The Democrats do get the same treatment as the Republicans. I seen serval articles painting Wes Clark and John Kerry as war criminals.

Being an Stalinist ass hat knows no party lines.

Posted by: steve at March 21, 2004 12:59 AM

I think my favorite line in all of that is "NO WAR BUT CLASS WAR." Not exactly an anti-war slogan, I guess. But does that mean they don't care if we brutally exploit Third World laborers? After all, it's increasing the intolerable position of the proletariat, thus moving the Revolution closer, right?

Posted by: Michael Martin at March 21, 2004 03:57 AM

MJT,

This is the point where lefists such as Smokey show up and express false indignation at the protesters and claim that the protesters don't represent the broader leftist position.

If that is true, then let's see the policy differences. Where are the policy differences between the "peace" protesters and the broader left on any issue of national security? Iraq? Haiti? Israel/Palestine? Show me the policy differences.

There is no difference in substance on any issue. There are only differences in style.

Posted by: HA at March 21, 2004 05:53 AM

If Kerry was in office, we wouldn't see these protests. Certainly not in the numbers they have. Republicans were (wrongly) skeptical of intervention in Yugoslavia, for example, but did not mobilize in any meaningful way against it. The anti-war crowd, active in 1991, did nothing, either.

If Kerry wins, I think he'd get a free pass no matter what he does. We'll never know, though, because if he wins he'll almost certainly go the route of Spain.

For most of these anti-war liberals, it's not about what's right, it's about who's right. This is why what you're doing is so absolutely critical. You're exemplifying the real liberal ideals, and showing progressives that there's an alternative to cheering for defeat just because George Bush wants victory.

Posted by: Rob at March 21, 2004 06:38 AM

Those are photos of mentally ill people.

Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 07:08 AM

It's ironic that this post comes hot on the heels of the recent post regarding the Rhea County gay ban. The commenters on that item seemed as eager to disassociate themselves from the Rhea county bigots as they are to equate all peace protestors with one vast "left." You'll have to forgive me for reading the tacit approval of a law banning gays from the county as tantamount to "marching against affirmative action with the Ku Klux Klan."

When only two parties are given a shot at political relevance, you don't have much choice in your bedfellows. I'd say libertarians and fundamentalist Christians are about as odd a mix as Communists and pro-Saddam factionaliststs. If anything, the fact that so many groups with different viewpoints would all come out against the war in Iraq should make a reasonable conservative stop to consider why that might be, rather than dismissing it with head-in-the-sand "all lefties think alike" and "anti-War activists want us to lose" rhetoric.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 21, 2004 07:19 AM

Who's "dismissing it with head in the sand"? The anti-war "arguments" have been examined very carefully in the forum and found to be little more than dogmas and fantasies.

Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 07:32 AM

"For most of these anti-war liberals, it's not about what's right, it's about who's right."

Rob, for many years I have been searching for a perfect example of the phenomenon of projection. Thank you, my son.

Posted by: Sigmund Freud at March 21, 2004 07:47 AM

Look at the last photo, with the guy demanding the release of Saddam and other Iraqi "leaders".

These folks are NOT anti-war; they are on the other side.

Posted by: Pat Curley at March 21, 2004 07:53 AM

Dr. Freud,

You beat me at my own game. Are you astrally projecting? Can it really be you?

Posted by: Rob at March 21, 2004 08:05 AM

Its amazing how compasionate these people are. Yes. They Care. More than anyone else in the whole great big wide world (and that's a very very very big place). All that love in their name.... Never before has caring been reduced to such base porngraphic levels.

Against War, Against OOOOIIIIILLL, Against Occupation, Against Bush and Blair, Against "Lying" (unless they want to believe it), Against closing Child Prisons, Against a sunny cool day if a in Iraq if a relieved and free Iraqi family happens to be enjoying it.

But not they're not FOR anything. Most of these compassionate b*st*rds couldn't tell you how the electricity that makes their lives of bourgeois luxury is made. But if you were to list what actually goes into making their lives so idyllic that they can blow off a Saturday to "care" (oil/coal/gas/nuclear power, planes, trains, automobiles, air conditioning, advanced medical research, industry, big business, dollars, pounds, yen and euros) they’d call for banning each one at a time to their very end and mine. In my darker moments when I see these people, I suddenly have a new appreciation of HG Well’s Morlocks and the fictional minds behind Logan’s Run’s Carrousel. These people are no more useful than prey and no more valuable than perishables after their Use-By date.

Posted by: Bill at March 21, 2004 08:06 AM

Jim,

In my post, "head in the sand" modified the phrases "all lefties think alike" and "anti-War activists want us to lose." It may be possible to dispute an individual argument against war, but dismissing all such arguments by placing the word "argument" in scare quotes and equating the motivation of every anti-war faction you see is not a method of doing so. It is a way to avoid examination of the issues rather than a way to pursue them.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 21, 2004 08:06 AM

Jeremy,

If anything, the fact that so many groups with different viewpoints would all come out against the war in Iraq should make a reasonable conservative stop to consider why that might be …

Which begs the question: What do they have in common? The answer is quite simple, but it will never be assimilated into the national consciousness because the media is not doing its job. A year ago, the protests consisted almost entirely of liberals and Leftists. The demonstrations were nominally anti-war but in essence a demonstration against conservatism, which is to say an exercise in thoughtless dogma, stereotypes, and habitual ideology -- more a display of religious faith than reason. Today the protests consist ENTIRELY of Leftists. Today the demonstrations are nominally anti-war but in essence anti-American, which is to say the war serves as proxy for [insert issue here]. That is what all the groups have in common, even in Europe.

I believe their hyperbole regarding the war is completely irrelevant. The region I live in is quite liberal, and I can see on the faces of the ‘reporters’ in the local media that they consider these protests quite pathetic, and somewhat embarrassing. They go through the motions of attempting to characterize the protests as relevant (to do otherwise is to cast a negative light on last year’s protest, as well, and thus to cast a negative light on their own support of the protests), but even they believe they are a bit of a joke -- just an opportunity for interesting video, sound bites, and better ratings. Worth more consideration to the anti-war dead-enders: Who do they think they’re convincing? There are few left who have not already decided whether the war was worth it or not, and after power is transferred to the Iraqis, there will be little left to protest. Aside from Manhattan, the Northwest, the Bay Area, Hollywood, and various university islands scattered throughout the country, such shenanigans have little influence, if any.

Posted by: Catalonia at March 21, 2004 08:12 AM

There are few left who have not already decided whether the war was worth it or not, and after power is transferred to the Iraqis, there will be little left to protest.

Oh contraire... There is always something to protest against. The Iraqi situation will not be perfect once power is transfered. No system is. However, every twitch, every sneeze, every blackhead will be protested from the highest mountain by those who resent any improvement in the world that they don't initiate even when they are too impotent to know how to change a tire.

The core of the antiwar movement (ANSWER/NION/WWP etc) are a malicious bunch of b*st*rds surounded by a thick layer of mushheadded usefull idiots who, in turn, are surrounded by a conglomerate of some carying-but-lazy-thinking people who are clueless about the world beyond their Lonley Planet guides, and looser fitting layers of earnest people who just want everyone to get along. I reckon that you're right about the last group falling by the waistside when things cool off but the rest are there to stay as they have always been there even before 9-11. And the media will still cover them because they're "intersting" and the Radicals for Freedom and a Terror-free World just don't do good street theater to merit news foottage.

Posted by: Bill at March 21, 2004 08:25 AM

Catalonia,

I have to agree that war protests at this stage are largely irrelevent. I certainly didn't feel it was worth my time to take to the streets this time around, though I was an enthusiastic anti-war protestor before the war. However, I think you make two common errors that cause you to misunderstand the protests.

First, in calling the protests prior to the war "anti-conservative" and dismissing it as thoughtless dogma, you are trivializing the very real concerns that we as a nation should have had before creating a precedent of unliateral preemptive military action. When you simply chalk it up to "liberal peaceniks" protesting instinctively whenever the word war is mentioned, you cut yourself off from taking seriously the doubts about evidence of WMDs, about the appropriateness of Iraq as a target, about the dangers of acting outside of international law, about the potential to alienate needed allies, etc. If you are inclined to disregard these as "habitual ideology," then I begin to understand how Bush could pretend these questions were irrelevent and dismiss protestors as "focus groups."

Your second mistake would be in calling the protests simply "anti-American." This is the same rhetoric that is used to paint anyone who fails to show sufficient enthusiasm for the war in Iraq as an "America hater." And referring to the protestors in other countries as "anti-American" implies that there is nothing that we can do about them. After all, we can't change the fact that we're Americans, so there's no way they can ever change their minds about us. It would be far more appropriate to call them "anti-Bush," and I'd say they have good reason to be. Bush has lied to the international community and his own people to justify a war of agression over the protests of many of our own allies, and has increased rather than decreased the threat of terrorism from groups such as al Qaeda, which were free to regroup after being ousted from Afghanistan because of Bush's insistent focus on Iraq. Fortunately for us, we may not be able to stop being Americans, but there's one sure fire way to disassociate ourselves from Bush.

Right now, we have no choice but to keep troops in Iraq. That is a simple fact that, ironically, Kerry seems to appreciate more than Bush, who wants to schedule a withdrawal from Iraq based on the calendar rather than on the achievement of defined goals. If there is a point to the protests right now, it is that we need better stewards for our country so that such a debacle does not happen again. And to do that, we need to acknowledge that the war was inadequately justified, poorly planned, and relied more on mistaken ideology than quality intelligence. It is the stubborn refusal of so many Republicans to do so that makes us doubt their capability to lead.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 21, 2004 08:45 AM

Bill,

Just when I start thinking that I may have been a tad unfair in assuming a tendency among those in this comment section to stereotype and dismiss one's political opponents out of hand, you come along and help confirm my own biases.

