The Command Post Op-Ed Page

Soldier Effigy In Sacramento Torn Down Again; Move America Forward To Protest Tonight Outside Home

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

Once again the effigy of a hanging soldier has been torn down from a Berkeley couples second home up here in Sacramento. The effigy which read "Bush Lied, I Died" was ripped down by a 30-year-old man. I reported on the first effigy that was torn down here and here. The person who ripped the first effigy down turned himself in to police and was released after questioning -- he faces misdemeanor vandalism charges.

A candlelight vigil is being planned for tonight by Move America Forward, a group that supports the troops and the war on terror. For more information on the vigil visit their press release.

Steve and Virginia Pearcy, who life to talk, were unavailable for comment.

KTXL

"The Pearcys are going to do this, they ought to be here and not cower and run back to Berkeley", said one resident. People in the neighborhood are once again forced into the spotlight. Because today, someone again tore down and ripped off the controversial effigy portraying a U.S. soldier stapled to Steve and Virginia Pearcy's home. A sign on the display read "Bush lied... I died." The Pearcy's own the home, but don't live there.

One resident said "How else are they going to get their voices heard? They could write their congressman. That would never be read."

One man who witnessed today's vandalism said a man in his 30's went across the lawn, climbed a tree, stepped on the gutter, stretched his body along the peak of the roof, tore down the display and took it with him. It's the same thing that happened last week, when a man ripped down the effigy in front of a FOX40 News camera. That man has been interviewed by Sacramento police, who have turned the case over to the District Attorney's Office.

Another resident said "It makes the situation worse because it makes the Pearcys look like victims, which they are not. The victims are anyone who puts on a uniform and goes to war for this country, and neighbors who have to put up with this garbage."

But another countered: "I feel when you opress people, you take away their rights and this is exactly what people are trying to do." The protest, displayed or not, is creating a circus-like atmosphere for those who live here. And it's not over. Tomorrow night, the group "Move America Forward" plans a candlelight vigil here on Marty Way.

Originally posted at Diggers Realm

Victory

Iraq won. America won. The human race won.

Immediately after polls closed, the New York Times grudgingly released their big story: “Amid Attacks, A Party Atmosphere on Baghdad’s Closed Streets.” You almost had to admire the Times’ pluck: they so wanted tragedy, but they were grudgingly admitting the truth.

But then, barely four hours after polls closed, they changed the headline on the exact same story to this: Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24

You have to laugh, don’t you?

Millions upon millions voted despite being told that they and their families would be murdered—then walked the streets proudly waving their inked fingers, undeniable proof of their exercise of the franchise, showing anyone who wanted to see what they’d just done for themselves, their families, and their country.

Thousands of polling places were open and, despite our worst fears, only a handful saw any violence at all. At the few places that did see violence, people still showed up in droves to vote anyway.

Terrorists—and please, can we now dispense with the Orwellian term “insurgent?”—were openly defied and in some cases beaten senseless by enraged voters armed with nothing but their shoes.

Countless millions walked miles to vote. In one case, a polling place had to be opened over 10 miles away from its original location at the last moment—and people by the thousands streamed on foot, some of them on crutches, just to get there.

There’s an old joke about walking a mile to smoke a camel. Well, these people walked ten miles on crutches just to smoke a terrorist.

How can your heart not burst with admiration?

Millions upon millions—including women and members of every minority group—voted for the first time in their lives. Even in neighboring Iran and Syria, expatriate Iraqis were able to vote while native Iranians and Syrians, still denied the right to vote in their own nations, looked on in wonder as freedom was exercised by their Iraqi friends.

And this is what the New York Times thought the most important, take-home message was: “Insurgent Attacks in Baghdad and Elsewhere Kill at Least 24.”

They couldn’t even call them terrorists.

I’m sure it’ll get worse in the coming days. After all, these are the people who for two years now have consistently painted the greatest American military success story since 1945, and the lowest casualty rate in world history, as a “quagmire” that’s “spinning out of control.” These are the people who’ve given free voice to the modern reactionaries who speak of “imperialism” and “hubris,” who demand that our poltical leaders admit failure, and compare terrorists who bomb hospitals and cut civilians’ heads off to America’s minutemen.

For two years, despite all of this anti-American propagandizing from our own press corps, our brave men and women in the armed forces have been protecting human rights, opening schools and hospitals and power plants and water and sewage treatment centers, stringing telephone and internet wires and helping to open free radio and television stations and newspapers. All while the naysayers just sneered. Then the naysayers and the petty, carping critics could do nothing but bite at GI Joe’s ankles while he was setting up safety zones so that the Iraqis could hold free elections.

Then, while native Iraqi police and army did most of the security work, millions upon millions defied the terrorist threats and voted—while GI Joe stood quietly aside, blocks away from the polling stations and careful to stay out of the way. Our boys and girls were there, ready to help but only if called upon by the Iraqis themselves. And for the most part, they weren’t needed. So they stayed out of sight all over the country, while the Iraqis had their much-deserved day of freedom without our intrusion.

Yes yes. “Insurgents In Baghdad And Elsewhere Kill 24.” That’s the take-home message. You have to laugh, don’t you?

Well, soon it’ll be back to talk of our imperialism and our hubris and our inability to “admit failure.” We’ll see prominent interviews with sullen Iraqis who didn’t vote, or who complain that things still aren’t perfect. Rarely will anyone note the irony that the freedom to complain is something these people never used to have, and that the freedom to vote includes the freedom not to vote if you don’t want to.

Almost two years ago, on February 15, 2003, long before our military action to liberate Iraq from fascist tyrannty began, I started the following internet button campaign:

I remember the names I got called for that. The sneers at my character and at anyone who would display such a button. I remember being called an imperialist, a “Bush apologist,” a right-wing propagandist, a liar, and worse by the kind of people who read things like Daily Kos and Metafilter and Democratic Underground and Truthout and Indymedia and The Nation. By the kind of people who make excuses for lying hate-propagandists like Michael Moore. But those voices, they just get smaller, and tinier, and funnier, and sadder, all the time.

Today, with the exception of the days my sons were born, I have never felt prouder. All of us bloggers who supported Iraq’s liberation from fascism, all of us who worked against the relentlessly defeatist American press corps, have something to be proud of. We were nowhere near as important as those who served in the military, nowhere near as important as the countless Iraqis who took control of their own fate despite the those who said the Iraqis “didn’t want” or were “incapable of” democracy. Our role was small.

But we mattered. We let people know that most of the press wasn’t telling the full story. We let people know that the press wanted us to fail, wanted us to lose. We let people know there was reason for hope and optimism. We let people know this was a fight worth fighting, a cause worthy of American blood and treasure.

By the way, remember this?

I never forgot.

We were right.

(This item originally appeared here.)

Armed Liberal: Terror & Liberalism, Will & Perspective

I’ve been pretty much away from the computer for the last two days, so I missed the first wave of responses to Peter Bienert’s piece on Liberals and Terrorism in TNR (registration required and well worth it).

In a sense, that makes me lucky, because not only do I get to comment in passing on an article that many of you will have read (and if you haven’t, just stop reading this right now and go read it), but I get to comment on the responses.

First, as to the article itself. Given what I’ve written and talked about for the last two years I’m the choir, and I’ll stand in back of him and sing harmony for as long as it takes.

