Your Weekly Rush

From Rush's website.

"For them to succeed, George Bush and America must fail. The economy must implode. The war must be a debacle. Citizens must be in pain. The people must be so miserable, that they beg the government to take away personal freedom and save them with huge socialist programs. Notice I say "socialist," not "communist." I talk about their playbook being "updated" or "redefined," but I stop short of what a Soviet immigrant caller said. There's no difference between liberalism and socialism, but calling them "communists" doesn't advance things."

OK, first of all, it's entirely possible that there are people out there who don't see the success of George W. Bush's agenda and the welfare of the American People as inextricably linked. It's even possible that the Democrats believe that the George W. Bush's economic plan might have a negative effect on the economy.

Secondly, look at the weaselness of the last bit. Democrats are socialists but not communists. Why not? Because "calling them "communists" doesn't advance things." So Rush isn't interested in telling the truth about Liberals, just in telling the truths that will "advance things." But, what else is new.

To Iraq Protesters

One of the problems with recent protests is that Saddam has apparently got the idea that the protesters support him and his brutal regime. So have most conservative commentators, so you can see that that's an easy mistake to make. In fact most Protestors message to Saddam is simple, "Disarm now, work with the inspectors, cooperate fully so we can avert this war." And the message he recieves is "Do what ever you want, we'll follow you blindly."

Well in order to avert Saddam recieving that particular message, Joe Conason suggests contacting him, and telling him your feelings. "The Iraqi dictator probably needs to be further disabused of any delusions of support by citizens around the world. Please write to him care of the Iraqi Mission to the United Nations (MissionOfIraq@nyc.rr.com) and the Iraq News Agency (ina@uruklink.net)."

My advice to you? Write those news agencies and tell Saddam to wise up. My advice to Saddam? Wise up.

It's Friday

Today has been kind of a tough day at work--lots going on, so haven't been able to post like I'd like to. But I do have a site of the week all picked out, and I will post it later when I get to it. In the mean time, just think of some other brilliant commentary you read at one time or another and pretend like I wrote it.

A Trend

I've noticed a trend in my writing the last little while. I tend to go to Townhall first. I'll be blunt. Conservatives are better writers. So the Townhall writers rarely fail to elicit a response from me. And recently it's been largely a negative response. Then I go to Commondreams later on in the day, the liberal site, and read through their articles and often find something I like.

I don't know if I am becoming more liberal, but I angrier at the conservatives right now. I believe that, based on the situation, both philosophies have something to offer. Hence I want to see Conservatism and Liberalism to both stick around. Many Conservatives don't feel this way. They want to see Liberalism eradicated from the political scene. Perhaps they truly believe that Liberalism is so bad that it must be eliminated "by any means necessary." But often their methods are an attempt to return us to the days of the Red Scare. More than one article has painted protestors or liberals as traitors, pro-terrorist, pro-Stalinist, etc.

I feel differently. Although I disagree with Liberals on some issues, I want them to stick around as part of the body politic. I want Conservatives to stick around. And Greens, Libertarians, Reforms, and so on and so forth. So that perhaps explains a little shift in my tone at this site. Hopefully after the activity in Iraq ends, this site can return to it's normal more centrist tone.

Anyway another good quote from Commondreams.org. Bill C. Davis, writing on the Irrelevant in the Living Room, states "What the Bush administration considers irrelevant is any organization or country that doesn't have a meaningful military. Their military - and it is the Bush administration’s military, not ours – has the power to back up ultimatums. Their logic seems to be, if you don’t have a meaningful military you’re not worth dealing with; if you do have a meaningful military, you will be dealt with – one way or another."

For those interested, Make me a Commentator!!!'s attempts to acquire a Abrams Tank (for peaceful purposes of course) have fallen through, so we remain largely irrelevant.

Give Peace a Chance

Well, as you know, there is a big debate today. One that has eclipsed the faltering economy. It has eclipsed the war on Terrorism. It has eclipsed the impending invasion of Iraq. That issue is: Could Liberals create a liberal alternative to Rush Limbaugh?

Take a moment to examine the breadth and importance of that question. Makes things like troops dying in Iraq or your diminishing paycheck seem insignificant in comparison.

Ann Coulter, who I've ignored for a while, offered an opinion on this subject, saying. "One thing about liberals is they're pesky devils. They'll never quit. And now they are back again looking for the next "liberal alternative" to Rush Limbaugh. They have the money, the business consultants, the radio talent. Now all they need are ideas. There's the rub.

If liberals cared about ideas or knew any facts, they would cease being liberals."

So there you have it. Liberals are all fuzzy headed warm and fuzzy guys who wouldn't know a fact if it bit them on the tuckus.

Ann does quote later in her letter a Pew poll that seems to indicate that only Conservatives watch the news anyway. Take a moment to look at the questions. You notice all the questions on ideology, to determine whether or not a caller is conservative or liberal? There's a grand total of one. "Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?" And based on that one question, the Pew foundation is apparently able to determine the politics of a person. What magicians (maybe they employ Ben Shapiro, Boy Prognosticator). The Pew foundation has learned one of the great secrets of life: People will believe anything if it is in a table and there is lots of numbers.

Another Point of View

"Worst of all, we're giving Al Qaeda exactly what it wants: the overthrow of Hussein's government, what Osama bin Laden called in his latest tape an "infidel regime" run by apostates, and the best recruiting poster he could hope for. Imagine it: a photo of a U.S. general, likely a Christian, who the Bush administration now says will run mostly Muslim Iraq for at least two years. In Arabic, the words are in big, red letters: "Oust the crusaders.""

From Robert Scheer of the Los Angeles Times.

Quotes from Townhall

"While these antiwar types in America recoil with feigned outrage at the suggestion they're anti-American, when is the last time you heard them praising America? I'm waiting ... Regardless, most of them are useful idiots – useful to Saddam, that is, and idiots if they don't realize it or don't care."
David Limbaugh

"To march against the war is not to give peace a chance. It is to give tyranny a chance. It is to give the Iraqi nuke a chance. It is to give the next terrorist mass murder a chance. It is to march for the furtherance of evil instead of the vanquishing of evil."
Michael Kelly

"It is a tough time to be grown-up. To have moral courage, to swim against a tide of tantrum-throwing dissidents who can't quite put a finger on what's bothering them, but it's bad, whatever it is. Real bad. American stuff. Big bad meanies. Where are the weapons? Where's bin Laden? What's Saddam got to do with it?"
Kathleen Parker

OK lets run this down. What does Limbaugh mean by praising America? Presumably he means simply praising American agression throughout the world. Most protesters do praise the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and what they believe are American values. As for the second part, it's the best argument in the conservatives repretoire (Michael Kelly uses it as well). To oppose Bush's drive to inflict war on the Iraqi is to be pro-Saddam. To oppose this war against a war because we believe they may pose a threat to us down the road, is to be pro-Saddam. To be concerned about how a unilateral war will play in the middle east where we require the support of the governments to prosecute the war on terror is to be pro-Saddam (and to forget, that all Muslim Arabs are so full of hate that they are incapable of changing their minds anyway, so there's not point worrying about what they think).

And the humorously Kathleen Parker tells us all to grow up. The only reason people oppose war is because, infantile-like, they think war is bad. And that's as far as it goes. Of course Ms. Parker doesn't comment on the adultivity (to quote Kearny) of saying any opposition to the war is being pro-Saddam.

For those grown ups out there, here's how this works. Life is full of crappy decisions. Yeah, those who oppose the war are indirectly supporting Saddam. But that's not why they oppose the war. They oppose the war because they believe this is the wrong war, at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons. You might not agree with that assessment. Fair enough. But it is really so impossible for you to believe that hard working Americans who love their country and who take the time to study the issues might disagree with you?

