The Port of Olympia has had a long series of protests, targeting the movement of military equipment. Our local news organizations commonly refer to the often violent demonstrators as "anti-war protesters", as you can see in this example.
Five anti-war protesters were arrested Thursday after trying to block the movement of military equipment out of the Port of Olympia.
Several semi-trucks moved at least a dozen military vehicles, including Stryker vehicles used in Iraq, out of the port and back to the Fort Lewis throughout the day without incident. In the afternoon, five protesters sat down in the intersection in front of the port and were pepper sprayed by police before being arrested.
If you read the whole article you will see that the Associated Press does not name any of the "anti-war protesters", even though five were arrested, does not name the organization running these protests, nor does it tell us what the "protesters" want. I picked that article because it is typical; our local news organizations have shown almost no curiosity about these "protesters", not even asking the standard questions: who, what, and why. (They have no trouble telling us where and when.)
There are sometimes hints in the articles. This Seattle PI article names two of the "protesters", and notes that they are members of the far left Students for a Democratic Society. (At least I think that's what the SDS in the article stands for.) There is some reason to think that this shadowy organization is coordinating the often violent protests. The name, Olympia Movement for Justice & Peace, is suggestive. In the past those on the hard left have often included "peace" and "justice" in the names of their front organizations. (By "peace" they usually meant victory for communism, by "justice" they usually meant killing those who disagreed with them.) But the name may just be a coincidence.
We can guess part of what the "protesters" want. By their actions they show that they want an American defeat in Iraq, and a victory for our terrorist enemies. Beyond that? It's hard to say, though I think it more likely that they are on the hard left than that they actually back the radical Islamists (or, as some call them, the Islamo-fascists).
So, here's a challenge for our local journalists: Commit journalism. Find out the answers to those basic questions. Tell us who these "anti-war protesters" are, and what they want. And if you want to be a real reporter, you might even ask them why they desire an American defeat — and a victory for the terrorists.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(At least one journalist has been threatened by the protesters.
Michelle Malkin has been covering the protests extensively; here's her latest post on them.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 16, 2007 08:30 AM | Email ThisI can't tell, for instance, whether they can be sued. (Which might be a good idea, if they are responsible for some of the violence and threats of violence.)
Nor do they explain what their own political beliefs are. Anarchists? Hard Left? Hard left posing as anarchists? They don't say.
Posted by: Jim Miller on November 16, 2007 09:05 AMThey'd wake up in intensive care to find themselves handcuffed to their beds...
Posted by: John Galt on November 16, 2007 09:13 AMPrager had a call yesterday on the issue and the caller suggested the root cause being the College down there. But, perhaps it is more sinister (shadowy).
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2007 09:16 AMStop coddling these lawbreakers.
Posted by: Norm on November 16, 2007 09:19 AMAfter Rachel Corrie died (she being an ESC graduate) her parents and 'esteemed' professors called in to a few NW radio shows - and all of them are just a hair shy of full blown moonbat-y-ness.
What they teach those kids should be investigated; classes on how to be rowdy and hating the US are always crowd pleasers.
But the bigger issue is how little these kids are taught about American History and our place in the world. Idiots like Corrie deserve exactly what they get - she hated the country she was born in and her parents have exploited her death, along with the "profs" at that 'school' .. Its all quite shameful and calling it a 'college' is laughable at best.
Posted by: Ann on November 16, 2007 10:07 AMAlso, liberal and Democratic Party protestations to the contrary ("of course we support our troops - we just oppose their mission"), these so-called "anti-war" activists don't "support the troops."
Disruption of our troops' mission directly endangers their lives, and (if successful) would literally aid our enemies.
From my own 1960s and 1970s experience as a leftist antiwar protester, I know from the inside how radical extremist elements manipulated the so-called "Vietnam peace movement," objectively aiding the communist enemy and helping increase the possibility of communist victory. That communist victory, in turn, led to the massacre of millions and to vast related human tragedy.
Today's "anti-war" radicals, like those of the 1960s and 1970s, bristle at any statement regarding their lack of patriotism. But the far left elements manipulating anti-war sentiment are far from patriotic - many of them consciously and deliberately oppose the very concept of patriotism.
Posted by: Steve Beren on November 16, 2007 10:45 AM"The major group coordinating the current actions is the Olympia Port Militarization Resistance (PMR) organization. It was formed in May, 2006..."
More entries at: HERE
Press release from the OPMR which names the names and organizations: HERE
"The OlyPMR campaign is endorsed by the Veterans for Peace #109 (Rachel Corrie Chapter), Olympia Chapter of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Green Party of South Puget Sound, Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace, and Students for a Democratic Society."
