Extremely Political Speech

[DracIV]

When I found this speech transcript I decided it would be an interesting thing to discuss on this forum:

THOSE PROTESTING THE IRAQ CONFLICT AREN'T PRO-PEACE AS MUCH AS THEY'RE ANTI-AMERICAN
A speech by Don Feder at A Rally For Our Troops at Notre Dame University, April 10, 2003

I could speak to you today about the justice and necessity of our intervention in Iraq. I could focus on our military – the courage, tenacity, skill and sacrifice of our fighting men. I could speak of the evils of Saddam Hussein’s fascist regime and the clear and present danger it posed to the American people.

Instead, I want to talk about the anti-war movement, so-called – because there’s a civil war, a political war, a cultural war going on in this country. And its outcome every bit as important as the war in Iraq.

It’s a 40-year war, at least. The first shots were fired when I was a college student in the late 1960s. The conflict continued during the McGovern campaign and the Carter and Clinton administrations. It’s a war for the soul of our republic – a war fought on such far-flung battlefields as movies and television, the foreign policy debate, public school curricula and college education.

My message to you is simple – that pathetic collection of ideologues, malcontents, misfits and miscreants masquerading as an anti-war movement isn’t pro-peace as much as it’s anti-American. It loathes America and everything we stand for. It’s opposed to our intervention in Iraq because it is opposed to America.

There are exceptions. Some of the protestors are naïve and uninformed. Others are sheep who graze with the herd. However, by and large, the leaders and activists of this movement are radicals who are alienated from their society and their people.

Their rancid rhetoric betrays them.

At a demonstration in San Francisco not long ago, activists carried a banner reading: “We Support Our Troops When They Shoot Their Officers.” Well, thank God they’re pacifists. Imagine what they’d be like if they believed in violence.

Speaking before 3,000 students and faculty at a teach-in at Columbia University on March 23, Professor Nicholas De Genova said, “The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military.” U.S. military is a euphemism for America. He then added, “I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus.” This refers to the 1993 ambush in Somalia when guerrillas shot down two Black Hawk helicopters, killed 18 U.S. Army Rangers and dragged their bodies through the streets.

None of the 3,000 people present booed the professor, or turned their backs on him, or left the room. De Genova was loudly applauded when he latter declared, “If we really believe that this war is criminal … then we have to believe in the victory of the Iraqi people and the defeat of the U.S. war machine.”

Excuse me -- the Iraqi people? Would those be the ones we saw dancing in the streets of Baghdad, spitting on pictures of Saddam Hussein? We’re presently feeding the people of Iraq, after Saddam starved them for the past 12 years to build his evil toys. We’re the guys who’ve taken the jackbooted heel of the tyrant off the necks of the Iraqi people. If the Iraqi people are ever to enjoy the basic freedoms we take for granted, it will be thanks to the success of the U.S. war machine.

In a letter to the editor of the Columbia Spectator, Professor De Genova tried to explain what he really meant by his “million Mogadishus” remark. De Genova wrote that in his speech: “I outlined a long history of U.S. invasions, wars of conquest, military occupations, and colonization in order to establish that imperialism and white supremacy have been constitutive of U.S. nation-state formation and U.S. nationalism. In that context, I stressed the necessity of repudiating all forms of U.S. patriotism.” Given that many of our colleges and universities are little islands of Stalinism in a sea of relative normalcy, I predict a bright future for professor De Genova.

Cut through the verbiage, and the professor is saying America is evil, that we’ve engaged in wars of conquest, military occupations and colonization -- that racism is the very essence of Americanism. Anyone who believes this is a traitor of the heart, a Benedict Arnold of the spirit. They should pack up and relocate to a nation compatible with their contemptible worldview – say Cuba or North Korea.

This disease of the soul isn’t confined to the academic leftist. Shortly after Sept. 11, 2001, Katha Pollitt, a writer for the liberal magazine The Nation, disclosed that when her 13-year-old daughter requested that the family fly the American flag outside their New York City apartment, this veteran America-hater told the child that her nation’s banner, “stands for jingoism and vengeance and war.” Three thousand of their countrymen lay buried beneath tons of rubble, their remains barely cold, and the Pollitts of America still couldn’t suppress their deep-seated loathing for their native land.

