just trying to eat my waffles

August 30, 2005

NPR Opinion Piece

i just read one of the dumbest things i've read in a while. "Lack Of Mandate On Iraq Haunts Bush," by Ron Elving, NPR's "supervising senior Washington editor." Knowledge of history or political science seems not to be a pre-requisite for his job. On the contrary, the ability to produce a slanted argument from out one's butthole looks like an asset.

While the premise―Bush's lack of a mandate on the Iraq War―is reasonable enough, the op-ed piece went downhill soon after the byline. Elving's theory, no doubt taught to impressionable young minds when he was a professor at Georgetown's Graduate Public Policy Institute, is that "the scope of [a president's] plans must be matched by the breadth of [his] support.

Elving calls this the Rule of Proportionate Mandate. i cannot find any mention of such a rule in my own library, but never mind. It seems reasonable when applied to republics such as ours. That is, as long as one ignores the historical exceptions to the so-called rule. The plans of Lincoln, FDR, Truman and even Churchill are the most obvious examples.

But this quote here is a real doozie:

Before invading Iraq, the administration of President Bush needed the broad backing of three constituencies: the Iraqi people, the international community and the American public. In each case, the administration heard just enough of what it wanted to hear to conclude it had sufficient support. In each case, it was wrong. [emphasis added]

i love Elving's new take on Kerry's "Global Test" doctrine. Did you catch it? Not only should America have the support of certain foreign powers before acting in its self-interest, but America should also have the support of its enemies before going to war!

Wow. This guy was teaching graduate students? In D.C. no less. That's scary.

Elving goes on to re-state the tired old canard that the "Coalition of the Willing" was really a disguise for unilateral action. Never mind the much debated question of whether the over 48 countries who initially signed on to help us were "window dressing" or not. Since when has the commander-in-chief been prohibited from exercising the war powers unilaterally? There is no such requirement in Constitutional law or history. Let's be clear. A president has never been required to seek "the broad backing of the international community." That's complete hogwash. i'll agree that international support is nice to have, but true leadership does not find it necessary before acting.

Then Elving says that support for the war has never been an overwhelming majority such "as in the case of Pearl Harbor or the invasion of Afghanistan." Again, hogwash. In January 2004, for example, 65% of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center thought that the war in Iraq was the "right decision," versus only 30% who thought it was the "wrong decision." Note that support for the war continued to lead by 20 points or more even when Bush's approval rating dipped below his disapproval rating a few months later, according to Pew.

Elving might rightly point out that previous support for the war has eroded today,* but for him to say that it never existed is a lie, and he should know better.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]
_______________

* In my opinion, this is thanks to a combination of consistent media negativity and consistently inept public relations at the White House.

Posted by: annika at 11:32 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 558 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Fine, fine post. Apparently taking the right course of action first requires that many, many groups of people nod their heads in robotic unison first. By the way, in future posts, I grant you permission to substitute "hogwash" with "buffalo chips."

Posted by: Mark at August 31, 2005 02:25 AM (UESXD)

2 Great piece, annika. I thought you might like to see this, in which an Iraqi politician talks about who *isn't* helping the Iraqi people. It's a touch long, but well worth watching.

Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 05:35 AM (L3qPK)

3 I forgot to include what I see as The Money Quote: We do not hold ourselves accountable. This is why America came to demand that the Arabs be accountable. We must have more self-confidence and be accountable before others hold us accountable. We must discipline ourselves before the Americans and English discipline us. We must maintain human rights, which we have neglected for 1,300 or 1,400 years, to this day - until the arrival of the Americans, the Christians, the English, the Zionists, or the Crusaders - call them what you will. They came to teach you, the followers of Muhammad, how to respect human rights. (That's what I get for previewing for once...)

Posted by: Victor at August 31, 2005 05:38 AM (L3qPK)

4 Annika, There was wide support for the war in JAn 2004 as you say, but only because the American public and the OCngress, had been misled into believing that there was a connection between Iraq and 911. Chaney said it so many times, "Yes, Saddam was involved in 911" even after others in the government including the pinhead himself admitted in a news conference that there was less than conclusive evidence of his involvement, that the basically under-educated American voter, believed in the connection. (Chaney clearly learned something about lying from the Nazi's) So asked if the assult on Iraq was the 'right" response, they were answering affirmatively, but they had been lied to. Had the facts in evidence been put on the table there would have been little support for the destruction of Iraq. And for you, a shootingly bright girl, not to recognize the "coalition" as a sham is incredible.

Posted by: Strawman at August 31, 2005 11:11 AM (0ZdtC)

5 Strawman, it's difficult to know if you're teasing us or you're serious because your entire line of reasoning has been disproven over and over. Saddam and 9/11 were very much connected, and Saddam and terror and al Queda were even more connected. This is illustrated in Stephen Hayes's book "The Connection." You need to read it. Your condescension toward the average American ("the basically under-educated American voter, believed in the connection. [Chaney clearly learned something about lying from the Nazi's"]) is shameful. Is it any wonder that the average American voter isn't voting for your side anymore? No one lied to anyone, and you know it. Even if you're correct, whatever the President said regarding WMD had been repeated by President Clinton, his staff, major Democrating Senators, and the United Nations. Please stop hiding behind this "Bush lied" slogan simply because we did not find a CostCo worth of nukes. 45+ countries lending our support is a "sham"? Please tell this to Italy, Poland, the UK, Australia, and the Netherlands especially. Funny how some DEMANDED an "international coalition" and when this President finally gets country after country involved, it's a "sham"? What kind of appreciation is this?

Posted by: Mark at August 31, 2005 11:37 AM (IEm1x)

6 Even after Pearl Harbor, FDR by no means had an absolute mandate for his strategy. Many were opposed to the "Germany first" policy estalished by General Marshall, pointing out that after all it was Japan, not Germany, that had attacked us. Sound familiar?

Posted by: David Foster at August 31, 2005 01:15 PM (SpkYG)

7 It's a simple thing really. There are only two schools of thought in this instance. You either run to get in front of where the chattering classes want to go, or chart your course by the light of reason as God has given you to see it. The former is feckless political self-interest, and the latter leadership. Any questions about who is who?

Posted by: Casca at August 31, 2005 04:05 PM (qBTBH)

8 Mark, I think you prove my point about the average American voter. The lies are obvious, whether Clinton or any other official spoke them, they were lies. No, Mark, it is not enough say nobody believes that old story and poof it disappears. The lies were and still are believed by millions upon millions of Americans. No WMD, no Uranium diffusion, no germs, no support of the 911 crew, no nothing except a pre-existing condition of traitorous neo-con strategists bent on inserting America's reach into the oil fields of Iraq and environs. I think I would rather listen to Richard Clarke than your hack Hayes. Condi spoke out of both side of her reptilian little mouth. He was at every meeting; he was out of the loop. Aluminum tubes ring a bell Mark? Mobile germ warfare station ring a bell Mark? The war will cost less than a billion dollars ring a bell Mark? What crap and 2000 young men and women are dead. The right is notorious for dragging out these hacks to spew the party line. How can we forget David BrockÂ’s attack on Anita Hill? Bought and paid for by the VRWC and a lie. Read something critical you fool http://mediamatters.org/items/200406300014 Weekly Standard staff writer and author of the book The Connection: How al Qaeda's Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America (released on June 1 by Rupert Murdoch's publishing house HarperCollins), Stephen F. Hayes has appeared in recent months on numerous cable and Sunday talk shows to support his contention that there was indeed a connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Despite vigorous critiques that have undermined the credibility of Hayes's contention, conservative pundits have embraced Hayes and his book in order to, in the words of Center for Strategic and International Studies fellow Daniel A. Benjamin, "shore up the rickety argument that Baathist Iraq had posed a real national security threat to the United States." Just another hack and you my good man are his dupe. 45 countries who lent minuscule support and only because they were threatened with reprisals. We threaten everybody. We wonÂ’t send money to countries that donÂ’t tow the line. Yesterday the military busted a career procurement officer because she expresses her outrage at the KBRoot contracts with the government. Valerie Plame, ring a bell? Mark you are a living a dream, a sick destructive vile militaristic dream about AmericaÂ’s motives and worth. ChaneyÂ’s Mentor- Later, Joseph Goebbels put forth a slightly different theory which has come to be more commonly associated with the phrase big lie. In this theory, the English are attributed with using a propaganda technique where in they had the mendacity to "lie big" and "stick to it".Ã‚Â²

Posted by: strawman at August 31, 2005 04:33 PM (0ZdtC)

9 Anita Hill? You lost me there. Anyways, my position is well known. Given that i believe the move against Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do regardless of the existence of WMD at the time of the invasion, i don't really care whether Bush was wrong about that particular justification or not. i don't believe he lied, but if he did, i don't care because Saddam had to go. By the way, one reason i don't believe he lied is because he hasn't planted WMD, which he could have easily done. If Bush were as diabolical and without conscience as many of his critics say he is (and someone who would intentionally start a war solely to enrich himself and his rich cronies can only be described as diabolical and without conscience) i don't understand why he wouldn't have planted WMD to silence his critics by now. Nixon certainly would have. Another reason i don't believe Bush lied is because i have been following the debate since it started, and i have yet to hear an anti war argument that is persuasive to me, personally. i have used my own judgment, and i've tried to have an open mind, but i simply have not heard a single argument against our strategy that outweighs the argument for it. This is not to say that i've found all criticisms of Bush's Iraq policy to be completely without merit. Just most of them. If things eventually work out in Iraq, as i believe they will, the strategy will be vindicated. The trick is to make it work, and since we're in it now, i think it's insane to work against our success there.

Posted by: annika at August 31, 2005 06:58 PM (3I5eq)

10 Annika, We are supposed to believe this man because he did not commit capital crimes (planting WMD) so therefore he is honest and would not lie? You're funny. This is the most repellent, and childish rationalization I have ever heard. Nixon would have, and he lied about his knowledge of the break in, so W didn't plant wmd, therefore he lied about nothing. You went to college right? How about this, Clinton didn't have "real" sex with Monica and he could have so I don't think she really blew him. And what will you say if things don't work out in Iraq? Then will you care about the many ever changing justifications and the perjury he committed before Congress and the American people? This adventure will NOT work out. America has had ZERO success at making these things work out. You find yourself scratching your head and wondering if he chose the wrong dictator? Maybe it should have been Bashar al-ASAD of Syria? Or one the Saudi pigs? Pinhead chose the one in who's country women were the most liberated in the ME, the one with a secular government and the most western way of life. They all murder and torture and are repelled by the "freedom" George is trying to spread. So what was so special about Iraq? Was Saddam's aggression against Kuwait worse than ours against him? At least there was a connection: Kuwait was arbitrarily ripped from Iraq by the British and was a provence of Iraq. You think Texas is nice and we deserved to keep it, right? You do remember it belonged to Mexico and we took it because it started to look like it was part of the US. And had Mexico been able to raise a large expeditionary force, invaded and punished the States that would have been a bad thing, right? Terrible rulers are as common as ratus ratus, my dear, and most of them owe their lives to the good old US of A, Saddam certainly did, Rummy used to give him big hugs and Dad would have licked his ass up and down the Euphrates as long as he was fighting the good fight against Iran. Was he not an evil man then? Were his rape rooms empty, and his mass graves un-dug? Who made that gas he used on those pain in the ass Kurds? We liked him then and had no moral problem, we dislike him now and we feign a moral problem to get at the oil. That is all. The rest is bullshit. And now we have a president who is too dumb to even know the difference, talk about a guy living a dream. He is a student of nothing and an expert at faith and we all know where faith gets you. AlGathafi was evil incarnate for a while, we shot up his house and killed his kid or wife, but then we lost interest. What about all the Latin American dictators we installed and supported, Batista (SP), Somoza, Pinochet just to name a few. Honey, we love dictators, rapists, torturers, destroyers of freedom as long as they are kind to our business interests, when they are not we call them commies and try to kill them or in this case substitute terrorist state for commies and scapegoat them. This took the heat off the real villians, the rest of the Bin Ladens, and the Arabs with their derricks up our butts and our cash in their banks. Remember that dream I mentioned the other day? Please try waking up.

