COMPARE AND CONTRAST:

With thanks to Freeper weegee for the suggestion.

ANTI-WAR = ANTI-BUSH = PRO-COMMUNIST?

The best explanation for the sudden appearance of the anti-war left is that they are anti-Bush, and Brian, I agree. That also explains why they can't offer any reasoned basis for their war opposition. Every argument, from mere pacifism to arguing that inspections needed "more time," collapse under the slightest scrutiny as documented here and elsewhere. But I offer further explanation, beyond mere anti-Bushism. There's also the concerted and organized efforts of the World Workers Party and their Marxist comrades. They are smart enough to understand the left's obsession with Bush (the "selected" president) and then exploit it. Again, the world's communists have found useful idiots among America's and Europe's self-loathing, bathing-impaired Left.

And for fun, check out this redirection of International Answer's website, named with a dot com instead of the official site's dot org.

THE PEACE PROTESTERS SPEAK

The Not In Our Name gang was out again yesterday protesting the liberation of Iraq. Their genius is on display for all to see.

"Saddam is a very confused and mixed up man," said activist Elise Bontrager. "And I think maybe that he hurts his people more than he needs to." WSBT News

In San Francisco a protester hanging a banner on the Golden Gate Bridge fell to his death. ABC News

Further showing that the vast majority of these "Peace Protesters" are empty headed idiots... San Francisco protesters stage a 'vomit in'

Jody Mason of Olympia Washington was in a protesting mood Monday night. After listening to President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam Hussein he decided to chain himself to a federal Department of Energy office building. He also posted a sign reading "Reduce Deficit." Small problem though. He chained himself to the wrong building. Police had to use bolt cutters to free him, as Mr. Mason didn't have a key to the lock he used. The Olympian

ANTI-WAR OR ANTI-BUSH?

The Peace Protesters claim they are against war and for peace. But reality seems to show differently. In 1990 and 1991 leading up to the Gulf War, protests were taking place around the country and around the world. "No Blood for Oil" was all the rage. But what happened between 1993 and 2001, while U.S. Military action raged all around the globe in places like Somalia, Haiti, Sudan, Afghanistan, IRAQ, Kosovo, etc... And all without U.N. Security Council approval. I'll tell you what happened. Anti-War protests all but vanished. As did the left's demands that U.S. military action only happen with the approval of the U.N. In fact, regarding Kosovo, the anti-war left was demanding U.S. military action precisely because the U.N. failed to act! Then comes the inauguration of President George W. Bush and anti-war protests are popular again. And the anti-war protesters are not the only ones who have done a 180. Congressional democrats and their sympathizers in the mainstream press have done a 180. It is pretty apparent that these protesters are not anti-war, but anti-Bush. And anti-Republican. How else to explain their complete and total flip-flop when nothing has changed but the party of the president?

BANKRUPT ANTI-WAR HEIRS OF CHAMBERLAIN

Victor Davis Hanson sums up the bankruptcy of the anti-war left in a marvelous review of where we are morally, policitally, diplomatically and internationally. And this damning excerpt:

Poor people atop their own oil who have no liberty, little gas, and few cars can risk their lives to express a desire to be free from a mass murderer. Simultaneously, wealthy, elite Westerners (who import their oil to drive nice cars) risk an hour or two of leisure time to damn a democratic leader for risking war to free these enslaved. Poor, tortured, and exiled Iraqis grimace at all this; Uday the Impaler and Chemical Ali smile.

And those wealthy elites will be patting themselves on the back this Sunday, crowing about their own wonderfulness in the world of make-believe, their courage to hold their awards show under National Guard protection and arguing against a war that would free the poor, tortured and oppressed Iraqi people from fascism and Stalinism. And they will do this before an audience of a billion.

UNILATERAL = 44

That's right, the unilateral coalition with which the U.S. "stands virtually alone" is up to 44 nations. As the State Department reports:

. . . it is no accident that many member nations of the Coalition recently escaped from the boot of a tyrant or have felt the scourge of terrorism. All Coalition member nations understand the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons pose to the world and the devastation his regime has wreaked on the Iraqi people.

