« What Media Bias? | Main | Lack of Posting{Again} »

September 24, 2005

Liberal Hypocrisy -- D.C.

Cindy Sheehan arrived in Washington, D.C. the other day and set up her portable Camp Wingnut on the Mall, disgustingly close to the Washington Monument. On Friday afternoon when I went to see it and take a few pics, I was reminded of footage of the end of Woodstock, a few raggedy looking burnouts wandering aimlessly, only this one was adjoined by a field of miniature white crosses that could have been a graveyard for gerbils. Only a few were marked, probably by parents who had lost children in Iraq and were willing to demean their mortal sacrifices and their very memories by adding their names to Cindy's grotesque little travelling sideshow. The ditch lady must have decided that she's better off not labelling the crosses as she did in Crawford and risking having the parents of fallen warriors again show up to rip crosses bearing their own dead children's names out of the ground, admonishing that, "You don't speak for us, Cindy!"

Earlier that day, I had been to Walter Reed, where I had been fortunate, and indeed privileged to meet a few of the young men who had been permanently disabled during combat operations in Iraq. One such soldier, who had lost both his legs, told me that he had been learning to walk with on one prosthesis and was working to master the second. He spoke as though he were describing a new stereo he was buying for his car, no bitterness at all, and said that his injuries were simply a product of war, and that war became necessary when talk was realized to be unproductive. Here was a young man, probably as many as three decades my junior, and he filled me with so much awe and so much respect for him that when I shook his hand and thanked him from the bottom of my heart for his sacrifice, I felt it was totally inadequate. I mean, how can you thank someone enough for giving so much for love of his country?

I asked him about the anti-war liberals who have been holding Friday evening "we support the troops" vigils outside the main gate of the Army hospital complex and how they were viewed by the troops within. He smiled as he told me how on one such Friday night, a motorcycle club called Rolling Thunder had roared in on their Harleys and run the liberals off, and the look of appreciation in his eyes answered my question more than adequately.

The brave heroes at Walter Reed are totally aware that the "we support the troops" vigils are pure malarkey attended by people with liberal anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America agendas who do not speak for the troops. Even knowing that their transparency fools no one, however, these liberals will continue to play act, while bashing the war and attempting to send a message to these wounded soldiers that they sustained their injuries for naught.

That same Friday evening, the liberals manning the gate experienced a change of program: A number of conservatives had come to town to mount counter-protests against Sheehan's and other left wing groups' who had been massing for their own anti-war rallies. Organizations like RightMarch, FreeRepublic, ProtestWarrior,Move America Forward and others, as well as a lot of just plain pissed off conservatives like me were there for Support The Troops and Their Mission Weekend(unfortunately, other business in New York has prevented me from being able to remain all weekend), and a bunch of us turned up to face off with the vigilistas on that evening. There weren't as many as one might have hoped, about 120 on our side and 50 or 60 on the leftards' side.

They had prior claim to the sidewalks on both sides of the main gate of the hospital complex, we were opposite them in the same positions and signs abounded on both sides of Orange Street. There were police on hand to insure a nonviolent event.

Pictures I took will follow when I've learned how to get them in here, hopefully very soon. I'm still learning my way around the technology herein.

One of their signs said, "Support the troops, give them their full benefits," whatever that meant, and had us scratching our heads, another said, "Quiet Zone, Soldiers Healing." Behind the "quiet zone" sign, someone was playing an acoustic guitar, someone else, it seemed, a tambourine, and before long the liberals began singing. All in all, they were majorly pitiful and we were soon making amused bets as to whether or not they were going to start singing "Kumbaya."

People driving past would swerve toward whichever side they agreed with and honk their horns, often shouting their approval and/or waving. Surprisingly enough as the District of Columbia is a liberal city, we received a lot more "honks" than they did and every single vehicle that drove out of Walter Reed honked for us, ignoring the lefties altogether, knowing them for what they were and what they represented.

When darkness descended, the liberals lit candles, and we were surer than ever that they were about to burst into "Kumbaya."

Our side definitely had louder shouters than theirs whenever shouting was needed, and it was really a lot of fun.

