A SUNDAY WITH MCDERMOTT AND THE HATE AMERICA CROWD

I went to the Jim McDermott Town Hall Meeting in Seattle today. A handful of FReepers were there with some excellent signs ("Go back to Bagdhad"). Unfortunately the vast majority of those attending (at least 250) in the packed room were gung-ho supporters of McDermott. Jihad Jim literally spent the entire 1 1/2 hours of his meeting bashing the USA. He said that the war on Iraq was merely a ploy by President Bush to distract the American people from the economy. He spoke of dying children in Iraq and polluted water and blamed the US. In fact he blamed the USA for every possible wrong in the world with the possible exclusion of athlete's foot. It was hard to take, especially when he accused the President of using the 09/11 Terrorist attacks for his own political benefit.

This man has no shame. I got up during the question/Answer session and pointed out that in his entire harrangue he failed to mention what Sadaam is about, what he has done to his and other peoples and the threat he poses to the U.S. and the world. When I made my comments I was heckled by the crowd, I was told to "sit down" and that I was "in the wrong crowd" , even though I was probably one of the few in the room who is actually a constituent. Jim suggested that the WMD threat is a made up bogeyman. He talked about how he felt so free and unfettered in Iraq - the only problem in the Iraqi paradise is apparently they don't have a prescription drug plan (I'm serious)our fault too.

Mcdermott actually said "Sadaam is at least five years away from building a nuclear weapon - so what is the rush in getting him now?"

One brave fellow asked what Mr. McDermott was doing to control rampant spending in Washington. Mr Mcdermott said (and once again I am serious) that he has been trying to cut defense spending for years (to wild applause).

Tariq Aziz could not have done a better propaganda job for Iraq. Jihad Jim then left the meeting to speak at a huge "Hate-America" Rally in Downtown Seattle.

I went down to the "Peace" Rally with my sign ("How Do You Spell Traitor M-C-D-E-R-M-O-T-T") I found a few pro-USA folks across the street from the rally waving signs and flags. This was before the main mass of Anti-USA marchers had arrived. At that time there were only about 300 of them and about 30 of us. It was very nice meeting Libertina and the FReepers who showed up. We had a good time and our very presence seemed to drive the unwashed hippies nuts.

Carol Cassady (Republican running for Congress against Bagdhad Jim) came by and we sang a few patrotic songs and chanted a few chants.

As time went on though the mood changed. The Hate America crowd began to get nastier (and a few were just looney). They started to come over to our side of the street and harass our small group. One slimebag unprovoked threatened to throw a rock at one of our group. The police said they could/would do nothing unless an actual assault occured.

We soon saw the thousands of the great unwashed marching towards us. One of the Cops quietly suggested that we get the hell out of there as they did not have the numbers to protect us. So we left.

What became clar to me is that the Lefties are a scary bunch, they hate those who disagree with their worldview. If these folks ever got into power it would be off to the re-education camps for all of us (I wish I was joking).

Anyways I'm glad I went to wave the flag a bit. I am very proud of those of you who showed up. It was 5,000 to about 30 but I think we made our point.

Our little group was mentioned by most of the media covering the event. Another day on the Left coast.

Wow. Unbelieveable that there are so many of these magot infected leftist/socialist in our country. Says much for our educational system and very similar to our local group here in Austin. Here's some thoughts picked up from a blog site. Wish I had seen this before going to our Anti-War protest.

Thanks for a job well done.

Found this on a blog thread. About sums up the rational fairly well.

http://www.joeuser.com/Articles/Whyistheblogspherepromili.html

Why is the blogsphere pro military action?

Brad Wardell ( 10/06/02)

A friend of mine asked me today why are so many of the blogs are “pro-war” with regard to Iraq?

I think it has to do with the fact that blogs, unlike the general media, are much more interactive. If we put out a faulty argument, we’re going to get called on it.

So far, none of the anti-war people have put together a compelling argument for not acting with military force. For most people who have put a lot of thought into this subject it boils down to this:

Which costs more? Using military force to make a regime change in Iraq or doing nothing (or relying on inspections)?

The anti-war crowd has put together lots of “questions” and “concerns” and questions about the concerns and concerns over questions about what could conceivably go wrong if the United States and friends invade Iraq. For the sake of argument, I think many who advocate military action concede that military action, as an option, stinks. It’s just that we think the long term results of doing nothing will stink more.

The anti-war crowd is like the man trapped in a burning building. Standing near the edge of a window he sees a net being placed below him to jump into. He ponders all the things that might go wrong if he tries to jump into the net. Maybe he’ll miss. Maybe the net will break. Maybe he’ll get hurt anyway. Does that mean he shouldn’t still jump? Without considering the results of not jumping (such as being horribly burned to death), it’s a meaningless argument.

So any credible argument that is meant to persuade anyone to be against military action needs to put forth the argument that doing nothing will very likely cost less than military action. And so far no one in the blogsphere has put forth such an argument. In fact, I haven’t even read a single argument that attempts to argue that the cost of inaction is less than the cost of action.

And so the result is that the blogsphere is almost completely in favor of military action. If you don’t like that, then you need to come up with an argument that includes calculating in the cost of inaction.

update: One reader asks "What about the option between military action versus coerced inspections/disarmament?" This assumes 1) That inspections will somehow go differently than before, 2) The cease-fire terms required disarmament and he violated them, so we're going to go through the same show again? 3) How long are "inspections" going to last? 3 years? 5 years? Indefinitely? I don't see how indefinitely is going to be an option and what would be the costs of indefinite inspections? What about the costs of inspections for 3 years (which seems to me to just delay the inevitable).

I've written a follow-up that addresses the pro-inspection argument:

FOLLOWUP:

Inspections equal Inaction
Brad Wardell ( 10/06/02)

Several readers have emailed me asserting that if we can get inspectors back into Iraq and force disarmament then we can avoid a costly war, save lives, and accomplish the same goals. I don't see it that way. In my view, the original inspections had two goals:

1) To disarm Iraq of any weapons of mass destruction

2) To demonstrate whether Saddam could be trusted to comply with his agreements.

Both goals had to be accomplished to make any future relationship with Saddam's Iraq possible. History has shown that the original inspections accomplished neither goal and in fact has shown that Iraq will not act in good faith.

So what's really the point in getting inspectors in? How long are they going to stay in there? Indefinitely? That's the only way I can see them being effective. Having to play cat and mouse with Saddam and Junior over the next several decades is going to be costly. And I haven't seen any real
analysis looking at the likely costs of this.

What you say? If he messes up then we go in with force later on? Well heck, he was violating terms of the gulf war cease fire while US troops were still in his territory. The will of the "international community" and that of the United States is variable depending on who is in charge.

So let's look at this hypothetical:

Saddam lets inspectors back in with truly "unfettered access". Over the next 2 years they find no weapons of mass destruction (i.e. Saddam has destroyed them or hidden them beyond being found).

What then? The pressure to remove sanctions will only grow. So then let's say in 2004 the left's dreams come true and we get a President Bonior or something. At that point, Iraq sans sanctions is able to put its weapons programs into high gear and starts to gradually increase the pressure on theweapons inspectors, obstructing them at greater rates while bemoaning to the UN that "the inspections have been going on for long enough, it's time to move on.." President Bonior says "We must take Saddam at face value" and the inspections end. Just after Bonior wins his second term, Iraq announces it has several nuclear weapons and begins bullying OPEC, winning concessions from his neighbors and potentially supplying terrorists with weapons of mass destruction. And that's a rosy scenario.

So in my mind, all inspections do is delay the problem. Saddam has already demonstrates he can't be trusted. I don't want to gamble with something this important. Taking Iraq might cost us thousands of troops and require occupation while a new liberal democratic government is nurtured. But the benefits of this far outweigh, in my mind, the cost of inaction. And I suspect that like the first gulf war, that the likely costs of military action will be much less than the doom and gloom that we're being fed.
In my view, inspections are the same as inaction since they lead to the same results.

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies

Anti-war protest draws about 1,500 in Austin (plus two Freepers for counter-demonstration)

Posted by GUIDO to jobshopper; Gracey; TheSarce; austingirl
On News/Activism Oct 6 3:47 PM #84 of 87

same here, I read it in the paper and knew. Thankfully the paper here mentioned they were from freerepublic. I have been waiting for this report. I am so proud of you that went. It takes alot of courage to be there amongst some really bitter, hateful and basically looney people. I have done it before and the liberals do not know diplomacy. Thanks for all you do. guido

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.