Posted by: Strawman at September 01, 2005 08:08 PM (0ZdtC)

11 i noticed that you didn't refute the argument about planting WMD, but that's okay. i didn't expect to persuade you, but i do think it's interesting. Your diatribe demonstrates that you think my country has done some terrible things. Maybe so. Maybe we don't deserve all the territory we stole by Guadalupe Hidalgo. What should we do? Give it back? It's pointless now to argue about that, so i don't understand why you'd bring it up in the comments to a post about a guy who wrote a thing that i think is stupid. You anger at this country in general and the president in particular is unfocused, illogical and a little scary. Again, i ask you to seek help. Watch more Hannity, drink my brand of Kool Aid. i gaurantee you'll feel better. The world is what it is, but it isn't as bad as you think. ; )

Posted by: annika at September 01, 2005 09:30 PM (Xafzf)

12 Annika, A quick response: The texas example was to help you understand that history is the great equivicator. Yes, we can't give back Texas but it should and can help us judge and respond to situations that are occuring currently. THe US is and has been for most of its existance a selfserving, morally repugnant blight on the earth. Not entirely but the pan of the scale tips prescipitously to the bad. We have the potential to do the most good and have for the most part chosen to do less and in so many instances have gone to bed with the devil. We give the most in foreign aid only when judged in raw dollars and the least when evaluated as a percent of our countries wealth. It is a disgrace yet we pound our chest with pride. And when we give aid we always attach strings. We try to shape the internal policies and morals of the receiving society in ways we don't even try at home. If a clinic mentions abortion as a possibility to a client we withold aid. If a country supports sex workers and treats them as men and women who do an honest days work we won't give aid. The RR gets its way with this "faith based" administration in so many ways its a scandal. I won't even get into our militaristic adventures. Gore Vidal is more my speed than that ignorant prick Hannity. A genuine lying sack of shit like those he defends. Enough....... What color did you say that cool aid was? Cerise? Azure? and the vintage? I like my cool aid French

Posted by: Strawman at September 02, 2005 08:04 AM (0ZdtC)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Coverage Question

What is happening in New Orleans and the Gulf Coast is awful. i had no idea this storm's aftermath would be so severe. And it looks like only the beginning.

i watched Fox News this morning and Shepard Smith was saying that his crew was planning to leave. He thought that by staying, they would be taking resources away from the victims. i think that's a mistake.

This is one case where the media can do more good by covering the story as much as possible. Yah, i never thought i'd say that either. This disaster looks worse than anything i've ever imagined. It needs to be reported, so people can help with donations or in any way they can.

My suggestion to the media would be to spend money. Make the crews self sufficient and join in the relief effort. Fuck the rule against becoming part of the story, they never follow that rule anyway. They should bring bottled water. They should also continue to keep emergency workers informed about what they see or people who need rescuing.

Update: Journalist and Louisiana expat Ken Wheaton has much more.

Posted by: annika at 07:04 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 193 words, total size 1 kb.

August 23, 2005

She Don't Speak For Us Caravan

For those in Southern California interested in lending support, the Crawford Texas Caravan in support of our troops is heading your way.

On Tuesday at 3:05pm, we will be arriving in Burbank at KFI studio, 3400 W. Olive Avenue to appear on the John and Ken Show.
On Wednesday at 8:00am, we will be arriving in San Diego at KOGO studio, 9660 Granite Ridge Drive, San Diego to appear live on the Roger Hedgecock Show. Roger will be broadcasting from the parking lot so our supporters can join him during the broadcast.
PLEASE - if you are anywhere near where our caravan will be, we NEED you to make plans to meet us at the caravan stops... and if possible join the caravan for part of the way.

More info and updates can be found here.

Posted by: annika at 08:05 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

August 22, 2005

Incredibly Stupid Statement Making The Rounds

The next time i hear someone say that Iraqi women were better off when Saddam was in power, i'm going to scream. Why are so many people saying that? Do they all get the same stupidity newsletter?

Listen up. When the son of a country's leader goes around town picking out women, who are then abducted, raped, and their husbands killed, that is not a situation that any sane person should characterize as "better off."

Posted by: annika at 10:22 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 87 words, total size 1 kb.

1 That's no different from: "The people in Russia were better off during the Soviet Union." And when that old bastard castro finaly dies, and the people of cuba switch over to capitalism, you will hear the same thing "You didn't have all this poverty under Castro".

Posted by: Kyle at August 23, 2005 03:25 AM (4t42C)

2 And similarly, Kyle, "The Soviet People had more rights guaranteed by their Consitution than Americans did!" Which is technically probably true. It's just that in practice they didn't have any.

Posted by: Sigivald at August 23, 2005 03:03 PM (4JnZM)

3 When assessing whether the women of Iraq are better off in 2002 or 2005, a whole host of factors need to be considered. A few powerful above-the-law (such as it was) rapists, while appalling, are a pretty small factor when we're talking about the welfare of a group of many millions of people. We can condemn the acts you speak of, and still recognize that they had an impact on a tiny fraction of Iraqi women. Sharia Law has a tremendous negative impact on far more women; Hussein generally kept a lid on that practice, and no post-Hussein authorities have been able to do so systematically. I have no idea if the statement is true or not; I certainly think it's plausible, but I'll willingly grant you the point that most people making the claim don't really know one way or the other. But the data you offer to refute it is pretty clearly insufficient, and I suspect you realize this.

Posted by: djw at August 23, 2005 03:14 PM (0yQU6)

4 To djw: Thoughtful post - but sharia law hasn't been instituted. If and when it does become the law of the land, we can revisit the question. In the meantime, 25% of the national assembly are women(more than the U.S. Congress), women have the right to vote(which they didn't have in America until over a century after our constitution was implemented). We agree there are problems in some parts of Iraq: kidnappings, terror attacks, and roving bands of "sharia bullies" who threaten and prey on women in some public areas. Still, when one looks at the staggering number of citizens killed during Saddam Hussein's rule - including the staggering number of sons and husbands forcibly sent into fatal military actions by Saddam - it is absolutely and deviously wrong to claim women are worse off now than they were then. IF sharia law is instituted, THEN one can assess whether women are worse off under sharia than they were being widowed under Saddam. BTW: The muddled constitutional compromises: *Islam is "a" source of law. *No law shall contradict Islam. *No law shall infringe upon human or democratic rights. *The people shall be the source of law(as opposed to the Koran) reminds me of our own constitutional compromises, in which blacks constituted 3/5 of a citizen, and women did not have the right to vote. Some famous black leader - maybe Dred Scott - said the 3/5 Compromise was the foundation upon which the union was built - as the nation cound not have been birthed without it. I hope that will also be the case with Iraq's constitutional doublespeak.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 23, 2005 03:39 PM (Rhyyb)

5 BTW II: Whatever happened to that large number of starving children living under Saddam - so large that Oil for Food was neccessary to help them - then they didn't get helped b/c Saddam never got the food to the children?!?! If your children are starving, I believe you were worse off under Saddam than you are now. BTW III: Infrastructure? Anyone? If your infrastructure was antiquated and crumbling, I believe you were worse off under Saddam than you are now.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 23, 2005 03:45 PM (Rhyyb)

6 BTW IV: Marsh Arabs? Anyone? If you were a female Marsh Arab w/o a marsh, I believe you were worse off under Saddam than you are now. BTW V: Kurds? Anyone? If you were a Kurdish woman, you were definitely worse off under Saddam, and you only got better off when America helped your brave Kurdish men fight off Saddam for a decade. At that point, when your life and your family were saved, you were really living under the protection of America and Kurdish warriors, and under the rule of brave Kurds. When you were safe, you WERE NOT living under Saddam. I've got to stop. I'm starting to really get pissed off at the whole "better off under Saddam" lie.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 23, 2005 03:49 PM (Rhyyb)

7 there's a danger of not seeing the forest for the trees on a topic like this. My comment was intended to counter this tendency. Law, at its root is about predictability. In societies where the rule of law is not respected, in the most general sense the problem affects all citizens because no one knows with any certainty what the consequences of their actions or inactions may be. In a more specific sense, the argument that because most Iraqi women were not raped by Uday (or was it Qusay, i forgot) then women as a whole had it pretty good when you consider the rest of their circumstances, just doesn't hold water for me. And it shouldn't for you either. Saddam was the law. Therefore if his sons were able to go around doing that kind of shit and no citizen could do anything about it, all citizens suffered because the rule of law had broken down. Imagine if Roger Clinton had gone around raping women with impunity because no one complained, and those who did suddenly "disappeared." If you said "well he never raped my sister, and besides there's a hundred thousand new cops on the street" i would say that your moral compass needs fixin.

Posted by: annika at August 23, 2005 06:23 PM (BQlKI)

8 Agreed; the predictability associated with rule of law is more important than specific instances provided by it. This is central to the (small r) republican conception of freedom, which I've always found very persuasive, and more useful than conventional liberal understandings of freedom. Still, it remains to be seen that there's more rule of law in todays Iraq than Iraq of 2002. The constitution isn't really all that important until the country is actually under the control of the government that is (hopefully) bound by it. Much of it isn't. The forms of law in much of the country don't measure up to that standard, and are subject to the abuses of a host of local power-abusers, many of whom are embracing a form of law particularly harmful to women that Hussein never allowed. (For the record, I object to the characterization "had it pretty good"--I certainly wouldn't claim that; I think all observers of any sanity would agree we're talking about two pretty suboptimal situations. Same goes for the line about my moral compass--I don't see how my comment could have implied that because a certain set of depraved actions by one actor might not have made the overall situation for millions of people the worst imaginable, that constitutes moral permissability.) Look, I'm not a conservative in my political ideology (as noted above, I'm far more sympathetic to a form of rebuplicanism, with a fair dose of liberalism mixed in as well). But conservatives get some things right--they nailed the French Revolution, for example. Some of them conceded the fundamental injustice of the existing ruling class (actually, similar stuff about powerful people raping women of their choice with impunity...), but they reminded us that the reflexive choice of justice over order every time, regardless of circumstances, despite being a morally and philosophically persuasive position, is fundamentally ignorant of the realities of the practice of politics and the nature of social power. That's the most important lesson conservative political ideology has for us, and I wish more so-called political conservatives would see the wisdom in it once in a while.

Posted by: djw at August 24, 2005 11:58 PM (0yQU6)

9 Look, you want to talk realities of politics and social power, here's reality: Saddam was horrible tyrant who needed to be overthrown. A period of readjustment and renewal is in progress. Forget "moral and philosophical," your "realist" argument is dead wrong. What you think you know about Saddam's Iraq is untrue, and what you think you know about present day Iraq is untrue. I do not think you appreciate the horror Saddam visited upon Iraqis by presiding over: *a million Iraqi deaths(via murder and misguided military adventure), *a wretched economy *wretched living conditions(including depriving Kurds and Shia of electricity - among other things), and *a Baathist murder/muscle force which violently repressed innocent Iraqis - especially innocent Kurds and Shia. I do not think you appreciate the significance of: *Iraq's infrastructure being rebuilt(with electricity and oil production now exceeding pre-invasion levels), *it's economy booming, *it's people eating and going to school, *hugely reduced police thuggery, and *2/3 of the nation living in peace and prosperity. Unemployment is high - but the unemployed are generally eating as well as they did when they were employed under Saddam. Unemployment may stay high for some years, as Iraqis adjust to free market realities. The picture of near 100% happy employment under Saddam is false. If that employment was so good, I ask again: where did those hungry Oil for Food children come from?

Posted by: gcotharn at August 25, 2005 03:02 PM (3Bn47)

10 the thing is, djw, you seem reasonable and decent, and I've no doubt you are reasonable and decent, but your entire position disgusts me. It is factually wrong and morally bereft. In its own way, it is an evil position for you to take, insofar as you building a argument upon falsehoods; and your argument - if it were to influence future policy in the case of a tyrant who is a security threat to the world - will result in great harm.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 25, 2005 03:11 PM (3Bn47)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 19, 2005

Good For Him

Way to go, Bob.

Posted by: annika at 10:44 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 10 words, total size 1 kb.

August 11, 2005

Sheehan

i won't tippy-toe around the subject of Mrs. Sheehan. She disgusts me. i think she's wrong to do what she's doing and i think she should stop. i don't think she deserves the respect that everybody in the media, including supposed right-wing attack dogs like Bill O'Reilly, Hannity and others. The people she's allied herself with are dishonest and anti-American.

Mrs. Sheehan should stop what she's doing because she is going to get more soldiers and marines killed. She is asking the President to surrender. Let's call it what it is. She is asking for the surrender of the United States. She's asking us to declare defeat. And that is not going to happen. Not with this president. Given that we are not going to surrender, her continued protest will result in more deaths.

Thanks to the breathless coverage her anti-war allies in the media have given Mrs. Sheehan, the enemy is getting the impression that they can win if they can only kill more U.S. troops in the sneaky, cowardly way they've been using. People like Sheehan and her fawning fans hate this country, and they would love to see another Vietnam style defeat because they think America deserves defeat. i think that's evil.

If Sheehan really wants the troops to come home, she should be doing everything she can to break the will of the enemy, so our men and women can do their jobs and get out of there as soon as possible. Instead she's fueling the enemy's impression that they are breaking our will. And if her actions lengthen this "occupation" (as she so tellingly calls it) one day longer than necessary, any extra blood spilled is on her hands.

So i'm not going to tip-toe around the subject of Mrs. Sheehan just because of her son's sacrifice in a noble cause that i believe will keep me safe. No, Mrs. Sheehan is deluded and as long as she's helping the enemy, whether intentionally or not, to her i say Fuck You.

Sheehan wants to know what the "noble cause" is that her son died for. i wonder where the American spirit went, which was articulated so well by Robert Kennedy when he said: "Some people see things as they are and say why? I dream things that never were and say why not?"

The noble cause is a free, democratic and prosperous Iraq. That's the thing that never was, and we should all be asking "why not?" If only Sheehan and her fans could put aside their Bush hatred, their shame at being American, and ask themselves: if we could only be successful in Iraq, wouldn't that be a good thing? And if the answer is yes, shouldn't we all do whatever it takes to achieve that goal?

How could anyone say that surrendering to the terrorists would be better than standing up to them? The thing is, while most Americans are growing tired of this war, we do not want to surrender. That's a question the polls are not asking. "Do you want to surrender to the terrorists?" If the polls were phrased that way, you'd see a much different picture than the anti-war crowd wants you to believe.

i just don't get these people who have so little faith in the power of Americans to achieve what they set out to do. We can be successful in Iraq. i have no doubt of it. If they think the goal of a free and democratic country in the heart of the middle east would be a bad thing, that's different. But who could say such a thing? And if they were to admit that success in Iraq would be a good thing, then get on board and help make it happen.

[cross-posted at A Western Heart]

Required reading: You simply must read Varifrank's essay on Sheehan. To excerpt it would not do it justice, so please read the whole thing. It's a fine piece of writing.

Posted by: annika at 06:57 PM | Comments (59) | Add Comment
Post contains 659 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Two-quick thoughts: 1.) The MSM can't manage to find any heroes in Iraq, yet they sure as hell can turn a hero's mother into a noble dissenter. 2.) I'm making a prediction that some lefty nutjob will link this as evidence of the hate on the right. Can you do me a favor, and just answer with this: STOP TRYING TO SILENCE MY DISSENT! BECAUSE OF THE HYPOCRISY! (I'm hoping that this will start a series of paranoid delusions on all the lefty sites in which they'll insist that you're actually Jeff Goldstein.)

Posted by: Trevor at August 11, 2005 07:25 PM (GtBBB)

2 Excellent, Excellent, Excellent. This is the best writing I have seen on this subject.

Posted by: Jake at August 11, 2005 08:17 PM (r/5D/)

3 I hope we all remember this woman in a few years when the situation has stabilised in Iraq. Then we can come back on the lefties and say: You see, you were all wrong, you protested against giving people freedom, and you even put a poor stupid woman up to pissing on her own son's bravery and sacrifice.

Posted by: Kyle at August 12, 2005 03:47 AM (4t42C)

4 Annika, I read your blog every morning and you have not let me down. You hit the nail on the head with this one. You have never been a pansy and will make the bar proud when you finish internship. calvin

Posted by: Calvin at August 12, 2005 04:33 AM (5fFEd)

5 Well said. Would we have ever heard of Casey, were it not for his mother's embrace of the anti-war nuts?

Posted by: Pursuit at August 12, 2005 04:53 AM (n/TNS)

6 I'm going to make the 1.5 hour drive up to Crawford this aftennoon (I live in Austin). I'm going to print this post and hand it out to all the protestors. I might even pick a sentence or two and use it for my large counter-protest poster.

Posted by: Robbie at August 12, 2005 07:07 AM (lbWbV)

7 "If they think the goal of a free and democratic country in the heart of the middle east would be a bad thing, that's different. But who could say such a thing?" Many on the left might not say such a thing openly, but they think it. Specifically, they think nothing could be worse for Iraq than to become a country resembling in any way the United States. I've seen snide comments about bringing McDonald's and Wal-Mart to Iraq, as if that would be worse than Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms.

Posted by: David Foster at August 12, 2005 07:08 AM (7TmYw)

8 Yes, hurry up and pass the bar; we need at least a couple more clear thinkers to go with the overwhelming passel of knee-jerk libs. As to Mrs. Casey; I was gratified to hear that this morning the rest of the family publicly rebuked her and said that she was desecrating the memory of her beloved son and that they deeply regretted HER actions. They further said she was taking advantage of her son's death to glorify herself and promote her own self and views. Good for them; shame on her. Incidentally, I have it first hand, from Karl Rove, that each time Bush goes to any city, he meets, totally privately, with family of deceased and gravely wounded servicemen and servicewomen. He will not allow reporters or photographers to report on any such meetings, but Karl said that he leaves each meeting deeply affected. When the issue arises about the deaths and wounded, Bush has said to him things like "You don't have to hug these people and feel their pain, I do" and "I am conscious of each and every decison I make that causes pain so to many" (or, something quite close to this). This cannot be an exact quote, as there were a few people there, and taking notes would have been gauche, but it was stirring to hear this, and I know it is true.

Posted by: shelly at August 12, 2005 07:09 AM (6mUkl)

9 This President has taken more shit in time of war than any President since Lincoln, who only became popular after he got shot. I feel 50% sympathy for Cindy and 51% total contempt.

Posted by: ps at August 12, 2005 08:00 AM (rJQZO)

10 Good to see you haven't lost the fastball, Annika.

Posted by: Jason O. at August 12, 2005 08:27 AM (2CAKL)

11 Tomorrow, unless she has Secret Service protection, Cindy Sheehan will come face to face with a certain Marine Mom we know. She is going to Crawford to make the point that Ms. Sheehan does not represent the vast majority of military families. I know Linda. Cindy doesn't stand a chance.

Posted by: Becker at August 12, 2005 08:33 AM (Nlp5A)

12 Well done. I'm with Jason: this was a four-seamer, right down the pipe. Don't give 'em unearned respect. Babe Ruth is dead.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 12, 2005 09:02 AM (rkq1p)

13 Way to go, Robbie. Wish I could be there with you.

Posted by: d-rod at August 12, 2005 09:11 AM (xmskQ)

14 We are not a conscript military. Everyone who wears the uniform does so of their own free will. Her son, a true American hero, volunteered into an all volunteer military to defend his country. Her son died doing what he chose to do. His sacrifice is being desecrated by his own mother. While I grieve for her loss, she needs to be bitch slapped for demeaning her son's sacrifice and the sacrifices of all our Fallen. In this age of up your ass media this continued spewing of giving up is beyond disgraceful. Our deployed Warriors deserve the peace of mind that comes with the knowledge that they have the support of this country and that we are in it to win it. Nothing less is acceptable.

Posted by: Theresa at August 12, 2005 01:49 PM (nDaxF)

15 She's a misguided and angry woman who is seeking someone to blame over the loss of her son. While I sympathize with any parent who loses their child to war, I find her self-righteous posturing to be much aid and comfort to the enemy. Least surprising of all is the mainstream media, which conveniently ignores the steadfast focus of families who still believe in this cause, while falling over itself to bow down toward this angry Mom.

Posted by: Mark at August 12, 2005 02:55 PM (Vg0tt)

16 thanks for the props. i take it you guys didn't like the Button blogging?

Posted by: annika at August 12, 2005 04:24 PM (ntxd4)

17 I love you anni, but Verifrank has the bests I've seen: http://varifrank.com/archives/2005/08/the_call.php

Posted by: Casca at August 12, 2005 06:01 PM (5BNB0)

18 Well, Casca, I was about to ask you if you would trade a great sexy, super intelligent woman for some single piece of wordsmithing, but I decided to read the piece first. The link didn't work, but I just went to the home site. The man can write. And, I emphacize more than most, having lost a stepson, and the virtual company of my wife, his mother, for the better part of four years. I lived the same agony, emptiness, and depression that he described so artfully, and I do understnd some of what this woman is feeling. But, she is a fraud. Her own family has rebuked her (see my comments earlier) and I now hear she is running for Congress. On her dead son. Pitiful. Shameful. It's close, but I am sticking with Annie. She has a lot more potential to develop, anyway.

Posted by: shelly at August 12, 2005 06:39 PM (6mUkl)

19 I don't know... I simply cannot make myself to say anything bad about this woman. Negative, yes, but bad, no. She's deeply, deeply hurt, and people do irrational things when dealing with the death of a family member. I'm appalled at how she's choosing to deal with her grief, but for some odd reason, I can't generate any anger or outrage at her actions. I'm more saddened by them. Though I disagree with what she says and does, I can almost understand her actions, and I admit, I'm having a difficult time bringing myself to condemn them. But the vultures that circle her, feeding her lines and falsely appearing to provide solace in exchange for leaching the authority she provides as the mother of a dead soldier... those people I can feel angry about. It's like she's only important to them now, after her son has died. Where were they when her son was still alive and merely suffering the heat & fear of serving in a hostile, dangerous war zone. And where are they for the soldiers still alive? "We support our troops, let's bring them home"? How do you "support" someone by campaigning against what they stand for, what they've sacrificed for up till now, and what they're trying to accomplish for the future? Campaigning for them to come home now is like saying: "Oh, you were a pawn in this whole game, and all your hard work ridding Iraq of a murderous dictator, building schools and hospitals, and fighting those violent remnants of a vicious twisted ideology that threatens Iraq is nothing in comparison to us stopping Bush." It seems as though the soldiers are only important to the war protestors as objects to act on as per their worldview. Not as independently thinking human beings themselves who by virtue of their collective service and sacrifice have just as much right call for the US to see things through as Mrs. sheenan has to call for a withdrawl. And also have as much right as anyone to say "Let us finish the job", as many milbloggers have said (in so many words). Where will those activists be when Mrs. Sheenan's no longer important to them?

Posted by: E.M.H. at August 12, 2005 07:03 PM (Ynd4F)

20 The decent thing to do when one comes across another at their worst is to avert the gaze. Let us speak of her no more.

Posted by: Casca at August 12, 2005 09:05 PM (qBTBH)

21 The opposite of love is not hate. It is apathy. Next thread, please.

Posted by: shelly at August 13, 2005 05:55 AM (6mUkl)

22 Nothing this administration used as a justification to go to war was true. It was all deception - no WMDs - no connection to 9/11 - no tons of bio weapons - no long range UMVs - no aluminum tubes for nukes - no mobile weapon labs - no yellow cake - no nuke program - no cooperation with Al Qeada - no flower&candy reception - no mass graves - no Iraqi oil money paying all the bills. No truth - it was all lies; lies used to sell us on an illegal, and ill-advised, war. Despite an amazing military and extremely dedicated soldiers, we are failing to meet our goals in this war. Both the new goals, that whole 'democracy' ploy, and the real goals we had for going to war - long-term control of the oil, permanent military bases, and the 'love us or we will stomp you' message for the neighbors - all seem to be failing. In addition, the insurgency is stronger today than ever - because as far as they can tell, they are defending their homes and national resources from foreign invaders. We are about to start scrapping the bottom of the barrel to find new recruits - because all the smart ones are leaving. Our military will be left in tatters - filled with only the most dedicated, the most desperate and the most ignorant our country has to offer. The war was a mistake. We are not making the world safer, we are not making things better in Iraq, we flushed our credibility down the toilet, and our economy will soon be following. The neo-cons bought their own propaganda, and fired/shunned any that tried to tell them anything they didn't want to hear or believe. When told that we would need more troops - early retirement. When told that it could cost hundreds of bilions - You're Fired! When confronted with a growing insurgency - they claim they are 'in their last throes'. They still lie - you still believe - and soldiers die almost every day. The question you need to answer is: How many soldiers will you stand by and allow to die in order to defend the president's lies?

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 15, 2005 02:27 AM (wR4hA)

23 Mr. Mike, you're a cowardly jackass and a liar. Spew your propaganda on your own blog.

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 08:36 AM (Hw5xJ)

24 If the war is such a noble cause, why aren't all of the pro-war bloggers, such as yourself, reporting for duty? Why haven't we invaded any countries in Africa? There are thousands being killed everyday by corrupt governments. They need democracy too, right? Why Iraq??

Posted by: ruby at August 15, 2005 10:38 AM (+bPcD)

25 That argument is old and fallacious and no one here buys it anyway. but even if it were valid, it works both ways. if the US is so evil and the war is so wrong, why aren't all the anti-war trolls, like yourself, over in pakistan training for the "resistance?"

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 10:54 AM (zAOEU)

26 I never said the US is so evil nor did I say the war was wrong. But you sure were quick to pounce and twist my words, weren't you? Interesting points, but I noticed mostly that you didn't answer the questions. That, in itself, speaks volumes. By the way "anti-war" generally means Peace, not "training for resistance" which would imply fighting a war.

Posted by: ruby at August 15, 2005 11:20 AM (+bPcD)

27 huh? your comment implied that you disagree with the assertion that the war is "such a noble cause." perhaps you should explain your contradiction so i can ridicule you more properly.

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 01:18 PM (ujWJ+)

28 >>Mr. Mike, you're a cowardly jackass and a liar. Spew your propaganda on your own blog. Ah, if only wishing made it so. Please point out my lies. Please point out what I said that is not true. You can't, because everything I said is true. You would, but deep down you know that there is no way you can actually defend your misguided beliefs against someone that knows what they are talking about. Come on - show me your courage - stand up for your beliefs. (ps - there is one thing that I got wrong - can you find it? or do you really have NO idea what has gone on in Iraq?)