Thank you.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 21, 2004 08:51 AM

Just when I start thinking that I may have been a tad unfair in assuming a tendency among those in this comment section to stereotype and dismiss one's political opponents out of hand, you come along and help confirm my own biases.

Hey! I rather not feel that way. I'd like to think well of people with whom I disagree, and I have to keep reminding myself that there are a lot of people who actually have defensible reasons not to go to war with Iraq (though I obviously find fault with many of their arguments), not to mention other issues. I certainly hope that most-to-all of them stay home, fix the sink, play ball with their kids, and blog [semi?]sensibly on days like yesturday.

But these pictures speak a thousand words and most of them have four letters and are politely spelled with the caps key down and your fingers flopping randomly along the numbers row. You don't need a comment section to see how intellectually bankrupt some of these people are. How people can be seen at these rallies and not have an indelible bad aftertaste in their mouths for weeks afterwards, is totally beyond me. Tell me truthfully, how can I look at someone who is seen in one of those vile and hateful photographs (my favorite is the one with the mass-produced "US out of IRAN" [not shown here]) and come out of it thinking that I'm looking at an honest thinking person. (And please don't write me a perscription for anything so that I can.)

As I indicated. People like that.... put me in a bad mood. OK I'm calmer now.

Posted by: Bill at March 21, 2004 09:15 AM

OK I lied. I;m not calm yet...

... in addition please point to me Molly Ivens, David Broder, Maureen Dowd or any of the "usual" mainstream "liberals" in these photos that are worth the average person's ear. The major "players" I've seen is the perpetually odious Georege Galloway [who, as MJT so moderately and thoughtfully and dead-on indicated once, wants to be the dictator], and a Hollywood actress with bloodied makeup carying a poster from the Al-Asqua Martyrs Brigade (peace activist my good eye!). I don't see a single thoughtful constructive or even catty public critic of war on terror in these photos, only the most depraved ones. As I said. They likely had the good sense to stay home, even if only to write their columns, speeches and blogs. And I thank them for it everytime I read one of them.

Posted by: Bill at March 21, 2004 09:32 AM

Sorry to doubt you, but your post made it quite clear that you consider the anti-war groups you speak of to be a core group of malicious America haters surrounded by well-meaning but ultimately vacuous sheep. If your ire was raised by these photos, the majority of which are foreign, perhaps you could direct your anger toward those in the photos rather than the organizations which you seem to assume share the same ideology. Surely you don't think being anti-war means the same thing to a Berkeley liberal or the parent of a soldier in Iraq as it does to a Spanish socialist or an Iranian mullah.

When you define a group by the actions of its most radical members, you do them a disservice.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 21, 2004 09:38 AM

Catalonia:

"conservatism, which is to say an exercise in thoughtless dogma, stereotypes, and habitual ideology"

As ignorant a statement as can be imagined. A statement born in thoughtless dogma, stereotypes, and habitual ideology, in fact. Grow up.

Posted by: Paul Branin at March 21, 2004 09:55 AM

but your post made it quite clear that you consider the anti-war groups you speak of to be a core group of malicious America haters surrounded by well-meaning but ultimately vacuous sheep.

Am I wrong? ANSWER, one of the groups that is at the core at organizing these mass global protests, IS a vicious group and how can one not look at their hypocritical stands important world-justice issues such as the Iranian Student Movement for example (along with their other stances such as their admiration for Kim Jong Il) and not want treat them like poison?

There is something terribly wrong with the landscape of the anti-war movement to want to lie with these dogs and insist that they are flee-free. As you and others illustrate, people since Iraq's liberation have moved away from these people in full knoweldge of the character of those who are organizing these rallies. No sin on them for that. But for these people? I'm not sure I can be a moral agnostic as the facts of the Hussein regime come out.

As for directing my ire across the atlantic, some of the depravity shown in the photograhs are home grown (and may indeed include a loony academic or two or three). Should I fantasize that they are rational and honest critics as they carry banners of the terrorists (as I mentioned in the actress's case) while calling Bush and Blair the same or worse? Doing so simultaneously insults those reasoned critics who stayed home. Should I not ask those who "were at another part of the rally" WHY were they there and sanctioning that activity when they knew the sort of people who would be present? Sometimes it sucks to have to evaluate people by their choices and actions. It's not fun. But it's necessary to winnow out the sensible from the loons, and the loons from the goons.

Seeing people play the wounded lamb while being caught on film partying with the wolves at a ball arranged by snakes is, likewise, not a pretty site. As Totten said "If I were against the war, I wouldn't have a damn thing to do with these people." And he's spot on. These people are adults. I judge them accordingly.

Posted by: Bill at March 21, 2004 10:02 AM

Come on, Bill,

You can't pretend you were speaking only of the core group when you specifically invoked guilt by association in your characterization of those who are anti-war as "those who resent any improvement in the world that they don't initiate even when they are too impotent to know how to change a tire" and "carying [sic] -but-lazy-thinking people who are clueless about the world beyond their Lonley [sic] Planet guides, and looser fitting layers of earnest people who just want everyone to get along." So they aren't actively vicious, just misguided and stupid? Even you have to admit that it's a pretty condescending view of those who are against the war. Even the most charitable description of your assessment would be that those who are against the war are supremely naive and easily led.

Now, if you were a news photographer at a protest and you had the choice of taking a picture of a silent prayer vigil for peace in the park or a screaming mob burning American flags, which do you suppose would be easier to sell? That doesn't make the former any less a part of the "anti-war movement" you attempt to characterize as a unified group with no understanding of the "real world" (as defined, apparently, by the ability to change a tire).

I understand that it's far easier to dismiss a stereotype than it is to deal with the reality of those who are anti-war, but if guilt by association is fair game, I'd say both the left and the right are pretty well compromised.

Posted by: Jeremy at March 21, 2004 10:45 AM

Jeremy: rather than dismissing it with head-in-the-sand "all lefties think alike"

Let me quote myself from my own post: "I know they all have different ideas."

The whole point of my post can be summarized in this sentence: "If I were against the war, I wouldn't have a damn thing to do with these people."

That is all.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 10:45 AM

Jeremy: Your second mistake would be in calling the protests simply "anti-American."

I think you should take a look at those pictures again. Those protests have become viciously anti-American. I couldn't find a single photo with someone holding a sign saying "Bring in more allies" or "Stop dissing the UN." I'm not the one with my head in the sand here.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 10:50 AM

This is a case grossly negligent false advertising by the protest orgagnizers. These weren't anti-war rallies, they were anti-USA rallies.

Posted by: Bird Dog at March 21, 2004 10:51 AM

"carying [sic] -but-lazy-thinking people who are clueless about the world beyond their Lonley [sic] Planet guides, and looser fitting layers of earnest people who just want everyone to get along."

The latter group I have forgiveness for as, as I indicated, as most will leave this ongoing frat party of hate or have already. The only thing I take back are the typos. As I indicated, they are adults and have the responsibility to think through their ideas to their logical conclusions and also be very much aware of who pays for their soirees and recognize how they will be evaluated by spectators. They can play the anointed idealism card only so far. But the line between Idealism and Willful Naïveté has been crossed by many of these people. And that is obvious, and some have even entered the threshold of Depraved Indifference. Just as I’d slam people opposed to high taxes for going to a God Hates F*gs run event, I slam these people. Consistency can be a... troublesome thing. But, if it’s your “duty” to go, it’s your duty know. And by now these people should have been bothered to do so by now.

Posted by: Bill at March 21, 2004 11:02 AM

Jeremy: It may be possible to dispute an individual argument against war, but dismissing all such arguments...is a way to avoid examination of the issues rather than a way to pursue them.

Jeremy, you seem to assume that it is not the case that I've carefully examined the anti-war arguments for over a year and found that they had little to no substance to them but were almost invariably offered with vitriolic hatred for the president, whose own position I've examined as carefully and found to be sound. This is not a case in which there are very good reasons on both sides, one of which I happen to think wins out. No, in this case, there is nothing left to "pursue." And given the continuing vitriol, feel it time to wax glib and flippant.

Good for you for offering reasoning, rather than vitriol, by the way.

Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 11:16 AM

Interesting; do you plan to put up pictures of Haley Barbour schmoozing the CCC and claim that you can now lump together the white supremecists and the Republican Party?

This is seriously intellectually bankrupt.

Posted by: Kimmitt at March 21, 2004 11:57 AM

Kimmitt, you're gonna wanna read MT's post before writing.

Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 12:12 PM

Kimmitt: do you plan to put up pictures of Haley Barbour schmoozing the CCC and claim that you can now lump together the white supremecists and the Republican Party?

I already did. See here.

Don't be such a doofus, Kimmitt. "Seriously intellectually bankrupt," my ass.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 12:27 PM

You are forgiven for lumping them together: they have become one big mass anyway. The aging traditional Communists, left-over fascists (Islamofascist and traditional European version), the neo-Communists, etc. etc. (the list is long). All the things that theoretically seperate them are not nearly as powerful as the one thing that binds them: hatred of America.

Posted by: Sergio at March 21, 2004 12:51 PM

This is kinda silly, don't you think? Of course there are people with divergent causes who take the opportunity of the war anniversary to make their voices heard. That doesn't in any way detract (or add to) the message from the anti-war people.

This would be like me cobbling together a collection of photos representing the far-right elements that support George Bush - pics of nutcases who support killing physicians who perform abortions, or the "God Hates Fags" idiots, or the ultra right-wing "Christian" organizations that try to put a religious face on their racism, or even the Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades who reportedly have endorsed GWB.

The fact that two people (or groups) with wildly divergent core interests happen to share a position on one issue does not invalidate the point. If the National Alliance links to your site, does that make you a Nazi?

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 01:36 PM

No, but if he marched in a pro-WoT rally organized by the NA, it would make him either a Nazi or an idiot.

Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 01:41 PM

Crockmeister: The fact that two people (or groups) with wildly divergent core interests happen to share a position on one issue does not invalidate the point.

Oh, I totally agree with that. But what the hell are all those people doing marching together?

I don't like affirmative action. Yet if I saw the Ku Klux Klan organizing a march against it, I would be inclined to throw eggs at the bastards, and part of would like to bring a baseball bat to the rally so I could bust some heads. (I wouldn't actually do that, but I would want to.) I certainly would not march with them. No way in hell. You could not pay me enough.

Yet here at these idiot "liberals" marching with Fascists, Communists, and Jew-haters. It is absolutely appalling.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 01:56 PM

I wish you had included a link to these photos but it definately seems to me that the pro-saddam fascists were marching somewhere in the Arab world, not alongside the leftist and liberal marches in America. For example, the writing on the signs in the 3rd picture are in Arabic and in the last picture, all the signs around the two in english are in Arabic. I think it is misleading and very orwellian on your part to be lumping these two different demonstrations together.

Posted by: Mike Bitondo at March 21, 2004 02:40 PM

Let's hear the "reasonable" sorts commenting here defend, rationalize, minimize, marginalize or otherwise explain-away this: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10256_Palestinian_Terror_Sympathizers

Posted by: SM at March 21, 2004 02:40 PM

Sad. The first victims of anti-Americanism are those who America could help.

Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at March 21, 2004 03:49 PM

I also don't understand what all the America-bashers are trying to accomplish. Do they really think that you remove America and the world reverts to its natural state of bliss? Who are they counting on for human rights? For democracy? A few NGOs? France? China? The U.N.? Their own good selves?

Pathetic

Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at March 21, 2004 03:58 PM

No sources information and photos carefully selected to prove your point, just so you can denounce millions of people worldwide as communists, terrorist sympathizers, anti-semites and whatever other insults you can come up with. Funny that other news sources show such a different picture from the one you paint.

Posted by: Cora at March 21, 2004 04:23 PM

MJ Totten: Yet here at these idiot "liberals" marching with Fascists, Communists, and Jew-haters. It is absolutely appalling.

What's appalling is the notion that I, as an opponent of Bush's War, should be expected by you "reasonable" people to vet the other participants in any demonstration that I might be a part of.

Certainly if an anti-Semitic group or Saddam loyalists organized a rally and asked me to show up, I wouldn't. But that's different than going to a demonstration attended by a lot of different groups, all of whom oppose the war but who have very different organizational agendas. Just because the Communists are there - que horrible! - I should walk off with my activist nose out of joint?

What if there's a demonstration in my city protesting police brutality, and a bunch of Jesus freaks show up and start spouting bible verses. Just because I think they are idiots, I shouldn't stand up for the cause that brought me to the demo in the first place? Give me a break. This is the kind of paint-'em-all with a broad brush approach that McCarthy would have been proud of.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 04:40 PM

crockmeister - if a group of Stalinists organized an anti-war march, would you go?

Posted by: mary at March 21, 2004 04:46 PM

Gabriel G. - Who said anything about removing America? The people I know who are opposed to Bush's Big Adventure are people who love their country dearly and are actively trying to get the ship of state back on course so that America can live up to its promise. What's pathetic is the idea that failing to support the administration's policies makes me anti-American.

It's easier, I know, to just sit and watch Fox News and cheer the bombs falling and jeer at the protesters, but that's not really my idea of "participatory democracy."

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 04:46 PM

Crockmeister, are you asking for proof that it's idiotic to march with Nazis?

Here's the proof: Marching with them shows solidarity with them. It doesn't show that you support their ideology, but it shows that you are willing to consider them brothers-in-arms, to work with them, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them, and to ally with them.

Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 04:51 PM

Mary -
It depends. Is the event itself going to be directly associated with the group? Is the event aimed at promoting Stalinism, or is it just the fact that the local Stalinists happen to be the ones organizing the March?

I probably would not, but truth be known, I've been to more than one peace demonstration where I had no idea who actually went to the courthouse and wrote their name on the "parade permit." And in most cases, it doesn't matter.

If I felt like my presence was going to lend credence to a violent or anti-semitic or racist group or whatever, I wouldn't go.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 04:56 PM

The people I know who are opposed to Bush's Big Adventure are people who love their country dearly

A person that loves America would not march with those people. Period.

Posted by: Marco Tzakonas at March 21, 2004 04:59 PM

Jim -
That's ridiculous to anybody who knows the reality of a demonstration. Case in point, before the war began last year, there were several demonstrations here in Eugene, Oregon, opposing Bush's pre-emptive strike policy. A lot of people, relative the size of the city, showed up. There were people from all stripes, ranging from church groups to black-mask-wearing anarchists, who showed up.

Does this mean that the people from the "Justice Not War" coalition or the veterans opposed to the war or the ecumenical groups who showed up to peacefully demonstrate were part and parcel with the revolutionary anarchists?

Of course not. The evening news didn't say "1,500 people showed up to protest the war and support of the Anarchist Black Cross Network in downtown Eugene this evening...

The anarchists might have gotten a little TV time, but they would have gotten it whether I was there or not. It was clear to anyone there and to anyone reading/watching coverage of the event(s) what the real purpose was, and it was also clear to anyone that the bulk of the people there were average, everyday citizens with jobs and families and not members of fringe groups.

Heck, a lot of the people toward the front of the crowd probably never even knew there were anarchists (or pro-gay-rights or anti-Israel, name your cause) activists at the rally unless they read it in the paper the next day.

Going to an anti-war rally that's also attended by Nazis doesn't make me a Nazi. That's just another red herring used by people who are a lot closer to that ideology than I am to try and discredit the anti-war movement.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 05:08 PM

Thanks, Marco. I always wondered who was in charge of deciding how people who love America should act. Now I know.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 05:10 PM

Crockmeister:

It's easier, I know, to just sit and watch Fox News and cheer the bombs falling and jeer at the protesters, but that's not really my idea of "participatory democracy."

Two points:

One: It's offensive to assume that people who support the current policies get off on bombing people. (And if that were the case, wouldn't we all be pissed off that we didn't do more damage?)

Two: Jeering ANSWER, the PLO sympathizers, the anarcho/anti-globo/whatevertheyare strikes me as exactly the kind of thing the Loyal Opposition should be doing if they're really interested in participatory democracy. It would give them some common ground with those of us over here who aren't, you know, Storm Troopers and/or Nazis and/or Neo-Maoists.

Posted by: Mark Poling at March 21, 2004 05:12 PM

crockmeister - and if you went to a 'peace' rally with a sign saying 'Bush Rules' or 'sometimes war is the answer', would you expect those peace-loving everyday citizens with jobs and families to treat your opinion with love and respect?

If you were an Iraqi who wanted to speak out against Saddam and in favor of the war, would you expect to be given a chance to speak?

Posted by: mary at March 21, 2004 05:28 PM

Mark -

No. 1 - That's my point. Just because a lot of people DO cheer the war machine like it's some real-world version of their favorite video game doesn't make them emblematic of all Bush supporters. It's no more, or less, valid than saying war opponents hate America.

Number 2 - Yes, the "right" would be only too happy to watch the anti-war movement devolve into a pissing match between disparate groups. Why should I waste my energy in a pointless fight against fringe groups, even though I vehemently disagree with some of them, when it only dilutes the core message?

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 05:28 PM

Mary,

I would expect some jeering, certainly, but I can say from personal experience that the peace demonstrators I've seen are a far more tolerant of opposing viewpoints than those on the other side.

When we had weekly anti-war rallies last year, I had quite a number of civil discussions with war supporters who proudly carried their "more-patriotic-than-thou" signs. Let me tell you, it wasn't the anti-war people who were driving by yelling profanities and making obscene gestures. It wasn't the "peaceniks" standing on the streetcorner closest to the police station and screaming epithets at the peaceful gathering.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 05:33 PM

Thanks, Marco. I always wondered who was in charge of deciding how people who love America should act. Now I know.

Glad I could help.

Posted by: Marco Tzakonas at March 21, 2004 05:57 PM

What's pathetic is the idea that failing to support the administration's policies makes me anti-American.

Crockmeister,

I certainly wouldn't want to imply that. In fact, I think that an overbroad statement that anyone participating is necessarily tainted by all of the crazies, fascists, etc. is wrong. Even if I really sympathize with Michael's urge to condemn them and think others should.

As to the point about "removing America", I understand you want to remove "this administration", but what part of its policies and practices? Liberating people? Or is it not liberation?

As for the America "living up to its promise", I'm not sure in most of the protestors' minds this "promise" is ever supposed to come. If all those people are opposing the liberation of Iraq and democracy in the developing world (and the ME in particular), they will never ever approve any sort of "promise". And I guarantee you that the prospects for a better offer in the future have been seriously jeopardized. Yeah, I know, Bush's democracy's not "real" democracy or it's a front for something else.

I don't get it.

Posted by: Gabriel Gonzalez at March 21, 2004 05:59 PM

crockmeister- I went to the Million Mom March, I used to lean towards the left and I’m afraid you’re wrong. When the very small pro-gun crowd appeared, the left was even more rabid than the right.

Here’s a description of a few nice family folks marching for peace

The peace and love crowd was anything but. Sitting here I can’t even count how many times we were accused of being cia-ops, on the Bush/Cheney payroll, on Halliburton’s payroll, called fascists, racist, bigots, anti-gay (even though we didn’t have any signs that even touched on any gay rights issues), anti-Muslim, anti-women...shoved, pushed around and told to die, to "fuck off whitey" and the list goes on and on (told you I couldn’t count ’em all). At one point we encountered a massive wall of idiots (I think they were catching on to us so one of them radioed ahead to their comrades to watch out for us), where some were adorned with the symbol of Palestinian terrorism, the kaffiyeh and after bemoaning that we were anti-everything under the sun, they began chanting long live the intifadah!, long live the intifadah!, long live the intifadah!!!

Can you tell me why those nice families marching for peace were screaming 'long live the intifada?'

They’ve done this before.

Please don’t try to tell me that peace activists are peaceful. That old lie was exposed years ago. I don’t want to have to clog up Michael’s comments section with even more links proving that they’re not.

