Stenography, as it is done.

First, there's the opinion of someone who actually has the right to have an opinion:

Green Zone Blinders

By Jonathan Finer
Saturday, August 18, 2007; Page A13

Late last month the Brookings Institution's Kenneth Pollack and Michael O'Hanlon, just back from a quick trip to Baghdad, proclaimed in the New York Times that "we are finally getting somewhere in Iraq." In June, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, fresh from his latest whirlwind tour of the war zone, described in the Wall Street Journal a "dramatic reversal" in the security situation in restive Anbar province. As Washington anticipates a September report assessing the troop surge, there is good reason to be skeptical of such snapshot accounts.

A dizzying number of dignitaries have passed through Baghdad for high-level briefings. The Hill newspaper reported this month that 76 U.S. senators have traveled to Iraq during the war, 38 in the past 12 months. Most never left the Green Zone or other well-protected enclaves. Few, if any, changed the views they held before arriving...

The Brookings pair, self-described in their Times op-ed as "two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration's miserable handling of Iraq," are also longtime backers of the invasion and the recent troop surge. Before the war Pollack wrote a book subtitled "The Case for Invading Iraq," and he has found fodder for hope on every visit.

It goes without saying that everyone can, and in this country should, have an opinion about the war, no matter how much time the person has spent in Iraq, if any. But having left a year ago, I've stopped pretending to those who ask that I have a keen sense of what it's like on the ground today. Similarly, those who pass quickly through the war zone should stop ascribing their epiphanies to what are largely ceremonial visits.

The writer was a Post correspondent in Baghdad from May 2005 to July 2006. He is currently covering the Balkans for The Post.

And now you know what I mean by stenography.

Any questions?

Mark Steyn: Hacktacular!

An oldie, but a goodie.

Small braindead climate change deniers.

On the one hand:

Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks to Record Low
Scientists Say Arctic Sea Ice Levels Are at a Record Low and Still Dropping

There was less sea ice in the Arctic on Friday than ever before on record, and the melting is continuing, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported.

"Today is a historic day," said Mark Serreze, a senior research scientist at the center. "This is the least sea ice we've ever seen in the satellite record and we have another month left to go in the melt season this year." ...

The puzzling thing, he said, is that the melting is actually occurring faster than computer climate models have predicted.

Several years ago he would have predicted a complete melt of Arctic sea ice in summer would occur by the year 2070 to 2100, Serreze said. But at the rates now occurring, a complete melt could happen by 2030, he said Friday.

There will still be ice in winter, he said, but it could be gone in summer.

On the other hand, Kate McMillan has a cool photo of a temperature gauge with tall grass around it. Dontcha just hate it when you have to choose between two equally-compelling arguments?

Blogging Tory relativism at its finest.

Fred is positively outraged:

The religion of peace has a message....

to Christians in Peshawar, Pakistan....

Christian families in Peshawar are living in great fear after receiving anonymous letters threatening suicide attacks if they did not convert to Islam. The episode was reported by Pervez Masih - a minority Member of National Assembly (MNA) – who denounced the event August 10th last, during the assembly session of the Pakistan Parliament.

I'm with Fred on this. You don't forcibly convert people by threatening to kill them. Everyone knows that you do it by withholding emergency aid.

God, do I have to explain everything to you people?

P.S. No, I didn't go with the obvious counter of Ann Coulter's "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." That would have been way too easy. Give me some credit for original writing.

Whoopsie.

OK, this one's going to be a bit tricky to explain (emphasis added):

Earthquake survivors desperate for food and water ransacked a public market, while other mobs looted a refrigerated trailer and blocked aid trucks on the Pan-American Highway, prompting Peru's President to appeal for calm Friday...

Searchers were still seeking bodies and survivors at the San Clemente church on Pisco's main square, where hundreds had gathered on the day Roman Catholics celebrate the Virgin Mary's rise into heaven for a memorial Mass for a man who died a month earlier. Minutes before the service was to end, the church's domed ceiling began to break apart. The shaking lasted for an agonizing two minutes, burying 200 people, according to the town's mayor.

About 50 bodies had been removed from the church by dawn Friday, said Jorge Molina, the search and rescue team leader, who still held out hope of finding more people alive.

If the Lord works in mysterious ways, then sending an earthquake to kill dozens of His worshippers is about as mysterious as it gets, wouldn't you say?

Seriously, you cannot talk to these people.

Let's take a second to clarify something here. When I identify the eye-rolling idiocy of the Right, and hold their writings up for scorn and derision, it's not because I think it's ever going to make a difference in terms of making them any smarter. No, it really is just for the scorn and derision because, quite simply, these people are unteachable. Always were, always will be.

Case in point: Blogging Tory Jonathan "The Strong Conservative" Strong who (as he's done for as long as I can remember) simply and mindlessly regurgitated a stupid, dishonest neo-con talking point courtesy of Ann Coulter. This is nothing new for Jonathan -- anyone with the patience to go back through his blog will see that he produces little original work, and that his shtick is to gullibly and obediently link to whatever shiny, new, conservative talking point catches his attention that day.

To Jonathan's credit this time, he did admit (after I rubbed his face in it) that Coulter lied. Well, OK, he didn't actually admit that. In fact, he soft-pedaled Coulter's dishonesty by writing:

I like Ann Coulter and most of her views, but I'll have to agree with my critics that she went too far on Cleland's injuries.

Ah. She "went too far." Apparently, that's wanker-speak for "She lied but I really hate to use that word." At which point, having been (sort of) forced to admit that Coulter just makes shit up, Jonathan (if you can believe what comes next) promptly continued on by defending his original criticism by then faithfully reproducing another Coulter anti-Cleland talking point.

Seriously, how do you talk to someone who is that unspeakably clueless? How do you respond to someone who, in effect, writes, "Well, OK, Ann made that up, but let me defend myself by reproducing something else Ann wrote"? That sort of comeback doesn't even qualify as sentient, for God's sake. But here's the kicker.

In the comments section here, after "saskboy" tries unsuccessfully to explain Coulter's complete lack of credibility, Jonathan actually tries to draw an equivalence between ... oh, hell, let's let Jonathan explain it:

Sask:

I appreciate your comment, but if we use you follow your reasoning, then Bill Clinton has nothing to ever offer ever again.

Pause.

Take a minute to savour that. Jonathan is seriously suggesting that, since Bill Clinton once lied about a sexual relationship, this is somehow morally equivalent to Ann Coulter lying about everything, all the time.

You think I exaggerate? Let Google do the heavy lifting. Here. Here. Here. I mean, Jesus Christ, the woman can't even vote without committing a felony.

And when she's not being dishonest, she's just being stupid:


And there are the times when it's not clear whether Ann is lying or really is that stupid but, seriously, does it make any difference at this point?

But none of this will have the slightest effect on faithful, right-wing stenographers like Jonathan, who will learn nothing from this little incident and will, in short order, once again be loyally linking to the same dishonest crap from Coulter, or Drudge, or Malkin, or whoever they happen to be slavishly worshipping that week.

Jonathan is simply beyond help. He will have his occasional moment of lucidity when someone like me pounds it into his skull with a baseball bat. But by the next morning, that will have been forgotten, and it's back to being Steno Boy. Because that's just what he does. And to expect anything different is simply being naive.

BONUS TRACK: Apparently, there are others who have finally had enough of Ann Coulter:

ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: Former Sen. John Edwards on Friday fired the latest round in his ongoing verbal feud with Ann Coulter, calling her a “she-devil” at a public event before quickly adding that he shouldn’t engage in name-calling.

Personally, I don't think there's much value in describing Coulter as a "she-devil," since it's really name calling and nothing more. What would be useful is for Edwards to accuse Coulter of being a "pathological liar," and have the documentation to back that up ready to go on a moment's notice.

Hey, John. Call me. Let's do lunch.

GILDING THE LILY: Anyone who really needs to know what kind of dishonest douchebag Coulter is with respect to Max Cleland should simply go read Joe Conason. And with that, I think we're done here.

Apparently, "classlessness" is the word of the day in Wankerville.

Shorter "Steno Boy": "Apparently, I totally screwed the pooch believing Ann Coulter, so let me attack and denigrate Max Cleland some other way."

Slip it to Jonathan ... he'll print anything.

And, true to form, Blogging Tory Jonathan Strong proves once again that there's nothing so dishonest and reprehensible that he won't regurgitate it faithfully:

Ann Coulter at Her Best

... Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades, giving him the stature to gleefully taunt George Bush and Dick Cheney. "Where the hell were you in the Vietnam War?" Cleland responded to Cheney. "If you had gone to Vietnam like the rest of us, maybe you would have learned something about war."

Then we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer.

Really, Jonathan? Is that how it happened? I think not:

Thank you Chris. I did not have the links to this, but Max called me about it in case I needed to tell the real truth should someone want to know. This Ann Coulter has written real slime. Only in America. Our service men and women fight and die to defend your right to a free press. The press needs to be aware of their responsibility to use this democratic tool in a responsibility way.

------------------------------

The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.

As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.

Maury Cralle'
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan

A retraction and apology from Mr. Strong would be nice, but I expect to see pigs flying long before then. They don't call him "Steno Boy" for nothing.

AFTERSNARK: While it won't make any difference to that gullible dimwit and right-wing hack Jonathan Strong, it's worth pointing out that even Coulter is inconsistent about whether Cleland "dropped the grenade on himself." Witness Coulter's own words from a 2004 article (obvious emphasis added):

It is simply a fact that Max Cleland was not injured by enemy fire in Vietnam. He was not in combat, he was not — as Al Hunt claimed — on a reconnaissance mission, and he was not in the battle of Khe Sanh, as many others have implied. He picked up an American grenade on a routine noncombat mission and the grenade exploded.

Note well how Coulter, as far back as 2004, correctly describes how Cleland "picked up an American grenade." And just to make sure there's no ambiguity here, let's read Ann quoting approvingly one Jill Zuckman, who describes in detail what happened that day:

"Finally, the battle at Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old, and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.

"Cleland hunched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached for it with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future."

And just to put the finishing touches on this, let's observe that Coulter's admission of what really happened that day occurred a good five years after it was determined that that grenade did, in fact, belong to someone else:

It was widely believed that Cleland was injured by his own grenade, but in fact it was found in 1999 to have been another soldier's grenade.

In short, it was someone else's grenade and Ann Coulter knew this and admitted it years ago, yet here we are in 2007, with Coulter now fraudulently claiming that Cleland dropped his own grenade on himself. And Jonathan Strong slavishly wanking off to pics of Coulter and reprinting whatever dishonest rubbish she chooses to spew in her latest column.

This is why I don't treat those folks with civility. They're lying assholes. Do you really need a better reason than that?

Yeah, that would be a slow news day.

From the fine folks at Real Clear Politics as of 2 am:



And what exactly was wrong with alphabetical order, huh? Huh?

BONUS TRACK: Whoa, guys ... one line, no pushing ... there's enough of us to go around:



Man, if I had a nickel for every link referral ... uh ... no, better make that a small coffee.

Pay no attention to that actual, uh, data.

On the one hand, well-known climate scientist James Hansen demonstrates the effect of correcting the recently-discovered flaws in NASA's U.S. temperature database:



On the other hand, global warming is clearly still a complete fiction.

What to think, what to think ...

The humour was unintentional, I'm sure.

If the irony were any thicker, I could slice off a chunk and beat you with it:

Gun ban group -- Grassroots organization or Liberal Party sock puppet?

Yeah, that was Blogging Tory Steve Janke, ruminating on whether an alleged grassroots organization is really just a "sock puppet" mouthpiece for a federal political party.

Don't make me stop this car and have to come back there to explain that to you.

If only stupidity were really, really painful.

Ready ... aim ...

Pastor Wiley Drake Calls for Imprecatory Prayer against So-Called Religious Liberty Watchdog Group

MEDIA ADVISORY, Aug. 14 /Christian Newswire/ -- In light of the recent attack from the enemies of God I ask the children of God to go into action with Imprecatory Prayer. Especially against Americans United for Separation of Church and State. I made an attempt to go to them via Matt 18:15 but they refused to talk to me. Specifically target Joe Conn or Jeremy Learing. They are those who lead the attack. (You can see their press release attack at www.au.org )

Uh ... right. Imprecatory prayer. I'm fairly sure I know how this is going to end:


Yeah, kind of like that.

Yo, Dave! Check this out!

If Dave can drag himself away from talking about tits, he might want to take a gander at this. I'm sure I'll hear the pained screams of outrage all the way from Vancouver.

COOL YOUR JETS. This could take a while. Apparently, Dave is busy demonstrating how Jay Hill is an idiot.

Run away! Run away!

Remember the old days when "cutting and running" was a sign of cowardice? Apparently, times have changed.

Holy. Freakin'. Retarded. God.

Regardless of how indescribably stupid you think wingnuts are, occasionally you run across an example of such incomparable dumbfuckitude that you can only recoil in horror and hope it isn't transmissible through simple human contact.

Witness one "Nonny" back here, who blithely dismisses the suicide rate in the U.S. Army thusly:

Well, will you look at that. The national suicide rate for 2002-2004 was 14.2 per 100,000, at a time, it seems when the US Army suicide rate was about 12.3 (which is the 26 year average). So it seems that, in general, the Army is a pretty safe place to be, mentally (unlike, say, Canadiancynic.blogspot.com).

Pause.

Really, really long pause.

Disbelief that anyone could write anything so shriekingly stupid.

And what's wrong with that comparison, you ask? I'm glad you asked.

Notice precisely what Nonny is comparing here. On the one hand, in the general population, you might have people who feel they have nothing left to live for because, perhaps, they've just been fired, they've gone bankrupt, a sudden medical emergency has wiped out their life savings, and so on.

On the other hand, compare this to members of the U.S. military who, by definition, have jobs with a steady income, which come with room and board, great medical coverage and so on. And yet ... and yet ... the suicide rate there (as Nonny points out without having even the vaguest appreciation for what it means) is almost as high as in the general population, even when those members of the military can't possibly have to deal with some of the same issues as non-military members do.

In a normal world, one would think that the suicide rate in the military wouldn't just be lower, it would be much lower. But Nonny is unconcerned -- as long as they're not offing themselves as quickly as regular folk, hey, what's your problem?

Shorter Nonny: "Crippling exhaustion and increased suicide? Geez, what's the big deal? Oh, and support the troops."

P.S. Once upon a time, a friend introduced me to an expression which defines a standard for total dumbassitude: "He's so stupid, he doesn't even realize how stupid he is."

I don't believe that requires any further explanation. And, yes, I've had enough of Nonny. He's got a blog, he can go be stupid over there.

AND THE STUPID ROLLS ON. And even though I've told Nonny to take his overwhelming retardedness back to his own crappy blog, he persists in posting utter idiocy, and this last one is so, so very special, I have to respond to it.

In explaining why members of the military had a distinct advantage over members of the general population, I wrote:

On the one hand, in the general population, you might have people who feel they have nothing left to live for because, perhaps, they've just been fired, they've gone bankrupt, a sudden medical emergency has wiped out their life savings, and so on.

On the other hand, compare this to members of the U.S. military who, by definition, have jobs with a steady income, which come with room and board, great medical coverage and so on.

Unbelievably, Nonny responds thusly:

By the way CC, did you see the WP article's reasons for soldiers' suicides? "Failed personal relationships, legal and financial problems and the stress of their jobs were factors motivating the soldiers to commit suicide, according to the report."

This is not so different from the general population's reasons, or, as you said, "people who feel they have nothing left to live for because, perhaps, they've just been fired, they've gone bankrupt, a sudden medical emergency has wiped out their life savings, and so on."

Here, let me summarize that exchange:

Me: "Members of the military have a clear advantage over members of the general population in a number of areas."

Nonny: "Yeah, but in other areas, they don't."

How do you respond to that? How do you even begin to address the howling illogic of that reply? I can't. It's simply not possible. It's like a wife saying, "I'm leaving you because you've beaten me at least a dozen times," whereupon the husband replies, "Well, sure, but think of all the times I didn't beat you. Doesn't that count?" Yes, it really is that stupid.

Although, to Nonny's credit, I'm guessing he's the perfect candidate for The Great Canadian Debate. He'd be a natural to follow Richard Evans, wouldn't he?

Right-wing humour, as it were(n't).

Once upon a time, there was, well, this steaming pile of festering excrement:



Sadly, though, not even enough brain-damaged conservatives thought it amusing enough to keep it going. Over at Firedoglake, TRex provides the perfect memorial.

That's "Kids in the Hall." Because even gays are funnier than conservatives.

We're number 30! We're number 30!

Whatever the hell this means.

P.S. Can someone explain in what alternate universe the Progressive Bloggers of Canada ranks just below the untethered, ADD-afflicted children of "The Politic" and just above the Cheeto-stained, police scanner-twiddling fingers of Steve Janke? That's just creepy.

Dear White House Press Corpse: A moment, if you will.

Let me, if I may, give the WHPC some unsolicited advice, based on this amusing recent development:

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

Understand something -- this is not just a matter of sloppy semantics. For quite some time, the Bush White House has been adamant that the upcoming report on the progress in Iraq would be written by Gen. Petraeus and/or Ambassador Ryan Crocker, and the folks at TPM have thoughtfully collected some explicit examples of that claim (all of the ones below by none other than WH Spokesreptile Pony Blow ... uh, Tony Snow):

• "... in fact, you have a report that is a joint report by General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker."


• "The fact is that Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will be putting together a plan — not really a plan, but a report — ..."


• "Ambassador Crocker and General Petraeus will be issuing a report, again pursuant to that legislation, that's due September 15th."


• "It is the business of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker to provide a full report to Congress."

And on and on and teeth-gnashingly on. And now? Whoops. So it's time to see if there's anyone in the WHPC with some nads left.

At this point, the proper reaction from an actual journalist would be to nail Tony's ass to the fucking wall along, say, these lines:

"Tony, on several occasions, when you were addressing the upcoming progress report on Iraq, you explicitly and unequivocally claimed that that report would be the product of both Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker."

"On July 18, you explicitly said ... On July 20, you said ... On July 23, you used the words ... and there are many more examples of that phrasing. In short, you left no doubt whatsoever in the minds of all of us that the report was going to be produced by those two individuals, and yet we now learn that the report will, in fact, be written by the White House."

"Why have you been lying to us all this time?"

And, yes, it should be phrased just that way -- the questioner should flat-out accuse Snow of lying. There is no way anyone can read Snow's previous statements and not come away with the impression that he was obviously trying to give, so Snow should not be allowed to start tap dancing and spinning and playing word games by saying things like, "Well, we're certainly going to take their input into consideration" or rubbish like that.

Call a spade a spade. And call a liar a liar. Does anyone in the WHPC still have the cojones to act like a real journalist anymore?

BETTER AND BETTER: Oh, this is going to be such fun:

Senior congressional aides said yesterday that the White House has proposed limiting the much-anticipated appearance on Capitol Hill next month of Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker to a private congressional briefing, suggesting instead that the Bush administration's progress report on the Iraq war should be delivered to Congress by the secretaries of state and defense.

White House officials did not deny making the proposal in informal talks with Congress, but they said yesterday that they will not shield the commanding general in Iraq and the senior U.S. diplomat there from public congressional testimony required by the war-funding legislation President Bush signed in May. "The administration plans to follow the requirements of the legislation," National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said in response to questions yesterday.

Would anyone care to make a prediction? Here, let me start: the Bush administration will do whatever it wants, and will tell Congress to fuck right off if it doesn't like it.

Now it's your turn.

Batshit crazy KateWatch: Aug 16, 2007.

Breaking news: The wingnut-o-sphere takes time off from freeping the crap out of online polls to complain about others distorting public information.

Yes, that was sarcasm. How did you guess?

Holy. Freakin'. God.

I waited six weeks for this? Really, are you prepared to take your intellectual lead on matters military from someone who thinks they're called "contentious objectors?"

Pay no attention to those suicides behind the curtain.

Back here, first commenter "nonny" is outraged -- outraged, I tell you -- about people trying to draw a distinction between long-term, crippling, debilitating exhaustion and being, well, you know, "tired":

What leftists fail to understand is that soldiers are ALWAYS tired when they are in the middle of significant military activities. This just goes to show that ignorance of the military and hatred of the US combine to make you look like an absolute fool.

Right now, you seem to forget, they are battling AQ. They don't get much sleep, so they take naps whenever and wherever they can. It's just wishful thinking on your part to imagine the US military is "crippled." It's sheer stupidity for you to argue that there's some sort of contradiction between Marines and soldiers' being tired and their being successful in their fight against AQ in Iraq.

In what must be totally unrelated news:

Army Suicides Highest in 26 Years

Army soldiers committed suicide last year at the highest rate in 26 years, and more than a quarter did so while serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to a new military report.

It's unknown what percentage of those suicides were perky and well-rested.

Busy evening open thread.

Watch the pretty video and try not to get into trouble.

Well, la-de-freakin-da.

Apparently, Chester of The Vanity Press is movin' on up to the East Side, at least temporarily to a classier set of digs. But don't worry; he assures me that he won't forget all the little people who helped him along the way. You know ... that one lady, and ... and ... what's-his-name.

Spin off...

When the truth is something to bend.

Things always look better from the wilds of Delisle.

The on-the-ground reality (emphasis added):

Fatigue cripples US army in Iraq

Exhaustion and combat stress are besieging US troops in Iraq as they battle with a new type of warfare. Some even rely on Red Bull to get through the day. As desertions and absences increase, the military is struggling to cope with the crisis

... [Lieutenant Clay] Hanna and his men are not alone in being tired most of the time. A whole army is exhausted and worn out. You see the young soldiers washed up like driftwood at Baghdad's international airport, waiting to go on leave or returning to their units, sleeping on their body armour on floors and in the dust.

Where once the war in Iraq was defined in conversations with these men by untenable ideas - bringing democracy or defeating al-Qaeda - these days the war in Iraq is defined by different ways of expressing the idea of being weary. It is a theme that is endlessly reiterated as you travel around Iraq. 'The army is worn out. We are just keeping people in theatre who are exhausted,' says a soldier working for the US army public affairs office who is supposed to be telling me how well things have been going since the 'surge' in Baghdad began.

They are not supposed to talk like this. We are driving and another of the public affairs team adds bitterly: 'We should just be allowed to tell the media what is happening here. Let them know that people are worn out. So that their families know back home. But it's like we've become no more than numbers now.'

Well, now ... just who are you going to believe?

"The US military is more successful in Iraq than the world wants to believe."

It's purely amazing what a comfy chair, a good computer and several thousand miles between you and the action will do for your perspective.

Your September Iraqi wankeritude.

Given the Canadian wankersphere's unseemly talent for celebration whenever good news comes out of Iraq, you might as well steel yourself for the inevitable high-fiving next month:

Top general may propose pullbacks

Petraeus is expected to tell Congress that Iraqis can assume duties in some areas, freeing U.S. troops for other uses.

Intent on demonstrating progress in Iraq, the top U.S. general there is expected by Bush administration officials to recommend removing American troops soon from several areas where commanders believe security has improved, possibly including Al Anbar province.

According to the officials, Gen. David H. Petraeus is expected to propose the partial pullback in his September status report to Congress, when both the war's critics and supporters plan to reassess its course. Administration officials who support the current troop levels hope Petraeus' recommendations will persuade Congress to reject pressure for a major U.S. withdrawal.

But amidst all the cheery glad-handing, one wonders whether any of those aforementioned wanks will see fit to mention this (buried near the bottom of page 2):

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

Yeah, the devil is always in the details, isn't he?

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by "kick-ass" ...

All right, finally ... good news for the Canadian military, who are suitably fed up with former namby-pamby, wishy-washy defence minister Gordon O'Connor, and can now look forward to being represented by the straight-shootin', steely-eyed, he-man ... uh, macho ... uh ...



Oh, dear God, just take me with an RPG right now.

Yeah, but ... that's different, right?

Blogging Tory "Neo Conservative" pokes some good-natured fun at Allah and his mysterious ways:

I'm sure Allah had a perfectly good reason for willing the slaughter of a couple of hundred Kurds.

-- Mosul, Iraq -- At least 175 people have been killed in a series of suicide bomb attacks in northern Iraq, Iraq's military says.

The blasts apparently targeted a Kurdish religious minority, the Yazidi sect, near Mosul. At least four blasts hit areas which house the community.

Just a bunch of filthy infidels, right?

What a brilliant plan too. Unlike going after soldiers, these poor villagers don't have weapons and can't shoot back.

That situation would, of course, be entirely different from this one:

Wedding party massacre

Iraqi officials last night said an American helicopter fired on a wedding party in western Iraq killing more than 40 people, including many children, in another damaging setback for the US occupation.

A senior Iraqi police officer told the Associated Press that a helicopter fired at the party early yesterday morning in a remote village close to the Syrian border, killing between 42 and 45 people.

In the latter case, the obvious military difference would have been all those guests and their improvised explosive, rocket-propelled wedding presents of death.

It's important to appreciate these distinctions, you know.

Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada ...

... getting shit postponed for Canadians:

U.S. disappointed at need to challenge Canada on softwood lumber deal

The United States' top trade official says she's disappointed at having to challenge Canada's compliance with the softwood lumber agreement less than a year after it was signed.

Good job, Steve. Please don't do us any more favours. Especially if they cost us a billion dollars.

The Monica Chronicles: Part 2.

And as a followup to this piece from some time back, we have Monica with her promised submission. I've actually had it for several days, I've just been, well, busy. Enjoy. (Initially, the footnotes will be missing, but I'll get those in ASAP.)

And there may be initial formatting problems in the following, but I'll get to those in short order. -- CC

Greetings!

I had fully intended to write a proper response to the questions posed by CC and was hoping that my schedule would calm down enough to do just that but, unfortunately, time has been passing by and it doesn’t look like my life is going to get any less chaotic over the next couple of weeks so I decided that it would have to be a “now or never” sort of a deal. I apologize in advance for the lack of quality that I’m sure is to follow.

For those of you who haven’t read the comments that have lead to the topic that I will be addressing today (proposed by CC), please see the links at the bottom of the page. I feel that it is fairly obvious based on the responses to the comments that I have posted that several (many??) of those who frequent this site do not share my beliefs concerning the “best”[1] methods for effecting political change. Perhaps it is the result of my experience as a Peace Corps Volunteer living in Nepal during the middle of a civil war and attending the UN mandated University for Peace Master’s program, but I have adopted more of a Gandhian, Martian Luther King Jr., Gene Sharp[2], David Hume[3] Mary King,[4] Robert Helvey[5] and Miki Kashtan[6] (to name a few) approach to social activism. This includes being the change that you wish to see in the world. And, although I often struggle with not lashing out at those whose views I find abhorred, more often than not, I am able to refrain because, like David Hume I believe, “by every act, by every word and deed, a man expresses his character.”[7] Some may call it naive and idealistic – in fact, I’m well aware that many do…. and this approach isn’t always successful but history has shown that it can be and I would rather act in a manner that I feel is consistent with my goals.

My views concerning social activism and the most appropriate and productive methods of voicing dissent ties in with the questions posed by CC in that I truly believe that if those “in the Left-o-sphere” (CC’s words) are to lessen the chance of being labeled “anti-military,” (which contributes to the claim that to “support the troops is to support the mission” and vice versa), then it is important to protest/voice opposition to the war in a manner that shows consideration and respect for those associate with the military as well as those whose opinions differ from your own. While it is true that many on the “right” haven’t always acted in an understanding and kind manner, adopting the same or similar behavior or language does little to win the “left” any supporters aside from those who were already in your camp.

A Gandhian Approach to Social/Political Change

Please forgive me if this is obvious to the readers but in order to better explain my worldview concerning social change, I feel that it is necessary to review the basics of Gandhian thought. Gandhi believed in the unity of all things and for this reason promoted “ahimsa,” the Sanskrit word for “noninjury.” Gandhi expanded this to include the principle of nonviolence, truthfulness, the love of all. Basically, Gandhi changed the Christian adage from “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” to “what you do to others, you also do to yourself.”[8]

Ahimsa is not just the absence of violence or non-harming but a condition of mental purification and positive acts through body, speech and mind. Ahimsa means viewing people as good and kindhearted, each with inner resources to seek love and understanding of others. Gandhi believed that we have a responsibility to confront injustice but that we must do so in a way that we seek to understand another person’s perspective otherwise we will not be truly effective in reaching our goals. While I acknowledge that there are truly some “evil” people in this world, I still believe that, overall, human-beings are basically “good” and that most of us are simply trying to live our lives in the best way that we know how. I believe that these are the individuals make up the majority, who our arguments may appeal to, and that, with their support, we can bring about social/policy change. However, when we use hateful language to describe or converse with those whose views differ from our own, we dehumanize them and ignore the fact that they also have reasons for having adopted their way of thinking. If their point of view serves as the basis for a political system or policy that we wish to change, it is important that we make an attempt to understand why they have adopted this position and persuade them of the validity of our point of view. If we use hateful language, even if it is a response to their own, we simply ensure that these individuals will go on the defensive and all of our logic will fall upon closed minds and deaf ears. I realize that there are individuals who are so extreme that they will NEVER listen to “reason” but there are far more who are fairly “open-minded” or “in the middle” who can be reached….but not if we alienate them from the beginning. Martin Luther King Jr. understood this and focused on appealing to the basic human decency of the “average person” and refused to respond to the verbal and physical violence of his adversaries with that of his own. As King explained, “Somebody must have sense enough to meet hate with love. Its either non-violence or non-existence.”[9]

The Purpose of Rhetoric

It is generally assumed that the “communication of ideas, values, opinions and beliefs in an effort to illicit the approval or acceptance of others is the primary concern of the rhetorician.”[10] An activist must persuade expanding circles of people that they are affected by some condition and must inspire others to join him/her if they are to effect change. Basically, rhetorical persuasion is the central means for mobilizing new resources (human, financial, etc) in any movement.[11] But, as Lisa Zagumny[12] explains, “the ideas being reciprocated must be comprehended by the audience if change in attitude is to occur. In order to prevent rejection, the persuader must exhibit expertise and credibility.” Additionally, George Campbell[13] notes that when appealing to an audience whose opinions of you or your message are generally unfavorable (as seems to be the case, more often than not, when purporting and anti-war stance), the speaker must be much more cautious and show more modesty. This increases the likelihood of mollifying your opponents and the chances that they will actually hear your message. It’s difficult to persuade someone to see things from your point of view if you can’t even get them to listen to your message.

Those who oppose the mission(s) in Afghanistan and/or Iraq are already at a disadvantage in that many are still of the mindset that this war(s) is(are) justified and, perhaps, “winnable.” Ara Norenzayan[14] has found that “If you present Westerners an argument that is contrary to their prior belief, they’ll apply a naïve form of logic and ask themselves which one is ‘true,’ the new belief or their own? Unless the new argument is very strong, they’ll be likely to generate reasons why their prior belief is right and the new one is wrong, and not be susceptible to the new argument.” Along those same lines, Robert Levine[15], notes that a “consequence of cognitive dissonance is that a belief may actually get stronger when it's proven wrong. The more you stand to lose, and the more foolish you look, the greater the dissonance and, so, the greater the pressure to prove you were right in the first place.”[16] Levine explains that, “if you’ve been a dedicated member of a group and are now confronted with evidence that your group's cause is just plain wrong. Would you admit that you made a mistake and leave? If you'd already committed enough, probably not….the more one endures, the greater the need to self-justify.”[17] This has obvious implications for those trying to convince the public that their “political leaders” have made a mistake and of the need to alter political policies and action. It is also one of the reasons why many of those who have supported (or continue to do so) the Canadian and U.S. military missions in Afghanistan and Iraq view those who challenge those missions as “unpatriotic” and unsupportive of the troops….this is especially true for those who have made personal sacrifices (lost loved ones, long deployments, etc). They have endured a great deal in support of these missions and to acknowledge that they were perhaps mistaken can feel like a betrayal of their loved ones and/or self.

Unfortunately, partisanship remains one of the most important filters that citizens use to interpret political messages. This leads to a selective processing of information and the “reasonableness” or “logic” of an argument is often lost when appealing to an individual of a different political persuasion. However, this is all the more reason to tailor your message to your intended audience. I am not suggesting that we change our political message but, if the purpose is truly to effect change and that change depends upon convincing a majority of the populace of the validity of your message and the need to act, we must use language and methods that increase the likelihood that someone will at least listen. In the words of George Campbell, “we do not argue to gain barely the assent of the understanding, but, which is infinitely more important, the consent of the will.”[18] The Civil Rights movement in the United States is a prime example of this and, contrary to popular belief, was not a haphazard series of demonstrations but a well-strategized non-violent movement. The leaders and participants of this movement realized that if enough people were convinced that segregationist practices were morally, ethically, and constitutionally wrong, then they could be persuaded to act upon this belief. However, the point is that they needed to be persuaded and they did this using Gandhian methods.

Support the Troops, not the Mission (War)

CC noted that “It's a common position in the Left-o-sphere…that the whole philosophy of ’Support the troops’ has become so politicized that it's virtually impossible for anyone who opposes the mission in Afghanistan to still say that they support the troops, since that (troop) support will immediately (and dishonestly, of course) be re-interpreted as support for the mission. “ I absolutely agree with this statement (and the other aspect of it, that you cannot oppose the mission and still support the troops) and acknowledge that this has been true throughout all wars. While researching for my Masters Thesis, I interviewed several anti-war protesters from the World War II era, Korean War, Vietnam and Iraq. They all experienced the same dilemma….this is not new or unique. Unfortunately, there will always be individuals who feel that to oppose a war is to dishonor the troops – no matter what tactics you use to voice your opinions - and that if you claim to support the military, you obviously support its missions. However, there are also many (including service members) who recognize that opposition to a specific war or policy is not the same thing as being opposed to the military as a whole and there are several ways that you can reduce the risk of being labeled “anti-military.” I feel that it is this “anti-military” (i.e. “unsupportive of the troops”) that has created the situation of which CC speaks.

This leads me to the second part of CC’s question; “If Canada's progressives are tired of being misrepresented this way, how should they publicly announce their support for the troops while making it clear that that support doesn't extend to the mission?”

I personally feel that this can perhaps best be addressed by approaching it from the “other side” – by showing that you are not “anti-military”. This can be achieved by employing both “negative” (actions you refrain from – using malicious language, protesting in certain areas/against certain targets, etc) and “positive” (recruiting military families/supporters/veterans/troops to stand with you and voice dissent) action.

At this point, I must confess that my knowledge of the Canadian anti-war movement is somewhat limited and I am basing my answer largely on my experience living in the United States and the information that I gathered while researching for my thesis on United States military wives. In order to better understand why those who vocally oppose specific military missions are labeled as “anti-military,” it is necessary to look at the culture of the military. While my experience is primarily with the United States military, military cultures throughout the world are fairly similar and many generalizations can be made. As most are aware, the military is an elite group that has a very low tolerance for digression from the long-held values, traditions, and beliefs – especially if they threaten to disrupt the war machine. The conservative nature of the military, its demand for obedience and loyalty, the dependency of military families on the military community for financial and social support to cope with the hardships of military life, and views concerning “patriotism” (often the belief that he/she is serving his/her nation as part of an elite group dedicated to the “our” way of “life” or “freedom”), all contribute to the reluctance of those opposed to specific wars to publicly express this opposition and/or contribute to their negative perceptions of the anti-war movement. Although large-scale opposition to any war among military families and hard-core military supporters is unlikely, it is possible to avoid further alienating military families and potential allies by being aware of the military culture and engaging in anti-war activities accordingly. If you do not alienate military supporters, you are much more likely to be able to demonstrate that you do, in fact, respect the troops.

Through my research, I found that despite the fact that some military wives are very public in their opposition to the war in Iraq and regularly participate in anti-war demonstrations, the majority of those who oppose the war are, in the words of one military wife, “in the closet.” The reluctance of military wives to openly oppose the war are as diverse as the wives themselves but based on in-depth interviews with sixteen military wives opposed to the war in Iraq, four main reasons can be identified: 1) concern that open opposition to the war encourages terrorism and “aides and abets” the enemy; 2.) a belief that openly opposing the war has little to no impact on political leaders and policy concerning the war in Iraq; 3) a belief that the majority of the anti-war demonstrations and demonstrators are anti-military; and the most significant, 4.) the negative impact that their open opposition may have on their husband’s morale and/or career as well as a fear of being socially ostracized and/or negative consequences concerning their own employment. I feel that three out of these four “reasons” (#s 1,3 and the first part of 4) also apply to those in the general population who believe that it is impossible to oppose a war and still support the troops………..those who cannot seem separate the mission from the troops………..to support one means to support the other……………to oppose one means to oppose the other……………

Because I believe that “successful communications are based on understanding the persons you are trying to reach,”19 it is important to increase our awareness concerning the “rational” behind the above mentioned beliefs. If we are able to do that, we can better shape our anti-war messages so that they aren’t quite as threatening and less likely to be completely ignored.

“Aiding and Abetting the Enemy”

First things first, a look at why some believe that open opposition to the war encourages terrorism and “aides and abets” the enemy. Now, if this were true, it is obvious why anti-war protesters would be accused of not supporting the troops. How can you support the troops if you are (gasp!) supporting, the enemy?! The belief that anti-war demonstrations “aid and abet the enemy” has a long history and was a popular criticism of the United States anti-war movement during Vietnam. Although evidence exists to both support and contradict this claim, the fact that many military families and supporters hold this belief contributes to the reluctance of some individuals to openly oppose a war and/or to view those who do in a negative light out of concern for the safety of their loved ones and loyalty to their country. Ariel, a military wife who is opposed to the war in Iraq, explained “Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. However, I wish that they would not do it so publicly because that is what gives our enemies power and if they have that power then the soldier’s missions are harder to accomplish safely.” Unfortunately, the possibility that anti-war demonstrations can divide a country, embolden the “enemy” and put their loved ones at risk increases negative feelings towards those who voice opposition to the war. It seems that those on the “right” and/or supporters of the missions in the Middle East use this to silence the opposition. In order to avoid the “anti-military” label, the “left” would benefit by providing strong evidence or well-spoken (read: easy to understand and not hateful or condescending) to dispute the “aiding and abetting” claims.

“Anti-war demonstrations and demonstrators are anti-military”

The methods used to voice opposition is perhaps the biggest reason why those on the “left” are accused of not supporting the troops. Many military families/supporters view anti-war demonstrations/statements as “anti-military” and thus as an attack on their way of life and the values that they hold as “defenders of freedom.”

The majority of military wives that I interviewed support ones’ right to protest/voice dissent and feel that this is a freedom that their husband’s are fighting to defend. However, wives both in support of and opposed to the war in Iraq expressed that there is a fine line between protesting the war and targeting the military. Most military wives would prefer anti-war demonstrators to focus their efforts on the politicians who make the decision to send their husbands to war and therefore feel that protests staged outside government offices are more appropriate. Most of those who support or oppose the war in Iraq feel that anti-war statements that also attack military members and/or their families are counter-productive and believe that protests held outside of military recruiting offices, military hospitals, and military bases are highly inappropriate, in contradiction to the protesters’ message that they “support the troops,” and reminiscent of Vietnam protests in the United States which often targeted soldiers.

The association between anti-war protests and an anti-military stance is hardly surprising given the treatment of soldiers and veterans during the Vietnam War. Military families and supporters fear that troops serving in Afghanistan and/or Iraq will be received in a similar manner so when individuals within the anti-war movement target the troops themselves, even those oppose one or both of these wars become defensive and separate themselves from the anti-war movement. Alexis, a 20 year-old United States Air Force wife who is opposed to the war in Iraq explained, “The husband of a friend of mine (Air Force) was at the Bush ranch in Texas at the time of the protests with Cindy Sheehan. He was called a “baby killer” and other not so friendly terms. He was also spit on. It is protests like these that get my blood boiling. In one breath they preach wanting the war over and to get the soldiers home but in the other, they blatantly and aggressively oppose them to their face. Every time I hear stories such as that, it makes me sick.” Unfortunately, Alexis’ story is not unique and I have come across several incidents in which service members who have served or are serving in Afghanistan or Iraq were treated in a less than respectable manner by anti-war advocates. While these individuals obviously do not represent the “left” as a whole, these negative tactics stand out in the minds of military members, supporters and/or those on the “right” who then use them to discredit the anti-war movement.

Additionally, it must be noted that the media can be critical to the success of any movement but it is important to remember that just as the negative actions and words of ones adversaries are reported, the reverse also holds true. When individuals on the “left” make negative comments to or about the military and/or military families or are disrespectful, inconsiderate or rude to them, those on the “right” will attribute these comments/actions to the “left” as a whole and this contributes to the perception that the “left,” or those opposed to the war, are also “anti-military.” This furthers the false idea that you can’t support the troops without supporting the mission and you can’t oppose the mission without opposing the troops.

An obvious way to lessen the likelihood of being labeled anti-military is to increase the number of military family members and/or troops and/or veterans supporting the anti-war movement. Military families and veterans speaking out against the war are assets to the anti-war movement because people generally listen to them with more interest than they would to people whose lives aren’t invested in the situation. Military people are known to be very committed and loyal so it surprises people to see them standing up and criticizing an administration, policies, and missions/wars and it makes the public question what is happening. However, despite the increasing involvement of military families in the anti-war movement ,(at least in the United States), tension between civilians and military families/troops/veterans remains. Anne Sapp, a United States Army National Guard wife and member of Military Families Speak Out said that her status as a military wife has helped her at events that involve the police and security because they seem to have more respect for her and treat her better than other protesters. According to Anne, “that made it easier to get people to listen to me because they didn’t immediately reject what I said. They were more open to me.” However members of the anti-war movement have criticized her for her association with the military and she has “had to listen to protesters who hate the military and call them murderers.” Anne occasionally wears one of her husband’s Army t-shirts to anti-war speaking engagements to call attention to the fact that she is a military spouse openly opposing the occupation of Iraq and to encourage more military people to join her. However, following a speech that Anne gave at an anti-war venue, she was verbally attacked by an anti-war woman for speaking out against the war while wearing an Army shirt. Anne tried to explain her reasons for wearing the shirt but the woman refused to listen, continued to insult her, and walked away without giving Anne the opportunity to present her side. According to Anne, “I was amazed at how angry I felt and was also amazed at how easily they [some anti-war people] can pass their anger on to others.”

I realize that there are many in the anti-war movement who view the military as a source of the problem with the Middle East rather than a potential ally in ending these conflicts but such treatment of military personnel and families who speak out only serves to reduce support and hinders the movement as a whole. If you want to show people that supporting the troops does not extend to support for the mission, convince more military families, veterans, and service members who also oppose the mission to stand with you.


Another important defense against being labeled anti-military, and therefore reduce the strength of the opposition’s claim that to support the troops is to support the mission, is to chose the venue of protests or public demonstrations carefully. While it appears that the majority of the protests being staged in Canada have targeted government offices, etc, some have focused on the Canadian Forces and military recruiting offices. And, unfortunately for Canadian activists, the actions of United States anti-war activists are widely reported and, more likely than not, contribute to the “anti-troop” perception that some have of the Canadian “Left-o-sphere”.” Protests at military hospitals, military recruitment offices, and military bases can serve as great photo ops and command a lot of publicity but generally garner more negative attention than positive. An excellent example of this comes from Kathleen Kroll, a United States Army wife who has considered joining anti-war protests but finds many of them to be anti-military. She noted that during a big protest in Pittsburgh, a few members of the Pittsburgh Organizing Group (POG) along with other non-members "stormed" the main recruiting station in the city. According to Kathleen, “the station is on the second floor, and they broke in through a Mexican restaurant downstairs, knocked in the door to the recruiting station and trashed the place.” For Kathleen, “The amazing thing is that the main counter-recruiting group in Pittsburgh, POG, supports this action. I completely support one's right to protest. I don't necessarily agree with protesting recruiters, but I can understand protesting the WAR itself. However, when people do something like they did to the recruiting station, it makes me wonder if they really have a clue what they're protesting and what they're doing. The statements they've made remind me of someone just wanting to protest SOMETHING without really putting too much thought into it. The actions of the protesting group in Pittsburgh seems to take away their credibility, instead of enhancing it. When you have to resort to trashing an unoccupied (the recruiters were at a training conference in West Virginia that weekend), it makes me question the strength of your argument (and your intelligence, to be quite frank). It has made me resolve that the next protest they stage outside of the recruiting building, I will be there (7 months pregnant or not) to lend a counter presence to their actions.” While the logic behind their choice in a target is fairly clear - as POG explained, “for us, a focus on recruitment is a tangible way to help stop the unjust/war occupations currently occurring as well as serving to help restrict the negative projection of Government power in the future.” it is equally obvious that by choosing to protest military recruiters, these demonstrators are not simply protesting the war but the military establishment itself. Although there are military wives/families/troops/veterans who oppose military operations in Afghanistan and/or Iraq, they generally support the military as a whole and find such protests to be an attack on their way of life, loved ones, and selves.

In the United States, protesting outside of military bases has definitely contributed to the anti-troop label that the “left” has received. Jennifer, a United States Army wife who is opposed to the war in Iraq, explained that “A lot of spouses don’t think that it is possible to support protests and the troops but I do. I look at it as my husband is just doing his job. However, there is a fine line between protesting the war and being anti-military, ‘thank god for dead soldiers’ signs outside of military bases are not ok.” Protesting at military bases and in military communities is a tactic utilized by the United States anti-war movement and several large anti-war demonstrations have been held outside of military bases led by a variety of organizations. The most well-known of these took place outside of Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina on the second anniversary of the Iraq War sponsored by local peace activists working with a number of national groups including the umbrella anti-war organization United For Peace and Justice.

Stacy Bannerman participated in this protest and said the “location was chosen to demonstrate that it’s possible to support the troops and oppose the administration.” However, for many in the military, and even those who are simply part of the anti-war movement, this had the exact opposite effect. Iraq Veterans Against the War director Paul Rieckhoff condemned this protest based on the belief that demonstrating outside of military bases targets the military members and their families, not the politicians and the war. Rieckhoff claimed, “as families living in and around the bases try to salvage some sense of normalcy as they worry about their loved ones overseas, the last thing they need to see on Saturday morning is a crowd of protestors outside their window. This is the height of insensitivity by the anti-war organizations. If you support the troops, don’t protest them in their backyards, especially not as they’re sent to war or returning home.”

Although the members of the Armed Forces and their families either directly or indirectly support the system, they are not in a position to end the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq as a large majority of individual soldiers would need to make the decision to revolt. Based on the nature of their service, the contract they sign and the punishment they face, it seems highly unlikely that an anti-war demonstration held near a military base will win many converts. A more likely outcome is the further alienation of military families from the anti-war movement and the unlikelihood of constructive dialog between the two.

Andrew Borene, a University law student and adviser to Operation Truth, a nonpartisan Iraq Veterans’ organization, urges those who oppose a specific policy or war to “direct their energy and presence in directions that do no alienate the people who have courageously and voluntarily chosen to serve.” He suggests that they “hold a protest to neo-conservatism at the young Republicans’ next meeting; hold a protest at the State Capitol for the state’s failure to take care of National Guard and Reserve Veterans who have been shortchanged by the president’s health-care policy; or hold a rally for political candidates that share your beliefs.”[20] Although this statement was obviously intended for an American audience, the general idea is applicable to Canadian anti-war advocates.

Although the methods of protest and statements expressing disapproval of a military mission may alienate military supporters, those who make an attempt to convey their lack of support for operations in Afghanistan and/or Iraq in a way that targets the administrations responsible for these missions and/or the wars themselves rather than the military are much less likely to be labeled as “unpatriotic” and “anti-military.”

Finally, the possibility that open opposition to a war may have a negative impact on the morale of troops serving in Afghanistan and/or Iraq serves as strong ammunition for those on the “right” who wish to paint those opposed to the war(s) as “anti-military” or insist that supporting the troops is equivalent to supporting the mission. There really isn’t an easy solution to this one as a significant amount of research has yet to be done concerning whether or not protest actually does have a negative impact on troop morale. I interviewed 100 servicemen who were in Iraq at the time or had served in Iraq in an attempt to gain some sort of understanding as to whether or not open opposition to the war had a negative impact on their morale and/or negatively impacted their ability to carry out their mission. The majority (around 70 percent, I believe) felt that open opposition had “no impact” while about 25 percent felt that it had a “slightly negative impact.” The other 5 percent noted that it had either a “slightly positive impact” or a “negative impact.” Stacy Bannerman, a member of Military Families Speak Out and author of “When the War Came Home: The Inside Story of Reservists And the Families They Leave Behind” explains that “there is a ‘code of silence’ [in military families and the military] and the cultural, social and financial implications for breaking that are intense. We also hear all of the crap and the comments from those who support the invasion and occupation of Iraq that protests are undermining troop morale and that’s always there in the back of your mind… what if my speaking out contributes to my husband being killed?” Overall, Bannerman feels justified in openly opposing the war because she has talked to many soldiers, including those in uniform at the airport, about the issue of troop morale and they have given her the impression that anti-war demonstrations do not have a large impact on their morale.

It seems that the best way to lessen the power of this argument is to provide some sort of evidence to show that voicing opposition to the war in Afghanistan or Iraq does not hurt troop morale. Talk to the service members - ask their opinions! Does it hurt their morale? Does it negatively impact their mission? If open opposition really doesn’t have much of a negative impact on the troops, it makes it more difficult for those on the “right” to use this against the “left” and as “proof” of the “left’s anti-military” attitude. Again, appealing to like-minded military families/supporters/veterans/service members and persuading them to stand with you will have the same effect.

Another positive way of disputing this claim is to follow in the footsteps of United States military wives like Stacy Bannerman and Ann Sapp - present strong arguments concerning the definition of SUPPORT. Stacy asks, “….how can my wanting to preserve his life and the lives of tens of thousands of others, ever potentially be seen as betrayal?” When she has been criticized for not supporting the troops, she has thus responded, “first of all, my husband is the troops and second of all, silence is not support and speaking out is my duty and responsibility as a military family and an American citizen." Anne Sapp shares Stacy’s views: “I’ve heard the word ‘support’ so often from people who have no idea what it really means. My role as a military spouse is to do whatever I can to keep my husband safe and well. This does not entail waving a flag while our president and his administration commit crimes against humanity, including their own troops. It does entail for me the responsibility to speak out and work to end the wrong being done in our name and try to help people understand that the role he volunteered for in the military was taken with a love and commitment to the people of the country, not a few selfish, misguided politicians……..When I first became politically active against the war, I talked to Andy and we both agreed that the truth was the most important thing.”

Some military families and supporters, like Stacy and Ann, have reached the conclusion that speaking out against what they perceive to be an unjust war and misuse of the troops is the best support that they can provide. If you can get that message across to the “average” Canadian and convince enough of them to join you and appeal to your government, you are much more likely to dispel the “anti-war equals anti-military,” “support for the troops equals support for the mission” myths and alter Canada’s policies/missions concerning Afghanistan than should you alienate potential supporters with callous language targeting individuals - especially those associated with the military.

Criticize their statements……..their words……….their ideas/beliefs……….but don’t attack the person.

Oh, irony ... where is thy towel snap to the nads?

Blogging Tory Brandon Langhjelm opens brilliantly:

As my uncle is fond of saying, "there's nothing worse than an idiot with an opinion."

No, no, don't read any further. It'll just spoil the effect.

And in other non-news ...

Because if Boy Detective Steve Janke didn't bring you the news about Lee Der Industrial CEO Zhang Shuhong, who would?

Chugga chugga chugga ... screech ... thud.

On the one hand, you want to move on to cover the really dangerous and lunatic whackjobs. On the other hand, it's like you just can't look away from this particular train wreck:

I would like to begin today by thanking all those who have been showing support for me. With out [sic] all of you, I don't know what I would do.

OK, so not a real train wreck. Maybe more like this:

(DISCLAIMER: No actual trains were wrecked in the making of this blog post.)

There's a fine line between principle and dumbassitude.

Apparently, words can mean whatever you want them to mean (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

ARLINGTON, Texas - A megachurch canceled a memorial service for a Navy veteran 24 hours before it was to start because the deceased was gay.

Officials at the nondenominational High Point Church knew that Cecil Howard Sinclair was gay when they offered to host his service, said his sister, Kathleen Wright. But after his obituary listed his life partner as one of his survivors, she said, it was called off...

“We did decline to host the service — not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle,” [pastor Rev. Gary] Simons told The Associated Press.

So the next time someone says "Fuck the Jews," remember -- that's not anti-Semitism, it's principle.

It's bad news when even the King Rat takes a powder.

Oh, my. Even King Shit of Turdblossom Island sees the writing on the wall:

Karl Rove to quit at end of August

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political adviser, will voluntarily step down from his White House post at the end of the month, senior administration officials said Monday.

You know what's coming, don't you?

Perino said Rove "wouldn't be going if he wasn't sure this is the right time to be giving more time to his family."

I'm sure a Presidential Medal of Freedom is in the offing. And a pro-active pardon. That, too.

Learned well, you have, Mr. Erl.

And another badly-educated, right-wing twerp gets assimilated into the wanker collective:

• Childish writing? Check.


• Pathetic sniffling about being picked on by the big, bad lefties? Check.


• Frantic removal of any comments that might disturb his hermetically-sealed world view? Check.


• Sudden appearance of fellow wankers to soothe his troubled brow and validate his hideously warped idea of reality? Check.


• Dramatic monologue involving impressive vows of patriotism and love of God and country, as long as it doesn't involve any, you know, actual sacrifice? Check, check and double check.

Congratulations, Mr. Erl. You passed. Your certificate of total wankeritude and secret decoder ring should arrive in six to eight weeks.

Heh. Indeed.

Once again, reality bites: Kate McMillan edition.

The ever-so-perky, infinitely gullible Ms. McMillan from a couple weeks ago:

I Hope You're Sitting Down

"A War We Just Might Win"

And the inevitable towel snap of reality:

In their now infamous New York Times op-ed, Brookings analysts Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack wrote that “[w]e are finally getting somewhere” in Iraq, based on their eight day trip to the war-torn country...

But in a recent interview, Glenn Greenwald elicits the inner details of the trip from O’Hanlon, confirming “rather conclusively what a fraud this Op-Ed was, and even more so, the deceitfulness of the intense news coverage it generated.” Some key points from the interview:

• O’Hanlon admits he is a war supporter: “As you rightly reported,” O’Hanlon told Greenwald, “I was not a critic of this war. In the final analysis, I was a supporter.”


• A rushed, cherry-picked trip: O’Hanlon admitted that they spent approximately “between 2-4 hours” in every area they visited outside Baghdad, “and much of that was taken up meeting U.S. military commanders, not inspecting the proverbial ‘conditions on the ground.’” “They spent every night ensconced in the Green Zone in Baghdad,” adds Greenwald.


• Pentagon “choreographed” the trip: In the op-ed, the analysts boast, “We just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel.” But O’Hanlon admitted: “The predominant majority were people who we came into contact with through the itinerary the D.O.D. developed. … For the most part, the conversations were ones arranged by D.O.D”


• Unrepresentative view of Iraq: “If someone wanted to argue that we were not getting a representative view of Iraqis because the ones we spoke with were provided by the military, I would agree that this would be a genuine concern,” said O’Hanlon. “By no means did all of the Iraqis agree with the view of progress in Iraq.”

Poor Kate -- 0 for 740. It occurs to me that, if her slavishly loyal, leg-humping readers ever developed an interest in, you know, credibility and facts and stuff like that, she'd be in a truckload of trouble.

Lucky for her, eh?

BONUS AFTERSNARK: Ooh, ooh ... she noticed me! Sort of ...

I don't usually bother with liberal left bloggers who waste their time slagging me. (Too many, for one thing.)

Hunh. Personally, I would have written, "Too embarrassingly accurate, for one thing." To each his own, I guess.

But I can appreciate your reluctance in addressing your critics, Kate. I'm pretty sure that, if we stacked your record for distortion, misrepresentation and dishonesty up against mine, one of us would be in a world of hurt. And I'm fairly sure I know which of us that would be.

What is it with Republicans and stupidly-unbounded optimism?

For these folks, "reality" really is a dirty word:

Tommy Thompson Drops Out of Presidential Race

He says, "my campaign was completely shocked. We absolutely thought we were coming in second [at the Iowa Straw Poll]. We had no doubt in our minds. The worst we thought we'd come in was third and it didn't happen that way. Something happened between the 50-yard line and the goal line. They pulled a reverse on us and we didn't see it coming." ...

Thompson had 1,039 votes, or about 7 percent.

In other news, GOP officials expressed tremendous confidence in the latest military "surge" in Iraq. "Of course it'll work," said one, "what can possibly go wrong?"

Yeah, I always get those two confused.

For obvious reasons, this is somewhat disappointing:

The director of a Christian boot camp and an employee were arrested Friday for allegedly dragging a 15-year-old girl behind a van after she fell behind the group during a morning run, authorities said.

Charles Eugene Flowers and Stephanie Bassitt of San Antonio-based Love Demonstrated Ministries, a 32-day boot camp, were arrested on aggravated assault charges for the alleged June 12 incident.

The two are accused of tying the girl to the van with a rope then dragging her, according to an arrest affidavit filed Wednesday by the Nueces County Sheriff's Department.

I say "disappointing" since you'd think that, as Christian leaders, those folks would know that dragging people behind trucks is for blacks, while rebellious youngsters are to be executed by stoning. I mean, there's nothing more embarrassing than putting someone to death, then suddenly realizing, "Whoopsie." Then all the rest of the Christians end up making fun of you, and you can never live it down.

And that really sucks, doesn't it?

I (want to) see dead people.

Apparently (and to my surprise), lots and lots of dead citizens killed in a terrorist attack can be a good thing:


Now, given the fuming, frothing, sputtering anger that accompanied my blog post of a few weeks ago where I simply took animated exception with someone who was using the death of her son for political purposes, one can only imagine the limitless, howling outrage from, say, Canada's Blogging Tories in response to someone who opines, in print, that he wants to see numerous more dead Americans from a terrorist attack.

Are you ready for the outrage? Ready? Here it comes ... here it comes ... ah, there we go.

Kind of anti-climatic, wasn't it?

Beware the frumious Mr. Erl ...

Uh oh ...

Over at some lefty blogs, I heard my name was being thrown around by an anonymous tipsters [sic]...so I peaked [sic] in to take a look. It was the usual assortment of "little kid" this and "doesn't know anything" that...Why can't they just post ideas online instead of making fun of others?...

And to my lefty critics...grow up...I'll deal with you all later.

Um ... yeah ... I can already feel my testicles retreating in abject fear. Dude, we're not criticizing you, we really are just making fun of you. There's a difference. You should aspire to the point where we actually start to criticize you. I'm just sayin'.

P.S. By the way, Mr. Erl, when one peruses your section on "About Me" and learns that you dream of a career in journalism, one suspects that you might take the time to figure out how to spell the word "believe." And "peeked." And maybe that whole distinction between singular and plural.

It wouldn't hurt.

You keep using that word "scholar" ...

And when I say "scholarship," I really mean an unswerving and unshakeable commitment to a ridiculous and internally inconsistent set of meaningless dogmas invented by a group of superstitious primitives thousands of years ago.

Why? What do you mean by that word?

Can someone just take him out behind the barn and do the merciful thing?

The results from the recent GOP Iowa straw poll (emphasis added):

14,302 ballots cast

1 Mitt Romney, 4,516 votes, 31.6 percent
2 Mike Huckabee, 2,587 votes, 18.1 percent
3 Sam Brownback, 2,192 votes, 15.3 percent
4 Tom Tancredo, 1,961 votes, 13.7 percent
5 Ron Paul, 1,305 votes, 9.1 percent
6 Tommy Thompson, 1,039 votes, 7.3 percent
7 Fred Thompson, 203 votes, 1.4 percent
8 Rudy Guiliani, 183 votes, 1.3 percent
9 Duncan Hunter, 174 votes, 1.2 percent
10 John McCain - 101 votes, 0.7 percent
11 John Cox- 41 votes, 0.1 percent

The response from Team McCain after getting pasted and winning less than one per cent of the vote:

ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain's presidential campaign manager Rick Davis today made the following statement:

"Over the past eight months John McCain has met with Iowans across the state, built a broad base of support, and demonstrated why he is the most prepared candidate to lead America from day one.

"We are fully committed to competing successfully in the Iowa caucuses, and we look forward to continuing to campaign aggressively in the Hawkeye State."

When asked personally about his poor showing, the candidate replied: