February 19, 2003
The wages of peace marches
Are making the enemy think we are pansies who can't take a little conflict. Or did the
pro Saddam antiwar protesters ever consider the possibility that their activities might have this effect on Saddam Hussein instead of turning him into a latter-day Gandhi?
Something tells me "no."
(Via The Weekly James.)
Posted by Andrea Harris at February 19, 2003 10:52 PM
Hang on. On the basis of this: "If Iraq does not move quickly to arrange more private interviews and provide more evidence, the chief U.N. inspector, Hans Blix, likely will deliver a more downcast assessment of Iraqi cooperation when he next reports to the Security Council, a U.N. official said. A critical report from Blix could prove instrumental to U.S. and British efforts to build support for a new council resolution authorizing force against Iraq," than any pro-war person should be giving major thanks to the anti-war protestors, right?
I'm only half-kidding.
At the very least they have provided us some more grist for the mockery mill. But that's okay. Their shoulders are strong from carrying all those signs; they can take the burden of our laughter.
Or... can they?
According to jesse at http://www.pandagon.net/, Saddam got the idea that the anti-war protests are pro-saddam because of the media and the 'Idiots' who have been saying so all along. Not by any stretch according to jesse are the anti-war protestors responsible for this, but the critics who warned of it are. Stunning example of the lack of depth in the anti-war argument.
Why have depth when you can just call everyone wingnut yellow fucks? Or something. I think I found the post you refer to: "Laying down the odds"? Anyway, what a... nice bunch of commenters. I love the "supporters of War in Iraq are also supporters of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" theme. And calling the "prowar" side "McCarthyite" is always good for a laugh. I once briefly had pandagon.net on my blogroll. Then one day I surfed on by and found that he had decided to be Atrios Jr.
The post was just called 'Yeah'.
Atrios baits his commenters with assinine premises in his posts, but seldom comments substantively to his own posts. He lets the usual suspects deride any counterpoint comments. jesse is a bit different. As soon as a counterpoint argument to the premise of a post shows up in a comment thread there, he takes it as a personal affront that anyone could be so stupid as to not immediately embrace his point and starts a sophmoric rant. Still cocooned in college, erudite, but woefully ignorant.
I also notice that he has a certain contempt for readable formatting: he'll quote a line or paragraph of something he's rebutting, but without any kind of differentiation (such as: quotation marks, brackets, anything) between what he is quoting and his own reply. To me that says something about his attitude towards "dialogue."