While looking for this USAToday article I found this:
http://www.culturewar.50g.com/
http://www.culturewar.50g.com/humor.htm Listen to the DC protest video. Guy uses the word Communist a zillion times. I'd love to know how this guy pays the bills. In fact how all these people pay their bills should be a left obsession and constant litany.
Woolsey's a busy guy. I found this article because I saw a letter in today's paper from some other guy, I think he was the director. Wanted to get his name but the letter's not in the online version and don't have paper. Anybody got it? He mentions the professors that said bad things right after Sept 11. I guess the ones Lynn Cheney's crew went after. How many man-hours go into dreaming this stuff up? I didn't pay any attention to the privacy thing, but maybe that wasn't wise.
Anti-anti-war crowd dreams up a disloyal opposition
WASHINGTON - On the battlefield, all wars are different. But on the home front, all wars slowly begin to resemble Vietnam.
The best evidence to support that second assertion was a Tuesday morning news conference called to herald the formation of a muscular new organization, "Americans for Victory Over Terrorism."
Led by former Education secretary Bill Bennett, the indefatigable crusader for virtue and conservative values, the group stands ready to wage holy war against those who would weaken America's resolve to fight terrorism. In his opening statement, Bennett pledged to take this fight "to campuses, salons, oratorical societies, editorial pages and television."
Thirty years ago, similar groups used to make pilgrimages to the Nixon White House to buttress the president's spirits during the dark days of Vietnam. Back then, they were the right wing's answer to the peace movement. But these days, there is no anti-war ferment in America, aside from a handful of college students who naively believe that world peace can be achieved through sugar-free bake sales. The latest USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll found that 91% of Americans approve of our military action against terrorism.
So who is the target of Bennett's heavy rhetorical artillery? Who is weakening America's resolve? Are we back to blaming George McGovern and Jane Fonda?
When pressed for specifics, Bennett began by fingering Jimmy Carter for criticizing George W. Bush's "axis of evil" speech as counterproductive. The former president's remarks seemed far too mild to justify Bennett's angry response. "He's wrong, and those who rally to him weaken the resolve of others," Bennett said. Continuing his scattershot answer, Bennett then read aloud intemperate comments by left-wing House Democrats Maxine Waters of California and Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, backbenchers who have minimal influence in the national Democratic Party.
As rogues' galleries go, it was an innocuous display. Bennett and his allies, former CIA director James Woolsey and former Reagan Defense official Frank Gaffney, seem determined to create an anti-war movement in order to defeat it. This belief in a phantom opposition reflects their own version of the "Vietnam syndrome."
Bennett even felt compelled to warn, "There was more unanimity and less dissent in the early days of the Vietnam War in the early '60s than there is now." And in a further echo of Vietnam, Gaffney chimed in to raise concern about some outlandish future congressional effort to cut off funding for the war effort.
A close reading of recent polls does suggest that for all his popularity as a wartime leader, Bush has yet to fully cement the case for expanding the war beyond al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.
In the USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, only a bare majority of those surveyed (52%) back mounting "a long-term war to defeat global terrorist networks." In contrast, 40% prefer to limit military efforts to punishing the "specific terrorist groups" responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks.
These wisps of doubt about defining America's war aims too broadly worry those beating the drums for immediate military action against Iraq. At the news conference, Woolsey predicted that a decision to take on Saddam Hussein would prompt "a much more contentious argument than the decision to go into Afghanistan." When it comes to Iraq, part of the problem may be Bush's mixed record as explainer-in-chief. Even though the president warned Monday that "inaction is not an option," he has yet to lay out the full implications of an all-out war to topple Saddam. Here are three areas that eventually need to be addressed:
The morality of a pre-emptive attack. Until now, America's unquestioned justification has been that we are responding to the worst terrorist assault in modern history. But the administration has not offered any evidence that Saddam was implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks. Democratic nations do not traditionally go to war without a direct provocation, such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. But despite Saddam's dangerous penchant for weapons of mass destruction, his overt actions have not markedly changed since he was left in power at the end of the Gulf War. Are we ready to wage the first pre-emptive war in our history?
The risks of a final war in Iraq. If we go into Iraq, Saddam will be under no illusion that he can survive defeat. In that ultimate struggle, what is to prevent Saddam from employing his presumed biological and chemical arsenal on the battlefield or using it in Scud missiles aimed at Israel? Deterrence doesn't work if one's adversary is facing death.
After Saddam, what? Are we prepared to commit tens of thousands of U.S. troops to occupy Iraq? Can we envision an alternative government that could inspire credibility? Or are we going to war along with a few allies and a handful of Iraqi exile groups and hoping for the best? Given our mixed record in fostering post-Taliban stability in Afghanistan, these are not idle questions.
A full-throated national dialogue on Iraq will not weaken our resolve. For the true lesson of Vietnam is that the lack of honest debate in Washington is what undermines national unity.