I got a few e-mail notes/comments that I thought were worth sharing:
One reader writes:
I think the term "egg sucking butt weasel" is way to general to describe a French diplomat apologist. I would recommend that the amend the term to:
Butt sucking appeasement weasel. The butt in question, of course, is Saddam's.
Point well made - we officially approve the term Butt Sucking Appeasement Weasel for use in the above mentioned context.
Another reader, who I very rarely agree with, but who manages to be mostly civil if not overly sarcastic (or perhaps cynical is a better word) when presenting his arguments writes:
"shouldn't your by-line read targetting Saddam and Liberating Iraq"?
I like it enough to make it an official change as well. BTW, this reader actually does offer arguments - not just inane anti-war boilerplate.
A couple of readers point out that the "Peace in Our Time" blog is obviously a joke. I know that, which is why I put the {{Psssssst....}} comment at the bottom. I was trying to make a joke by "Fisking" it, trying to point out that the difference in content between the "Peace in Our Time" blog and the "serious" anti-war blogs was really not all that noticeable. As my dad always said - it's not a funny joke if you have to explain it, so I guess this one is not a funny joke.
Finally, another e-mailer asks why there weren't any Iraqi's making impassioned speeches about evil America at any of the peace rallies this past week-end. I don't know if there were any or not - but it does seem to be a fair question. Did any of these anti-war protestors ever REALLY stop and think about what the people of Iraq want? Do they even care? Dissident Frogman has a little flash animation for you to watch as you ponder these questions.
Posted by Neal Mauldin at February 19, 2003 12:36 PM | TrackBackOh, I like that sooo much better!
And I'm with you on that, too.
I like how you said "hoping", it really makes more sense that way.
(no sarcasm whatsoever!)
and thanks for not being as harsh on me as you could have....you'd be one of the very few.
ps.
I'm not anti-war. I actually think it's the only solution in the case of Saddam, since it appears the Iraqis themselves either won't or actually can't do anything about it.
I "dislike" Bush and the vast majority of his administration, but am not against action in Iraq. Clean up the mess his Pops left behind and all that.
I'd also like to see some justice as regards Saudi Arabia immediately thereafter......that kingdom has been allowed to exist for far too long.
That animation was powerfull. But I'm sure it would bounce of the minds of the anti-war crowd like tennis balls off armor plate. You have to be willing to educated.
By the way Sylvain, I made some assumptions about your views before, that was unfair, for that I apologize. I still disagree about Bush, and I'm sure other things, but I shoudn't have assumed.
Posted by: puggs on February 21, 2003 02:23 AMThat's quite alright-you and I are basically on the same page, so that's what matters.
Posted by: Sylvain on February 21, 2003 04:52 AMtwo Iraqis spoke at the 100,000 strong Glasgow demo, both firmly anti-war.
Guess you and your little friends will have to find some new warmonger spin.
peace
H
Posted by: harmonia on February 21, 2003 11:24 AMWow, 2 whole Iraqi's spoke out in favor of keeping Saddam in power? Were they expatriots, or on Saddam's payroll. It does make a difference, you know.
Speaking of spin, isn't it about time you appeaseniks found a slogan other than "it's all about the oooiiiiiilllllll"?
Posted by: Neal on February 21, 2003 12:24 PMThose peaceniks got leg humping down to an art don't they?
100,000? whose figure, the Guardian's, the organizers? two Iraqi's from thr whole of the exile community is pretty pathetic, Hammy needs better material. Never get a job in stand up comedy with a routine like that.
Posted by: puggs on February 22, 2003 01:35 AM