Priorities
Crowds opposed to the war in Iraq surged past the White House on Saturday, shouting “Peace now” in the largest anti-war protest in the nation’s capital since the U.S. invasion.
The rally stretched through the day and into the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the National Mall. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, “I think they probably hit that.”
Speakers from the stage attacked President Bush’s policies head on, but he was not at the White House to hear it. He spent the day in Colorado and Texas, monitoring hurricane recovery.
Oh yeah, hurricanes.
“President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let’s move on,” Rutherford said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein “a noble mission” but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded.
How about YOU move on. Like focusing on something besides this tired rhetoric. Just a thought. These peaceniks at their foundations are supposed to be about caring for people. If that’s the case, why are they in Washington spewing liberal talking points, instead of lending a hand in the hurricane relief effort? It’s all about priorities.
Others talking about it:
The Political Teen
Michelle Malkin
September 25th, 2005 17:16
I gotta disagree with you on this one - the people protesting are hoping to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Perhaps their view is this:
People will continue to die everyday in Iraq, both civilian and soldier.
These deaths are a result of a governmental decision.
Whereas, the hurricane was a natural disaster, and the dying is being quelled by relief efforts as we speak.
Iraqi civilians and U.S. soldiers will continue to die as the war continues — and the protestors might believe that fighting to end the occupation is a humanitarian effort. Aside from conjecture, ending the occupation would end the loss of lives from the conflict. I personally don’t know what to think about the whole Iraqi business, but I bet if we don’t leave it in a stable position it would be a bad thing. I don’t know why we went over there — nobody really does — but I believe we did a good thing by ousting Saddam.
The only point I’m fumbling over is this: the protesters may believe they are performing a humanitarian duty — and you can’t unequivically say they aren’t. Also, perhaps the protesters donated money to the hurricane relief.
September 25th, 2005 17:47
When terrorists suicide bomb Iraqi civilians, is that a direct result of a governmental decision? At what point does it stop being the fault of our government, and start being the fault of the terrorists for perpetuating violence? It comes down to a battle of political will. The terrorists have the political will to commit suicide to cause us to leave Iraq in their hands. Do we have the political will to oppose that force? The US MUST NOT appease the terrorists by leaving, even if it means more violence. To leave now would mean they have won, and we have lost, and it will confirm to them that their tactic of using terrorism to achieve their goals is effective.
September 25th, 2005 19:33
i think you missed my point… — the occupation of iraq IS a decision, right or wrong. the hurricane was not. We are choosing to risk lives in iraq, right or wrong. perhaps the protesters see it as a wrong decision.
My post wasn’t meant to validate/invalidate the occupation — I just saw the comparison between the hurricane and protesting a little weak.
September 25th, 2005 20:15
Yeah, I knew you weren’t arguing that, but since you put it out there as their hypothetical position, I want to be on record as calling that position stupid and naive. =)
September 25th, 2005 21:27
John - you have your blog to denote one side, they have their protest march for the “other side”. The differenc is…….????
September 25th, 2005 21:35
Not sure what you are asking, GRR.
September 26th, 2005 14:00
Damon, the reason for my post was to show the hypocrisy of the protester’s position. I understand your point, but I have to disagree. If their true concern is human suffering, wherever it may be, then they would have been FOR the war in the first place. I know I don’t have to count down the list of atrocities Saddam committed against his own people during his reign. If you go purely by numbers, then this war has obviously saved lives. I believe the protesters are more about an ideological position, than actually being concerned for humans. Cindy’s whole lot is delusional.
September 26th, 2005 14:55
Josh - We can’t just go to war with every country by ourselves because a bad guy is killing people. Yes, to be against human suffering - we should have done something about Saddam. But outright war? Should we be at war with every nation/dictator who is in this situation? Or, should we find alternative means to work on the problems - engaging the rest of the world to help in the effort, and doing it as peacefully as possible (with maybe an assassination or two in the mix?!).
And if the reason for the war in Iraq *was* to end the human suffering there - then that should have been the pretense under which we went. That should have been the bill of goods that was sold to the American public. Not the WMDs that didn’t exist.
September 26th, 2005 15:07
My point was that these “humanitarians” should have been for the war in the first place because of the human suffering it would end. I’m not saying that was the official reason for going there, just a great by-product of the war.
The whole “WMD’s that didn’t exist” argument has always been shady to me. The Dems came to the same conclusion, Kerry was for it, Clinton was for it when he was in office. But this never gets mentioned, somehow it’s all Bush’s fault. I know we can’t go to war with every country that abuses it’s own people, there’s a big difference here though. Years and years of failed U.N. sanctions. Do you realize we only had a cease-fire with Saddam? He NEVER complied with the conditions. Do you think we were justified going in there the first time under Bush Sr.? If so, it’s just a matter of finishing the job. Bush Sr. and Clinton really dropped the ball on Iraq. It’s something that should have been solved long before George W. came into office.
September 26th, 2005 15:19
Sorry John - I thought I was responding to your other post, about rallies. It was a bit late at night for me, I was seeing double!!
I was trying to say that I don’t see much of a difference between a blog denoting one side (righty, in your case), versus a rallie denoting one side (lefty, in their case). They are both *rallies* per se, just in different venues, different forms of communication.
September 26th, 2005 15:37
Guys, stop arguing a moot point: we did go (or weren’t told we were going to war) on the reasons of humanitarian efforts. The fact that Saddam was a bad guy was never mentioned until after no WMD’s were found and thats when Hannity, Rush and the corus started in with the rape rooms, ect.
Officially we didn’t go their for that reason. There are tons of horrible dictators and Africa needs our help more than Iraq if the argument is genocide or humanitarian reasons.
The fact that other politician’s backed a war when they believed what Bush said is also moot. It was not their deciscion to go to war and they only had the intel the administration provided. Even Collin Powell did not know about the documents proving Iraq had NOT tried to buy uranium from Africa until after his UN address. All shady BS. Clinton dropped the ball in Iraq?
Also, if the UN sactions failed, how come Saddam didn’t have an WMD and it has now been shown how weak his whole operation had become. How did they fail? He was a nuecensce, not a threat.
GRR, follow the rest of us and ditch this site. It is all nonsense, propigandized political hackery. Or in otherwords, all they do is regurgitate what the see on Drudge or hear from Rush. Its someone else’s thinking.
They will NEVER believe Iraq was a lie and a monstrous mistake even after we leave which will happen before the insurgancy is over.
September 26th, 2005 15:50
You better not be fooling…
September 26th, 2005 17:48
hahahhhaaha.. that was like an object lesson in irony.
September 26th, 2005 18:03
That’s pretty much every comment from Adam.
September 27th, 2005 10:05
Is it? How much have Matt, Bret and I been posting lately? It seems that since the Drudge Report and Rush exist, there is no reason to look here as all you do is repost what they already said…but no one does your thinking for you.
Way to ignore the actual content again as per usual. I am sure you have great logic refuting my comments but instead choose to focus in on my mild baiting instead…
September 27th, 2005 10:12
Oh yeah, that’s mild.
September 27th, 2005 10:25
What does being “mild” have to do with anything? Mild or not its true. You can’t even argue to the contrary. You guys just regurgitate the thinking of other political hacks.
Killrighty is basically: “The Drudge Report 2…the generic version”.
September 27th, 2005 10:37
Lol, have you ever visited The Drudge Report? This whole “regurgitate” thing is just your arrogance popping it’s ugly head out yet again. You feel so sure about your position that anyone who disagrees must be a total moron or brainwashed. You accuse us of being both. I really don’t want to upset your private little world. Why don’t you go to some nice quiet place, maybe get some hot chocolate, and get lost in “My Life.”
September 27th, 2005 11:22
Hahaahah. You want to know something funny? The title of this very thread:
Priorities:
This via drudge
This is one of 5 threads from Drudge on the first page of your site alone, their is also 1 from Rush, 1 from Fox News and 1 from the Washington Post.
I don’t think this is a matter of opinion, this simply “is”. You CAN’T “dissagree” with this, but I guess you are right that if you are saying you do dissagree Josh, that you must be be brainwashed or a total moron….or you don’t know what “regurgitate” means.
Good call. Now for some hot chocolate
September 27th, 2005 11:44
Your whole premise is flawed here. I asked if you visited drudge because you don’t seem to understand what it is. All he does is link news stories. We write commentary, do you understand the difference. Yes, that’s where we get alot of ideas for our posts, but it’s just news stories(primarily from the AP.) You always accuse us of being narrow when it comes to news. Go back and look, most of the articles I reference are from the AP. That’s why I usually say “via” drudge. As it didn’t originate from drudge, it’s just how I discovered it. It’s cute when you get so excited like this, sorry to burst your bubble.
September 27th, 2005 11:48
Don’t forget My Life, never hurts to further insulate yourself from reality.
September 27th, 2005 12:30
Burst my bubble? I have been to his site and from what I have seen Drudge should charge you guys.
I did forget about your “commentary” though: “this article we found via Drudge is right and liberals suck”.
That totally changes everything.
Sounds to me like you described “regurgitate” perfectly there: you post links to someone else’s site who is already posting links from other sites/sources and then you comment that you agree with them.
What a great site you have here.
September 27th, 2005 14:12
Or disagree with them.
Welcome to the blogosphere, adam. That is what blogs DO. Discuss things that are interesting.
September 27th, 2005 14:47
Slow down John, you’re gonna lose him.
September 27th, 2005 15:16
Oh, that changes everything:
“this article we found via Drudge is right and liberals suck”.
or
“this article we found via drudge is wrong and liberals suck”.
As profound as your comments are, anything here can be found somewhere else better. I am not blaming you for regurgitating content from better blogs/ sites, I am just saying the site could be better. So sensative.
September 27th, 2005 16:01
No, you’re saying…
The problem is we just showed how incredibly ignorant you are. That’s why you were forced to clarify/change your position. Once again you have no idea what you’re talking about.
September 27th, 2005 16:17
HAHA ok Josh. I didn’t change or clarify my position at all. Cute though. You are fun.
September 27th, 2005 16:59
Here you compare us to a site that posts links to news stories, not even a blog, but somehow we’re one in the same. Then after we educated you, this clarification.
Whatever you say kiddo.
September 27th, 2005 19:07
I think you need to understand that posting links to the Drudge Report and then adding minor commentary is
“basically The Drudge Report 2…the generic version”.
Sorry kiddo, but you didn’t educate me on a website I already knew about.
You actually think that wether or not you nessicarily agree with the link you post changes this? Common kiddo, you can think better than that.
Lets look at an example of this top notch website - this very thread. You post a link to the Drudge Report followed by pulitzer prize quality commenary:
“How about YOU move on. Like focusing on something besides this tired rhetoric. Just a thought. These peaceniks at their foundations are supposed to be about caring for people. If that’s the case, why are they in Washington spewing liberal talking points, instead of lending a hand in the hurricane relief effort? It’s all about priorities.”
Truly my comment must be insane… So as I have said before, killrighy is basically “The Drudge Report 2…the generic version”.
BU-YA