Brandy's Bemusings

Here are Brandy's comments on the marches over the weekend.

"Come on people...lets just be honest here about what these 'anti-war' demonstrations are about. they should be called Anti-Bush. first case in point, I have heard SO many of these marchers say they would support the war if the UN sanctions it...well then, um how exactly are you anti-war? Oh, I see, only anti-war if it is Bush.

Second...and please pay attention here, don't think on what you are going to say next or what you should have for lunch, just really really listen...Bush has NOT gone to war, yes, that is right, not a missile has been fired, no soldier has stepped foot on Iraqi land, and are you ready for this...he IS waiting to see what the UN says. Those who say...'well we all KNOW what he is going to do, what he wants regardless' are either amazing future tellers and we should just have them tell us who is going to win and award the victor now, or maybe, they just have a pre-conceived idea and don't want to pay attention to ACTUAL EVENTS (ie after Powell's statement the US is STILL waiting on a UN approval).

*quick side note on UN approval, specifically France. Loving how the anti-war regime (some, not all) are saying the US is doing this because of oil...when in fact only 16% of our oil comes from the middle east, the rest comes from south America. But guess who gets over 80% of their oil from Iraq...dinging that's right boys and girls France. And who is the other nation not wanting to go to war against Iraq...could it be Russia, that's right, the very same Russia who signed a nice little treaty with Saddam less than a year ago.

And by the way, we do have the support of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and depending on the day Saudi Arabia...that's right, the MUSLIM countries that will be quite effected by a war...lets sit back and think on that a moment please.

I see most of these anti-war lemmings as followers who don't want to think for themselves...Or then where were they when Clinton was bombing Serbia, Bosnia and Mogadishu (quite sure I spelled that wrong), because once again...lets all say this together BUSH* HASN'T STARTED FIGHTING...and Clinton was bombing the crap out of little defenseless places...oh where oh where were the anti-war marchers then?

*littler side note, I did not vote for Bush, am not a huge fan, but how can ANYONE say he is not trying to handle this diplomatically. I have been impressed with the diplomacy and restraint shown.

And just one more comment, for anyone who is against taking Saddam out before he has nuclear capability I have one name for them to ponder on; Kim Jong Il

Thank You for allowing me to comment, I actually AM open to listening to 'true' anti-war patrons...there should always be another side, however I have yet to hear a real argument against it. (the only two I agreed with was if the other middle-eastern nations did not back us...which they do now, and in giving Saddam a chance to get rid of his weaponry in agreement to the treaty of 91'...which I think is obvious he has no intentions of honoring) And I actually would support those that are truly anti-war...meaning they are against it ALWAYS, that at least would make sense (not to me personally, but one can see the logic) any other well thought out anti-war ideas are welcomed...just once again...PLEASE THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!

Brandy

In response to your letter, let me say that a lot of the protesters feel that their efforts are at least part of the reason President Bush didn't unilaterally invade Iraq. There is a sense that the Bush administration wants this war--perhaps it is a false perception, but there a certain amount of evidence for it. Look at the comments of those conservatives who seem to share President Bush's outlook.

Take Rush Limbaugh. Vice President Cheney has appeared on his show. Secretary of Defense Rumsfield appeared in Rush's newsletter. It's hard not to believe that Rush doesn't have some tap on how the administration feels. He is clearly furious that we are delaying this war, as are about half the columnists at townhall. com. (Though not all. Doug Bandow wrote today, "The best evidence that Iraq can be deterred is that we are alive today. Unfortunately, seeking to oust Saddam removes any leverage to prevent him from conducting the sort of attack that the administration claims to most fear. Attacking Iraq will make more, and more dangerous, terrorist attacks more likely."

Did you go to the protest and talk to people? The ones I talked to didn't seem like Lemmings. They knew most of the issues and seemed to have pretty strong opinions. And there were peace protests during the Clinton Campaigns. They were smaller, but the issue was a bit different. For one thing Serbia and Bosnia were UN operations, and I think Mogadishu was too. They weren't protesting a war we were inflicting on another nation (that had done nothing to provoke us recently) because we worried that they might attack us in the future.

Someone opposed to all war is full of crap in my opinion. Force is sometimes necessary. I mean I guess I can appreciate the moral purity involved, but we don't live in a morally pure world. The only way to stop Hitler was through force. The better arguments against the war deal with the world the way it is.

And Still More

Sent an e-mail to the rally organizers (one of which needs to clean out their hotmail mailbox) to find out how many people marched on Saturday. Tom Baxter replied, saying, "The Democrat said 500 the IMC reports 750. My count stopped at 400 and people were still coming." Still when you compare that to 6 billion people on Earth, I suppose it's not very much.

On the other hand, those four pro-Trident dentists are even less significant.

More on the Marches

Conservatives are losing no time in declaring those marches irrelevant. Bill Murchinson, in his article at Townhall today, used one of the Right's favorite statistics. The marches totaled 5 to 10 Million. There are 6 Billion people alive right now (more or less). So the protests were completely irrelevant. Look at this graph if you are not convinced.



Pretty convincing isn't it? Well, lets look at who is pushing for this war. The President, the Vice President, Secretary of Defense Rumsfield and Secretary of State Powell. Perhaps 200 or so advisors, and maybe another 150 or so commentators outside the administration. Let say 355 people (counting Tony Blair, the only Englishman in favor of this war). Out of 6 billion. Or 0.000005917%. Still, perhaps I had better not read too much into that figure.

Here's another statement from Mr. Murchinson. "The inspectors have been at this job for a decade. In 1998, Saddam threw them out. The world did nothing. Doubtless that meant really giving peace a chance." Murchinson reveals that his belief in honesty is shaky at best. In 1998, inspectors pulled out because Bill Clinton planned to bomb Baghdad due to some grievance or another (possibly in connection to the Monica Lewinsky scandal, then in full bloom). So let see, did Saddam kick them out? No they pulled out for safeties sake. Did the world do nothing? No, Bill Clinton fired missiles on them.

Something to Think About

Interesting article from the Independent/UK, on the gap between the peace movement and the bulk of the American people. Robert Fisk commented on an encounter with a pro-war cameraman, stating the encounter was "a symbol of the vast gulf of reason between the pro- and anti-war movement in America. They don't talk to each other. And if they do, neither comprehends the other. Like the endless chat programs on Pacifica Radio and all the smaller liberal talk shows from Boston to LA that serve up inedible dollops of anti-Bush, anti-Republican rant, there is simply no contact between the intellectual "elite" of the left and the less privileged Americans who work with their hands and join the military to gain a free education and end up fighting America's foreign wars."

He commented later in the peace that to reach out to normal Americans would mean leaving their sheltered ivy towers. He didn't comment much on the danger of the left patronizing the average mass of humanity. I myself have noted that the left seems to believe that the more educated, the more sophisticated an individual becomes, he will inevitably become more liberal. That doesn't appear to be the case in reality, but it is a pleasent enough fantasy I suppose.

The Truth Exposed

I've mentioned David Horowitz before. He started on the Far Left, but then had a change of heart and moved to the Far Right, where his best work has been in writing about how hard it is to be a conservative in America. To the obtuse, his writing might seem like one trivial complaint after another, but when one looks deeper, one sees a metaphor for conservatives in America.

In his latest article, Horowitz takes on the peace movement. He states; "All the marches were organized by supporters of Communist and other totalitarianisms, and by the fifth column agents of Islamo-fascism. All the demonstrations promoted Iraqi war propaganda -- myths about starving children and about alleged mercenary interests behind American policy; all of them had one purpose -- to disarm the American force already in the Middle East and allow Saddam to fight another day."

So let's count the false or questionable statements.

1). All the marches were organized by Communists and Islamo-fascists. I'm not sure what Horowitz means by Islamo-Fascists, but the rally here in Tallahassee (the only one I'm qualified to comment on), was unaffiliated with ANSWER. I did see several people of apparent middle eastern descent, but I'm not sure you would call them Islamo-Fascist (which is one of those terms invented to attack Muslims while maintaining plausible deniability).

2). Myth's about starving children? It's nice to be able to use the word "myth" to discount an opinion you don't like, without providing any proof yourself. For those interested in this myth, check out this information from UNICEF.

3). "Alleged mercenary interests behind American policy." Again not the magic word--alleged. This is to plant in your mind the idea that these allegations are false, but are they? Even Conservative writers have painted rhapsodic pictures of American Gas prices dropping significantly in the wake of our victory.

4) The goal of the movement is to disarm the US in the face of Saddam's menace. Again the people I talked to were well aware of Saddam's menace, although there were signs that some underestimated him. I heard more than once that if the UN approved a military solution to the Iraq question, they would support it.

Horowitz's argument can be summed up thusly; those who protest the war are marching alongside Communists and are, whether they intend to or not, supporting Saddam's brutal dictatorship. "Today's "peace" movement -- the innocent-intentioned along with the malevolent rest -- is a fifth column army in our midst working for the other side." It ain't necessarily so, Mr. Horowitz.

Helpful Traffic Tips

The minute the light changes, you should immediately begin honking your horn. This is just a courtesy to those drivers who might not have noticed the light change. There's no way following this policy could annoy anybody.

Yesterday's Rally

As previously posted I attended the Rally against the war held in Tallahassee, on February 15, 2002.

We are told a number of things about about those who would protest the war.

We are told that they hate our country. I saw no evidence of that yesterday. I saw evidence that people were disappointed in some of the choices their country has made, but not evidence that they hated our country. That said, it's clear that President Bush is a rallying figure for many in the crowd (posters included "Depose King George" and "W = Worst President Ever", which is only a problem if you believe that opposing President Bush is the same thing as hating America.

We are told that they hate out troops. This is patently nonsense. I saw several posters that made their position clear. Although they don't approve of the policies that have led our troops to Iraq (almost), they do wish our troops well.

We are told that they are all burnouts and hippies, the dregs of society. Well, there was some of that element there, but it was swallowed up by the mass of normal people, concerned with where our country is going.

We are told that they are all brain dead students, mindlessly following their professors. I talked to several students, and all seemed aware and certainly able to think for themselves. They all expressed different viewpoints, but expressed them reasonably well.



We are told that the anti war movement has been hijacked by the Stalinists and Maoists of ANSWER. The Rally hear did not have any involvement from them. I did see two ANSWER posters (see above), but the couple explained they had received them at another rally in Orlando (I believe). The rally Saturday was organized by Students for Peace, the National Organization of Woman, Vietnam Veterans against War, and others.

Honking for peace is easier than working for peace, I noted. Lots of people did honk for peace.

The rally seemed more serious this time around. The first rally I attended (almost by happenstance) was much more in your face. There were several placards that were very aggressive, that expressed more anti-American views. This time around they seemed like they were more interested in educating than in protesting, which is certainly a positive change.

Said Gabriel "Gabe" Pendes, one of the organizers of the rally, when asked if he saw this movement as working towards any long term goals, "You're organizing against the war, and you also want to . . . these are the kinds of things that really politicize individuals. It forces you to make political decisions. Once you cross that line, once you become aware of your surroundings, it is very difficult to go back and be like, 'Well I just don't care now.'"



Adam Smith (pictured above), commented on his poster, saying, "It's a slogan that's been thrown around. I've heard it at a few rallies, seen it on a button, on a website. . . . [it refers to] the similarities between his regime, his administration and a military coup. They are forwarding war at all costs, and that is their mission statement." Mr. Smith made it clear that he opposed the war at least in part, because of the unilateral way we were pursuing it. He was also concerned that issue was taking precedence over the real danger of nuclear war in Korea.