If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller?
While anti-war activists hoped their rally yesterday would be the “largest peace rally in the nation’s capital since the Vietnam War,” it doesn’t seem they reached their goal. In order to make the rally seem larger than it was, the BBC and other new outlets relied on the organizers’ claim that 100,000 turned out. Little Green Footballs found this picture of the rally at Yahoo and observed that “it looks like the turnout was much less than 100,000 people.”
A reader wrote in to Glenn Reynolds to report the same thing: he did not see 100,000 there either. Jeff Goldstein shows how the MSM has been spinning news of the rally to make it appear larger and more diverse that it actually was.
It seems that every critic of the Iraq war claims that it is another Vietnam, that not only are our troops in the process of losing, but that public opposition is growing. Yet, while polls may show that more Americans oppose the war than did at the time we liberated Iraq from Saddam’s tyranny, the number of those who are fervently opposed to the war does not match that of the Vietnam era.
There were few (if any) large-scale protests when, in August 1964, Congress passed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution effectively declaring war on the Communist government in North Vietnam. Yet, hundreds of thousands (maybe even millions) rallied in cities across the country in 2003 to oppose the impending U.S. (and coalition) war against Saddam’s regime. Even the organizers don’t claim more than 100,000 attended yesterday’s rally. And as I noted above, most observers believe that number to be inflated.
As the war in Vietnam escalated so too did the protests back home, that is, the rallies got bigger. But, as our troops continue to fight the terrorists in Iraq, the size of the rallies has not so increased. Those who follow what’s really going in Iraq know that our involvement there is nothing like that in Vietnam. Although we are experiencing a few setbacks, we are winning the war. And the inability of the anti-war movement to draw a large crowd for their rally yesterday shows that the situation back in the U.S. is nothing like it was in the Vietnam era.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
WELCOME INSTAPUNDIT READERS!! While you’re here, take some time and browse around at one of the blogosphere’s leading gay conservative voices.
ADDENDUM: Michelle Malkin photoblogged the rally. Her pictures show how uncorked some leftists have become.
UPDATE: Fellow Bear-Flag Blogger Baldilocks (and very nice gal) has pictures from a sparsely attended rally in LA.
UP-UPDATE: Jeff Goldstein provides information suggesting that the MSM is massaging the protest numbers. HT: Instapundit.
UP-UP-UPDATE: PrismWarden provides a picture from the rally that is just too creepy to describe.
UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: California Conservative has pictures from a sparsely-attended (and hate-filled) rally in San Francisco.
UP-UP-UP-UP-UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt provides the details which make my point. The first anti-Vietnam War protest in 1965 brought 16,000 to the White House. In November 1969, more than 250,000 protesters — some estimates went as high as 500,000 rallied against the Vietnam War. In other words, back then, the protests got bigger as the war escalated. Thanks, Hugh.
The thing is that this was nothing more than a huge Bush hate fest. Don’t fool yourselves into thinking these “people” actually give a damn about the soldiers serving in Iraq.
The only similarity between Iraq and Vietnam that I see is that the liberals are hell bent on snatching defeat from the jaws of victory just like they did when they spun the Tet Offensive victory into a U.S. failure.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 25, 2005 @ 3:00 am - September 25, 2005
Cindy Sheehan Watch: Anti-War Demonstrations BORE Washington
L-R: Civil rights leader Rev. Jessie Jackson, Anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, NAACP chairman Julian Bond and Rev. Al Sharpton march with thousands of other pro-peace supporters through the streets near the World Bank Group/International Monetary Fund…
Trackback by FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog — September 25, 2005 @ 3:42 am - September 25, 2005
I already have a week’s worth of blog material from the Moron Festival.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 8:48 am - September 25, 2005
I’ve been looking into the protest in London Saturday and, as well as not being able to muster enough marchers to fill a bath, it appears the only parents of soldiers willing to speak out against the war didn’t even lose their kids in Iraq. Pathetic.
Comment by sortapundit — September 25, 2005 @ 9:02 am - September 25, 2005
BBC - Lying in the Streets of London
Much has been made this weekend of the apparent anti-war slant taken by many of those reporters covering the recent Iraq war protests. I notice this morning the same problems arising in, surprise surprise, the BBC. Long regarded as the last word in unb…
Trackback by Sortapundit — September 25, 2005 @ 9:05 am - September 25, 2005
Not to spil your day but the rallies may be small or getting smaller but the numbers of those opposed to the war by every worthwhile poll indicate a growing percentage of Americans now oppose the war and want it ended. These figures grow, esp.with hurricane costs rising.
Comment by fred lapides — September 25, 2005 @ 9:05 am - September 25, 2005
the numbers of those opposed to the war by every worthwhile poll indicate a growing percentage of Americans now oppose the war and want it ended.
Those would be the same polls that gave us president Gore and Kerry.
You guys keep winning the polls, we’ll keep winning the elections.
Comment by TomB — September 25, 2005 @ 9:25 am - September 25, 2005
OK, so our mission this morning is to spin down estimates of the size of the protest yesterday in Washington (which the Wash Post called the “largest of any in DC during the Iraq War” and where the police chief, when asked if the crowd exceeded 150,000, replied “that’s as good a guess as any. It was their protest, not mine. It was peaceful. That’s all I care about.”). Go read it yourselves: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/24/AR2005092401701.html
Are we also minimizing the size of crowds in dozens of other cities across the U.S. on the same day? What’s our Gay Patriot spin on those?
I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to take any cues from Mad Michelle Malkin, the one who gave so much love to internment camps.
I would rather know how the American public feels about all this and, for that, let’s go to the latest Gallup Poll (only one week old), which shows that by a margin of 59% to 39%, the American people now consider this war to have been a mistake, and that Americans disapprove of their President’s handling of the war by a margin of 67% to 32%. (source: http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm).
What’s the spin on that, Gay Patriots?
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 9:36 am - September 25, 2005
I think our spin on that is who gives a shit.
If you lefties decide to stop supporting gay marriage because 60-70% of the American public opposes it, then maybe we can give a shit about your poll numbers. Until then, we’ll support the war in Iraq because no matter how you guys spin your poll numbers, it was, and is, the right thing to do.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 9:40 am - September 25, 2005
Just a small correction. You say that: Even the organizers don’t claim more than 100,000 attended yesterday’s rally.
Well, according to this Yahoo! News story, “by late afternoon organizers of the anti-war demonstration said 300,000 people had assembled.”