His core point - that a left that sees the world only as a Manichean struggle with the forces of conservatism is a losing left - is certainly true.

Like the softs of the early cold war, MoveOn sees threats to liberalism only on the right. And thus, it makes common cause with the most deeply illiberal elements on the international left. In its campaign against the Iraq war, MoveOn urged its supporters to participate in protests co-sponsored by International answer, a front for the World Workers Party, which has defended Saddam, Slobodan Milosevic, and Kim Jong Il. When George Packer, in The New York Times Magazine, asked Pariser about sharing the stage with apologists for dictators, he replied, “I’m personally against defending Slobodan Milosevic and calling North Korea a socialist heaven, but it’s just not relevant right now.”

Well, yes it is. It is both in terms of creating and defending a truly moral left - one that can stand without shame on it’s principles - and in terms of creating a left that is more than a political curiosity.

I’ve railed enough in the past (and surely will in the future) on the ideological failings that led the Democratic Party to this cliff.

Lots of smart people (Mickey Kaus, Kevin Drum) suggest that there’s really no cliff, because after all we’re just 3% away from taking back the White House.

They are mathematically right, and factually wrong.

GM gradually lost market share to Honda and Toyota; there was no single year when Honda suddenly leapt forward, just a gradual, inch by inch progression that left GM on the wrong side of the curve and headed south.

But if you looked at the product - at the cars they made - it was pretty clear who had a clue. GM tried everything; marketing, financial engineering, cost cutting - everything except making great cars efficiently. It wasn’t hard, back in 1984, to guess what the long-term trend was going to be.

Similarly, I don’t have a hard time guessing what the long-term trend is for the Democratic Party as it’s being run today. The Democratic Party isn’t only selling it’s soul to coke-addled Hollywood celebrities and telecom zillionaires by pandering to their corporate interests at the expense of - say - the working folks of the country. They are also mobilizing a base of activists and functionaries - really the bones of the party - who are consciously taking the party to a place where it will be unable to speak intelligently about defense for a generation.

…A.L. goes on to discuss Beinart’s supporters and enemies in the Democratic Party, and why this issue matters so. He also follows up with an article that points to a number of hopeful signs, including a collaborative wiki called “Liberals Against Terrorism”.

Michael Moore & 'Convenient Lies'

Pejman has a couple of interesting points to make about Michael Moore. “The Coleridge Party” discusses the “willing suspension of disbelief” as a political program:

“It’s not as if the lies in Moore’s film are well-hidden. The websites Moorelies.com and Mooreexposed.com keep a running commentary on Moore’s inability to coincide his facts with the truth…. No one believes for a moment that the cult of irresponsibility is confined to just one party, and conspiratorial whispers during the Clinton Administration that Bill Clinton had Vince Foster killed, or that the Clintons ran drugs, were just as shameful as the swallowing and parroting of Michael Moore’s alternative history by prominent Democrats. And it would come as no surprise if there are other prominent Democrats who are appalled by their party’s embrace of a mendacious filmmaker and his hate-filled message. But either their voices are being drowned out by other Democrats eager to grab hold of Fahrenheit 9/11 and use it as a political tool — no matter what the cost to honest discourse — or they are not stepping forward in the first place to try to inject some semblance of sanity in their party.”

Exhibit A - Kevin “Calpundit” Drum:

Read The Rest…

The Disloyal Opposition I

Reporter Toby Harnden of the British Daily Telegraph describes a conversation with an American journalist. Somehow, I’m not even remotely surprised:

“But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.”

JimK has the full article. Read, as they say, the whole thing.

UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens makes a similar point: “It’s now fairly obvious that those who cover Iraq have placed their bets on a fiasco or “quagmire” and that this conclusion shows in the fiber and detail of their writing.”

But don’t forget, folks, the real problem with journalistic ethics is… Fox News. L.A. Times Editor John Carroll says so.

Lesson for the Left: Anti-American Hatred WORKS

Kos Linkage Skyrockets After Insult to Mutilated Americans

Originally published at Hog on Ice.

I should hire someone to pat me on the back so I don’t have to do it myself all the time.

Remember the flap about The Daily Kos and the murdered contractors in Iraq? The insurgents took men who were guarding food to feed Iraqis and their children, and they killed them and then burned their bodies until they were just lumps of charred meat, and then they tore the bodies into chunks and beat them and hanged them from a bridge.

And Mr. Kos thought that was swell. “Screw them,” he said. And then he got in trouble, and he hid the post. Of course, by then, it had been preserved via screen capture by more-patriotic bloggers.

Bloggers on the Right were beside themselves with glee. Advertisers would flee! There would be a mass delinking! Kos would finally be silenced! And what did I say? I said “wrong.” And I was right.

Truthlaidbear shows something like 1900 links to Kos, compared with around 1400 before his vile entry. And he has the highest traffic numbers of any blogger. Why? Because for the Left, hatred—of America, especially—works. These people—the disproportionately powerful far-leftists—really, really do hate their own country. Ignore the “We Love Our Troops” lip service. Talk means nothing; actions are the language of the heart. Leftist nuts are supporting Kos overwhelmingly.

Kos is far from the only example of anti-US hatred on the Left. We all remember that “million Mogadishus” idiot at Columbia University. We’ve seen liberals holding banners expressing glee over the deaths of American soldiers. We’ve seen flyers supporting the terrorist idiots who are currently slaughtering our troops. We remember Patty Murray praising Osama bin Laden as a philanthropist, while criticizing the US for not equaling his generosity and kindness. And then this week, a full-page newspaper ad from the St. Petersburg Democratic Club, calling the insurgents “patriates” [sic] who want us “the hell out of their country,” and saying Donald Rumsfeld should be executed.

It’s too bad that Fox hasn’t covered the Left’s hatred and anti-American activism better. We know the liberal establishment press will never cover it. The public needs to understand how widespread and intense the Left’s loathing of America is. And John Kerry, while not quite as far-out as the worst offenders, is closer to the loony, America-hating Left than to the merely left-of-center.

Congratulations, Kos. Keep up the good work. Your public has spoken.

Former Democrat Congressional Staffer Arrested for Supporting Terrorism

The support for terrorism came from the nuclear-free-zone “fantasy world” known as Takoma Park, Maryland:

- - - - - - -

NEW YORK (AP) - A former journalist and one-time press secretary for four members of Congress was arrested Thursday on charges she served as a paid agent for the Iraqi intelligence service before and after the U.S. invasion.

Susan Lindauer, 41, was arrested in her hometown of Takoma Park, Md., and was to appear in court later in the day in Baltimore, authorities in New York said.

She was accused of conspiring to act as a spy for the Iraqi Intelligence Service and engaging in prohibited financial transactions involving the government of Iraq under dictator Saddam Hussein. Prosecutors say she accepted $10,000 for he work.

“I’m an anti-war activist and I’m innocent,” Lindauer told WBAL-TV as she was led to a car outside the Baltimore FBI office.

- - - - - - -

She worked for Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore. in 1993 and then Rep. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., in 1994 before joining the office of former Illinois Sen. Carol Moseley Braun as press secretary in 1996. From March to May 2002, she worked for Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

- - - - - - -

More than a half dozen FBI agents could be seen searching Lindauer’s residence in Takoma Park, a city known for its liberal views. Her neighbors recalled her as friendly.

- - - - - - -

“It’s a big surprise. Who would think that it’s (espionage) in your neighborhood?” said Dean Paris, 45, who sometimes greeted Lindauer on the street, which is less than a mile from the District of Columbia line. Paris said he never saw anything suspicious.

But Malvina Lacey, who lives next door to Lindauer, added, “She lives in a fantasy world.”

- - - - - - -

There’s no way the liberals can blame that on Bush! Oh - I’ve underestimated their mendacity again.

This is a duplicate of the original post from the nikita demosthenes website.

Treason, Dissent & Hope

I post this because these subjects have been on my own mind of late.

Steven den Beste says Michael Moore may be a mailicious liar who opposes the U.S. government during a time of war, but he is not a traitor. Of course, he explains the distinction quite thoroughly.

Michael Totten extends this theme with his own article, reminding us what a fifth column movement really is - and is not. “We are not doomed,” he says, and tells Nelson Ascher of Europundits to buck up.

So, what does a fifth column movement look like? Well, something like this, perhaps. Or like Prof. Sami al-Arian. The AMC also treads close to that line, if not over it. As does International A.N.S.W.E.R.

Clearer now?

Understanding Evil

Just when you think idiotarianism has hit its limit, someone steps up and proves you wrong.

First, the good news. In the wake of her remarks that she could imagine herself becoming a suicide bomber, the British Liberal Democratic Party still has enough sense that they’ve asked MP Jenny Tonge to step down as their spokeswoman for children. (Hat Tip: reader Elaine)

Spokeswoman for children. Such times we live in.

When even the often-addled Lib Dems understand the problem, you’d think the issue would be pretty cut and dried. Yet my article’s humourous jabs at both Ms. Tonge and her party’s electoral prospects inspired not one but 2 idiotarian responses. Ross Judson’s reply post reads like a conservative’s parody of bleeding-heart liberals, full of ‘understanding’ for the suicide bombers and refusal to judge. Alas, it’s no parody. The other respondent, Andy, actually believes that it’s perfectly legitimate to blow up grandmothers in the streets - and says so directly.

I wish I was making that up. As you can see, I’m not.

I’ll restrict this post to Ross’ views, however, because I believe we may have enough common ground to make discussion useful. It will also enable me to lay the foundations of an important argument, and show the linkages between a distressingly common worldview and the scandalous moral vacuum of a Ms. Tonge. Andy, in contrast, will be saved for tomorrow’s Idiotarian Watch. By his own words shall ye know him.

Read the Rest…

The Song Remains the Same

This item I drag up because I just wanted everyone to know that, for the institutional Left, it's STILL REALLY (NO, WE REALLY MEAN IT -- WE DO!) All About The Oil, Oh, and The Power, too.

by Ross Daniels - lecturer in human rights. Queensland University of Technology
I begin with noting two broad issues. What this invasion of Iraq is about and what is it not about? If I maintain that the arguments put forward justifying this war are non-sense, then I need to show them to be nonsense.
Equally if the popular arguments that have been repeated ad nausea in the 24 hour seven day a week coverage are not real, then what are the real arguments, the real motivations behind this war?
...
So, this is not about the liberation of Iraq. If those who have orchestrated the sting have their way then Iraq will not self-govern but it will have a puppet government working with the imprimatur of the USA and in the interests of that same country.

The Language of War - The Greatest Sting

link picked up from signposts. Snarky opening comments are mine.

Dishonesty in the anti-war ranks? Surely not!

The anti-war groups are refocusing after their stunning defeat in Iraq. Are they refocusing on, say, another war? Please! You thought that was their point? Nope.

It's all about Bush.

Accuracy not important for body counts

By now you've probably heard the reports about 13 Iraqi's killed during a protest yesterday.

U.S. troops shot dead 13 Iraqis and wounded dozens taking part in a demonstration west of Baghdad, witnesses said on Tuesday -- an incident sure to inflame anger and fuel anti-American sentiment.

It certainly has inflamed anti-American sentiment. The Iraq Body Count database, the anti-American group that pours over news reports each day for anything that might be used to undermine the Coalition of the Willing, already has them chalked up as being murdered by the U.S. They gleefully report that between 13 and 15 "demonstrators, including pre-teen children" were "targeted" by U.S. forces. Naturally, there is no regard for the truth in their reporting.

Even Reuters admits (albeit in the 12th paragraph) that there are conflicting reports, and the 'protesters' were said to be armed and firing at U.S. troops.

U.S. Lt. Christopher Hart said between 100 and 200 chanting people approached his men, who opened fire after two gunmen with rifles appeared on a motorcycle and started shooting. He put the Iraqi death toll at between seven and 10

Whereas Reuters usually refers to terrorists and armed combatants as 'freedom fighters', Iraq Body Count contends that anyone not in a uniform is a 'civilian'. Although they declare that "civilian casualties are the most unacceptable consequence of all wars," and "each civilian death is a tragedy," they make absolutely no distinction between armed hostile guerrillas and school children.

Dixie Chicks Show T-minus 2 days and counting

It didn't hit me until after I'd posted about it just exactly *why* the Dixie Chicks' Entertainment Weekly cover story came out so late after the comments were made. Then, in a flash of light, I saw the cover of the Greenville News this week: Dixie Chicks in town May 1!

Bingo! What better time to come out with the EW piece than right before you start your big worldwide tour in Greenville, SC.

The local media, smelling blood in the water, has been all over this story. The TOP STORY - above the fold, right below the flag - for the past two days has been Dixie Chicks.

Here's a link to the Greenville News' complete coverage of the Dixie Chicks show.

Galloway: Traitor or Dupe?

A Labour MP speaks to Galloway's recent statements in defence of himself.

Re: Show some integrity and go
Date: 26 April 2003

Sir - I have listened to the utterances of George Galloway in recent days with growing dismay and anger. His statements and attitude before, during and in the aftermath of the war in Iraq have been increasingly outrageous and untenable and have reached the point where I feel that he is tarnishing the reputation of Parliament by association.

Despite the incontrovertible evidence of the savage barbarity of Saddam Hussein's murderous regime, well-known for many years and made terrifyingly clear by what has been uncovered in Iraq in recent weeks, he has persisted in the defence of the indefensible.

His attacks on the Prime Minister and President Bush have been contemptible, and his apparent encouragement of British troops to disobey lawful orders put him beyond the pale of civilised behaviour. He has forfeited the sympathy of many of his constituents and of the vast majority of his own party and has flown in the face of right-thinking men and women of all political persuasions.

The recent accusations of financial involvement in the defunct Iraqi regime, whatever their final outcome, are a further indicator of the world in which George Galloway seems to live. But long before suggestions of corrupt practice surfaced, this man's opinions, and indeed his very lifestyle, have suggested that he inhabits a fantasy world, in which he believes what it suits him to believe and ignores the overwhelming evidence condemning the barbarous dictator to whose coat-tails he clings.

It is possible that he is no more than a sad dupe, refusing, like the regime he still persists in supporting, to recognise the inevitability of his downfall and of theirs. It seems equally possible that he may be found guilty of deliberate distortion of the truth, even without the charges implicit in the newspaper revelations of recent days.

