Saturday, March 31, 2007

The Scientology of Climate Change

I'm too tired and too tied up this weekend to offer commentary; but I felt compelled to post this (all emphasis mine)....I think it pretty well speaks for itself, anyway....

From the Evening Standard:

With five private jets, Travolta still lectures on global warming

His serious aviation habit means he is hardly the best person to lecture others on the environment. But John Travolta went ahead and did it anyway.

The 53-year-old actor, a passionate pilot, encouraged his fans to "do their bit" to tackle global warming.

But although he readily admitted: "I fly jets", he failed to mention he actually owns five, along with his own private runway.

Happy landings: John Travolta's plane collection parked at his home in Florida

Clocking up at least 30,000 flying miles in the past 12 months means he has produced an estimated 800 tons of carbon emissions – nearly 100 times the average Briton's tally.

Travolta made his comments this week at the British premiere of his movie, Wild Hogs.

He spoke of the importance of helping the environment by using "alternative methods of fuel" – after driving down the red carpet on a Harley Davidson.

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.

But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.

"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities.

"Everyone can do their bit. But I don't know if it's not too late already. We have to think about alternative methods of fuel.

"I'm probably not the best candidate to ask about global warming because I fly jets.

"I use them as a business tool though, as others do. I think it's part of this industry – otherwise I couldn't be here doing this and I wouldn't be here now."

Travolta's five private planes – a customised £2million Boeing 707, three Gulfstream jets and a Lear jet – are kept at the bottom of his garden in the US next to a private runway.

Indeed, such is his enthusiasm for flying, he persuaded his wife, actress Kelly Preston, to name their son Jett when he was born 14 years ago.

Five years ago he piloted his own Boeing 707 on a 13- city "Spirit of Friendship Tour" for Qantas, taking in Los Angeles, Auckland, Sydney, Singapore, Tokyo, London, Paris and New York and amassing over 35,000 flying miles.

More recently, a gruelling promotional schedule for his two latest projects, Hairspray and Wild Hogs, has seen him fly extensively over the past year.

This includes a country-wide tour of the US and a visit to Canada as well as this week's appearance in Leicester Square.

Such prolific mileage means that, over the past 12 months, he has accumulated around 800 tonnes of carbon emissions.

According to a recent study by the government-funded Carbon Trust, this means he boasts a carbon "footprint" nearly 100 times that of the average Briton, who is responsible for 10.92 tons of Co2, from his flights alone.

One of the world's leading climate change businesses, the Carbon Neutral Company, has written to Travolta, suggesting ways he could reduce these alarming levels.

He has yet to respond to their advice. Environmental groups were quick to criticise Travolta for "discrediting the cause".

John Buckley, managing director-of, said: "John Travolta has such a high-profile celebrity status, so what he says carries an extraordinary amount of weight.

"So it is such a shame when someone of his standing is so outspoken about green issues, yet fails to practise what he preaches.

"Unfortunately someone of his standing ends up discrediting the cause itself, because he is saying people should protect the environment on one hand, yet travelling on a private plane on the other.

"Green issues are serious and should be treated as such.

"It is vital for celebrities to toe the line when they speak out in support of it."

Other recent moron offsets to cerebrally-oxygen deprived celebrities:
Rosie O'Donnell
Sean Penn

Labels: ,

Wednesday, March 28, 2007


Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Examples of Moron Offsetting

When eco-politicians spew forth moron emissions into the atmosphere, does the purchase of moron offsets really do anything positive?

In this case...yes.

1984 in 2008?
Big Sister is Watching...
A defiant display of facecrime!

What happens when moron offsets and moron emissions are reversed:

Hillary or Bust?

Photo-template and idea ripped off from Get Stewed
Concept for "moron offsets" credited to Jon Sanders

Labels: , ,

Monday, March 26, 2007

Still Spewing Moron Emissions: Sean Penn

If only that he would just shut up and act, he'd be "moron neutral" and intellectually-friendly....

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

(03-24) 18:20 PDT OAKLAND -- Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn was the star attraction at a town hall meeting today in Oakland, where hundreds of people gathered to denounce the war in Iraq and call for an immediate withdrawal of American troops.

Neither Penn nor Rep. Barbara Lee, the Oakland Democrat who has opposed the war since before it began four years ago, offered much in the way of specifics for ending the conflict, and they were largely preaching to the choir. The enthusiastic and occasionally boisterous crowd of 800 or so crammed into the Grand Lake Theatre wildly cheered as Penn excoriated President Bush.

"You and your smarmy pundits -- and the smarmy pundits you have in your pocket -- can take your war and shove it," Penn said. "Let's unite not only in stopping this war, but in holding this administration accountable."

What a statesman! Lol....if only that I were being paid to be a smarmy pundit! Here's some more of what he said:

But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory - if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point fingers telling us to “support our troops.” Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it. We will be snowed no more. Let’s make this crystal clear. We do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families. The verdict is in. You lied, connived, and exploited your own countrymen and most of all, our troops.

Certainly Sean Penn can speak however he sees fit; but wouldn't a more mature tone gain him wider acceptance and credibility? Juvenile insults and posturing will only appeal to his amen chorus of lefties.
The town hall meeting came six days after "peace marches" [my quotations- wordsmith] were held nationwide to mark the fourth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and one day after the House of Representatives voted 218-212 to withdraw combat troops by Sept. 1, 2008.

Penn reiterated a point often made by opponents of the war when he said he supports the troops but opposes the war.

"Let's make this crystal clear: We do support our troops, but not the exploitation of them and their families," he said. "The money that's spent on this war would be better spent on building levees in New Orleans and health care in Africa and care for our veterans. Iraq is not our toilet. It's a country of human beings whose lives that were once oppressed by Saddam are now in Dante's Inferno."