To which I can only respond, “Riiiight.”
(via LGF)
Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 9:43 am - September 25, 2005
No. 9, getting a little testing about the poll numbers, eh?
In the interest of full disclosure, those are not my numbers, 9. Those are Gallup’s numbers.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 9:47 am - September 25, 2005
Ah, I see you have no way to resolve the contradiction between claimng poll numbers prove your point on the War in Iraq, but ignoring higher poll numbers against gay marriage. So all you can do is accuse someone who points out this contradiction as being ‘testing.’
How lame is that? Not only can you not come up with an argument, you can’t even get the word right.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 9:56 am - September 25, 2005
Gunn Nutt is going today. He should have lots of pictures up tonight or tomorrow–he’s good at that.
As to poll numbers and support for the war, polls also show Americans are overwhelmingly against pulling out.
Believe it or not, we learned from Vietnam — like not to let anti-American “activists” dictate our national defense.
Comment by rightwingprof — September 25, 2005 @ 10:02 am - September 25, 2005
The other big difference with Vietnam: This war doesn’t directly affect very many people (particularly wrt the draft). That is both good - most of us are going on with our lives and have no interest in the anti-war crowd - and bad - with no vested interest in the outcome support is as tepid as the opposition.
BTW: Your “live preview” brings back 300-baud modem CompuServe Forum nostalgia - I haven’t been able to type faster than characters display since 1988.
Comment by mrsizer — September 25, 2005 @ 10:19 am - September 25, 2005
I think QP’s missing GPW’s point. The poll numbers may be shifting against the war, but there is not a corresponding increase in protest activity. It seems while anti-war sentiment increases in the polls, the moonbat fringe remains firmly the moonbat fringe, without a large swath of middle American support. The BushHitler message simply isn’t resonating. Depsite the best efforts of people to have a Vietnam domestic protest redux, it simply isn’t happening.
Which is pretty interesting.
Comment by Robbie — September 25, 2005 @ 10:22 am - September 25, 2005
No. 12. At least I can blame “testing” on my spell-checker not understanding that I meant “testy”. To what do you attribute “claimng”?
And Lamer, dear, the topic here is opposition to the War On Iraq, not Gay Marriage. If your goal this morning is to get into the mix on Gay Marriage again, let me suggest the thread below entitled “Getting Gay Marriage The Old-Fashioned Way — Earning It”. Perhaps you’ll go there and help us figure out whether Gay Patriots are only bi-sexual, and “not really gay”.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 10:25 am - September 25, 2005
By what standard can GayPatriot claim that we are winning the war? Opposition to the war is growing because it’s not going well. For those of us who knew this was the wrong battle to fight, it comes as no surprise that we find ourselves in the earily familiar position of not being able to win, yet being unable to leave or succede in our stated goals. There are more simmilarities to Viatnam than differences. Keep drinking the coolade gaypatriot. This war is going to hell in a handbasket along with all who advocated it.
Comment by randy — September 25, 2005 @ 10:41 am - September 25, 2005
Oh I understood GayPatriotWest’s point, Robbie. It was this: if we can spin down the size of the anti-war rally, we’ll also spin down the polls and perhaps prevent even more Americans from realizing that we’ve driven the country into another Vietnam-like mess.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 10:44 am - September 25, 2005
QP seems to think Iraq is “another Vietnam”. Of course, those who favor peace at any price will dengrate any and all military efforts as deleterious or unwinnable. What else is new? What QP cannot say is when violence is necessary, and therefore should be supported.
It is clear that no amount of evidence about Saddam’s work with AQ and other terrorists, the genocide of his own people, or the fascist rule he endeavored to extend to all the middle east would sway him to fight. QP is happy when he’s left with his cumfy self. Until, of course, the islamofascists come for him, which is high ontheir list, given their, um, dislike for all things gay.
Comment by Kevin F — September 25, 2005 @ 11:06 am - September 25, 2005
The “protest” in our city of a quarter million was maybe two dozen people ambling through main street with signs. The oldest son (reactionary, as opposed to middle son whose character runs to revolutionary and therefore could not be trusted not to throw things) and I stood on the sidewalk and made comments. “Mom, is it a circus?” “I don’t know. Must be. But it’s all clowns.” Got dirty looks but no one took a swing. Fact son is built like a brick shi*thouse probably helped, too.
Polls have been a tool of the left since the seventies. I don’t think anyone believes them any more. Well, anyone who doesn’t have a vested interest in believing them.
P.
Comment by Portia — September 25, 2005 @ 11:10 am - September 25, 2005
Poll numbers show dissatisfaction regarding the war, in part because many people wish Bush were being MORE aggressive.
The number of lefty America protesters isn’t increasing (not proportionally to dissatisfaction anyway); rather, the number of people who want to WIN are getting impatient. This latter group are not likely to show up at protests holding signs that say “We support our troops…when they kill their officers”, and such.
Most polls will show not only the answers to their main questions, but follow-up and elaboration questions too.
Comment by gnargtharst — September 25, 2005 @ 11:11 am - September 25, 2005
O my, de Nile’s at floodstage.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 11:32 am - September 25, 2005
If a pollster came to me today and asked me if I was satisfied with the president’s handling of the war, I’d say no.
Conflating that with not supporting the war is in error. I support it. I just think the president is doing a not so great job with it at this point in time.
Comment by Robbie — September 25, 2005 @ 11:35 am - September 25, 2005
randy wrote : ” This war is going to hell in a handbasket along with all who advocated it.”
Really? Are you sure? I both advocated it and went to fight in it, and if the above is what you believe, then I must question either your sources or your interpretation of your sources.
Iraq is by no means perfect, but the country is getting better by the day. Could the administration handle some things more effectively? Of course. Leaving al-Sadr alive was (and is) as huge mistake. Disbanding the Saddam-era army in 2003 was a blunder, one that we’re paying for right now, and will be paying for for some time. Do the presence of some ineffective policies, past and present, make for “hell in a handbasket”? I think not.
Iraq has been liberated. Do you think that’s a false statement? Too bad, then, because every Iraqi I talked with over there, even captured insurgents, agreed with me. Of course, the insurgents had a quite different view of how things should be after the liberation, but the country was freed from Saddam nonetheless. The positives in Iraq far outweigh the negatives, but you don’t want to hear that.
I am, with this response, breaking my rule about not trying to convince anybody. I’m sure you won’t be swayed by my post. I could go on and on about building schools, upgrading infrastructure, elections, Baathist death squads out of operation, etc, but it won’t make a difference. You think this war is Vietnam 2 because you want to believe it. The views, thoughts, and opinions of a guy who spent a year of his life in Iraq won’t make a dent, so with that, I’ll sign off.
Bye.
Comment by File Closer — September 25, 2005 @ 11:46 am - September 25, 2005
[...] Gay Patriot asks: “If Iraq is like Vietnam, how come the rallies keep getting smaller?” We propose the photo above as one answer. (HT: Bruce Kesler) [...]
Pingback by Dinocrat » Blog Archive » Our boring, tedious peaceniks — September 25, 2005 @ 11:56 am - September 25, 2005
The majority always supported the Viet Nam war. It was a very vocal minority that stopped that war.
Comment by travis — September 25, 2005 @ 12:10 pm - September 25, 2005
The poll numbers are primarily a tribute to the media’s ability to hype bad news and bury good news. Despite which, the Sheehan/Vietnam option — pull out, surrender, and let the terrorists have Iraq — also does not poll well either … even when the polls, as they often do, deliberately oversample Democrats.
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 12:14 pm - September 25, 2005
It looks like you’ve got it backwards, GP. The rally is getting bigger by the hour. Remember when I pointed out that ANSWER estimated the crowd at 300,000? Well, now the shmucks at DailyKos have upped that to 500,000.
So, to those referring to GP’s post as “spinning down” the number, let me point out that it is the shills for the left wildly throwing numbers around that has cost your side its credibility. Is it any wonder that any number put forth by your side is automatically suspect?
Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 12:18 pm - September 25, 2005
Interesting that it is the MSM, usually accused of spinelessness in their lack of opposition to the Bush machine, who are accused of inflating the numbers for this demo.
Comment by TomChicago — September 25, 2005 @ 12:44 pm - September 25, 2005
Well, I was there for the Vietnam protests, and they had one thing that these protests seem to be missing — hot chicks and lotsa sex. In fact, my opinion was that about 80% of the protesters were basically there for the sex and the drugs. Just one guy’s opinion. That would, however, go a long way in explaining the disparity in numbers of protesters 60s/70s vs today. Take a look at the nasty women in today’s protests. Gah!!
And, as an expert crowd estimator, I am estimating the size of the DC crowd at 10,000,000,000. (Gimme another crack at that bong, willya?)
Actually Mr. Queer, all most of us are asking from the lefties and the moonbats is a modicum of honesty. Not that we’re, like, expecting any, but it would be nice.
You might also show us that you’re pushing for other things that Americans back in large percentages, like: restricting late term abortions; parental notification of abortion; the death penalty; private ownership of guns and concealed carry; tax cuts; tougher controls on welfare; and treating illegal immigrants as if they’re breaking the law.
I’ll eagerly await your response that, since the American public (via Gallup polls) support the above by upwards of 2/3 and more, you will put your shoulder to the wheel and help make them happen.
Thank you.
Comment by JorgXMckie — September 25, 2005 @ 12:59 pm - September 25, 2005
Yeah, so I was actually AT the “rally” yesterday along with a large number of other Americans who actually love our country and support our President. And ya know what? The hippies were just going thru the motions…not at all enthusiastic, just there because it’s yet another opportunity for them to blaming Bush for (fill in the blank) instead of sitting home smoking pot and avoiding work.
As the pics that are floating around on the ‘net clearly demonstrate, it was the same collection of Leftists stereotypes you see at these types of things…the dirty “students” (or at least college-aged people who aren’t actually in school but don’t have a Phish tour to follow), the dirty senior citizens who still think it’s 1968 (and don’t have a Grateful Dead tour to follow), the not-as-dirty but no less unattractive overweight radical feminists, the dim-witted union types with their color-coordinated T-shirts demanding equal something for somebody, the generally angry and, of course, the wacked-out conspiracy theorists who are convinced that Martians - and Bush - are destroying their DNA with inivisible gamma rays. They always have the most ‘interesting’ signs.
But curiously, there were very, very FEW minorities. Nope, almost all of them appeared to be well-fed, middle class folks who took the short spin downtown from their 4-bedroom homes in the leafy Maryland suburbs in their Volvos still with the “Kerry/Edwards” bumper stickers on them. (Those types actually comprise a fairly large sub-culture in the DC area - mostly goverment workers on the high end of the pay scale who couldn’t get a job in the private sector to save their lives). These are the one’s who actually look like Cindy Sheehan, both the men and the women.
And perhaps most glaringly absent was anyone who was even remotely associated with the military. And wasn’t this what this march was supposed to be all about anyway? Certainly no soldiers were there, but I didn’t even see anyone who claimed to be the family member of a soldier, such as Mamma Moonbat. Seems that the moms and dads with kids still over in Iraq and Afghanistan actually support their children’s efforts and understand that to pull the rug out from under them at home only puts them in greater danger overseas . Unfortunately, Cindy must believe that since her own son’s gone then everybody else’s kids are now fair game and she’s gonna do her level best to make sure other parents can share her grief and - therefore - will join her so-called movement.
So, don’t you believe that this anti-war movement is “broad-based”, people. It’s not. If this sentiment were really a growing as Daily Kos, Queer Patriot (only the newest incarnation of “Reader”, in case you couldn’t tell), and other delusion asshats would have you believe, then we’d have actually seen a broad-base of American society turning out instead of the usual suspects from the Left.
I hope they enjoyed their little party because that was their big chance to show the world that America is really a nation of pacifist cowards who are never prepared to fight and who will always flee in the face of adversity or challenge. And unfortuately for them, they failed.
And I also hope they cleaned up after themselves for the big figgin’ mess they left on the Mall this weekend (because all that cardboard causes global warming and hurricanes, don’t ya know.) But I don’t expect they will becuase these people are actually the most selfish, least considerate humans mankind can produce, always willing to tell YOU what you’re doing wrong but never, ever willing to take responsibility for their own words and actions. But when you’ve made a career out of being bitter, I guess it’s just easier to throw darts from the sidelines than to actually DO something constructive. Like pick up your own trash. Or get a job. Or take a bath. Or put down the bong. Or…
PS: Yes, I’m back.
