Left-Wing Hate Fest: What The Media Didn`t Tell You About The New York Anti-War Rally

Jewish Press.com ^ | 2/19/2003 | John Perazzo

[Spiritus Gladius]

Is it because they have trouble coming up with young Leftie icons who can speak without drooling or hallucinating?

[RooRoobird14]

Angela Davis a "political prisoner?!?" ROTFLOL!!! She's a tenured professor at the University of Calif. San Francisco. Trust me, this hideous black broad is untouchable--the'll keep her on the faculty (& payroll) no matter what.

As for her "prison-industrial complex" screed--I imagine she wants all those murderers, drug dealers, rapists, robbers, etc. who happen to be black just let go--because they're black, of course.

The "peace rally" was just another excuse for the Bush-hating-extremist-FemiNazi-racist black-socialist-enviroNazi-wack-jobs to congregate and have a mass orgasm.

[veronica]

My heart rate shot up a full 50 beats per minute while reading this. I ate through my pencil.

Don't do that! :)

Is it possible that there are people that are so ignorant? I never would have guessed that so many could fall victim for such terrible lies.

Some are ignorant (stupid) - some are evil. They support tyrants and dictators. Stupid Left - Satanic Left - by Steven Plaut

[CROSSHIGHWAYMAN]

Forrest Gump would put it like thi...isss:

stupid is as stupid does.

[GreenJay57]

Speaking as a liberal, I have to agree with some of you that many of the left-wing faces are less than desirable. It's unfortunate that we have such extremists speaking for us.

I'm sure some conservatives feel the same way about Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Falwell.

In particular, I find distasteful the way some liberals will "defend Iraq" as stated in the article. I wouldn't think anyone in their right mind could defend the Iraqi government. It would be nice if Saddam could somehow be ousted without alienating all of our allies.

I think the real argument here is not whether or not Saddam should be removed from power, but whether or not this issue supercedes other pressing issues, like, say, North Korea, or the fact that bin Laden is still at large. Or the fact that our economy is sinking like the Titanic. Bush is skimming over his domestic failures by diverting everyone's attention to an issue that is way blown out of proportion.

Let's face facts. If people didn't feel that Bush was doing the right thing by ousting Saddam, then he wouldn't have much going for him. He hasn't done anything stellar domestically. His tax policies have indebted the nation more then we have been in a long time, and his environmental policies are a pathetic front for his business contributors to expand their profits without regard to environmental degradation.

The only marginally good thing I can find about his policies is his backing of hydrogen-powered cars. However, it makes more sense to promote hybrid vehicles for the moment, with an eye on H-power in the future. How many places can you think of that sell hydrogen-fuel cells? It's all just rhetoric to make him seem green.

But I digress. The point is that Iraq poses no significant threat to the U.S. Their missiles can't reach us. Saddam and other Arabs have never gotten along very well, so we shouldn't give them a reason to do so. If Saddam wanted the U.S. eliminated, he would've sold his WMD to terrorists a long time ago. He has more reason to do so now only because Bush is threatening him so much.

It would be silly to say that this war is about oil since we all know Saddam is going to burn it all at the first sign that we might attack.

So that's a survey of the beliefs of a non-extremist liberal. We need a voice too.

[eyespysomething]

The drive to remove Saddam Hussein is part of the War on Terror. We have got to squeeze these guys out of these countries, which whether they ideologically agree with them or not, turn a blind eye when members of terrorist organizations who are hell-bent on destroying the West (including you) gather in their midst. How do we know if Saddam Hussein has or hasn't given chem or bio weapons to anyone. Do you know that? Do you think he would if given the opportunity? Do you think if we do not stop Saddam Hussein now he will gladly set aside all his handiwork and embrace the cease fire, 12 years old in April? Do you think he stopped working on his WMD's when inspectors were in Iraq prior to their removal in 1998? Do you think we should stop Hussein now, before he has the capabilities of North Korea? Do you really think North Korea will launch a nuclear war against us, or is it bluffing to get more money from us? Or are they afraid of what we will find in Iraq when we go in, maybe something with their return address? Axis of Evil, there has to be a reason he tied those 3 nations together, don't you think? Maybe they are the largest WMD proliferators on the face of the Earth. I have reason to believe the people making decisions in this country might know a little more about it than you or me. And you're right, its not about oil. We could drop sanctions against Iraq and buy all the oil we wanted to cheaply, without loss of life....YET.
Do you think Osama bin Laden is alive? Do you think as we tighten the noose slowly, if he is alive he will be driven from his hiding place?
Do you think that if the entire world had stood strong against Hussein, he would have realized he had to do what was asked of him? But since there is such an "outcry" of hatred for America/Bush, he realizes maybe he can stay in power? Do you think this is a man who keeps his word? Do you think it is important to disagree with your President, but not to spew vitriolic hate of him, to belittle him in the eyes of the world? Do Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton? Do you hope America, when the war starts, kicks ass against Hussein? Do human shields actually serve any purpose besides aiding and comforting the enemy?
Just thought I'd ask.

[Bigg Red]

I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the good gentleman, The Wizard.

Thanks.

[paul51]

BUMP

[Spiritus Gladius]

But you must admit, we on the right have trouble assembling such an outstanding parade of buffoons. I mean, when was the last time you saw David Duke invited to address a rally? (One without klan robes, anyway.)

Rush Limbaugh is only embarassing if you forget that he is the conservative equivalent to David Letterman. He's an entertainer, fercryinoutloud, and while I enjoy his show, I no more take marching order from him than you do from -- I dunno. Garrison Keillor?

As for Iraq: seriously, I agree that Iraq is not at present a direct threat to the continental U.S. But it *is* a direct threat to Turkey, which has been a dependable NATO ally for the last 50 years, and any action on that front would drag us into a horrendous war; it *is* a direct threat to Israel, which believe it or not is the only even semi-functional democracy in that region, and any action on that front would drag us into an even more horrendous war; it *is* a direct threat to Iran, which is nominally our enemy, but a ressumption of that conflict would make Armageddon look like a summer picnic; there is some very strong evidence that the Iraqi secret service has been supplying arms and financial support to Hamas and Hezbollah, so Al Queda are probably queing for their turn --

[A side question: if Iraq is not supplying terrorists with biological weapons, then how come the British, Spanish, and Italian police have all recently arrested Islamic terrorists carrying ricin?]

[Spiritus Gladius]

Sorry, I got interrupted in mid-post.

There's the humanitarian argument, which might be used to point out that Hussein's treatment of the Kurds is far worse than Milosevic's treatment of the Kosovars, and sauce for the goose...

But, I think the real issue here is that Iraq is a proven threat to Kuwait and our semi-friends, the Saudis, and the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iraq deciding to extend their hegemony over Kuwait and Saudi Arabia is almost as frightening as the alternate plan that the Saudis proposed this morning: that they be permitted to go in and "manage" Iraq until such time as the U.N. deems that the Iraqis are ready to resume self-rule.

It's an ugly, complicated world over there, and as long as our civilization depends on petrochemicals, we have a compelling interest in that region. Peace is a nice dream, and I fully support it, but once in a while the dream needs to be leavened with realpolitik.

[Jhensy]

Wow, Pete Seeger is still alive? How old is he now, 140?

He's in his eighties. I know this because I actually heard his appearance at the rally last Saturday, while listening in my car to the coverage of the rally on WBAI, N.Y.'s long-lived Commie-front "free radio" station.

He said something like, "I can't sing too good anymore as an 80-year-old man, you'll all have to help me by joining in..." and he then proceeded to mutilate "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" in a most cringe-worthy fashion.

Not to make fun of the elderly, but, aah, screw it. He couldn't remember the words and whatever voice he once had went bye-bye long ago, like his common sense. He mostly warbled the words while strumming one chord on his guitar, all the while goading the crowd of freezing idiots to sing along. His style was hilariously like a geriatric William Shatner, declaiming the lyrics ("where TREES made out of LEMON DROPS...").

It went on and on, with the crowd attempting half-heartedly to sing along while clearly begging for it to mercifully end, as I was doing.

It was the funniest thing I ever heard. There's gotta be a tape of it somewhere on the Net.

[OneLoyalAmerican]

Greetings veronica, FReepers, et al:

Thank you for the story. Seems these are the same people, who tell us how we should raise our children.

[Spiritus Gladius]

I have to imagine that right now, somewhere in the afterlife, Woody Guthrie is thanking God for sparing him from being on that stage.

[GreenJay57]

I think the difference between the buffoons on the right and the buffoons on the left is that the buffoons on the right are already in power. The buffoons on the left feel the need to speak out at rallies because they have no other real voice. Besides, who we deem buffoons is a matter of perception. Everyone has their own buffoons.

I've seen a lot more defense of Rush Limbaugh in this circle than I have of David Letterman in liberal circles. I'd say he's more comparable to Bill Maher or Michael Moore.

I don't know the answer to this one way or the other, but has Saddam Hussein made direct threats to Turkey? I know he hates Israel, what Arab leader doesn't? Also, where else could the terrorists have found ricin? I have to honestly say I don't know what the sources of this product are.

I still think it's hypocritical of us to go in and take out dictators because of their abuses of human rights. Notice I didn't say it's wrong. It's just hypocritical after we've supported so many terrible dictators in the past. Granted it served our interests at the time and *may* have saved the world from communism. No one can predict the future, so it's difficult to say what's wrong and what's less wrong in this situation.

Maybe if we go in there and take out Saddam it'll polarize countless Muslims to take up a jihad against the United States. Or maybe it could help stabilize the region. The terrorists haven't stopped since we've taken out the Taliban, and they were a more vehement supporter of Al-Qaeda and the like.

As has happened in the past with other "superpowers" (Greeks, Romans, etc), American hubris will probably be the end of us. I just wish Bush would stop beating the war drums for just a second and at least pretend to listen to what our allies have to say instead of acting like a dictator hell-bent on getting his own way. Then maybe more liberals will actually listen.

That's just my opinion.

[Spiritus Gladius]

I agree, the human rights rationale is hypocritical. That's why I don't use it.

As for spawning further jihad: read a little history. Iraq, Iran, Turkey, and Arabia have been invading each other for the past 5,000 years. There is little love lost between them. Since 1963 Iraq has been run by the socialist Ba'th Party, and in the 40 years since they've managed to seriously P.O. both the Sunnis and Shiites, both inside and outside of their borders. If I were an Iraqi I would not count on a worldwide uprising of devout Moslems to save me.

As for the listening to our allies: the Brits have been on the ground in that part of the world for the better part of two centuries, and they seem more eager to attack than we are. The French have a compelling economic interest in maintaining the status quo (TotalFinaELF has *enormous* oil leases with the current Iraqi government that will be worth nothing if the Ba'th Party falls); the Germans have been violating the arms embargo and have the court convictions to prove it; and the Russians (Lukoil) hold an enormous amount of debt which the next Iraqi government can be expected to repudiate. Who else do we need to listen to?

[Hint: listen to the Japanese. *They* say that the North Koreans are merely a client state for the Chinese, and that if the Chinese don't tighten up on Kim Jong Il's chain *they* will go in and solve the problem once and for all. And if that doesn't frighten you, you really need to read more history.]

[sheik yerbouty]

These left wing "anti war" rallies are actually, anti American Nurenberg rallies. All the lefties think X42, Pres. Damian, is their fuhrer anyway.

[MEGoody]

This just tells us what we knew all along. These people are not anti-war. They are anti-Bush and anti-democracy.

[Spiritus Gladius]

As has happened in the past with other "superpowers" (Greeks, Romans, etc)...

No offense, but you really do need to read more history.

With that said, I also wish that Bush would stop beating the war drums for a bit. There are some compelling and intelligent arguments that need to be made -- and can be made -- but instead all we get is this simplistic, "Saddam's the next Hitler. Gotta take out Saddam."

Every time we make an international conflict into a personal crusade against an individual person, we're setting up a losing proposition. It didn't work against Pancho Villa, it didn't work against Fidel Castro, it didn't work against Ho Chi Minh, and we're darned lucky that it did work against Hitler and Mussolini. Whenever it becomes personalized, all that person needs to do is survive (or at least not become clearly and obviously dead) and the perception becomes that he won. (Witness Osama Bin Laden.)

Saddam Hussein would be just another screwball if he did not have a ruthless political party behind him, a well-funded military machine around him, a sea of oil underneath his feet, and two unstable and corrupt monarchies for neighbors. Making this into a personal crusade against one man is, I think, very bad sound-bite politics.

[BossLady]

~Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton stepped to the podium........It is wrong, he said, “to send our children to foreign soil to protect oil interests"~

Welp, this is his platform in a nutshell. Obviously he is as uninformed as the rest of the 'Hate Bush' crowd.

[veronica]

Rush Limbaugh is only embarassing if you forget that he is the conservative equivalent to David Letterman. He's an entertainer.

I disagree. There is nothing "embarassing" about Rush. And Rush is entertaining because he has a brilliant mind and a witty sense of humor. First and foremost, I find him to be astoundingly smart about politics. That is why I enjoy his show so much.