In Hull, Massachusetts, not far from where I live, Selectman Regina Burke refuses to stand for the pledge of allegiance at official functions. Burke explains, “Every time I see the flag, I can picture George Bush wearing it as a toga, and I don’t know what it stands for anymore other than for his particular financial group and followers.”

I doubt that Burke ever understood what the flag stands for. By the way, it does not represent a party or a president, but a nation, a history and a heritage. “I’m upset with the policies of this administration, so I won’t stand for the pledge of allegiance.” Isn’t that infantile? Burke should honor the flag that upholds her right to dissent and the heroes who fought and died under it for all of the freedoms she enjoys. But the left understands none of this.

You may think I’ve picked some extreme examples. Then, consider this – what’s the most popular sign at “peace rallies”? No Blood for Oil. And what does this imply? Quite simply, that America is waging war in Iraq to steal its resources. That we’re the modern equivalent of the Huns or Visigoths swooping down on the poor, defenseless people of Iraq to carry off their oil.

You have to be a member of the legion of the lobotomized to believe something so stupid. If all we wanted was Iraq’s oil, then instead of going to war, we would have lifted the embargo and cut a deal with Saddam, who would have loved to have given us all we wanted – at cut-rate prices. By the way, did we keep Kuwait’s oil after the 1991 Gulf War? If we did, I wouldn’t be paying $1.67 a gallon for gas.

Far from taking Iraq’s wealth, when the war is over, we’ll pour our wealth into that nation – probably to the tune of $75 billion in reconstruction aid.

No blood for oil? If we’d let Saddam Hussein acquire nuclear weapons and supply chemical and biological weapons to terrorists, there would have been blood all right – our blood. It would have made the World Trade Center look like a love-in.

The slogan “No Blood for Oil” is classic Marxism – the dogma that whenever a capitalist country goes to war it’s to grab someone else’s resources. Thus, all human affairs are reduced to grubby economic principles. So, why did we go to war with the Germans in 1941 – to steal their knockwurst? What were we after when we fought Japan across the Pacific for 3 ½ bloody years – its sushi?

There’s an exquisite irony here. In the peace movement, you have a bunch of Marxists who are rallying to the defense of a fascist. It’s the Hitler-Stalin pact all over again.

But seriously, how many American flags have you seen at anti-war protests? Have you ever heard a speaker at one of these demonstrations stand up and say: “Yes, I oppose this war. I disagree with the president’s policies. But here’s what I think is fine and noble about America.” Ask these people what they like about the United States, and you’re likely to be met by deafening silence – what we in talk radio call dead air.

They think the history of the United States is a chronicle of oppression, exploitation, racism, genocide and other crimes against humanity. They honestly believe that U.S. history began with slavery, then proceeded to the dispossession of the Indians, Jim Crow, sweat shops and strike breakers, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, McCarthyism, My Lai and now our awful “aggression” against Iraq.

`

Did they leave anything out? Oh, just the sacrifices of pioneers and settlers, the Founding Fathers and the model of representative government they provided to the world, the war to preserve the union and end slavery, the shores of refuge, the building of the greatest industrial engine in history (one that conferred incalculable benefits on humanity), the defeat of communism and fascism in the century past, the inventions and discoveries that flowed from our workshops and laboratories, and trillions of dollars of American foreign aid – just a few little things like that.

Colonialism? There has never been a nation like America – a world power less inclined to empire building. After World War I, France and Britain divided up the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, not America. Following the Second World War, we could have colonized Germany, Japan and half of Europe. Instead, we rebuilt the devastated economies of our enemies and created firewalls to keep Europe and Asia free.

But, again, the left always assumes the worst of America. It’s one thing to disagree with the policies of a particular administration – God knows, I disagreed with Clinton’s flower-child foreign policy – it’s something else to have chronic paranoid fantasies about your country’s character and intentions.

In and of itself, the anti-war/anti-American movement does not pose a threat. Less than 30 percent of the American people agree with it on the war – and most of them are repulsed by its antics.

But the movement reflects the mentality of the left – which exerts an influence in this country out of all proportion to its numbers. The ideologues of the anti-war movement have their counterparts in Hollywood, academia, public education and the news media. Multiculturalism is their invention. They are the reason American history is no longer taught in American schools. They are why depictions of the American military went from “Sergeant York” and “The Sands of Iwo Jima”to “Platoon” and “Full Metal Jacket.” Their dogma fills our airwaves, newspapers, public school classrooms and college lecture halls.

Ladies and gentleman, I urge you to support our troops by fighting for America on the home front – by confronting and refuting the toxic lies of an anti-American elite that cloaks its evil in idealism.

As our troops are willing to brave bullets on the battlefield, you must be willing to brave scorn and derision to tell the truth about America and help to raise up the next generation of patriots

I know this is fairly old and straying into the extremist area, but do you guys think he has a good point? The guy who showed this to me made some extra comments, which I might post later, but I want to know what you guys think about this.

[jewpinthethird]

There are some statements that I agree with...very very few. But some that did stick it to those liberals good.

I protested the war. Not only because I didnt agree with the reasons, but because I didnt want American Troops dying for them. I respect the troops. Anyone who is willing to give their life for their country is a hero. I support our troops, that is why I didnt want them to go into a war I dont believe in.

What do I like about America? I like the fact that I can protest without being shot or sent to jail. America is the greatest country. Every flag day, every veteran's day, the American Flag is flying over my house. I have great respect for my country, though sometimes, the government does something I dont like, but that doesnt mean I hate it. I never let the flag touch the ground, and I never leave the flag out over night. Would someone who hates America care so much as I do?

The only question I have for Mr. Don Feder is has he ever been to war?

[Anticrombie0909]

The question I have for him is, do we really want America to symbolize a militaristic and police nation? I didn't read the entire article, but I read about the first half and skimmed the rest. The guy seems to think that the only thing America stands for is war, killing, violence, making the rest of the world conform to us. If that's what he believes, than maybe he should reconsider those Pro-piece activists also Pro-American! America is stupposed to stand for peace, not war. Maybe that's not how it's viewed in the eyes of the citizens, but that's what our President tells us, and that's what we're supposed to tell the world. We use force to preserve peace. That's the message of America. And this idiot apparently believes that what we really stand for is kicking ass around the globe.

Hypocrites shouldn't write political essays.

[psychobillybilly]

I just wanted to point out that all these things:

They think the history of the United States is a chronicle of oppression, exploitation, racism, genocide and other crimes against humanity. They honestly believe that U.S. history began with slavery, then proceeded to the dispossession of the Indians, Jim Crow, sweat shops and strike breakers, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, McCarthyism, My Lai and now our awful “aggression” against Iraq.

are things America did to other nations, or people. And the things he said America was great for:

Did they leave anything out? Oh, just the sacrifices of pioneers and settlers, the Founding Fathers and the model of representative government they provided to the world, the war to preserve the union and end slavery, the shores of refuge, the building of the greatest industrial engine in history (one that conferred incalculable benefits on humanity), the defeat of communism and fascism in the century past, the inventions and discoveries that flowed from our workshops and laboratories, and trillions of dollars of American foreign aid – just a few little things like that.

Are things that could be construed as selfish, like the first things, because they benifited America at the time.

Also, he states his own opinions as facts, either purposefully, to sway opinion(he is a public speaker) or in ignorance. The first is corrupt, and the second makes him an idiot. Opinions are fine to have, but never state them as facts. The obvious example is the way he treats socialism as a terrible thing, which, in the context of this speech, is very hypocritical. People forget that socialism is still democratic, it is just different than capitalism. In my opinion, though, I don't believe either can work, because humans are too irresponsible to maintain a government. Capitalism requires constant expansion, and is ultimatly doomed to failure, and the communist type of socilism requires absolute incorruptable people. Perhaps socialism in its trues form could work, with really nice technology, like food replicators...and things that can make enoguh stuff for everyone. But that isn't going to happen, because it isn't profitable.

I have no love or hate for any country, patriatism is like religion, and socially-gained morals. It is an extremely dangerous thing to posses. It requires people to look at things with bias, rather than rational thought. It is easy to blame the people in power, or the people who used to be in power, but the truth is that those people would not have that power if the people did not support them. The people in the US long ago gave up their right to the government, and now the government is its own entity, rather than an extension of the people. That is why I am not happy here, nor will I ever be, until the people around me regain their sight, and retake their country.

Their are too many people for everyone to ever be happy, but at least you can have some respect for the fact that for whatever reason, they do not share your opinion. This man honestly believes what he says is not only "right" but factual. Nothing anyone ever says is right, because there will always be someone to dispute it, and reality is just human perception.

[DracIV]

Jewpin: I believe that the speaker was speaking about the extremists, not all people who did not like the war in Iraq. I agree with you in your reasons for disliking the war and they are great reasons, but the "peace protestors" don't believe those same reasons. I particularly remember a sign at a peace protest saying "We Support Our Soldiers When They Shoot Their Officers". ( Here's the link to it: http://www.fairpress.org/images/shootofficers.jpg ) That kind of message is what makes me agree with this speaker for the most part.

Anti: Read the entire thing before you comment- that's not what he was saying.

PsychoHillBilly: From what I can tell, you are saying a couple things (I just want to make sure I have these straight):
A. You think he is stating some opinions as fact
B. You don't like your country
C. You think Capitalism will crash
D. You think we can't make everyone in our country happy.

Assuming I have those right, show me where he stated opinion as fact. The one example you hinted about (socialism) is obviously opinion because he was using it as an insult. He may have stated opinion as fact, but you need to point out where.

Also, what is so wrong about patriotism? You act as if it would be a great dirtying of your soul to support your country and its people as someone like jewpin does. You don't like your country, nor do you support it, so what's the use?

[Kano523]

I've always been up for a spirted debate, maybe its because I like to argue, maybe its cause I think I'm better than everyone else, who knows? But for whatever reason, I'm attracted to these kinds of threads, and I think we all are. We all love to throw our opinions out there and see what others have to say, and here in America, we can do that.

First off, the author of that speech made some good points. However they aren't points that need to be made, anyone who waves a banner that says "We support soldiers when they shoot their officers" is a saddist, and a moron.

However I do agree with Drac when he says this author seemed to be talking about the extreme anti-american protests. Which are pretty sick and overall mindless activities. I've never personally talked to anyone who embodied that "I hate America, oh boy look! A starbucks!" state of mind. Hopefully I never will, but there are plenty of like-minded people who opposed the war in Iraq. They aren't anti-american, they just happen to disagree with the Bush administration, which they are free to do.

Personally I support the war, but I realize that it is indeed a war. War is hell, there really is no other way to say it, but we are a nation at war. However it was and still is a war with a noble cause, a cause worth fighting for. And if there are people willing to fight for it, I regard them with my deepest respect. We have done a good and just thing in Iraq, at the expense of many lives. Thats something we will all have to live with.

As far as the economic stuff is concerned....Communism only works if there isn't single communist nation in the world, it will ultimatly fail. Capitalism is build on expansion, it will ultimatly fail. All things are breaking down, its entropy. However we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Well I could probably ramble for a while, but I wont. So instead I leave you with this quote which you've probably heard many times before.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others"
-Winston Churchill

[DracIV]

Kano, I believe one of the speaker's main points is that those protestors don't just "disagree with the Bush administration", they literally hate everything America is founded on or much of it.

[Kano523]

I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just trying to point out that the hardcore anti-american protestors reprasent only a minority of those who were opposed to the war. Or at least I hope so......But I don't like it when people who aren't in favor of the war are called anti-american, or traitors, or something simmilar. However those mentioned by the speaker are friggin' insane, I think we can all agree on that.

[DracIV]

Kano, visit one of the west coast protests and you will find that a vast majority of the protestors are exactly like this. The east coast protests are actually respectable for the most part.

[JesusWaffle]

There is a lot I would like to comment about in that speech, but I will refrain from doing so. I really don't feel like getting into a long, invloved argument about what is right and wrong (especially since right and wrong are subjective). Though I am a liberal, I disagree with both sides, much more so the right then the left. I refuse to form an opinion on whether the war is right or wrong.

I've changed my mind. I'd like to point out a few core logic flaws in the speech:

- The arguments seem to rely mainly on stereotypes, which I think we can all agree is a first-class fallacy.
- America does not 'stand for' anything. We can not all agree on one thing that we all collectively stand for. We can argue about it all we want, but we ultimately stand for absolutely nothing. All arguments concerning what we stand for are invalid.