Comment by glisteny — September 25, 2005 @ 1:06 pm - September 25, 2005
I think the anti-Vietnam war movement (as in large scale public demonstrations) collapsed after Nixon got rid of the draft. I’ll bet if you asked people to pay for this war directly with progam cuts, higher taxes, or military conscription you’d see some pretty big anti-war demonstrations.
Comment by anon — September 25, 2005 @ 1:07 pm - September 25, 2005
No. 23, then you’d be among the differential between the 59% of Americans who consider the war to have been a mistake and the 67% who disapprove of the President’s handling of it. Like you, about 8% don’t think it was a mistake, yet disapprove of the President’s handling of it.
No. 24, if you served there, thank you for that service. And you’re right to point out the good that our troops have done there and to insist that no Americans, not even the most ardent anti-war of us, should ever denigrate what Americans at troop level have tried to do. And you have indeed helped liberate Iraq of Saddam. The real worry from this side of the issue is that we will have done that at huge costs in blood and tax dollars and in the process, left an opening for something even worse to follow him in the next few years.
No. 26 is simply in error when he writes, “The majority always supported the Viet Nam war. It was a very vocal minority that stopped that war.” Here’s a link to see for yourself that Americans began to turn against the Vietnam War midway during its nine years, and by its conclusion were 60% opposed. Source: Gallup as found at http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/11765
Perhaps because No. 27 is such a hard-set partisan, he thinks everyone else is hard-set into one of the two parties, and he doesn’t understand that Americans shift around on party identification and that poll proportions reflect those shifts. So, No. 27 sees a few more Democrats in a poll’s composition and charges that pollsters “deliberately oversample Democrats” — for which he will never provide you with any evidence.
No. 28. If our side has “lost its credibility”, it’s certainly not reflected in the 59% and 67% cited above, is it? It’s your side which has lost credibility with the American people, but you’ll never realize it, at least not while you’re struggling in those deep waters of de Nile.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 1:09 pm - September 25, 2005
Oh, yeah, if the crowd ‘estimates’ of 100,000 (or especially 300,000) are correct, there should be some really, really good pictures of all those people, shouldn’t there. I fully expect Mr. Queer to quickly link us to these so we can see for ourselves the truth of his compratriots statements. (Who you gonna believe? Us Moonbats or your lyin’ eyes?)
Comment by JorgXMckie — September 25, 2005 @ 1:11 pm - September 25, 2005
Robbie makes an excellent point. The hard left fringe is just that - the hard left fringe. Regardless of shrinking Presidential approval ratings, mainstream America won’t touch this group with a long pole and gloves.
I know your links mention it, but a couple of points of interest: CNN also spun the numbers at 600,000 for a while, then rescinded (and one of your commenters now cites Kos’ claim of 500,000). One gets the impression there aren’t a lot of hard facts here, just hearsay spun both ways. But then there is the fact that the 2005 National Book Festival was held in this same area, attracting around 70-80,000 people (as it had in previous years). Considering the apparent sloppiness in gathering the numbers (something no one has adequately addressed), it is possible - in fact, it seems likely - that these crowds were simply lumped into the antiwar rally crowd. Also left out of the equation was the numbers of people coming out in support of the administration. I have no estimate of that number, but again it does not seem to have been broken out seperately. All we really know is that there were people in the area. We have little hard information as to their individual reasosn for being there. As the police quote mentioned, the cops “didn’t care”, as long as there was no trouble. Cops who don’t care about why the crowds are there aren’t stopping people and asking “Why are you in DC today?”.
(Side issue: The fact that cops aren’t emotionally involved is a good litmus test. During the zenith of the Vietnam protests, arguments over the war reached into the cop houses, a fair reflection of middle America. That signaled the beginning of the end of support for the war. Nothing like that seems to have happened here. There’s a gap between poll numbers and actual convictions.)
Again, as Robbie said, the numbers don’t matter much unless the crowds become reflective of something in addition to the hard left. There is no evidence of this at all as one looks through pictures of the event. In fact, the available images of those coming out to support the administration and those who hate the administration are strikingly different in the kinds of people portrayed. It is when they begin looking the same that one senses some veracity in the comparisons with Vietnam.
Comment by Mr. Snitch! — September 25, 2005 @ 1:17 pm - September 25, 2005
I watched some of the broadcast, it was indeed a Bush Hatefest. When I watched the final speaker, a black activist who brought out the race card and Katrina again, the camera finally panned to the crowd. Which at that point consisted of maybe 25-30 people! Inflation of attendance is SOP for these people, when Cindy Sheehan went through Raleigh they reported 1000+ people showed up. I was there, counted the crowds at both her appearances, not more than 300 max, and of those, a bunch had come with her on the buses. It’s all part of the disinformation/propaganda campaign; let’s hope a lot of people see through it.
Comment by NamPhotog — September 25, 2005 @ 1:33 pm - September 25, 2005
All Clear
Whew, looks like Houston dodged a bullet. Lair’s photo-journal of the damage near his place is a must see. While…
Trackback by Quite Early One Morning — September 25, 2005 @ 1:46 pm - September 25, 2005
O my. I’ve never seen such a commotion over estimates of crowd size. Odd how this worries you so much, while you’re apparently unconcerned about the steep decline in support for the war among the larger American public.
No. 31, who are you? Who were you? Who do you hope to be? And where are you back from?
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 1:50 pm - September 25, 2005
You’re right. I took the Metro in this AM (had to work), and I saw A LOT more people headed in to the game than hippie protestors.
In fact, the only group I saw at L’Enfant were two OLD women and an old man. It was almost sad, watching them try to figure out how to work a Metro card just like every other tourist moron.
p.s. I hate tourist season.
Comment by Joe Blow — September 25, 2005 @ 2:02 pm - September 25, 2005
So you don’t see any significance in the difference between crowd sizes and polling numbers? Really? It’s easy to answer a poll question. People tired of it all who wish it would end answer the same way as people who live and breathe the desire that the US roll over and die.
To whomever upthread claimed we’re losing the operation in Iraq, where do you get that information? From the media that doesn’t leave the green zone? That’s pretty much inexcusable in this day and age when soldiers in theatre are virtually sitting at your elbow typing their experiences and impressions on the keyboard next to you. Same with Iraqi bloggers, and Kurds, and little girls who love cats. TIME magazine has a cover “Is it too late to win” well, that’s a whole lot more interesting than “this is going to take a while and be really boring”. The first implies not only uncertainty at the outcome but the likelyhood of failure.