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 15, 2005 04:35 PM (wR4hA)

29 >>if the US is so evil and the war is so wrong, why aren't all the anti-war trolls, like yourself, over in pakistan training for the "resistance?" It is this simplistic black&white worlds view that gets you in trouble. "If the US is so Evil"? What kinda bullshit is that? There are individuals that have done evil things from their position of power within the US government. There are corporations and organizations based in the US that have done evil things as well. This does not make all of the US evil. It means that DECENT Americans should be paying attention and trying to prevent evil from being done in their name. Pop Quiz: Who created Al Qeada? Answer: the CIA and, indirectly, every American that paid taxes in the early 80's. The war is wrong, and the war was a mistake. Does that mean I want to go and kill soldiers? That I want to go and kill my niece and nephew (both are currently serving in Iraq)? Of course not. Such thinking lacks logic. What you are doing, even though I doubt you realize it, is to take the opinions of those that you disagree with and distort them to their extremes. You do this becasue you are unable to argue against what they are actually saying, so you must lie about what they mean, and then argue with your own lies. It is much easier to argue against your own lies, ain't it?

Why do you think you do this? Could it be that you lack the courage to defend the propaganda the YOU seem to have been tricked into accepting at face value? How many soldiers will die while you struggle to face facts?

Posted by: Mr. Mike at August 15, 2005 04:41 PM (wR4hA)

30 i don't argue with nitwits like you because its pointless. Saying that i "lack courage" don't make it so. it's you that don't have the courage to start your own blog, and put your ideas out there every single day for people to challenge, agree with, make fun of, whatever. just like i'm letting you do right now. Don't tell me i'm unable to argue against people like you, i've been doing it on the main page for almost two and a half years. Trolls like you don't even have the guts to put your own e-mail address in the comment form. What are you scared of? Every one of you trolls is exactly the same: no blog & a fake email. As for your comments, they're so full of lies and distortions, i don't have the patience to go through it all. When you say something as crazy as "no mass graves" you signal to me that no amount of reasoning will be possible. You're not the first troll to come by here. It doesn't matter what i say in response. It would be a collosal waste of time for me to get into it with you. You'll argue semantics where you can; dodge where you can't; cite propaganda as fact, and hope i'll just get tired of arguing. Then you win. Well, i'm not gonna play. If you really wanna know what annika thinks, its all there for you to read. But i suspect you don't care, and you won't be convinced anyway, so why do you bother even coming here? All i can say is i'm so glad people like you are not running this country. In fact, i should thank God every day for that. Our government isn't perfect, but you my friend are so whacked out, it's off the chart.

Posted by: annika at August 15, 2005 06:28 PM (Ia5Nr)

31 To RUBY and Mr. MIKE and "anti-War" warriors: The lack of war does not mean that peace exists. Had Bush and Company not invaded Iraq and attacked global terror head on, do you truly believe that "peace" would exist? Do you suspect that al Queda and its sub groups would be suddenly content? Of course not. The only peace that you are concerned with is your own peace of mind. Mr. Mike and Ruby: please check my site. On the left column is nearly two dozen links on WMDs found in Iraq, WMD producing equipment, WMDs materials and small and large quantities moved out of Iraq, etc. You have not been paying attention. I have. Perhaps you wanted a signed telegram from Mr. Saddam Hussein admitting to his WMD program? You and the rest of the anti-war brigade are tragically uninformed.

Posted by: Mark at August 15, 2005 07:57 PM (Vg0tt)

32 Mark! What a marvelous resource you've gathered -- ThanQ! Mike -- Really? And who created Wahabbism and the New Islamic resurgence? How about the Pan Arab movement? Yes, we, in the form of the CIA, supported some Islamic folk fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan -- to both our benefits. I think Usama binLaden [kurac na batini] declaring war on the US was *not* of CIA making. The CIA was, I believe, not the originator of the term "America - the Great Satan." Not exactly **nuance** but perhaps a touch more complex, factually, than your 'arguments.' There is no way to know -- perhaps for years -- whether or not the Iraq war was 'a mistake.' But we're there now; to leave would be a recreation of a sin to rival that which we created when we cut and ran from Viet Nam [for many of the same 'reasons' you mention... hmmm...] leaving Pol Pot to slaughter 2-3 million people [some for the 'sin' of wearing glasses.] The fact is that we have freed 25 million people from a murdering dictator only slightly less psycho than Stalin. That's not too bad. We're giving them support and a chance at creating a free society -- free of rape rooms, disappearings and burkas. Not so dusty, either. Or is it that 'those little brown people' are unimportant and not worth our time and effort?

Posted by: Claire at August 15, 2005 08:59 PM (l1oyw)

33 "By the way "anti-war" generally means Peace, not "training for resistance" which would imply fighting a war." At certain points, like this point in time, antiwar means supporting the resistance. "With us or against us" has a resonance many don't quite yet grasp. Silence during a lynching doesn't mean one is a pacifist, just a coward.

Posted by: Jane at August 15, 2005 09:07 PM (ywZa8)

34 Ruby sez Why haven't we invaded any countries in Africa? There are thousands being killed everyday by corrupt governments. They need democracy too, right? Why Iraq?? Is this is where you really want to go with the meme that no action should be taken anywhere unless all action is taken everywhere? Why NOT Iraq?

Posted by: Darleen at August 15, 2005 10:46 PM (FgfaV)

35 Ruby also sez If the war is such a noble cause, why aren't all of the pro-war bloggers, such as yourself, reporting for duty? Yes, Ruby, as we all know the military is just rife with Leftists, Libs and Dems who voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. What was that? They DIDN't? How can that be when the definition of a "chickenhawk" is a NeoConXtianZionistChimpyMcHitler lover who NEVER joins the military?

Posted by: Darleen at August 15, 2005 10:49 PM (FgfaV)

36 Some of us are too old to join the military, and then even if we weren't too old, some of us have chronic health problems preventing us from joining the military. So we don't join the military. And I have to admit, in my youth, I was stupid, and was a lefty. I got over that as soon as I had to support myself (that is within a year of being out of college.) So I didn't enlist when I was young - or try for Officer's Training. Today I wish I could have. But none of this is to the point. The entire population who supported WWI did not join up. Were women even recruited for anything in WWI? And in WWII - and I think in all wars - there are reserved classes of people they don't want in service. People who build airplanes for example were not sent to Germany in 1942, they were kept busy building airplanes. It has never been the case, and it is not the case now, that in order to support the military one must join the military. To suggest that, is to show a complete misunderstanding of the relationship between the military and the civilian population in a democratic republic.

Posted by: Zendo Deb at August 15, 2005 11:32 PM (S417T)

37 JANE says: "At certain points, like this point in time, antiwar means supporting the resistance. "With us or against us" has a resonance many don't quite yet grasp. Silence during a lynching doesn't mean one is a pacifist, just a coward." Well then, since W. and Dick both dodged the draft, that makes them qualified cowards, your definition! Something I alreay knew, but thanks for clarifying! Also, I'm hardly being silent, therefore could not be called a coward. Protesting against the war doesn't make one against the troops--it's against the WAR. CLAIRE says: "...to leave would be a recreation of a sin to rival that which we created when we cut and ran from Viet Nam...leaving Pol Pot to slaughter 2-3 million people." Claire, I LIVED in Cambodia in 2003-2004, so I'm going to correct you. In 1969 the US government started a secret program of bombing Cambodia, killing over 250,000--most of whom were not Communist but simply poor peasants. These aerial assaults actually helped the Khmer Rouge with recruitments. The US bankrolled the war propping up the Lon Nol government against the Khmer Rouge. In addition, the US government and military personnel invented 'phantom soldiers' and pocketed their pay or sold weapons to the enemy. Our government made a fortune in Cambodia all while fighting the Vietcong. We didn't stop bombing until August 1973. Phnom Penh surrendered to the Khmer Rouge on April 17, 1975, that's TWO weeks before the fall of Saigon. China, particularly Beijing, supported the Khmer Rouge after the US pulled out. The Vietnamese were fighting AGAINST Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. Pol Pot was fervently ANTI-Vietnamese as they were his greatest enemy. The VIETNAMESE invasion overthrowing the Khmer Rouge on Jan. 7, 1979 is what sent Pol Pot fleeing. Pol Pot fled to an armed compound in Thailand where the USA and China once again protected him, he rebuilt his shattered forces and continued to call the shots. During the mid-1980s the USA gave more than $15 million a year in aid to the 'non-communist' factions of the Khmer Rouge-dominated coalition as part of its campaign to harass and islolate Hanoi. The USA also helped the Khmer Rouge retain its seat at the UN assembly in NYC. When Vietnam formally withdrew in Sept. 1989, the Khmer Rouge dominated the opposition coalition, civil war broke out and thousands continued to die. There were rumors that Pol Pot would be brought to Phnom Penh to face international justice. It never happened and he managed to evade justice with his death in April 1998. Only then were free elections held and peace came to Cambodia for the first time in 30 years. The fact that we 'quit' Vietnam did not empower the Khmer Rouge as the USA ontinued to aid them. It DID empower the Vietnamese resistance to Pol Pot and eventually toppled his government. If it weren't for the Vietnamese, his terror would have continued and millions more would have perished. Am I suggesting that we quit Iraq? Yes, I am. We are killing thousands of innocent people and we are not 'winning' anything. We captured SH, now let the Iraqis have their country, not our foreign occupation--lest we have another 30 years.

Posted by: ruby at August 16, 2005 07:52 AM (+bPcD)

38 I see we're dealing with the literal-atti, here. Squabbling around about the beginning of the war, swinging the flaccid and long disproved DU/DNC memes of "chickenhawk" "draft dodgers" [see: Clinton] "no WMDs" is not actually of any use whatsoever. [Allow me to be clear: Those claims have been proven FALSE; move on.] That is not "protesting war" -- it's simply creating dissent and discontent and demonstrating a lack of comprehension of even the broadest strokes of the current situation; never mind nuance. "ruby" - since you felt the need to shout that you LIVED there, your apprehension of history must be utterly correct, disjointed as its presentation was here. Nevertheless, those whom you call "insurgents" or "minutemen" are not "innocent people." They kidnap, torture and saw off heads. They blow up Iraqi children -- on purpose. They want to force Iraq to adopt strict Sharia law; yannow, the whole burkas, stoning women in the street, jizya tax, kill the infidel, surrender to the mullahs thing. And have you ever noticed that America is the only nation who, when we completely vanquish an enemy, we set them free. The "foreign occupation/imperialism" meme is also *ahem* FALSE. Helping them back to their feet ain't always easy [see Marshall Plan] but it is beneficial -- yes to US, too. Abandoning the Iraqi people after promising our help in setting up their new nation would be reprehensible. Or do you think 'those little brown people' aren't worth our time or trouble?

Posted by: Claire at August 16, 2005 09:22 AM (l1oyw)

39 Wow. I've just finished reading through the majority of these posts and amazed and saddened by the overwhelming hatred fueled by ignorance people have for anti-war ideology. Ruby, thank you for that insightful history of the US presence in Cambodia. Unfortunately, most people aren't aware of those atrocities, mostly due to Kissinger's brilliant image and extreme measures to keep the truth from surfacing. I think what's happening in Iraq can be likened to what's happened historically in Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. Basically, the US decides it's in their economic interests to appropriate resources from another country, and if negotiations don't work, then we move on to military action to secure those resources. Just consider the coup we staged in Chile that led to the assassination of the democratically elected Allende, followed by and the US supported dictator Pinochet, who proceeded to torture, oppress, rape and murder his people over the next 20 years. We operate under the guise of offering 'freedom' and 'democracy', two very valid and wonderful ideals, to establish infrastructures in these countries to support a Western way of life (In Chile, it was to secure copper for companies like PepsiCo -- in Iraq, the resource is obviously oil). The countries, under the promise of having these freedoms and modern way of life, agree to contract the work to build their infrastructures (water, electricity, sewage, shopping areas, manufacturing plants, etc.) to huge US consulting/engineering firms and consequently incur HUGE amounts of debt. This is convenient for the US, naturally, to use as leverage in the long run when the countries ultimately fail to meet the stipulations of repayment. It's our way of securing those resources -- either through instating our own puppet government or placing a country so far in debt their economy will never be sovereign apart from the US. It's more than just Wal-Marts and McDonalds, guys. And that, I posit, is terrorism. I love the United States, but I think we've made some decisions that are historically horrifying. Most people can't see beyond their patriotism to question our past to see if we're repeating our mistakes, because somehow asking questions and considering the evidence is scary and unsettling, and more importantly, unpatriotic. Republicans are known for their fiscal conservatism. Honestly, if it weren't for the possibility of utterly exploiting and controlling Iraq's economy, why would we be there?

Posted by: sophia at August 16, 2005 09:43 AM (xXv9S)

40 Sort of off the subject but, Sophia, allow me to say that after reading your diatribe i had a Berkeley flashback that was not too pleasant. Comparing what we are doing in Iraq to what happened in Chile betrays a cynicism that is too deeply ingrained for rational discussion. It's funny how conservatives are always accused of blindly following our icons. But your rant makes me wonder if we had the same professors in undergrad. Still i learned, with some difficulty at Cal, that my professors were often wrong and that many of them were motivated by deep hatred of anything traditional. The equation goes like this: "US did wrong in Chile, therefore everything US does is suspect." That kind of world view doesn't allow anyone to accept the kind of sea change in active diplomacy represented by those "evil" neocons, of which i count myself one. There are dozens of valid reasons to be doing what we're doing in Iraq. i know you are aware of them. You simply disagree with them, where i don't. But don't act like there are no other reasons besides "the oil." i said it before and i'll continue saying it over and over. Thank God people like you are not in charge.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 10:12 AM (zAOEU)

41 "Honestly, if it weren't for the possibility of utterly exploiting and controlling Iraq's economy, why would we be there?" That failure of imagination is why this discussion becomes so difficult.

Posted by: Claire at August 16, 2005 10:18 AM (l1oyw)

42 CLAIRE: The correct spelling is literati, and thank you for the compliment. I am. From your disdain of the term and the lack of questions answered, clearly you are not. As for, "those whom you call "insurgents" or "minutemen" are not "innocent people," I'm afraid you've got me mixed up with someone else as I've not said anything comparable to this. I believe that if a foreigner were to present false facts about the USA, Claire, you as an American, might come forth with the correct answers if you indeed could present them. However, you lack historical knowledge and you only seem to be clear on 'talking points' and regurgitating opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, but try not to confuse them with facts and real answers. We must look at the past in order to face the future.

Posted by: ruby at August 16, 2005 10:22 AM (+bPcD)

43 Annika, why does talking about the past become too cynical for rational discussion? As an aside, I used to be a staunch Republican, and still hold on to many conservative ideologies. But thanks for taking a personal swing at me there at the end -- just adds fuel to the fire! I just wonder how issuing a low blow like that qualify as a healthy debate. My rationale isn't "US did wrong in Chile, therefore everything US does is suspect", as you so simplistically stated. I chose to limit my post to one example due to the size and scope of this forum, but listed other countries in which we've carried out similar agendas. Claire, I'm sorry you lament the failure of my imagination and blame it for causing a difficult discussion. It's not really a good discussion if you sit around regurgitating other people's ideas and thoughts, is it? I encourage everyone to read the following page, which outlines specifically the US's objectives in Iraq as related to the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution. Bon apetit! http://www.twf.org/News/Y2003/0916-Constitution.html To sum up: "The drafting of the constitution is a pretext for exploiting Iraq's national wealth, providing oil and water to Israel, and maintaining control of the energy resources of the Middle East."

Posted by: Sophia at August 16, 2005 02:08 PM (8rbQv)

44 Another good article from TIME, this one written in 2003: http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/iracrudqs.htm I don't think I need to get creative about reasons other than oil.

Posted by: sophia at August 16, 2005 02:22 PM (8rbQv)

45 Annika, Take you silly sig, go to Iraq and install some freedom, OK? You simpleton. Your arguments are jingoistic puerile claptrap. Are you ten years old? America has never been successful in these ventures, never. We have killed hundreds of thousands in Central America, South America, Southeast Asia, Africa, in an imperialist attempt to open markets to our goods and services. That is all that matters, markets. Not some silly notion of freedoms. Iraq is about to formulate a "constitution" which you, my dear, would slit your wrists rather than abide. Whether Ms. Sheehan's position will result in more or fewer deaths of Americans in Iraq is conjecture whereas the position of GB will certainly result in more not fewer American deaths as well as Iraqi deaths and provide NO, repeat NO security at home. You decide your preference you silly child. Until you shed blood for this shithole of an adventure, shut your mouth, you chicken shit with a pistol, hypocritical bag of wind.

Posted by: Strawman at August 16, 2005 04:43 PM (0ZdtC)

46 Sophia, could you please point out the low blow, i can't find it. Perhaps my low blow detector is out of whack after reading Strawman's lovely post.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 08:39 PM (DxI5A)

47 oh by the way, Strawman, if you're so against what the US is doing to Iraq, why don't you go over there, join the insurgency, and shed your own blood to stop this "shithole of an adventure" as you call it. That tiresome "chickenhawk" argument works both ways. And as for your insults, i'd love for you to meet me and tell me that shit to my face you fucking piece of shit.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 08:43 PM (DxI5A)

48 >Saying that i "lack courage" don't make it so. And yet claiming that those that support Sheehan are 'Anti-American' somehow makes that true? Can you see the double standard? >Every one of you trolls is exactly the same: no blog & a fake email. Sorry, too many death threats from those that share your views. Many people get far too worked up about what is going on, which is understandable, but some feel that the best way to handle opposing opinions is to resort to violence. With so much at stake, like our families' lives, the emotions run high. I am not willing to make it easy for the psychopaths. I am sure you understand. >When you say something as crazy as "no mass graves" you signal to me that no amount of reasoning will be possible. Excellent - that was the thing that was not 100% true. I realized after I posted that it was inaccurate hyperbole, but what can ya do. We were told that we would find mass graves for hundreds of thousands - but instead, what we found were graves containing a few thousand - mostly filled with the Shias that had believed us when we told them to rise up after the first gulf war - you know, the ones we stood by and watched get slaughtered rather than raise a finger to stop it. All we found were the graves of those that we helped killed, and those left over from the Iran-Iraq war. The 6-figure mass graves were a lie. They did not exist. Except as part of the campaign to trick us into supporting the war. You can show otherwise? No - you can't, because it simply isn't true. and btw - I am more than willing to concede when I am wrong. It happens, and I am glad to revise any notions that are proven wrong. Go ahead, show me where I am mistaken. I am happy to consider any factual reference - and will even do the research on my own. My family and loved ones are important enough to me that I am not willing to just sit on my ass and swallow the official lies. >cite propaganda as fact If you are unable to show ANYTHING to suggest what I am saying is not true, perhaps it isn't propaganda. Ever consider that? >so why do you bother even coming here Because you decided to throw around the term 'Anti-American' to describe those that hold different opinions than your own. Since you seem to feel comfortable making such uninformed and un-American slurs, I figured that I should make an effort to let you know that your misguided loyalties are a betrayal of this country and all the American stands for. You have been tricked. You have been betrayed. The sooner you wise up, the better the chances are for my family members to return alive from Iraq. We have already lost the war - it is now a political holding action as the GOP tries to figure out how to extricate themselves from this disaster. I say it again - you made the anti-American charges - have the guts to defend them... Or the decency to apologize for such offensive remarks.

Posted by: Mr. Mike at August 16, 2005 08:55 PM (wR4hA)

49 >You and the rest of the anti-war brigade are tragically uninformed. Sorry Mark, but your sad little collection of stories only support my basic arguement - the threat of Saddam and Iraq was over-blown, and the case against him include many out-right lies. As impressed as I am with your collection of 'stories', I have to point out that many of them either: use only 'unnamed officials' as a source, are NewsMax articles (no-credibility), contain alot of 'may have', 'might have been' language, or reference a few crumbs left over from when Saddam did have a serious WMD program - a decade previous. My favorite: (Missing Iraq Weapons Concern U.N.) He said the missing material can be used for legitimate purposes. "However, they can also be utilized for prohibited purposes if in a good state of repair." - Demetrius Perricos. So, at some point during the massive looting, equipment that could have been used for 'prohibited' purposes (assuming it was in good repair) vanished about the same time that truckloads of scrap were being hauled to Syria. Wow, what a freaking SLAM-DUNK! Overall, it goes shows that you can find what you want. I tend to put more faith in the stories that have multiple, trackable sources, but you do what works for ya. I do not contest that Saddam was evil, or that he had an insane obsession with weapons - of all sorts. What I am saying is that he was contained as a threat, and that launching an illegal, uni-lateral war was a huge HUGE mistake. In order to sell that war, this administration KNOWINGLY lied to the American people. There were better ways to handle the situation - the most viable of which did involve attacking - but with international support. I am not opposed to war, just a STUPID STUPID war that pisses away the lives of our soldiers. In order to cover up their deception, the administration committed TREASON. You support that? This Administration has fked this war up 6 ways to sunday from the word go. Can you possible deny this? Or do you think the military and republican critics are secretly America haters as well? Do you think the general that said 'the wagons are coming of this thing' is secretly French? Within 1 week of Bremer taking over, we had lost the war. Sad but true. They lied to us - and they knew it: Part of the evidence was based on the testimony of an in-law of Saddams that had fled Iraq. He confirmed the WMD programs, and also confirmed their destruction. We only heard the first half of the story. The second half was buried to keep us from hearing about it. Powell testified to the UN about the 'Tons' of bio-logical agents that we knew he had produced (thanks to the in-law above) in the early '90s, and that since there was no proof that they had been destroyed, this was evidence that he still had them. Yet almost every agent he mentioned had a shelf life of less than 5 years. It was not physically possible for materials to still be used as weapons - IMPOSSIBLE! - yet the leaders of our country didn't seem to know that? No, they knew, but figured few of us would know. They were right. As the Downing street memos show (did you read those in your quest to pay attention?) there was an effort to find a justification to go to war. Shortly after these memos were written, the administration began a complete full court press on the propaganda. One strategy was to feed false stories to the press (a few of which are in your left-hand column btw) and then use those stories as 'objective' references while doing the punditry circuit. Media whores like Judith Miller and NewsMax played an all-to-willing role in printing the administration lies without much, if any, to verify them. And to anyone 'paying attention', it should be clear by now that the war has not made us safer, it has only swelled the ranks of those willing to attack us. Our economy is head into the toilet, and our military is weakening. None of the goals of the war will be met 0 the real goals, not the BS ones they keep you distracted with. We will not maintain control of the oil, we will not get permanent bases, and the 'show of force' has devolved into a 'display of weakness'. We have failed. Time to act like an adult and admit it, so we can start looking for some way out of this freaking mess. But thank GOD we found that 10 year old shell with Sarin in it. I am sure the 100,000 plus humans killed in the effort know that their deaths were not in vain. Jackass.

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 16, 2005 09:48 PM (wR4hA)

50 "US did wrong in Chile, therefore everything US does is suspect." Try, the US did wrong in Chile, Iran, Iraq, Guatemala, Costa Rica, Syria, Indonesia, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Haiti, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Zaire, Nicaragua, Panama and El Salvador - following the same basic pattern of seeking to use government power to open up and exploit other nations. Therefore, most foreign intervention by the US is suspect. Like I said already, it is easy to argue with your own distortions, harder to argue against the facts. If you have any questions on how we screwed around with, or screwed over, any of the above countries, please let me know - I will be glad to educate in painfully tedious detail. Or I guess I could summarize to keep it less rambling than most of my posts. Your choice. >There are dozens of valid reasons to be doing what we're doing in Iraq. i know you are aware of them. You simply disagree with them, where i don't. But don't act like there are no other reasons besides "the oil." I agree. I would LOVE to see Iraq as a free democracy. I feel no remorse for the death of any islamic that attacks women to keep them down. Saddam was a Stalinist, and an outright bastard - no qualms about seeing him killed. I have a long history of sympathizing with the Kurds, and I do not forgive what Saddam did to them - with help from the US and Donald Rumsfeld I might add. There are aspects of what we are doing that _could_ be for the better - if they weren't so poisoned by the real reasons we are there. There are indeed a variety of reasons why people supported the war that had little do do with oil. However, our leaders primary motivation was oil and all the associated cash and power that controlling those spigots brought. Oil is the SINGLE reason that we launched the war. All of the other valid reasons did not tip the decision scale, oil did. Without the oil, we would have found other ways to deal with the problem. How familiar are you with Peak Oil? Your support of a hopeless war is killing our soldiers. For your sake, I wish you could see that, I really do. I hope that at some point you see a blatant distortion or distraction that opens your eyes. That is how I got to where I am - I got to see the wizard behind the curtain in the Gulf War, and nothing was the same again. Direct personal confirmation of the evil our 'leaders' are capable of really does wonders to your ability to blindly follow along. I hope you have a similar epiphany. I really do. But for now, you can just apologize for the foul 'Anti-American' slurs and be done with me.

Posted by: Mr Mike at August 16, 2005 10:33 PM (wR4hA)

51 Mike, i don't mind you hanging around. If you are too scared to get your own blog, feel free. i sympathize with your aversion to getting threatened by email, but i get that too and i'm still here. Anyways, since school started for me yesterday i don't have a lot of free time to rehash old arguments, fun as that might be. So let's cut to the chase. Pretend i've taken the time to rebut each of your conclusory statements (which you call facts) complete with appropriate links and footnotes etc. Then i'll pretend that you have poo-pooed my rebuttals one by one as i know you are ready to do, criticizing each one in turn by attacking my sources, then offering counter-sources for your own points of view which i find just as suspect. Then lets each pretend to lose patience and resort to name calling. Lastly, we can pretend that each of us has beaten the other in this battle of wits. And i'll go back to right wing blogging just the same as i always have, and you'll find some other comment section to haunt and another blogger to torment. Nothing solved. We can't convince each other. It's a metaphysical impossibility. The only thing i can say, and i hate to keep repeating myself, but it really is the bottom line to all of this nonsense: i'm so so glad people like you are not in charge. Really i am. Maybe after '08 you will come back here and laugh at my present arrogance (and i'll admit there's a chance you'll be able to) but for now, let me laugh at you. Hahahahaha! i'm so so glad people like you are not in charge.