By the way, did we keep Kuwait’s oil after the 1991 Gulf War? If we did, I wouldn’t be paying $1.67 a gallon for gas.

- Different president.

Did they leave anything out? Oh, just the sacrifices of pioneers and settlers, the Founding Fathers and the model of representative government they provided to the world, the war to preserve the union and end slavery, the shores of refuge, the building of the greatest industrial engine in history (one that conferred incalculable benefits on humanity), the defeat of communism and fascism in the century past, the inventions and discoveries that flowed from our workshops and laboratories, and trillions of dollars of American foreign aid – just a few little things like that.

- This has nothing to do with Iraq. If you're still on the symbolism thing, this is invalidated, too. Really, I think the purpose of this paragraph is to get the listener on the side of America (and, according to the writer's logic, their side).

My message to you is simple – that pathetic collection of ideologues, malcontents, misfits and miscreants masquerading as an anti-war movement isn’t pro-peace as much as it’s anti-American. It loathes America and everything we stand for. It’s opposed to our intervention in Iraq because it is opposed to America.

- Unashamed attack on the opposite side coupled with stereotypes (again) aside, this is a fallacious argument based on fallacious ideas. It ultimately comes down to speculation and predjudice generated by extremist views.

In conclusion, I dismiss this entire speech as tripe. I still will not form an opinion on the war, but my opinions on the Bush administration and the Republican party in general remain solidly negative.

You have to consider that the anti-war people have a political agenda of their own that stretches far beyond simple pacifism. These same people use the same rallies to project their liberal socialist values under the banner of "anti-war." I have viewed rallies broadcasted on TV before (because C-SPAN is the greatest network ever) and I have been amazed that people have stood on stage for 10 minutes speaking out in favor of abortion. If I were an anti-war protestor I would be outraged that they were using the common ideal of peace as a vehicle to try to parley their political agenda.

These people have far too many supporters because they sucker many of their followers into believing that peace can be achieved simply by trotting out of Iraq, dismantling all of our nuclear weapons, and voting for Kerry in 2004 (he is, of course, unquestionably worthy to be given more power than anyone else in the world simply because, unlike no other candidates, he is not George Bush.)

Peace is earned, it is never simply wished into being. You do not attain peace through avoiding confrontations.

Peace is worth fighting for.


And Jewpin: You ask Don Feder if he has ever been to war, somehow implying that this makes him unqualified to speak in favor of it. Rhetorically, I ask you: Have you ever lived under the fear and tyrrany of the Saddam regime? If not, how can you possibly speak out against our quest to depose him?

I ask anyone against the war: Would you look an Iraqi citizen in the eye and tell him you wish we had never removed that evil man from controlling their country?

[Moogy]

This entire topic can be summed up in three words.

Blah blah blah.

[ThEclipse]

Originally Posted by Moogy

This entire topic can be summed up in three words.

Blah blah blah.

Where's that ditto emoticon when you need it....

[JesusWaffle]

Originally Posted by chardish

You have to consider that the anti-war people have a political agenda of their own that stretches far beyond simple pacifism. These same people use the same rallies to project their liberal socialist values under the banner of "anti-war." I have viewed rallies broadcasted on TV before (because C-SPAN is the greatest network ever) and I have been amazed that people have stood on stage for 10 minutes speaking out in favor of abortion. If I were an anti-war protestor I would be outraged that they were using the common ideal of peace as a vehicle to try to parley their political agenda.

These people have far too many supporters because they sucker many of their followers into believing that peace can be achieved simply by trotting out of Iraq, dismantling all of our nuclear weapons, and voting for Kerry in 2004 (he is, of course, unquestionably worthy to be given more power than anyone else in the world simply because, unlike no other candidates, he is not George Bush.)

Peace is earned, it is never simply wished into being. You do not attain peace through avoiding confrontations.

Peace is worth fighting for.


And Jewpin: You ask Don Feder if he has ever been to war, somehow implying that this makes him unqualified to speak in favor of it. Rhetorically, I ask you: Have you ever lived under the fear and tyrrany of the Saddam regime? If not, how can you possibly speak out against our quest to depose him?

I ask anyone against the war: Would you look an Iraqi citizen in the eye and tell him you wish we had never removed that evil man from controlling their country?

I am inclined to disagree with most of this.

Peace is earned, it is never simply wished into being.

If everyone decided to lay down their weapons and go home, there would be peace. If everyone decided to be environment-friendly, pollution would end. If everyone stopped having too many kids, overpopulation would end. Of course, none of these things will ever happen because people cannot agree on anything, but the point is; if we pulled out of Iraq and dismantled out nuclear weapons, we would be out of Iraq and have no nuclear weapons; then we could focus our funding on education and saving the environment. World peace would not be achieved, but we would have achieved peace.

Kerry in 2004 (he is, of course, unquestionably worthy to be given more power than anyone else in the world simply because, unlike no other candidates, he is not George Bush.)

As far as I'm concerned, this is a good enough reason to vote for Kerry. Bush started a war, ruined our economy, presided over the worst security failure in US history, and racked up the record national deficit, just to name a few of his accomplishments. He also had the lowest Intelligence Quotient of any president in history. Almost anyone is better than Bush.

You do not attain peace through avoiding confrontations.

Yes you do! Peace IS the avoidance of confrontations.

Peace is worth fighting for.

I just know there is a contradiction in there somewhere...

And Jewpin: You ask Don Feder if he has ever been to war, somehow implying that this makes him unqualified to speak in favor of it. Rhetorically, I ask you: Have you ever lived under the fear and tyrrany of the Saddam regime? If not, how can you possibly speak out against our quest to depose him?

I ask anyone against the war: Would you look an Iraqi citizen in the eye and tell him you wish we had never removed that evil man from controlling their country?

I am inclined to agree with this bit.

You have to consider that the anti-war people have a political agenda of their own that stretches far beyond simple pacifism.

I can agree that this is also bad. I'm not defending sides here; I'm defending me.

liberal socialist values

Now, let's not go labeling each other. Two questions:

a) How is socialism invloved with pacifism and pro-abortion?
b) Why is socialism bad, aside from the fact that it tends to be ineffective?

[JesusWaffle]

Originally Posted by Moogy

This entire topic can be summed up in three words.

Blah blah blah.

It's called a debate forum. We're debating. It's what you're supposed to do in a debate forum. That's why it's called a debate forum. Because of the debates...

[DracIV]

If everyone decided to lay down their weapons and go home, there would be peace. If everyone decided to be environment-friendly, pollution would end. If everyone stopped having too many kids, overpopulation would end. Of course, none of these things will ever happen because people cannot agree on anything, but the point is; if we pulled out of Iraq and dismantled out nuclear weapons, we would be out of Iraq and have no nuclear weapons; then we could focus our funding on education and saving the environment. World peace would not be achieved, but we would have achieved peace.

If everyone decided to lay down their weapons an go home, there would be rampant crime. If everyone decided to be environment-friendly, pollution would not stop as we dont have the means to stop it yet. If everyone stopped having too many kids, the world would still be overpopulated and we wouldnt have war to reduce our numbers since everyone went home. Of course, none of these will ever happen because people can see the foolishness/uselessness of these actions. If we pulled out of Iraw and dismantled our nucler weapons, Iraq would collapse and a new dictator would begin torturing the peoples of that land, all the current tyrants would know that there is no longer anyone who can threaten their power, the US would lose all reputation for being courageous, the attitude of the American people would go into the dumps, all our enemies would see us as weak enough to kill now, all evil people (those who want to commit genocide, etc) will know that there is no one who is going to stop them anymore, and people would pay attention to the fact that no army, not even ours, is big enough to keep everything safe forever. Oh yeah, and you forgot the 5 other campaigns and occupations that are currently draining most of our army.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a good enough reason to vote for Kerry. Bush started a war, ruined our economy, presided over the worst security failure in US history, and racked up the record national deficit, just to name a few of his accomplishments. He also had the lowest Intelligence Quotient of any president in history. Almost anyone is better than Bush.

Bush started a war that everyone agreed on, including Kerry, did NOT ruin the economy- it has been proven that the slump happened during Clinton's term and the economy has been slowly going back up with Bush, presided over the worst security failure in history that would not have occurred if Clinton and others had not cut the legs out from under the CIA by cutting off all ground information checkers- they arent allowed to deal with enemy snitches anymore and that cut off their last ground information collection method, and allowed his buddies to spend way too much, only the final of which should count against him. So what if he has a low IQ? Everyone knows that IQ is inaccurate, and doesn't say enough about how smart someone will be. Almost anyone may be better than Bush, but Kerry sure isn't.

Actually, Bush doesn't have a low IQ. He graduated from Yale. I know most people are going to think "OMG HAX" but just because you're not an eloquent speaker does not make you an idiot.

And remember, John Kerry said that he still would have voted to give President Bush power to go into Iraq, even knowing what we know now. The citizens of Iraq, and everyone of Iraqi descent, should applaud him for this. Saddam Hussein was an evil man, and the people of Iraq and the people of the world are safer now that he is gone.

Also, you cannot simply lay down your arms and walk away when you have pro-Saddam radical terrorists in Iraq eking to reclaim control of the country and turn it into what it once was. The reason we're still there is for the sake of the people in Iraq, not in the US.

[JesusWaffle]

Okay, you guys win.

[talisman]

There are liberal lunatics, there are conservative lunatics, there are moderate lunatics.

Craziness seems to be even distributed amongst society. The writer is fallacious in assuming that everyone in a particular protest believes in one sign held by one protester.

Was the war justified? I have not seen indisputable proof that Iraq was a direct and imminent threat to the United States. Saddam Hussein was a bad person, true, and mistreated his people. Does that give us a right to remove him unilaterally from power?

I say no, others say yes, still others say yes because they feel they have seen such proof, or that such proof does not necessarily have to be indisputable.

[The_Q]

WHOA! I read this thing and I see that I like half of each argument.

"And Jewpin: You ask Don Feder if he has ever been to war, somehow implying that Have you ever lived under the fear and tyrrany of the Saddam regime? If not, how can you possibly speak out against our quest to depose him?

One MAJOR thing everyone here keeps messing up on is the economy. Has no one heard of the economic cycle. The reason it went down during Clinton was it was time to go into the recession. We're pulling up now and will for a while until we peak. We got out of the trough and are heading to the top. Anyone who says that the economy is worse off is a moron. They mustn't have known about this cycle and are comparing peaks to troughs instead of troughs to troughs. In actuallity, our economy has never been better. The President and his decisions have absolutly NOTHING to do with this.

Kerry hasn't really shown us anything yet, so I won't decide. I do strongly disagree with the war and Bush's other recent decissions, but I also remember 911 and his ability to handle that. We have after all overthrown 2 evil regimes and slowed a third as an indirect effect of 911. That's not bad.

I ask anyone against the war: Would you look an Iraqi citizen in the eye and tell him you wish we had never removed that evil man from controlling their country?" (Sorry, dunno how to work the quote stuff) I think that is awesome. Using extremes to move your point works quite well and doesn't really change anything. I do it all the time.

I also think that patriotism is a crime to humanity. So is environmentalism. They prey on innocent children who are sucked into the stupidity of meaningless "moral high ground". Were you not taught as a child to love your country and do anything it asks of you? I was. Were you taught in school that wasting paper is bad and recycling is good? I was. Truth is that morals are not based on logic or economic efficiency. If you use more paper the price of paper goes up, and with that so does the price of trees. That means more loggers will cut stuff out. That's whay you were taught, right? They left something out. If the trees are worth something to the loggers, most likely they'll plant more trees and tend their crop better. For every tree logged 10 are planted. When your country drafts you, it's so it can protect it's good morals. You're supposed to die for those morals. Would you die for something you can't experience?

Oh, I forgot the deficit. What is wrong with the deficit? So he borrowed cash. That LOWERS OUR TAXES. It will raise our kids taxes, but by then, they should handle it (economic growth is approx. 1.5%, and that's fixed for inflation). They're gonna be RICH. If anyone says "My taxes are lower but my kid's will be higher AND I DON'T LIKE THAT." is a blatant lier.

Ok, the speech. He did use stereotypes and what not. I personally don't agree with it. By protesting they are proving the are Pro-American by not only using their rights but keeping Americans alive. It's selfish, but it's true.

Oh, and oil prices would still be a buck 67. When prices go down, more people by more often. Incentives matter.