Links proving their ties with Stalinist groups like ANSWER, Neo-nazi groups like the National Alliance, links showing left-wing activists cheering for the murderer of Officer Dave Mobilio in California.

Let’s just both admit that these groups are not interested in peace.

The left works with Stalinists, Nazis, cheers murderers and encourages support of the Intifada because they want America to 'live up to its promise'. Right.

Posted by: mary at March 21, 2004 06:13 PM

Crock, you dodged my argument. I didn't say that marching with Nazis made you a Nazi. I said it showed that you are willing to consider them brothers-in-arms, to work with them, to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with them, and to ally with them. It is obviously indecent to march with Nazis. But instead of addressing this point you offer the insult that I am "a lot closer to" Nazism than you.

You're not serious yet.

Posted by: Jim at March 21, 2004 06:16 PM

Jeremy writes: "When only two parties are given a shot at political relevance, you don't have much choice in your bedfellows."

What sophistry this way comes? Hey, Jeremy, don't you think that there are only two parties because most people find that comfortable. If one wants a viable third party in this country, all and I mean all you have to do is convince enough people to vote with you, raise enough money from them and get your message out. You state that because there are two major partys one doesn't have much choice in the selection of bedfellows. What errant nonsense! One always has choices. I would no more bed down with a Baathist to protest Democrat policy than the man in the moon. In fact, if he showed up at MY protest, I'm likely to punch him in the metaphorical nose. No Jeremy, we have choices and failure to choose is also a choice. Tsk, tsk, defending the radical leftists with sophistry, what has the educational system come to?

Posted by: gmroper at March 21, 2004 06:20 PM

That's the problem, Gabriel. You don't get it. Why do you assume our purpose in Iraq is liberation? Just because Bush says so? America spreads democracy and human rights around the world? Why? Just because the self-appointed purveyors of conventional wisdom say so? Does it matter whether or not the flowery rhetoric matches the historical record? I think it does. Maybe you think it doesn't. Or maybe you just don't get it.

Posted by: flipster at March 21, 2004 06:25 PM

Jeremy, flipster, others, Don't take our word for it, check out the folk in Iraq.

http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com/archives/2004_03_01_iraqthemodel_archive.html#107989200023123916

Posted by: gmroper at March 21, 2004 06:32 PM

crockmeister: ... I can say from personal experience that the peace demonstrators I've seen are a far more tolerant of opposing viewpoints than those on the other side.

Maybe 'peace' marchers in NYC are less tolerant than most.

And check out this guy in San Francisco carrying a placard that says, "I ♥ NY Even More Without The World Trade Center".

Posted by: MDP at March 21, 2004 07:05 PM

Crockmeister,

You would march with a Nazi, a Stalinist, a Jew-hater, and a flag-burner. I would not. Not for any reason whatsoever.

If you choose to march side by side with them, you will take the heat. Sorry. That's how it goes.

If I marched with the Klan, I would expect to be denounced. We both live in the same city, right? If the Klan is expected to show up at an anti-affirmative action rally in downtown Portland and you want to go down there and denounce them, shoot me an email. I will go with you.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 07:23 PM

Crockmeister: Why should I waste my energy in a pointless fight against fringe groups, even though I vehemently disagree with some of them, when it only dilutes the core message?

It wouldn't dilute the core message. It would weaken theirs and strengthen yours.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 07:27 PM

Jeremy, can you substantiate this statement?

"Bush has lied to the international community and his own people to justify a war of agression"

I'm presuming you mean WMDs. If you are then your characterization strikes me as as specious, and self-serving to the anti-Bush crowd. Bush was acting on faulty intelligence which is a lot different from lying.

You might recall that the existence of WMDs directly and unequivocally collaborated by nations opposed to our military intervention in Iraq. Specically Jacque Chirac said on multiple occasions that he fully expected WMDs to be found in Iraq. In point of fact, it was the use of WMDs in combat which had anti-war folks arguing that military intervention would be catastrophic. Certainly the Pentagon believed that these things existed, or have you forgotten the extensive preparations the ground forces went though before crossing the boarders into enemy territory?

Posted by: bob at March 21, 2004 07:28 PM

Everyone should understand something here. I am not holding the anti-war left to any higher standard than I hold myself to. I would not do what I am criticizing them for doing. Not in any context whatever, not just the Iraq war.

As far as not being able to choose your bedfellows, no, I don't agree. I choose mine. I choose mine carefully. I am a centrist. And I am a centrist for a reason. One of those reasons is because I agree with people on each side of the political divide on various issues. (You could say that I am one part liberal and one part conservative.) The other reason is that I need some breathing room between myself and extremists.

You can be on the left and still be far from the extremists. Look at The New Republic. No one thinks the writers at that magazine have anything in common with Stalinists. At least no serious person thinks that. Okay, that's a moderate center-left magazine. But look at Dissent magazine. That's a leftist magazine, very far from the center. And they, too, have built a pretty serious firewall between themselves and the ANSWER goons. They did it very deliberately and I have tremendous respect for those people.

It can be done, and you don't have to be Bush-lite to do it.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 07:44 PM

Being an Stalinist ass hat knows no party lines.

Nice try. When I go to the Democratic Underground website, it looks no different.

You've thrown your lot in with this scum in your hatred of Bush. You've become America haters.

Posted by: David at March 21, 2004 08:19 PM

David: You've thrown your lot in with this scum in your hatred of Bush. You've become America haters.

What on earth did Steve say to deserve that response?

You could be right for all I know. I am not familiar with Steve's opinions, only that one comment he left that you quoted.

But you know what? I don't like Bush. My wife really can't stand him. And if she heard you call her an America-hater, you'd get a tongue-lashing you wouldn't believe. She lived abroad in East Asia for many years. It had a profound effect on her. She is more patriotic than anyone I know, including me and probably you too.

Some leftist twits hate America, and some liberals tolerate them. That is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see.

But George W. Bush is not America. The Republican Party does not own America. Not by a long shot. Not now. Not ever.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 08:34 PM

Michael,

I don't consider someone to be anti-American for hating Bush. Your wife is welcome to hate him all she wants. But too often I see displays of anti-Americanism, be they photos or verbal, that are nothing, if not anti-American. And when you call them on it, they hide behind the "we just hate Bush", or "no, it's the 'government' we hate." Well, I see through their baloney, and I'll keep calling them out. I won't give them the benefit of the doubt; it will be them who have the burden of proof, because I'm pretty goddam sick of it.

Posted by: David at March 21, 2004 08:44 PM

David,

Yeah, okay. I see that, too.

What I didn't see was Steve saying anything that deserved that response. Anyone who can even write "Stalinist ass hat" is probably okay. They get it.

Nor do I think the other liberals who are arguing with me here deserve being called anti-American. I personally think they're being obtuse and overly defensive, but that's a far cry from being an actual America-hater. I live in Portland. I know an America-hater when I see one. Sadly, I see them fairly often. They are very different from your run-of-the-mill liberal.

Even if some of them do march in the same protest, they are still very different. I think it's a mistake for them to march together - a huge mistake, in fact. But I do understand they aren't the same, as I said in my original post.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 21, 2004 09:00 PM

MJT,

You can be on the left and still be far from the extremists.

Agreed, of course, but the distance you require seems to be a bit extreme itself. You appear to be saying in your recent posts that it would be wrong to march with many of the people in those pictures. And for the most part I'd agree, except in some of the cases cited by crockmeister above. But your original post made clear that simply to march on the same day was enough to earn your ire. [T]hey all marched on the same day for (supposedly) the same "cause."... If I were against the war, I wouldn't have a damn thing to do with these people. Since when is marching on the same day having anything to do with them? Should I stop celebrating Halloween on the same day as the Socialist Party, lest you think I support them? (They like candy! I like candy! I must be a socialist!) You claim to recognize that the anti-war groups have diverse ideas and policies, but tarring all of them with some inflammatory pictures would seem to belie that. It may be easier to let Yahoo do your thinking for you, but I can't say I like the results.

Posted by: Smokey, at March 21, 2004 10:29 PM

You missed this one Michael.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=10260_Photos_from_the_Heart_of_Idiotarianism#comments

Posted by: Daniel Kauffman at March 21, 2004 10:30 PM

Whew - a guy steps away from the computer for a few hours to have a life and look what happens... The decent folk among you have no doubt gone to bed, but I shall do my best to give the pleasure of a reply to anyone still reading this tomorrow.

To Gabriel, who just doesn't "get it." I don't oppose the idea of liberation at all. What I disagree with is the notion that the Bush administration is even remotely interested in such a thing, except as it furthers their aim to take and retain power. Where you got the idea that anybody is against liberation in the ME or anywhere else for that matter, or against democracy in the developing world is beyond me. Means do not justify ends, nor are dishonest policies likely to yield positive results.

Mary, your citations are spurious at best. The quote about behavior at the MMM is from where? Some blogger who has an axe to grind (as do most of us). Means nothing. The rest are from fringe groups that aren't representative of the majority of anti-war protesters. Besides, even if some gun-control demonstrators WERE rude to to members of the opposing group, it doesn't invalidate the credibility of all progressive movements everywhere. Same to MDP. Holding up the most extreme examples does not make them representative of the movement.

Jim - where does it say that being in proximity to Nazis, or any other group, that happens to share my opinion on a particular issue makes me a "brother-in-arms" or "standing shoulder to shoulder" with them?

You and Michael seem to think that anti-war demonstrations should be run like business conventions, where everyone has to show ID at the door and speech should be limited to those who are in complete accordance with the organizers. "ID please! So glad you could make it! Nice sign! Oh, it says here you are a member of the Socialist Workers Party. I'm sorry, this is a Commie-free zone today. Come back next week for the pro-labor rally! Next..."