Go to the blogs. Read about life in Iraq from the Iraqis who live it. See pictures of school children at a sidewalk art festival. Read about vacations to the north where it’s cool and beautiful. Ponder what it means when a Kurdish young man muses about the elections and the fact that women outnumber men by a sizable number in Kurdish communities just because Sadam killed so many of the men. See the incredible artwork by a famous marsh arab painter, maybe even buy a print. Listen to our guys when they talk about driving through Shiite neighborhoods and then driving through a Sunni one. Listen to them when they talk about the smiles or glares they recieve and who looks at them what way. I’ve read side splitting accounts of imagined dialog between the terps (interpretors) and the locals.
If you think we’re losing, think about where you’re getting that information and ask yourself why the soldiers on the ground dealing with real Iraqis every day think we’re winning.
Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 2:32 pm - September 25, 2005
“The views, thoughts, and opinions of a guy who spent a year of his life in Iraq won’t make a dent, so with that, I’ll sign off.”
Just wanted to say *thank you* for serving. Thank you for being our representative to all those Iraqis that you had contact with.
And unfortunately, you’re right.
Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 2:37 pm - September 25, 2005
I think the only people who watched the actual protest speeches were the people who will blog of their insanity and Al Jazeera so they can show Al Qaida “spokemen” for their talking points.
Comment by Ethan — September 25, 2005 @ 2:43 pm - September 25, 2005
It looks like the pull out folks standard for Iraq after the American pullout is “No Worse Than Rawanda”. Being such great humanitrians and all.
Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 2:46 pm - September 25, 2005
Not one more American life. Who gives a sh*t what happens to the Iraqis when we leave.
Not our problem.
Not our business.
And this from *liberals?* And the signs say that Bush hates brown people. Uh huh.
Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 2:57 pm - September 25, 2005
Let’s put it this way. The Iraq war has its own, utterly unique immoral stupidities.
Not that I think the US should leave. I don’t think that. Nor do I think the US should stay.
I think that as long as Bush is president, it makes little difference as he would screw up a withdrawal just as badly as he would screw up staying in Iraq.
Tragically, we cannot even hope for a possibility of an improvement until the Bush administration is history, meaning January, 2009.
Comment by tristero — September 25, 2005 @ 2:58 pm - September 25, 2005
Some of the reason for decline in support for the war is that some folks believe it is not being fought hard enough.
That does not translate into Dem votes.
That does not translate into a desire for cut and run.
Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 3:23 pm - September 25, 2005
Tristero,
Ever wonder why no one takes you seriously? Here’s a hint, drop the Chimpy McBushitler “Bush is an idiot” spiel. Instead, focus on thinking about a room full of adults seriously thinking about strategic goals and coming up with a final decision. Consider that another roomfull of college kids disagrees with this strategy because their goals are not the same as the adults’, and that their response is to label the adults as incompetent and stupid.
Get the picture as to why no one listens to the college kids?
Comment by Same Guy — September 25, 2005 @ 3:31 pm - September 25, 2005
Something is very wrong here…….. this story is now on our news sight…… Help us Michelle Malkin, set them straight….
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170344,00.html
Comment by UH OH — September 25, 2005 @ 3:40 pm - September 25, 2005
Some of us get into a commotion over crowd size because it’s a useful surrogate for the general honesty of those pushing a viewpoint. If they lie about, or are unwilling to give evidence for, that, what else are they being less than honest about. Answer: just about everything.
Mr. Queer, how old are you? Were you there for the Vietnam protests, as I was? Those Gallup numbers are based on questions that dumped even those who thought we should nuke Hanoi into the ‘anti-war’ numbers. The questions didn’t differentiate among the various reasons why people were unhappy. Many Viet vets and Viet Era vets (like me) wanted the war either prosecuted right (more vigorously and no ’safe zones’) or not fought at all, but we preferred to fight.
Like I say, a little honesty would go a long way, but I don’t expect it now any more than I did back then. Some people’s arguments are just too weak to stand on truth and facts and they know it.
Comment by JorgXMckie — September 25, 2005 @ 3:46 pm - September 25, 2005
Just found your blog. I’m not homosexual, but I am a conservative who, at the very least, doesn’t spend all my time worried about how gays and lesbians are taking over and corrupting the values of America, precisely because they are not and are deserving of the same rights as heterosexual Americans. Anyway, I think your blog is great, a huge kick-in-the-pants of the secular, leftist gay rights movement. Keep it up!
Comment by Jess — September 25, 2005 @ 3:49 pm - September 25, 2005
Nice try, QP, but I won’t let you obfuscate my point that easily. You know perfectly well that the poll numbers you cited have nothing to do with your team’s credibility problem that I was talking about.
It is a FACT that your side is bandying about wildly varied estimates of crowd size. (Or will you try to deny that it’s a fact that 150, 300, and 500 thousand are wildly varied?)
It is also a FACT that political groups tend to put forth numbers that present the best case scenario for their own side.
And, finally, it is a FACT that, when a group has a history of making incorrect estimates/predictions, and when those errors have a history of being in the same direction (overestimation), any new claims they make are judged as likely to be following the previously established pattern.
So, do you think it is beneficial to your side’s reputation as it relates to future estimates of ANYTHING that this disparity in crowd size estimates is occurring now and has occurred in the past?
There is NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL about saying that, in the presence of multiple, incompatible claims about X by Y, Y’s credibility will take a hit. This is true regardless of the nature of X or the political leanings of Y. And yet, when I pointed that out, you responsed with, “I know you are, but what am I?”
This is a perfect example of one of the major obstacles your team faces: Refusing to acknowledge a problem doesn’t make it go away. (If Lefty fails a test, his grade won’t improve simply because he points out that Righty failed it, too.)
But, hey. If you wish to keep pretending that your team is above facing up to the problems that plague every team on the field, knock yourself out. As a matter of fact, I would encourage you to continue with that strategy. Because, while you’re busy patting yourself on the back, I’ll be over here trying to improve my team’s handling of those very same issues.
We’ll see whose team gets to the top first.
Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 3:54 pm - September 25, 2005
Gaypatriot is right on the money again
And I might also add Sane people were protesting the war back then to. Now the lunatic kooks are out in force protesting.
Look at the election in ‘04… the polls went big for Kerry. When you corrected the sampling Biases designed to -MAKE- the po…
Trackback by Inside Larry's head — September 25, 2005 @ 4:02 pm - September 25, 2005
In the Yahoo photo we’ve all seen, I see a crowd filling a romboid area about 400 feet wide and 400 feet tall. That’s 160,000 square feet. At 4 square feet per person (which is quite tight), that would give us 40,000 people. I don’t know if the Yahoo photo was taken at the peak population, or didn’t miss some separate but related crowd, but I am pretty sure that the photo includes a number of people within a factor of 2 of my estimate (i.e., 20,000 to 80,000). If beyond this range, the true count is more likely to be lower; because the Ellipse wasn’t even full, it is more likely that the crowd was slightly less packed than would be the case with a larger crowd (or the same crowd in a smaller setting).
Comment by DWPittelli — September 25, 2005 @ 4:06 pm - September 25, 2005
O my. The InstaPundit crowd they let in here today are even wilder-eyed than we’d been led to believe. And what a gang of sharpies they are! One of them keeps referring to a “Mr. Queer” and nobody here can figure out who’s supposed to answer. It’s called “Gay” Patriot for a reason fellas — we’re all “Mr. Queer”.
In No. 48, Uh Oh brings (with a good meaure of humor) the depressing news to many here that they gave an anti- anti-war party in DC today and virtually no one came. Not even a thousand there for us to work with in making some of the same comparisons between public opinion polling and protest rallies that the Gay Patriots and the InstaHooligans are making. Here’s how the Associated Press put it (and you can take your Down With The MSM diatribes to them, I didn’t write it):
—”Support for U.S. troops fighting abroad mixed with anger toward anti-war demonstrators at home as hundreds of people, far fewer than organizers had expected, rallied Sunday on the National Mall just a day after a massive protest against the war in Iraq.”
No. 51, Dexter Green, please tell us again: what was the point that you feared might have become obfuscated? And can you please supply it in 20 words or less? After all, it’s Sunday (after a wonderful Saturday night spent in the bowels of a half-dozen smoky, beer drenched queer bars, doing you know what) and we’re not supposed to be working.
Oh, it’s that time once again…time for Tea Dance. Toodles.
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 4:36 pm - September 25, 2005
QP: Ah, changing the subject again. At least you’re consistent. Answer my question, and I’ll consider answering yours.
Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 4:59 pm - September 25, 2005
Welcome back, glisteny. You’re a treat to read as usual.
Tristero said: Not that I think the US should leave. I don’t think that. Nor do I think the US should stay.
Is that the same as Kerry’s “I first voted for the war and then I voted against it?” Sounds like typical liberal schizophrenia to me.
Comment by PatC — September 25, 2005 @ 5:06 pm - September 25, 2005
No. 55, I didn’t ask you a question, so there’s nothing for you to answer. But you seem to have a question for me — so, once again, out with it, man. What’s all your pussy-footing about?
Comment by Queer Patriot — September 25, 2005 @ 5:21 pm - September 25, 2005
If size matters, what of the comparatively paltry few hundred attending the “pro-Bush” rally?
Comment by John P Slevin — September 25, 2005 @ 6:05 pm - September 25, 2005
So, how many were at the Pro-War counter rally?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050925/ap_on_re_us/war_rally
Wow! All 400 war supporters showed up! And how much did Bush raise in private funds for the war effort?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1577750,00.html
$600.00! People must really support this war to pony up that much cash!
I think it’s pretty obvious that the tide is turning against this ill-conceived and poorly executed war- most people want to rebuild New Orleans by reducing our spending in Iraq. 67% percent now disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war.
Anyone who still believes that Iraq will be a peaceful democratic utopia which is a friendly nation to the US and a beacon to the middle east is seriously delusional. Do you really want to stay until “Falluja Disneyland®” can be established?
Comment by BUSH RULEZ! — September 25, 2005 @ 6:18 pm - September 25, 2005
glisteny,
I support the war and the Pres. I miss the Grateful Dead Tours.
Could we stick to the issues and skip the stereotypes?
Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 6:28 pm - September 25, 2005
NVC, Viet-Congs, and terrorists and insurgents realize they can win by not losing. I don’t understand why conservatives believe if we kill enough insurgents they’ll stop. The point is, they’ll never stop and there will always be another insurgent. Americans are realizing this and it’s being reflected in the polls.
We’ll withdrawal before next year’s 06 election. Our military is be stretched and is beginning to be degraded. The military won’t allow this to happen. We can infuse the Iraq with more troops, but that would require a draft and that will never happen.
The only option is withdrawal. Declare victory and leave. That’s why the insurgent is targeting the government. The insurgent strategic goal is to ensure the Iraqi security force remain weak. It’ll make it that much easier for them to take over when the Americans leave. Does anybody here really think we’re doing a good job of preparing the Iraqies?
Of course, converservative will blame the liberals. They forget it was Nixon who drew down our forces in Vietnam. Perhaps, we should give more credit for our adversaries. The North Vietnamese had a plan, the will and beat us…not the liberals. The Iraqi insurgents have a plan, the will and because we have an incompentant conservative government, we’re going to lose.
Our best bet is to partition the country, Kurds to the North and Shiite to the South. The Shiites will create an alliance with Iran. Baghdad will just have to remain a mess.
Of course, we have an incompetant government so who knows how this will turn out.
Comment by TellTheMan — September 25, 2005 @ 6:41 pm - September 25, 2005
No, TellTheMan,
That won’t work.
Partioning Iraq by outside government was and is a large part of the problem. Kuwait didn’t exist before the British sliced it out of Iraq—that dissed the Iraqi people. That was incompetent government; and that, of course, is an oxymoron.
How about we just respect the Iraqi people (Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites), rather than trying, again, to choose a leader for them? Respecting them, first, by leaving them alone.
The last tyrant was ours and we heavily armed that monster (Reagan/Bush). That, truly, was and is incompetent government; again, an oxymoron.
Comment by John P Slevin — September 25, 2005 @ 7:00 pm - September 25, 2005
I was at the march (because I love my country) and I think that the picture Little Green Footballs linked to doesn’t show the whole crowd. I’m trying to figure out from that where I would have been and I’m pretty sure there was an entire section in front of the Commerce building and lining the street that isn’t shown there. People were jammed for blocks and jammed into a park section that isn’t shown. Perhaps the picture was taken later in the afternoon when some people were gathering near the Washington monument for concerts but most were leaving or had left?
Not to upset anyone, but it was a huge gathering. And it was passionate. And there were veterans there. I stood near a group called “Veterans for Peace.”
I wish people like at this site would realize that liberals aren’t the cardboard cutout the conservatives love to demonize. Yes, I’m against the war because I didn’t think the Bush administration was honest or capable. (And was against it from the beginning. I thought the inspectors should have been allowed to continue and that we should have kept our eyes on Osama Bin Ladin.) Yes, I would have been against a war to bring democracy to Iraq because I don’t think you bring democracy on the point of a bayonet. But I’m for a stable democratic Iraq. Duh. However, I’m for my country’s best interests, and so I am worried about the way in which we’ve delivered political power to Iran with an ill-conceived, badly waged war and occupation.
And of course I abhor waste, and the amount of money we’ve poured into Iraq without building infrastructure and a stable labor force shocks and appalls me.
I’m just your average, ordinary, American liberal.
Cheers.
Comment by Leslie — September 25, 2005 @ 7:04 pm - September 25, 2005
So right wing ideologues did not see 100,000 at the rally. SURPRISE! It shows shows that people see what they want to see and don’t see what they don’t want to see.
According to the Washington Post WHICH SUPPORTED THE WAR:
Antiwar Fervor Fills the Streets
Demonstration Is Largest in Capital Since U.S. Military Invaded Iraq.
Comment by Captain Video — September 25, 2005 @ 7:21 pm - September 25, 2005
Actually we are about to send Karen Hughes over there to win the hearts and minds….. let’s see if they greet her with flowers and candy. God knows she will appreciate the candy. It’s clearly obvious that 10 minutes from Normal is only 5 minutes from McDonalds!
Comment by Jim Beam — September 25, 2005 @ 7:26 pm - September 25, 2005
“Although we are experiencing a few setbacks, we are winning the war.”
That’s what we kept hearing from supporters of the Vietnam war too.
This type of argument is just one of the ways Iraq resembles Vietnam.
Comment by Captain Video — September 25, 2005 @ 7:28 pm - September 25, 2005
Tell The Man:
Actually, after Tet 1968 the North could only defeat the South with a conventional (armored) invasion. When Nixon was President they made an attempt, easily beaten back by US air support and ammunition supplies to the South. But in 1975, with a weakened President Ford and strongly Democratic Congress, the North invaded again, the US could not be bothered even to send ammo to the South, and so the North won. So I don’t think we can blame Nixon merely because he achieved Vietnamization, a US pullout, and a peace treaty, when the position he left us was readily defendable.
Comment by DWPittelli — September 25, 2005 @ 7:43 pm - September 25, 2005
We should leave Iraq now.
It wouldn’t turn out any worse than Rawanda.
Comment by M. Simon — September 25, 2005 @ 7:48 pm - September 25, 2005
I blogged some photos from the LA rally. I was in downtown LA and just by chance happened upon the protest going on. Interesting folk, those moonbats.
Comment by wordsmith — September 25, 2005 @ 8:11 pm - September 25, 2005
#67 — And after we left Vietnam, the result was a genocide in which millions were brutally killed and their skulls were stacked in pyramids. The ultimate legacy of the 60’s Peace Movement. Now, they want the same thing in Iraq.
And now they bitch and whine and shriek “failure” because the first draft of Islamic democracy isn’t quite as liberal as Norway. (And, oh, how they shrieked, “Failure! Failure!” when the Iraqis were a whole three days late in finishing the draft constitution.) Obviously, the left prefers the perfect brutality of Saddam or the Taliban to a flawed democracy. Little wonder, then, that they sing the praises of Castro, Chavez, Mugabe, Kim Jong-Il…
Comment by V the K — September 25, 2005 @ 8:28 pm - September 25, 2005
What a bizarre blog. The same dozen people making comments, which is the entire readership I’m sure. No gay person I know holds these right wing views, and the whole country knows that tens of thousands of people were marching in DC this weekend. You guys have such a lame case supporting Bush that you resort to lying, even to yourselves. How pathetic.
Comment by Don — September 25, 2005 @ 8:53 pm - September 25, 2005
Well, QP, I’m pretty sure the question mark serves the same purpose on your side of the political spectrum as it does on mine. I already asked the question; if you don’t have the reading comprehension skills to find it, that’s not my problem. Similarly, if you’re just trying to jerk me around because you don’t want to address the question–also not my problem. As I said, I’m perfectly happy for you and yours to keep pursuing your “head in the sand” strategy. Good luck with that.
Comment by dexter green — September 25, 2005 @ 9:04 pm - September 25, 2005
“Anyone who still believes that Iraq will be a peaceful democratic utopia which is a friendly nation to the US and a beacon to the middle east is seriously delusional.”
And this is typical.
Who deals in absolutes here? Who can’t fathom nuance?
Who gives a flying rat’s behind if Iraq is friendly to the US? A sovereign nation can be expected to operate in it’s own best interest. Turkey is hardly our bussom buddy but not anywhere near an enemy either. That would be plenty good enough. Pakistan can take us or leave us. Fine and dandy.
The thing is, and this is proven again and again, that the sorts who set up the straw man that RULEZ did above, don’t really believe that freedom and autonomy are good things. They don’t believe that, given freedom, people or governments will make good, or at least *functional* choices.
A free society is always to some measure chaotic. Duh. No nation exists where there isn’t crime or strife. Duh.
Iraq won’t be perfect but maybe they can face a future without xenocide, huh? Maybe they can be a model for the region (along with Afghanistan) that shows how to function in a system that expects and allows dissidents to express themselves freely?
But OH NOOOOOO…. if it’s not immediately a UTOPIA we’ve FAILED.
Sheesh.
Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 10:00 pm - September 25, 2005
Don-
After the 1972 presidential election (Nixon in a landslide), Manhattan theatre critic Pauline Kael famously remarked, “How can that be? No one I know voted for Nixon.”
I’d suggest that perhaps there’s a selection bias in the people you discuss politics with. About a quarter of self-identified gays and lesbians voted for GWB in the last election. You’ll find some of them here, and at a dozen or more blogs in the blogroll, if you’re interested in finding out why.
Comment by Clint — September 25, 2005 @ 10:02 pm - September 25, 2005
Let’s see, there’s around 150 Iraqis to every 1 US or British soldier. If the Iraqi people were so upset about having their country invaded and their great leader thrown out of power, there would be a lot more dead soldiers by now……..a HELLUVA lot more dead soldiers.
The invasion of Iraq has put Arab dictators in a pickle. If democracy succeeds, they lose. If the insurgents (i.e. Islamist terrorists) succeed, they also lose. Mubarek, Assad, and all the rest of the little Hitlers thought we’d just invade Afghanistan and go home.
But the 9/11 terrorists didn’t target Alaska or South Dakota, they targeted two of our major cities. Arabia is the birthplace and spiritual HQ of Islamic extremism. They attacked our Mecca and Medina, so at the very least, we had to attack their Chicago (Bagdhad) or Los Angeles (Damascus) in order to send the message….WE KNOW WHAT YOU BASTARDS ARE ALL ABOUT.
Comment by The Fop — September 25, 2005 @ 10:06 pm - September 25, 2005
#71
Hey Don… you don’t suppose that there are a few people in the world who don’t conform to the ones you know?
Must be a pleasant place to be, able to dismiss what seems strange to you.
Lord knows that gay people are all identical. They’re all far left liberals who like show tunes and promiscuous unsafe sex…
Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 10:15 pm - September 25, 2005
TellTheMan (#61)-
There may be conservatives who believe that the way to win is to “kill all the terrorists”. Thankfully, George W. Bush is not one of them. Read any of his speeches on terrorism and the War. Any of them. In September of 2001, he told us, and he told the World, what the strategy was: drain the swamp.
Iraq used to be an active aggressor against the United States, and it used to sponsor terror. In the President’s metaphor, it was a swamp. There are still terrorists (or insurgents, if you prefer) in Iraq. But, more and more, they are relying on support and funding and even manpower from Syria and Iran.
If you want to see how the War is going, take a minute out from the new Chief Justice and the latest hurricane (not that those aren’t both important news) and read a bit about the latest offensive in Tal Afar. As you say — body counts aren’t the true sign of our victory there (though those lopsided figures tell us quite a bit about the relative competence of the Iraqi troops we’ve trained and the “insurgents”). What you should be looking at are: (1) The new Iraqi military took the lead, and kicked the ever-living-sh*t out of the Syrian-supported terrorists. (2) Syria responded, as it has continued to respond to our military victories in the west of Iraq, by decreasing its support for the terrorists and backing off.
Of course our troops aren’t going to keep fighting the war in the frontlines 24-7-365. That’s why (1) was so important — the Iraqi troops have proven that they will be able to (increasingly) take over that role. We could argue over whether it’s 30,000 Iraqis or 60,000 Iraqis who are now ready to step into that role, but it’s definitely in that range. And far more are ready to step into the supporting roles our National Guard and Reserve troops have been fulfilling. There will be far fewer U.S. troops in Iraq next summer than there are now (perhaps a factor of two less?) — but not because we’ve “declared victory” and washed our hands of the place.
To answer your question: Yes. I think we’re doing a good job of training the Iraqis to fight. The proof, as always, is in the pudding — and Tal Afar was a very good start. It could be two years before Iraq is ready to stand on its own against the “insurgents”, with our troops just based there to provide backup in case of a major invasion, but there’s plenty of time for us to get there before we risk having a “bring-them-home-now” incompetent in the White House.
Comment by Clint — September 25, 2005 @ 10:40 pm - September 25, 2005
#75 “Let’s see, there’s around 150 Iraqis to every 1 US or British soldier. If the Iraqi people were so upset about having their country invaded and their great leader thrown out of power, there would be a lot more dead soldiers by now……..a HELLUVA lot more dead soldiers.”
There are so few US soldiers getting killed in Iraq that the news is able to report each death individually. There are so few US soldiers getting killed in Iraq that the US news has started to report total “deaths” including Iraqi military and civilians. Though usually the headline leaves that part ambiguous so that we might be led to believe that the deaths were our guys. This is a curious thing, because the “not one more American death” crowd doesn’t care why kind of unrest or genocide follows our withdrawl. Bring our troops home NOW! Let the brown skinned non-Americans slaughter each other, who the heck cares? It’s win-win, really because Bush can be blamed for that too! Yay!
How much do these people bother to learn about Iraq? Sistani has a nice web site, btw… The Sunni minority was doing well under Sadam. No one else was. The Kurds were buried in mass graves or else gassed and left to rot. The Marsh Arabs faced systematic genocide. Most of the Shiites lived in enforced poverty. But we don’t want *them* in power because the Iranians are mostly Shiite! All these internationally sophisticated idiots not having a clue that Iraqi and Iranian Shiites are different ethnic and language groups.
But, but… the US *supported* Sadam!
Yeah? So we have to continue with the same “reality based” policy of supporting evil warlords in the name of stability as we did in the past despite the inescapable evidence that it only makes matters worse?
And who upthread complained that we don’t build infrastucture in Iraq? Do some research. IED’s make far more dramatic headlines than opening schools or roads or water treatment. Our military has civil affairs units going outside the wire every day to work at rebuilding what Sadam let rot to dust while he built another palace for his chums. Those units don’t make the news unless they get blown up.
I wonder why that is.
Comment by Synova — September 25, 2005 @ 10:43 pm - September 25, 2005
you guys (2? 3?) are nuts! If your take on this is that the anti-war crowd only numbered 100,000 and therefor represents a very small group of folk, how do you explain the less than 200 who showed up to support the war?
Comment by chezchas — September 25, 2005 @ 11:32 pm - September 25, 2005
(which the Wash Post called the “largest of any in DC during the Iraq War”
Aren’t these the same folks who said there were actually a million men at the Million Man March?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 26, 2005 @ 12:40 am - September 26, 2005
“we had to attack their Chicago (Bagdhad)… in order to send the message….WE KNOW WHAT YOU BASTARDS ARE ALL ABOUT.”
What total nonsense. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 and was not a threat to U.S. security.
The war against Iraq was an unprovoked war of agression against a country that used to be our ally and had not done us any significant wrong.
Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 1:29 am - September 26, 2005
“Interesting folk, those moonbats.”
When you cannot win a debate with rational arguments or appeal to evidence, all is not lost. You can still call your opponents bad names.
A majority of the American people now believe that the war against Iraq was a mistake and that we should at least begin withdrawing some troops. Apparently the majority of the American people are moonbats. Why do right wing ideologues hate the American people?
Comment by Captain Video — September 26, 2005 @ 1:33 am - September 26, 2005
“O my. The InstaPundit crowd they let in here today are even wilder-eyed than we’d been led to believe. And what a gang of sharpies they are! One of them keeps referring to a “Mr. Queer” and nobody here can figure out who