What is certain is that his position is now indeed untenable. Better men than George Galloway, holding views far less extreme than his, have chosen to resign in defence of their position. There is still time for him to regain some credibility, and perhaps demonstrate some degree of integrity, by following their example.

From:
Claire Curtis-Thomas, MP (Lab), London SW1

I am afraid expecting Galloway to show any integrity is a bit much. Is this the first salvo in Galloway's ejection from the Labour Party and the House of Commons?

Ted Rall's alternate universe

Dated April 23:

Iraq is going to hell. Shiites are killing Sunnis, Kurds are killing Arabs and Islamists are killing secular Baathists. Baghdad, the cradle of human civilization, has been left to looters and rapists. As in Beirut during the '70s, neighborhood zones are separated by checkpoints manned by armed tribesmen. The war has, however, managed to unite Iraqis in one respect: everyone loathes the United States.

Common Dreams (which has liberal views of "fair use" of copyrighted material to go with its liberal views on everything else.)

Meanwhile, I'm looking at the front page of my local newspaper and reading this caption:

In Kirkuk: A student holds a picture of President Bush that she wears around her neck during a party at the Tahama Primary School on Thursday. Students returned to school for the first time since the war in Iraq ended.

Photo credit: Kevin Frayer/The Associated Press

Here's a slide show of more photos from the Tahama School party, including the one above

Did I mention the fact that Iraq has been in the hands of looters and rapists (and torturers and genocidal maniacs and egomaniacal psychopaths) for the last 30 years?

Oh, Dean Esmay already made the point in this post.

It bears repeating.

Protestor Psychology

This weekend I made the time for some personal reading. I found a report that described the motivation of many leftist protestors who wanted the US to stay out of Iraq.

The situation is extremely dangerous and uncertain. The Peace Wagers, brilliant, unwearied by the heaviest responsibility that anyone else may bear, are not bought traitors, but a phenomenon brought on by the Americans' creation of plenty beyond previous dreams of wealth, and their simultaneous minute dividing of experience into numerous parts, so that one man knows on the right paw of an animal, while another spends his life studying the root of the upper left tooth--this, and the withholding of responsibility for long periods of time, act as a rot on the sources of judgment, and here we see the result... These people are no part of any plot; but the plotters rely on the unwitting help of these brave cowards, these moronic geniuses...

These words were actually taken from some old science-fiction stories written in the late sixties and early seventies by Christopher Anvil (a scholar, who like myself, sometimes preferred writing under a pseudonym). These stories have been compiled into a book, Pandora's Legions - a delightful tale of what happens when Earth is conquered by aliens and starts exporting ideologies. Pretty soon, the tale is wagging the dog as the conquerors try to handle communism, mass protests, unbridled capitalism, and all of the other delights of Pandora's Planet (Earth).

I merely substituted Americans for Earthmen when I copied a report on the motivation of protestors from the book. While Anvil was obviously being tongue-in-check, it sounds very familiar, doesn't it? Anvil never mentioned human shields, but I don't think he would be surprised.

Anti-war non-violence?

"I would chop George W Bush into three pieces and microwave him on full blast for 45 minutes."

The musician continues his non-violent peace activism thusly.

Hollywood peace protest report

The crowd at today's "peace" protest in Hollywood, CA was much less than at recent L.A. protests. Perhaps it had something or do with the threat of rain, or perhaps they've been watching the news.

My report is here, and the pictures are here.

Baseball Hall of Fame vs. Robbins

The Nation has printed the exchange of letters between Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey and actor Tim Robbins. Petroskey explains why he has cancelled the "Bull Durham" event and Robbins replies.

Petroskey says:

In a free country such as ours, every American has the right to his or her own opinions, and to express them. Public figures, such as you, have platforms much larger than the average American's, which provides you an extraordinary opportunity to have your views heard--and an equally large obligation to act and speak responsibility. We believe your very public criticism of President Bush at this important--and sensitive--time in our nation's history helps undermine the US position, which ultimately could put our troops in even more danger. As an institution, we stand behind our President and our troops in this conflict.

As a result, we have decided to cancel the April 26-27 programs in Cooperstown commemorating the 15th anniversary of Bull Durham.

Robbins replies:

I wish you had, in your letter saved me the rhetoric and talked honestly about your ties to the Bush and Reagan Administrations. You are using what power you have to infringe upon my rights to free speech and by taking this action hope to intimidate the millions of others that disagree with our president. In doing so you expose yourself as a tool, blinded by partisanship and ambition. You invoke patriotism and use words like freedom in an attempt to intimidate and bully. In doing so you dishonor the words patriotism and freedom and dishonor the men and women who have fought wars to keep this nation a place where one can freely express one's opinion without fear of reprisal or punishment. Your subservience to your friends in the administration is embarrassing to baseball and by engaging in this enterprise you show that you belong with other cowards and ideologues in the Hall of Infamy and Shame.

Long live democracy, free speech and the '69 Mets; all improbable glorious miracles that I have always believed in.

Harkin Weighs In

Democratic Senator Tom Harkin has weighed in with his thoughts on Iraq [via Drudge]:

Washington, D.C. - The relatively quick fall of Baghdad shows that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was a "paper tiger" rather than a major threat to world peace, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said Thursday. "What we were told and what you saw in the press last fall and earlier this year is that he had a massive war machine," said Harkin, the most outspoken critic of the war in Iraq among members of the Iowa congressional delegation. "It looks now like this was just a Third World country - there were people fighting with tennis shoes on, on the Iraqi side," Harkin told reporters. "I don't know what else we're going to find, but they didn't fly even one airplane in the air. They had almost nothing. "So if they were that weak, where we could just roll over them like that, tell me again how he was such a big threat in the past?" the senator added.

Amazing. Not too long ago we were told that Iraq was going to be a quagmire, and now we shouldn't celebrate because they weren't really all that tough.

Harkin was himself making the comparison between Vietnam and Iraq just last month:

"Go visit Vietnam, and then go down to this wall down here on the Mall and remember the misguided adventures of well-meaning politicians of the past."

A Million Mogadishus

Stray Pooch (an obvious pseudonym), a contributer to the the fiery debate at The Three Dead Horses Saloon, has written "A Million Mogadishus", a song for all of those who would curse the war while soldiers are fighting.

Give it a listen here.

Now, those who read my blog know that I am fully in favour of antiwar protestors having a right to express their opinion, and dismiss all the red-baiting and continuing obsessiveness with the culture war at home that characterize the majority of demonstrators as enemies of America, or "objective supporters of Saddam." So this song doesn't mirror my own opinion about protest or protesters.

However, I applaud an honest effort from a talented person who is expressing himself without being belligerent, or trying to make a buck off of war, like the Clint Blacks of the world.

(cross-posted at The Daily Rant).

Archbishop Carroll on the War's Success

Archbishop Carroll proves why moral leaders could largely ignore the suffering of the Iraqi people at the hands of Saddam Hussein - it wasn't about Iraq at all:

Australian Catholic Bishops Conference president Archbishop Francis Carroll has said the apparent "successful" outcome of the war does not alter the Bishops' doubts about its morality. The Canberra-Goulburn Archbishop said: "If the 'success' of this war leads to a greater acceptance of war as something more than a 'last resort' in resolving conflicts or removing unjust regimes, then it is a move in a very dangerous direction."

