Glenn Reynolds recommends that pro-war viewers visit this anti-war site to register their pro- war views. So have Stefan Sharkansky, NukeVet and, most recently, Susannah Cornett. While I like the idea in theory, I think that on balance, it’s a mistake to post anything on their site. Here’s why.

If the domain name “MoveOn.org” sounds familiar, it should. Remember that spam campaign in 1998 that (supposedly) helped prevent an early “regime change” in this country? Well, the same Bipartisan Group Of Concerned Citizens (TM) is at it again. Last time around, their web site offered an easy interface to send an email to your Congressman and urge him to “censure and move on.” I used that interface myself, but not without editing the message to clarify that we should boot him out of office first, and then “move on.” All that got me was a form-email from my then-Congressman George Miller, thanking me for my unwavering support of Bill Clinton in the face of the Republicans’ mean-spirited partisan witch hunt.

I don’t necessarily blame MoveOn.org for the mix-up. For all I know, they actually sent the message as edited. Ultimately, though, it didn’t matter; all that did matter was how many people logged on to their site to send what appeared at a glance to be the same canned message all the Clintonistas really did send. The same goes for non-virtual “peace” rallies as well. For all we know, some of the millions reported to have demonstrated against the U.S. / for Saddam / against a war could just as well have shown up to support the war effort and tell the anti-war people to get a life. But all that got reported is the fact that they showed up at the protest.

P.S. On the other hand, Stefan’s Virtual March on Hollywood sounds like a great idea.

P.P.S. So does this. Link via Instapundit.

This letter to the L.A. Times (requires free registration) takes to task the protesters who use a feigned “support” of our troops as an excuse to leave Saddam in power. Yes, I realize that most pro-Saddamanti-war protesters do not really want Saddam in power, but who are we kidding? If we don’t take him out, neither will the tooth fairy, Jacques Chiraq or the U.N. At least the tooth fairy has a good excuse for her inaction.

Meanwhile, The Onion has an interesting take on the proverbial “blood for oil” trade-off. I’m still puzzled about that theory, though. For one thing, if it really is about oil, have we really used up all the oil we took in 1991? For another, as Stefan Sharkansky has recently pointed out, wouldn’t it be a lot easier to invade Mexico or Alberta instead?

Regular readers may recall that Mrs. Xrlq and I have been attempting to locate a new family for Daisy, a pit bullwhippet/lab mix who gets along great with people and most other dogs, but who did not get along with our terrier mix pit bull, Molly. These readers (Hi, Anna!) will be pleased to know that Daisy has found a new home. Here’s a photo from her new owners: