Competing Protests

Groups both for and against the war in Iraq are planning competing protests. Here's a story.

Ultraliberal Cindy Sheehan is even coming out of "retirement" to attend the protest.

As much as I despise Sheehan, she's got a right to say whatever she wants, even if it is moronic, so I hope they have fun at their protest.

One funny thing from the story is from Brian Becker, national coordinator for the antiwar group Act Now to Stop War and End Racism (ANSWER). He said: "Seventy percent [of Americans] support the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces."

Really? Really?

Because the story continues with this: "A Sept. 8 CBS/New York Times poll found that 30 percent of Americans supported removing all troops from Iraq, while 35 percent supported decreasing the troop presence there. The poll did not ask respondents about a timeframe for withdrawal. A Sept. 7 ABC/Washington Post poll found that 55 percent of Americans would support legislation setting a spring 2008 deadline for withdrawing troops, while 41 percent would oppose such a measure."

Now, I'm no math whiz, but I can't seem to get those numbers to add up to 70.

It doesn't matter, really, because like I said before, I think polls are full of it. But I think it's funny when anyone uses statistics to say, "See, we're right." They should just leave that crap out, and say, "We are protesting because we want immediate withdrawl." To throw around make-believe numbers that are supposed to show that you know what everyone wants, that just irritates me.

But it's easy to do. Watch: I asked 5 people, and 4 of them said they would rather stick an icepick in their brain than listen to Cindy Sheehan spew her irrational, mean-spirited nonsense. So, I guess 80% of Americans would rather go deaf than listen to this lady bitch about Bush being Hitler and how Cheney is committing war crimes.

Sheesh. I wouldn't mind Sheehan and the other antiwar protesters so much if they would just be somewhat rational, and admit that, even without Bush and Cheney and the war in Iraq, there still would exist a problem with radical Islamists that can't be controlled by simply not doing anything -- That's what we've been doing for years while getting attacked by Muslims (the first WTC bombing, the Cole, our embassies in other countries, 9/11, Richard Reid ...).

You know? Be smart about it - call for a different strategy, not just the end of the current one, because you have to do something.

When I first started out in newspapers, I criticized a headline, and one of my editors told me, you don't just say the one that's there is wrong without having a correct one to put it its place.

Saying something is wrong is easy; making it correct is the challenge.