Michael at least tries to put a finer point on it, by saying that truly conscientious war objectors should avoid being at demonstrations with people whose views are offensive. I suppose he won't be voting this year because he doesn't support all of Bush's policies. Because if he does vote with him, then he'll be aligning himself with the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-education president. Let me know when that perfect candidate comes around, and I'll let you know the time and location of the next "pure" anti-war rally.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 21, 2004 11:17 PM

Crockmeister: I suppose he won't be voting this year because he doesn't support all of Bush's policies. Because if he does vote with him, then he'll be aligning himself with the anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-education president.

Well, that is troubling. That's why I'll be sure to vote for a Democratic Congress to fight the GOP.

Smokey: Since when is marching on the same day having anything to do with them?

It was the "global day of action" to bitch about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. These protests did not accidentally occur at the same time.

Hey, maybe I'm being too much of a hardass about this. But, like I said. I wouldn't have done it, regardless of my views about the war. Other people are free to do as they please, obviously, but I'm free to grouse about it.

Sure, I have "ulterior" motives. I want to do what little I can to help drive a wedge between liberals and leftists. The liberals need some daylight between themselves and the radicals. They would do their own cause a great deal of good if more of them would recognize that.

I want liberals to get their act together. I don't like beating up on them, even though I do it on a regular basis. I'd like to join them again. Bush and his pals are really getting under my skin right now. Their fiscal policy is irresponsible in the extreme, and their social policies are reactionary and divisive by design.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 22, 2004 01:02 AM

Michael, you claim that the Rep fiscal policy is "irresponsible". What federal spending is JFK proposing to cut? Virtually none; instead, more of the punish, er, tax the rich! Oh yeah, and stop poor Indian programmers from being hired so that rich US programmers can keep getting 6 figure incomes to live in Sili Vali, even if it means their companies lose market share because of high costs.

C'mon -- GW is irresponsible because he's spending ... like a Dem! (and it is likely to have been almost perfect in minimizing the post dot.com bubble pop; so Keynesian good that most Americans never felt themselves on the eve of a 1929 style market meltdown recession-depression).

Social policies? You mean anti-education, like school vouchers? How many years must more than 50% black high school graduates leave school without basic literacy??? Which is more important, supporting gov't schools or having more poor kids learn? More learning will happen if the parents who care can choose the schools.

Gay marriage? Like JFK, GW opposes gay marriage. Where's the diff? Bush did NOT bring this up, the Mass. Court did, gay activists did -- and it's really part of the abortion debate. Which itself is part of the faith war in America.

Can America tolerate both secularists AND believers, almost like today, or will secularists make it illegal to profess and live by your faith, as in Catholic Charities? Will PC thought police make it illegal to believe, and say, that homosexuality is a sin?

Really, is it GW's looks or his actual policies that your wife hates? Or the fact that so many Leftist ideas about the world, and progress, have been successful to the extent that more movement in the same direction is now wrong?

Maybe, like Frank J said: "after all, if we can't suck the brains out of baby's heads, what rights do we have left?"

Posted by: Tom Grey at March 22, 2004 04:31 AM

Crockmeister: [W]here does it say that being in proximity to Nazis, or any other group, that happens to share my opinion on a particular issue makes me a "brother-in-arms" or "standing shoulder to shoulder" with them?

This is another dodge, Crock. I didn't say "being in proximity". I said "marching with them." It doesn't "say" this anywhere. It's just common sense that marching with a group signals that you are willing to ally with that group.

You and Michael seem to think that anti-war demonstrations should be run like business conventions, where everyone has to show ID at the door.

Another dodge. We're not talking about private views of participants. We're talking about groups holding up signs proclaiming their Nazism, Stalinism, etc. Will you march with them?

Crock, word to the wise. You're wrong and you know it. Admit it and take your pat on the back. Also, it would be decent of you to apologize at this time for implying that I'm much closer to Nazism than you.

Posted by: Jim at March 22, 2004 05:12 AM

creating a precedent of unliateral preemptive military action

For possibly the five millionth time, it was not "unilateral" action (unless of course, you mean "without France and Germany)- there were 35+ countries who participated, including our strongest ally. Secondly, it was not pre-emptive, as Hussein had been a uncooperative homocidal menace for the better part of a decade.

I swear, its the excessive misrepresentations of the left that get me more irritated than anything else.

Posted by: Matt at March 22, 2004 06:03 AM

Lilek's bleat is about this today.

Good read, but that picture he has with a sign that says, "I like NYC better without the WTC" is just sickening to me.

Posted by: James Stephenson at March 22, 2004 06:37 AM

crockmeister - You say: “Holding up the most extreme examples does not make them representative of the movement.”

In fact, your statement that the Left ‘wants America to live up to its promise’ is entirely representative of the movement.

David Horowitz shot this lame alibi down years ago:

"[fulfilling the promise of the Bill of Rights] is really the core alibi of the left. It is a favorite, for example, of the most prominent intellectual America-hater of our time, MIT professor Noam Chomsky, who invariably uses it to explain why he is able to muster such fervent hostility for his own country's imperfect democracy while speaking from the platform of a Marxist dictatorship, as he did in Nicaragua during the 1980s.

But the hypocrisy here is readily exposed. If it is a more authentic form of loyalty to attack the failings of one's own house, then why are leftists, like Navasky and Chomsky, so zealous in covering up the crimes of the left? The Nation was perhaps the last media institution in America to admit the guilt of the Rosenberg spies, or the crimes of the Black Panthers, let alone of the monster Pol Pot. It has still not made its peace with the guilt of Alger Hiss. For decades Nation writers — and leftists generally — made pariahs of the Trotskyist critics of the Stalin regime and actively colluded in the coverup of Communist atrocities throughout the Cold War.

And they continue in the present to defame critics of the left, as (in the interests of full disclosure) they defamed me in a recent cover story. The purpose is always the same: to embargo discussion of themselves. It is hypocrisy of the very highest order to think of yourself as having a "social conscience" and as being a champion of dissent, while you shut off questioning in your own ranks and attempt to demonize those who disagree with you and turn them into unpersons and worse."

In the Egyptian press, Noam Chomsky recently stated that America was planning to slaughter millions of Afghans in a Silent Genocide</b.. Did he tell that lie because he wanted America to live up to its promise?

If Noam Chomsky is an extremist, then why does the left consistently follow his lead?

Calling these America-haters, dictator-supporters and terror-apologists 'peace activists' who want America to 'live up to its promise' has become a very sick joke.

Posted by: mary at March 22, 2004 08:38 AM

MJT:

It was the "global day of action" to bitch about the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. These protests did not accidentally occur at the same time.

No, but the occasion for the protests was the anniversary of the date of the invasion. Thus the date was not set and agreed on by the various groups of protestors, but was dictated by prior events (the invasion). Common recognition of the significance of a date does not denote common goals.

Posted by: Smokey at March 22, 2004 08:39 AM

Matt,

I swear, its the excessive misrepresentations of the left that get me more irritated than anything else.

And it is the lack of a sense of irony on the part of the right which most irritates me. Excessive misinterpretations are exactly what you are trafficking in. When we complain about the president acting unilaterally, obviously we do not mean that he literally acted alone. To pretend otherwise is misleading. What we are complaining about is the ignoring of our traditional allies (yes, even the yellow-bellied French and Germans) and the sidelining of the UN. You are free to think that the president was correct to do so, but not to imply that those of us who disagree are lying.

And yes, by any definition it was preemptive. Saddam was a homicidal menace to his fellow Iraqis and to certain of his neighbors, but not to the United States. The argument the administration tried to build was that he might become such a threat to us a some unspecified point in the future, and that therefore we should preempt him. Thus, the invasion was preemptive.

Posted by: Smokey at March 22, 2004 08:55 AM

Lileks has a post that shows a so-called "anti-war" protester saying that he loves NYC more now that the WTC is gone.

I guess that's supposed to be an attack against the capitalist system, as the WTC was a symbol of that. But it seems to me that he's glorifying in the deaths of thousands of innocent people who were just trying to make a living.

A friend of mine got a job as a paralegal at Thatcher Proffit, on the 44th floor of WTC Tower 2, in August 2001. She worked there for a month and then 9/11 happened. She was actually in the elevators when the plane hit, which thankfully stopped on the 5th floor and was able to make it out ok. But the damage to her mind has not really healed, and she is still going to a psychologist to try to help her deal with the horror of it all. Living in NYC, I know lots of people like that. Hell, I still wake up in fear sometimes, thinking another attack is going to happen.

That so-called "anti-war" protester who thinks the NYC skyline is better because the WTC was destroyed, simply because capitalism is, like, you know, so racist and bad, is not anti-war, he is an active propogandist for the enemy.

I must seriously question the ethics of anyone who would march alongside such a person. It is a serious indication of moral relativism, no, nihilism, that someone who happens to be a little left-of-center would consider marching with a person who is an active propogandist of MURDER.

Don't give me the B.S. that Bush is trying to kill innocent Afghanis, or whoever. That is a crock of B.S. and most people know it.

I used not to understand why the left was so infested with HATE, hate for Bush, hate for the Joe Schmoes who are just trying to work in buildings like the WTC, hate for people who salute the flag (yes, they were yelling at people waving flags). But the answer why they HATE is obvious: they are losing, badly. Everything that they believe in has been shown to be a fraud: communism, stalinism, national socialism, race consciousness - all of these are a one-way ticket to state power, alienation, and murder.

Which is why it's no surprise that the man saying he likes the NYC skyline without the WTC glorifies the murderers. He knows where his ideologies lead him.

It'd be better for the country if leftists acknowledged that and disassociated from it. But no, even on this thread people are, as Michael said, overly cautious. WHY? If you have any sense of ethics, morals, or decency, you'd say goodbye to all that.

Posted by: Sydney Carton at March 22, 2004 09:29 AM

Jim,
You are right. The Nazi crack was ill-advised and unfair. I apologize.

Your other criticisms fall into two categories: splitting hairs, or condescension. No, I would not "march with" Nazis. But would I allow their presence at a peace rally or demonstration determine whether I attended or not? No, absolutely not, unless they were there in such numbers as to make the event itself into a pro-Nazi event.

The presence of someone carrying a sign in favor of of a particular viewpoint at an event attended by a wide range of activists no more makes me a part of their group than the man in the moon.

This is just another tactic of the pro-war people who want to smear every war opponent with the broad brush of the most radical participants in the demonstrations. I guarantee you that I could have shown up at any of the larger gatherings with my digital camera and taken pictures that made it look like everyone was sitting around singing "kumbaya" and praying quietly. That would have been no more - or less - representative of the reality than the selection of photos here at MJT, Yahoo or the LGF site.

To quote: You're wrong and you know it. Admit it and take your pat on the back.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 22, 2004 10:13 AM

When we complain about the president acting unilaterally, obviously we do not mean that he literally acted alone.

So, you're saying it depends on what the definition of the word "is", is. Is that it?

Posted by: bkw at March 22, 2004 11:12 AM

Dear Crock,

"I guarantee you that I could have shown up at any of the larger gatherings with my digital camera and taken pictures that made it look like everyone was sitting around singing "kumbaya" and praying quietly. "

I think what you are trying to say is that because non-violent and peaceful proceedings are taking place, then it is a distortion to depict the protests in San Francisco as anti-American.

Surely you jest. Have you ever visited the following website:
http://www.iran-e-azad.org/stoning/video.html?

I'll spare you the gory details with a brief summary. The video depicts a large crowd gathered around for the stoning of two women in Iran (if memory serves, they were found guilty of adultery. H'mmm I wonder how well that would fly in ole Frisco? Sorry, I digress). Anyway the striking aspect of the video is banality of goings on on the periphery of the crowd, independent of the atrocity taking place. If I had been there I could have easily shot a passive video of the event depicting groups of people socializing and having friendly and noisy discussions. Hardly an accurate representation of what really is going on.

The point? For one thing, when people act really, really badly and others stand around and don't confront them, they are implicitly sactioning their actions. More importantly any social or political event is defined by the lowest common denominator of actions of any of the participants.

Where are there pictures of people confronting these idiots?

Posted by: bob at March 22, 2004 11:42 AM

bob -

Sorry, but I think you are missing the very basic point that the limits on freedom of speech are very different than the limits on freedom to act. Stoning someone to death is so far from carrying a placard (regardless of how offensive the message) that the comparison is ludicrous.

And this statement: More importantly any social or political event is defined by the lowest common denominator of actions of any of the participants represents the core of our disagreement. I think this statement is false. You don't.

One could concoct any number of scenarios, real or imagined, that illustrate the silliness of this notion. Does the presence of a handful of Nambla members at a gay pride parade make everyone present a baby raper? No. Does the presence of Christian fundamentalists at a pro-Bush rally mean everyone there is a Pat Robertson clone? Of course not. Do the "god hates fags" idiots represent everyone who participates in a demo opposing gay marriage? Do the nuts screaming "baby killer" and "murderer" at women entering a Planned Parenthood Clinic represent everyone on the pro-life/anti-choice side of that debate? No.

I think most people are capable of looking at a large event and deciphering the message that was being imparted. Unless, of course, their own agenda dictates that they dismiss that message, in which case they will justify their position using whatever politically expedient excuse is available.

Finally, you say: I think what you are trying to say is that because non-violent and peaceful proceedings are taking place, then it is a distortion to depict the protests in San Francisco as anti-American.

No. I said it is a distortion to depict certain individuals or groups as being emblematic of the entire group. And being anti-American policy is not the same as being anti-American by a long shot.

Posted by: crockmeister at March 22, 2004 12:19 PM

Hi Crock,

Did your Mom every warn you about being judged by the people you hang out with. I bet she did, and I think you should
listen to your mother. Anyway, I disagree about what we are disagreeing about.

The point I was trying to make was not that a crowd where people gathered to see women stoned is equivalent to the San Francisco protest. It was your assertion that you could selectively take pictures of some event and cast it anyway you want. Implicit in this arguement is the belief that the nature of the event is in the eye of the beholder. It is a completely subjective experience.

In other words no one should judge the clowns in San Francisco, because one could subjectively argue that it was a glorified prayer session.

Anyway, sorry, I don't buy it.

"Does the presence of a handful of Nambla members at a gay pride parade make everyone present a baby raper?"

No, but their presence undermines the moral standing of an event. Minimally, you leave the event. Better yet, you differentiate yourself from them by direct confrontation. Never have seen that in a gay parade.

"Do the "god hates fags" idiots represent everyone who participates in a demo opposing gay marriage?"

I've been to many Republican events. If characters like this showed up they would be quickly shown the door.

"Do the nuts screaming "baby killer" and "murderer" at women entering a Planned Parenthood Clinic represent everyone on the pro-life/anti-choice side of that debate?"

No they represent themselves, hateful extremists who push the boundaries of civil behaviour.

"I think most people are capable of looking at a large event and deciphering the message that was being imparted."

Sure, and they have feet and can walk away, or show some guts and take these people to task. Walking the same street
within the same crowd of extremists implicitly condones the message and makes them look larger than they are.

This really is not that difficult to understand.

Posted by: bob at March 22, 2004 12:56 PM

Well, that is troubling. That's why I'll be sure to vote for a Democratic Congress to fight the GOP.

MT's current congressman is Earl Blumenauer. He's virtually unchallenged. His opponent raised, er, well, $8,650.

MT's Senator up for re-election is Ron Wyden. He's virtually unchallenged. His opponent raised, er, well, $1,000.

In other words, the quote above should read "I'm going to vote for Republicans in any election in which my vote has even the remotest chance of counting."

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 22, 2004 01:28 PM

Well, bob, you solved the riddle. Congratulations. No they represent themselves, hateful extremists who push the boundaries of civil behaviour.

They represent themselves. Exactly.

In other words no one should judge the clowns in San Francisco, because one could subjectively argue that it was a glorified prayer session.

No, you still miss the point. No one should judge the people NOT shown in the photos solely on the basis of those who ARE. (See previous paragraphs.)

Is that really so hard to understand?

Posted by: crockmeister at March 22, 2004 02:08 PM

Crockmeister: Does the presence of a handful of Nambla members at a gay pride parade make everyone present a baby raper? No. Does the presence of Christian fundamentalists at a pro-Bush rally mean everyone there is a Pat Robertson clone? Of course not. Do the "god hates fags" idiots represent everyone who participates in a demo opposing gay marriage? Do the nuts screaming "baby killer" and "murderer" at women entering a Planned Parenthood Clinic represent everyone on the pro-life/anti-choice side of that debate? No.

I agree. I don't think we actually disagree all that much here.

I do expect mainstream opponents of gay marriage to condemn the "God Hates Fags" people.

You haven't yet addresed my question about a (theoretical) anti-affirmative action rally attended by the Ku Klux Klan. What would you think of people who marched with the Klan, even if they aren't actually racist themselves? What would you think if Bill O'Reilly said "Hey, not everyone at that march was a Klansmen." Would that argument work for you?

If so, okay then. But it wouldn't work for me.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 22, 2004 02:41 PM

Smokey,

Excessive misinterpretations are exactly what you are trafficking in. When we complain about the president acting unilaterally, obviously we do not mean that he literally acted alone. To pretend otherwise is misleading.

Why do you use the word "unilaterally" when you admit Bush wasn't acting unilaterally? You wouldn't be trafficking in "excessive misreprentations" now would you, Smokey? Could it be that you and the Democratic leadership want uninformed folks to take you literally, while leaving yourself some wiggle room when someone nails you with facts?

The only thing that is obvious is that every time you use the word "unilateral" to describe Bush's policy, you are telling a BOLD-FACED LIE in order to undermine the war effort.

Posted by: HA at March 22, 2004 02:46 PM

MJT,

Actually, I'm pretty sure Crockmeister did answer your hypothetical, about ten posts ago. I'll second his point, because I think it's a good one. If I thought a particular protest were important, I wouldn't necessarily let the presence of people I disagree with prevent me from attending. It would of course be a different matter if this group were the organizer of the event or the dominant group in attendence, because then my presence would serve to legitimize them and would imply a degree of acceptance of their views on my part in a way that simple co-attendence would not. Otherwise it's just a question of: who else is going to be at this event? In such a case, I think you have to decide on a case-by-case basis. A lot of factors come into such a decision: exactly how loathsome is the group/groups in question, how likely is it that they will show up, what are the relative numbers going to be, how important do I feel it to be that I show my support for the demonstration, etc... I don't think it makes sense to have a simple rule where if X group attends Y event, I refuse to also attend. That gives group X a say in my affairs, it allows my actions to be dictated by theirs. So, were the numbers of virulently anti-american protesters at these events large enough to taint the entire protest, even those who do not share those views? I don't know, but I do know that you (or anyone else here) haven't shown it to be so. All I've seen are a few pictures.

Posted by: Smokey at March 22, 2004 03:31 PM

Michael -
I thought I already answered that question, but apparently not. The answer is "it depends." Is this an anti-affirmative action rally at which was attended by a Nazi group, or is it a racist rally dressed up in the guise of being opposed to affirmative action? Are the nazis there in sufficient number that it's their message being presented, or are they a fringe group? Are they the organizers or are they otherwise determining the message, or are they just piggybacking on the efforts of people with real ideas?

Bill O'Reilly can say whatever he wants. I think adults can decide for themselves what the message of the event was meant to be.

If I declined to attend any political rally at which there were viewpoints with which I strongly disagreed, there wouldn't be any point in getting off my couch (which some people probably would think is OK).

Posted by: crockmeister at March 22, 2004 03:34 PM

Klan - Openly Violent and Racist, past of killing and torturing people for being black or disagreeing with them. Members wish they could go back to the days of killing and torture.

Random radical leftist org - Not Violent. Not Racist. No past of killing and torturing people for anything. Members don't want to kill and torture anyone.