Moron offset: Maybe Sean Penn is moron neutral and does support the troops, as well as others who don't approve of this war. But there are also many on their side who really don't support the troops; for them to claim that they support the troops is because it would be "politically incorrect" to admit otherwise; it's a knee-jerk bumpersticker mantra, used as an aegis for their conscience, similar to how they are always hypersensitive about their patriotism being questioned. I think CJ made an astute point to a protester he debated with a couple of weeks ago:

before I left I wanted to impart one more piece of wisdom. I motioned towards his encampment and asked him which of the tents before us were collecting letters, cards or care packages for troops. I asked which tent was asking for donation of shoes, clothing, toys, school supplies or other good that Soldiers can hand out to the Iraqi people to make their lives better. I told him I don't have a problem with the peace movement and anti-war movement. But, I DO have a problem with a peace movement and anti-war movement that purports to do it in the name of supporting the troops and yet nothing there makes me feel supported. I told him the reason why his cause will never gain acceptance from Soldiers is because they go about it all wrong. I may feel more inclined to listen to their speeches and read their literature if I actually something there that REALLY supported the troops. I asked him when the last time they went to Walter Reed and brought cookies, movies, music, flowers, letter, cards, drawings, anything to make those Soldiers they supposedly support feel better. NEVER. And that, my tin foil hat wearing friend, is why I don't support you and made an effort to thank that ONE lady standing alone on the side of the road instead of any of the many people mulling about without deodorant. I also thanked him for the civil conversation (up to the point of "chemtrails") and that it's a rare day that I have a conversation with people like him and don't get called names or have to deal with screaming and yelling. We shook hands and departed.
I'm sure you can find war-supporters as well, who don't really support the troops in any meaningful way; but at least they don't undermine the mission and endanger lives by giving aid and comfort to America's enemies and critics. Most of those I know of who do support the war, actively show their support by sending care packages, offer well-wishes, fund soldier support charities, express gratitude and recognize the service and sacrifice.

Lee was among the California Democrats who voted Friday against the $124 billion war spending measure that President Bush has promised to veto. Lee is a member of the "Out of Iraq Caucus" that includes Democrats Lynn Woolsey of Petaluma and Maxine Waters of Los Angeles.

"We can't afford to spend one more dime or lose one more American or Iraqi life on this illegal and unwinnable war," Lee told the crowd, which offered several rousing standing ovations.

What makes her believe that not one more American or Iraqi life will be saved by an immediate withdrawal? Or that not engaging the enemy and surrendering from Iraq will be economically less costly to us? Calling the war "illegal" is pointless to her argument, other than to still be stuck on stupid. "Coulda, shoulda, woulda" is fighting yesterday's arguments and trying to apply them to today's problems.

Lee introduced Penn to the crowd as movie star and temporary journalist for The Chronicle, referring to his dispatches published in the newspaper when he visited Iran in 2005. Penn also has visited New Orleans as part of the post-Hurricane Katrina rescue effort.

Outside the theater, protesters carried signs saying "Impeach Bush." Among those who attended today's rally were members of Grandmothers Against the War.

After the meeting, everyone from grandmothers and students to veterans and mothers pushing strollers marched along Lake Merritt to Oakland City Hall for an afternoon rally at which Lee again spoke.

As she took the microphone, the crowd chanted "Barbara Lee told you so. Bush's war has got to go."

"The only thing this government needs is for the people to be silent and then they can do whatever they want," said Joan MacIntyre, a 74-year-old great-grandmother from Oakland. "As long as the government keeps doing what it's doing, I'll be out in the streets."

Does anyone else see the irony in her statement?

Moron offset for Joan MacIntyre:

I asked about this odd idea that "curing" poverty was an easy matter. If it really could be cured with ease, then why did Lyndon Johnson have such a tough time with his "War on Poverty" here in the United States? As President Reagan noted: "We declared war on poverty, but poverty won." Charles Murray and other scholars made clear that despite the vast spending on "Great Society" anti-poverty programs (some five TRILLION dollars by most estimates!) economic destitution only got worse, until Reaganomics finally began to make a positive difference in the 1980's. Later, welfare reform in 1996 made an even more positive impact -- helping to destroy (at last) the culture of depenedency.

The idea that cures for poverty come easily has been a distinguishing characteristic of the international left. The only sense in which it ever worked in Communist countries was relative: by making nearly everyone poor and destitute (except for the party bosses) they created an illusion of equality.
As Michael Medved also points out: A just society doesn’t require that everyone earn similar rewards. It does require, however, that hard work should be reliably rewarded.

MacIntyre, like many who attended today's events, was no stranger to anti-war protests. She has marched in numerous rallies since the Iraq war started in March 2003 and on Monday was arrested during a San Francisco protest on Market Street. It was her 41st arrest, she boasted proudly.

"At least I can hold my head up and say that I tried," she said.

And how will you hold your head when there comes a point in history when the actions of President Bush and those who stood for victory in Iraq are proven right? How will those Congressmen who voted for nonbinding resolutions undermining soldiers in the field justify their position to their grandchildren? That they preferred to align with the Neville Chamberlain appeasement wing of American politics rather than side with the pro-active, pro-victory, far-sighted Winston Churchills?

At the rally, which was organized by a coalition of Oakland community groups, folk singers led the crowd in song and a rapper rapped about violence in the streets. There were calls for impeachment of the president and for troops to be brought home and pleas for federal dollars to be spent on schools rather than on the war.

Rodney Brown, a 30-year-old Oakland substitute teacher, said he would have liked to see more people attend the protest. While organizers said between 500 and 700 attended the rally, many remarked that the crowd seemed significantly smaller. Police declined to provide a crowd count.

"Money needs to be going to our schools and the communities here instead of funding for this war," Brown said. "And we need to have more events like this and get people out here and taking some action."

Moron offset for Brown vs. real education:
public K-12 spending is approaching $10,000 per pupil — double what it was three decades ago, adjusting for inflation. And total school spending is approaching $500 billion — more than we spend on national defense ($454 billion) and more than the entire GDP of Russia ($433 billion).

Many people believe that teachers are horribly underpaid. In fact, the average elementary-school teacher makes $30.75 per hour, more than architects ($26.64), mechanical engineers ($29.46), and chemists ($30.68).
And the only moron neutral person quoted in the report:

Hava Ratinsky, a native of Israel who now lives in Oakland, attended the protest with her 6-year-old son, Aviv. She wondered whether, after four years of protesting, people were just too tired of not seeing any change.

"There's a war going on and it's mind-boggling to me that people can continue to live their daily lives and not pay attention," she said.

Disclaimer: The links embedded in the quoted passages from the SF Chronicle were not part of the original article; wordsmith felt the need to insert moron offsets (credit Jon Sanders for the term) in order to balance out the moronic emissions prevalent in the anti-war sentiments of Sean Penn and Barbara Lee.

Hot Air has the audio

Also blogging:
Marie's Two Cents

Labels: , ,



Only two Republicans pulled a Theron and Ephialtes: Wayne Gilchrest and Walter Jones. 198 Republicans held Spartan, joined by 14 Democrats.

Having passed 218 to 212, President Bush has vowed to veto the pork-laden bill.

Like Chatterbox, I admire President Bush's steadfastness and leadership in making the right decisions even when they aren't the popular decisions to be made, at the time. I believe history will vindicate him as the right man in office at the right time; and the fact that he has faced so much opposition and pressure during his Presidency by a hostile media, "public opinion", "world opinion", the latest gallup polls, and a Democratic Party that has moved further and further to the left, will bring him and all who stood with him through the worst of it, world-reknown "glory" in the annals of history. The more he is hated by those who are wrong, the more opposition I see him face, the more I admire this President for his strength of leadership. God bless President George W. Bush!

Michael Franc at explains why the micromanagement of the War by 535 armchair generals back in Congress is a bad idea:
Remarkably, Democrats reject the notion that they are "micromanaging" the Commander-in-Chief's constitutional authority to make military decisions during wartime. Instead, they speak of the "collaborative process" and "shared responsibility" between Congress and the President to "redefine the mission" or enact a new "management plan" for Iraq.

For several reasons, the Founding Fathers concluded Congress shouldn't do this. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote, the Constitution empowers the President "to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations."

For a Congress determined to end the war, the remedy is straightforward and simple: Cut funding to the troops. Try running that up the flag pole.

Credit for the photoshop of "King George's" head pasted onto Gerard Butler's body: Flopping Aces. Thanks, Curt!

Also showing at a blog near you:
Anna's Clue Tank
Bottom Line Up Front
Flopping Aces
Freedom Eden
Gateway Pundit
Hugh Hewitt
Marie's Two Cents
Mike's America
Old Soldier
The Chatterbox Chronicles
YankeeMom (Read my comment there)

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Around the Internet in One *Click*

In Hindsight 4 Years Later, Were We Wrong?

For any reader of Flopping Aces, this is nothing really new; just go through Curt's categories on "Saddam Documents", "Iraq/Al Qaeda Connection", or even "The Plame Affair" (those infamous 16 words...). You'll find a wealth of information that supports that especially knowing what we do know now, going into Iraq was the right thing to do; the irresponsible course of action, would have been to do nothing but perpetuate the status quo.

Christopher Hitchens sums it all up so well, here it is in its entirety:

So, Mr. Hitchens, Weren't You Wrong About Iraq? Hard questions, four years later.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 19, 2007, at 1:53 PM ET

Four years after the first coalition soldiers crossed the Iraqi border, one can attract pitying looks (at best) if one does not take the view that the whole engagement could have been and should have been avoided. Those who were opposed to the operation from the beginning now claim vindication, and many of those who supported it say that if they had known then what they know now, they would have spoken or voted differently.

What exactly does it mean to take the latter position? At what point, in other words, ought the putative supporter to have stepped off the train? The question isn't as easy to answer as some people would have you believe. Suppose we run through the actual timeline:

Was the president right or wrong to go to the United Nations in September 2002 and to say that body could no longer tolerate Saddam Hussein's open flouting of its every significant resolution, from weaponry to human rights to terrorism?

A majority of the member states thought he was right and had to admit that the credibility of the United Nations was at stake. It was scandalous that such a regime could for more than a decade have violated the spirit and the letter of the resolutions that had allowed a cease-fire after the liberation of Kuwait. The Security Council, including Syria, voted by nine votes to zero that Iraq must come into full compliance or face serious consequences.

Was it then correct to send military forces to the Gulf, in case Saddam continued his long policy of defiance, concealment, and expulsion or obstruction of U.N. inspectors?

If you understand the history of the inspection process at all, you must concede that Saddam would never have agreed to readmit the inspectors if coalition forces had not made their appearance on his borders and in the waters of the Gulf. It was never a choice between inspection and intervention: It was only the believable threat of an intervention that enabled even limited inspections to resume.

Should it not have been known by Western intelligence that Iraq had no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction?

The entire record of UNSCOM until that date had shown a determination on the part of the Iraqi dictatorship to build dummy facilities to deceive inspectors, to refuse to allow scientists to be interviewed without coercion, to conceal chemical and biological deposits, and to search the black market for materiel that would breach the sanctions. The defection of Saddam Hussein's sons-in-law, the Kamel brothers, had shown that this policy was even more systematic than had even been suspected. Moreover, Iraq did not account for—has in fact never accounted for—a number of the items that it admitted under pressure to possessing after the Kamel defection. We still do not know what happened to this weaponry. This is partly why all Western intelligence agencies, including French and German ones quite uninfluenced by Ahmad Chalabi, believed that Iraq had actual or latent programs for the production of WMD. Would it have been preferable to accept Saddam Hussein's word for it and to allow him the chance to re-equip once more once the sanctions had further decayed?

Could Iraq have been believably "inspected" while the Baath Party remained in power?

No. The word inspector is misleading here. The small number of U.N. personnel were not supposed to comb the countryside. They were supposed to monitor the handover of the items on Iraq's list, to check them, and then to supervise their destruction. (If Iraq disposed of the items in any other way—by burying or destroying or neutralizing them, as now seems possible—that would have been an additional grave breach of the resolutions.) To call for serious and unimpeachable inspections was to call, in effect, for a change of regime in Iraq. Thus, we can now say that Iraq is in compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty. Moreover, the subsequent hasty compliance of Col. Muammar Qaddafi's Libya and the examination of his WMD stockpile (which proved to be much larger and more sophisticated than had been thought) allowed us to trace the origin of much materiel to Pakistan and thus belatedly to shut down the A.Q. Khan secret black market.

Wasn't Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations a bit of a disgrace?

Yes, it was, as was the supporting role played by George Tenet and the CIA (which has been reliably wrong on Iraq since 1963). Some good legal experts—Ruth Wedgwood most notably—have argued that the previous resolutions were self-enforcing and that there was no need for a second resolution or for Powell's dog-and-pony show. Some say that the whole thing was done in order to save Tony Blair's political skin. A few points of interest did emerge from Powell's presentation: The Iraqi authorities were caught on air trying to mislead U.N inspectors (nothing new there), and the presence in Iraq of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a very dangerous al-Qaida refugee from newly liberated Afghanistan, was established. The full significance of this was only to become evident later on.

Was the terror connection not exaggerated?

Not by much. The Bush administration never claimed that Iraq had any hand in the events of Sept. 11, 2001. But it did point out, at different times, that Saddam had acted as a host and patron to every other terrorist gang in the region, most recently including the most militant Islamist ones. And this has never been contested by anybody. The action was undertaken not to punish the last attack—that had been done in Afghanistan—but to forestall the next one.

Was a civil war not predictable?

Only to the extent that there was pre-existing unease and mistrust between the different population groups in Iraq. Since it was the policy of Saddam Hussein to govern by divide-and-rule and precisely to exacerbate these differences, it is unlikely that civil peace would have been the result of prolonging his regime. Indeed, so ghastly was his system in this respect that one-fifth of Iraq's inhabitants—the Kurds—had already left Iraq and were living under Western protection.

So, you seriously mean to say that we would not be living in a better or safer world if the coalition forces had turned around and sailed or flown home in the spring of 2003?

That's exactly what I mean to say.

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 23, 2007

Thus Spaketh the Goracle

What a snoozer......I still think my favorite parts of Al Gore's testimony before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee are where he drew comparisons of himself to Leonidas and the heroic undertaking of the 300 Spartans.

All hail, the eco-messiah and interplanetary savior of the planet Earth:

Following his lead, future hippy-moonbats mobile will be updated to look like this:

Labels: ,

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

War-mongering conservatives are clamoring to see "300"; for PC-laden liberals, did it go too Farsi?

Like Kevin McCullough, I had no interest in "300", until I started reading a couple of Dean Barnett's posts, regarding some buzz around the movie. It seemed liberal reviewers were not too keen on the "pro-military/pro-warrior-ethos" of the film, let alone its non-PC depiction of the Persians (and the Iranians have also taken offense to it, for that matter, calling it American war propaganda!). As McCullough writes,

For me this changed this morning after AllahPundit pointed me to a review that reveals how liberals are responding to 300.

"...a textbook example of how race-baiting fantasy and nationalist myth can serve as an incitement to total war."

"Leonidas likes to rally the troops with bellowed speeches about 'freedom, honor, and glory,' promising that they will be remembered for having created 'a world free from mysticism and tyranny.'"

So if liberal bloggers are outraged - especially THIS outraged - it seems to me I need to see what the fuss is.

Not only did Victor Davis Hanson purportedly enjoy it, but movie-reviewer Michael Medved also endorsed it. I found that surprising, given that he doesn't strike me as the kind of movie-goer who appreciates graphic violence and sex (you'd think that the same liberals who loved movies with way more over-the-top violence and sex, as seen in "Kill Bill" or "Reservoir Dogs", would like this film). But the pro-warrior-ethos that embraces such concepts as honor, love of country, duty, and the fight for freedom is deeply appealing to us "pro-victory" conservatives.

So, yesterday I caught a matinee, and finally saw "300". Most movies bore me these days. But I really liked this one. On a purely visceral, gut level, that I can't totally explain. The movie was simply unapologetically pro-war, in the sense that it celebrates military virtues and military culture. Not the kind of war for empire; but one of fighting for honor, freedom, and service to country and one's brothers-in-arm.

I didn't think I'd like the "Sin City" look of the filming; but, I soon found myself captivated by the look, and not distracted by "graphic novel" feel and look. I liked the action, and only today found out that the stunt coordinator is a friend of mine (and who is a staunch pro-war on terror Bush supporter, btw). He and the assistant coordinator are extremely talented martial artists. Especially in the more exotic, non-traditional combative arts.

I do believe that the Frank Miller novel that this movie is based upon, was written long before the current struggle we are in. So I think some of the criticism (actually, most of it) about it being anti-Muslim/anti-Iranian need to just chill. Although, according to this NYTimes review,
some changes to Mr. Miller’s original story may have inadvertently amplified its political resonance.

In a key twist Mr. Snyder and his collaborators expanded the presence of Gorgo, the Spartan queen and Leonidas’s wife, including, among other things, a sequence in which she inspires a wavering populace and weak-willed council to resist the Eastern armies even at the cost of battle deaths. “Her story is that she is trying to rally the troops,” said Ms. Snyder, who dismissed as irrelevant a question about her and her husband’s personal political philosophies.
Then of course, there are some lefties, as the same NYTimes article notes, who will see the Bush Administration as being in the role of Xerxes' Persians; and themselves as the Spartans. Hell, even Al Gore, testifying today before the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee, envisions himself as a Leonidas, fighting the "good fight":
I'm watching the hearings on Global Warming on C-SPAN and The Goracle is testifying. He just compared what people leading the global warming crusade to what the Spartans did in the movie "300" to save democracy !
It's a stylized movie, based upon a graphic novel, which is in turn a fictionalized account of the actual historical events. The good guys are the Greeks; the Persians happen to be the bad guys. So what? It's escapist entertainment. Do I relate any of it back to the real world? For sure. But not in the redneck, bigoted, racist, ignorant manner in which the multiculturalist PC-laden Left and CAIRhadists fear I will see the movie.

What resonated for me, was the unapologetic celebration of the virtues of a pro-military culture. And if some people want to draw parallels between the movie's fantasizing and today's reality.....well, good.

Also blogging:
Anna's Clue Tank
Mary Katharine Ham
The Conservative UAW Guy

Labels: , , ,

Sunday, March 18, 2007

March 17th was a Great Day for the Real Peace Activists: Those Who are Pro-Victory!

"Peace is not merely the absence of war, but the presence of justice, of law, of order- in short, of government."-Albert Einstein

Usually, something makes "news" because it is an event that is an uncommon occurrence. If it were common, it would be ordinary and not raise an eyebrow or be worthy of a second glance. That's in part, why tragedies and sensationalized stories occupy the headlines and frontpage news.

The anti-war demonstrations that took place all over the globe last Saturday to "commemorate" the 4th anniversary of the Iraq War and the 40th anniversary of a march against the Vietnam War, is certainly newsworthy. After all, it's not like they take place on a regular basis. But the frequency with which liberals and moonbat Democrats, "peaceful terrorists" and peace fascists, make spectacles of themselves is huge. In a sense, we are all a bit desensitized by their antics, because we've seen them all before: The outlandish costumes, the peripheral agendas and liberal causes that have nothing to do with the war, the over-the-top signs... These are commonplace. Therefore, what should have been the real story- the shock and awe of the March 17th protests- should have been, and should yet be, the sizeable turnout of those who vociferously opposed the moonbat brigade.

No one has the exact figures; perhaps 10,000?....and with pro-war and anti-war supporters mixing and mingling, no accurate estimates to distinguish the numbers on both sides will likely be possible.

I concede that it is probably the case that the anti-war contingent outnumbered the gathering of eagles, Patriot Riders, Rolling Thunder, Vets, and all those other pro-victory Americans who came from all across the country to make their presence felt. After all, this was an event organized by A.N.S.W.E.R., as highlighted by the numerous orange, black, and yellow carbon-copied cut-out signs. But as the NYTimes notes,
As they gathered before the march, the protesters met what several veterans of the antiwar movement described as an unusually large contingent of several hundred counterdemonstrators.
The Washington Post also doesn't dismiss the pro-war supporters, and calls their presence smaller than that of the anti-war crowd, but "sizeable":
Much of the passion yesterday was supplied by thousands of counter-demonstrators, many of them veterans who mobilized from across the country to gather around the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. Some said they came in response to appeals on the Internet to protect the Wall against what they feared would be acts of vandalism; no such acts were reported.

Others said they were tired of war protesters claiming to speak for the country. "I'm here because I think we need to commit to our troops in the field," said Guy Rocca, 63, a veteran who drove nine hours from Detroit.
With C-SPAN refusing to televise any coverage at all of the counter-protesters, and much of the mainstream also seemingly silent in providing detailed coverage of the pro-war supporters and those who came to protect the Memorial Wall, the Washington Post apparently could not ignore the presence of those who support the troops, the war, and our President:
It was quickly apparent that the weather had not prevented counter-demonstrators, many in black leather motorcycle jackets, from showing up in force and surrounding all sides of the Wall.

At one point before the march started, counter-demonstrators formed a gauntlet along an asphalt walkway on Constitution Avenue and heaped verbal abuse at protesters who walked through on their way to the assembly area. One Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair yelled obscenities at demonstrators, including some with children.

Some demonstrators supporting the war effort engaged in good-natured banter with war protesters. But others blocked paths and prevented marchers from getting near the Wall, particularly anyone carrying a sign. District resident Eric Anderson, 47, had his sign ripped from his hands and thrown in the mud.
I'm glad that the Washington Post at least saw fit to provide an acknowledgment of the sizable presence of those who came to protest the protesters. Even if someone at the Post saw fit to describe the event in a headline caption that clearly slants the readers' impression:

The "heckling" label appears in quite a number of Reuters photos. Many of the photos seem eager to highlight any anti-war vet, giving the impression that the majority of those who have served or who currently serve are turning against our presence in Iraq (of course, not all of these vets might in fact be who they say they are); and curiously, none of the captions that accompanied the Reuters photos seemed to mention that many of the pro-war supporters were vets themselves, both former and current.

The Washington Post, to its credit, devoted a whole article to the counter-protestors:
Several thousand vets, some of whom came by bus from New Jersey, car caravans from California or flights from Seattle or Michigan, lined the route from the bridge and down 23rd Street, waving signs such as "War There Or War Here." Their lines snaked around the corner and down several blocks of Constitution Avenue in what organizers called the largest gathering of pro-administration counter-demonstrators since the war began four years ago.

The vets turned both sides of Constitution into a bitter, charged gantlet for the war protesters. "Jihadists!" some vets screamed. "You're brain-dead!" Others chanted, "Workers World traitors must hang!" -- a reference to the Communist newspaper. Some broke into "The Star-Spangled Banner" as war protesters sought to hand out pamphlets.

"Bunch of hooligans in motorcycle jackets!" one war protester shot back.

The large turnout surprised even some counter-demonstrators. Polls show public opinion turning against the war in Iraq, and the November election was widely seen as a repudiation of the administration's policy.

"I've never been to a war rally. I hoped I'd never have to," said Jim Wilson, 62, a Vietnam vet from New Hampshire. "We're like what they used to call the silent majority."

In some past antiwar rallies, the number of counter-demonstrators has ranged from a handful to a few hundred. "Our side got apathetic," said Debby Lee, whose son Marc, a Navy SEAL, was killed in Iraq and who came to the rally from Phoenix in a caravan organized by

But the war protesters have gone too far, Lee and others said. At a Jan. 27 antiwar rally, some protesters spray-painted the pavement on a Capitol terrace. Others crowned the Lone Sailor statue at the Navy Memorial on Pennsylvania Avenue with a pink tiara that had "Women for Peace" written across it.

Why is the counter-protest news-worthy? Why should it upstage the anti-war demonstrators, even if the ANSWER Coalition and its allies were able to rally a much larger turnout? Because conservatives and pro-war/pro-victory supporters are the silent majority that rarely chooses to make a spectacle of themselves the way liberal activists do. Usually, while the moonbats are out smoking weed and beating on their bongo "peace" drums (like those 21st century hippies are doing in the top photo), your ordinary, normal patriotic American is too busy at work, making an actual difference.

The anti-war movement of the 60's give themselves far too much credit for effectiveness; much of it, undeserved, not to mention shameful for what did result from our withdrawal of all support for our South Vietnamese allies. And now, Congressional career politicians, many of them from the 60's baby-boom generation, want to repeat that exit strategy?!
I haven’t spoken at an anti-war rally in 34 years, because I’ve been afraid that because of the lies that have, and continue to be spread about me and that war, that they would be used to hurt this new anti-war movement. But silence is no longer an option. I’m so sad that we still have to do this, that we did not learn the lessons from the Vietnam War.

That's what Jihad Jane said, for the previous anti-war rally from a month ago. It had a larger turnout than the March 17th rally, but not nearly so much as they conflated to have had. The biggest anti-war demonstrations in history, by the way, occurred just before the Iraq War. Jane Fonda, like so many anti-war liberals of her era, learned all the wrong lessons of Vietnam. To this day, they refuse to grasp the extent of suffering that resulted from their getting what they demonstrated for: a cut-and-run exit strategy out of Vietnam. And they cheer and applaud themselves for their sickening "victory".

