Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Michelle Malkin :: Townhall.com Columnist
"Peace" activists gone wild
by Michelle Malkin
Forward Print Share Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


You're walking down the street when you spot an anti-war protester wielding a peace sign on the corner. Quick, what do you do? Duck!

As we battle global jihad, perplexed and apoplectic pacifists are showing their true colors. Rainbow tie-dye has turned to raging-bull red.

Nobel Peace Laureate Betty Williams displayed what the Australian media called "her feisty Irish spirit" to hundreds of schoolchildren this week in a murder-minded diatribe against President Bush. "I have a very hard time with this word 'non-violence,' because I don't believe that I am non-violent," confessed Williams. On the plus side, the rest of the sane world will no longer make the mistake of believing that Peace Prize-winner Williams is non-violent, either (though the Nobel committee took the peace out of Peace Prize when it handed one to suicide bomber manufacturer Yasser Arafat in 1994).

While the kids cheered, Williams, the world-renowned pacifist, fumed: "Right now, I would love to kill George Bush." In America, we don't call this irrational hatred "feisty Irish spirit." We call it "unhinged." Or, as Charles Krauthammer first diagnosed it, Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Williams would no doubt endorse the disgusting comments left on an America Online message board for Sgt. Leonid Milkin, whose wife, two sons and sister-in-law were murdered in Kirkland, Wash., last week while he was serving in Iraq. Human Events Online writer Lisa De Pasquale documented the comments of anti-military Bush-haters:

"Too bad the paid assasin [sic] wasn't home also . . . Got what he deserved for serving an illegal government in an illegal war."

"Maybe he signed up for the wrong profession because who in their right mind would want to be a army man? He should have studied harder in school and found a real job instead of joining the army. Lmao, be all u can be? Don't patronize me ! People who join the army either have no education or come from small towns.. He should blame himself for his family dying due to his lack of education."

"ANOTHER BUSH TRADJEDY [sic] . . . YIP FOLKS HERE ARE 5 [sic -- 4] MORE NOTCHES, BUSH CAN ADD TO HIS BELT."

Then there's Dan Frazier, an anti-war huckster in Arizona selling T-shirts with the names of fallen soldiers, including Marine Cpl. Scott Michael Vincent, who was killed by a suicide bomber two years ago. The peace-loving Frazier demonstrated his "feisty" pacifist "spirit" by ignoring Vincent's mother's pleas to remove her son's name.

Want another dose? Earlier this month, a New Zealand peace activist and former Green Party candidate who served as a "human shield" for Saddam Hussein in 2003 was charged with assaulting a teen-age rock singer in London. Peace-loving Christiaan Briggs reportedly harassed the boy's girlfriend and then knocked the boy to the ground. Briggs ran off laughing before turning himself in to police. The victim had to have part of his skull removed and only days ago awoke from a coma.

Announcing his decision to take a stand for peace three years ago, Briggs preached: "'You must be the change you wish to see in the world.' But here in lies the twist. The change I wish to see is not simply that of countless Iraqi lives spared, but that of possibly inspiring just a small group of people I know; my family, friends, and community, illustrating to them an unbelievably important and simple lesson I learnt recently: Wanna be happy? Just centre your life around making others happy."

By sending them into unconsciousness. Saddam would approve.

Meanwhile, at a peace rally in Boston convened by the Muslim American Society, a Jewish man who attended with a video camera was threatened verbally and physically by hostile demonstrators. Seva Brodsky was accosted by pro-Hezbollah thugs who grabbed him, cursed at him and attempted to prevent him from filming the terrorist sympathizers. It was caught on tape and posted at the Solomonia.com blog this weekend. A rally marshal apathetically told Brodsky: "We cannot guarantee your safety."

If the "peace" activists gone wild had an iota of the same anger, contempt and callousness toward the jihadists as they do toward us, we'd be a lot closer to achieving the peace they love to preach.
Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Michelle Malkin makes news and waves with a unique combination of investigative journalism and incisive commentary. She is the author of Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild .

Be the first to read Michelle Malkin's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(45 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 12:46 AM EST
The Nobel Peace Prize
lost it's true meaning and purpose when it was awarded to Yasser Arafat, ex president Jimmy Carter and Laureate Williams. It would not surprise me one bit if it was next awarded to one of these anti-war so-called Peace Marchers! Maybe Cindy Sheehan is up next.

Read about the incident of the American Muslims on World Net Daily. Seva Brodsky was also told by a Muslim man that "We will hunt you down and kill you." Ah yes,Islam,the religion of peace!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 4:35 AM EST
Voices for peace
A simple rhetorical device - list a number of extreme pacifists and their crazy antics, and -BOOM!- you've demonstrated the insanity of ALL 'peaceniks'.

Except you haven't. There are intelligent, wise, learned voices for peace out there; I consider these to be the voices for sanity. Your article makes a mockery of them, and of the dead innocents for whom they speak. I have forwarded you an email I received from an Israeli academic who is one such voice.

Finally, I find there to be a telling comparison between the acts of violence perpetrated by your unhinged peace activists and the deadly acts of violence perpetrated by combatants on ALL sides in the current conflicts in the middle east.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 5:07 AM EST
Got the article-well done, as always
But JAM, you don't make any sense. You seem to find the examples given by Ms Malkin to be as crazy as she says - yet then go on to try to defend them! With moral relativism! 'All bad acts are bad even in war' seems to be what you are saying.

Oh, excuse me, it was violence. 'All "violent" acts are bad even in war.' Oh, excuse me again, you don't CALL it war - so it can't be (even if everyone else is calling it war.)

If you had the sense to just say what you mean, it may not have ended this way. I believe you MEANT: that there are people who truly don't believe in violence of any sort. And these are wise people.

No argument with that belief from me. It is true. Can you give an example? I, alas, can not. The only one that I can think of was Ghandi.

But to claim that the examples given prove all peaceniks are crazy? No, they don't and that wasn't Ms Malkins point.

HER POINT WAS THAT SOME PEACENIKS WANT PEACE SO BADLY THEY WILL HURT YOU TO GET IT! And THAT is what's wrong. Would Ghandi have hurt ANYONE in order to win peace?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 5:29 AM EST
These peace people don't understand there will be no "peace" when the throatcutters turn their way.

You are either with us or against us. How clearer can we make it?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 7:09 AM EST
Ghandi
Ghandi lived because his opposition was from Judeo-Christian moral backgrounds. Non-violence won't work against these guys because their God tells them to kill the opposition if they don't succumb. Women would forever regret our losing this battle.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 7:33 AM EST
Gardening is dirty work,
But the end result is beautiful. There will be no peace on Earth until the savages have been weeded out and destroyed, completely.

While you may be able to strap yourself into a tree and save it from destruction, I am waiting for the day people start physically attaching themselves to murderers with bombs strapped to their bodies, protecting the bomber's right to blow up innocent people. They are misunderstood you see, possibly had a bad childhood. There are alot of savages in sheeps clothing, too. They don't like having their pictures made at rallys held in public forums. Clueless dingbats decked out in pink make convenient targets, also.

Peace is the equivalent of nirvana and this troubled world will probably not see it in my lifetime. Thanks to the moonbat fringe who does everything within their power to prevent the dirty work from happening effectively, they continue to doom society to repeat performaces of needless terrorism.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 7:46 AM EST
What is the answer?
Pandora.com

Besides that UNPAID-for-plug, music is a very good start.

Otherwise, the last time I got SUCKERPUNCHED, I hit back. It took a while before I got the upper-hand, but it was Totally worth it.
My Dad is, he's still alive, an 'off the boat' Irishman from Incheeghelah, County Cork.
He joined th U.S. Army & flew transport planes.I guess its too bad for the 2 U N 'PeaceKeepers' who lost their lives yesterday, maybe they should have stayed in NY & drove over people around the eastcoast. That's how the Saudi's do it on Charles St. in Boston. We shall win.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 7:49 AM EST
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 8:25 AM EST
You don't have a leg to stand on.
Look,
I am a very kind hearted (male) human. I have grown up and prospered in the LIBERAL city of Boston as a LOW KEY conservative.
I am a bartender (during 9/11/2001: I was employed @ a place in Faneuil Hall...that morning,I found out on EEi Sportsradio. My dad flew planes, he let me FLY his planes for a while{never taking off or landing}it was a Crystal Clear Morning. There was ABSOLUTLY 'no' WAY THE FIRST PLANE WAS AN ACCIDENT. I called my mom and TOLD HER EXACTLY THAT. ...and then;
I had to go to work. I made the choice to take the 43 Tremont Bus(anyone reading this from the South End Knows I'm not telling tall tales,)When the bus turns to go down Charles St.(between the Boston Common & the Public Garden) there were suits & secrataries RUNNING though both parks.
I kept going to work.
I was bartending.
I put the T.V.'s on.
Of course the restaurant was not gonna open. BUT a delivery guy came in and asked to order a sandwich.
A SANDWICH has BREAD.
I informed this guy there was no bread for sandwiches because of the traffic because every ofice tower in the area let everyone go home early.

He Got Upset With Me.

I Jumped Over The Bar & showed him the door.
He said" So what" to what was goin on. I couldn't take it ,I left for J.J.Donnelly's, across the way, to talk over AMERICAN battleplans.
Life's not fair. We got a long way to go. This is a battle between Good and Evil.
This is like a game of Dodgeball, everybody has to pick a side.If your not ready to catch the ball, you better GET ready really swift-like.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 8:37 AM EST
As usual, Michelle hits it right on the head. We should not forget exactly what the left IS. They are a far greater danger to us than all the foreign terrorists in the Middle East. From the time I started college in '69 until now, I have never met a group that was meaner, less "liberal", liars, hypocrites, and not in the slightest interested in human rights.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 8:46 AM EST
The rational voices?
Jam writes: There are intelligent, wise, learned voices for peace out there; I consider these to be the voices for sanity.

Could you please direct us to these wise, learned voices for peace? Personally I haven't had much luck finding them. All the "peace" activists on TV and on the streets seem to be suffering from varying degrees of BDS.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 8:59 AM EST
Identify and Ignore
Our government and "we the people" sit idly by while the pro-Communist activist poke at and puncture the very essence of our beliefs. These "activist" are all of the same color and they are the "big pretenders", they have one desire and that desire is to cause all of us to lose faith in our form of government. They use these other causes as a shield to their open sedition. Who would dare accuse an anti-war demonstrator with sedition--surely we all know that is just thoughtful dissent. They use any pretense to "tear down" piece by piece all that capitalism and the Republic have created. "Wedge " issues are manufactured to obscure their real intent. These moths have an insatiable appetite; they do not care about the poor, Hispanics, immigration, Blacks, women, Katrina victims, or any other "wedge"; they only care about power and how to attain it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 9:37 AM EST
Peace Activists and Non-Violence
Let me pose a question:

If it had been Nazi Germany controlling India, how far do you think Ghandi's non-violent approach would have gotten? It was the Christian oriented British Empire that let Ghandi get away with it.

If one is against ALL wars, then that is a moral position I would not argue with, but if a person is only against this war, then they are hypocrites of the worst stripe.

Teddy Roosevelt said it well when he stated "The pacifist is as surely a traitor to his country and to humanity as the most brutal wrongdoer." This is because the pacifist wants to tie the hands of anyone daring to defend themselves thereby assuring the aggeressor wins.

Non-violence only lets the violent control the situation. Neither the non-violent actions against the British Empire or the non-violent Civil Rights Movement would have prospered if they had had to face a tyrannical government. Witness Tianamen square and Budapest.

Violence does solve problems that seem intractable by making the perpetrators extinct. Witness Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Carthage, Imperial Japan, the Confederacy, the Roman Empire, the Spanish Empire and others.

Violence was necessary for the birth of the radical new idea of a representative republican form of government here and in Israel.. Violence is necessary to defend it from enemies seeking to destroy these governments.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 10:06 AM EST
Jam
You're disgusting. "deadly acts of violence perpetrated by combatants on ALL sides in the current conflicts in the middle east."

You equate the US with the terrorists? Israel with Hezbollah?

You are a truly disgusting PoS.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 10:44 AM EST
Been there, done that.
And I've got the political cartoon to show what happens:

http://accidentalrepublican.com/toons_05072005.html
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 10:54 AM EST
AMEN, Hard Thought and goblue
I've posted the same thoughts numerous times myself.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 11:15 AM EST
Intelligent, wise, learned voices?
Any person who equates the terrorism of Islamofascists with the defensive fighting of the Israeli military is neither "intelligent" nor "wise" nor "learned". Period.

Has the Israeli military killed non-combatants? Most certainly. The simple difference is that to the Israeli military, those innocent deaths are unfortunate colateral damage. Islamofascists, on the other hand, INTENTIONALLY target civilians with the INTENT to murder as many non-combatants as possible. The intention of the Israeli military is to protect itself from sub-human monsters. The intention of those these "intelligent, wise, learned voices" is to exterminate all persons who don't call God by the "right" name.

Here in the year 2006 the term "peace activist" is merely shorthand for "irrational, unintelligent, terrorist-loving anti-Semite."
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 11:21 AM EST
Bush Hated vs Clinton Hatred?
I cannot understand how Repubs/Cons get so bent out of shape at the fact that there are people
who dispise President George W. Bush especially,
when it is they who perfected the art of presidential loathing in the form of former President Bill Clinton. too damn funny..lol
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 11:46 AM EST
Left Angle
You're right, Clinton was hated by many on the right (I wasn't one of the many). But there was a good reason for hating Clinton. He was a pathological liar who among other egregious misdeeds took campaign money from the Chinese Communits and defiled the Oval Office.

There is no good reason for hating Bush. NONE. He's a moderate president who tried in the beginning of his first term to reach out to liberal Democrats, for which he was backstabbed by the ignominious, murderer Ted Kennedy.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 11:54 AM EST
LeftAngle
No, I don't think we're surprised at the loathing for Bush, though comparing Bush and the ... shall we say ethically challenged ... Billy Drop Trou, is certainly a stretch on issues of character, at least.

There are plenty of conservatives on this site who rip him a new one themselves, on many issues.

But that's the key difference, I think. Clinton earned contempt due to his character shortcomings. Bush is hated on a personal level because of the fact that he's simply a Republican.

It's a manifestation of the fact that the Right thinks the Left is misguided or stupid, the Left thinks the Right is evil.

That's a HUGE philosophical difference.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 12:13 PM EST
Brian R. & Thrasybulus: Heres the thing.
I really believe that it was more to it than character defects that caused repubs/cons to hate former President Bill Clinton. Consider this:

"Repubs/Cons HATED Clinton because he took something from them for eight years which they
thought they OWNED: THE WHITE HOUSE!!

I think the reason Bush is hated so much by dems/libs is because they believe his presidency is "illegitimate and stolen" and then their is his personality. He comes across as a arrogant jerk who presonifies phony machoisms when he is really a rich spoiled fratboy. lol
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 12:27 PM EST
Left Angle
"I think the reason Bush is hated so much by dems/libs is because they believe his presidency is "illegitimate and stolen" and then their is his personality. He comes across as a arrogant jerk who presonifies phony machoisms when he is really a rich spoiled fratboy. lol"

What an astute, well-reasoned argument... Left, if you're going to tangle with us, I suggest you stay away from the ad-hominem.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 23
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 12:29 PM EST
NARCISSISM 101
I just can't help but think that all the blather I have read in some of the previous postings displays this.Those of sane, sound mind know which ones I mean.
Some of these ideas border on grandiose, self important. Like many of the right and sane readers on this post have never heard them before. They are special, unique and not to be questioned. The individuals who post them feel they are to be accorded a certain entitlement. They have no empathy for those who dare question them. Admittedly, some of those who do question do it with a wrecking ball.
Lastly, and I regret to say, most prominently, they come from a fantasy world where all is well in the world and WE are the only problem.
God help us.
Goshawk, Ms. Conservative,Conrad, Hockey Goon,Robyn, Hard Thought and others, should the unthinkable happen. Should we fall in our struggle over the savages who want to enslave our thougts, our spirit, our very lives, we can have the dubious and bittersweet knowlege that the voices I have described here will be the first ones put in the back of a pickup truck and hung from the kiddie swings in their local park by these very same savages.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 24
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 12:51 PM EST
Well, LeftAngle, all i can...
... do is speak for myself. I can't make a general statement as to why others hated Clinton. And I'll use a point of comparison.

I thought Carter was probably one of the most inept presidents of the 20th Century. But I didn't hate him; I simply had contempt for his policies and naivete. I thought that he, as a person, was a well-meaning guy who was in waaaaay over his head. He's certainly an idealist, to the point that, unfortunately, it blinds him to life's realities.

Clinton, on the other hand... I hate him viscerally (notice the present tense). He pisses me off whenever I just see his picture. And it's because he has no character. He's a snake-oil salesman, "Slick Willy". A perjurer, philanderer, liar, cynical political manipulator... well, I could go on and on.

Does that clarify things a bit?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 25
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 1:19 PM EST
Brian R. & Thrasybulus: On Clinton/Bush
Brian R.: I feel your pain!!lol

just kidding, but I know a lot of people on the right have those comtemptous thoughts about Bill
Clinton and I can understand that. I just dont agree with it.

I thought Clinton was and is one of the most brilliant politicians of recent times. I really didnt care what he did in his personal life.
My primary concern was how he did his job as
President and he was highly successful at it.
I really wished that he could have run again because I have absolutely no doubt that he would have defeated Bush II handily. You might find this hard to believe but I also admired Newt Gingrigh, i think he and clinton had a lot in common.

thrasybulus:

If you ask most democrats why they dislike President Bush, the comments I listed below are
more than likely what you will hear.

heres a good article you should check out:

"The Case For Bush Hatred.
Mad About You
by Jonathan Chait

www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030929&s=chait092903
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 26
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 1:37 PM EST
Left Angle's PoV on Clinton
I suppose if you like your Presidents to be politicians and rule by Polls then Clinton was your man. I know this is a big IF, but, if Perot wouldn't have run, then Clinton wouldn't have been president. He never achieved more than 50% of the votes so he never had a "mandate" to do anything. It was good for him that celebrities and the MSM loved him. They gave him a pass on everything he did.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 27
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 1:39 PM EST
LeftAngle
LOL.

I appreciate your comments on that. And I understand your thoughts on Clinton. In all honesty, I will grant you: he's an absolutely brilliant politician. I have to say, in his case I can't make that statement with admiration.

But I also understand your support of him. For your political side of the aisle, he's probably been the most effective tool for advancing the agenda in recent memory.

The difference between us, other than politically, is that a person's character is an issue for me, and is not divisible from their political accomplishments. Character counts.

You also might consider the pragmatic aspect of that, too. If you can't trust a guy because of his character deficits, how do you know he's going to live up to his campaign promises, rather than throw you under a bus as soon as he's elected?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 28
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 1:39 PM EST
196Cav
You're absolutely right. Clinton owes his presidency to the funny-looking little guy with the big ears and flow charts.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 29
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 2:33 PM EST
Brian R.: Character Does Count..
I just never saw Clinton as being a bad guy..
He has always been a womanizer, from way back..
probably still is. He was a lot like JFK in that
aspect. Women just like him. Hillary Clinton had a good line about him, she told him:

"You may be a lot of things, but dull isnt one of them" lol

btw:

What do you think of Newt Gingrich?
It is said that he is going to be a repub prez candidate for 2008. Do you think he can win the
nomination? Like i said I admired Gingrich, he was always thinking...and was a great adversary for Clinton in his day.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 30
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 2:39 PM EST
Brian R
"You're absolutely right. Clinton owes his presidency to the funny-looking little guy with the big ears and flow charts."

I resent that.

Left Angle,

Clinton was not a good President. He was not a horrible President either. He governed by polls (just ask Dick Morris) and had absolutely no convictions about anything. To his credit, he did defy the far left and advanced globalization. Also to his credit, he signed the Republican agenda into law. Ironically, his biggest achievement, welfare reform, was strictly a Republican initiative.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 31
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 3:12 PM EST
Thrasybulus, LeftAngle
Thras: Sorry. I didn't mean to offend users of flow-charts. LOL

LeftAngle: Re: women liking Clinton. So what? That's the very definition of character; resisting temptations. Ethics are what you do when nobody's watching. If an ugly man doesn't have affairs, and it's because women don't find him attractive, where's the character in THAT?

As to Newt. I like a lot of his ideas. Very well educated, very erudite. Very unelectable to the presidency. He just rubs too many people the wrong way; I can't quite put my finger on it. There's maybe an edge of harshness to him.... I don't know, I have to think about that.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 32
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 4:11 PM EST
Bill Clinton
I really hadn't heard of him until the 1992 campaign. I became very suspicious when I heard the Jennifer Flowers tapes during the campaign and how he talked so sweetly and softly and agreeably with her. I had a friend who talked like that and was cheating on his wife. And then years later my feeling was confirmed by his actions. I never had a doubt. By the way listen to the Scott Peterson tapes with his girlfriend and Bill Clinton's tape with Jennifer. Your skin will crawl, the tone is so similar. My feeling on Bush hatred is that so many Dems wanted to believe Clinton and argued that it was a vast right wing conspiracy and then they were humiliated by the truth so they just want Bush to screw up like Clinton did. And they'll make it up if they have to. It is childish. Those kinds of character flaws prevent one from acting as an adult. By the way he was not an effective president unless you think the situation in North Korea and Iraq and Lebanon just started when Bush took over. Clinton wanted to look good and treated these situations superficially with no depth. The economy was over heated because of the corruption in the boardrooms and he wasn't going to do anything to rein it in. It made him look good. Don't ask don't tell, and welfare reform are his legacy. Oh and I never had sex with that woman--Ms. Clinton not one single time. The dems should have been able to do better. the same thing is happening in Rhode Island. Don't the Dems have anyone better than a drunk, drug abuser? He needs help not the pressure of the job.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 33
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 4:39 PM EST
GoBlue, I read an interesting...
...alternative history short story in an excellent Series of books("There Will Be War")edited by Jerry Pournelle about Ghandi. In it the Allies lost WW2 and India was being administered by the Nazis when Ghandi started his movement, hence the fact that it was a short story instead of a novel. His movement and MLK's nonviolent civil rights movement succeded because the societies they were waged against were basically moral, so in the end could not deny or accept the immorality of their positions and changed.


It takes at least two participants for a fight, but only one for a beating or murder.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 34
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 4:59 PM EST
one last thing...
Everyone who opposes the Iraq War ISNT:

a anti-american, unpatriotic, liberal,loony socialistic leftist, democrat.

Everyone who supports the Iraq War ISNT:

A far right wing militaristic neoconservative
republican.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 35
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 5:45 PM EST
Such thorough "reporting"
Malkin picks five or six nuts from the around the world, and says they represent the "peace" movement. (Or libs, or Dems, or whoever she hates today). So what?
I could pick five or six of the craziest religious fanatics in the world, and claim they represent Religion.
Wouldn't make the argument any more honest or informative.
And reading anonymous online postings to smear a movement? What next Michelle, maybe report bathroom stall graffitti to show what the opposition really thinks?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 36
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 5:48 PM EST
Really?
Left Angle writes: one last thing...
Everyone who opposes the Iraq War ISNT: a anti-american, unpatriotic, liberal,loony socialistic leftist, democrat.

Everyone who supports the Iraq War ISNT:A far right wing militaristic neoconservative
republican.




Really, how long did take you to figure that one out?

The problem for the democrat party is that anyone up for reelection that doesn't act like a anti-American, unpatriotic, liberal, loony socialistic leftist will draw the ire of the inmates that are currently running the asylum. Just ask Joe Lieberman.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 37
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 5:51 PM EST
jsh writes: Such thorough "reporting"
Malkin picks five or six nuts from the around the world, and says they represent the "peace" movement. (Or libs, or Dems, or whoever she hates today). So what?



Once again the lousy 90% are giving the intelligent, wise, and learned 10% a bad name.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 38
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 5:53 PM EST
Anti-war protesters
In the late-60's/early 70's my hometown was overrun each summer by "hippies" (as the adults would call them) and many of them were anti-war protesters. My brother and cousin were serving in Vietnam at the time and my parents displayed the American flag proudly to show their support for their young relatives. On several occassions my parents found their flag trampled in the mud. A neighbor caught one of the "protesters" one morning and, while detaining him for the police, asked him why he was doing this to innocent people. The answer -- "Because the United States is an illegal country committing illegal acts in an illegal war and anyone who hangs the American flag is a Nazi." Does that sound familiar? Yeah, 40 years later, nothing has changed with the liberals. They're still using the same arguments with just as little foundation. But, hey, how many of us still hang our flags out anymore?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 39
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 7:56 PM EST
Left Angle re: your last post
Your post would have made more sense if the syntax were exclusive rather than inclusive, i.e. you wrote "Everyone who opposes the Iraq War ISNT:" when I think what you really meant was "Not everyone who opposes the war is:"

Common grammatical error. Unfortunately.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 40
Date: Jul 26, 2006 - 9:04 PM EST
to goblue:
You wrote quite accurately: "By the way he (Clinton) was not an effective president unless you think the situation in North Korea and Iraq and Lebanon just started when Bush took over. Clinton wanted to look good and treated these situations superficially with no depth. The economy was over heated because of the corruption in the boardrooms and he wasn't going to do anything to rein it in. It made him look good."

Too many want to blame Bush for problems that started long ago and Clinton did nothing to help the situation. But I really enjoyed the second part of this post because it is so true that the corruption was going on DURING the Clinton administration but, again, those suffering from BDS want only to blame our current President. You never hear anything about where the blame really lies. I will never understand how some can revere a man with no principles over a man who only knows how to stand by his and what he believes, George W. Bush. I dont hate Clinton but he disgusts me.

And I apologize for getting so far off Michelle Malkin's point. She is so right in her characterization of so-called peace activists.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 41
Date: Jul 27, 2006 - 1:19 AM EST
Pawns. . .
That's what most of them are. It always startles me when I see the thugs with whom these alleged "peace" activists purposefully ally themseves. Everyone knows that Intl. ANSWER is a front group for the world workers party, which supports communist China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, the PLO, Hezbollah, and pretty much any other group or government that has pledged hatred of America. Apparently their checks don't bounce, so the hippies keep showing up at their stupid rallies.

How about Cindy Sheehan appearing with Hugo Chavez and denouncing President Bush on international television. Class act. President Bush is supposed to be the most evil of the worlds dictators, and Cindy Sheehan is still walking around, free. So, what does "President" Chavez do with people who openly disagree with him? Hmmm... I wonder.

Peace activists are the biggest bunch of hypocrites alive today. They hate America and her military, without whom they would not have a forum in which to spew their tripe.

Needless to say, the concept of liberty completely escapes them. Most of them lack the mental capacity to put together a thought or argument that wouldn't fit on a bumper sticker. "Che Guevara is Super Neato!" If any of them had an ounce of common sense they'd see that, after the revolution (which isn't coming) they'd be the first ones herded onto the buses and shipped off to the Nevada desert for reconditioning and/or extermination. "Can't have all those unskilled, unproductive loud-mouths around. Bad for business."

Some people probably do like war. Most, I'm sure, do not. But there are things that are worth fighing for, and sometimes you are left with no choice but to fight.

The debate over whether or not invading Iraq and deposing Sadaam was necessity is valid and should continue. However, no sane person would argue that Iraqis were better off being terrorized, opressed, raped, tortured, murdered and buried en masse by Sadaam's regime.

By the UNs own estimates, Iraq is now nearly twice as safe as it was before Sadaam was deposed. He killed an average of 42,000 people a year while he was in power. The number of dead, killed by both sides, since the Butcher of Baghdad was found cowering in a hole in the ground, has averaged around 24,000 per year. Most of those are Iraqi civilians killed by roadside and car bombs.

Our troops there are not fighting against insurgents. They are fighting terrorists. Terrorists who consider it the central front in their war against the great satan. But Iraq is still, somehow, a diversion from the war against terrorists.

Pulling our troops out now, or re-deploying as rep. Murtha calls it, would not bring peace. It would turn innocent Iraqi civilians who are currently relying on us for protection over to animals with no regard for human life. Animals who would kill every man, woman, and child in the country, all 25 million of them, if that's what it took to gain control.

Leaving now would also give control of Iraq's oil reserves to those same animals. Think they cause alot of mayhem now? Wait until they have unlimited funding.

Wake up, pawns! Sustained periods of peace have NEVER been brought by pacifists. What pacifists have brought is death. The so-called victory of the "peace movement" during the Vietnam war led directly to the deaths of millions of human beings in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

True peace has always been WON by kicking the crap out of the REAL warmongers until they have lost the will to fight.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 42
Date: Jul 27, 2006 - 3:22 PM EST
Slick Willy
It is amazing the lengths to which liberals will go in defending the Slickster. Can you imagine a liberal defending a corporate CEO with multiple examples of sexual harrasment and an affair with an intern in the board room by saying it was his personal business? And how is it that the feminists, who previously asserted that EVERY acusation of sexual harrasment was true and that every accused man was guilty, responded to Clinton's accusers with a collective "The B*****s were lying?" How about those same feminists actually saying of Clinton's rape of Juanita Broderick, "it sounds like consensual rape?" They called Reagan the Teflon Man, but look at what Clinton and his cronies got away with--transfers of military technology to China in exchange for illegal campaign contributions, pulling FBI files on hundreds of political enemies, travel gate, Whitewater, etc, etc.

Yet I didn't hate Clinton. I didn't respect him, but I didn't hate him. And to be fair, his Presidency was not a disaster. True, he failed to respond adequately to Islamo-fascist attacks, but at the time it didn't seem as big a deal as we recognize now. He governed from the center, as Bush does, and made significant gains in global trade. We did pay the price for his massive tax increase, the effects of which caused the recession which began at the end of his administration.

The level of hatred for Bush by the Left goes far, far beyond anything directed toward Clinton in the 90's. It is true that a significant portion of the Republican party thought that hating Clinton was sufficient to win elections, to their dismay. This lesson has yet to be learned by today's libs, who haven't figured out that Bush is never running for office again.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 43
Date: Jul 28, 2006 - 9:58 PM EST
Nasty Messages on Blogs
The comment aimed at the murdered family members of the Iraqi war veteran is a digusting example of the kind of misanthropic comments being posted on blogs on the right, as well. Just read some of the postings on No Pasaran!, where posters talk about the UN observers deserving to die, that they should be used for target practice, etc. Where is Michelle Malkin's outrage on this subject?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 44
Date: Jul 30, 2006 - 2:59 PM EST
Ryan
Again, with the moral equivalency? Saying any innocent human being deserves to die is absolutely unthinkable in my book. I don't know who made the alleged post you quoted, but such people are not true conservatives. But to compare the murders of a suburban family to the deaths of people in a war zone is utterly ridiculous.

The UN observers who were killed did not deserve to die, but they should have expected to die. They stood and watched as hezbollah thugs set up THREE METERS from their post and launched rockets at non-military targets in Israel. They were being used as cover by hezbollah terrorists, just like the civilians in Tyre and other cities in Lebanon - a tactic that has proven itself to be win-win for the terrorists: Hide among civilians/other non-military targets and launch multiple attacks. Israel will either disregard the attacks because of the number of civilian casualties that would be caused, thus leaving the terrorists to continue attacking. Or Israel will attack sending the terrorists to paradise and their 72 virgins and giving the terrorists a beautiful picture of "disproportionate Israeli retaliation" to put all over the evening news.

The strategy has worked.

It worked on you.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 45
Date: Aug 9, 2006 - 12:42 AM EST
Angry Left
Are we surprised at all? Is this the first time we've heard of this?? NO! Folks on both sides better hang on to your hats, it's going to get alot worse. We ain't seen nothing yet!
Flag as Offensive
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
 *
State:
 *
Zip:
 *
Phone:
       
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.