You need a good dose of Orincus.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 22, 2004 03:36 PM

HA,

Why don't you try replying to my post on the other thread first? I wouldn't want you to get confused trying to carry on two thoughts at once.

It should be obvious that my usage of unilateral refers to the decision making process, and does not imply that I think Bush personally invaded and conquered Iraq all by his lonesome. Although I'm sure he would have, if the Secret Service would only have let him. Does anyone deny that we are calling all the shots in Iraq, and that our allies are there pretty much to do as we say? Iraq is an American show, pure and simple. Other countries may support the effort, even offering troops and money, but they have no real say in the overall planning. Give me an example of one of the Coalition of the Coerced effecting a substantial change in our Iraq policy and planning. When one party's desires and opinions absolutely dominate the process, the outcome can only be described as unilateral. As I said, my meaning should be obvious. This assumes that the reader is interested in understanding meaning, and not just in playing some juvenile "gotcha" crap. Smokey said he was broke, but he actually has two cents! The bold-faced liar!

Posted by: Smokey at March 22, 2004 04:19 PM

I didn't see one sane person in those photos. Well, maybe the cops who had to stand there and make sure these idiots didn't hurt themselves.

Posted by: Rebecca at March 22, 2004 05:08 PM

Hipocrite – Hamas & other Palestinian paramilitaries – openly violent and racist, past of torturing people, deliberately targeting and murdering children, grandmothers and other innocents for the crime of living in Israel.

Communists – responsible for the slaughter of approx 100 million people, the destruction of many nations and economies.

Random radical leftist – apologists for mass murderers and oppressors listed above.

Posted by: mary at March 22, 2004 05:24 PM

crock:

Just because the Communists are there - que horrible! - I should walk off with my activist nose out of joint?

One hundred million dead people last century say you'd damn well better.

Posted by: Jeff Licquia at March 22, 2004 05:41 PM

Birds of a feather.....

Posted by: mr. lawson at March 22, 2004 06:32 PM

Smokey,

When one party's desires and opinions absolutely dominate the process, the outcome can only be described as unilateral.

What other party's "desires and opinions" do you think should influence our Iraq policy?

Posted by: HA at March 22, 2004 06:53 PM

What's the debate about? It's a simple equation: IF YOU SLEEP WITH DOGS, YOU GET FLEAS.

So excuse me if your argument is that you're not actually a Nazi/Anti-Semite/America Hater/Communist etc., but have no problems legitimizing them by marching proudly with them. That sort of nuance may play with John Kerry, but not here. If you hold up a Bush=Hitler sign, or stand next to the fool that does it, whatever you have to say is meaningless.

If you can actually march next to the traitor with the "I Love NYC More Without the Twin Towers" sign and not spit in his face, you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Posted by: shark at March 22, 2004 06:58 PM

shark: If you can actually march next to the traitor with the "I Love NYC More Without the Twin Towers" sign and not spit in his face, you're morally and intellectually bankrupt.

I would have to force myself not to punch him in the face, let alone spit in it.

But, hey, I'm just a hard-ass here I guess.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 22, 2004 08:03 PM

We need a few more marches like this, closer to the election. The less radical left wants to be intellectually dissassociated from the more extreme left, arguing that it was only a matter of convenience that they were in the same rally as people praising the slaughter of 3000 Americans, or inciting the mutiny of troops in Iraq (yeah, like that's going to happen, or even did happen).
I think the average American is smart enough to know whether these two groups, marching in the same protest, singing the same (tired) chants, calling for the same end results, should be connected. Let them carry the image of these protestors into the voting booth with them.
Like it or not, one or two more of these protests in late October should result in a complete landslide for the current president.

Posted by: Diggs at March 22, 2004 08:48 PM

Hamas
I don't see Hamas marching in New York.

Stalinists
I don't see Stalinists marching in New York

Random radical leftist – apologists for mass murderers and oppressors listed above.
Rabid Right Wingers- apologists for mass murders and opressors like Guzzetti and Milosevic...

For some reason, I don't find you to be a traitor.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 22, 2004 09:03 PM

All you need to know from this AP story about the protests in Atlanta:

The rally, held in front of the Israeli Consulate in downtown Atlanta, attracted many who protested Israel's occupation of Palestine as well as the U.S. effort in Iraq. The Atlanta chapter of the International Action Center organized the coalition of 20 to 25 groups represented at the rally.

Note the organizers and the venue they chose.

Posted by: Lynxx Pherrett at March 22, 2004 09:18 PM

I don't see Stalinists marching in New York.

New York? Are New York rallies the only "legit" ones?

If so, you'd better hope that this wasn't in NY.

Rabid Right Wingers- apologists for mass murders and opressors like Guzzetti and Milosevic...

That would explain all the Serbian flag-waving at all those pro-war rallies, I suppose.

Posted by: Jeff Licquia at March 22, 2004 10:38 PM

The apologists for Slobo attend anti-war rallies. Then again, I did have to permanently kick out one right-wing Serbian propagandist from my comments section.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 22, 2004 11:31 PM

Look at these idiots in San Francisco. Communists and open supporters of the terrorists in Iraq. Lots of lovely protest signs: "Death to America!" "Fight for Communism!" Absolutely disgusting.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 23, 2004 12:40 AM

HA,

What other party's "desires and opinions" do you think should influence our Iraq policy?

Well, how about the UN? Especially considering that a major rationale for the invasion (often cited by you, I might add) was that Saddam was in violation of UN resolutions.

My point was that our policy, including the invasion itself, was and is unilateral, which you claimed it not to be. You can't assert it to not be unilateral, and then say that it's a good thing that it is. Which is it?

Posted by: Smokey at March 23, 2004 04:45 AM

All communists do not advocate Stalinist purges. Pictures of communist flags show me that the person believes that private ownership should be abolished.

Why would supporters of a rightist attened a march of leftists? No, I think you've confused Slobidan supporters with peace at all cost activists.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 05:11 AM

MJT,

I'm deeply troubled by some of the postings in this thread. And, perhaps, that is as it should be when ideas are discussed with fervor and zeal. On the other hand, those representing themselves as supporters of the "marchers" don't seem as though they understand the concept of enemy. The islamofascists will have nothing but our deaths. Their declaration of war issued by UBL in '98 states that in rather clear terms. Their interpretation of the Koran calls for subjugation or death for all non Muslims. Should they gain control, the "marchers" would be among the first to be lined up in front of the lime-filled pits in preparation for the bullet in the back of the head.

Protesting is one thing, stark refusal to recognize that someone wants your death and only your death is entirely something else. Not punching out the idiot with the "I [heart] NY even better without the twin towers" sign may be a sign of civilized behavior, but carrying that sign is a sign of abject stupidity and proof that the fellow doesn't understand the meaning of his sign, let alone the meaning of the geo-political situation in the world.

Anyone who can stand shoulder to shoulder with the fellow travelers with the islamofascists just because it's time for a protest is showing that their understanding of the situation in the world today is deficient. They have added 2 plus 2 and consistently come up with 7. Or was it 3 or maybe 19? What they did not come up with was the correct answer.

I have determined that it is totally pointless to argue with these folk. They just are not capable of anything but invective, and it's hard to have a serious discussion with someone who is so rabidly anti-civilization. Note that I said anti-civilization, not anti-US. That conclusion is inescapable, or so I fear.

Posted by: gmroper at March 23, 2004 05:17 AM

Private ownership should be abolished? Are you kidding me, should we all be wards of the state?

People who wish for the end of Private Property, long for the days of the Motherland. We can not be allowed to do for ourselves, we must let the state decide.

Hipocrite did you know this, Originally the Constitution was going to say, "And the right to the pursuit of Property". It was changed, to Happiness. But originally it would have said Property. Had it, would you be here talking aboutt he Abolishment of Private Property, I hope not.

And as it is, no freedom loving person would ever ask for the Banishment of Private Property.

No country without Private Property live better than people with Private Property. Can you refute this fact? I thought not.

As Stalin said, "Once a man owns his own home, we have lost him to the revolution."

Posted by: James Stephenson at March 23, 2004 05:27 AM

MJT,

Oh, come on. I went to the site you linked, and while I saw a lot of signs that I would disagree with, I saw little that I would categorize as "disgusting." There were only a few truly odious ones, like "support the resistance in Iraq," or the "I Love NY" one. Most of them are simply an opportunity to snark about the protesters poor sign design. Which is fine, some of them were pretty funny (the one who used the Mercedes symbol instead of the peace sign). But even this highly selective collection of photos, taken expressly to prove the radicalism of the prostests, at best shows that a lot of protesters are kind of silly. In spite of Mary and Jeff's invocation of a hundred million dead people, I don't find Communists "disgusting." Kinda strange, misguided, and hopelessly naive, maybe. But does anyone really think they are plotting a proletarian revolution in this country? The site shows pictures of the Communist literature available, but I failed to see any copies of "Stalinism: the Regime for You!" or "Pol Pot and I: A Love Story." I'm not trying to defend Communism as an political system, but to imply that any Communist is somehow responsible for those deaths. The vast majority of the photos on that site show protesters with anti-Bush, pro-Palestine, or 9-11 conspiracy theory signs. Some are overwrought, some are silly, but none are so appalling as to make me question my presence at the event. As for publicly confronting someone holding a sign I violently disagree with? Yeah, starting an altercation at an event with large numbers of people and an already touchy relationship with law enforcement, that's a good idea. That's how riots get started.

Posted by: Smokey at March 23, 2004 05:40 AM

James asks me to defend Communism, as if I am an adherent. I'm not. I was merely stating that people who had communist flags do not necessarily advocate Stalinist purges.

James, you are an intellectual pussy. A half-weight hack with the mind of a teenager.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 07:10 AM

George Orwell wrote about these pacifists in 1945. Here is what he said:

"But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defense of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered. "

the more things change....

Posted by: PV at March 23, 2004 07:30 AM

Oh Come on. Those aren't the real left. They're all Nader voters.