Jonah Goldberg writes in USA Today,
"I heard the same kinds of suggestions at the time of the end of the Vietnam War," Kennedy told NBC's Tim Russert, mocking the notion that we'd have a "great bloodbath" with more than 100,000 dead. "And for those of us that were strongly opposed to the war, (we) heard those same kinds of arguments."

Yes, but those arguments were right. Our withdrawal from Vietnam did contribute to a great bloodbath. More than a half-million Vietnamese died at sea fleeing the grand peace Kennedy and his colleagues orchestrated. And more than 1.2 million Cambodians died at the hands of the Khmer Rouge, thanks to the power vacuum created by our "humanitarian" withdrawal. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a presidential candidate, insists that a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq can't make things any worse. In 1975 he took a similar line: "The greatest gift our country can give to the Cambodian people is peace, not guns. And the best way to accomplish that goal is by ending military aid now." Someone rent Dodd a DVD of The Killing Fields.
The "compassion" of anti-war "peace" movements is cruelty to the world. As I quoted in an earlier post from Dorothy Thompson,
"They have not wanted peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war- as though the absence of war was the same as peace."

Which is why the kumbaya lambs to the slaughter living amongst us will get us killed. In a world filled with wolves and sheep, thank God for the sheepdogs!

Going back to something I touched upon earlier in this post, I think it's important to observe that many of those who showed up for the anti-war protest come with a variety of liberal agendas to push; the facts of the war are peripheral and they only protest the war as a default. CJ observes this. The ANSWER Coalition organized the rally, and the NYTimes describes them as
Saturday’s march was organized by the Answer Coalition — named for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism — an organization that was initially associated with the Workers World Party and now affiliated with a breakaway faction of that party called the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Judging by the speeches and placards, the marchers on Saturday set their sights on sweeping goals, including not only ending the war but also impeaching President Bush and ending the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Many carried Answer Coalition signs bearing the image of the Latin American revolutionary Che Guevara.

Brian Becker, the national coordinator of the Answer Coalition and a member of the Party of Socialism and Liberation, said the group held out little hope of influencing either the president or Congress. “It is about radicalizing people,” Mr. Becker said in an interview. “You hook into a movement that exists — in this case the antiwar movement — and channel people who care about that movement and bring them into political life, the life of political activism.”
The anti-war left will always be hamstrung by these fringe organizations, peripheral to the purposes of the anti-war movement. NYTimes again:
Many in the crowd said they were unfamiliar with the Answer Coalition and puzzled by the many signs about socialism. Several said they had come from across the country for a chance to voice their dismay at the war.
The anti-war left is populated and accompanied by 9/11 truthers, socialists and communists, pro-Palestinian/anti-Israel protesters piggying a ride, eco-terrorists, radical Islamic apologists, MeCHa and other ethnic activist groups, and countless other Leftist groups, each to promote its own agendas. And then of course, you have the ones who are related to the conspiracy nutjobs, in that they have a loose screw in their noggin. From the LA Times coverage of the Hollywood version of Saturday:
The protest had a Hollywood feel. Marchers snapped photos of a Glendale couple wearing grim reaper costumes—"I'm Bush, she's Cheney," said husband Norm Wheeler. Actress Athena Demos rose above the crowdon orange stilts, with 8-foot cloth wings. "I'm dressed like the dove of peace," she said.
Cuckoo! Cuckoo!

March 17th was a great day for pro-victory "peace" activists; that is, those who advocate for peace through military strength. The true peacekeepers are the brave men and women who serve and sacrifice for something greater than themselves. They are the ones who make peace and prosperity possible. What have pacifists ever done to end fascism? End totalitarian states? End Nazism? All they have done is to enable more of the same suffering and oppression. God bless the troops, and those who support them!

"I was once asked why I don't participate in anti-war demonstrations. I said that I would never do that. But as soon as you have a pro-peace rally, I'll be there." - Mother Theresa (1910-1997)

Also blogging:
A Soldier's Perspective
Gazing at the Flag (Who got interviewed in The Oregonian- Good piece!)
Media Lies
Michael Medved
Mike's America

Labels: , ,

Saturday, March 17, 2007

A Gathering of Eagles


03/18/07 12:41
CJ's first post is up. Please check it out. I have more to say later tonight. Unfortunately, weekend duty calls. I'm sure others have put more up, so be sure to check the links below.
I'll also respond to comments, later.

*End UPDATE 4*


03/17/07 19:10
I have been out and about all day, and am only now digesting the after action reports. Mike's America has a series of posts from our blog-buddies who were out there, live-blogging. Curt did a quick round-up, even as he is away to take care of a family emergency.

"They have not wanted peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war- as though the absence of war was the same as peace."
-Dorothy Thompson

Meanwhile, Moonbat Michael Moore links to photos of antiwar protestors; a good many from protestors on the westcoast, Hollywood. Damn...too bad I had to work.

I've noticed that the Reuters photos of pro-war supporters are accompanied by captions that characterizes them as "heckling" and "shouting"; I'm sure that's true, but it totally slants the coverage, as the language of the captions that accompany the "peace" protestors is more neutral in tone, if not empathetic.

There are a number of photos of "Iraq Vets Against the War", but I've yet to come across pro-war vets in the photo-coverage by Reuters.

Through all of this, my question to all those people who are aching for peace in photos such as this and this, is: Why are you demonstrating against the U.S., which is trying to bring peace and stability to Iraq? Why isn't your message addressed to the insurgents and terrorists? I ask you to study the Dorothy Thompson quote which accompanies this update.

The Washington Post seems to have a pretty even-handed coverage. But I could be wrong.

Here are some great photos:

A U.S. Marine, who said he served in Iraq but would not give his name, yells at an anti-war protester. His button shows support for U.S. troops and President Bush. Marvin Joseph- The Washington Post

There was a stand-off between police and a small group of protesters tried to make their way from the Pentagon parking lots into the building. Brendan Smialowski- Getty Images

A counter-demonstration drew people from around the country who said they came to voice support for the troops in Iraq and to make sure that the Vietnam Veterans Memorial was not desecrated. Others said they were outraged that the march route passed Arlington National Cemetary. Gerald Martineau- The Washington Post

pro-victory conservatives or pro-surrender liberals?

