> Greg Yardley is lurking and doesn't like what he sees:
>
> < http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=11361 >
>
> Check the first link -- our humble list!
I figured that this stupid article would get mentioned here today.
I thought the weakest link in his screed against "the Left" is his last paragraph, which is a bunch of questions hiding straw man arguments. He conflates all of the Left and the anti-war movement with having monocultural views. This is just plain false, which is why I read Frontpagemag for amusement like I read Overthrow.com.
"They claimed they could stop a war against Iraq with their protests, and they couldn't."
I don't remember anybody claiming this! In fact, I argued against ANSWER because their tactics would ensure that the war wouldn't be stopped. But the important fact is that the international anti-war movement was huge and overwhelming BEFORE the war started. Those of us who understand politics and the American state knew that nothing would stop Bush.
"They claimed the American army would face fierce resistance, and it didn't."
I think that Yardley is confusing TV news pundits with opinion from the anti-war movement. In fact, the American army continues to face feirce resistance, as the nearly 500 American deaths demonstrates. The war is not going well for the U.S., which is amply being pointed out these days in just about any newspaper.
"They claimed there would be a quagmire outside Baghdad, and there wasn't."
The left never claimed this, because the left and the anti-war movements don't take uniform positions, especially on tactical issues that are the focus of TV punditry.
"They claimed the war would cause massive civilian casualties, and it didn't."
Again, another strawman argument. Left writers, activists and analysts took a variety of positions. There was a good argument that massive casualities would ocur if the U.S. bombed cities for several weeks. the U.S. used a different strategy which resulted in less civilian deaths, but massive casualties all the same.
"They claimed the war would lead to terrorist attacks on American soil, and it hasn't."
We did? I think the jury is still out on this one. The terrorist attacks are being directed at Americans abroad because Americans are easier targets when they are in the terrorists backyard. But the American terrorist state may eventually get a taste of more terrorism on its soil. Especially if the Cincinnati police department starts killing more blakc people.
"Now they're claiming the capture of Saddam means nothing, and terrorism in the Middle East will continue on unabated."
I think the stock market rendered the best verdict on this minor news.
And Yardley should be smart enough to understand that Hussein had no connections with terrorists.
Take it from an anarchist: removing Saddam Hussein from power just provides a new opportunity for the Saddam Husseins of the future.
"If they're right, it'll be for the first time. In the meantime, it's too bad they can't put their hatred of the President aside, and join the rest of America in celebrating the bringing of a tyrant to justice."
Yeah, I hate George W. Bush like many other Americans. I hated Clinton too, but I seem to remember that it was OK to hate Clinton back then if you were a conservative. What really amuses me about conservatives is that they are still obsessed with the Clintons!
<< Chuck0 >>
Homepage -> http://chuck.mahost.org/ Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Monumental Mistake (blog) -> http://chuck.mahost.org/weblog/index.php Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Infoshop Portal -> http://portal.infoshop.org/ Infoshop Science -> http://science.infoshop.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty
"The USA PATRIOT Act (a.k.a. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the Appropriate Tools Required to Infiltrate and Obstruct Terrorism)
was originally named "Unarming and Stripping Americans of Freedom and Allowing Secret Cops to Intimidate Scapegoats and Minorities",
but they thought USA FASCISM didn't sound all that great."
-- Patrick Dempsey