Antiwar Quote Of The Day

(actually, Tuesday--thanks OnlineJournal's BOTWT)
And the winner is: R.W. "Johnny Quagmire" Apple, New York Times:

The antiwar forces, who have had to contend from the start with the widespread belief that their position is unpatriotic and unsupportive of American troops engaged in deadly combat, must now bear the additional burden of arguing with success.

My heart bleeds.

PAW organizes May 1 effort

NOTE: This post originally was posted on the news page, and I feel it is news. It was posted verbatim from the e-mail with no editorial comment. Nevertheless, in deferrence to the Big Editors in The Sky, I'm reposting it here:

From an e-mail I received today:

"Dear _______,

The Bush administration's barrage of bombs and bullets in Iraq is mirrored by its barrage of misinformation and doublespeak, a language the media too willingly repeats. An assassination attempt is termed a "target of opportunity"; murder of civilians is "collateral damage"; invasion is "liberation."

Now more than ever, the world needs to hear the voices of poets. Poets Against the War is calling for May 1, 2003, to be an International Day of Poetry Against the War.

In place of military rhetoric that glosses over human loss, poetry offers a way to share our experiences of hope, suffering, and dreams of what is possible. Across the globe, the movement against the invasion of Iraq is growing by the hour. Even if this war should be declared "over," it will not be over. The damage this action has caused to freedom of speech in America and to international relations cannot be repaired overnight, however much the language of the administration assures us to the contrary. And we should not neglect this administration's threats against Korea, Iran, Syria, and other nations.

Please join us and many thousands of others on May 1st. Join a protest. Lend your voice. Organize a reading.

On behalf of Poets Against the War,

Sally Anderson, Gray Foster, Nancy Giebink,
Sam Hamill, Andrew Himes, Nancy Scott, Emily Warn

UPDATE: The PAW Web site

Getting a clue down under

From the New Zealand National Business Review:

Editorial: Peaceniks hurt trade

Substandard public policy advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Mfat) will cost New Zealand business dearly.

We disclose today that Mfat officials were caught short by a change in US policy that now links foreign affairs and trade.

This was obvious to people outside the public service but not so to the peaceniks and republicans who inhabit Mfat's higher offices.

Surprise, surprise to the officials: the US has linked foreign policy and trade and after the Iraq war it will settle scores with its western "enemies."

Of the European peacenik nations, France and Germany will be targeted in trade wars. Down under, Australia will, quite likely, be rewarded with a free-trade agreement for supporting the war; New Zealand will continue to be frozen out.

At the very least, Mfat officials should have warned Prime Minister Helen Clark of the risks involved. But then officials do not operate like this these days. The era of robust policy advice, given by officials without fear or favour, has passed.

And even if Mfat had recognised the likelihood of the US linking foreign policy and trade, it is debatable whether Ms Clark would have taken much notice. Her chief policy wallah is, of course, her chief-of-staff, Heather Simpson ­ answerable only to the PM.

Ms Clark has been caught out, not just by NBR but by the Australian newspaper as well. She would do well to bury her anti-Americanism and put the national interest first.

A little late, but on the right track.

Sometimes, the only way to spread peace is at the barrel of a gun

Johann Hari asks, "When it eventually emerges that the Iraqi people wanted this war, will the anti-war movement recant?"

UK MP George Galloway

According to the UK tabloid The Sun, their readers are a bit upset at the posturings of MP George Galloway. Maybe the Mirror will hire Galloway as a back up to Peter Arnett.

Robin Cook's noxious outburst is for a good reason it seems.

from London Spy

When he resigned from the Cabinet last month, Robin Cook was showered with praise for sacrificing his £125,000 ministerial income on the altar of principle. Closer examination displays the former foreign secretary in a less altruistic light.

For Spy learns that, just days after he quit, Cook signed up with the literary agent Maggie Pearlstein. A bidding war for his memoirs will soon be under way. "At a conservative estimate, Robin will make £500,000 for this," says one publishing source. "Then there's newspaper serialisation rights, which could run into hundreds of thousands."

No doubt Cook's high profile of last greatly enhanced his value to the publishers. The fact that he has appointed himself anti-war cumudgeon in chief will assure that his name generates lots of column inches, making PR for his book a doddle. It is rather depressing for we writers, that the only way to get a large book deal is to do something noxious in public. Oh well, such is life.

My wife, who is keeping the blog going while I write for Command Post, has posted a heart-felt piece about 9/11 and the war. It's a touching piece about what she and her city (NYC) lost on that fateful day.

Wonder what terrorist and despotic appeasers. like Cook and Galloway, would say in response to her post. Considering how cowardly they both are, I bet they would not have the gumption to respond. Iraq has links to Al Queda and anyone who denies this is either is lying or self-delusioned out of their hatred for President Bush.

Catfight at Columbia

For those who have been following the story of the "teach-in" at Columbia U: Academic watchdog Erin O'Connor has a follow-up. Apparently, political science professor Jean Cohen is livid at what she terms de Genova's "hijacking" of her brainchild, the antiwar "teach-in."

Cohen emphasized that De Genova had not originally been invited to speak. He was replacing Kimberle Crenshaw, a law professor who dropped out because of a medical emergency.

"At the last minute someone couldn't speak, and he just kind of appeared," Cohen said. "... He ended up on that platform by accident, almost by manipulation." Cohen said that as soon as it was clear that there was an opening in the program, De Genova was "right there, all ready with his speech--which makes me suspicious. It's bad luck that there was an opening, but he was all too ready," she said.

Most damning is that even Eric Foner, another professor who spoke against de Genova's comments at the time, defends the fact that only antiwar views were represented.

Erin has comments on and links to other campus teach-ins which purport to present a dialogue but stack the deck on their panels and speaker rosters.

Antiwar movement regroups

The antiwar movement got the message: it was too confrontational, too weird, too anti-American, too scattered in its message, too dependent on purveyors of fringe ideologies like ANSWER. Voila! A new antiwar movement!

. . . representatives of about 50 groups gathered at the Washington office of People for the American Way, a liberal group that is known for causes like opposition to conservative judges. It was a diverse set, including Black Voices for Peace; the Institute for Policy Studies, which is a left-leaning research center; and the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker group. Many in attendance knew each other from past protests.

For nearly a month in private conversations, they say they had been sharing their concerns that Answer's oratory was too anti-Israel, too angry. . . . "Answer is a radical left group and not very mainstream in terms of its image," said David Cortright, a veteran of the Vietnam War and the protests against it . . . They decided that afternoon to form a new coalition that would operate apart from Answer. They named it United for Peace and Justice. It immediately began planning small actions for December and January in various cities, and a large rally in New York City on Feb. 15, where speakers would be told that their remarks had to be about the war and nothing else.

Later that same October day, eight people from the meeting went out for dinner. . . . those eight agreed to create another group, calling this one Win Without War. To join, said Mr. Pariser of MoveOn, one of those attending, organizations had to explicitly sign on to the notion of being patriotic and taking a "reasonable" stance toward a conflict with Iraq, which at that time meant the continuation of weapons inspections.

. . . United for Peace said it supported nonviolent civil disobedience, while Win Without War said it did not. But as the general shift in strategy swept the peace movement over last weekend, United for Peace and Justice scaled back its advocacy of civil disobedience.

Perhaps now we'll find out if the antiwar movement actually has some good arguments against the war. They won't be such easy targets for ridicule, and that's all to the good.

Fox has fun with protesters

When antiwar demonstrators gathered outside the Fox News building in Manhattan, the network's outdoor news zipper replaced its headlines with taunts:

"War protester auditions here today. . . . Thanks for coming!" And: "How do you keep a war protester in suspense? Ignore them." And: "Attention protesters: The Michael Moore Fan Club meets Thursday at a phone booth at Sixth Avenue and 50th Street."

Unfair and unbalanced? "I thought I'd have some fun with it," says Fox zipper-writer Marvin Himelfarb, a former Hollywood screenwriter. "I couldn't resist."

International Red Cross Being Denied Access To American And British POWs

Imagine the Left's reaction if we denied access to Iraqi POWs. It would be outrage and talk of war crimes. It's early yet, but I fully expect to hear outrage on the part of the Left on this issue. Not.

U.S.: Iraq not letting Red Cross visit POWs:

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Iraq still has not let the International Committee of the Red Cross visit U.S. prisoners of war, Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Sunday.

"We would hope that the Iraqi regime would do the honorable and the right thing and allow the International Committee of the Red Cross in to visit these prisoners of war," Myers said on CNN's "Late Edition With Wolf Blitzer."

"That's their obligation. They said they were going to do it, and we just hope they follow through."

The United States has agreed to let the Red Cross visit more than 4,000 Iraqi POWs, Myers said. He said the Red Cross wanted to wait until conditions are more secure. He said he did not know whether the visits had taken place yet.

"I think they have probably been inside," he said.

Myers said it is unclear how many Americans are POWs in Iraq. At least five soldiers were captured after an ambush near Nasiriya. More troops are reported as missing in action, he said.

If Iraq kept their POWs at Gitmo I'm sure the Left would be appropriately outraged.

Chinese Protests

I'm not sure whether to think this is pathetic or an improvement for the Chinese people. On the one hand they got to protest. On the other hand it was state sanctioned. To make matters worse they are not well informed because they see only what the government wants them to see. That's what makes it pathetic: they're protesting a war they know nothing about and has nothing to do with them.

Students hold first anti-war protest in China:

Chinese students staged a rare state-sanctioned demonstration as part of worldwide protests against the war in Iraq.

Students at the elite Peking University took part in a quiet anti-war demonstration, in an unusual case of campus political activism permitted by Chinese authorities.

About two dozen students set up signboards displaying photographs of wounded Iraqi civilians and passed out leaflets criticising the war. A box was set out for donations to help Iraqi refugees, and five students briefly held up letters spelling "No War" in English.

However, police dispersed anti-war protesters who sought to gather in other parts of Beijing, continuing the practice of forbidding most public demonstrations.

Even in the state sanctioned protest the state felt it necessary to crack down on anyone that deviates from the plan. It's not an improvement for the Chinese people and it's still pathetic.

Anti-war protestors = professional agitators

The NY Times has an in-depth article today looking at the mechanations of the anti-war groups, and the internal tensions between the radicals and the more mainstream ones:

At least for now, the more mainstream groups have gained the upper hand. They have sought to cast their movement as the loyal opposition, embracing the troops but condemning the war. Within the movement, which includes everything from small groups in small towns to a large alliance of more than 200 organizations, radical elements still exist. But the larger and more influential groups have sought over time to sideline them, deliberately excluding certain speakers, dismissing certain tactics, marginalizing certain protests, in a determined effort to avoid being dismissed as career malcontents.

Sorry, it's too late - they're already dismissed. As for the "career" part, that's already determined too:

"If we're going to be a force that needs to be listened to by our elected officials, by the media, by power, our movement needs to reflect the population," said Leslie Cagan, co-chairwoman of United for Peace and Justice, and a career political organizer...

Even the more mainstream groups are full of people who have spent large stretches of their lives on the front lines of protest movements, from the civil rights struggles to antiglobalization campaigns...

That's one thing I haven't seen covered very much in coverage of the anti-war protesters - a lot of them are professionals who spend all their time protesting this or that. Even the ones who aren't full-time are often at least as committed as your average military reservist. This is not a spontaneous outpouring of distress over this war; it's the latest in a series of causes for these people. What we need the journalists to do is an investigative piece on the history of these "peace" organizations, exposing their track records of protest. The story is not what they're protesting now, but what common threads are present in the whole spectrum of causes they espouse. I think you'll find the central theme is anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism and anti-establishment - although I do think some (not all) of the church-associated groups do have a somewhat more altruistic and peace-based attitude (although they're still wrong).

To be sure, activism in the face of conditions or policies we dislike is a hallmark of our country, and a freedom our soldiers have died to preserve. But this type of virulent activism is increasingly disruptive and damaging to our country. We need to educate ourselves about it and act accordingly - not just prosecute the illegal behaviors, but expose their hypocrisies and hidden agendas.

Last paragraph modified for clarity of message - slc

Bombing of Iraq as bad as 9/11 attacks

You can download 'Bomb The World' at Stay Human. Writing on the site he says "all bombing is terrorism, no matter who is doing it", adding that he regards the bombing of Baghdad as an equally offensive attack to those of September 11.

Spearhead's Michael Franti: "I remember the pain in the hearts of us all following the attacks on September 11th, and cannot imagine the pain in the hearts of those in Baghdad who, in the name of oil, have been ravaged by violence thousands of times greater than that which occurred in New York, Pennsylvania, and in Washington DC. I grieve with all who have endured loss".

First of all, who the hell is this moron? Nice to see moral relativity coming out of musicians. Notice no mention at all of all of Saddam's victims over the years. As per normal, with this type, he offers no solutions on how to avoid war. He repeats the "war is bad" mantra, as if anyone involved in this war is actually "pro-war". Considering the rush and publicity to be one of the musicians to release anti-war tracks, it is starting to smack of publicity and career desperation.

Musicians whose careers tanked years ago are getting press by aligning themselves to the anti-war movement. Rosanne Cash has equated the row over Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks and her anti-war comments to censorship. Rosanne, a woman who obviously closely studied American political history, seems to believe the fan revolt against the DCs to be government led or inspired. She fails to realise that the revulsion to Ms Maines comments stem from the fact she was abroad when she made them and that her "public" is one of the most patriotic of music fans. At least one soldier in the gulf has sent an "open" letter to Ms Maines regarding her statements. As you would expect they read: "I will fight and die for you to have the right to speak your mind."

Supporters of Maines and the ilk are saying that those of us crititicising them are somehow limiting these artists right to free speech. What they are actually saying is that artists should be allowed to speak their mind with no backlash. One could argue that if these people act like politicians then they should be under the same scrutiny as politicians. One also wonders if they would be worrying about the free speech rights of someone like Ted Nugent who routinely is harangued and censored for his views. Or how about all those who aren't on message in Hollywood or the music business whose careers have suffered?

One good thing about the war and the anti-war protests. The public will now be able to better judge who or what they are spending their money on when they got to a movie or buy a CD or DVD.

