Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 3/21/2006 11:35:49 AM EDT
AN UNPOPULAR ANTI-WAR
New York Post Editorial

March 21, 2006 -- For all the supposed mounting public outrage over the continuing U.S. involvement in Iraq, the nationwide protests on the third anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom turned out to be more sputter than substance.

In New York, barely 1,000 people turned out Saturday to protest the war; another couple of hundred showed up on Sunday.

Frankly, there are longer lines waiting to buy tickets at the half-price booth. Even the Naked Cowboy in Times Square probably draws bigger crowds.

Around the nation, turnout wasn't much better. A few dozen showed in Baltimore, a couple of hundred in the antiwar hotbed city of San Francisco, maybe 1,000 or so in the nation's capital.

Only Chicago and Portland drew sizable crowds - and even there, the turnout was significantly smaller than in past years.

Celebrity "peace mom" Cindy Sheehan boasted to one rally that "support for this war has dwindled dramatically." But it looks more like support for America-bashers like Sheehan & Co. is what's dropping off.

Yes, Americans have concerns over the situation on Iraq. But they know better than to listen to the crowd that would condemn any and all uses of power to defend this country from terrorist attacks.

Or perhaps, as President Bush noted yesterday, Americans are coming to understand that there is much more to what is happening in Iraq than the nightly news' reports of gloom and doom.

Bush yesterday cited the Iraqi city of Tal Afar, whose mayor recently wrote to the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq to offer thanks to the 3rd Cavalry Regiment for liberating his people from the terrorist insurgents. (Except for The Post, the national news media have notably overlooked Mayor Najim Abdullah Abid Al-Jibouri's letter.)

Progress in Iraq has been slow - painfully so. U.S. leaders have made mistakes, as the president conceded in talking of "trial and error." Yet, in Tal Afar, he said, "we see the outlines of the Iraq that we and the Iraqi people have been fighting for."

That's a reality that the anti-war crowd refuses to accept.

Little wonder that even the usual crowd of America-haters and Bush-bashers don't even bother turning out anymore.


www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/65655.htm
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:39:54 AM EDT
If we go "over there" to do something we're the bully, if we stay at home and care for our own we're isolationist capitalist pigs.

We're screwed either way, so we may as well do the thing that shows our enemies we're not afraid to come out of our cave when threatened, and that our teeth are still very, very, very sharp.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:41:48 AM EDT
I wish I knew where some of these protests were going down locally.

I'd go there to meet women with easily-controlled minds.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:42:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 11:42:24 AM EDT by sixgunsblazing]
nice stuff

I wonder who this columnist was, we'll probably never see him in the NYP again..
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:43:35 AM EDT
good!

bout time people stopped watching the bullshit on CNN
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:45:25 AM EDT
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:45:43 AM EDT
This just proves that the media can influence opinion but they can’t generate passion. More people show up to the local quarter mile stockcar race in my small city than showed up to a major protest in New York City with population of 9+ million. If some second-rate has-been band played a free concert in New York City they would have at least 10 or 20 times these numbers.

Half of the people there were probably just hoping to score with some hippy chicks anyway.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:48:55 AM EDT

March 21, 2006 -- For all the supposed mounting public outrage over the continuing U.S. involvement in Iraq, the nationwide protests on the third anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom turned out to be more sputter than substance.


That's because there has been no "mounting public outrage" except in the minds of CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, Hitlery and her cohorts, leftwing nutcases (I know, redundant), and members of this board who claim to be conservatives that voted for Bush but now hate him.

I seriously doubt that the real numbers have changed much, if at all, from when we first went in. They, including some members here, are trying to portray the troops as "victims" as if they really give a flying fuck about them. It's just political bullshit.

They tried that "victim" shit on us 33 + years ago. I see no difference whatsoever.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:49:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Thuban:
This just proves that the media can influence opinion but they can’t generate passion. More people show up to the local quarter mile stockcar race in my small city than showed up to a major protest in New York City with population of 9+ million. If some second-rate has-been band played a free concert in New York City they would have at least 10 or 20 times these numbers.

