses in a similar vein would soon follow.

But thank you for the polite engagement.

Sheehan is toast next time she slurs Hillary about voting for the war. Just watch.  If she shuts up...they got to her.  I hope she keeps it up.  If you ever hear her speak you realize instantly what a sheer mental giant she is.  Just what the Libs need after Pelosi and Hillary.  Keep talking Cindy...Please.

at gideon1789@yahoo.com

I'd like to hear what you have to say, frankly.  Don't feel obliged, of course, but I'm interested.

www.juliuscastle.com

Median priced red is about $300.00.

And thanks.

I have to win the lottery first :-)

How so?

between the aggressive, democratic transformer and the status quo realist.

of course, bush (and i agree) believes that his position is the most realist after 9/11.

but the argument from scowcroft is a serious one.  scowcroft himself i don't care for.  but his argument - the old school kissingerian realpolitik balance-of-power argument - remains the only serious alternative to bush's strategy.  it may in fact be what the next president reverts to, even if (or perhaps especially if) it's a republican president.

the left offers two things:  variations on bush's theme (i.e., regimes are the problem but we need to work more slowly and multilaterally before overthrowing them by force), or more commonly, anti-american self-deprecatory pacifism.  neither one of these arguments is truly a fundamental alternative.

but as much as i support a war in iraq, and a war in iran for that matter, we can learn things from the realpolitikers.  for example, we can learn how to make our own arguments stronger, and we can learn how to avoid over-optimism.

absolutely we can, and I wish the next Bolten hire would be Victor David Hanson as a speechwriter so we can quit apologizing for the conventional wisdom "mess" in Iraq. By any historical measure it is a miracle of a success and 300,000 more troops wouldn't have improved upon it.

Everything gets compared to some supposed perfect bloodless alternative, but the days of the Grenadas are no more. And the real mess was leaving saddam in  power in 1991 and letting UBL have a decade to train thousands of jihadists demolition specialists!

the mess of realism

just as was the mess of settling too long while half the world languished in soviet gulags or were mass murdered

Yes, I greatly worry that Bush is, in fact, unique even within the GOP, in the level of understanding  and guts to fight the GWOT the way it must be fight.

into our camp

there are concessions we can make without altering the fundamental strategy.  

if nothing else, we don't want the realists out there constantly sniping at the administration instead of working in support.  george will, william buckley, scowcroft, etc. have all done serious damage to republican support for the war.

is a felony. If it was good enough to take down the KKK, it should be good enough for these .... too.

No killing fields, no genocide of Hmong and Meo,

Let's bring this back to the top of the thread.  MSP is the home to the largest population of Hmong in the US:

Saint Paul, Minnesota is home to the largest number of Hmong people, businesses, and institutions of any city in North America. According to the 2000 census, around 25,000 Hmong live in the city of Saint Paul alone. Community estimates project the actual number as much higher.

Saint Paul is the center of Hmong institutional, commercial, educational, and cultural life in North America. There are an estimated 250 Hmong-owned businesses in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area with the largest number in Saint Paul. Hmong businesses have contributed strongly to the revitalization of the University Avenue, Frogtown, Northend and Eastside areas of Saint Paul.

For people wandering into this thread: do not be talking crap about the Hmong.

[...] In the 1960s and 1970s, the U.S. funded and directed the so-called "Secret War" in Laos to divert major elements of the North Vietnamese Army from attacking South Vietnam, which was defended by hundreds of thousands of American and South Vietnamese soldiers.

The Hmong, one of the largest ethnic groups in Laos, were major players in this "Secret War." The Hmong army, under General Vang Pao, took on the North Vietnamese and successfully confronted the Communist forces, thus obviating the deployment of American soldiers and reducing the threat to American lives in South Vietnam. They were offered rewards to turn against the Americans, but continued to fight with us instead. In some of the riskiest operations of the war, the Hmong soldiers also guided U.S. Air Force strikes and gathered intelligence along the Ho Chi Minh trail, in North Vietnam and in Communist China.

The Hmong paid a terrible price for the valiant role into which the United States thrust them. Approximately 10,000 Hmong soldiers died instead of American troops; per capita for the Hmong this was the equivalent of hundreds of thousands of soldiers killed. Yet because the U.S. kept the war in Laos secret, few people are aware of this story of Hmong valor.

Next person to complain about "all asian immigrants" gets shot in the head, and I'm not talking birdshot at 30m.

will send links later

Hi game!

"the real mess was ...letting UBL have a decade to train thousands of jihadists demolition specialists"

That's one way to put it, but not the most accurate.  Ask the Serbians.

There has been a turn of rhetoric in these parts that makes me very uneasy.  There is no patriotic left?  Come on, man.

if not "let"

(btw, how ya been

I'm in Charlotte now.)

Well, I mean we were frequently attacked overseas by UBL's al qaida and Clinton went on TV more than once and declared war on al qaida and UBL and then Clinton feared killing even nightwatchmen too much to bomb his training camps to smithereens and wouldn't accept UBL himself on a silver platter.

I too cringe at the way the left deems the US to "allow" or "let" all the bad that happens that they dont say we "cause", but when the enemy attacks repeatedly and we publickly acknowledge we know who did it and decalre to stop it and then don't despite the fact that we could have done so easily

what fits better than "let" when we don't lift more than little finger to fight back?

I don't get the Serbian analogy.

I mean in Iraq we aren't letting the enemy attack us. We are ENGAGED in the battle.

school me cajun brother

that supports war because war is what it sometimes takes to maintain or establish freedom. Show me the Left that supports only legal immigration and requires immigrants to assimilate. Show me the Left that supports Christianity's right to put a cross on a hill, a nativity scene in a park or the Ten Commandments outside a courthouse. Show me the Left that demands respect for the flag, supports the Pledge of Allegiance and standing during the National Anthem. And, show me the Left that condemns the radical Left in the same manner the Right condemns the radical Right.

I am on the left, of the left, and for the left, and I am a patriot.  I'm not the only one.  I volunteered to fight for this country.  My job is exclusively devoted to helping the people of this country.  I love my country - which doesn't mean I am blind to the problems we have - and I believe it to be the best society in the world.

"The left" is a cute term, general in description, sometimes meaning all Democrats, sometimes meaning some Democrats, usually meaning "whoever disagrees with me."  You think I agree with those kids in Streiff's pictures?  I don't.  There are valid reasons to oppose the action in Iraq, and valid ways to express that opposition, but vandalism isn't one of them.  

I also think you protesteth too much about how the right "disclaims" the radical right.  Depends on what you define as radical.  You have your fringe, I have mine, we both live with it.  Some of what you describe as patriotism in that post is not so much general love for your country, but a demand that everyone agree with what you view as patriotism, i.e. either agree with me or you're not a patriot.  That is factionalism, not patriotism.

And as a side note, whatever else is said, there is no requirement to support Christianity in any requirement of patriotism.  None.

The bottom line is that lately, every time I come to RedState it seems the hottest conversations are about how unpatriotic people who think like me are.  I'm secure enough in my own patriotism to shrug off the rhetoric as silly and overheated, but if I just kept my powder dry I would not be true to myself.  I love my country - you cannot change that fact - and while I view what is good for my country in a vastly different fashion than you do, it doesn't mean somehow I can't share in the same passion for America that you do.  There are a lot of people out there just like me, who you write off with easy keystrokes.

of any country if you don't respect the institutions and traditions of that country. You can be a subversive, revolutionary or a traitor. You will note that those items I mentioned fall in the categories of institutions and traditions. Whereas a true loyal opposition may have a  different vision going forward, it does not seek to tear down the foundations on which the society was established. The total rejection of our past and the relentless efforts to undermine the established fabric of our society seemingly is the sole goal of the Left.

This is why it can not articulate a future. This is why the Democrats represent nothing positive. The Left is the philosophy of demolition and the Democrat Party has become its General Contractor.

Well, then we have nothing more to talk about, unfortunately.  Rather than exchange couterbatteries on this, I'll go on loving my country and struggling mightily to keep it being ruined by what I see as a rather constricted view of the world.  Best of luck to you.