Operation 'Desert Shield' lost more than 400 of our Precious in the buildup to the Gulf War.

Since 9/11, we've been honoring our Police and Firemen more than ever for their sacrifical spirit in keeping us safe. Have you visited your local fire station or police station to show your appreciation?

I wonder when, the antiwar people turn on our safety providers and hurt them in the name of the antiwar cause?

I wonder when we reached these thresholds in the Vietnam War? And what level of loss it took to generate the level of antiwar fervor to force the administration into making mistakes and pull out of Vietnam?

You know this "Support our Troops" cause is nothing without the support of their mission. We've got to support the mission to Honor our Precious.

peter,
How's it going over there in Iraq on the front lines today?

Big LOTR fan are ya Peter?

Peter, I disagree. You have to honor their willingness to serve (cause it keeps a lot of us back home from having to, for now anyway) and their commitment to do the duty they swore to, but not duty itself.

By your argument, the German people should have honored (and did in many cases) the "mission" that was being carried out across central Europe during the early 1940's. And we see now, how honorable that mission was.

It shows the utmost honor of what hte soldiers are doing to question the motives and justifications given by those who sent them. They cannot question those orders, that is our job.

please don't forget to include the tens of thousands of iraqies who have been killed as a result of this war.

I wonder when, the antiwar people turn on our safety providers and hurt them in the name of the antiwar cause?

Please explain to me how being opposed to the invasion of Iraq is hurting our police and firefighters. Improved funding to provide them with needed safety gear is a good way to support them by helping to keep them alive. I pay my taxes. Do you Peter? In 2002, in NYC, there was a flood of firefighters who filed for early retirement because they had put in so much overtime in the aftermath of 9/11 that their pensions would be to high not to take advantage of the financial windfall by retiring. I applaud anyone who takes on the dangerous jobs that they do but they also do it for a paycheck just like everyone else. Honor them by taking care of them after they have made their sacrifices by meeting their emotional, medical and financial needs. Not with a meaningless thumbs up and slap on the back.

I wonder when we reached these thresholds in the Vietnam War? And what level of loss it took to generate the level of antiwar fervor to force the administration into making mistakes and pull out of Vietnam?

Another Vietnam apologist. Read some history Peter. All the documents are available now. The majority of people advising Johnson in the 1960's believed the situation in Vietnam was a lost cause before we even committed to signficant ground involvement. Almost 60,000 Americans and millions of Vietnamese died for a half baked policy that no one believed in.

Mary,interesting data. Thanks for passing it along. One of my best friends leaves for Iraq today. Here's hoping he makes it back home ok.

I would disagree with Peter that you have to 100% support the mission to support the troops, but I share his sentiment that people just seem to give "supporting the troops" lip service without backing it up with action.

Professor, I don't think German citizens should have been in support of Nazi troops, and if I felt the Iraq war was on the same level of pure evil, there is no way I could support those carrying it out.

Also, it seems that a lot of people against the war who claim to be "supporters of the troops" seem to be all over them when stories about the Marine in Fallujah or Lt. Pantano come out. It seems that if you're really "for the troops" you would at least give our guys the benefit of the doubt... Just my observations.

Thanks for posting this analysis of the fatalities. I served in Iraq during OIF 1. We arrived in Baghdad in April 2003 and stayed there until March 2004.

The questions asking how long it took us to reach this point in other conflicts are not really applicable. Every war is different. The Vietnamese did not (or very rarely) used roadside bombs. The other thing that makes for very hard comparisons is the impact that body armor is having. This makes OIF different than EVERY other war the US has ever fought. I suspect without body armor of this quality we would be talking about 5000-10000 more fatalities. Please don't forget our wounded. Many of these men and women will live the rest of their lives scarred by their horrific injuries that only because of modern medicine they survived.

The thing all of you should know is the troops are getting tired and worn down. Many of us have been notified that we are going back for a second tour this year. I am one of those. Many of my fellow soldiers who have been notified don't want to go back and are pursuing their options. Recruiting is practically at a standstill in the Reserves.

My personal suspicion (I have no insight into some master plan) is that if we are not able to draw down our forces in Iraq soon, we will see talk of resurrecting the draft or even legislation shortly after the 2006 Congressional elections. The draft wouldn't be all bad... Last time I checked "The Greatest Generation" was composed primarily of draftees.

bob, thanks and keep your head down.

Also, it seems that a lot of people against the war who claim to be "supporters of the troops" seem to be all over them when stories about the Marine in Fallujah or Lt. Pantano come out. It seems that if you're really "for the troops" you would at least give our guys the benefit of the doubt... Just my observations.

The benefit of the doubt?

Tex,

When Americans fail to demand that we maintain a higher standard of conduct, down to the last man, we begin to sink to the level of those we condemn.

Thank God that the worst we have to protest about the conduct of our forces is nowhere near as horrific as the genocide that the vast majority of the German populus "overlooked" during the Nazi reign of terror. But as Americans our exceptionalism is drummed into us ad nauseum. That being the case a certain level of outrage is justified. We are better than that!

This country will be fucked when not a single voice speaks out in opposition to abuses that are exposed. Do you see patriotic duty as a duty to acquiesce unquestioningly to the dictates of the powers that be? Some see patriotism as speaking up when abuse is observed in the interest of preserving what it is that makes us what we are. Acquiescence breeds acceptance. It is the basic concept behind what the ACLU does. Something that is very hard for many people to understand. The ACLU speaks out in support of what many find to be objectionable behavior because to acquiesce in the face of repression at the fringes of society invariably leads to an erosion of what is considered the fringe until one day the boundary between fringe and mainstream arrives at your own doorstep.

Support of the positive and condemnation of the negative are not mutually exclusive.

God speed to you friend.

God speed to your friend.

Had to go to Iraq because they threatened us with WMD,went,
No WMD, troops stayed
Mission Accomplished, troops stayed
Saddam's sons killed, troops stayed
Saddam found in hole, troops stayed
Sovereignty transferred, troops stayed
Had democratic elections, troops stayed
I really don't think BushCo has a plan to remove the troops. And I really don't think he cares how many GI's die.

Muckcat,

Thanks for your comment about my friend. I agree that the US should be held to a higher standard, but I still think people shouldn't rush to judgement on the cases I mentioned.

T2, I don't think we're leaving any time soon 'cause Bushy and Cheney's friends Halliburton, Brown and Root etc (oh yeah Cheney HIMSELF too) are getting really rich...and didn't they misplace 9 BILLion dollars??? Fuckin' A, we're supporting someone but I'm not sure it's "the troops" and it sure as hell ain't the Iraqis.

i, um, support the troops, as do my former employees at halliburton. we pay taxes on a great deal of the money we make. capital gains get taxed at a whopping 14%, federal revenues pay for military operations, so yes, i support the troops

Tex,

People are always going to have a reaction.

If no one took note of the questionable actions that you mentioned what would be the incentive for those in power to make it known to those in the field that such alleged behavior is unacceptable? It has been clearly demonstrated that the administration was, at best, sending mixed signals to field commanders as to what was and was not acceptible. That filters down through the ranks. If the administration shows no desire to keep the lines from being blurred without public scrutiny than the only recourse is for the public to vocally scrutinize there leadership. It is a means to force a proactive rather than reactive attitude from those at the top. If they know that there is going to be swift public scrutiny they will take steps to ensure that the parameters for acceptible behavior are clearly defined. This administration has forfeited the benefit of the doubt as to it's intent to lead responsibly. If that results in unwarranted scrutiny of individual soldiers or Marines it is the administrations or the military brass' fault. Not the public's.

The Wounded Increments of 500 by Month, because actual dates are not reported by the DoD

Apr-03: 500
Aug-03: 1000
Oct-03: 1500
Nov-03: 2000
Jan-04: 2500
Mar-04: 3000
Apr-04: 3500, 4000
May-04: 4500, 5000
Jun-04: 5500
Jul-04: 6000
Aug-04: 6500, 7000
Sep-04: 7500
Oct-04: 8000
Nov-04: 8500, 9000, 9500
Dec-04: 10,000
Jan-05: 10,500

You know this "Support our Troops" cause is nothing without the support of their mission. We've got to support the mission to Honor our Precious.

oh peter you must be so young. Please. Do read some history.

I recommend The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Willing Executioners, 1984, and Sinclair Lewis' It Can't Happen Here.

(Heck, maybe even A Tale of Two Cities!)

And look over the PNAC documents from the 1990's.

I am a partiotic old crone and have never been so frightened for my country. That is why "supporting the troops" can mean being vehemently anti-Iraq Invasion & Occupation.

Peter,
you are obviously out of your mind!

Well, building fourteen permanent military bases doesn't sound like we are leaving anytime soon. In fact, it is more likely that we will be there for years.

I don't have any of those neat little "Support the Troops" magnetic ribbons on my car but I see plenty of them on the SUV's in my neighborhood. Right alongside the W'04 stickers.

Obviously the gas guzzlers support the mission.

Peter- I'm not sure if I understand the tone or the meaning of your post. When you say 'precious' are you being sarcastic?

At any rate you might find this chart interesting that compares the rate of US deaths from the beginning of the Vietnam War to the rate in Iraq. Needless to say, the chart is not encouraging.

Also, your statistics on the Gulf War are incorrect. Desert Shield only lead to the loss of 84 Americans:

PERSIAN GULF WAR,
1990-91
DESERT SHIELD
NONHOSTILE 84
DESERT STORM
HOSTILE 148
NONHOSTILE 151
TOTAL 299
DESERT SHIELD/STORM TOTAL 383

I was reading a book about US flyers in the Pacific campaign of WWII (Flyboys) and had to stop reading. He kept describing the horrific torture and mistreatment of our captured flyers by the Japanese, and (except for the sexual stuff) it is the same crap we have been documented doing in our own world wide gulags.

One example, the author describes one captured flyer being suspended by his arms tied behind his back, and how that dislocated the shoulders and was incredibly painful. Well, the same thing (now called a "Palestinian cross" apparently) turns up on the jump page of my local paper as the latest documented US atrocity.

It is way too sad to see how far Bush has dragged my country into the mud.

I wonder when, the antiwar people turn on our safety providers and hurt them in the name of the antiwar cause?

Are you completely out of touch with reality?

I wonder when the chimporer will show his support for safety providers by cutting federal funding to them? You think maybe it's cutting the COPS portion of the budget from $600 million to $22 million in one year? How about cutting funds to firefighters by $200 million in one year? How about still not having enough bullets in Iraq?

Although your idiot leedur is not anti-war, all of his actions have hurt these people much more than any protester could.

I wonder when people like you are going to pull your thumbs out of each others asses, open your eyes, and see that you are supporting the single worst president in American history. All those vile things you accuse us of doing? Your fucking leedur has done it, shithead!

How can a person so dense even find the power button on a computer? Sheesh!

Take it easy on peter, people; the guy clearly suffers from bipolar disorder.

So, we come back to the question: how many more will die in this war ...

Until we build nuclear reactors to produce our energy needs, plenty more will die.

Who is Peter? He/she sounds a lot like the person who jumps on these posts first with these irrational statements and leads us down these reactionary diversions from the real task of the upcoming 2006 elections. Take back the House and senate and impeach GWB. Throw the bloodthirsty, oil thirsty, profits thirsty bums out!

There's a tragic element to Peter's posting, and that's the tragedy of a wasted education.

Try logic, dude. Supporting the Troops, and Supporting the Mission, have no intrinsic connection.

Supporting the Troops means making sure they have everything they need to conduct their operations, to tend to their injuries, their families, their deaths. It means doing everything in our power to ensure that their lives and bodies are not wasted needlessly, that everything is done to keep their expenditures of blood and sweat to the bare minimum.

It means doing all we can to make sure they come home safe and sound, and soon. And it means taking care of their vacant responsibilities at home.

That has precious little to do with the fucking mission.

The "mission" is what political goal the precious government wants, not how to bring the troops home safe and sound.

Now, think about how well bushco is doing that, then go look long in the mirror pal.

Who is Peter? He/she sounds a lot like the person who jumps on these posts first with these irrational statements and leads us down these reactionary diversions from the real task of the upcoming 2006 elections.

I dunno. Peter sounds like a real person - just very very young, someone who's lead an insulated life, and someone who watches FAUX and sees nothing wrong with the RWCM.

The first front in our 2006 war has got to be assault on the Republican Noise Machine.

PS - Why do so many "uck"s post here? What does the "uck" mean?

"go in without sufficient allies and without a plan for the aftermath?"

It wasn't about that at all. Even with allies and a plan, that war would've been a war of aggression under false pretense against a third world country that had done nothing special in over half a decade, one of the only fairly secular governments in the region, I might add.

Not to mention the sheer hypocrisy and revisionism of claiming that the US actually invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons (if you read about it, you'll see that ALL wars are started for so called "humanitarian" reasons, even Hitler's invasion of Poland...) and that the US cares so much about freedom and democracy while supporting some of the worse dictators around the world (well, all those that cooperate with them and sell cheap natural resources) and killing Iraqi civilians by the truckload and destroying and selling off the countries social institutions.

Until we build nuclear reactors to produce our energy needs, plenty more will die.

Pretty simple cause effect realtionship, even for you Muck. You and Peter getting your kool-aid from the same supplier?

One of the goals always was to install those 14 bases and keep the 150,000 troops there until at least 2007, ratcheting down just a little after that before the 2008 elections.

But wasn't another goal to use Iraq as the place of the US's new Middle East military footprint, and reduce US military presence in Saudi Arabia, in an effort to help the House of Saad survive, and appease Bin Laden?

How far do you take your antiwar fervor? Pushing back barricades with police behind them, throwing bottles at them, rocks, bricks? The violence against those trying to protect the rest of us from antiwar activism.

Madame, already read in my youth, William L. Shirer's book as well as Albert Speer's, John Toland's, Herman Wouk's and many other works describing the times. Nazi Germany's common folk lived in fear from the state(Gestapo or SS Waffen), not all the time, but they always guarded what the said about officials. My father lived thru this in Bremen. Locals of working age HAD to carry their ArbeitsBuch(sp) or working documents everywhere they went. I, surely don't live in fear here.

Preston, the tone is as written, they are our Precious. Their service is admirable, as is their cause and mission. I don't see how one can separate the two. We want to make sure you have what you need, but you shouldn't be there? That really helps them a lot. My apologies for the incorrect stats, I remembered several copter crashes with large losses of life.

42's 100,000 cops program really only produced 59,000. And many cities did their cutting earlier than when the funding stopped. NYC hired 4800 and reduced down 3600 within three years.

No, I was being serious--peter's clearly bipolar. Wasting any further time responding to him can only drive the rest of us to--or beyond--the brink of insanity.

Madame-

I don't understand why Kerry didn't make a point of the military bases there. There was clearly no support for long-term occupation in Iraq- but I would venture that not 1 out of a hundred has heard of our base-building operations that belie our stated goals of a short occupation. This strategy would have been an effective way for Kerry to show how he would do things differently in Iraq without being forced to commit to a plan that could be questioned as 'not supporting the troops.'

Who the hell was running that show?

Too many people think that 'support our troops' means buying a metal ribbon for a vehicle. As others have said before this really only supports the ribbon maker. In this vien the new Republican bankruptcy bill, as reported in Daily Kos, shows once again how much Peter's GOP really supports the troops. LINK

I don't think Peter or his arguement is insane and I think it's childish to write it off as such. I know a lot in the military in Iraq resent people being against the war and claiming to support them. I disagree with Peter, but I know my buddy shipping out today agrees with him 100%.

Again, Peter, don't conflate Support of the Troops and Support of the Mission.

To do so is to be simpleminded, because they are not the same thing.

Their service is admirable, and appreciated. If only they were serving US instead of bushco. If only they were serving an honorable cause instead of a bloody political vendetta/policy aimed at punishing our allies and securing our drug supply and "ensuring" our HEGEMONEY.

How far do you take your antiwar fervor? Pushing back barricades with police behind them, throwing bottles at them, rocks, bricks? The violence against those trying to protect the rest of us from antiwar activism.

Where the fuck are you living? Chicago in 1968?

Nazi Germany's common folk lived in fear from the state(Gestapo or SS Waffen), not all the time, but they always guarded what the said about officials.

So Peter how is that any different than your desire to silence anti-war sentiment?

Remember McCarthyism? No one disappeared in the night. There were no train loads of people packed off to camps. No bullets to the back of the head. But you're an ignoramus if you don't believe many many people in this country lived in fear of the government and held their tongues rather than criticize what was going on.

Locals of working age HAD to carry their ArbeitsBuch(sp) or working documents everywhere they went. I, surely don't live in fear here.

Ever hear of the REAL ID Act? National identiy cards produced on demand are not far away.

We want to make sure you have what you need, but you shouldn't be there? That really helps them a lot.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. A right you don't seem interested in extending to others.

I'd be interested in some links to your COPS statistics. Particularly those dealing with NYC.

Well Preston, now that I finally saw Howard Dean in action, at that raucous Portland University debate with Perele, I am convinced Howard was The Man, and Kerry was A Mistake.

But during the Primaries, I never got to know what Dr. Dean was about, thanks to the RWCM. Which, by the way, took him down when he was becoming too threatening to Bush$Co.

How sad it is that at a time when the US Government is trying to end support for PBS, the British Government is taking steps to ensure BBC broadcast in the public interest, and not turn into a brain-dead "entertainment" channel. (Like FAUX).

I know a lot in the military in Iraq resent people being against the war and claiming to support them. I disagree with Peter, but I know my buddy shipping out today agrees with him 100%.

Well if those soldiers resent American citizens expressing their opinions about their government policies they shouldn't be over there. Because that's why they are there. You know I'm a little tired of being made to feel that I need to bite my tongue in order to avoid offending the troops. I'll be blunt. The decision to enlist in the military does not impart upon any individual superior rights or status as a citizen than they had before they enlisted. Too fucking bad if they don't like what I have to say. They chose to be soldiers. I'll give them everything they need to be materially prepared to do their jobs and be a safe as possible but I'll be damned if I'll have my opinion rendered subservient because they don't want to hear it.

The latest LARRY KUDLOW blog is up over at his site. He even references our friend Paul Krugman!

"Too fucking bad if they don't like what I have to say. They chose to be soldiers. I'll give them everything they need to be materially prepared to do their jobs and be a safe as possible but I'll be damned if I'll have my opinion rendered subservient because they don't want to hear it."

BRAVO!!!!!!

Muckcat, I only wish it was 1968 and we had the freedom to protest openingly like we did then. Thanks John Asscroft for your "free speech zones" (which, of course, is a contradiction).

I don't think Peter or his arguement is insane and I think it's childish to write it off as such.

I have a lot of trouble figuring out what peter's "argument" is. It has something to do with the antiwar movement turning against police and firemen and how that relates(?) to our support of our troops. He cleverly "ties" this "critique" to Bill Clinton's program to add 100,000 cops, which he reveals as a fraud, apparently, by revealing that it only added 59,000 (as if that were taking away cops or something).

And the whole "Precious" thing is, let's face it, Tex, just flat weird.

If, in peter's mind, this amounts to a cohesive critique of the antiwar left, peter is crazy. Period.

Well if those soldiers resent American citizens expressing their opinions about their government policies they shouldn't be over there.

I don't think you understood my point. The guys I know don't resent different points of view being expressed. They feel they are going over there to protect that right. They just get ticked when they hear people saying that they support them yet they feel that the sacrifice they are making is a waste. They feel you can't have it both ways. Kind of like the Chris Rock thing where he made a joke about people dying over there, but then wanted to be sure and give a shout out to the troops.

And the whole "Precious" thing is, let's face it, Tex, just flat weird.

Matt, no arguements here on that point. That is kinda kooky slash "Lord of the Rigs"-esque. I was taking his arguement about you can't be for the troops and against the war.

As far as the police/firefighter tangent - I think the antiwar left gets thrown in with the anarchist nutjobs that show up at a lot of protest rallies... you know, the ones that always get quoted in newspaper articles about the war protest... the ones that were going to throw marbles under the hooves of the police horses, etc...

Y'all don't hold anyone as precious, spouse, kids, parents, relatives, friends, etc. I hold our Armed Service members precious, valuable, cherished, highly esteemed, not to be used recklessly. Sure I liked LOTR, but that was a ring not a person.

So far, we haven't seen any real violence against police and firemen. So far, my question was how soon until they are harmed by antiwar protestors? The antiwar movement wasn't violent in the beginning in the 60's either. Then, that's all it was. And then our returning Hero's were so badly mistreated and made to feel ashamed, spat upon, garbage thrown upon. How soon?

They just get ticked when they hear people saying that they support them yet they feel that the sacrifice they are making is a waste. They feel you can't have it both ways.

Well they made a concious decision to join an organization which is grounded in the fact that it takes away their ability to voice their opinion or act on their will as individuals.

I have made no such decision. I recognize, whether they agree with the war or not, that they have a duty to do what they are told by their superiors. I have no such responsibility. I have not signed away my individuality.

If those soldiers do not want my prayers, good wishes or words of support for their personal safety because they can't accept that I don't believe war was the correct policy in this instance than so be it. Their thinking I can't have it both ways, gladly, does not make it so.

If they feel a need to seek validation of their sacrifices by making me a villian or by getting angry at me I feel sorry for them. Because that would seem to indicate to me that perhaps they have some reservations about what it is they are doing.

Peter,

Here's a tip.

If you don't want people to think you're a complete crackpot don't start off by directng comments like;

Y'all don't hold anyone as precious, spouse, kids, parents, relatives, friends, etc.

to people you do not know.

Did Vietnam-era protesters spit?
Jerry Lembcke, an associate professor of sociology at Holy Cross and a Vietnam combat veteran, has written a well documented book, "The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory, and the Legacy of Vietnam" (New York University Press, 1998) that thoroughly debunks the tales of protesters "spitting upon" Vietnam vets.

There is validity in Peter's question & concern regarding "how soon" it is before the masses go ballistic and take to the streets.

I just rented "Weather Underground" and I forgot how the SDS, a group of rather intellectual, thoughtful, well-educated college students, spawned people, who so fervently believed in the anti-war/anti-fascist/anti-international dirty tricks cause, that they resorted to domestic bombings and risked the lives of police & emergency personnel.

But times were different then - we had a Fourth Estate.

Cronkite brought the war into everybody's living room, every night. We could not avoid it. There were no cable "news" stations to sedate the massess through diversionary pabulum, misinformation, and disinformation.

The masses are now comfortably numb.

Well, it took a bit, but "peter" shows his true colors at last.

So far, we haven't seen any real violence against police and firemen. So far, my question was how soon until they are harmed by antiwar protestors?

So far? So far?

So Pete, when did you stop beating your wife?

It's going to be a long hot summer though, and if the war is still raging and the economy is still in the dumpers for regular folks, who knows what'll be hap'nen in the streets.

The problem with Peter's reasoning is that he connects things that aren't logically related.
If you recall last week he was talking about the Fleming v. Nestor case which decided that a deported Communist party member was not entitled to Social Security benefits. His point seemed to be that if the Democrats wanted to fight Bush on the SS issue then the GOP should threaten to apply that narrow ruling to law abiding U.S. citizens. You can imageine that even if a court would go along with this it really would kill the GOP with the voters for 30 years or so.

More seriousily his 'how long' statement sounds like pure fascism to me. But there is a tie in, namely the desire to interpret laws as harshly as possible and then use the authorities to punish those who disagree. I think the 'F' word applies, yes Duckman 'true colors' applies and his shirt looks brown to me.

Sharon, you took the words from my mouth. What Peter posted tells me that he is probably quite young, or does not remember the VietNam War. Peter, there are people posting here who lived through and fought the VietNam War, so you better know your facts before you state anything.

"Spitting on returning soldiers". More of the Republican Noise Machine Bullshit. They wanted people to believe that the liberals and anti-war protestors were doing such things, which of course, they were not.

Actually, the same thing then is now being repeated again. We were not for the War, but everyone I knew supported the return of our soldiers in VietNam and wanted them to return safe and in one piece. We didn't hate the soldier just because we didn't support the War. Many of these soldiers had no choice in the matter, as the draft was instituted.

Gos Bless the reasoned, sensitive, moral, ethical, and conservative soul in every liberal mind:-) Radicals should be ostracized, and reasonable voices hold sway.

I agree we give to much lip service and not enough action. Today the Senate is debating why GI's should not get a break if their war participation results in bankruptcy. I fear that we will not communicate any major exit plans until 2006 (US elections)and major exit not until 2007 thus setting up what will be positioned for winning 2008 US elections. Rather sad story but I believe to be true.

Hey, is Peter suggesting that perhaps the far-right has a plan for our police, our firemen, and all other law enforcement agencies. Kill a few hundred of them, or bomb a few buildings and then blame it on the anti-war liberals. That would put Marshal Law into affect without any problems. Then they could open fire on people like they did at Kent State. God, I need to stop drinking this Stoli.

I just rented "Weather Underground" and I forgot how the SDS, a group of rather intellectual, thoughtful, well-educated college students, spawned people, who so fervently believed in the anti-war/anti-fascist/anti-international dirty tricks cause, that they resorted to domestic bombings and risked the lives of police & emergency personnel.

Wasn't it David Horowitz who hung out with the Black Panthers when their leadership started like the thuggish murdering dictators? Too bad he doesn't realize that he was aiding and abetting the cultish extremists. But Peter, you can have David Horowitz who is still acting like a cultish extremist and recognize the violence is all on your side this time. Liberals are not part of your Bush cult.

But you know what? If Bush want to make our country a police state, Americans have seen in places like the Ukraine and Lebanon that when citizens rise up in protest, the dictators cannot govern. Liberals will stand up for our country and its constitution. And there will be lots of firemen, policemen and soldiers who stand with us because they also understand what it means to value democracy, freedom, rule of law, human rights, to name just a few of America's values.

MUST HAVE PRECIOUS FOR POWER!

Just one more comment...

Since when has the Iraqi "adventure" been about protecting our rights here at home? How was Iraq/Saddam Hussein/al Sard/al Zarqawi threatening our rights? Were they making it harder to protest our governemnt? Were they making it easier for cops to conduct wiretaps w/o a court order? Were they the ones equating dissent with treason? No, didn't think so.