Half of the people there were probably just hoping to score with some hippy chicks anyway.



They don't influence opinion, they just make up the fucking poll numbers to suit their dummycrat masters.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:51:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sixgunsblazing:
nice stuff

I wonder who this columnist was, we'll probably never see him in the NYP again..



The NYP is somewhat conservative. It's the NYT that he will never be published in.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:52:48 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



No, it just means that the lower support numbers have been fabricated by the media. I doubt apathy is a major factor.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:53:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



No, it just means that the lower support numbers have been fabricated by the media. I doubt apathy is a major factor.



So you think Bush's approval rating is fabricated?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:53:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



Being a hippy stopped being cool. The reality of some stank breathed methhead selling you his fucked up politics sucked all the romance out of it.


You could call that “apathy” if you want.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:55:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



Being a hippy stopped being cool. The reality of some stank breathed methhead selling you his fucked up politics sucked all the romance out of it.


You could call that “apathy” if you want.



Well they've been at it for 3 years and I think they've finally figured out that nobody is listening in the government. Applies to both the hippies and the conservatives.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:55:37 AM EDT
To me most of this stuff is just plain old ordinary Bush bashing. The news media has already forgotten about the millions of people who defied the battling religions to vote, often at great risks to themselve and their families. I will never forget to those voting pictures, where insurgents had blown up a polling place and killed some voters, yet the ordinary Iraqi pick themselves up and continued voting often with their families in tow.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:56:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



No, it just means that the lower support numbers have been fabricated by the media. I doubt apathy is a major factor.



So you think Bush's approval rating is fabricated?



Duh, yeah.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:57:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



Being a hippy stopped being cool. The reality of some stank breathed methhead selling you his fucked up politics sucked all the romance out of it.


You could call that “apathy” if you want.



Well they've been at it for 3 years and I think they've finally figured out that nobody is listening in the government. Applies to both the hippies and the conservatives.



omigod, 3 whole years!!!!!!!!!!!! The "quick fix" crowd ain't happy. The sky if falling..............
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:58:21 AM EDT
But if Clinton's approval rating were down when he was president that was true right?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:58:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
To me most of this stuff is just plain old ordinary Bush bashing. The news media has already forgotten about the millions of people who defied the battling religions to vote, often at great risks to themselve and their families. I will never forget to those voting pictures, where insurgents had blown up a polling place and killed some voters, yet the ordinary Iraqi pick themselves up and continued voting often with their families in tow.



They didn't forget, they just ignored it completely.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 11:58:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



Being a hippy stopped being cool. The reality of some stank breathed methhead selling you his fucked up politics sucked all the romance out of it.


You could call that “apathy” if you want.



Well they've been at it for 3 years and I think they've finally figured out that nobody is listening in the government. Applies to both the hippies and the conservatives.



omigod, 3 whole years!!!!!!!!!!!! The "quick fix" crowd ain't happy. The sky if falling..............



Forget your meds today?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:09:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:
But if Clinton's approval rating were down when he was president that was true right?



But the media didn't have such poll numbers.

If I recall, you claim not to be a dem. Is that correct?
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:10:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
Well don't get too exicted. I don't think this represents a shift in support of the war, I think it represents a shift towards total apathy.



Being a hippy stopped being cool. The reality of some stank breathed methhead selling you his fucked up politics sucked all the romance out of it.


You could call that “apathy” if you want.



Well they've been at it for 3 years and I think they've finally figured out that nobody is listening in the government. Applies to both the hippies and the conservatives.



omigod, 3 whole years!!!!!!!!!!!! The "quick fix" crowd ain't happy. The sky if falling..............



Forget your meds today?



Oh how cute. Someone applies logic to your nonsense and they need meds.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:30:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 12:30:15 PM EDT by Grunteled]
If you asked me today if I wanted to go to war at the cost of $70 billion to liberate and then secure Iraq and forgive the debt entirely..... I would probably say no. However, I look at this way: I and nearly 80% of the American public said collectively "go kick his ass". I did that not because I thought he was moments away from a nuke but because he would have happily helped those who would strike at us and I was willing to see him forced out.

Nothing about that has changed and thus I will lend my support to the effort until it is done. Do I like the cost? Hell no. Do I think that Iraq will be a great example of freedom and democracy? No, I think they are not doing much as a whole to assist us in getting back on thier own feet. Do I think we are better off without Sadam running a nation? Yes. Do i want us to kill jihadies for as long as they are willing to die over there? Yes. Can we back out without meeting our stated goals and not reinforce the image of lazy, weak, Americans with no stomach for a real fight? No.

So many people were all too happy to go to war as long as we would just be watching bombs explode on CNN and then when anything gets in the way of that or the dieing starts, they say they want to quit. To those people. Fuck you! John Murtha, McCain, and a host of others politicos who are now "not sure" or openly advocating a near retreat, that's for you. It's for the guy on the street who now thinks it's cool to bash the President for what he was screaming "Hell yes!" to only a few years ago. That's to a press that would plant an IED on the road if it meant getting footage that would 'hurt The Administration'.

I want to see them come home. I want to see them come home as winners who accomplished just what they and thier nation sent them out to do. I'm willing to see taxes rise to support it, I'm willing to see harder economic times to get there. I'm willing to give what it takes for us to get it done.

I guess that is all.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:39:30 PM EDT
I would like to think these “protests” are falling in popularity because people have finally figured out who these clowns actually are. But I doubt it. It’s more likely that these protests have proven so ineffective at ending the war that the big funders aren’t paying for as many buses to ferry these losers around.

A recent article at the American Thinker does a good job of exposing these fringe characters.

Some of the highlights –

"Most of the marches in America were spearheaded by United for Peace and Justice… a large umbrella association of more than thirteen hundred local and national groups who "have joined together to protest the immoral and disastrous Iraq War and oppose our government’s policy of permanent warfare and empire-building."

"… (United for Peace and Justice) led by such anti-establishment outfits as the Communist Party USA, Anti-Capitalist Convergence, Socialist Party USA, Anti-Imperialist News Service, Black Radical Congress and Workers Party."

"… given that Islamism represents their best chance of disrupting American society. It is therefore only natural that they would do everything in their power to oppose the administration’s effort… All that matters at the moment is that in order to implement their respective visions the present establishment must be toppled first."

"… bin Laden himself when he said: "The interests of Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders."



A comprehensive list of these subversives can be found here . It really is a Who’s Who of winners.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:47:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 12:47:35 PM EDT by dolanp]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
But if Clinton's approval rating were down when he was president that was true right?



But the media didn't have such poll numbers.

If I recall, you claim not to be a dem. Is that correct?



They've been doing these polls since Eisenhower. The party that matches most of my poltiical beliefs would be the Libertarians. I am most definitely not a Dem because I hate socialism. Once in a while I will agree with their stance on personal freedoms, but usually not.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:54:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
But if Clinton's approval rating were down when he was president that was true right?



But the media didn't have such poll numbers.

If I recall, you claim not to be a dem. Is that correct?



They've been doing these polls since Eisenhower. The party that matches most of my poltiical beliefs would be the Libertarians. I am most definitely not a Dem because I hate socialism. Once in a while I will agree with their stance on personal freedoms, but usually not.



You sure as hell spend a lot of time defending Clinton. I have seen you do it in other threads.

I have libertarian (small "l" purposely) ideals but the Libertarian Party can kiss my lilly white ass. Their platform contains some fucked up ideas.

It really doesn't matter how long they have been doing them, they have been skewing them to suit their agenda for just as long by FABRICATING results that suit their needs. Clinton's ratings weren't down because the media didn't want them to be. Of course, you would dearly love for the poll numbers to be correct in relation to Iraq and Bush but, alas, they aren't.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 12:57:53 PM EDT
I don't see how you can say I 'spent a lot of time defending Clinton'. I just don't think the polls are fabricated like you do, that's all.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:02:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:04:12 PM EDT by LARRYG]

Originally Posted By dolanp:
I don't see how you can say I 'spent a lot of time defending Clinton'. I just don't think the polls are fabricated like you do, that's all.



