Posted by Peter W. Schramm
Christopher Hitchens doesnt pull any punches on the so-called anti-war march in Washington. ANSWER and the others are in fact pro-war, just on the other side. It is wrong (vide New York Times) to call such organizations and rallies "anti-war."
Why is this seemingly one of the best kept secrets around? The MSM will report that the protest took place but wont report the outright lunatic fringe things that get said and done at these rallies.
My nickname for ANSWER is Stalinist Thugs for Peace and my favorite description of them is, "With the peace these people have in mind, who needs war."
Its quite possible that Hitchens characterizations of the ANSWER group are true, but what does that mean, really? What significance does it have. All of it would be news to my parents (63 and 70 yrs. old, from Wooster, Ohio) and their younger friends (from Kent and Cleveland), in total a group of nine, who are all laughably far from being Stalinists or anything of that ilk. A local church group rented a bus and posted some flyers about an anti-war march in DC. My parents and their friends wanted to go, not because they wanted to engage in class war or anything of that nature, but because they are simply opposed to the current war in Iraq, and many of the Bush administrations policies that complement it. Upon their return, my parents reported no pulled-to-the-side whispers or murmurs of Stalinism, Communism or anything like that. Perhaps 1% (probably less) of the huge group down there was part of the sinister (yet somehow unknown) ANSWER plot, but whatever their "pro-war" message was, it certainly was not infiltrating, much less converting, the mass of Americans who assembled to protest this ridiculous war, people from all walks of life, a large cross-section of the American people, including military, Iraq war veterans, and even Bush voters. It is certainly not wrong to call the recent DC rally "anti-war." It was, and is, completely accurate.
I see your point, but look at it this way. If the Ku Klux Klan organized a protest march against, say, affirmative action, and it attracted large numbers of regular people who just happen to oppose affirmative action, dont you think that the supporters of affirmative action would scream bloody murder? No matter where one stands on a controversial issue, isnt it incumbent on a person to look into who is organizing an effort before one participates in it, or donates to it? I would contend that this is one of the main reasons why conservatives are able to portray liberals as unpatriotic--they are too often careless about the sort of company they keep.
Mr. Moser - I guess I wasnt explicit enough. My parents and their friends didnt go to the rally because of ANSWER. ANSWER was hardly the sole organizer. Maybe they had permits (along with other groups), but the vast majority of people wouldnt have been able to say so, if they were asked. And what of a rally where two groups that DONT wish to be associated with each other argue over which one is the official sponsor? Ive already seen scenarios like that. What if a person agrees with one group, but not the other? At the rally itself, my parents were very careful not to toss money into any open sack or hat, and they didnt just sign any petition shoved under their nose, for a variety of reasons. Additionally, ANSWER is not nearly as well-known as the Klan. I consider myself pretty well-versed in political interest groups, from left to right, but Id not heard of ANSWER until after this rally. Probably part of the reason for this is that ANSWER has even less influence on society and politics than does the KKK. As far as your affirmative action example, I think if the right were to organize an anti-affirmative action demonstration, it would more likely be set up by the Heritage Foundation than the Klan. The topic seems a bit "wonkish" for the Klan, I think. Klan members might show up, but maybe not in their sheets. I do think there is some value in knowing about organizers of such events, but the truth is that very often the spirit, goals and purpose of some rallies are forged by the group that shows up and then completely overwhelm whatever message the formal, official organizers had in mind (obviously, this can work for better or worse - in this situation I would say for the better, of course). Such is the case with the recent DC rally. The participants werent there for some obscure Stalinist message. They were there because they were against the war. I think your "company they keep" argument, using guilt by association, is a kind of red-baiting.
My parents and their friends didn’t go to the rally because of ANSWER.
As far as I know, no one is saying that they did.
ANSWER was hardly the sole organizer. Maybe they had permits (along with other groups), but the vast majority of people wouldn’t have been able to say so, if they were asked.
According to the New York Times, ANSWER was more than just one out of a wide array of sponsors--it was one of the two main cosponsors. As for the vast majority not realizing that fact, well, perhaps they should have been aware of it. Perhaps they should have looked more closely into the event that they were becoming involved in. Thats exactly the point Im trying to make.
As far as your affirmative action example, I think if the right were to organize an anti-affirmative action demonstration, it would more likely be set up by the Heritage Foundation than the Klan. The topic seems a bit "wonkish" for the Klan, I think. Klan members might show up, but maybe not in their sheets.
Youre essentially dodging the issue by saying, "but that would never happen." Whatever you may think of the groups politics, the Heritage Foundation is a respected think-tank. The KKK is a hate group. I wouldnt hesitate to participate in an event sponsored by the former (assuming I agreed with the issue), but I would never take part in anything sponsored by the latter. Some organizations are beyond the pale, so to speak. ANSWER is one of them.
I think your "company they keep" argument, using guilt by association, is a kind of red-baiting.
It would be red-baiting if I were accusing those who innocently--and ignorantly--attended the march of being Stalinists. Im accusing them of poor judgment, and nothing more.
At the risk of belaboring the point, I think it relates to something I said here. When I first mentioned the efforts of the "Take Back the Memorial" group, certain liberals were quick to jump in, accusing it of advancing a sinister right-wing agenda merely because some avowedly conservative groups had endorsed it. Yet some of these same people, who would carefully look into the connections of TBMT and then refuse to have anything to do with it--no matter how noble the cause--if there were conservatives involved, might then go off to march on Washington without bothering to make sure that they arent marching under the banner of an avowedly Stalinist organization.
That is why liberals are perceived as unpatriotic. Is it unfair? Maybe. But a good analogy might be the person who leaves his or her keys in the car, and then comes back to find it stolen. Sure, a crime has been committed. But really, did you have to make it so easy for them?
John and Melissa-Has anyone researched the claims of Hitchens? When he accuses Michael Moore, for instance, of being pro-bin Laden, I remember the suggestions in Moores movie that it was actually Bush who was pro bin Laden (remember the part about the bin Laden family flying back home when all the other planes had been grounded?)
Is it possible that ANSWERs "support for Castro" is based on their call to accept Fidels help after Katrina? having been accused (on this site) of being a traitor because I think that Bush lied, I am a bit sensitive about the veracity of name-callers like Hitchens.
Maybe, Melissa, instead of apoplogizing for your parents, you might check to see just how evil and anti-American ANSWER really is.
Well, neocon Michael Kelly is no longer with us to smear an ANSWER "led" protest, since he was killed in the war he cheered for, but leave it to Hitchens and his newfound fan club of Righties to take over on that count. Heres a great analysis of Kellys Jan. 03 Red Scare column. The article does point out that Hitchens did concede one painful truth that the Ashbrook gang would probably prefer to ignore: "The United States had at least a hand in the coup that brought Saddam to power. It encouraged him in his attack on Iran. At the very time of his worst conduct in Kurdistan, Washington was his best friend. When he plotted to straighten the Kuwaiti frontier in his favour, he was given the greenest of lights."
The protesters at the recent DC event have nothing to apologize for, but President Bush most certainly does - one enormous concatenation of lies.
In response to Bens point (a fair one, I might add), heres an assessment of ANSWER from another leftist, antiwar organization. I cant testify to its reliability, but Id wager that the only things that have been written about the group have come from its supporters (such as the site Mr. Fridmann mentions above) or its enemies.
No, keep on belaboring John - this is getting interesting.
Hey, its just a bunch of Reds and the "useful idiots" they could attract. The upper Midwest is full of stupids who compare the real world to the idealist mush in their brains, and such people are perfect fodder for the Stalinists, enviro-anarchists, and other such losers. Why try to reason with them...they stopped using their minds some time ago.
I try to reason with them, Dain, because I think that at heart most of them are decent people. I cant be around my Dad for fifteen minutes without getting into a political argument with him--usually about Iraq--but that doesnt mean he isnt a smart, patriotic, good man. And even if I dont end up convincing anyone, I never fail to learn from exchanges with people like that.
I was against the first Gulf War at the time (Ive since changed my mind). Im rather confident that I would not have attended a protest sponsored by a Stalinist group, no matter if we happened to agree on the particular most immediately at hand or not.
There are just too many other ways to express ones stand w/out swelling the ranks of an event put on by a truly disgraceful outfit, which ANSWER certainly is.
Another point that should be stressed here is what the mainstream media would likely say about Johns hypothetical Klan-organized protest that drews ordinary right-of-center folks to express dissent against affirmative action:
Were such a protest ever to happen, I suspect that MSM coverage would dwell loudly and heavily on the disreputable sponsorship, and NOT on the more mainstream Americans who heedlessly took part in it w/out "looking under the hood."
In the cognate case of this recent "antiwar" rally, the MSM did exactly the opposite, effectively flushing ANSWERs sponsorship (and bizarre issue stances) down the proverbial "memory hole."
People whose views I dont care for have a right to hold lawful public protests, of course--even Stalinists like ANSWER and unhinged folks like Cindy Sheehan. Thats not the issue.
Rather, Melissa, my beef (and one of John Mosers too, I think) is the way in which the MSM spins and puffs these things, deliberately whitewashing them and in effect lying by omission about them in order to make them look "safer" and more "mainstream" in the eyes of Middle America than they really are. Cindy Sheehan got the same spitshine treatment, w/ the MSM downplaying some of the loopier things she has said (like about ending the "US occupation" of post-Katrina New Orleans).
If your parents took part w/out really knowing who was putting the demo on, Melissa, all were saying is that wed urge them to be more careful and do more discriminating "due diligence" research next time. I certainly wouldnt call your parents Stalinists. Of course they have no actual legal obligation to heed any advice, but I still feel it would be the right thing for them to do.
Well, as they say, John, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Being "decent" is important, but its no excuse for allowing emotions (or wishful thinking) to substitute for thought. I seriously doubt such people are open to a reasoned approach...it usually takes a large symbolic event to snap them out of it, and by then whatever good could come from their "conversion" is typically long gone.
In short, theres a word for such people...fools. Its OK with me if they are foolish on their own time and dime, but too often reasonable folks pay for their stupidities. I vote to hold them responsible for abrogating their mental responsibilities.
I think its somewhat misleading to refer to the WSWS as a "supporter" of the Workers World Party (ANSWER). Here is their position, as they stated it:
The World Socialist Web Site criticizes Workers World for its orientation to the trade union bureaucracy and sections of the Democratic Party in the US, and to bureaucratic and bourgeois nationalist regimes internationally. Our differences are deep and principled and involve essential issues in the development of a revolutionary strategy for the American and international working class.
There is a time and place to elaborate and explain these differences. With Kelly and his ilk, however, we are dealing with political scoundrels in the service of reaction. In opposition to Kelly’s red-baiting, our attitude is unconditional and unequivocal defense of the Workers World Party.
And I havent read all of the previous posts about the Take Back The Memorial group, but I would say that they are themselves pretty clearly a right-wing group with right-wing goals. It will be interesting to see how their "no politics" pledge pans out once they have control over the design of a memorial. They openly state that they work closely with "9/11 Families for a Safe & Strong America." Apparently, to be part of such a family one must also support the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Heres the heart of a letter from a soldier that the 9/11 FFSSA group posts on their site:
"I know why Im here, and so do all the troops around me. We were attacked, and within a few minutes we lost 3,000 civilians. We were attacked by terrorists whose breeding ground is the Middle East. We did not overreact or react disproportionately. We reacted precisely, with all our diplomatic, economic, and military might and struck right at the heart of those breeding grounds. It really doesnt matter which country, who had WMD, or who had oil reserves; those are only a means to an end. We went for the heart."
I am quite skeptical of his "and so do all the troops around me" claim. I have read plenty of soldiers letters that show that claim to be false. Further, I would think that if we were going to "go for the heart" that would mean, if were being very specific, going after Al Qaeda. But Saddams Iraq and Al Qaeda were not only NOT connected but ideologically opposed. If were being more general about going "for the heart," and talking about attacking a country, with all of the civilian deaths and "collateral damage" that entails, then Id think that would mean Saudi Arabia, seeing as a solid majority of the 9/11 terrorists came from S.A., and none of them came from Iraq. But, strangely, this soldier simultaneously claims that "it really doesnt matter which country" but that we did, somehow, go "for the heart."
The TBTM group has made some small efforts to obscure their political views (at least on their site), but looking at who they "closely coordinate" with, its pretty easy to see that theyre not just some non-partisan, cross-section 9/11 families group or anything like that.
Howard, you need to brush up on your Middle Eastern history. Bin Laden himself is Saudi, but his ties to the Saudi royal house have always been strained. Indeed, one of the reasons his organization attacked us is because the Saudis chose the U.S.s offer to defend them against Saddam Hussein over Al Qaedas. Look it up.
As for Iraq having nothing to do with the war on terrorism, please. There were links between Saddam and Bin Laden (check out Stephen Hayes The Connection. Moreover, the man DID have WMD, even the UN inspectors said as much.
And you are correct...since the Right has a monopoly on patriotism these days (and I think they really do), an redesigned memorial will be patriotic. Sorry to disappoint you.
No, Ben, Im not going to apologize for my parents. I dont feel the need to. This has gone well beyond absurd. So, a large majority of the protesters were "ignorant" of ANSWERs involvement with the rally, and even less aware of ANSWERs dodgy reputation and affiliations. But what of United for Peace and Justice? They are a large COALITION of groups. Its entirely possible, likely even, that many folks protesting via one of the coalition member groups would oppose one or many of the OTHER coalition member groups. Should they (and basically everyone) skip the protest because of the stretched "sponsorship" from the group they oppose?? A huge percentage of the country is now opposed to the war. If we begin looking at every nook and cranny of their disparate beliefs, Im sure wed find that while they agree in their opposition to the war, they might disagree on a whole lot of other things. I think, in the end, this is all about trying to discourage dissent. Far from "marching under the banner of an avowedly Stalinist organization" (yes, there they were, under the Hammer and Sickle flag! haha) or some "pro-war" group, my parents were there because, after careful and serious reflection of the issue, they are opposed to the war in Iraq (it was the first protest demonstration they were ever in). THAT, and that only, was why they went to march and protest. And "Dain," whoever you are, I dont appreciate you calling my parents "Reds," "useful idiots," and "fools." Thats really offensive. Ill resist responding with similar insults and name-calling directed at you.
And, PJC, thanks for telling me that my parents "have no actual legal obligation to heed (your) advice." Ill be sure to pass on to them, though, that you feel greater "due diligence" "would be the right thing for them to do."
I wouldnt be too cocky, Melissa. Odds are good that your folks did have their picture taken and someone is keeping tabs on their dangerous and subversive activities!
I also find it amusing to see an Ashbrookie citing a rant by anti-theist/atheist with a particular grudge against Catholics. The man isnt at all fond of religion, generally. Also, were his books on Kissinger and Mother Teresa promoted at Ashbrook?
Now, Melissa, I never called your parents "Reds," I called them only "useful idiots" and "fools." Altogether fitting...if you march with Stalinist scum, regardless of the cause, youre either a fool or a traitor. Our troops in Iraq are trying to free people from tyranny and jump-start democracy in the region, but your parents are protesting that, and instead are in league with people who praise Fidel Castro, Kim Jong-Il, and probably Saddam himself (who, after all, modeled his government on that of Stalin). Sorry, your parents arent mainstream, patriotic Americans, regardless of what you may believe.
As for the war, support for it has been pretty rock-solid all along. Approximately half the people want to keep our troops there until the job is done...real Americans supporting real American troops.
And FYI, since people say what united America is a set of political beliefs, I dont think of radical Leftists as true Americans. They should all be sent to North Korea on vacation...permanently.
Melissa - Dont take any of Dains ranting to heart. Im sure that this is not necessary, since his problems would be obvious even to a bedbug, but most of the people on this blog are actually very decent human beings. Dain is kind of a side-show, providing comic relief for people who like to see car accidents up close.
For instance, he pretends that he hates Fascists and totalitarians, but then he demonstrates through his language that he is one. He says that he loves America, and is a patriot, but the only right that he recognizes is the right to be like him. That is why he can make statements like:
"As for the war, support for it has been pretty rock-solid all along."
He is blind to anything that doesnt fit his rigid worldview.
Stay tuned, because it gets better. After the things he has written about your parents, he will whine and babble like Gollum in a snare when people call him names.
And for added irony, he is consistently forgiven and tolerated by the very people that he berates for being anti-religion!
Pathetic noxious bag of inconsistencies and vitriol? Or, merely a snarling bully and pundit wannabe? You make the call.
Melissa, Dain deserves a punch in his stupid face from your dad. Dain is the most useLESS idiot around. At least your parents are useful, and not in the way that Dain means! I salute them - did you hear that?? I salute them.
"Anna" and "Ben" -- all that heat and absolutely no light...just a bit of name-calling. You folks really do a great job of living up to your Marxist-Leninist heritage! You make me smile...so transparent. Wow, vitriol....what a fancy word, Ben, at least for someone with your vocabulary!
Im no sideshow, as you well know. Hell, the way these folks defend this blog called "No Left Turns" youd think that they were a pack of Rockefeller Republicans. Nonetheless, nothing I cant handle.
Re Comment 18:
Melissa: Youve gone to some trouble to portray your parents as extremely thoughtful, careful people free of extreme leanings and so on. In keeping with the spirit of thoughtfulness that you imputed to them, I tried to suggest in a nice way that they ought to be more discerning, and you respond with waspish flippancy. Presumably you must care about how some of us evaluate their behavior, or you wouldnt be here at NLT defending them at length. So why the sarcastic dismissiveness in the face of even rather measured criticism?
You are waaaay off base in your reference to Dain. Dain does a great job of posting here. Please keep that in mind.
To Melissa: it is people like you and your parents who have made America a great country. Salutations!
Dain, how much do you wanna bet that Melissas parents drive some foreign car and sip on fancy overpriced coffee all day? I like your North Korea idea, too. Maybe they can put in there first day of real hard work there too!
Well, I suspect a nice, LOOOONNNGGG vacation in North Korea would cure them of foolish idealism, just like the anarchists who visited Lenins Russia.
HDT, I know your praise is sarcastic (or perhaps to encourage what you consider crazed rightwing self-condemnation), but my opinions are not knee-jerk, but rather deeply rooted in years of study and reflection. What shocks me is how few of you folks on the Left ever overcome your indoctrination (via parents, college, etc.). Open your eyes, please...before its too late for the country.
PJC - I havent gone to any "trouble" to "portray" my parents in any way. I just described what they did and why. I wrote a response to the orginal post because I thought it was unfair, to say the least. I might have had very minimal concern at the beginning of this thread what some people thought about my parents protesting, and how that was being mischaracterized and misinterpreted, but now, after reading some of the subsequent comments, I really dont care. Yes, your criticism was relatively "measured," but I slipped into sarcasm mode, or "waspish flippancy", when I read your comment that my parents have no "legal obligation to heed" your advice. Well, duh. Thats obvious! Im glad things havent yet reached the point where they are so obligated! And your Wilford Brimley-style "right thing to do" moralizing simply irked me, as it struck me as soft patronizing, condescending, and elitist. You are not my moral instructor, not in any way. Instead of trying to put me in my place, why dont you rein in your insane brethren, "Dain" and "Mack Sandpaper"? Certainly their talk of sending my parents to North Korea is worthy of condemnation, no?
Melissa, you cut me to the bone. I was suggesting a vacation in sunny North Korea as a curative for your parents ailment. Theres nothing that can restore the mind like the "rice-water soup and dirt" diet one finds in the poshest resorts in the Socialist world. And just look at those prices! Affordable even on a public teacher/activists salary! They wont even have to sell their aging Volvo.
See what I mean? While he claims that my words carry no substance, he also makes it clear that his vision for society has a gulag for anyone that disagrees with him. That is why he claims to hate Stalin, Kim, and Saddam-- they have been at the top of a game that Dain would love to play. But give him five minutes at the helm, and he would follow their lead just like the little dictator he wants to be!
No pun intended.
Wanting some people to taste what they would serve the rest of us for dinner isnt authoritarian or dictatorial. Its good commonsense.
What seems common depends on the people and ideas with which we surround ourselves. In my circle, sending ones enemies off to the gulag is not very common.
No, in your circles building gulags is common. Thats my point...folks should understand Stalinesque totalitarianism before they go linking arms with such people at anti-American rallies.
And MY point is that you understand totalitarianism so little that you dont see that you support it, yourself! Here, and in other posts, you have shown yourself to be a total puppet of the regime. While you may THINK that your bullying and your send-them-to-Korea language may be your own creation, you are merely moving your mouth while your programmers words come out. Dont you feel that pressure up your backside? Its the hand of the puppet-master, and you are the brown-shirted, brainwashed Bubba-Pinochio!
Do you hear yourself? Would you want your children to mouth such obcene, hateful tripe? The sad part is that you think there will be a place for you at the table, when the rebels and the minorities, and the gays, and the poor, and the intellectuals have all been sent to camps.
Theres a special place in the afterlife for the Capos of this world, and I suspect youll get special treatment!
Calm down, multicultural boy. I dont see anything patriotic about marching with a bunch of Stalinists...people who would take my freedom away in a micro-second. You are the one supporting totalitarians, not me.
As for being either a puppet or a Pinnochio...dude, I could out-think you in my sleep. Indeed, since you obviously dont do any actual thinking, I suspect my dog cogitates on the universe more than you do.
Just as I suspected from your performance as Lt. Dan, youre just another hysterical Mooron. No content, no real critique...just accusation and the insistence that we reward cowardice and treason as it masquerades as "freedom of speech." Well, this is MY freedom of speech, boyo, so get used to it.
And, by the way, the Bubbas keep the country going, unlike Lefties who sit on their butts and collect their government paychecks. A little more respect, parasite, if you please.
No, Dain, YOURE the one supporting totalitarians!
RE: Comment 28, stop it with the "Open your eyes, please...before it’s too late for the country." nonsense - well, Mooron, you fascist Righties have a lock on the White House, Congress and the Supreme Court, and it seems safe to say that the Pentagon isnt run by a bunch of lefty peaceniks, so why are you doing the pre-emptive blaming crap? Your team has the reins - now its time for you to impress America. "Lets roll" and all that garbage.
A brief lesson for all the dim-bulb Lefties out there:
Mooron - a follower of Michael Moore. By definition, rightwing folk cant be "Moorons."
totalitarian - to advocate the total control (and refashioning) of all a societys institutions (as well as social psychologies). The vast majority of rightwing folk never advocate such things...typically we are trying to conserve traditional (i.e., tried-and-true) social patterns and institutions (e.g., heterosexual marriage, private enterprise, tolerance for religion in the public square). Thus, calling someone from the Right a "totalitarian" is an oxymoron, or perhaps an oxyMooron :)
Fascism is poorly understood by Moorons, who typically overestimate the role of "race" and underestimate the role of "collectivism" in fascist thinking. While race does play a strong role in political thinking (both on the Left and the Right), rightist thinking eschews collectivism. Seldom are we fascists.
So, you treasonous Mooron, go buy a clue and get back to me when you actually understand what you are talking about. Heres a HINT -- try hitting websites OTHER THAN the DU or KOS.
Dain!!!!! Why did you give a verbal definition for totalitarian, which is a noun (or sometimes an adjective or adverb)? And Ive checked my political science dictionary, but Ive found no entry for "Mooron." You cant blame anyone for assuming that your use of the word was just another one of your many misspellings!
Perhaps it hasnt occurred to you, but I DONT CARE. Now, if you have something of substance to add (which I seriously doubt), then do so. If not, shove off, mate. Youre wasting my electrons.
P.S. It is an old trick of the Left to try to "morally" and/ or "intellectually" exterminate (i.e., discredit) adversaries whose arguments they cannot otherwise counter. It grows rather tiresome, and it doesnt work as well these days...too many of us "bubbas" have some education.
It is an old trick of the Right to try to "morally" and/ or "intellectually" exterminate (i.e., discredit) adversaries whose arguments they cannot otherwise counter. It grows rather tiresome, and it doesn’t work as well these days...too many of us "latte-sipping elitists" have some education, which means something more than pleasuring ourselves while listening to Claremont Institute award-winning Rush Limbaugh.
Comment #41 is not mine, of course, and #42 is an early-morning screw-up.
Hey, whoever you are, at least have the decency to post under your own (*&*(*(^^ name.
Daln is every bit as much my name as Dain is yours. I guess since comment 42 is "the real" Dain, then comments 11, 14, 16, 21, 24, 28, 30, 32, 34 (geez, this guy needs to get a LIFE!), 36, 38 and 40 must be some windbag impostor, trying to make you, the "real" Dain, look bad. Whats your problem anyway, and why the virtual swearing?
Ok, drop dead...no swear words, but the sentiments there, right? When nitwits like yourself procure the names of others, it confuses the issue and makes a mockery of this whole discourse. Grow up. And Im done here...I wish there was a sign-in process so that people couldnt do this ... do you hear me, Peter?
Good God, Dain. Dont you think youre overreacting a tad? The other person is Daln, as in D-A-L-N. Its a DIFFERENT name! Youre not forsaking your liberal fans here at NLT, are you???
Ben - some excellent points about Dain and the tendency towards fascism, totalitarianism, etc. But he changes his "principles" from day to day, so who knows? Here he said that "the moral highground is secondary to winning the war," so none of his disturbing comments should surprise you...
Empty accusations, Wynnbag. War is war, and if you think feeling good about yourself should come before winning then, please, go "fight" for the other guy. Serious people dont have time for such stupidities.
Dain is right on the money. I think we all owe him an apology.
Oh, hey, I dont know if anyone is still following this thread (its clearly deteriorated quite a lot in the last 15-20 comments!), but I wanted to make clear that the last comment really was made by me. You see, last night, at Dains invitation, I attended a "meeting" of sorts in an isolated rural field, and during a break in the proceedings Dain approached me and started to explain his ship-em-to-North-Korea theory. At first I wasnt getting his point, but then he pulled up his hood a bit so I could hear him more clearly, and then finally I came to understand how the only acceptable critique of the war can be that aimed at the strategy and tactics of the undertaking of the war, not the moral justifications and underpinnings of the war itself. So, its all clear to me now, and Id like to be the first to apologize to Dain.
Ashbrook Center at Ashland University | 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 | (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)