The population of Coalition countries is approximately 1.18 billion people.
Coalition countries have a combined GDP of approximately $21.7 trillion.
Every major race, religion, ethnicity in the world is represented.
The Coalition includes nations from every continent on the globe.

It is a shame that fat and happy nations like France and Germany can't remember the terror of European tyrants, and the Russian leader used to rub shoulders with tyrants, so his view is clouded. I'm planning my next oversees trips based on this list of countries. Ah, Iceland.

LEFT WING OPPOSITION

I'm still interested in exploring the Left's reasons for believing that war is not the way to enforce compliance with 1441. Democratic Underground has a pseudo-serious, overly earnest letter in place of its normal opening web page stating its opposition to military action. Amidst outright lies -- "The United States stands virtually alone in the world right now" -- the DU "administrators" say that they like inspections -- "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, but we believe that the U.N. inspections should have been given more time." They don't say why they believe that inspections would be any more effective now than they were from 1991-98. Is their argument that inspections will work better because President Bush has paid a little more attention to the matter than his distracted and ineffective predecessor? I can't imagine that they would make such an argument, much less believe it. And we need more time for what? Twelve years isn't enough, but we need another 12 years of obfuscation, rape rooms and torture?

I still can't find a real, serious argument from the Left. Please help.

NEWS FLASH!

Saddam, Iraq Outgunned Against the U.S.

OPERATION IRAQI LIBERATION

The wife prefers this name for the current military activities over yonder. Her inner cynic likes the acronym.

Her eagle eye also pointed out the arrangement of the presidential flag during the President's speech last night. Notice how the arrows in the eagle's talon are prominently displayed. Intentional?

HUNDREDS OF PROTESTORS. GASP!

I love this headline, from Yahoo! and the AP. Hundreds in U.S. Protest War With Iraq. That would be hundreds out of a population of about 300 million. I'd prefer this headline, Hundreds of Millions Cheer Open Can of Whoopass from Homes, Offices.

YOU DON'T LIKE IT? THEN DO SOMETHING

So many nations are expressing "sadness," "disappointment" and "regret" about the coalition's efforts to oust Saddam and restore liberty to the people of Iraq. Fine, it is their sovereign right to oppose the U.S., U.K., Australia, etc. But does their opposition mean anything if they do nothing?

When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in the late 1970s, we didn't just express "regret," we cut off grain shipments. We stopped trading with them. When Soviet and Cuban agents set up a puppet government in Grenada, we didn't issue a press release, we invaded. When Serbia tried its hand at genocide, we didn't just express "disappointment," we bombed Belgrade. So, if Russia, France, China, Mexico, India or any of the rest of the carping impotent want to express their disappointment, shouldn't their expression mean something? Why don't they try to stop us, or is it just not that important? Why don't they lend some troops to Saddam? Or maybe stop buying our grain or microprocessors? Maybe they could stop their people from emigrating to the U.S. to find work, or stop shipping wine, or close down the U.S. tech support offices in their countries? No, I suspect that their disappointment extends only so far as their press offices. Like Dashcle and Byrd, they run to the cameras, express their "sadness" and "weep" for the world just to make themselves feel good, but they don't have the balls to do anything about it...or, they really don't care about anything beyond their public image.

SADDAM LIVES

Saddam did look like hell in his television appearance early this morning, but that's all the more reason to believe it is actually him. If you were going to tape something in advance to use after your death to inspire your people, I think you'd look a little more awake, and would have remembered to hit the moustache with the Clairol for Men. The picture we saw was not the picture of neo-Arab machismo, or, as Jonah Goldberg described it, "Reading from that pad he looks like an old man trying to figure out why the deli raised the price on the chicken noodle soup."

SADDAM TV?

So, Saddam made an apperance on Iraqi TV last night. But was it really him? Look at some film. Last nights Saddam appeared a little heavy in the face, gray in the hair, and what was with those glasses? Was it him? I don't know. I am not saying it wasn't. The more I look at pictures from last night the more he looks like Eric Cartman in the South Park episode when he got glasses.

DEMOCRAT RAMBLINGS

Many top Democrats continue to ramble about the attack on Iraq. Many calling it illegal. Especially Baghdad Jim McDermott (D-WA 7th). Remember, McDermott went to Iraq and called President Bush a liar while in Iraq, while proclaiming Saddam to be truthful. Of interest to note, others have pointed out that when speaking of the United States, McDermott uses the word "They" and not "We". Think about it. You can email Baghdad Jim by clicking here.

U.N. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 provide all the basis needed to launch an attack on Iraq. Even those are not needed as Iraq is in violation of the cease fire agreement signed to end the Gulf War. With the cease fire being violated, we return to the state that existed prior to the cease fire. And that is a state of war. The Democrats might be able to convince a good number of ill educated, Oprah watching, Jerry Springer fans (those likely to vote Democrat) that they are right, but the facts and truth say otherwise.

And Tiny Tom Dashcle (D-SD) is proclaiming that Bush has a "small coalition of nations" supporting Bush and his actions. Over 40 countries are on board with the U.S. Someone ask Tiny Tom how many nations Clinton had in his coalition when he attacked Iraq in 1998 during impeachment proceedings.

OIL PRICES HEADING SOUTH

A regular refrain of the left is that this is nothing but a "War for Oil." Bush's goal is to make his oil buddies money. You know the drill. Well, the price of oil is plummeting. As it did following the Gulf War. And I am pretty sure that Bush41's oil buddies didn't get rich with some of the lowest oil prices in history following the Gulf War. Nor will they following this war. If any country is acting on their oil interest, it is France. They are the country who is Iraq's largest trading partner and the country with the most lucrative oil contracts with Iraq. They fear that a liberated Iraq, with a new leader and government will not honor their oil contracts. For France, their actions truly have been about oil.

IT'S ALL FREEREPUBLIC.COM'S FAULT!

Or so the Dixie Chicks' manager would like you to think. Seems their problems are not of their own making, nor Natalie Maines' anti-Bush remarks' fault. Taking a page from Hillary Clinton, they are blaming a vast right-wing cyber-conspiracy. Particularly, they name the web site, FreeRepublic.com. A popular on-line gathering place for conservatives.

As is common, the left blames someone else for their problems and plays themselves as the victim.

INSIDE IRAQ

Here is a weblog from an Iraqi in Baghdad. He's anti-war and anti-Saddam, "No one inside Iraq is for war (note I said war not a change of regime), no human being in his right mind will ask you to give him the beating of his life." His blog should be fascinating reading for as long as he is able to update it. An excerpt:

And there is the matter of Sanctions. Now that Iraq has been thru a decade of these sanctions I can only hope that their effects are clear enough for them not to be tried upon another nation. Sanctions which allegedly should have kept a potentially dangerous situation in Iraq in check brought a whole nation to its knees instead. And who ultimately benefited from the sanctions? Neither the international community nor the Iraqi people, he who was in power and control still is. These sanctions made the Iraqi people hostages in the hands of this regime, tightened an already tight noose around our necks. A whole nation, a proud and learned nation, was devastated not by the war but by sanctions. Our brightest and most creative minds fled the country not because of oppression alone but because no one inside Iraq could make a living, survive. And can anyone tell me what the sanctions really did about weapons? Get real, there are always willing nations who will help, there are always organizations which will find his money sweet. Oil-for-Food? Smart Sanctions? Get a clue. Who do you think is getting all those contracts to supply the people with “food”? who do you think is heaping money in bank accounts abroad? It is his people, his family and the people who play his game. Abroad and in Iraq, Iraqis and non-Iraqis.
What I mean to say is that things could have been different; I can’t help look at the Northern parts of Iraq with envy and wonder why.

THE LIBERATION BEGINS

The oppression is about to end, the war has begun, despite the best efforts of the U.N., France and countless mind-numbed leftists.

BLIXIE CHIX

From an e-mail:

Hans Blix said that he doesn't think Saddam will use banned weapons because he cares about world opinion. First, I think the fact that Blix couldn't say - "saddam won't use banned weapons because he doesn't have them" - is a clear indication of the failure of the UN and the inspections process. Second, Blix is wrong because Saddam does not really care about world opinion. He only cares about survival. The only chance he has at surviving, other than running away, is to win this war. The only way he has any shot of even prolonging it a bit is to use chemical/biological weapons. My guess is he'll try to use them, but I don't think it'll work. His forces are in such disarray that delivering banned weapons to targets will be tough.

BUT WHY DO THEY OPPOSE THE WAR?

Brian, I agree that the Democrats are being very hypocritical, and it is always difficult to determine what they really believe. The question here is, do the Democrats really oppose the war or do they merely oppose the President? If they oppose the war, they better give a good reason because their usual reason for all their positions -- that they care -- doesn't work this time. I can't figure out why the left opposes the invasion other than a general opposition to war, the consequences of such weakness be damned. Maureen Dowd's particularly incoherent piece today is further evidence that the left's anti-war position is no more than personal animosity toward Bush, Rumsfeld, et al.

Hypocrisy on Parade

Democrat after democrat has come out against President Bush and his Iraq policy. Most notably Tom Daschle. One Monday, Sen. Minority Leader Daschle says he’s "…saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we’re now forced to go to war." Source That is quite the flip flop from his position in 1998. Then Sen. Daschle had the following to say.

"Look, we have exhausted virtually our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? ... The answer is, we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply, and we are doing so militarily." Source

Tom Daschle as Senate Majority Leader in October of 2002:
"We do know that Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know that Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin and mustard gas. We know that Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know that Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons. If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the Gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he would become a grave threat to U.S. security and to global security. The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored."

Tom Daschle as the Senate Minority Leader in January of 2003:
“We have yet to see any evidence that Saddam still has weapons of mass destruction.”

But Senator Daschle is not the only waffle being served. Former Secretary of State Madeline Albright has taken to position gymnastics regarding Iraq. While Secretary of State she was one of the most outspoken voices in the Clinton administration for disarming Iraq with military force. She regularly compared him to Hitler and spoke of the grave dangers he posed to the United States and the world. And while on CNN’s “Inside Politics” she asserted that the US can take military action against Iraq without a UN Security Council Resolution. Yet today she claims that there isn’t evidence that Iraq has WMD and that the US needs UN approval for an attack!

The examples are endless, but to make your life easy, and to save you time I have compiled a quick list for your review and consideration.

Democrat Bill Clinton: "If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow. Some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."

Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia: "The U.S. should strike, strike hard and strike decisively. In this instance, the administration needs to act sooner rather than later."

Democrat Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware: "The only way we're going to get rid of Saddam Hussein is we're going to end up having to start it alone - start it alone - and it's going to require guys...in uniform to be back on foot in the desert taking Saddam down."

Democrat Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and made it clear that he has the intent to try, by duplicity and secrecy to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential terrorist activities on a global basis."

All of the them today are opposed to military action in Iraq. Though Kerry is for it on Monday and opposed to it on Tuesday. His position depends on the time that you ask him what it is.

And let us not forget the members of congress who filed a lawsuit to prevent President Bush from launching an attack on Iraq because congress had not declared “war.” Reps. John Conyers, D-Mich., Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill.; Jim McDermott, D-Wash.; Jose Serrano, D-N.Y.; Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas. Never. Not once did they take such action when Clinton was president in bombing country after country with congressional approval, nor even a UN debate on the matters, much less a Security Council Resolution.

In 1998, with Clinton as president the democratic party was fully behind Clinton’s attack on Iraq. They proudly proclaimed that no UN authorization was needed, and that the GOP’s (though a majority of the GOP supported him) attempts to stop Clinton were partisan. But today, with a Republican president the Democrats have done a 180. Their hypocrisy is on display for all.

DOES THE LEFT CARE ANYMORE?