Abruptly, at about 9:15, the leftards began to disperse. I learned the reason pretty quickly: On Friday nights, a restaurant in Washington called Fran O'Brien's Stadium Steak House has groups of Walter Reed patients over for a free steak dinner. They go there by bus and return around 9:30, and for some reason the vigilistas want to be gone before the bus reappears, returning the troops to the hospital.

I'd like to think these treasonous liberals prefer to slink away in shame rather than face true patriots who have sacrificed so much for their country, but somehow I doubt it, as the left has already shown us with profound eloquence that shame is something they know nothing about.

Posted by Seth at September 24, 2005 10:24 PM


Can't wait for the pictures. Thanks for being out there!


Posted by: Gordon at September 25, 2005 10:01 AM

It was fun.

There was stuff I wanted to get into on Saturday before I had to leave, but the police had the streets so screwed up due to a concurrent IMF function + demonstrations that getting across the city got too late and I had to run for the train.

Posted by: Seth at September 25, 2005 01:10 PM

I'm looking forward to the pictures, too, Seth!

I reallyreallyreally hope that I will have the opportunity soon to go up and show MY support to the men and women who defend our freedom so bravely and honorably.

Bless you so much for doing that - and throw in a few more shouts of praise to the troops for me, the next rally you attend, OK?

Many hugzzz,
-- R'cat
CatHouse Chat

Posted by: Romeocat at September 26, 2005 05:24 AM

You got it, Kat.

I intend to attend more rallies as they come up, and I always welcome the opportunity to meet the young people who are serving their country as these people are, fighting the war on terror.
They should have our support, not the morale-busting bullshit the liberals are spewing at them.

Of course, you've gotten to meet Ann Coulter, and I haven't. :-(

Posted by: Seth at September 26, 2005 05:40 AM

Do you reckon the numbers of anti-Iraq invasion supporters (~100,000) VS. the number of war supporters (~500) in DC this weekend reflect the National Mood?

It sure seems to reflect what I see here in Louisville, KY, in the great Red Midwest.

How long can Bush sustain an unsupported war, I wonder?

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 26, 2005 09:26 AM

Actually, Dan, I don't. More lefties turn out for every kind of protest there is, while most of my fellow right thinkers do not. I'm just part of the small vocal segment.

Remember the term, "The silent majority?" Those are the superior number of patriotic, right thinking Americans who do all their talking at the polls -- you remember them, don't you? The ones who both elected and reelected GW Bush, and the ones who voted in a solid majority of Republicans to each of the two houses on Capitol Hill?

Didn't hear much from them prior to a the election days in question, now didja? :-)

Posted by: Seth at September 26, 2005 12:59 PM

"Re-elected," maybe. MAYBE.

Not "elected," though.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 26, 2005 02:36 PM


Bush beat Gore fair & square. The left couldn't handle that(hence, the "angry left"), so they tried to "win" the election by suing for it. That was the most pitiful, contemptuous crap ever seen in the history of American elections.

The first time ever that a party was so reduced to the level of pure scum that they tried to use the courts to steal a "done deal" election. But then again, the liberals have been using the courts to try to rewrite the Constitution for years, because they can't get things to go their way through "legal" channels.

If you really think Bush stole the 2000 election, you are either ignorant, which I don't believe you are, or you are stuck on "Mainstream Media" news venues, which means you aren't qualified to say you know anything about anything. The MSM only reports 1/2 of current events, that being the half that ignores the whole truth. If Bush saves the world and spits on the street in the process, the only thing you'll read in the MSM is that he spit on the street.

As I've said before, start reading more news venues, not just the leftard B.S.

I give you checkable facts and you don't check them, you just blurb the same bumper sticker material the rest of the uninformed liberals spew. You really don't give a good Goddamm about the truth, do you? Just the "party line."

C'mon, dude, get real!

Posted by: Seth at September 26, 2005 08:16 PM

Dan stop being a sore loser. This is Bush's last term so get a grip.

One reason so many leftards showed up for this ANTI WAR protest is simple: They have no life. No family or friends to occupy their days. I bet a good majority of them don't even work for a living.
Those of us who do have lives, who have family and friends and work, don't need to attend child like marches that do no good. We don't need all this attention. We have confidence in our stance. The silent majority doesn't need to become loud at these useless protests...our voices were heard on Nov. 4th.

Posted by: Raven at September 26, 2005 08:53 PM


You have your sources and I have mine. I, quite frankly, don't trust yours as you, no doubt, don't trust mine. I've read both "sides" and find yours lacking, but it's not from ignorance.

And many of us do go to protests, greatly sacrificing family time, job time, personal time because we think we have a dangerous and criminal administration. We can do no less, nor hopefully would you, if you thought we had a dangerous and criminal administration.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 27, 2005 05:10 AM

Dan, this ought to be easy for you. Just post the study that you believe showed that Owlgore won in 2000. There were lot's of studies, lot's of newspapers came in and did counts... name ONE that shows conclusively that Owlgore won. You will find some that say things like "if all the dimpled/hanging/offbeat chads had been counted this way, then Gore would have won in a total recount of the state" however you will also find a caveat that that kind of count violated Florida State Law.

So, the gauntlet is down, come up with the study that says FLATLY with good scientific backup that Gore won...either that or acknowledge that you are talking through your hat.

Posted by: GM Roper at September 27, 2005 05:19 AM

"Crickets chirping"

Posted by: Seth at September 27, 2005 06:59 AM

Give me a minute, willya, Seth?! Some of us have jobs and families and other responsibilities than reproving the flaws once again of the 2000 election.

From Greg Palast article at The Nation:


On November 7 tens of thousands of eligible Florida voters were wrongly prevented from casting their ballots--some purged from the voter registries and others blocked from registering in the first instance. Nearly all were Democrats, nearly half of them African-American. The systematic program that disfranchised these legal voters, directed by the offices of Florida Governor Jeb Bush and Secretary of State Katherine Harris, was so quiet, subtle and intricate that if not for George W. Bush's 500-vote eyelash margin of victory, certified by Harris, the chance of the purge's discovery would have been vanishingly small.

So, as to GM's point, you can say Gore lost ONLY IF you're not concerned about disenfranchisement. I, for one, am.

I'll concede that it is harder to find MSM articles on the matter, but as you've indicated incessantly, the MSM is biased. You're just confused about which direction.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 27, 2005 09:30 AM


What kind of reference is that?

"The Nation" is a leftist publication whose publisher, Victor Navasky, is one of those lefty intellectuals whose ilk generate whatever propaganda they deem necessary to undermine the United States and all this country stands for.

You may as well try to prove a point by citing the "works" of liberal twit Maureen Dowd or rabid Bush-basher Paul Krugman, LOL.

If "The Nation" is one of your "news" sources, it's no wonder you hold the opinions you do.

As far as your belief that the MSM holds no bias to port{that's left to you landlubbers}, why not give a read to the post at GM's blog I linked in my preceding post and see if you can refute that?

Posted by: Seth at September 28, 2005 10:46 AM

Does it really matter at this point in time...who won the 2000 election? Come on...5 years now. Get with it. Bush is President whether you like it or not; he was declared the winner by the SC for chrissakes. Move ON dude.
Petty arguments about this are really a waste of everyones time.

Posted by: Raven at September 28, 2005 03:21 PM

Dan, that was a Herculean try. Close, but no Aegean stable for you. I asked for proof that Gore won, and you hand out a diatribe from Greg Palast in The Nation attempting to note that Gore WOULD HAVE WON but for some unproven, unsupported arguments that not only were felons removed from the roles which is by the way entirely up to the State of Florida, but that other states felons weren't added.

Palast notes Conneticut as having restored felons voting rights as an example. He notes that most states do. I beg to differ, 45 states have some restrictions only 9 have moved since 96 to lessen the restriction some but three have voted to increase the restrictions. Further, Palast notes that as many as 100,000 felons are moving to florida who have had their rights restored by the state where they offended. Hogwash. Where is the proof, the documented study.. not estimates,not guestimates... actuall data? By citing Conn. one would almost believe that all 100K came from Conn. Really?

Lastly, Palast includes this bit of garbage: "Little wonder that out of tens of thousands of out-of-state felons, only a hardy couple of hundred attempted to run this bureaucratic obstacle course before the election. (Bush can be compassionate: He granted clemency to Charles Colson for his crimes as a Watergate conspirator, giving Florida resident Colson the right to vote in the presidential election.)"

"Was Florida's corrupted felon-voter hunt the work of cozy collusion between Jeb Bush and Harris, the President-elect's brother and state campaign chief, respectively? It is unlikely we will ever discover the motives driving the voter purge, but we can see the consequences. Three decades ago, Governor George Wallace stood in a schoolhouse door and thundered, "Segregation now! Segregation tomorrow! Segregation forever!" but he failed to block entry to African-Americans. Governor Jeb Bush's resistance to court rulings, conducted at whisper level with high-tech assistance, has been far more effective at blocking voters of color from the polling station door. Deliberate or accidental, the error-ridden computer purge and illegal clemency obstacle course function, like the poll tax and literacy test of the Jim Crow era, to take the vote away from citizens who are black, poor and, not coincidentally, almost all Democrats. No guesswork there: Florida is one of the few states to include both party and race on registration files."

This is a sorry attempt to get the issue to be one of racism pure and simple. Let me tell you something Dan, I worked my ass off as a youngster to get blacks registered, I marched, I too part in sit ins, and all the enemy of our work were democrats. Now the democrats really don't give a damn about blacks, but they are not above using the race card to gain more votes in order to gain more power.

Again, the challenge was to PROVE that Gore won, and you changed the subject. The challenge is still out there if you have the guts to put it up. Only this time, be honest about your response.

Posted by: GM Roper at September 28, 2005 05:46 PM

"Crickets still chirping, even louder."

Posted by: Seth at September 28, 2005 06:34 PM

It's not changing the subject to say that voter fraud through the election. If you don't buy voter fraud (and the great injustices that occur naturally as our system is set up to be sold to the highest bidder), then no evidence I present you is going to sway you.

So, as Raven pointed out, Bush IS the man in charge now. For you.

But he is not now and never will be my president.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 29, 2005 06:50 AM

That's funny, Dan, I remember reading someplace(probably someplace right-wing like I am, so I won't do like you would and try to pass it off as an impartial source of information) that thousands of liberals who had moved from NY to Florida had retained their NY voting registrations and then registered in Florida, and voted twice, by going to the polls in Fla and by absentee ballot in NY.
Now, THERE'S something we wouldn't read in The Nation, or even in the NYT, LOL.

I didn't approve of BJ Clinton at all, in fact I couldn't stand the SOB, but he had been elected according to our political beliefs, and as an American, he was my president.

Therefore, by saying Bush isn't your president, you're telling me you're not an American. If you'd like, I can look up some airline schedules for you, like one way to Paris, where they'd no doubt welcome you to their socialist paradise. Bush isn't their president, either.

Posted by: Seth at September 29, 2005 07:16 AM

I didn't like Clinton at all, either. But, like you say, he was my president.

However, when leaders start committing war crimes, that is when I disassociate myself from them. So, I'm a citizen of the US that is not a rogue nation, not the US of Reagan/Bush/Bush, war criminals all.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 29, 2005 08:44 AM

War crimes, Dan? You're a funny guy.

Typical liberal elitist attitude: It's okay for some brutal dictator to do monstrous things to his citizens, oppress them religiously, deny them freedom of speech, torture them, murder millions of them, etc, as long as it's not happening to you.

For you people, this isn't about Iraq. It's about your hatred of Bush because he took the White House away from a bunch of clueless lefties who hadn't the foggiest idea of what they were doing, then W proceeded to solve problems.

Rather than helping him do his job, you people, your media and your politicians have done everything you could do to sabotage his efforts and make him fail, ALL FOR YOUR PITIFUL, FUCKED UP LITTLE POLITICAL AGENDAS. Because you hate him, and the rest of the country, the Iraqis or even the rest of the world can slide into hell as long as you can make the President look bad.

If there was one real patriot among you, that person would be supporting the President because he IS the President, instead of obstructing him at every turn.

When Clinton nominated judges, JUST BECAUSE the GOP respected the position if not the man, they went ahead and confirmed them. When Bush does the same, for anything from Justice to dog catcher, you people fight him every step of the way -- just to make him fail.

We have soldiers on the ground in Iraq, and you people pretend to "support the troops" while you do all you can to demoralize them and embolden the enemy. Nice work, how many of our troops over there have died or lost limbs because of YOU PEOPLE?

The only war criminals I perceive in this country are liberals who do nearly as much to help the enemy as the enemy do themselves.

Posted by: Seth at September 29, 2005 10:00 AM

Can I oppose the war crimes of my leader while still opposing the crimes against humanity of other leaders? If so, I'd like that choice, please.


A "fucked up" traitor

(the term you're all trying to think of for saying your opponent believes something that he doesn't, in order to try to discredit him, is an ad hominem attack, with a bit of "strawman argument" thrown in for good effect. Poor logic, friend. Love you! Peace.)

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 29, 2005 11:38 AM

Bush has committed no war crimes, he has simply prosecuted a war that needed to be prosecuted against an evil entity who was an enemy of all mankind, and he is now seeing the aftermath through by ensuring that we don't exit leaving a Baathist or Islamofascist revolution behind.

Posted by: Seth at September 29, 2005 03:17 PM

Just to give you further reason to hate me, here are some specifics:

Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Watch both say that there is "prima facie evidence" that Rumsfeld committed war crimes for his involvement in torture policy.

Amnesty International USA says that there is "prima facie evidence" that Bush himself committed war crimes for same.

Aside from the war crimes found by AI, many people of the world find this administration guilty of:

Waging a War of Aggression against the sovereignty of Iraq and the rights of its people, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries among the people of Iraq, most civilians, from military violence and thousands of U.S. G.I’s. War of aggression is defined as “the Supreme international crime” in the Nuremberg Judgment.

Authorizing, encouraging and condoning the use of excessive force, in terrorem, tactics called “Shock and Awe”, targeting defenseless civilians, civilians facilities and indiscriminate bombing and assaults.

Authorizing and ordering the use of illegal weapons including super bombs, cluster bombs, depleted uranium enhanced bombs, missiles, shells and bullets and threatening the use of nuclear weapons.

Authorizing, ordering, concealing and condoning assassinations, summary executions, murders, disappearances, kidnappings and torture.


All of which I'm sure you would condemn if it were Syria committing the crimes. Many of you on the right often accuse us of "only blaming" the US and not criticizing other nations.

Let's flip that around: Do you EVER criticize your own country if it's doing wrong? Oh, that's right, "my country, right or wrong..."


Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 30, 2005 07:32 AM


There you go again.

Don't you ever get ANY information from ANYPLACE that's not purely lefty biased?

Let's see, Travesty--ooops! Amnesty International. Those are the folks that started the whole kerfuffle about Camp Delta awhile back, the whole time admitting that they hadn't been there and really didn't know what was going on there, "but something obviously must," since Bush is president. Very credible of you to bring them up.

Human Rights Watch has helped bring about some positive changes in other parts of the world in the past, but they, too, are a far left org that will never miss the chance to accuse the Bush Admin of anything and everything. They have been rather outspoken, also, in their support of murdering fetuses without restriction.

Dan, Isn't there a SINGLE place you go to for "facts" that isn't TOTALLY left wing? I mean, we all know how much the American left, like your predecessors in the USSR, have this amusing habit of perverting information to meet their political needs. :)

Posted by: Seth at September 30, 2005 08:55 AM

The problem is that right wing sources are largely unconcerned about human rights violations committed by the US.

I ask again, can the US do anything that you would condemn? Getting a blowjob apparently is something that you can get worked up about but how about actual human rights violations? [and before you bounce on it, I thought Clinton should have stepped down from office for committing perjury.]

Your condemnation of AI and HRW says more about you, unfortunately, than it does them.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 30, 2005 10:52 AM

The key words there, Dan, are always, from the liberal point of view, "committed by the U.S."

Why do you always seek to find things wrong with the U.S., and obviously agree with communist and strongman regimes that abuse their citizens, always support dictators who deny their people all the rights you can take for granted here in America? If you are against what we've done in Iraq, it means you support Saddam and all he stands(stood) for, period, and do not support the American way, whose principles are why we are over there.

There are people all over the world who risk their lives to come here and become Americans.

I would like to see a reform in our immigration laws that goes like this:

Each alien we allow into the U.S. should be part of an exchange -- in return we send one so-called "American" who would rather find reasons to condemn the govt than support it, to the country of origin of said immigrant without the option of his/her ever returning to the U.S.

Posted by: Seth at September 30, 2005 12:35 PM

Are you not hearing a word I'm saying?! I'm saying I DO - DO - DO condemn the Saddams of the world. Do you understand the words coming off my keyboard?!

BUT, I will not turn a blind eye to my own country's sins. It's called moral rectitude. It's called patriotism. I want my country to be the best it can be, SO WHEN we do not lived up to that ideal, I CONDEMN US.

And ultimately, I only have a say over my country, not others. Morality begins at home.

And again, Brother Seth, you're using very, very, very poor logic when you accuse me of something for which you've no basis ("I obviously like regimes that abuse their citizens").


I'm beginning to suspect that the answer is No. And anyone who would not stand up against a corrupt regime in their own country is, in my mind, a traitor. So be careful of casting stones, little brother.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at September 30, 2005 01:56 PM

Ha Ha, Dan, this is the first time I've ever seen someone stress out online, LOL!

Listen, the govt's first-primary-ichiban-numero uno job is to look after OUR interests, and sometimes that means they have to play hardball.

Every nation on earth understands the rules and they all do whatever they think they need to do in order to get their jobs done.

There IS a line that a "good-guy" country will not cross, >>and we do not cross it, despite what the left tries to make out. If we did, I would be the first to object. I can safely say "my country, right or wrong" because it is not in the charactar of the U.S. to cross that line. We are not the Germans.

You do not bring a knife to a gun fight.

This "I want us to be the best that we can be" story doesn't wash, it is another line I've heard from liberals before, just like "we support the troops." Right.

Talk to the wounded soldiers at Walter Reed and ask them what they think about the latter sentiment coming from the left.

And I'll reiterate: If you did not feel Saddam should have been permitted to do what he did, and you felt anything at all for oppressed people, you would be standing behind Bush on Iraq.

The WMD was NOT the only reason Bush invaded Iraq, but like I said, it was the only thing Bush haters could seize on to use for their petty, highly UNpatriotic political game.

If you don't think humanitarianism is a consideration of the Republicans, you are dead wrong-- again, that's what you get from reading/watching/listening to left wing media.

The left blurbs on and on about how they champion the cause of the poor, but what have they accomplished besides affirmative action and welfare? The left is evil, in order to further themselves, they resort to preserving racism by shouting its name at every opportunity. They have a vested interest in keeping blacks and other minorities poor in order to blame it on the right and keep a constituency.

C'mon, Dan, get real, man.

Be American.

Posted by: Seth at September 30, 2005 04:57 PM

Well, I am American, little brother. But I'm a follower of God, first.

And I'll retain my right to do so and disagree with Bush's way of doing things if that's what logic and my conscience dictate.

Thanks just the same.

Posted by: Dan Trabue at October 1, 2005 09:15 AM

Like that guy posted a few years ago at another blog, "arguing with a liberal is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick yourself up by the handle."

It's kind of like trying to reason with a Muslim extremist, probably because they're both essentially on the same side: They both want to bring down America.

The liberal is arguably the worst of the two, however, because he is lying about how much he loves his country while he endeavors to destroy it. At least the terrorists have the spine to admit that they are up to no good.

Posted by: Seth at October 1, 2005 04:42 PM

But all of the exit polls (at least the early ones) showed the Supposed to be President Gore and also Kerry winning. I know I read the ABC/CBS/NBC/CNN/NYT… poll declaring Kerry the winner this last time, and I think Bush stole the first election because CNN showed Gore winning up till almost midnight. I don't know why Bush didn't just give up, he is a loser anyway.

God Bless America and President Bush Rocks!

Posted by: Michael at October 2, 2005 09:33 PM

Right on!

Posted by: Seth at October 2, 2005 09:52 PM