Ryan Foshee, left, Keith Clark and Michael Rigby play melodies on Washington Boulevard near the Pentagon Marvin Joseph- The Washington Post

Hmm....I wonder why I haven't seen a photo of this (from Grizzly Mama) in any respectable mainstream news rag, yet?

Check these blogs for photos and reports, and for follow up posts:
Always on Watch Two
America and Proud
AmeriCan-Do Attitude
Anna's Clue Tank
A Soldier's Perspective (Looking foward to his post when it goes up; says he'll have audio)
cajun tiger's rants and raves
Gazing at the Flag
Grizzly Mama
Marie's Two Cents
Michelle Malkin
Midnight Blue
Now for Something Different
Old War Dogs
Steve's Hodge Podge
The City Troll
Yankee Mom

Also blogging:
Freedom Eden
Mary Katharine Ham
The Chatterbox Chronicles


03/15/07 20:56
CJ wrote a great account of a run-in he had yesterday with a lone pro-victory supporter amidst a camp of anti-war protestors settling in at the Capitol. He had a civil conversation with one of the protestors who brought up some of the nutter conspiratiorial talking points, including Halliburton and contrails. Please take the time to read it. CJ exemplifies the best qualities of an American soldier. He's a good, good man.

Also, in his post, I'd like to highlight the following:
before I left I wanted to impart one more piece of wisdom. I motioned towards his encampment and asked him which of the tents before us were collecting letters, cards or care packages for troops. I asked which tent was asking for donation of shoes, clothing, toys, school supplies or other good that Soldiers can hand out to the Iraqi people to make their lives better. I told him I don't have a problem with the peace movement and anti-war movement. But, I DO have a problem with a peace movement and anti-war movement that purports to do it in the name of supporting the troops and yet nothing there makes me feel supported. I told him the reason why his cause will never gain acceptance from Soldiers is because they go about it all wrong. I may feel more inclined to listen to their speeches and read their literature if I actually something there that REALLY supported the troops. I asked him when the last time they went to Walter Reed and brought cookies, movies, music, flowers, letter, cards, drawings, anything to make those Soldiers they supposedly support feel better. NEVER. And that, my tin foil hat wearing friend, is why I don't support you and made an effort to thank that ONE lady standing alone on the side of the road instead of any of the many people mulling about without deodorant. I also thanked him for the civil conversation (up to the point of "chemtrails") and that it's a rare day that I have a conversation with people like him and don't get called names or have to deal with screaming and yelling. We shook hands and departed.

*End UPDATE 2*

*Update 1*
03/13/07 22:08
Mike's America will be live-blogging skye, Grizzly Mama, and City_Troll's observations. Add Cajun Tiger, Steve Harkonnen and Always on Watch Two to that list. Mike also mentions that the Gathering of Eagles website was assaulted by hackers...because we all know how much liberal activists respect freedom of speech.

*End Update 1*

The Gathering of Eagles is to stand silent guard over the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial in Washington D.C. on March 17th. They will counterprotest Jihad Jane and her ilk and protect the Memorial Wall from any peace fascist who tries to deface property and dishonor the memory of our fallen heroes. Bill Faith writes in an e-mail:

The plans for the antiwar protest on March 17th appear to be firmed up. Here's the intel I got from someone in MD. "The area where the "proposed" protesters' permit has them assemble is on the hill overlooking the Wall (about 50 yards East). Unfortunately the route to the Pentagon from their probable gathering area is between the Wall and the reflecting basin; past the Wall, past the Women in Vietnam Statue and past the Three Soldiers Statue."

This means as they walk by they can do whatever they can imagine, probably not spray paint, but maybe try to hang signs off the statues, paste mottos on The Wall, plant signs above or below it, etc. And make it part of their political activism.

Call for Help
We are now looking at TENS OF THOUSANDS of Americans who will not only be guarding The Wall, but showing Jane Fonda and Cindy Sheehan that they will not control Washington, D.C. on March 17th.
This post remains at the top until March 18th.

Previous post:
When California runs red...
"These Colors Don't Run"
From Hanoi Jane to Jihad Jane
Cindy Sheehan video

Blogging (to be continually updated):

Always on Watch Two Post #2
A Rose by Any Other Name Post #2
A Soldier's Perspective
Bill's Bites

Brutally Honest
Cajun Tiger
Confederate Yankee
Democracy Project
Flopping Aces (previous)
Freedom Eden
Gazing at the Flag (also, check out this example of the peacefulness of a peace fascist)
Grizzly Mama Post #2
Marie's Two Cents
Midnight Blue
Mike's America
Mudville Gazette
My Republican Blog
Now for Something Different
Old War Dogs

Rocket's Brain Trust
Screw Politically Correct B.S.
Steve's Hodgepodge
Yankee Mom

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 16, 2007

In the Beginning....there was climate change

And then Man came along; and with Man, came Man's desire to subjugate and exercise power over his fellow Man.

Thus was born the messianic Eco-politician, who invented the "science" of climate change: an eco-apocalyptic belief that subjugated mankind into the religious belief that he was the direct cause of what has been occurring since the beginning days of the earth's existence.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Montel Williams Ambushes Military Families

airforcewife has been a reader and friend since sometime last year. She not only leaves great comments, but she is a good writer (her blog is no longer active, but she still writes by contributing to SpouseBuzz). Witty, perceptive, knowledgeable, and a good representative of military family life.

So it was infuriating to learn about her recent experience as a guest on a taping for the Montel Williams Show. Apparently, the Montel Williams Show invited airforcewife and 24 others to participate in what was misrepresented to them as a program that would examine the effects of deployments upon military families. What it turned out to be, was an ambush.
As soon as the opening tape began to roll, hubby and I were uncomfortable. Montel was using this episode to discuss the debilitating illnesses some military members have suffered from anthrax inoculations. Using footage with the flag and men in uniform, Montel referred several times to military members being "guinea pigs", repeated several times about the mandatory vaccine which he presented as going to everyone with no one being able to refuse it.
Which is a deliberate lie; or agenda-driven ignorance.
while the issue of the anthrax vaccine is a very real one and one that needs to be addressed further, Montel Williams chose to use this subject to ambush a military group (which included women whose husbands were currently deployed to Iraq). The sudden ambushing of such an emotionally charged subject, combined with the portrayal of our military members as total victims (which included Montel's assertion that the military was being treated so terribly that no one would volunteer again and the draft would have to be reinstated) was an emotional manipulation and degradation of the very military members that were supposedly being lifted up. The blatant emotional manipulation and doomsday scenarios implied by the footage shown reduced more than one attending wife to tears.
Like Amy Proctor and others have experienced before, airforcewife and the other military family members found that their ability to voice their opinions was stifled and suppressed. Cheri Jacobus writes on Amy's blog entry,
As a guest on the Montel Show, I was surprised when watching it to see they had edited out more than half of my comments — most of which were pretty significant and made good points in rebuttal to Montel. The show that aired had little resemblance to what actually transpired during the taping.
Having been caught off guard, and inadequately prepared to counter-argue, it was a despicable, disrespectful treatment of military families. A betrayal of trust. One that is all too commonly felt, causing many involved with the military to feel suspicious of those in the media.