Google search: HERE
At the Grays Harbor protest, the writer of this blog said he was the leader and calls himself a member of the Green Party: HERE
Check dates of: Sunday, May 4-6, 2007 He calls himself "police liaison"
These people are anti war and anti everything free peoples fight and die for. The trouble with them is their willingness to promote violence. Egged on by the MSM who, as Trey said in his blog above "asked him to DO something", meaning to promote an incident for the MSM purpose. Ug.
Posted by: Ken Howard on November 16, 2007 10:52 AMI would never defend violent protests under these circumstances. But peaceful civil disobedience is as American as Thoreau, ML King, Rosa Parks, speak-easies during alcohol prohibition, tax avoidance, tax protests and apple pie.
Sitting in front of tanks and trucks to fight for your peaceful principles is an act of bravery, like that famous chinese guy who stood in front of that column of tanks in Tienanman Square... I respect people who have the guts to take such action based on their principles.
Throwing stuff at cops and truck drivers is NOT an acceptable form of peaceful civil disobedience because it is not peaceful. Penalties should be much greater to the extent that the protestors resort to violence. I believe they hurt their cause if they do so. They will get much better PR if they stick to peaceful, civil disobedience.
They are breaking laws, and should be arrested, and minimal force should be used against them in order to do so. They should be prosecuted for tresspassing, or blocking traffic or whatever, and their cause may serve to sway public opinion. That is what must happen in a free society with the rule of law.
Thoreau refused to pay taxes in order to protest a war he disagreed with. He did not want his money going to a cause he thought was immoral, just like pro-lifers in the US object (reasonably, I think) if their tax money is used to provide abortions. Thoreau did his time in prison as a result. I admire Thoreau for this, and wish I had the guts to violate federal tax laws in order to engage in the same kind of protest. But I don't. I have a family. So I live with the shame of not resisting while my government uses my money to violate my principles and fight a war that I believe is weakening the US and eroding our Liberty. Oh, well. We all have to pick and choose our battles.
Gandhi beat the British using peaceful civil disobedience. Do not underestimate it's power, and do not underestimate the unpopularity of the Iraq war, and of forcing people to pay for it via their taxes.
The SDS may have a socialistic ideology. But even people who call themselves socialists are right once in a while. (Usually in ways that are not dependent on socialism...)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 16, 2007 11:02 AMThese are the same folks who are screaming for our troops to come home from Iraq. Yet when they return they are trying to keep them from getting off the boat.
So, which is it? Do they want the troops to come home, or do they just want them to go away?
Posted by: Ken on November 16, 2007 11:09 AMThis is a dumb statement. First of all, can you tell me how a "victory" and a "defeat" differ in Iraq? Second, why would they want that? The protesters clearly want to disrupt the war effort and force the administration to end the war. That's a futile tactic, but they would (irrationally in my opinion) rather try it than do nothing, since the Democratic process has failed to produce the result they (and I) want.
Posted by: Bruce on November 16, 2007 11:15 AMOooh...I bet they are emailing AlQ right now and coordinating their plans. Better tell Drudge and Malkin!!
I suppose you think Ghandi was a terrorist sympathizer to. All that walking, sitting, praying he did was really just a front for his rabid network of saboteurs.
By your logic Bush supporting "President" Musharraf in Pakistan makes him an an agent in the support of victory by "the Islamic fascist enemy".
The Army loosing all those guns in Iraq then and acting surprised when they end up in the hands of our "Islamic fascist enemy". They must be in on it too.
New campaign slogan should be:
George W. Bush; A lover and a fighter of our friends, the Islamic fascist enemy.
Victory in Iraq means that in the future the people of Iraq could stage these same kinds of protests, with about the same results as we have here.
Defeat would mean that protesting in Iraq would result in what happened when Saddam was around: you and your family were eradicated in quite a variety of hideous ways.
Quite a big difference, I think...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 16, 2007 11:36 AMDrill into the faux promo slogans that the perps are 'anti-war'. They're not - they use every tactic up to and including property damage and violence, in hopes that a complicit media will portray them as heroic martyrs as in the 60s. And now human shields - how come the photos of the masked kiddies and that dropped baby don't grace today's Seattle Times and PI?
Drill into the organization, the emails, the leaders. If it's organized, let the owners of the dumpsters and newspaper bins haul the leaders into court for busting up their property and using it as weapons. Let the public know who's behind these 'protests' and what their real aims are - don't just quote the spokesblokes oh-so-righteous sound bites for today's news cycle. Quote the leaflets, the organizational emails, the preparational meetings, the text messages. If it's OK for the NYT to jeopardize national security by publishing secret Washington documents, it's OK for any real journalists to jeopardize the fake 'peace & love' image of these far lefties by publishing their concealed aims and preparations.
Street protests are 99% theater, made for media. An honest media would give the same publicity to the producers, directors and actors' offstage doings as it does to their counterparts in the entertainment pages.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 16, 2007 11:38 AMPull your head out. If you did, you would see the hypocracy.
These morons that are protesting are not gaining sympathy. They are not polarizing people in any way but against them.
For the love of God, they are protesting the RETURN!!! They are anti-America, anti-troops. Coming, going, it doesn't matter, they just want to be the vocal minority and cause disruption....because it is fun and helps them cope. Bruce, you are right. They are angry that the Democratic process has failed to produce what they WANT. Welcome to majority rule.
You know what, I hate the education system in this state. I think those in charge are idiots who couldn't manage a bake sale. You don't see me sitting in front of the local elementary school bus loading zone protesting that the kids are not being taught correctly...(read: to my liking).
The criminals sitting in the streets of Olympia and breaking things are not there for any other reason than they want an excuse to be beligerent. This is fun for them and it gives them a "cause". It is time to admit that their cause is a hatred of America, especially those Americans in uniform defending and fighting for their esteemed freedoms.
As an ROTC student at the UW, I was proud to wear my uniform to class and any other opportunity afforded to me. I did not appreciate however getting spit on and called a "baby killer" by some on campus. Those actions cemented in my mind that people like that, as the criminals in OLY, have a misguided hatred in their hearts.
As far as I am concerned, they are hateful, anti-American criminals out to wreak havoc. Pure and simple. They should be tried for their crimes.
Posted by: Chris on November 16, 2007 11:43 AMMaybe we should extend those benefits to our friends the Saudi's and to our good friends in Pakistan. While we're at it let's help China, and some of our South & Central American trade partners as well?
Your idea of victory in Iraq seems highly flawed since billions of other people can't do that. The Bush Admin seems to have no objection to their countries policies of restricted movement and speech.
-Joe Lieberman on the anti war movement.
Posted by: Andy on November 16, 2007 11:50 AMYou could, these types of protests are solely to draw the attention of the MSM and nothing else. They want to show they are angry with the war. Since their Representatives don't seem to be listening they decided to escalate their message in a way they would get noticed. We're discussing it here, so it seems to be working.
The trucks keep moving, the trains keep running, nothing the protesters do will actually stop this complete mess of a war. Hell, even the Dem's can't stop the war at this point. Even if they did we're going to be in that region for decades afterwards protecting those massive oil reserves from terrorists.
The 1st Amendment is a glorious thing even if nothing of actual substance is accomplished.
And Bill Clinton wasn't good friends of China & Saudi?
Gezzz go back to school!
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 16, 2007 11:54 AMYou see, I spend a LOT of time in China (in fact, I am moving there in January). You can now publicly criticize the government without fear of disappearing, like you did 15 years ago. Huge steps in freedom have been made.
And those steps happened from the growth of capitalism, and a rational dialogue with the West. The populace of China sees what success is, and the controlling party is rational enough to move as needed to provide what the populace wants.
I lived in Chile for a few years, too. And I know what Chileans - those in the streets, and those who were and still are in power - thought of the whole Pinochet thing. And it's not what the "popular" opinion is! Pinochet brought capitalism to Chile, and made it the success it is today. The VAST (and by that, I mean 90%+) majority of Chileans are thankful for what Pinochet ultimately did for Chile. A move to a capitalistic society made Chile a massive success, and by far and away the most free and open society in South America.
It's the people like the Taliban, Saddam, the Mullahs in Iran, the leadership of Hamas where you cannot reason. In that case, how would you help folks out?
My solution: go in by force and change things. Obviously this is not acceptable to you. So what's your solution? Tell me how you would change the regime in Saudi Arabia, or deal with Chavez? What would you have done with the Taliban?
What's your solution to Iran? Mine's quite simple: you give a deadline for an unconditional halt to all nuclear programs and include unlimited access to monitor and confirm such a halt. You miss the deadline? We stop your program with a barrage of high explosives.
What's your solution?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 16, 2007 11:54 AMFacts, just the facts ... they are always disturbing, but most of our media sources never let facts stand in the way of ideology... It is clear that a left-leaning press can make anything sound bad and we all become victims ... its just life in America, the freest and safest country in the world and not, as some would have us believe, a nation headed down the road to fascism ... accept it.
Military Death Numbers
Below some very interesting data reference deaths in the military which you will not read in your local newspaper nor will it appear on any news broadcast - radio or TV.
This may help you enlighten folks around you regarding the brave and courageous young people serving in our military.
Deaths in the Military
1980 ....... 2,392
1981 .......... 2,380
1982 .......... 2,318
1983 .......... 2,465
1984 .......... 1,999
1985 .......... 2,252
1986 .......... 1,984
1987 .......... 1,983
1988 .......... 1,819
1989 .......... 1,636
1990 .......... 1,508
1991 .......... 1,787
1992 .......... 1,293
1993 .......... 1,213
1994 .......... 1,075
1995 .......... 1,040
1996 .......... 974
1997 .......... 817
1998 .......... 826
1999 .......... 795
2000 .......... 774
2001 .......... 890
2002 .......... 1,007
2003 ....... ...1,410 [534*]
2004 .......... 1,887 [900*]
2005.......... [919*]
2006.......... [920*]
Figures so noted with an asterisk (*) indicates deaths as a result of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.
You may initially feel confused when you look at these figures - especially when you see that in 1980, during the term of President Jimmy Carter, there were 2,392 US military fatalities. What this clearly indicates is that our media and our liberal politicians pick and choose and tend to present only those facts that support their agenda driven reporting. Another fact our left media and politicians like to slant is that these brave men and women losing their lives are minorities. Wrong again - The latest census shows the following:
European descent (white)..... 69.12%
Hispanic................................ 12.5%
African American................... 12.3%
Asian..................................... 3.7%
Native American.................... 1.0%
Other..................................... 2.6%
The fatalities over the past three years in Iraqi Freedom are:
European descent (white)..... 74.31%
Hispanic................................ 10.74%
African American....... 9.67%
Asian..................................... 1.81%
Native American.................... 1.09%
Other..................................... 2.33%
These statistics are published by DOD and may be viewed at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf
Edmonds Dan stated that Bush's victory in Iraq was dependent on Iraqi's being able to freely protest. We're not talking about Clinton. Driving the conversation off track as usual Army MV.
And those steps happened from the growth of capitalism,
Like in Russia where people who speak out against Putin are publicly assassinated, imprisoned, or simply disappear? They have Capitalism and a democratically elected Govt.
Iran and Venezuela both have democratically elected leaders. That's quite a stark contrast from our good friends the Saudi's and Pakistan where they have Kings and Military Dictators who rule the country even though they have a democratically elected Govt. body.
My solution: go in by force and change things
Yeah, I'm afraid your solution is going to raise your taxes. After all war's cost tremendous amount of money to wage. You've also got the Sec. of Defense testifying before Congress that the military needs more troops because they are stretched quite thin with two mid-level wars going on. Maybe we can privatize the FDA, FCC, FAA, and why not the FED while were at it. Save us a ton of money and capitalism would run free with the companies self-policing themselves while preserving their customers best interests. This should give us enough money to fight a few more wars and reinstitute the draft.
you give a deadline for an unconditional halt to all nuclear programs and include unlimited access to monitor and confirm such a halt. You miss the deadline? We stop your program with a barrage of high explosives.
IEAA report seems to indicate that Iran is building what they claim. I agree with full access, but do you really think bombing a working nuclear reactor is a good idea? We played that game with Iraq and we came out on the loosing end.
Answer the question. How would you deal with Iran? What's YOUR solution?
Or are you like those on the Left, a bombthrower who just complains to complain?
What's your solution?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 16, 2007 12:33 PMMommy Dearest took care of that, quite effectively with the edge of a curb.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on November 16, 2007 12:38 PMYour words cato... Now as I said. Bill Clinton had no problem working with these countries and taking their money.
By the way, should we take on the whole world so they can have freedom like us.
Most of your statements are very short sighted as usual.
You are right on the money when you say, "Most of us who went through those misguided times did, but a whole lot of them didn't. And they are now in leadership positions throughout city, county, state and federal government. Scary. Old hippies who couldn't 'moveon' now trying to decide the fate of our entire country, and still clueless."
That is why the stakes are so high in politics today. The majority of people do not favor "cut and run," do not favor "cutting off of funds," and do not favor opposing and disrupting the troops. The majority of people support the troops, support their mission, and are encouraged by recent improvements on the ground.
On the one hand, this explains why the Democrats use "pro-troops" rhetoric the closer it gets to the election, since they know they cannot win if their full antiwar position was highlighted right before election day.
That's why Kerry put on a fake "pro-troops" and fake "kill the terrorists" mask during the campaign. It's also why the Democrats waited until after the 2006 congressional elections to try to push their true foreign policy agenda.
On the other hand, however, as the 2008 election approaches, political realities throughout the country (never make the mistake of imagining Seattle is representative of the nation as a whole), the liberal Democratic members of congress pull back, cognizant of the need to avoid their own defeat in November 2008.
In turn, the far left freaks out, gets angry and frustrated, etc. - we see the results in Olympia. They get upset at the liberal politicians, imagining that they are "insufficiently antiwar." This puts Clinton, Obama, Edwards, etc. in a wicked Catch-22.
A major party presidential candidate who is perceived as weak on national security, weak on terrorism, overly friendly to our enemies, and insufficiently supportive of the troops cannot win the presidential election. This creates great opportunities for the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Posted by: Steve Beren on November 16, 2007 01:45 PMNice to meet you brother. 1972 Can Rah Bay 57th Medaevac
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on November 16, 2007 02:05 PMtschus
pyotr
No, they would have blown up the tracks near a natural gas pipeline. It's much more effective and destructive (not to mention demoralizing).
Only morons and people doing symbolic gestures pour concrete on a track in full view of police and port authorities. The whole affair down there is just a big publicity stunt. Even the protesters must know it's a fools errand.
Btw, Army M/V were not talking about Clinton, we're taking about Edmonds Dan's misguided idea of what "victory" is in Iraq. Clinton has been out of office for almost seven years now. Your like Darcy harping on Bush, a broken record.
What's your solution?
Make sure the IEAA get's access to the facility through negotiations and economic sanctions. They obviously want something that Bush is not going to give them (I don't know what it is). Rattling sabers never got anyone to do anything. Typical Neo-Cons, just looking for an excuse to expand the war these days.
The new GOP mantra should read:
Love your country? Good; cause we're bringing back the Draft!
Iraqi's are already dying. Vietnam is now a big trading partner with the US (they have cheap labor). More people likely died from car accidents in the US this week than died in 9/11 and Madrid combined.
How many people will die from terrorism if we pull out? Seems more people have died since we went in. At least Afghanistan had a purpose and we should continue there. Iraq was a mismanaged war built on faulty intelligence. A civil war brought this country together
more worried about terrorists' civil rights than ours.
Uh yeah...I see the people all the time with "Go AlQ" and "We Love Bin Ladden" signs. I think they're more worried that we'll slip into a 1984 big brother scenario (which seems more and more likely).
I figure my most important civil right is to stay alive, preferably not wearing a burkha.
Yeah...I see the Islamo Fascists every day in my neighborhood. Always tying to push the lessons of the Koran on me. They're worse than the Jehovah's Whitenesses.
Want to stay alive in this country, ditch your car and take the bus. Statistically it's much safer.
Seriously, do you really believe a bunch of wayward Muslims can accomplish something that the Communists couldn't do in 60 years?
True, the Communists just wanted to stick a nuclear launch pad in our backyard. Later when technology got better they just aimed them at us from their own yard. Thankfully neither side blinked.
None of those wayward Muslims was even from Iraq (much less "based/trained" there). Still it's quite a stretch of the imagination to go from 9/11, to leaving Iraq, to dying in a terrorist attack (on a ferry perhaps?) while wearing the mandatory burkha.
Michelle Malkin has pictures of the lefties sitting directly in front of a semi with their children - exactly where the driver cannot see.
Posted by: CrazyFool on November 16, 2007 08:38 PMI was a student at the U.W. from 68 to 72.
I remember the SDS, gathered at their rally's, marched on the Freeway and let my hair grow.
It was I thought I was doing what I was supposed to be doing. Morally, a LITTLE bit, but most of all, it was for my social life.
You bonded during the rheotoric, and skirmishes, but most of all you thought you'd be finding out about a great party after the event.
I was a pitiful participant myself, but I knew all the fireballs. Within a couple of years at least one of them was selling real-estate in Hawaii, and a few years later another was running for mayor and we still have one on the City Council.
Protests for the young are half about meeting-up with the opposite sex.
Posted by: Bart Cannon on November 16, 2007 09:29 PMAnd what happens when the sanctions don't work (because your "partners" in the UN don't enforce them, looking the other way for cash payments)? What happens when the IAEA isn't allowed to inspect, a la Saddam?
Gonna tell Iran to take a time out? Will that stop them, telling them that we think they're bad folk?
Didn't work too well with Saddam. Or the Taliban (both of whom were first hit with sanctions and talked to via the UN). Sometimes you simply have to not just threaten to use the stick, but actually USE that big stick that Teddy Roosevelt talked about...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 16, 2007 10:56 PMYes, amusing that they are disrupting the return of military equipment from Iraq. Perhaps they'd prefer we just tip it over the side? But then they'd be concerned about the fish.
If I had to guess why this is happening now, I'd guess it's to distract people from their upcoming midterms or something.
I remember the thousands of boat people fleeing the workers paradise of communist Vietnam after the Democrats pulled the rug out from under our allies. Re-education camps and executions followed for those who could not get to a boat but the Liberal Compassion Fascists shed few tears. Now the same crew of fine people want to declare defeat in Iraq. They seek to pull a Neville Chamberlain as a regime in Tehran, one that loudly calls for what amounts to genocide, works feverishly to arm itself with nuclear weapons. If the Democrats enable the Islamo-fascists, the backers of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad ad nauseum, to gain nuclear weapons then they will share responsibility when those weapons are used on Israel or the United States.
Posted by: Attila on November 17, 2007 07:33 AMOne is safer anywhere in China; walking through any major city's downtown is more pleasant than downtown Seattle and its ripe examples of our failed education system, urine saturated doorways and alleys, open drug dealing, and open door policy for every lazy, crazed, drug-addicted being on the West Coast.
Unlike America, their students are deeply engaged in education, gaining job skills, and advancing the good of the nation and the people – not creating chaos in the streets. The Chinese people look at what is taking place here and are amazed.
Yes, my wife and are also making a move to China to live.
Posted by: ClearView on November 17, 2007 08:56 AMWe were supposed to have learned that lesson. In Iraq now we are the hated occupiers, not the glorious liberators of your dreams. We cannot "win" with any amount of military might there, so we should leave rather than continue to spend blood and treasure in a lost cause.
How can we stop the violence in Iraq? Leave.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/11/15/africa/ME-GEN-Iraq-Basra.php
Tell that story to some of the boat people who were able to escape Vietnam before the bloodletting after we left. Yep. Leaving worked out great there.
Posted by: John Galt on November 17, 2007 01:43 PMRegarding those "democratically elected leaders" in Iran and Venezuela: You don't happen to work in the King County Elections Office, per chance? Naaw, must just be a coincidence that you find those Iranian/Venezuelan elections so "democratic".
Posted by: Saltherring on November 17, 2007 02:49 PMWhat I said had nothing to do with whether our leaving "worked out well" or not. Is it your contention that we should have stayed another 30 years to postpone the suffering of those particular people, only to have other people suffer once we eventually realized the folly of our presence in a country that did not want us there? IOW, if you have a point that actually addresses mine, what is it?
It could be that more suffering would follow our leaving Iraq. However, the link I left, had you bothered to follow it, would point you to the story of a very knowledgable person who thinks very differently. When was that last time you commanded Britsh troops in Iraq?
Posted by: Daddy Love on November 17, 2007 02:54 PMI don't know much about elections in Iran, but in Venzuela they appeared to be fairly free and fair, at least according to the international observers.
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/archive/articles/0701/p8a.htm
If you have evidence to the contrary, I encourage you to present it, as it would support what so far appears to be only your ignorant opinion.
Posted by: Daddy Love on November 17, 2007 03:01 PMBut if our policy for favoring or disfavoring nations rests on their election practices, how on earth can Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia, Egytpt, and Kuwait be our "allies?"
Posted by: Daddy Love on November 17, 2007 03:25 PMIn 2003 the IAEA was inspecting Iraq and told us there were no nuclear weapons and no nuclear weapons programs. UNMOVIC was telling us that they were not finding any chemical or biological weapons and no traces of any precursors of same. You seem to be putting a great deal of weight on ispections for someone whom I am guessing accorded them no consderation at all when your war fever was peaking in 2003.
So to paraphrase your question: So what happens when the sanctions DO work (as we knew in Feb. 2003 that they did), and what happens when the IAEA is allowed to inspect and reports back in the negative, but the war-hungry murderers in a powerful nation decide to invade them anyway in violation of the UN charter?
You are confused. I was 23 in The "Ayatollahs" did not take over. The people of Iraq took over and installed their hero, the resistance leader Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini, as Supreme Leader. And we lsot control of a country we shoudl never have been controlling in the first place. Ditto Vietnam. We left because we couldn't stay due to lack of support. The SV government collapsed because it had no base of support and in fact was a corrupt US puppet despised by the people.
You may think that a government without popular support can survive, but in 2008 you will find out differently.
Posted by: Daddy Love on November 17, 2007 04:18 PMYeah, my name somehow makes me wonder if you're going to drag out the conservative ad hominem attacks that take the place of rational thought in your quarter.
And my education was public school, state university, and more reading that you will complete in your lifetime.
Posted by: Daddy Love on November 17, 2007 05:00 PMYou may think that a government without popular support can survive, but in 2008 you will find out differently.
So you think the Democrats will lost control of the congress in 2008? Cool!
Posted by: CrazyFool on November 17, 2007 07:06 PMRead the actual UNMOVIC report from March 2003. There are MANY areas that Iraq was deficient for a LONG time. Specifically paragraphs 70 and on. I'd say those point to NOT cooperating with UNMOVIC.
Furthermore, sanctions were NOT working, as we know that the Oil For Food programme let the UN and so many of those advocating "give sanctions a chance" to illegally break the sanctions, and violate their own pledges.
If you can't rely on the body that approved the sanctions to actually ENFORCE the sanctions, what good are they?
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on November 17, 2007 08:01 PM "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
We knew before we invaded in 2003 that Iraq had NO nuclear program, NO chem or bio weapons of even s single precursor chemical had been found, that their military was weak and inadequate, that Iraq had no operational relationship with AQ, and that the US was in no danger whatsoever from Iraq. The rest is just your attmept to paper ofer the criminal act of invasion and occupation after the fact.
Posted by: Daddy Love on November 18, 2007 07:27 AMThis turned long, so I'll state my point first. Inspections turned up nothing that would justify an invasion. Inspections should have continued as the majority of Americans favored. Iraq had no known capabilities, either WMD or military, and posed no threat. Our invasion and subsequent occupation was not justified and continues to be unjustified by any measure, including the ones put forward by the administration in the ensuing years of death and horror.
Furthermore, sanctions were NOT working, as we know that the Oil For Food programme let the UN and so many of those advocating "give sanctions a chance" to illegally break the sanctions, and violate their own pledges.
Sanctions were not completely effective, as what really is? In fact, the US was one of the if not the worst violator of the sactions. Yet, it is true, and we knew at the time, that Iraq was contained, with no WMD and a weak military and no offensive capability or plans. Those are the relevant measures. Any other failure of Oil for Food is beside the point of the illegal invasion and occupation.
Read the actual UNMOVIC report from March 2003. There are MANY areas that Iraq was deficient for a LONG time. Specifically paragraphs 70 and on. I'd say those point to NOT cooperating with UNMOVIC.
Wow. Your standards are incredibly low. I think it points to the desperation of your side to somehow find a reason to continue to suport this idiotic and costly venture from the Worst President In History.
It stupefies me to thinkt that you are hanging your argument on such damning evidence as:
"After some initial difficulties with Iraq...UNMOVIC helicopters have been able to operate as requested"
"After some initial difficulties...UNMOVIC has been able to send surveillance aircraft over the entire territory of Iraq"
"no persons not nominated by the Iraqi side have been willing to be interviewed without a tape recorder running or an Iraqi witness present."
And ignoring such clearly stated and relevant information such as:
"All inspections were performed without
notice, and access was in virtually all cases provided promptly." (para 12)
"More than 200 chemical and more than 100 biological samples have been
collected...The results to date have
been consistent with Iraq�s declarations." (para 14)
"...Iraq has from the outset satisfied the demand for prompt access to any site, whether or not it had been previously declared or inspected." (para 68)
The point of the UNMOVIC report was that, you know, NOTHING not already declared had been found. Iraq was cooperating in all ways relevant to determining this. Inspections were working well. In fact, that is probably WHY the US pulled the plug--to avoid the international embarrassment fo their claims being disproved and changin the subject to the soon-to-be-televised war.
Posted by: Daddy Love on November 18, 2007 07:58 AMSedition: "an illegal action inciting resistance to lawful authority and tending to cause the disruption or overthrow of the government." (Princeton University WordNet) Treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort." (US Constitution, Art. III, Section 3).
Alas, our media mentions their arrest, but little else. Our judicial system will charge them with some petty crime with a maximum penalty of (drum roll)....a slap on the wrist. But we can talk until we're blue in the face. The "protesters" have been getting all the press. A tv news report last night showed a piddling handful of "counter protesters." Are any of you willing to do something about it? Let us converge on the Port Plaza en masse this holiday weekend. The ships may be gone, but let us show a mass of SUPPORT for those who will keep us safe this holiday. How about a canned food drive or a toys-drive for families left behind with soldiers in the field? Let us respond to those "protesters" and show them up!
***Cross posted at Public Blog***
Posted by: Notagreener on November 18, 2007 10:09 AM"A lot of people have lost faith with Congress' ability to fix things," said Simpson, who served in Mosul, Iraq, with the Fort Lewis-based 25th Infantry Division before leaving the Army in 2006. "That's why kids are throwing up barricades in the streets."
I doubt any reporters verified his claims with the military.
I'm no expert, but on TV, he looks and talks a lot like a spineless tunicate, and the fatiques he wears are way too big for him. Maybe he's a phony, or maybe he shrunk, I dunno. I'd be shocked if he ever saw combat. Anyone know how to check up on his claims?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/339949_protest16.html
Posted by: starboardhelm on November 18, 2007 02:36 PM#1 Then please address for us all why all the Democrats were all for this. Why all the intelligence services were reporting he did have the WMD.
After the first Gulf War, the IAEA declared there was no nuclear program in Iraq. It wasn't until after Saddam's brother-in-law came forward (Saddam later executed him) and pointed out to the baffoonish IAEA that he did, IN FACT, have a nuclear program.
So it is not as if Saddam never ever had WMD. He was a KNOWN perveyor of WMD and had used them in the past.
Please tell us all why Bill Clinton pulled the inspectors out and bombed Iraq in 1998. Come on Daddy Love, we're all waiting. After all, if Saddam had no WMD, no chance of ever having them, then why did your Demi-God pull out the inspectors and bomb them?
Please also tell everyone here why William Jefferson Clinton signed into law in 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338)
Your ranting on and on is a diversion to get people to put out of their minds that the Democrats were prime advocates for invasion.
Once you admit that the DEMOCRATS were eager for "regime" change, perhaps people might take you seriusly instead of a liberal idealogue trying to make ideology points.
Why then have we done such an lousy job of accomplishing any of our goals in Iraq? Is our military to blame (I don't think so), or is has it been incompetent direction from the administration?
We won WWII is less time, with greater odds against us. I guess arguably with more competent civilian leadership...
Posted by: BA on November 18, 2007 08:05 PMThere is certainly lost of criticism due this administration about their post-war planning or lack thereof, so you won't get an argument from me. To be fair though, some of our recent accomplishments have gone unreported in the media while they emphasize our failures. If you look back upon the reporting of WWII, our failures went unreported to the public at the time. For a good example, look up the reporting on the sinking of the USS Indianapolis. And if the civilian leadership had to have a reporter with them reporting everything the troops did, you would have read about abuses by our troops during WWII. But back then the media wasn't trying to undermine our troops. That phenomena began happening during Vietnam and is the media we have today.
But how we got into Iraq was a bipartisan thing despite Daddy Love's baseless insistence to the contrary. And staying there is also a bipartisan thing. To date, all of the Democrat candidates have denied they would pull the troops out if elected. If they won't even play this to their nutroot base in the primaries, you really gotta believe it is true. Likewise, Democrats could cut off funding completely if they desired yet to date have failed to do so.
Posted by: pbj on November 19, 2007 05:12 AMA geninuine peace protester wants a war to end and doesn't care who wins. And they certainly don't use violence. Someone mentioned Ghandi; Ghandi would have been sickened by what they are doing. And some genuine anti-war people are disgusted as these so-called "peace" protesters are giving them a bad name. I wouldn't be surprised if these useful idiots truly want the Islamofascists (who would slit their throat before they slit mine) to win.
The ends do not justify the means - certainly when the so-called "peace" protesters are using violence as some of these protesters are doing.
A lot of Democrats we're against the war (see B. Obama). In the end the politicians have to answer to their constituencies or they don't get re-elected (which seems to be the only thing driving US politics these days). A majority of America thought the war was a good idea especially after 9/11. Bush pretty much linked Saddam and 9/11 together in his public speeches. Anyway the Dem's voted for it, the GOP voted for it, here we are five years and several billion latter now you have 55 Senators (including some GOP) voting against war funding. War sucks, no one likes war, especially when the Administration says they support the troops and then don't actually give them what they need in the budget. The whole thing was bungled, the lies that got us into it have been disproved, we were never greeted as liberators, and there were no WMD's. Saddam is gone and US soldiers still being picked off by daily car bombs and IED's.
And if the civilian leadership had to have a reporter with them reporting everything the troops did, you would have read about abuses by our troops during WWII.
You really can't compare the two, a majority of Europe was incredibly happy to be rid of the Nazi's. To this day the older folks in the Netherlands still view Canadians as their liberators. I'm sure the Iraq's are happy to be rid of Saddam, but when the brutal force holding the country together disappears chaos ensues. Now you have a religious holy war fought between two major religions in the region with either side backed by very fat wallets with endless oil money.
The media has nothing to do with us loosing this war. It's a civil war between two religions with America in the middle. Think of it as the Vietnam or Afghanistan for the new millennium. Two well funded regional superpowers (Iran vs Syria/Saudi Arabia) duking in out in a foreign land with a longstanding religious feud thrown in. I think the only think both sides agree on is that we're invaders and not liberators.
Best to just ignore them and hope they go back to trying to fit square pegs into round holes...
Posted by: Thirteenburn on November 19, 2007 01:08 PMThat is a lie and you know it.
http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2003/04/10/News/Iraqis.Celebrate.End.Of.Saddams.Rule-1417408.shtml
That has been proposed several times since the Iraq War continued. You should really pay attention as it has been DEMOCRATS who keep proposing it, not Republicans.
Posted by: Chill on November 19, 2007 03:29 PM