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.
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)
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
Sad though - Crockett had more of a correct notion than anyone in D.C. (with a few possible exceptions) about the constitution & what it meant. Maybe he figurd that since the constitution ws simple simple & it was getting isunderstood he'd have some success with talkin' a piece about it.
)
"Moonglow" is a standard, and here it features a long swinging flute solo by Les Spann. On "St. Louis Blues," Spann switches to jazz guitar for another uptempo solo.