Yes, Rosanne, Ms Maines has a right to free speech, but we have a right to disagree with her and act accordingly.

Highly Selective "Die In" Held In NYC

Protesters in New York Stage 'Die-Ins' (washingtonpost.com)
Note how none of the protesters pretended that Saddam Hussein had just run them through a plastic shredder or cut their tongues out. Of course, impersonating ground beef isn't easy.

I've said it a million times: just because there weren't American forces attacking doesn't mean the Iraqi people were living in peace. Only the most obtuse would consider living under Saddam Hussein to be peace.

Sister Claire O'Mara, an 81-year-old Ursuline nun, stooped down onto the sidewalk in front of Tiffany's today, squeezed her eyes shut and assumed the death posture of an Iraqi victim killed in a bombing attack by U.S. forces.

"I just keep sending positive energies to Saddam Hussein and his people and to George Bush," she said as she meditated on the sidewalk to the chants "mothers mourn on both sides." Members of the women's peace movement Code Pink arced around her until police asked O'Mara to stand up or face arrest.

"I do not believe that war is the solution for any problem worldwide," she said.

While thousands of New Yorkers spent the past few months marching and chanting their opposition to the war in Iraq -- including at a rally Saturday that drew nearly 200,000 demonstrators -- protesting took a new turn today. New York police officers spent much of their day untangling traffic jams created by protesters who walked out, "died in" and chanted. By late today, police had arrested 215 protesters.

"This was the first large civil disobedience in New York since the war started," said Bill Dobbs, a spokesman for United for Peace and Justice, organizer of last weekend's protest. "That reflects a serious act when people literally put their bodies on the line for an issue."

Led by a group called the M27 Coalition, about 400 activists marched and "died in" on Fifth Avenue near Rockefeller Center during the morning rush hour, snarling traffic for two hours. Later this morning, a dozen Code Pink activists staged "die-ins" in front of Tiffany's and the Plaza Hotel.

All they are doing is salving their warped consciences. This won't stop the war and rightly so. Get back to work you hippies!!

Antiwar movement blues

In Philadelphia, antiwar activists are feeling a bit discouraged. I'm surprised at the reaction they've gotten; when I lived there, between the Quakers and the labor organizers and the anarchists squatting in abandoned West Philly Victorian houses, Philadelphia was a mecca for leftist activists of all stripes.

Open letter

Mike has written a great "open letter" to the anti-war types. It is well worth a read.

Clueless

I think we in the warblogging, pro-US sphere may be getting to some of the anti-war types. Either that, or they're stupider then I imagined.

Last week, after reading the news about the "Pukers for Peace" that hurled in San Francisco last week, I had a brainstorm, so I wrote and posted this. I will assume that those of you who read it will get the joke.

A few days later, I noticed in my referrer log that I had been linked from IndyMedia's San Francisco site and couldn't imagine why. I hit the link and discovered that someone named JohnnySporto had copied my post there, and added this comment as a preface:

I found this article from a link through the Command Post blog. From Attaboy, warning protesters of anti-protester backlash from war supporters.

That's why I added the comment under my original post on my site. Are these people really that dumb? Nevertheless, it's pretty funny to think that one of their troops thinks he's about to be pissed upon.

Why does this guy live?

Re: Inglorious war
Date: 26 March 2003

Sir - I am presently held on remand for taking action to attempt to disarm a B52 bomber at RAF Fairford last week. I am concerned at the victorious tone adopted in many of your articles and indeed in most reporting of the tragedy in Iraq. Such celebrations of military might conjure romantic scenes of Second World War heroics but serve only to deepen acceptance of military, rather than diplomatic, solutions. War is horrific, and should be reported as such.

The alliance you praise so effusively is acting illegally and should be brought to account. It is possible to criticise the governments that have brought us to war and yet have empathy for those ordered to do their bidding. I hope that The Daily Telegraph will be conscientious in reporting the aftermath of the tragedy in Iraq, and in promoting imaginative methods of peace building and conflict resolution.

From:
Philip Pritchard, HMP Gloucester

______________
Come on guys? Are there any guards on our B52s? Well at least the guy is in prison. Let's hope he doesn't get out for a very long time.

"War is horrific", wow this guy is a freaking genius. Of course, war is horrid that is why it's last resort you fool.

True face of the protestors in the UK

Re: Anti-war protests led by Communist
Date: 26 March 2003

Sir - Having raised the curious case of Andrew Murray, "chair" of the Stop the War Coalition, in the Commons last week, may I add to the excellent report (report, Mar 22) by Philip Johnston on the role of communists at the head of this anti-war organisation?

The idea that huge numbers of sincere protesters are allowing themselves to be led by a supporter of a nuclear-armed North Korea beggars belief - but that is what is happening.

More

Ritter Reduced to Fritters

In view of Scott Ritter's moronic pronouncements of late, made in a desperate effort to artificially extend his expired fifteen minutes of fame, I am posting an anti-Ritter piece I wrote in January. It appeared on my blog, Little Tiny Lies.

The Head is Severed but the Snake Still Thinks It's Alive

Former celebrity/future mall security guard Scott Ritter, having learned nothing from the prolonged death throes of Trent Lott, is now trying to B.S. his way out of the scandal that, by next week, will have permanently ended his shameless tap-dance in the American consciousness. Just found out from the Cracker Barrel Philosopher, proprietor of countrystore.blogspot.com, who has a lovely Photoshop on the subject.

I chose my words carefully before when discussing Ritter, not wanting to draw any more conclusions than the known facts warranted, but now it's time to take the gloves off. Like a fish flopping its last against the uncaring sides of a cooler, Ritter is doing his best to escape the cold hand of impending oblivion. Every creature does what its basic nature directs. Boated fish swish their tails. Ritter lies.

And before I go on, remember. The truth is the only product Ritter has to offer. That's the whole justification for his fifteen minutes of fame: Scott Ritter claimed he was telling the truth and George Bush was lying to us. The second his credibility is tarnished, he becomes as worthless as Bill Clinton's wedding band, and there is no longer any reason for anyone to focus a video camera on him or give him access to a microphone. Think about that as you read this.

In the story linked by Country Store, MSNBC's John Allen (who?) adopts Ritter's lie as his own, possibly in an effort to hose some of the dried DNA off of Ritter's soiled reputation. Wonder who Allen voted for in 2000.

Says Ritter, deceitfully, "The case was dismissed. Therefore it never happened. I stood in a court of law, before a judge and an assistant district attorney, and they dismissed it."

Says Allen, prefacing the above remarks, "The case went to court where it was later dismissed and sealed -- meaning in the eyes of the court it never happened."

Okay, first let's congratulate John Allen for being the hard-hitting journalist that he is. Not every reporter would be bold enough to take an interviewee's defensive words at face value and then PARROT them almost verbatim. Kudos, John, you're a class act. You're not a brainless communications major who shouldn't be allowed to edit the weekly newsletter for the local garden club, or anything like that.

Now let's pretend Allen made that deceptive comment because he's an ignorant layman. Let a lawyer tell you what he didn't say but should have.

Another story, from the God-blessed Washington Times, adds a few details Allen either didn't know or didn't think we needed to know:

"Ritter was arrested for attempted child endangerment, a class B misdemeanor, but Ritter's attorney and a Colonie Court judge agreed "to adjourn the matter in contemplation of a dismissal," according to the Schenectady Gazette.

Generally, if there are no more allegations against the defendant for the next 6 months, the case is dismissed and the record sealed. According to WTEN-TV, Ritter underwent court-ordered sex offender counseling from an Albany psychologist."

Allen's characterization is misleading for two obvious reasons.

1. If the court felt that Ritter's alleged crime "never happened," it would deliver a final judgment releasing Ritter from jeopardy. The judge and prosecutor might even apologize. It would not "adjourn" the matter and put Ritter on a form of probation for 6 months. It would not force him to attend counseling sessions for dangerous perverts, which is what this court did.

2. Ritter calls what happened to him in the courtroom a dismissal. Simply put, that's a damn lie. A lie of omission. It was eventually dismissed, but the first time around, the court thought the case was strong enough to justify leaving it open for six months. A dismissal is permanent. And dismissal does not mean you're innocent. It just means the court or the prosecutor thought the case shouldn't go forward. Maybe a witness chickened out. Maybe the prosecutor thought you had learned your lesson (Scott). There are many reasons why a court might dismiss a case against a guilty defendant.

Ritter is right if he means he can sign a job application that says he has never been convicted of a sex crime. But Ritter could never legally swear he was innocent, which is essentially what he's telling us.

I'll tell you what appears to have happened. Scott Ritter tried to get an underage girl to masturbate for him. He was so clearly guilty, because of the recorded computer evidence, that he was afraid to go to trial. So he made a deal with the court. "I'll go for pervert counseling, I'll be a good boy from now on, and you withhold adjudication." And the court said, "Fine, Scott, we don't want a misdemeanor to ruin the life of a man with a family to support, but if we catch you chasing jailbait again within 6 months, this case comes back to life, and we put your ass in jail."

What's the alternative explanation? Scott Ritter did nothing wrong. He never tried to get a detective posing as a girl to meet him and masturbate for him. But for some reason, the police went to Burger King one day and waited around to arrest him, and for some other inexplicable reason, Scott drove up on that very day and went inside. Small world. When he appeared before the judge, the judge and the prosecutor said, "Scott, you've done nothing wrong. But just to be a pain in the ass, we're going to force you to undergo pervert counseling and we're going to hold this case open for 6 months so we can prosecute you later if you try to have sex with any more little girls. Even though you haven't done that yet." And Scott's lawyer stood there like a potted plant, and instead of threatening to report the prosecutor to the Bar and the judge to a judicial conduct board and the cops to whoever regulates cops in New York, he said, "Gee, Scott, that sounds like a great deal for a guy who is completely innocent. I think you should take it."

Is Scott Ritter lying about Iraq? I don't know. He's definitely lying about his criminal case, unless he's so stupid he completely misunderstands what happened to him in court.

In a court of law, the state has the burden of proving a man's guilt. But Ritter is no longer in a court of law. He's in the court of public opinion, and the press has made a powerful prima facie case against him, and the burden is on Ritter to refute it. If he wants his fame and potential wealth back, he'd better come up with some evidence. The prosecutor should still have a file; Ritter's attorney should have received the same evidence during discovery. Let Ritter publish it so we can decide for ourselves. Or maybe we should send inspectors into his house to search his hard drive. Of course, they'd have to be better inspectors than Ritter, who knows Iraq is free of weapons of mass destruction, five years after he quit looking, because the Iraqis have honest faces.

You know what Gomer Pyle said. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." Never mind the George Bush version. If we can't trust Ritter about his arrest, should we listen to him when he talks about Iraq? Especially when he's getting rich for doing just that, largely on the dime of an Iraqi businessman?

I don't know about you, but I'm a lot smarter than Gomer Pyle.

I'm almost sure of it.

As a Texan, I take issue with this.

A sign from the NYC antiwar march. I've been living in NY about a year, I have family here, I like it for many things. But I was born and raised in Texas and lived there as an adult.

There's an interesting generational divide. People under 35, I tell them I'm from Austin and they think that's cool. Dell Computers, great music, hip town, a lot of them have been there, have friends there. People over 35: Um, Austin's the state capital, right? right-wing blah blah Bush blah blah gun nuts blah blah is it safe for Jews there? blah blah.

"Pope Cites Peace Movements in War Message"

VATICAN CITY (AP)--The vast antiwar movement in the world shows that a "large part of humanity" has rejected the idea of war as a means of resolving conflicts between nations, Pope John Paul II said in a message released Tuesday... He cited the "vast contemporary movement in favor of peace" around the world...

With all due respect, His Excellency might want to take a look at some of these:

David Corn on A.N.S.W.E.R. and NION

Pic: "We support our troops when they shoot their officers"

Pic: U.S. flag as swastika

Pic: little red book

Pic: Bush with swastika as the "s"

Pic: Fourth Reich

Pic: the (Uday-supporting) radical cheerleaders

Pic: Bush with swastika on forehead

Report: 3/22/03 Hollywood protest

Report: 3/20/03 L.A. protest

Report: 2/15/03 Hollywood protest

Report: 1/11/03 L.A. protest

Report: 12/14/02 Hollywood protest

More antiwar demo photos

This sign is pretty nasty (and in NYC too). And a link to lots more from the NYC protest this past weekend.

(Me? I spent the day at home listening to a live feed of Symphony Space's annual 12-hour nonstop tribute to a particular performer. Last year it was Richard Rogers. This year it was Joni Mitchell, with performances by Laurie Anderson, the Mingus Big Band, the Roche sisters, Ute Lemper, and many more. Yum.)

'Human Shield' Update

A British traitor 'Human Shield' has apparently been missing since the bombing in Baghdad began, reports the Independent. The Independent's report characterizes just how clueless these 'human shields' are.

Friends said Mr Warren had raised concerns that he and other members of the group were being manipulated by the Iraqi government rather than being given the freedom for humanitarian work.

Surprise, surprise, Hussein and his minions are being deceptive and manipulative. I can forgive their cluelessness, and chalk it up to blind ignorance. But this next passage intimates that the 'human shields' campaign was nothing but an empty promise and a publicity ploy any way.

When the protesters arrived in Baghdad in February they intended to position themselves at schools, orphanages and hospitals. Iraqi officials suggested they would be more usefully deployed at water-treatment centres, bridges and power plants.

I'm afraid I have to side with the Iraqis on this one. Human shields are not needed near non-strategic sites. The Coalition would never intentionally bomb schools, orphanages and hospitals. Utilities and infrastructure are fair game, however, and the whole purpose of human shields is to prevent the loss of strategic targets.

Of course, there really is no such thing as a 'Voluntary Human Shield'. Someone who volunteers to use their own life to protect an enemy of the state should be guilty of treason. At the very least, the Coalition should not be overly concerned about protecting the lives of those who willfully aid and abet the enemy.

Campus activism follies

Via campus speech watchdog and English professor Erin O'Connor: A Tufts student who participated in a physical attack upon another student was given an award for her "activism." However, Tufts recended the award when she led a protest at a speech by President Bush which included flipping him off in front of many alumni. I guess some actions are too egregious even for campus administrators.