Posted by: annika at August 16, 2005 11:27 PM (SXvV5)

52 I'm glad I visited this blog, even though it eventually devolved to namecalling and mockery. Mr. Mike, I'm so glad there are people like you who have the capacity to think critically. I just wonder how long the US can last in its current position of world power, insatiable in its appetite for consumption and Manifest Destiny conquests. Just look at the rise and fall of the Roman, Ottoman, British empires, as well as the Incan, Aztec, Mayan, Iriquois, Eqyptian, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Russian, Chinese, and Japanese cultures (just to name a few in history). We'll go out with a fight, yes, and it ain't gonna be pretty because the majority of us are willing to lie to ourselves about issues such as the real reason the US is currently war.

Posted by: sophia at August 17, 2005 09:48 AM (xXv9S)

53 Annika, I love bloggers who chide others with opinions for not having their own blog. Your choice to devote time to this solipsistic adventure does not make you saintly or brave, insightful or prescient, just a gal with a little too much time on her hands and too little imagination. I would be happy to say to your face what I have said in my posts, no problem. My email is real, my web site tells you where I am 70 hours a week, and I would just as soon spit in your eye for your foul rendition of America the Beautiful than call you well deserved names. You revel in and spread hate, are inured to violence and despair suffered by others in the pursuit of bullshit. Ask the 50k or so dead IraqiÂ’s how they liked voting or how they like freedom or how their children are doing in school, and if they have dropped their plans to attack America, or how well those 75mm aluminum tubes worked in their centrifuges, and on and fucking on. No end to the killing, pain, lies and bullshit. No end to the inarticulate pandering of our president. You, Annika, hate him to your brown roots. You cannot admit it since he seems to be pursuing a course of death, destruction and immorality (fav. causes of yours) but in your heart you know he is an uneducated ass incapable of an original thought. This man who sat staring into space while his country was under attack and waited for instructions. The arrogant, angry, alcoholic, browbeaten youngest son, the runt of a family of thieves and connivers is leading you to the new crusades. Onward Christian soldiers! Oh, but you my dear Anni are staying home, out of harms way, right? I know, I know, blogging is dangerous too! Nasty emails, low blows, foul and thoughtless arguments hurled at you, such perseverance, such pluck, you are a marvel. Your concept of AmericaÂ’s roll in the present and future of human affairs reeks of your shallow, compassionless, callow and entitled youth. Where have you been? Have you seen any of this world outside an all inclusive resort? Why don't you volunteer at your local VA and get close to the shattered men and women and taste the human tragedy and despair caused by forcing America's vision of freedom on the unwilling and disinterested. Or go to equatorial Africa and watch children die of curable malaria. Watch and remember how we are spending a billion a week pacifying Iraq. All better options for you and Mr. Sig than going to Iraq and pissing down the neck of the country we have raped and desecrated to an extent beyond SaddamÂ’s wildest nightmares. He is chuckling under his breath watching this classic enactment of an old Orwellian theme-Kill for Peace! Elections are still rigged and fucked-with in our country, citizens are denied the vote with bogus lists concocted by political hacks who are rewarded with runs for the senate, Congressman are in bed with lobbyists, lobbyists will fuck anything that moves, credit card companies are protected (bankruptcy bill) and allowed to commit usury, decent health care is unavailable to 10Â’s of millions, men like Clarence Thomas get appointed to the supreme court, there is still debate as to whether or not the right to privacy exists, (only because it is the argument upon which a womanÂ’s right to choose is based) otherwise you fascisti would roll around in it like rooting pigs, oil companies report the greatest earnings in their history and Americans are told the $3.00 dollar price at the pump is a true reflection of market forces. Our educational system is ranked 10th from the bottom of the first world and we have the balls to think that we are qualified to be installers of "freedom", "democracy" & capitalism elsewhere? Hubris and ignorance abound in you and your leaders. A band of Islamo-fascist SaudiÂ’s wack New York and the best the Bushites could do was to ruin Iraq and fertilize the poppy fields of Afghanistan? Just donÂ’t get me started, OK? As for the argument about your cowardice for not taking your Sig and shooting up Iraq and my not supporting the insurgency: well Anni, I want America to do the right thing, I do not want to kill America, you silly girl.

Posted by: Strawman at August 17, 2005 07:22 PM (0ZdtC)

54 i hope you're not married. if you are, go seek help. Please, because your condescending passive aggressive rage bullshit can't be pleasant to your wife. Or are you as lonely sad and hateful as you sound? Tell me where you wanna meet. i'd love for you to spit in my eye. i'd love for you to try.

Posted by: annika at August 17, 2005 08:25 PM (+oyaL)

55 Annika, Can you make it to the Teluride general store at noon on Sept 11? Bring your Sig I'll bring my sister to beat the crap out of you. I don't hit; women, children or dogs. My sister though is very tough and way mean. I am a fellow who is very angry at the people who are leading this incredable nation down the toilet. They have PROVED themselves to be a duplicitus bunch of ideologues and liars. COmpassionless, twisted sadists who are on "mission from god" to quote the Blues Brothers. It bothers me. GO figure? You are part of the problem. You deny the reality of the mis-adventure in Iraq, are comfortable with the current condition and the lies that brought it about don't really matter to you. It got America where you think we should be. You get all weepy about the rape, torture, repression of Saddam and ignore the rape, torture, oppression of 50 other governments on earth, (including our own) many of which the US gives aid and trade. This seems not to be a problem in your world maybe it shouldn't be in mine either but it is. As is the killing of the Iraqi people in a vain and desparate attempt to save them. So I don't really try to engage you Annika, for you are lost in a dream about the Kingdom of American where all is well. It is more fun to taunt and hurl invective at you. You are like a snarling republican yard dog on a short chain running toward every passing truth and trying unsucessfully to bite it's head off. America is suffering greatly right now and not from the islamo-fascist threat,which is real, but more so from the facisisti of the religious right and their attempts to Christianize America with the help of our sanctimounious toady president and his cabal of handlers. So please don't be worrying none about my wife, she's fine, my kid too. Worry about a great country that is blundering down a path to ruination and despair following a smirking dullard with a ring in his nose. And please worry about the families of those slain in this futile crusade, they are dying for nothing: That's the crime here and that is all that matters. Certainly not me and you.

Posted by: Strawman at August 18, 2005 12:50 PM (0ZdtC)

56 Sounds great, but don't worry about the sig, i don't have one. We'll use Zell Miller rules for this duel. Spitballs at ten paces. i used to be pretty good at throwing spitwads, i'll hit you and your sister right in the forehead and make you cry.

Posted by: annika at August 18, 2005 06:37 PM (wFDFq)

57 Annika, Won't be hard to make me cry. I cannot answer for my sister. I see such pain and wasting of lives, as do you, each and every day. I am older and have seen so much more than you it is a wonder I have tears left. My lottery number was 98 in 1970. In fact my cousin died this year in a VA hospital, legless, from complications, mental and physical that he suffered in Vietnam. The tragedy of war can take many many years to destroy lives. I really donÂ’t understand a person like you, bright, semi-educated, loqatious, a little too angry and brittle but seemingly full of life and promise yet, IMHO, blind to the evil purposes of this Whitehouse and the religious right. You can tell GW is a dope as easily as Newton understood the apple, yet you excuse it and the lies for what? The sweet taste of revenge? The belief that unless we secure the oil China will gain the upper hand? A belief that all the dead have made us safer? That someday there will be no young Islamic man or woman lining up to receive backpacks of explosives? That the absence of a connection between Iraq and 911 is irrelevant? That there was NO OTHER WAY to destabilize Saddam and bring a freer, safer government to Iraq? That all the harping on the imminent threat of Saddam was just bad intel and not a bunch of boobs punting? That we are in an epic struggle and Iraq is now the locus of Islamic fundamentalism even though Saddam killed the clerics who tried to interfere with his basically secular government? Annika it is just so ludicrous and transparent I wonder what inner psychopathy of yours constricts your otherwise sharp vision of reality. This shall end my intrusion.

Posted by: Strawman at August 18, 2005 08:07 PM (0ZdtC)

58 take care, Strawman.

Posted by: annika at August 19, 2005 06:49 AM (Y6q67)

59 I'm sorry you feel as if pride is more important than blood.

Posted by: Seth Maloney at October 28, 2005 09:58 AM (C0F8D)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

What To Do About Iran

Doug Tennapel has it right.

America has too many Democrats and Anti-Israel Presbyterians to help Israel, so they will be forced to do what the UN and Europe can't do...they will take out Iran's nuclear facilities with a pre-emptive attack. The Muslim street will erupt, which will suit the hated Iran leadership just fine, changing their status from hated regime to just martyr overnight.
Israel is surrounded by radical Muslims where part of their religion is to force Zionist monkeys and Christian pigs into submission. When these religions get nuclear bombs Israel will be history. Is Israel safer now that they are withdrawing from occupied territory? Hell no. Because this was never about Israeli occupation...it's about an Islamic desire for genocide.

i only think that we should have the guts to send a few F-117s over there and do it ourselves. Israel may be target number one, but we are target number two on the Iranians' list. We could eliminate their nuclear plant tommorow if we wanted to. Of course we won't. Thick-skinned as Bush has been up to this point, he knows the world will call him a monster even as he gives the order that might save millions of lives. i don't think he will do it, nor do i see any other solution to the Iranian problem. Do you?

Posted by: annika at 03:00 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 230 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Too many people have concluded that because "deterrence" worked against the Soviet Union for 50 years, it will also work against Iran (or whoever). This is very dangerous reasoning.

Posted by: David Foster at August 11, 2005 03:28 PM (7TmYw)

2 On the other hand. the mullahs wont last forever. And an attack would strengthen their hand. I think if the democraticaly elected government in Iraq can stabilize it might cause a change in Iran.

Posted by: Kyle at August 11, 2005 03:56 PM (4t42C)

3 I am afraid that we can't expect Israel to pull our bacon (to use a non-kosher term) out of the fire this time. Destroying the Iranian nuclear weapon program by air strike would be much more difficult for Israel than the 1981 attack on Iraq;s Osiraq plant. The distance is much farther; the refueling problems much more daunting, especially since the US would probably not assist. Also, the Iranians, having learned a lesson from Osiraq, have scattered their program sites across the country in protected bunkers. 2 ironies: Before Israel's attack, the Osiraq plant was unsuccessifully attacked in Sept. 1980 by--Iran! Also, one of the Israeli pilots was Ilan Ramon, later Israel's 1st astronaut, who died in the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster on Feb. 1, 2003. There is no neat and quick military solution to this problem.

Posted by: Ralphyboy at August 11, 2005 03:57 PM (Z6cXg)

4 There have been massive demonstrations against the Iranian goverment during the past two summers. They are greatly encouraged by Bush's speeches over the last 3 years. Plus the nuclear war talk of the government has the people scared to death. I predict that the Iranian government will fall this year because the Iranians will rise up and throw the dictators out. I don't think we will need to get involved anymore than giving the rebels weapons.

Posted by: Jake at August 11, 2005 03:58 PM (r/5D/)

5 The mullah's decision to restart ore processing was not done just to thumb their noses at the west. They had to draw a strong hand against the most formidable force ever assembled. A force that just happens to be assembled on two of their borders. Their choice, while scary to us, is also a sign that they are just as scared of the U.S. military. This just points to the race that Jake mentioned. Will the mullahs last long enough to get the bomb? I can't begin to estimate a timeline, but the necessity of a revolution in Iran speaks for itself. Unfortunately the admin can't do too much publicly lest it risk handing the mullahs an excuse to crack down on "western-backed" insurgents. I hate to say it, but we won't know how effective any clandestine operations will be until we see a free Iran, or a mushroom cloud over Jerusalem.

Posted by: Trevor at August 11, 2005 04:32 PM (GtBBB)

6 First, I don't know if we're target number 2 on Iran's list. They might want to kill the Sunnis first. Remember that big religious war they had with predominantly Sunni Iraq during the 1980s. Second, most Democrats aren't anti-Israel -- do you remember John Edwards repeatedly reaffirming American support for Israel during the VP debate? Well, if you don't, he went on about that for quite a while. Green Party figures like Ralph Nader and Michael Moore are strongly pro-Palestinian, but the majority of Democratic politicians don't go that way. I'm with Kyle on this. If you want to strengthen the Iranian reformers, you probably shouldn't drop bombs on their country. It'll just make the populace get behind their mullahs more.

Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf at August 11, 2005 11:10 PM (IZsbU)

7 Is it any coincidence that the US gave the "Bunker-Buster" technology to Israel last year? You know, those 10,000 pounders that go beneath the surface and penetrate ten or twenty feet of concrete and steel? What does one suppose Israel wanted this for, digging for oil or water? Perhaps to mine for gold? Israel will not wait for a U.N. Resolution before taking out any serious threat to their existance. The only thing that I see as standing between Israel and the destruction of Iran's capability is the time from here to start-up. When Sharon, or Nehetanyu or anyone else who is in the P.M.'s seat at the moment, decides that Iran is too close to having the bomb, they will strike. Re-fueling, as we know, is not brain surgery. They will not concern themselves with the nicities of violation of soverign airspace or illegally violating some country's borders. They will strike to maintain their safety and wait for the UN resolutions condemning them, which I predict will be vetoed by our man Bolton, with great pleasure. Does anyone doubt this, besides the Iranians?

Posted by: shelly at August 12, 2005 01:45 AM (6mUkl)

8 "There is no neat and quick military solution to this problem." Neat no, quick yes. We could kill everysingle living thing in Iran and anyone who decided that they should fight us. If we were not so nice, we would be running this place with force and fear not bribery (aka captialism).

Posted by: cube at August 12, 2005 07:18 AM (nyNr0)

9 Like Shelly said. The IDF would really have no problem getting the job done. They have done the miraculous before, a couple of times. This job won't require a miracle, just guts.

Posted by: annika at August 12, 2005 08:05 AM (zAOEU)

10 while i agree with shelly, i have always thought that this type of operation will require a ground component as well. i don't think the israelis will want to chance 75% destruction of the facilities. 100% would be nice, with confirmation. this could get messy. i just hope arik is around to do the planning. annika is really swinging for the bleachers with these last two comments. who needs that condi girl when we got annika in the wings.

Posted by: louielouie at August 12, 2005 10:35 AM (xKfMm)

11 I still think there might be a fly in the ointment re: Israel taking out the site from the air. Depending on the hardening of the bunker, the use of conventional bunker busters could be in doubt. Here's a telegraph article on the whole thing, via Drudge: Israeli hawks Assuming that the bunkers are hardened enough to withstand one or two shots from a conventional bunker buster, and assuming that there really are nine sites to deal with, then the IDF is left to decide between a massive mission with conventional BB's (using several conventional BB's at each site,) or an attack with nuclear BB's. I'll leave it to everyone else to understand the ramifications of either tactic. Either choice leads to such a high price to pay (even assuming complete mission success,) that one wonders if that is worth merely delaying the Iranian nuke a little longer.

Posted by: Trevor at August 12, 2005 10:59 AM (RwZxT)

12 Great question. The Iranian government is kind of like Russia on steroids. Clearly the Iranian powers that be want America now or to appear that way. Is there a correlation betwen Ahmadinehad being brought forward and the shaped charges blowing up our best Marines on the AAV? I think partly the critcism Bush is getting is to keep him from going to Iran. He'll wait on a nuclear strike for a counterpunch unless he is absolutely sure it's coming.

Posted by: Michael Brophy at August 16, 2005 10:21 PM (pkuIE)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 10, 2005

News Priorities

Iran is run by lying, murderous, lunatics, and they're going to get the bomb.

But i'm glad the media is focused on what's important. Namely the Hyatte capture and the Natalie Holloway investigation.

There's no need for me to reiterate what a job Greta Van Susternerneren is doing on the Holloway story night after night after night.

And thank God Rita Cosby is on the scene of the Hyatte capture press conference to ask the crucial question: "Was he in shackles?"

Do i even need to acknowledge the dogged reporting of Aaron Brown, who will stop at nothing to find out when, when, when did the police get the tip that the Hyattes were holed up in that motel?

And no, Aaron won't be satisfied with an estimate, he wants the exact time and it doesn't matter how many ways he has to phrase the same question in order to elicit that critical information.

That's Emmy winning stuff there.

And that's information that really impacts my life.

Posted by: annika at 07:47 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.

August 06, 2005

Child Abuse In Santa Cruz

Radical Redneck alerted me to this story about child abuse going on in Santa Cruz.

While most summer camps get kids out of the house and give parents a break, a group called Art in Action is nurturing the next Michael Moore . . .
Art in ActionÂ’s 'art and empowerment' camp is being held at the Quaker Center nestled in the redwoods of Ben Lomond. Campers at the 10-day retreat attend workshops on cultural activism, nonviolent action and alternative media.
'The reality is that the media is not actually showing whatÂ’s really going on in Iraq,' said Jouse Bustos, 19, of central Los Angeles. 'By doing this mural, IÂ’m showing whatÂ’s going on.'

And Jouse knows what the media doesn't because . . . how? i'd wager the punk hasn't actually been to Iraq, nor have any of his retarded professors. So, guess what. Unless he's getting his information from out his ass, he's probably getting from the media.

Bustos is one of 25 young people attending the camp. For 10 days, they learn to say 'no' to military recruiting, racism and war, and 'yes' to eco-justice, community and love.

Nice. If these people had their way, i don't suppose they'd go crying to be protected by that same military when their bus gets bombed. No, they'd never do that.

Campers spend their time making banners, writing poetry and choreographing dances that represent a vision of 'positive alternatives to the madness of war and oppression.'

i got a positive alternative to war and oppression too. How about a democratic Middle East? How about us killing the terrorists so they stop blowing people up?

'Art is the best way to communicate social messages,' said camp founder Alli Chalabi-Starr, who grew up in Santa Cruz but now lives in San Francisco.

Art is the best way to communicate social messages, huh? i bet if i went to that camp and i made some art that communicated my own social message, i'd be "peacefully" thrown out of there on my ass.

Here's an example of the type of social message that's acceptable at this camp:

Some [campers] glue together pieces of newspaper that will become the giant puppet unveiled Thursday night Â— the divided face of a Muslim woman and woman of color from the United States.
Stamped across the face will be an American flag, said camp co-founder Maryam Roberts of San Francisco.
The face 'represents silence forced upon both women by their governments,' Roberts said. 'There is a feeling of silence.'

Oh gawd, spare me that "chill wind" argument again. You're at a fucking protest camp. If the government wanted to censor you, you'd be sitting in jail next to Tim Robbins and Michael Moore, holding their Oscars.

Instead, people like this thrive in the United States, where their message is heard loud and clear wherever they want to spew it forth, from the office of the California Attorney General to the streets of Manhattan. That's not censorship.

On the other hand, i just made a piece of protest art myself. It's a work intended to shake up the establishment and challenge the oppressive orthodoxy of California's ruling elites. i'll sell it to you cheap for $750, which also happens to be the per person cost of that stupid protest camp. It's suitable for framing and i'm calling it "Piss Boxer."

i wonder how many art galleries i can find anywhere who would be willing to exhibit it?

Posted by: annika at 11:25 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 578 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Every March, left-wing whacko kids flock to Austin to attend "alternative spring breaks". Where, instead of hanging out at the beach and doing body shots off their normal college-aged peers, they learn how to make signs and chant (otherwise known as protesting), and regurgitate the rhetoric of their 1960s burn-out parents and professors. I wrote about the anti-death penalty alternative spring break a few months ago. Oddly, it sounds like they were "learning" the exact same lessons as the anti-war protest campers in CA.

Posted by: Robbie at August 06, 2005 01:54 PM (htx4h)

2 Is that the worst pic you can find of her? How about a reprise... "Shit Boxer"?

Posted by: Casca at August 06, 2005 03:33 PM (qBTBH)

3 I'll add this to my (very, very long) "Why I Don't Live in California" list.

Posted by: Mark at August 06, 2005 08:17 PM (Deyc8)

4 I'll add this to my (very, very long) "Why I Don't Live in California" list.

Posted by: Mark at August 06, 2005 08:18 PM (Deyc8)

5 You should all be more considerate to these people. They must be very committed to their cause seeing as they probably have their lunch money taken from them nearly every day. It probably took them quite some time to save up the cash for this camp. Too bad the camp fee doesn't cover hygiene classes and a gym membership. Also, while I may not be an expert on this (after all, I said "yes" to military recruiting), how long does it take someone to learn to say "no" to anything? There has to be at least 7 different places between the initial contact with the recruiter and reception where people can say "no" to recruitment. Plus, don't the "no means no" classes cover cover some of this ground prior to the camp?

Posted by: james at August 06, 2005 09:36 PM (blfs0)

6 What *is* it with these people and their giant puppets? I guess there's a new branch of the art of rhetoric: Instead of trying to persuade people to your point of view with reason and eloquence, you persuade them with puppets...

Posted by: David Foster at August 07, 2005 03:23 PM (7TmYw)

7 [['The reality is that the media is not actually showing whatÂ’s really going on in Iraq,' said Jouse Bustos, 19, of central Los Angeles. 'By doing this mural, IÂ’m showing whatÂ’s going on.']] Heh. Maybe he should let the kids draw a mural with the below "visual aids"..... http://www.pulitzer.org/year/2005/breaking-news-photography/works/warzone20.html http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/photos/B/BAG12305032334.html?SITE=TXABI&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT Where's the cognitive dissonance for these people?

Posted by: reagan80 at August 07, 2005 07:50 PM (SS/w9)

8 I can only hope that Ward Churchill finds out about this camp, applies for a teaching position there, and gets turned down because even they have standards.

Posted by: Sub-Human at August 08, 2005 07:47 AM (yTuVc)

9 Excellent Boxer art Annie - I agrre, though, that it'd be VERY easy to find a far worse picture of that screeching harpie. Speaking of this art, I've got to take a leak. Meanwhile, if you go here, you can see the writings of the esteemed alumni of that camp.

Posted by: Radical Redneck at August 10, 2005 01:54 PM (6BiLR)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 04, 2005

Prediction

With the New York Times now "investigating" Judge Roberts' adoption records for the two Latin American children he and his wife adopted, how long do you think it will take for the Times to announce that they have found "irregularities."

My headline prediction: "Childrens Rights Groups Urge Probe Into Special Treatment On Roberts Adoptions."

Everything is proceeding according to the plan i warned you about: Dems hold up the nomination with delaying tactics while the media digs for dirt.

Posted by: annika at 02:05 PM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 81 words, total size 1 kb.

1 You probably won't find someone more suspicious of MSM than me. Nonetheless, this shocked me. This isn't just a new low, this should be scandalous. But of course I doubt it will be. A few right-leaning outlets and blogs will stir up their readers/viewers, but no non-Fox outlet in the MSM and only a few left-leaning blogs will speak out. The march will go on, and the descent of journalistic standards will continue to plunge to disgraceful depths. When an entire section of the population has no shame, there will never be common decency.

Posted by: Trevor at August 04, 2005 02:46 PM (GtBBB)

2 Meanwhile, the phones of all his old girlfriends and anyone who's ever worked for him are suddenly ringing off the hook, i bet.

Posted by: annika at August 04, 2005 04:14 PM (zAOEU)

3 You could start a contest. Name the next low of the left, and win a fabulous prize. Will they question his son's sexuality? Will they connect him to an organization bent on ruling the world known only by it's front the Federalist Society?

Posted by: Trevor at August 04, 2005 04:38 PM (GtBBB)

4 I can see the MSM cameras documenting the authorities tearing the children away from Robert's outstretched arms. And everyone on the left in fits with a maniacal laugh. I am ashamed that I live in the same country as filth like the NYT.

Posted by: Jake at August 04, 2005 06:32 PM (r/5D/)

5 I'm not surprised. Gotta outdo the Washington Post, which criticized what the kids wore at the White House photo-op. Next up: Critics ask why the kids aint more "ethnic".

Posted by: Ron at August 04, 2005 07:09 PM (judbW)

6 I watched the Fri night Fox "Round Table" w/Britt Hume. Hume said NYT sought advice of lawyers re: how to unseal and look @ adoption records. This is a definitive step beyond the NYT claim: "We were just asking questions, checking background info, nothing to see here..." I think its unethical for NYT even to ask questions which are designed to uncover adoption irregularities. Even if Roberts used "powerful person influence" to push through the adoption of his children - its not a story. First, b/c children are involved - which makes it a disgusting exercise. Second, b/c its dog bites man. Using whatever power and influence you have in life is not a story.

Posted by: gcotharn at August 05, 2005 09:33 AM (rkq1p)

7 aaah, gcotharn, but they can make it a story. That's the idea. No, you're right, it is unethical. look what the LAT did to schwarzenegger. Bawdy behavior on a movie set? That's dog bites man too. The LA Times went around and interviewed all these women who worked on his movies until they found one who was willing to lie about being groped. When she was proven to be a liar, they didn't report it. Then they totally ignored the women who worked for Gray Davis who said that he threw stuff at them and was verbally abusive. If the NYT gets into the adoption paperwork, odds are even that they will find something they can spin into an irregularity. It doesn't matter what the truth is, the accusation is enough.

Posted by: annika at August 05, 2005 02:18 PM (zDFsr)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 02, 2005

Live Blogging Al Gore's Appearance On Leno

Waiting for Gore. Leno's doing the "dumb ads" thingie. Not too good tonight.

Leno is marking time until retirement. He's just not into his job anymore and it shows.

Here comes Al, dressed like Belzer. All in black. And that same Paul Simon song as his intro theme. The singer, not the late senator.

Gawd i hate that man's voice. He's fat too.

Oh hell, look at those boots. Patent leather cowboy boots. What a fucking fashion disaster.

He's still bitter too. "You win some, you lose some, and then there's that third category." Yuk yuk, same old sense of humor, Al. Nonexistent.

Trying to kiss up to Leno by saying how great Johnny was might not be such a good idea. Should have done your homework, Al.

Commercial.

Leno: "That famous misquote. . . You never said you invented the internet." Heh.

Another lame recount joke by Al.

Now he's plugging Current, his new cable channel. So far his appearance has been as boring as this post.

So his channel will have a show where you can find out the top subjects being searched on the internet. Wow, how original. Yahoo's been doing that for like five years now.

Al's wedding ring needs to be re-sized. He's got the sausage fingers.

Note to guys: short sleeves with a black blazer and gold buttons look cheesy.

Film clip from something on Current: parachutists jumping off a cliff. Okay, hasn't National Geographic Explorer been doing that shit for years too?

Two segments and he's out. Becuz he's a busy guy. What a snoozefest.

Man that dude's got a big ass.

Posted by: annika at 12:17 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 283 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Hey Annika, that was my first reading of live blogging..excellent. Just got back from SF where i took my 13 year old daughter and her guitarist (12) to see Vendetta Red, a Seattle band. Cafe Du Nord. Very cool. Met the band, shot photos. I'm burnt now, and reading about Al Gore reusing that stupid "Third Category" "joke" was about all my mind can handle now. and yeah, fuck Savage.. can barely handle his show these days.

Posted by: LC Fresh Sign at August 02, 2005 01:17 AM (r9yT/)

2 I am very grateful that Al Gore is providing a much needed outlet for liberal viewpoints and politics. Certainly no other network would ever devote time to liberalism.

Posted by: Mark at August 02, 2005 02:04 AM (GVB1B)

3 I actually tried to watch this abortion of a network for a while. There was this guy running around New york with these little stickers, putting them on everything. He talked about his girlfriends, and then there was this weird girl with a cat, talking about a movie whe saw. God, It was more boring than wathing the ticker tape on CNBC.

Posted by: Kyle at August 02, 2005 03:37 AM (H5KE9)

4 Goddammit, Annika. Don't ever post anything---live or otherwise---about Al Gore and his show. Unless it's of the untimely death (the show's death people!) I'm half-way through a large cup'a joe, and I have a pretty good blog-surfing buzz going...and then SMACK, I run straight into this buzz kill of a post/topic. Don't EVER do that again. At least not so early in the morning.

Posted by: Robbie at August 02, 2005 07:48 AM (AoFMn)

5 While you are visually correct about Al's ass, you are technically incorrect. He doesn't have a *big* ass, he is **all** ass.

Posted by: Becker at August 02, 2005 09:56 AM (Nlp5A)

6 Count your blessings folks, this man could have been the leader of the free world. Thank God for Flori-Duh and us getting 100% of the black vote on the Supreme Court of the United States. Who says the Supreme Court shouldn't be the final arbiter of everything? Not me. They saved our asses. Don't forget it. And, it's gonna get better. Just watch. Now imagine Gore's picks. Sweet dreams...

Posted by: shelly at August 02, 2005 08:17 PM (pO1tP)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

August 01, 2005

Least Favorite People On The Right

Right Wing News had a poll of conservative bloggers to select the "Least Favorite People On The Right." the results were:

1 Tom Tancredo (4)
1 Ralph Reed (4)
1 Newt Gingrich (4)
1 Lincoln Chafee (4)
1 James Dobson (4)
1 George Pataki (4)
1 Arnold Schwarzenegger (4)
14) Tom DeLay (5)
14) Rush Limbaugh (5)
14) George Voinovich (5)
14) Chuck Hagel (5)
13) Andrew Sullivan (6)
11) Tucker Carlson (7)
11) Bob Novak (7)
9) Sean Hannity (
9) Rick Santorum (
Arlen Specter (10)
7) Jerry Falwell (15.5)
6) Bill O'Reilly (16)
5) Michael Savage (17)
4) Pat Robertson (19.5)
3) Ann Coulter (20)
2) John McCain (21)
1) Pat Buchanan (2

i voted for Pat, and i'm glad to see he's number one. That guy is so anti-semitic, i can't believe they ever allow him on tv. Savage is an annoying freak. When he rants, he makes Buchanan seem reasonable. But while Savage is still a bigot, at least on the subject of Israel we see eye-to-eye.

i don't understand why so many people voted for McCain, Specter, Hagel, Voinovich, Chafee and Andy Sullivan. i thought the question was to vote for your least favorite person on the right. i didn't vote for them because it never crossed my mind that they were conservatives. McCain has his moments, but the rest of those people are to the left of Hillary Clinton. The new Hillary, that is.

My submissions were these guys:

The aforementioned Michael Savage and Pat Buchanan.

Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson who've done more to empower the ACLU than anyone in America. i added Dr. Dobson, who is the new Jerry Fallwell. He bugs the crap out of me. i heard him talk about the fillibuster controversy, and he really shouldn't ever talk politics. His grasp of constitutional history is at about eight grade level. i was like, "thanks for the effort doc, but we'll take it from here."

Rick Santorum. Bigot. Stuck his foot in his mouth too many times, and he'll continue to do so. If he get's nominated, say hello to America's first woman president.

Tucker Carlson, milquetoast. He's mis-labeled as a conservative, but he's an empty shell; the Alan Colmes of the right. Like Pat Buchanan he's a media darling because he's anti-war. Otherwise, nobody'd ever let him near a tv studio because he's un-watchable. Un-watchable.

Bob Novak, never liked him. Yah, i know he's a legend, but his best days ended before i was born. And i'm saying this totally exclusive of the whole Plamegate involvement thing. He pretty much mails it in nowadays. Much like i do on this here blog.

My last choice was kind of mean, but what the hell: Paul Harvey. He's like that old crotchety grampa that you love to death, but somebody should really take the keys away; you know what i mean? Don't get me wrong, i'm glad Paul Harvey's out there because a lot of people get their politics solely from his little blurbs. But i started changing the channel when i hear him on the radio. Too many times i got pissed at myself for wasting three minutes of my precious radio listening time with that bs.

And now you know the rest of the story.

Good day.

Posted by: annika at 07:37 AM | Comments (17) | Add Comment
Post contains 560 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Can't disagree with anything you have written. Well done.

Posted by: Jake at August 01, 2005 08:02 AM (r/5D/)

2 Why was the "New" Hillary left of this list? She would have been a lock for Numero Uno. P.S. I loved the long pause; how poetic...

Posted by: shelly at August 01, 2005 08:14 AM (pO1tP)

3 I think it's sad that your choices and the choice of so many others are right-wingers that are bad because they're "too right-wing." Why not put the moderates up there; so-called right-wingers like George W. As for Pat on Israel, he's a fierce critic, but that's better than the dual-loyalty-freaks like Kristol and Krauthammer that see no distinction of interests whatsoever, for whom a sacrificial war on Israel's behalf is a good thing in their minds. Washington warned against this sort of thing. Why are we still sending them billions after the cold war ended; isn't this kind of silly?

Posted by: Roach at August 01, 2005 08:32 AM (MRlvg)

4 I don't necessarily agree with a lot of your choices, but the long pause.... good day made me fall out of my chair laughing. And it's impossible to say that and not upspeak it in his old man voice.

Posted by: Charlie Gordon at August 01, 2005 09:21 AM (D3+20)

5 Heh... I had exactly the same thought re: McCain and being on the right. That's partly what gave me fits about coming up with a list of my own. A lot of the people I came up with were either extremists or milquetoasts. Nice job.

Posted by: Cassandra at August 01, 2005 11:21 AM (eKdAq)

6 OMG. Even funnier. I didn't read your whole post. I loathe Tucker Carlson, and "milquetoast" is the exact word I would have used to describe him. Too funny. I have GOT to stop multi-tasking...

Posted by: Cassandra, snarking from the sidelines at August 01, 2005 11:23 AM (eKdAq)

7 Bob Novak, never liked him. Yah, i know he's a legend, but his best days ended before i was born. thanks for summarizing my life, annie.

Posted by: louielouie at August 01, 2005 11:34 AM (xKfMm)

8 Interesting choices, Annie. Paul Harvey has bugged the shit out of me since I started listenting to talk radio as a kid. I hate it when he goes from story to commercial without any sort of transition. The only thing worse is that now his kid is trying to imitate him----silly old-man voice and all. Savage is just too much. Even when I agree with his message, I'm turned off by the delivery. If I'm going to listen to a cultural conservative, I much prefer Michael Medved: smart, precise, and polite. I'm absolutely with you on Dobson, Fallwell, and Robertson. Please guys, stick to Christian radio and stop embarrassing us. Dobson is actually fairly interesting and knowledgable when he sticks to his area of expertise.

Posted by: Blu at August 01, 2005 12:59 PM (j8oa6)

9 WOW! where to begin. Coulter and Savage are simply hate mongers, they are embarrasing. Buchanan can be dismissed because he has lost almost all of his influence. As for politicians, I think you will always find some people who dislike a particular issue or two. I dont dislike McCain, but I think he is an overambitious media whore, and that little McCain-Feingold run around the first amendment is not cool. Besides, he has tiny little T-Rex hands. I like Tucker Carlson, his new show is fairly entertaining. Sure he dosent mix it up, thats not his style, but he gets his point across. As for the religious conservatives, The media will always go after the most obnoxious one for sound bites, nothing you can do about that.

Posted by: Kyle at August 01, 2005 02:55 PM (H5KE9)

10 Lighten up a little, please. Ann Coulter is way over the top, but funny. Just tune out the excess. Watching a liberal swallow his/her tongue is amusing. I have no idea why Hannity and Gingrich made this list. Chafee, Pataki, Schwartzenegger, Voinovich, Hagel, Sullivan, and O'Reilly are on the right? I must be out of the mainstream. McCain gets my vote. The man's a hero and an idiot.

Posted by: MarkD at August 01, 2005 03:35 PM (nQAo8)

11 i can't figure McCain out. The man's a legitimate hero, but he loves being a Senator more than representing his constituency. i also agree that Coulter is unfairly criticized. She's a humorist, and a good one. No one should take her too seriously. Small hands are usually a warning sign though. Of what is anyone's guess.

Posted by: annika at August 01, 2005 03:44 PM (zAOEU)

12 So how long are you going to keep throwing gas on the fire to boost controversy? Why not just lift the shirt the rest of the way? You're wrong, Pat isn't an anti-semite. It's pathetic when you can't criticize AIPAC and the influence that Israel has in our international policy without being called a Nazi. Finally... remember Ronald Reagan's eleventh commandmant. Unless you're talking about Spectre, then the gloves are off.

Posted by: Casca at August 01, 2005 06:55 PM (qBTBH)

13 Casca, James Bond (the Connery one i think) took care of Spectre a long time ago. Get with the program.

Posted by: annika at August 01, 2005 07:26 PM (UV8Xg)

14 Ya know, Arlen's been lookin' a little like Blofeld lately......

Posted by: reagan80 at August 01, 2005 07:43 PM (zqYP3)

15 i never thought of that until now, but he does look a little Donald Pleasance-ish. All he needs is a scar and a cat.

Posted by: annika at August 01, 2005 08:12 PM (UV8Xg)

16 Agreed on most everything, but I'm still not sure how Santorum's a "bigot." Why is it when Christian/Catholics have strongly held views, they're deemed "bigots"? Edumacate me here, someone. McCain = RINO. Tucker Carlson looks like he was conceived in a petri dish. Coulter is amusing and intelligent, but her emotions tend to control her, and she defines TACTLESS. She cares nothing for who she offends, or how she offends them. I do admire her to a point, but it's a matter of minutes when she talks before I cringe in agony. I've never heard Savage on the radio, but the titles of his books scream "I am a lunatic." Buchanan is just unlikeable. Doesn't matter what he says, he's just not very nice, not very interesting.

Posted by: Mark at August 01, 2005 11:12 PM (SCyTi)

17 I never gave Paul Harvey a second thought until a couple of years ago. When Mt. Lemmon outside of Tucson was burning, he mentioned it on his show and blithely got several important facts quite wrong. Then shortly thereafter he unloaded some misleading BS about Salvia divinorum. So I have no confidence whatsoever now that he's really giving me "the r-r-r-rest! of the story", and not some dressed up tripe that just sounds good on the radio. And you already know how I feel about McCain.

Posted by: Desert Cat at August 04, 2005 12:06 PM (n/TmV)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

174kb generated in CPU 0.0417, elapsed 0.1306 seconds.
71 queries taking 0.1018 seconds, 326 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Monthly Traffic

Pages: 10786
Files: 20
Bytes: 99.1M
CPU Time: 8:24
Queries: 616986

Content

Posts: 2168
Comments: 17090

Feeds

August 30, 2005

August 23, 2005

August 22, 2005

August 19, 2005

August 11, 2005

August 10, 2005

August 06, 2005

August 04, 2005

August 02, 2005

August 01, 2005

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Monthly Traffic

Content

Feeds