Posted by: ed at March 23, 2004 07:38 AM

Hipocrite - you call people names and you somehow imply that I'm a traitor. I assume that you do this because you love your fellow man and believe that we should all live equally in a state of blissful harmony (since you have so much contempt for so-called right wingers, I assume you also believe that some are more equal than others)

ANSWER organized the march in New York, and ANSWER is a Stalinist organization. That’s not my opinion, it’s the opinion of many reporters and news organizations, including the liberal LA Weekly.

But it wasn’t Stalinism that killed 100 million people, it was Communism in all its varieties.

People at ‘anti-war’ rallies have a habit of shouting ‘long live the intifada’. They’re expressing their support for a wide variety of Islamist paramilitary groups, who all have the same goals – chasing the Israelis out of Israel and installing Shariah law.

These Intifada fans are not anti war.

The people at these rallies aren’t all Stalinist purge fans, and they’re not all Islamist Paramilitaries. But they are all willing to tolerate these groups, and they have a habit of reflexively making excuses for these mass murderers. Another instinctive, reactionary response of the ‘peace’ crowd is to shift all blame for the bad things in the world and all vituperation to the so-called right wing and the Bush administration.

You do this, consistently. Is this an involuntary response or is it behavioral conditioning? Maybe it’s a habit, like smoking.

You can kick the habit. Before you reach for the Rightwing=Nazis, or the ‘Communism was flawed but the IDEA is good response’, stop and think about it. Go outside, get some fresh air, think. You can quit if you try.

Posted by: mary at March 23, 2004 08:04 AM

PV approvingly quotes George Orwell. As we all know, George Orewll was a socialist. Socialism and it's derivative Communism are linked most of the writers here to the deaths of 100MM.

Thus, PV is marching with mass murders. At least, according to the guilt-by-association types that call me a Communist.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 08:08 AM

No, mary, I don't imply that you're a traitor - you imply that you're a traitor. You support the genocidal mass-murderes of Chile and the Balkan Republics. Or, at least, by your convoluted Guilt-by-Association BS you do.

ANSWER most certainly did not organize the most recent march in NYC. Nice try, though. Also, ANSWER as an organization IS NOT STALINIST. That some of it's leaders are Stalinists (all that that piece alleges), means nothing more than the fact that David Duke is a Republican leader, which, of course, he is.

Look, hate to say it, but Bush IS responsible for the state of the world. He's the leader of the party that controls all three branches of our government, which is the single largest economic and millatary power in the world. If things are fed up, we can lay the blame at his feet.

Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 08:17 AM

Hipocrite - As a matter of fact, I am better off than I was 4 years ago. Thanks for asking.

ANSWER did organize that March. I live near NYC, their signs were all over the place.

The left does not criticize mass murderers and oppressors. That's how they differ from liberals and moderates. I supported the fight against the Serb atrocities in the Balkans, and, before 9/11, I voted against our actions in South & Central America. Many moderates and liberals are opposed to terrorism and the pointless War on Drugs.

They're also opposed to dictatorships and oppression. That's where they differ from the left. The left works with Communists, downplays the crimes of dictators and openly works with Nazis. They refuse to crticize the Intifada. They refuse to criticize communism.

And here you are, doing what I thought you'd do, shifting all blame for the bad things in the world to the so-called right wing and the Bush administration.

Is Bush responsible for all bad things that happen? Left-wing author Annie Lamott blamed Bush for her hot flashes. I guess any debate with this mindset will provoke the involuntary 'hate Bush' response. It's like poking a jellyfish.

Posted by: mary at March 23, 2004 08:42 AM

"If things are fed up, we can lay the blame at his feet."

I figured the blame was at the feet of terrorists, dictators, and their appeasers.

"David Duke is a Republican leader, which, of course, he is."

And Senator Byrd was a Kleagle in the KKK. Who still uses the term 'nigger' in casual conversation. Take the beam outta your eye before you pull the race card outta ours.

Posted by: Kong at March 23, 2004 08:51 AM

Hipocrite: James, you are an intellectual pussy. A half-weight hack with the mind of a teenager.

Knock if off. I'm not asking.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten at March 23, 2004 09:49 AM

Kong apparently blames the lowest employment figures of the past 10 years on the Terrorists, Dictators and Appeasers. Kong apprently blames the weak dollar on Terrorists, Dictators and Appeasers. Kong apparently blames the Anti-Gay Amendment on the Terrorists, Dictators and Appeasers. Kong apparently blames the falling real incomes of Americans on Terrorists, Dictators and Appeasers.

I place the blame squarely where it belongs.

Senator Byrd renounced his past. You can find two quotes of Byrd saying "White Nigger." You don't even know the context of the statement.

David Duke embraces his past. You can find hundreds of quotes of him actually saying racist things like "I won my constituency. I won 55 percent of the white vote."

And you chumps say that moral equivalency is the halmark of the Left?

Finally, Marry, UFPJ organized the march. Spin all you want to, but we know it's true.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 09:55 AM

He's allowed to call me a Communist and I'm not allowed to retailiate in kind? Ahh, the fair and balanced center.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 09:56 AM

Hipocrite – the following was written by someone who is opposed to Bush and who supports the Palestinian cause. Can you guess who this is?

"Every American attack on foreign nations will greatly increase hatred against America and spawn more terrorists who want to strike back at us.

It will focus Arab anger away from Israel and toward America. Terrorism against America will accelerate, as we become the primary targets.

As shown by the aftereffects of September 11, such terrorist acts will have a devastating affect on the American economy.

Going to war for Israel's benefit will cost both American military and civilian lives. And, every American taxpayer will end up paying the multibillion-dollar price tag

With unemployment skyrocketing, business suffering, and our economy going into recession, instead of government giving tax breaks to ailing business and consumers, it plans on a spending spree.

American Constitutional freedoms are under the greatest assault in American history. Top government officials seek to eradicate many Constitutional rights.

In conjunction to the loss of freedoms, the government has authorized the largest and most powerful government "secret police" force in the history of the world. "

Posted by: mary at March 23, 2004 10:35 AM

Hipocrite - there is no utopia. Even if Kerry wins your life will still suck. Sorry to crush your dreams.

Posted by: Ex at March 23, 2004 10:58 AM

mary - the following was written by someone who is in support of Bush and who opposes the Palestinian cause. Can you guess who this is?

We implore you to retaliate against these barbaric terrorists and all states that openly sponsor terrorism by flattening their capitals and
bases of destruction. Send a clear message to Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan and others that they will pay the price for sponsoring global terrorism.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 11:06 AM

Y'know, this thread just gets more interesting as time goes by. Sort of like hops and barley...
Anyway, I'm going to be out in the real world this afternoon, but wanted to point out something that I think is key to this discussion and to the underpinnings of the WoT:

Mary: But it wasn’t Stalinism that killed 100 million people, it was Communism in all its varieties. No, it wasn't. Communists killed 100 million people, and the difference is not just semantics. This is a common intellectual fallacy that I see a lot of war supporters making all over the place. "Communism" is an idea, or a political system, and it does not include in its platform "kill anyone who disagrees" (unlike most strains of nazism or the mutant strains of Islam at the heart of al Qaeda, Hamas, etc.)
Someone carrying a Communist flag or even advocating communism as an alternative to the corporatism embraced by the U.S. does not automatically align someone with, for example, Pol Pot's murderous regime. Suppot of an idea or political system does not make someone complicit in murder. (Anyone who believes that ought to consider that the largest Communist country on the planet is one of this country's largest trading partners, and there are plenty of "made in China" labels in your house.)

Posted by: crockmeister at March 23, 2004 11:18 AM

>>"Communism" is an idea, or a political system, and it does not include in its platform "kill anyone who disagrees"

Actually it does. Please read what Stalin said about the Kulaks. Then please try to find me a living Kulak. Communism is about a revolutionary movement toppling the existing order. And as a Communist once said, you can't make an omlet without breaking some heads....

PS: The ChiComs ARE complicit in murder. Though they are liberalizing a bit recently.

Posted by: Ex at March 23, 2004 11:42 AM

Actually it doesn't. What Stalin said about something is Stalinism, which is not communism. Communism is the abolishment of personal property. Stalinism is Socalism in one country + Aggrivated and continued class strugle + Massive repression.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 11:53 AM

Hipocrite: Ever read Marx? Ever followed his premises to their conclusion? Think it is just a odd coinkidink that every communist regime has tured into a bloody tyranny?

Posted by: Ex at March 23, 2004 12:31 PM

I am not defending Communism, rather defining it. It does not definitinally include killing people.

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 12:38 PM

Posted by: Catalonia at March 21, 2004 08:12 AM

> Today the protests consist ENTIRELY of
> Leftists.

Of course. The war is over. Now it just leftists who think the occupation is 'imperalism'. All the sane people packed it in.

Posted by: Thomas at March 23, 2004 12:49 PM

Posted by: Hipocrite at March 23, 2004 12:38 PM

> I am not defending Communism, rather defining
> it. It does not definitinally include killing
> people.

Sure it does. How, exactly, is the proletariat going to come to power (hint: ‘class war’)?

Even if they did via an election, what do you do with the capitalists (or Kulaks, or whatever)?

Even in the communist manifesto it talked about 'ruthlessly' pulling down the old liberal order... How do you do that without breaking eggs?

Then there is the issue that you can't judge groups by just what they say. You need to look at their track record too. Obviously, angry murderous people are attracted to communism as an ideology... Regardless of what they say, you must look at what they do (100 million, and counting, dead)….
:)

Posted by: Thomas at March 23, 2004 12:54 PM

Posted by: crockmeister at March 23, 2004 11:18 AM

> Someone carrying a Communist flag or even
> advocating communism as an alternative to the
> corporatism embraced by the U.S. does not
> automatically align someone with, for example,
> Pol Pot's murderous regime.

I don't agree. They could always just call themselves socialists (or a progressives) if they don't want to be identified with t