It strikes me that the liberal motivation to cast all of its policy arguments as arguments about who cares the most is not going to wash with respect to Iraq. The left often tries to quash debate by exclaiming "but we care about (insert helpless group here)." But whom do they care about when skipping class, cranking Lennon and shouting Lenin? Certainly not the women and children of Iraq. Twelve years of sanctions and Saddam's diversion of oil revenue to palace construction have killed tens of thousands of children. The left wants more talk and more containment, which will continue the slow, painful deaths from starvation and lack of adequate medical care (one-legged al-Qaeda leaders still get their care from Baghdad General). More inspections and more time for Saddam to operate his torture chambers, to literally shred his enemies and rape their children, is what the left is fighting for now. So, if the left cannot argue that they care more, what exactly is their argument? Perhaps the left has adopted a Pat Buchananesque isolationism -- that Iraq children are not worth American blood. I suppose they could simply be racist. They don't mind saving the white population of Kosovo or the black populations of Somalia or Haiti, but God forbid they be asked to help dem Ay-Rabs! No, I don't think that is it, either. The only thing that can truly be driving the left to oppose the war, if not isolationism or racism, is good old-fashioned anti-Americanism. That's right. They are un-Patriotic and Anti-American. And they don't give a damn about the Iraqi people. The left, once intellectually stimulating and worthy opposition, have become pathetic and pitiful. No wonder Sen. Moynihan is in critical condition.

UNILATERAL = 30 PLUS

Publicly on record favoring the purchase and utilization of whoop-ass to enforce 1441: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan. Plus, another 15 "quietly" endorse bombing the crap out of Saddam.

WHY WE FIGHT

Learn more about Saddam's torture chambers and rape rooms. And "peace activists" claim to care about the people of Iraq. I'd like to see human shields show up at the Shredder.

THE BUSH DOCTRINE

USA Today proclaims that GWB is abandoning the policy of containment adopted by Harry Truman in 1947 in favor of a doctrine of preemptive war. Forget for a moment the intellectual gymnastics necessary to compare policies for dealing with a movement for worldwide Communist revolution and for dealing with dispersed terrorist groups. The USA Today gets its facts wrong by saying that containment was a winning policy that brought down the Soviet Union.

Truman's decision to offer aid to Greece and Turkey in 1947 began a containment policy that continued for more than a half-century and prevailed in the Cold War.

GWB's policy is more akin to the policy that Reagan adopted to win the Cold War. Containment required that the West resist the efforts of the USSR to foment communist revolution, but once a country had fallen to Soviet agents, then containment required that we pull back and attempt to prevent the fall of further dominos. Thus, we went to war to protect South Korea and South Vietnam from falling, but in each case did not make a real attempt to roll back the gains already made by the Soviets. Reagan abandoned containment and adopted the doctrine of rolling back Soviet gains. He drove the Communists out of Afghanistan, Nicaragua and, most dramatically, Poland. By confronting Communist threats head on, and preemptively aiding anti-communists in Soviet satellite states, he put the Soviets on notice that they would have to fight. Now, Bush is making a similar statement to terrorists and the nations who support them. Bush is adopting a version of the Reagan Doctrine and applying it now to international terrorists. Perhaps this is a change from the previous policy of negotiating with terrorists. And it is a welcome change and war in Iraq should put Iran, Syria and North Korea on notice. There's a new Sheriff in town.

IF THIS IS UNILATERAL . . .

The following nations have expressed support for the disarmament of Iraq by force: Afghanistan, Albania, Azerbaijan, Australia, Bahrain, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Kuwait, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan. Let me know if I missed any other principled nations, or if any of these have changed their minds.

OF COURSE YOU REALIZE, THIS MEANS WAR

The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain will not seek a vote on any Security Council resolution and "reserve their right to take their own steps to secure the disarmament of Iraq." Inspectors are evacuating, the "human shields" are gone. The United Nations has relegated itself to the ash-heap of history as a useless debating society. President Bush will tell Saddam to get the hell out of Iraq tonight.