Because you DO spend a lot of time defending Clinton and you DON'T want to believe the poll numbers are fabricated because it does not suit your agenda nor that of your leftist masters. It's clear as a bell to anyone who has an understanding of the bias that the media operates under. It's clear to anyone who has paid attention over the last 15 years or so.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:03:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/21/2006 1:03:52 PM EDT by dolanp]

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
I don't see how you can say I 'spent a lot of time defending Clinton'. I just don't think the polls are fabricated like you do, that's all.



Because you DO spend a lot of time defending Clinton and you don't WANT to believe the poll numbers are fabricated because it does not suit your agenda nor that of your leftist masters.



So what were the leftist masters doing when Bush's approval rating were at record highs after 9/11?

I think you are the chicken little.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:05:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
I don't see how you can say I 'spent a lot of time defending Clinton'. I just don't think the polls are fabricated like you do, that's all.



Because you DO spend a lot of time defending Clinton and you don't WANT to believe the poll numbers are fabricated because it does not suit your agenda nor that of your leftist masters.



So what were the leftist masters doing when Bush's approval rating were at record highs after 9/11?

I think you are the chicken little.



They were searching like hell for some way to fabricate the aforementioned numbers. You can think I am the "chicken little" all you want but I am not the one running around screaming the sky is falling. Actually, you probably don't think at all.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:08:45 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By dolanp:
But if Clinton's approval rating were down when he was president that was true right?



But the media didn't have such poll numbers.

If I recall, you claim not to be a dem. Is that correct?



They've been doing these polls since Eisenhower. The party that matches most of my poltiical beliefs would be the Libertarians. I am most definitely not a Dem because I hate socialism. Once in a while I will agree with their stance on personal freedoms, but usually not.



You sure as hell spend a lot of time defending Clinton. I have seen you do it in other threads.

I have libertarian (small "l" purposely) ideals but the Libertarian Party can kiss my lilly white ass. Their platform contains some fucked up ideas.

It really doesn't matter how long they have been doing them, they have been skewing them to suit their agenda for just as long by FABRICATING results that suit their needs. Clinton's ratings weren't down because the media didn't want them to be. Of course, you would dearly love for the poll numbers to be correct in relation to Iraq and Bush but, alas, they aren't.



Approval rating is such a treehugging, ball licking, asstastict idea anyway. I can't believe they get anyone anywhere to say they approve of any President. We all have things we hate about every president.
The only approval rating a president needs to think about is the one that happens every four years in November.
If you really want to consider those stupid poles, consider that many of his disapprovers want him to do more killing, not less.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:10:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By LARRYG:
They were searching like hell for some way to fabricate the aforementioned numbers.



Well I might as well be arguing with a brick wall. Show some evidence that these polls are fabricated then if you can. The questions are open and the answers are benign.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:12:47 PM EDT
You know it was much easier to sell people on the "evil-ness" of war while we were in Vietnam. There wasn't a vivid, in your face incident that showed the American populace the dangers of inactivity like there was on 9/11.

People may not be pleased with the progress but almost everyone will at least begrudgingly admit we need to stay the course in Iraq and finish the job.

God Bless George Bush for having the testicular courage to not be deterred.

Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:14:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By easy610:
People may not be pleased with the progress but almost everyone will at least begrudgingly admit we need to stay the course in Iraq and finish the job.

God Bless George Bush for having the testicular courage to not be deterred.




That much is true, now that we are there turning back would probably be a bigger mess.
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:19:49 PM EDT
So when are we getting out of Germany???
Link Posted: 3/21/2006 1:25:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By DigDug:
So when are we getting out of Germany???



Never! We own that bitch.
Top Top