Who are the real, useful idiots?

The Lewisville Leader ^ | Brent Flynn

[Exton1]

Who are the real, useful idiots? Brent Flynn Practically Rational
So the Lenins of the world think the anti-war protestors are nothing more than unpatriotic, ill-informed stooges of brutal dictators everywhere. Useful idiot is the term commonly used by right wing ideologues to describe the naïve peaceniks that are supposedly giving aid and comfort to Saddam Hussein by opposing the impending invasion of Iraq. Instead of characterizing the marchers as ordinary, loyal Americans who decided to get off their duffs for once and speak out against what they see as an unprovoked invasion of a weak country, the marchers are made out to be blame-America-first communists under the organizational leadership of Iraqi spies. Well, I have a different take on the subject. I would say that people who hold up the First Amendment as an example of America's greatness but then disparage those who exercise that right to peaceably assemble are the real, useful idiots. Those cynics cherish freedom and democracy as abstract principles but loathe those same ideals when they are put into practice in support of a cause with which they disagree. They see the mass demonstrations of democracy as a threat to the country, not as a show of its strength. They are the useful idiots of John Ashcroft. The right to an attorney, habeas corpus (probable cause) and the presumption of innocence-- all cornerstones of our American democracy-- are under attack by an Attorney General who believes constitutionally guaranteed rights can be denied, depending on the crime. Now, the mouthpieces of the far right are concocting hypothetical "ticking bomb" scenarios to scare Americans into believing that we need to take another look at torture as an interrogation method. Ben Franklin's words of wisdom should be required reading for these fascists in red, white and blue clothing. He got it right when he said that, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The neo-conservatives in charge of our government talk about sparking a democratic revolution in the Middle East, but by their arm-twisting and pay-offs to foreign governments they are circumventing the will of the people in those countries-- who are overwhelmingly against the war. Democracy abroad is a grand concept to this group of useful idiots, except when it expresses itself in the form of a Turkish parliamentary vote prohibiting US troops from deploying there. They are even more infuriated when democratic principles manifest in the form of the German electorate voting an anti-war Chancellor into office or the French Prime Minister actually listening to his people. These useful idiots wouldn't recognize true democracy if it marched past their front door on the way to the voting booth, but, oh, how they love the symbols of democracy. They even want to put you in jail for disrespecting the flag. What they don't understand is that by abridging your freedom of speech-- even the unpatriotic and offensive act of burning the flag in protest-- they are setting fire to the Bill of Rights. They apparently forgot that the flag is just a piece of cloth if it has no democratic ideals to represent. If it sounds like I take these attacks personally, that's because I do. I went to my first anti-war protest last month (actually it was my first time at any kind of protest). When I was walking through the streets of downtown Dallas with thousands (and there were thousands) of fellow Dallasites, Texans, Americans, it was one of the proudest moments of my life. And no amount of brow-beating and comparisons to Lenin's unwitting dupes will change that. No, the protesters aren't unpatriotic, un-American or useful idiots, but people who criticize them for practicing democracy in its purest form have a few things to learn about citizenship in a democratic republic. It is not merely your right to dissent when you disagree with your government's policies, IT IS YOUR CIVIC OBLIGATION. Before the Bush hawks start exporting democracy to the Middle East through the use of military force, maybe we should make sure we've got it right in America. -- Columnist's note: This was my last column to appear in the Star Community Newspaper cluster. It is ironic that after writing a forceful essay in support of the first amendment, my column was cancelled. I was told that because I had attended an anti-war rally, I had violated the newspaper's ethics policy that prohibits members of the editorial staff from participating in any political activity other than voting. I was also told that my objectivity as a reporter would be called into question. However, my opposition to an invasion of Iraq was well documented in previous columns before I revealed that I had participated in the protest. But instead of taking me off of my beat as a staff reporter or reprimanding me, my opinion column was cancelled-- the aspect of my job that was enhanced by my participation in the rally. I am convinced that if my column was supportive of the war and it was a pro-war rally that I attended, they would not have dared to cancel my column. In my opinion, a powerful liberal voice was unwelcome in the conservative Republican county served by my newspaper. The fact that the column was cancelled just days before the start of the US invasion of Iraq raises serious questions about the motives for the cancellation. -- Contact Brent Flynn at brent@brentflynn.com if you would like to receive future columns weekly via email. home

[weegee]

They are useful idiots. Antiwar.com was one of the early sites noted in the press for this antiwar movement. They claim to have protested Bill Clinton's wars too. Those protests never got any press.

Would the useful idiot housewives and college kids have taken to the streets if the media had hyped that antiwar movement as well, who knows but they are being played now.

A.N.S.W.E.R. and other organizations backing antiwar protests this time around have been revealed to be communist organizations.

The February "International Womans' Day" protests were held on what is a communist holiday (that began with Lenin).

If those on the left who protest along side aren't communists, then they are useful idiots for unknowingly supporting the communists. They should organize their own protests if they are truly motivated to oppose the war but support our constitutional form of government.

The "human shields" movement and riots in the streets provided aid and comfort to Saddam and the arab press. How many Iraqi soldiers were emboldened to their cause when they saw Americans denigrating their own ruler and not speaking out against Saddam?

[Eaker]

Ping for the truth!!!

Stay safe; stay armed.

[weegee]

"So the Lenins of the world think the anti-war protestors are nothing more than unpatriotic, ill-informed stooges of brutal dictators everywhere."

Never mind that Lenin was as about as big a leftist as they come....

He is a useful idiot because he doesn't undestand the motivation of the protestors. He opposes the president and this war and projects his objections into his understanding of all of those at the rallies.

The protestors held a major rally around the world on Internal Womens' Day. This is one of Lenin's own holidays.

Who is it that serves Lenin???

[weegee]

We should continue using the term "useful idiots", it has gained legs in the press and is humbling to the left.

Red Dupes would also work but "Useful Idiots" does better to identify the aid and comfort that they provide Americas (non-communist) enemies.

The left is getting outraged that protestors are being labeled communists but they are doing nothing to discredit the level of communist backing in the antiwar movement.

They've been had and used as pawns in a larger political game and they aren't happy about it but as always, the left cannot admit that they were wrong.

[Windcatcher]

I fully intend to keep using the term. First, *it's true*. Second, as you've said, it has legs. "Useful idiots" is very much a loaded term, as it comes straight from Lenin himself. I'd love to see pro-America rallies calling the peace protestors "useful idiots", in HUGE bold lettering. Force the media to relate exactly what we mean by it. Maybe it would give FNC an excuse to look into the Communist backing behind the peaceniks.

[Mr. Silverback]

As usual, the liberal definition of free speech is "The right to be free of criticism, no matter what vile, vicious and untrue crap I spew, or how wrong my basic premises are."

[xusafflyer]

All these Peaceniks and Liberal Reporters are just cowards. Go to Syria, Iran, Libya, or some other God forsaken country and protest human rights THERE! Quit hanging out at Starbucks and calling yourself a warrior. Demand equal rights for women in the streets of Damascus. Let's see what happens then.

Don't ever compare these b@stards to our soldiers. They are nothing but cockroaches.

[Scothia]

Brent and Natalie can hang out together and compare martyrdoms.

[sydbas]

I went to my first anti-war protest last month (actually it was my first time at any kind of protest).

Nice to know he has so much experience and knowledge about the goings on at anti-america, woops, I mean anti-war protests.

[sydbas]

As usual, the liberal definition of free speech is "The right to be free of criticism, no matter what vile, vicious and untrue crap I spew, or how wrong my basic premises are."

Exactly! I get so tired of the liberal arguement, or perhaps talking point is a better description, that we do have a right to protest and disagree don't we? Or that any criticism of them is an attempt to stop them from speaking out. Well, just who is stopping them from speaking? Everyday someone new chimes in: Robin Williams and Pearl Jam recently. In fact the arguement could be made that they are trying to silence our right to free speech by trying to quiet our criticism of them.

[ATCNavyRetiree]

RRRAAAAAALLLLLPPPPPHHHHH!!
You--GGAAAGGG--forgot to give us the--RRAALLPPHHH!--Barf Alert!!!!!

[exDemMom]

Instead of characterizing the marchers as ordinary, loyal Americans who decided to get off their duffs for once and speak out against what they see as an unprovoked invasion of a weak country...

Oddly, these same "loyal Americans" felt no need to protest the invasion of Haiti, Mogadishu, Bosnia/Kosovo/Serbia, or even the sporadic engagements with Iraq during the nineties.

...the marchers are made out to be blame-America-first communists under the organizational leadership of Iraqi spies.

We'd be a little less suspicious of their motives if they'd protested even once during the Clinton years. Clinton ordered more military actions than any of the previous four presidents--why protest now? Hmm?

[marron]

Now, the mouthpieces of the far right are concocting hypothetical "ticking bomb" scenarios to scare Americans into believing that we need to take another look at torture as an interrogation method.

Actually, the only people I have heard proposing torture is, specifically, Alan Dershowitz, who has been very vocal in promoting torture as an interrogation method. And, various journalists, who somehow seized on this as a way, I suppose, of sounding tough while opposing actual military action, and while opposing actual tough police action.

I suspect it may also have been a kind of provocation, to see if conservatives would take the bait. As far as I know, no conservatives have echoed this nonsense. Which means that only liberals, strange as it may seem, have been arguing for torture.

[WhiteGuy]

Americans denigrating their own ruler

Interesting choice of words........

[WhiteGuy]

Hurrah for the freedom to speak your mind.

My point

[weegee]

>>Americans denigrating their own ruler

Interesting choice of words........

Let's see my full quote again:

"How many Iraqi soldiers were emboldened to their cause when they saw Americans denigrating their own ruler and not speaking out against Saddam?"

How would you describe the activities from the Iraqi perspective?

Our "ruler" is elected. Would you prefer the word "leader"? Must "ruler" be synonymous with "dictator" in your mind?

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

\Rul"er\ (r[udd]l"[~e]r), n. 1. One who rules; one who exercises sway or authority; a governor.

[weegee]

Odd too that we have indications that the Iraqis have been using torture on American POWs and yet the left has been silent. It would not justify our use of torture, but it is another indication why the left earns the title "the hate America first crowd".

[WhiteGuy]

Must "ruler" be synonymous with "dictator" in your mind?

---

Yes,

Although Webster paints with a much broader brush, most Americans reject the concept of being "ruled".

However, in that context, some might find the term uncomfortably close to the truth.

What about you............

[weegee]

It would be inappropriate to refer to President Bush as the "leader" in this context, not because of any controversy over the 2000 election, but because the leftist protestors are challenging his leadership altogether. They do not appeal to get him to change his position and are unconcerned with his role in our government.

What would you call President Bush from the Iraqi perspective, if not "ruler"?

[Exton1]

ping