Ever since Vietnam, there has seemed to be a strong anti-war current running through the mainstream media. They profess to "support the troops". But their idea of support is to portray those in the military as "victims".

When ABC Nightline wants to televise photos of the war dead or when there is an outcry by journalists wanting to take pictures of flag-draped coffins, their intention isn't to "honor" the fallen; their intention is to make a statement: "Look at how awful war is." The manner in which stories about our military are often portrayed in the media, is designed to take the fight out of us; to extinguish America's support to sustain the costs and the sacrifices that are inherent in any armed conflict. It is why a gold star mom such as Cindy Sheehan is pushed into the media limelight, as "Mother Sheehan", while the voices of other gold star parents, such as Mark Crowley and Debra Argel Bastien who are pro-Bush and pro-victory, are all but ignored. It is the victims and the whistleblowers who are given the spotlight; the conscientious objectors and deserters who are hailed as heroes; not the medal of honor recipients; not the actual heroes of this war who believed in what they fought and died for.

This mentality among those on the anti-war left, crystallized itself to me a month ago, when a liberal friend of mine in NYC repeatedly made phone calls and sent me an e-mail, trying to talk me out of joining the military. She is an occupational therapist, and had applied to Walter Reed. She definitely is someone who I would say is against the war, but supports the troops. Yet, I would also add that she does not understand the stakes and does not understand the heart and mind of warriors. She gave it away in her letter. Her whole argument against me enlisting centered upon trying to scare me about disfigurement, amputations, permanent injuries, etc. And then she said how Marines at Walter Reed still wanted to return to the battlefield and she could not understand why......she could not understand why. And that is her problem, right there; and the problem of many in the media who seek to project the status of victimhood upon the troops, always referring to them as "children". My friend even called me up, excitedly, alerting me to the Bob Woodruff's ABC special that was airing in a few hours. She felt that the focus on traumatic brain injury would dissuade me from military service. Just the opposite effect occurred. Like the media, she just doesn't get it.

Thomas Sowell wrote a brilliant article, published this week. As usual, he is perceptive and cuts through the fog. Here is his genius, in full:
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, March 13, 2007

The front cover of Newsweek's March 5th issue featured a woman with amputated legs and a sweatshirt that said "ARMY" across the front. Inside, there were pages and pages of other pictures of badly wounded and disfigured military veterans, in a long article that began under the big headline: "Forgotten Heroes."

The utter hypocrisy of all this can be seen in the word "heroes." There have been many acts of heroism among our troops in Iraq -- but those heroes didn't make the front cover of Newsweek.

One man fell on a grenade to protect his buddies, smothering the fatal blast with his body, so that those around him might live when he died. But that never made the front cover of Newsweek. It was barely mentioned anywhere in the liberal media.

They are not interested in heroes. They are interested in depicting victims -- in the military as in civilian society.

The Newsweek hypocrisy is not unique. It has been the rule, not the exception, as much of the mainstream media has devoted itself to filtering and spinning the news out of Iraq.

Parading casualties is called "honoring our troops." But what does it mean to honor someone? When we gather at a memorial service to honor someone in death or at a ceremony to award prizes to them while they are alive, what do we do?

We talk about the good things they have done, their endeavors and their achievements. We don't call simply pointing out that someone is dead "honoring" them. Nor is simply pointing out that someone is dismembered or disfigured "honoring" them.

Talk about "supporting the troops" or "honoring the dead" is part of the general corruption of language for political purposes. It is like saying "I take full responsibility," when all that this phrase really means is: "You have caught me red-handed and there is no way to deny it, so I will just use these words to try to dissipate your anger and escape punishment."

After generations of dumbed-down education in our schools, perhaps it is inevitable that there would be large numbers of people who have no way of separating rhetoric from reality.

The reality is that many of those in the media and in politics who are constantly talking about "supporting our troops" or "honoring our troops" have for years been in the forefront of those criticizing or undermining the military, long before the Iraq war.

During the early stages of that war, men fighting for their lives were criticized for not protecting the contents of an Iraqi museum.

Unsubstantiated charges against American military personnel create instant front-page news stories in the New York Times. But innumerable things that our troops have done that would make us proud are not likely to be reported at all.

It was front-page news in the March 4th New York Times when a young soldier said goodbye to her father before heading off to Iraq.

It was front-page news in the New York Times when some reservists had financial problems when they had to leave their civilian jobs after being called to active duty in Iraq.

Anything negative, no matter how commonplace, can make the front page of the New York Times, while even remarkable acts of bravery or compassion are passed over in silence.

Activists are creating displays in which a small American flag is planted for every death in Iraq. For some of these activists, it may be the first time they have ever touched an American flag, unless they were burning it.

Perhaps the most irresponsible act of all has been Congress's promotion of a non-binding resolution against the recent increase in American troop strength in Iraq.

People's opinions can differ on troop deployment, even if -- like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi -- they have never deployed troops in their lives and have no military experience whatsoever.

But if anyone in Congress is serious about stopping the war, they can simply cut off the money -- and take responsibility for the consequences that follow.

Instead, they want to have it both ways, passing a non-binding resolution whose only effect is to embolden our enemies and undermine the morale of our troops that they keep saying they are "supporting."
Please take the time to read airforcewife's full account, as well as the following links, on whose blogging.

Send Montel a piece of your mind, civil or otherwise.

Also blogging:
Amy Proctor
A Soldier's Perspective
Hot Air
Tanker Brothers
The Mudville Gazette

Labels: , ,

Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved