Tuesday, September 27, 2005


So the press says the "anti-war movement" was active this weekend?

Anti-war? Really? (via Real Clear Politics) The organizers of the protests are anything but anti-war:

To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side.

These guys are communists. Period. They attract non-communists who don't know or don't care that they are there just to provide legitimate cover to the thugs who support our enemies. Sadly, many appear to be trying to relive their youthful glory days of 1970 when they got stoned and chanted up to four (math majors, they weren't).

This isn't original, but I tend to agree that there's nothing wrong with these protester types that shotguns and soap won't cure.

When the press can't get domestic hurricanes right, reporting baseless rumor as fact and then getting all indignant that the President let it happen; and when the press can't seem to even accurately identify who is protesting over here and what they really want; I suppose it is too much to think the press can possibly get it right about Iraq.

And would it be too much to ask for the sake of accuracy that the protesters carry signs that say "Get your troops out of Iraq"? Getting their troops out of Iraq would involve an entirely different set of people than American troops.