kill the poor, take the oil *

What I know is that Anti-war protests are not covered very well at all. Would it kill the MSM to report some facts? For instance, is it pertinent to to know who organizes these protests? The A.N.S.W.E.R. might actually surprise you.

For everyone who was unable to attend the most recent Surrender Rally in D.C. there are many pictures available to virtually tour the devastation.

Despite the fact that we have entered the information age the quality of our news coverage across the board remains so low that it is in fact defective. By way of comparison, if the news media made cars they would all make avacado green Ford Pintos that get 3 miles to the gallon, seat 1.25 persons, had no seat belts, and every third of which would have a 95% chance of having an exploding gas tank when rear ended. This is precisely the quality of news coverage we get through the main stream media outlets.

Thus we get lame coverage of an anti-war rally that lacks critical facts needed for Americans to make a decision about whether or not to join the Surrender Bandwagon. Christopher Hitchens is also all over this fact, even more eloquently than I, and quotes the NYTimes describing one rally organizer as merely having, "progressive political objectives," and another as having only a "narrow, anti-war focus."

The protests were largely sponsored by two groups, the Answer Coalition, which embodies a wide range of progressive political objectives, and United for Peace and Justice, which has a more narrow, antiwar focus.

How descriptive. How informative. How incomplete. Can you say, "Lying by ommission?" Luckily Hitchens is more than able to provide a little more context to Cindy Sheehan's Surrender Rally organizers.

International ANSWER:

I suppose that it is possible that he has never before come across "International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the génocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper—to mention only two radical left journalists—who have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.

United for Peace and Justice:

The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party—Ramsey Clark's core outfit—is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary. The WWP is the direct, lineal product of that depraved rump. If the "United for Peace and Justice" lot want to sink their differences with such riffraff and mount a joint demonstration, then they invite some principled political criticism on their own account. And those who just tag along … well, they just tag along.

One doesn't have to wonder why the liberal media wouldn't want to hype up the fact that the far left organizes all of these anti-war rallies. It might offend normal everyday Americans. Who, because of their barbaric unsophistication still consider pro-marxist and anti-American groups as "unpatriotic". We wouldn't want to discredit the anti-war movement now would we?

It's as if the Klu Klux Klan held a pro-war rally attended by thousands of Republicans and Conservatives and the news media somehow failed to mention it. Or described the organizers as having only 'vague conservative objectives'.

With signs that say:

Bush is the symptom,
Capitalism is the disease,
Revolution is the Cure.
-Party for Socialism and Liberation.

I wonder if more moderate Democrats are not ashamed of the fact that they align themselves with communists and have them as their spokespeople about the war? Or does this in fact represent the majority of the left today?

Posted by Eric Simonson at September 28, 2005 10:23 PM
Comments
Comment #82535

Eric-

I wonder if more moderate Democrats are not ashamed of the fact that they align themselves with communists and have them as their spokespeople about the war?

Of course… People who oppose the war must all ‘be aligned’ with anyone who protests the war, just as all Christians are aligned with Pat Roberts and Jerry Falwell.

Posted by: AParker at September 28, 2005 10:48 PM
Comment #82537

Not all people who oppose the war are aligned with radical groups. But radical groups are using the movement to further their own goals. The protests, as Eric points out, are not just about the war. For the organizers of these protests, the war is just a convenient backdrop.

This reminds me of the early 1980s. There was a lot of passion then too. Most of the people involved were sincere, but we now know that many parts of the “peace movements” were funded from Moscow. When we mentioned such things at the time, it was greeted with catcalls. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant.

Another thing about the 1980s is parallel. Had the peace movement succeeded, life would have been worse. Their proposal to freeze nuclear weapons would have prevented the reductions that we have now seen and may have preserved Communism in Europe. Of course, that was one of the goals.

Ronald Reagan faced these clowns down. Some are still around and have now come back to fight again. They don’t easily give up their hatred of the free market. Before they found the war issue, they were anti-globalists.

These protestors are the past. They thrived in the 1960s; they had their first echo in the 1980s and the third wave is washing up now. They seem to be on a twenty-year cycle, each time weaker.

I wish they would at least write a few new songs of peace. I like many of these classics, but after a song has been used to sell fast food, cola or running shoes, it kinds of loses some of its counter culture punch.

Posted by: Jack at September 28, 2005 11:07 PM
Comment #82542

I agree. We should stay in Iraq however long it takes. Regardless of how much it costs, we must stay. These heroic GIs did indeed volunteer to be flypaper afterall.

It is tragic that not many pro-war are willing to volunteer for Iraq but what can you do except Draft? I am certain that once the Draft is implemented, patriotic Americans will flock to do their duty. These cowardly Liberals can stay home.

Posted by: Aldous at September 28, 2005 11:37 PM
Comment #82543

Eric has once again hit upon the red herring and has proceeded to beat a dead horse out of it.

Only the ill-informed and the partisan think we’re not getting this war right because people are dissenting about Bush’s policies.

Protestors are easy scapegoats, because they are obvious and supposedly influential.

And of course there’s the media. You can’t forget to shoot the messenger, while you’re at it.

And then of course there’s the Democrats, who control so much of things, and do so much to prevent the soldiers to get the supplies and support that they need. Sneaky bastards even manage to look like a party that really lacks controlling power in any of our branches, a fact many Republicans have been gleefully explaining for some time now.

It’s never occured to these people that the Bush Policies are all that unlikeable. It’s never occured to them that they’re coasting on their party’s inertia, and on gains forced by redistricting and other similar measures.

It’s never occurred to them that there is a bottom to this barrel of political capital, and that one day the straw will break the Camel’s back. So go on venting outrage at the marxist protestors and hemp wearing hippies. Fat lot of good it will do you, when more people believe what they say than you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2005 11:54 PM
Comment #82544

What amuses me about all of this is that the protests were minimal until we went into Iraq. It was that move that pulled literally millions of protesters out of the woodwork all over the world.
But Mr. Bush said he knew what he was doing and those folks just didn’t understand.

Seems that America crossed the line somewhere.

I don’t really think this is about the war on terror.

Posted by: Rocky at September 28, 2005 11:56 PM
Comment #82545

Eric,
The “Surrender Bandwagon?”

How interesting. The phrase implies the left wishes to surrender to someone. Who, exactly, would the left surrender to?

Several generals have testified to Congress that the US military will hit critical manpower levels next summer or fall. A drawdown of US troops in Iraq will happen, regardless of how it is going there, regardless of whether Iraqi security forces are in place.

We’re leaving Iraq next year, like it or no. Matters of military manpower and economic limitations will require withdrawal. The CINC will direct the drawdown.

When it happens- and happen it most certainly will- should we hold the CINC responsible for surrendering?

“Surrender”? Your choice of words, not mine. There is a Republican Congress, White House, and a conservative majority on the Supreme Court. When the withdrawal from Iraq happens next year, will this be “surrender”?

Jack,
Tempting to counter the revisionist history of how the Cold War ended, you know, the economic collapse of the USSR, the appalling & utterly unnecessary waste of US dollars on useless military hardware such as the B-1, the near nuclear holocaust caused by stationing intermediate range missiles in Europe- it never made the papers, Jack, but do you think the USSR just sat back when we did that?- tempting to be distracted, but the current situation provides adequate fodder.

And this is the first time in quite a while anyone from the right has even obliquely referred to the debacle in Iraq.

Too bad the rally was on Saturday, and today is Wednesday. Too bad some people might be, oh, I don’t know, distracted by the CRIMINAL INDICTMENT of the Republican House Majority Leader. Yeah, good time to discuss marxist peaceniks.

Probably has something to do with fluoridation.

Posted by: phx8 at September 28, 2005 11:57 PM
Comment #82547

Eric, it is plain to see what you are doing here. Well, done as far as it goes.

First, what I suspect you are put aside by is the fact that the pro-war had 4 people show up while the anti-war protest had between 44 and 100 thousand show up.

Second. Since the anti-war protestors are Republicans, Democrats and in-betweeners, moms, dads, brothers and sisters, and mostly all good working honest Americans, you had no choice but to go after the organizers. Well, you know what, I can’t stand the Democratic or Republican party organizers but that would not prevent me from voting for John McCain or Russ Feingold.

The vast majority of the protestors showed up to protest prolonged occupation in Iraq at the expense of troops lives and limbs, and it doesn’t matter who the hell organized it. Most of those who showed up could care less if Eugene or Joseph R. McCarthy organized it. It was a venue in which they could express their 1st Amendment Rights opposition to public policy of the government with fellow citizens with the same conviction of opposition.

Media! Media is media! They cover the news that sells advertising by and large. That is a non-story.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2005 12:10 AM
Comment #82563

Eric,
The reason that most Americans laugh at the anti-war protest is because they have a hidden agenda. In the 60’s and 70’s the anti-war movement was strong because our government was wrong in the way they were fighting the political war. In Iraq, the problem is not a political war, it is a war about ideology. And while Presiden Bush and the Republican Party don’t “GET IT” most Liberals and Independents understand that the way to win the war is to demonstrate to others that America has a better way to govern its citizens.

Like I’ve told you and Jack before, Oppression or Appeasement methods of governing citizens are not going to cut it any more. Thats the problem with the Extreme Left & Right of both political parties, they think that the only way to be right is their way. After 15,000 years you would think that someone would figure out that they are wrong.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at September 29, 2005 1:25 AM
Comment #82566

The American public doesn’t give a damn one way or another about street demonstrations, protests, mass action or any such mob-mentality foolishness. Ten million people could march on Washington demanding something—anything—and the rest of the country would simply laugh at them.

In other countries, where they have laws against free speech and political action, demonstrating actually means something because it entails bravery in the face of an actual risk.

Here, it’s at best the equivelant of a day in the park. At worst (depending on the cause) it’s an attempt to subvert democracy with the slightly fascist sight of a mass of people howling for something they’ve been denied by the public will at the ballot box.

I’ve never heard of a single person (in America at least) swayed one way or another in their political views by the sight of a bunch of people chanting bad rhymes and waving homemade signs.

We stay abreast of the news as best we can in this country and then we vote. That’s democracy. Not a mob howling in the street, which looks more like totalitarianism than democracy to any thinking person.

Posted by: sanger at September 29, 2005 1:46 AM
Comment #82569

looks more like exercise of Constitution Liberty to me, sanger. Following the old addage, use it, or lose it.

Posted by: David R. Remer at September 29, 2005 2:18 AM
Comment #82632

“Eric has once again hit upon the red herring and has proceeded to beat a dead horse out of it.

Only the ill-informed and the partisan think we’re not getting this war right because people are dissenting about Bush’s policies.

Protestors are easy scapegoats, because they are obvious and supposedly influential.

And of course there’s the media. You can’t forget to shoot the messenger, while you’re at it.

And then of course there’s the Democrats, who control so much of things, and do so much to prevent the soldiers to get the supplies and support that they need. Sneaky bastards even manage to look like a party that really lacks controlling power in any of our branches, a fact many Republicans have been gleefully explaining for some time now.

It’s never occured to these people that the Bush Policies are all that unlikeable. It’s never occured to them that they’re coasting on their party’s inertia, and on gains forced by redistricting and other similar measures.

It’s never occurred to them that there is a bottom to this barrel of political capital, and that one day the straw will break the Camel’s back. So go on venting outrage at the marxist protestors and hemp wearing hippies. Fat lot of good it will do you, when more people believe what they say than you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 28, 2005”…….A pretty long post and not a word to support or criticize the article.

Posted by: tomd at September 29, 2005 6:33 AM
Comment #82639

G. W. Bush comment,”He tried to kill My Daddy”. This is the real reason for the war in Iraq. Now nearly 2000 Fathers and Mothers have died over there, to supposedly change their form of govt. Bring them home, their sacrifice won’t change the wackos who live their.

Posted by: spudman at September 29, 2005 8:10 AM
Comment #82644

Eric,

“Bush is the symptom,
Capitalism is the disease,
Revolution is the Cure.”

Question their politics if you want but at least they get it.
When will you?

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at September 29, 2005 8:39 AM
Comment #82645

Phx8

The Soviet Union would not have gone away by itself. I have written before and won’t go into details to derail the thread. Suffice to say that Reagan’s policies were a NECESSARY but not sufficient to cause the fall.

Re the peace movement - we never had to actually counter the Soviets when we convinced them that we would. The peace movement did not then and does not now understand that strategy. If they negotiate like they talk, I am sure they pay way too much for their cars and houses and then they thank the salesperson for giving them such a deal.


Posted by: Jack at September 29, 2005 8:41 AM
Comment #82652

Can anyone recall the topic of this thread?
To recap: that media coverage of the anti-war protests is incomplete. A survey of the SF mob photos is the reason why: the left is largely looney tuners.
During all anti-war protests, all the demonstration videos consisted of long shots. Why? So you would not see the young, the fat, the miserable and the ugly, carrying signs with poor English, misspellings and mixed messages made by students, professional protestors, government employees from next door, serial exhibitionists and holdovers from the Viet Nam protests of the 60’s.
Stupid is as stupid does.

Posted by: Eddie Filek at September 29, 2005 9:20 AM
Comment #82656

“Can anyone recall the topic of this thread?”

Yeah, the ends justify the means when it comes to the left and the media.

Posted by: kctim at September 29, 2005 9:34 AM
Comment #82665

I’m not going to post policy issues here, like I usually do, just correct a few facts and figures as I see it.


Rocky wrote:

What amuses me about all of this is that the protests were minimal until we went into Iraq.

Actually, there was a very large anti-war rally held in Washington DC in January of 2003 — before the U.S. attacked Iraq. It too numbered in the tens of thousands, perhaps more. I can’t speak for other cities or countries.


David Remer wrote:


First, what I suspect you are put aside by is the fact that the pro-war had 4 people show up while the anti-war protest had between 44 and 100 thousand show up.

Using scientific methods that rely on admittedly unscientific data I estimate the size of the march in Washington at over 200,000. Here’s how I derive that number.

Width of Street (Constitution/15th/Pennsylvania): 100 feet

Pcnt of street utilized: 50%

Width occupied by one protester: 2 feet

Number of people passing in front of a point each second: 25 ((100 * .5)/2)

Now, with 25 people per second, let me report my personal observations. It took me THREE HOURS to get from the rally point on Constitution Avenue before I reached the White House. That translates into over 10,000 seconds.

10,000 seconds x 25 people per second = 250,000 people

Sure, yes, there are a lot of assumptions that can be challenged. For example, you can say only 5 people pass by per second and get only 50,000. But I am not saying that there were 250,000 people there, only that it was a VERY BIG MARCH. And please consider the following: I’m only counting the people ahead of me, not behind me. I’d like to look at this in greater depth, e.g., estimate my speed by measuring the distance travelled and multiply that by # of people across, etc. But I don’t have all that data.

Posted by: steve at September 29, 2005 10:17 AM
Comment #82666

Eddie

Actually the long shots with telephoto lens make the demonstrations look larger. I think that is why they take them that way. Whenever you see a photo of a demonstration, check to see where big things like trees are in relation to the crowd. If the people seem to be hemmed in by the objects, the picture is deceptive.

Also look at where the crowd is looking. Another trick is to take a picture in front of a crowd assembled for a different reason. If five guys stand in front of a crowd waiting to buy tickets, it looks like a demonstration of 500. If most of the people look puzzled or are looking down, this is probably how the picture was made.

Experienced demonstrators are good at what they do. They give their colleagues scripts re what to right on the signs to make them look spontaneous. Even some of the bad grammar is intentional to make it seem more authentic.

Many journalist are sympathetic to demonstrators and demonstrators have learned to use this. They don’t have to lie to mislead. They vastly inflate the numbers they say they expect. When not that many people show up, they say something like “we substantially met our goal” whatever that means.

They never try to give a number for small groups. If twenty people show up, they call it dozens of active demonstrators. It sounds better, doesn’t it. Any group with more than 50 is usually called hundreds. If there are really only a few, they say something like “made up in enthusiasm what they lacked in numbers.” It is an art.

Posted by: Jack at September 29, 2005 10:17 AM
Comment #82685

steve,

“Actually, there was a very large anti-war rally held in Washington DC in January of 2003 — before the U.S. attacked Iraq. It too numbered in the tens of thousands, perhaps more. I can’t speak for other cities or countries.”

Gee, ya don’t think those protests were about going to Iraq, do ya?

Posted by: Rocky at September 29, 2005 11:29 AM
Comment #82688

Eric wrote:

It might offend normal everyday Americans. Who, because of their barbaric unsophistication….

Thanks for illustrating that the red column is still the Hate Americans First crowd. You should thank your lucky stars for that “barbaric unsophisticiation”. Without it, you wouldn’t enjoy the Republican presence in the House, Senate, and White House.

David wrote:

First, what I suspect you are put aside by is the fact that the pro-war had 4 people show up

Yes. And one of them was male prostitue/Republican mouthpiece Jeff Gannon.

Oh, if only the media was more credible like Talon News, eh Eric?

Posted by: Burt at September 29, 2005 11:40 AM
Comment #82696

Here’s another statistic to hekp estimate the number of people at the march: subway ridership.

You can find these numbers at the Washington Metro web site.

This data shows that 160,000 additional riders rode the Washington subway on the day of the march over the previous Saturday.

Now, there are three caveats to keep in mind with this number:

1. People ride twice a day, so divide that number by 2: 80,000 additional subway riders
2. There were other big events that day. There was the Library of Congress book fair on the National Mall, and there may have also been a baseball game (although there may have been a ball game the previous week as well …)
3. Many people came in to the march by other means: organized buses, walked from Amtrak, etc.

Posted by: steve at September 29, 2005 12:26 PM
Comment #82700

Kill the poor? How is your reference different than: Kill the Gays?

As far as how many at the mall, why do you think the park police can’t count? They do it the same way they count penguins in the Antarctic. Basic math, I mean, really, didn’t you finish 10th grade?

Also, more that half of Americans dissaprove of the job Bush is doing. Pollkatz Why do you think that is? Iraq is going so well? The deficit is shrinking? Gas prices are low? Cronyism is a succesful political model? DeLay is an honest good ol’ boy?

All you righties act as if most of America is against the anti-war protesters. The reality is that it’s the other way around. Only the insulated, or those in simple denial, think and argue otherwise.

Posted by: Dave at September 29, 2005 12:54 PM
Comment #82705

Yeah, it’s easy to focus in on taking pictures of the most freaky people you can spot - that way it becomes very easy to dismiss and label all who attended as “moonbat extremists”. It might give way too much credence to the anti-war cause to show photos of old people, or Vietnam and Gulf War Vets, or Catholic nuns and priests, or families with children, or average teens and collage aged kids, or a typical men and women of any other age group who marched on Saturday.

Btw, these are the only photos I can find of the Anti-Anti-War Rally in DC. Looks like a great time was had by all 200.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #82706

Steve

You won’t be able to figure it out from such indirect means. The Park Service used to do a good job of estimating until they got in too much trouble when the crowds demonstrators said were there weren’t.

Demonstrations like this are street theatre. It makes the participants happy, but it doesn’t really do very much. It is more effective to contribute the money you would have spent to the organization or politician you believe will do the most to accomplish your goal. Win election and you will be listened to. Everything else is just commentary.

I admit that I am jaded about demonstrations. They don’t impress me; they just get in my way if I am trying to do something near the Mall. Most of the decision makers you are trying to reach feel the same way. I am glad that you all contributed to the Metro System on a Saturday.

Posted by: Jack at September 29, 2005 1:23 PM
Comment #82708

Eric and Jack must be right.

Americans can’t have real negative opinions about this war. That would be absurd. It just must be an invention of the liberal media.

Or is it?

Posted by: Burt at September 29, 2005 1:38 PM
Comment #82711

Eric, Interesting article.

I posed a similar question in another post and pretty much the response was “We don’t give a damn who organized it”

I still find this response very strange. When I decide to support something (with time, money, etc), I generally try and do some research to make sure that what I think I’m supporting is really what is being done.

In this case apparently it’s ok to support and furthur the agenda of a clearly communist organization. One that supports some of the most dangerous world leaders on this planet. But hey! As long as it serves our current purpose it’s ok right!

The ends apparently justify the means for them I guess. I don’t get it but thats just me.

Posted by: BradM at September 29, 2005 1:54 PM
Comment #82712

And the Bush administration is sponsored by the oil companies. So what’s your point?

Posted by: Mental Wimp at September 29, 2005 2:00 PM
Comment #82715

BradM:
“In this case apparently it’s ok to support and furthur the agenda of a clearly communist organization.”

Clearly you are being obtuse here. Regardless of what groups went about getting the legal permits to hold the rally, the people who marched last Saturday were comprised of EVERY political persuasion imaginable — including a number of Republican’s. The focus of the march for the vast majority of those who attended was not to support or further any single political agenda, but simply to Bring American Troops Home from this administrations war which was based on nothing but lies.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 29, 2005 2:26 PM
Comment #82718

Well said, Adrienne. It wasn’t an ANSWER rally, or a United for Peace and Justice rally - It was an ANTI-WAR rally. People are there because they’re against the war.

Posted by: AParker at September 29, 2005 3:23 PM
Comment #82732
Demonstrations like this are street theatre. It makes the participants happy, but it doesn’t really do very much.

U.S. involvement in Vietnam would have gone on for at least several more years, with thousands more U.S. soldiers killed, were it not for the anti-war movement, particularly the protests. And the result, in the long run, would have been the same, the collapse of the Regime in the South — because it was not credible in the eyes of the most Vietnamese.

And I’ll make the same claim about this Anti-Iraq war movement, Jack. I hope I have contributed to saving some Ameican soldiers’ lives.

Posted by: steve at September 29, 2005 4:46 PM
Comment #82743

Steve

We know the anti-war demonstrators of the 1960s demoralized the war effort. We know that they got Richard Nixon elected (inadvertently). We don’t really know if they saved or cost lives or how the Vietnam War would have come out without them. Remember too, that Nixon came into office in 1968 promising to get us out of Vietnam. He did. I am not sure it was done the right way.

Of course Iraq is not Vietnam. We have an all-volunteer army and U.S. casualty levels are very low in comparison. There is also more at stake. If the demonstrators succeed, we are in more trouble (by we I mean you too)

The old hippies and their young imitators want this to be like the 1960s. They want this to be like Vietnam, but its not. BTW - nobody wants to stay in Iraq. We all would like to get our troops out as soon as possible. But some of us understand that you don’t stop war by quitting unilaterally.

I don’t feel the same way about demonstrations. I unilaterally stay away. This Saturday, I will be canvassing to help Jerry Kilgore become the next governor of Virginia. You guys can chant and sing your songs. We will see who gets more of what they want.

In case I do demonstrate, however, I have made a chant. It goes with that demonstration rhythm you guys like so much. You know . . . daDA, daDA daDADA; daDA daDA DA DA DA. Dem-on-stra tions-sure-are-lame. We-won’t-play-in-your-old- game. Like it?

Posted by: Jack at September 29, 2005 5:31 PM
Comment #82753

I agree that there is plenty of vagueness in the reporting of those financing the protest, and that their anti-war propaganda, is intentional. Most people are clueless as to how much influence the far left, or might I say, the communist, have in this cordinated attack on the constitution of the United States. The ABC networks are bias to say the least. I would say, more like complict.

Posted by: steve at September 29, 2005 6:17 PM
Comment #82760

Astonishingly, I am largely in agreement with a couple of things that Eric writes that here:

Despite the fact that we have entered the information age the quality of our news coverage across the board remains so low that it is in fact defective.
and
It’s as if the Klu Klux Klan held a pro-war rally attended by thousands of Republicans and Conservatives and the news media somehow failed to mention it. Or described the organizers as having only ‘vague conservative objectives’.
(a bit of an exaggeration - but not that far off - nice analogy, Eric.)

You ask:

I wonder if more moderate Democrats are not ashamed of the fact that they align themselves with communists and have them as their spokespeople about the war?
Well I am disgusted by the fact that more mainstream groups are not organizing huge rallies every month so that the millions of Americans, left, right, and center who are not only opposed to Bush, but appalled by this Administration’s morally bankrupt policies can vent their disapproval in no uncertain terms. I went to a rally in February of 2003 that was NOT sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R., and personally avoid those with A.N.S.W.E.R sponsorship because I resent having my righteous outrage co-opted by a fringe group I do not support. But I understand why people who don’t support their extremist agenda go anyway.

If someone were to kill one of my loved ones, I wouldn’t care what their political ideology was. When George Bush and his cronies try to destroy my beloved nation, I don’t care about their reputed ideology, only that we somehow stop the bleeding ASAP. It’s not how far right they are, it’s how far wrong they are.

Posted by: Walker Willingham at September 29, 2005 7:05 PM
Comment #82766

Looking at the pictures, it almost looks like the same bunch of kooks that were protesting Vietnam except older.
What bothers me is these folks are so eat up with hate for Bush, and everything else for that matter, that they’re willing to align themselves with the likes of ANSWER and anti semetics to be able to carry their signs and shout their protest.
I would’ve been more impressed with their protest if they hadn’t aligned themselves with the enimies of this country.
I would hope that this IS NOT representive of the Left, but in talking to the liberials I know and reading post on this blog, I’m almost afraid it is. And that’s a real shame.

Posted by: Ron Brown at September 29, 2005 7:24 PM
Comment #82768

Yes, Ron. Nice logic.

Since there were gay male hookers at the pro-war rally, what does that make you and the rest of the conservatives?

Posted by: Burt at September 29, 2005 7:44 PM
Comment #82780

Jack wrote:

We know the anti-war demonstrators of the 1960s demoralized the war effort.

We do? How so? Were the demonstrators keeping the war materiels from getting over there or something?

Posted by: steve at September 29, 2005 8:53 PM
Comment #82803

Steve

“demoralized” - it has nothing to do with war materiels and everything to do with … well demoralize. The North Vietnamese won a political victory. That is what allowed their army to conquer the South. The insurgency had been defeated five years or more earlier.

Posted by: Jack at September 29, 2005 10:52 PM
Comment #82805

Angry Democrat’s STILL NO SUBSTANCE OR CONTENT JUST BITTER ANGER. Keep it up and loose elections.

Thank you and good day!

Posted by: C.A.D. at September 29, 2005 10:54 PM
Comment #82812

The GOP seems to think pessimism is the only way to lose wars. Evidently, the fact that we started with a case for war guaranteed to fracture support, and a strategy maladapted to the situation don’t seem to enter into the equation.

You can’t talk a war to death so easily when it’s obvious it’s making progress. If Republicans had spent the last four years taking care of business, things would be much better.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 29, 2005 11:21 PM
Comment #82833

Steven

It would not be pessimism, but making it impossible to take necessary actions. The Iraq war, like Vietnam, will be decided politically. We didn’t loose Vietnam militarily - and that didn’t matter. With casualty rates as low as they are in Iraq, it is probably impossible to loose Iraq - militarily. The politics is a different story entirely.

I would like to get our troops out of Iraq. I would like to do it as soon as possible. But not before they have reasonably achieved their objectives in making the place secure or at least less dangerous to us. I believe it can be achieved.

Calls of the immediate withdrawal, without considering the situation make no sense. It is like a person undergoing a root canal jumping out of the dentist chair and running away because it hurts. He is right about the hurt, but wrong about the strategy and he will suffer a lot more pain as a result.

Posted by: Jack at September 30, 2005 7:57 AM
Comment #82844

Jack-
You and I are in agreement on when we should withdraw from Iraq- when we can leave a stable country behind.

The Problem is, our CINC is not leaving us a lot of options with his policies, or his stubborn insistence on getting his way about the way the war is fought.

He implemented tax policy that ensured that we would have to finance this war out of record setting debt, rather than a more fiscally secure position. If you’re in it for the long hall, you don’t cripple your war effort in this way.

His case for war did not emerge from a compelling account of the intelligence, but rather from the agenda he came into office with, an agenda made obvious by how early and how strongly Iraq came into this administration’s sights. Because this war was more politically driven than factually driven, there was more pressure to toe the line on one interpretation, rather than a drive to investigate further and determine the true extent and nature of threats coming from the region.

The truth was there to be found. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration believed that it either didn’t matter, or that they already knew what was the case.

Either way, they sowed the seeds of dissent right then and there, because their failure to take military action on a real threat meant that the decision to go to war would become purely political, with no real reference to a threat that would transcend politics and galvanize the nation into unity.

Once it became politicized, not everybody was equally motivated regarding the war. However, Bush could have solved this problem, to the extent that was possible, by getting us quickly out of there with our mission truly accomplished. Then the mistake would have been a moot point, and the positives of a stable Iraq would have outweighed the negatives of a poorly justified intervention.

Instead, his political operatives insisted on strategies that were overly optimistic, to say the least, and when their inadequacy became apparent, they didn’t change plans. The invasion was brilliant from a standpoint of toppling a dictator, but in terms of occupying and controling the country, it was the wrong plan. Efficiency is a matter of objectives. We got to Baghdad very quickly, and ending Saddam’s regimes very quickly, but what we didn’t do, and what has haunted our efforts since then, is take effective control of the country.

Because the war was such a political operation, calls from my side of the aisle to get Iraq under control. Bush proceeded to move through a checklist of milestone events, claiming success in getting Saddam, handing over sovereignty, and holding elections, without any of those events having a diminishing effect on the power or ferocity of the insurgency.

Regardless of body counts, school openings, nominal elections, or other arbitrary measures of progress, the only way we have to win this war is to break the will and ability of this insurgency to fight the Iraqis and us. The American people sense this failure. The Bush administration has claimed for too long that victory was around the corner, without having produced progress along the lines of defeating this enemy. People are not questioning purely from partisan motivations, but from frustration with this failure.

Of course, the Republicans find it hard to believe that they have earned this frustration. They want to think it’s their old rivals the Liberals at work, undermining America once again.

The reality is, the Republicans are undermining themselves by accepting failures the rest of America has no taste for. People are getting the impression that the GOP leadership does not care about results, and in a pragmatic country like ours, that is trouble for political supports.

If there is one thing you and I can agree on, it’s the results we want. Unfortunately, the GOP is refusing to acknowledge how far it is falling short, and that is costing us all, since they are the ones with the real power right now.

If you want results, you need to have a long talk with your fellow Republicans as to what you want out of your leaders, and how you’re going to get it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2005 9:59 AM
Comment #82848

First its a war on oil, then it’s a war waged on a Man who tried to kill his daddy. Then it’s a war on terror but no terrorists (but I think you’ll agree that we found plenty of those in Iraq). No weapons of mass destruction, just mass destruction. Sure we can help those on the path to self destruction finish the job. After all, what can be built can be torn down. Do you think this is the ideology of the free terror world? They are free right? No need to help them. The terrorists have an all volunteer Army. Severly underfunded because they would rather spend their money on explosives and dirty bomb and chemical bomb technology than uniforms. We were ridiculed by jihadist’s that we fight from the skies - from the safe heaven where they could not reach us. And I ridicule them for their attacking the public dressed as the public and totally unidentifiable. It truely is amazing the double standards we americans place on war. We find intolerable actions outside the scope of the Geneva Convention when committed by US Troops. And then…. we expect actions outside the scope of the Geneva Convention by our enemies. All to often we give excuses as to why our enemies actions are justifiable. We say, “put yourself in their shoes”. I honestly don’t own a pair of sandles but I can tell you they look really stupid when worn with socks. But hey feet get cold in Iraq like they do here and I don’t see a rush of Nike tennis shoes infultrating the Iraqi Flea Market. But if I were to put my self in their shoes. I would see on one side a Liberated people fighting desparately to build this fledgling democracy and keep it. And on the other, I would see an invaded country whos opposition is fueled by occupying forces on the ground trying to keep the peace. Hmmm, how do you win a war (on the insurgent side) when your enemy supports and promotes peace and democracy? The strategy is two fold. Lessons learned, History lessons learned my friend. First one (insurgents) must do everything they can to disrupt the foundations of peace. They must create fear and chaos. Their insurgency is only effective is their is no peace. Second. Viet Nam. That’s right! It doesn’t take a Historian to tell you that the Viet Nam war (police political action)(ppa) was lost by on going political pressure from home. We could have bombed the crap out of Hanoi and won the war in a couple of years. Pressures from home to end the war only made it last longer. Pressures from home killed more people. By insurgents creating chaos on the streets of Baghdad, they are creating chaos at home. They (the insurgents) are one step closer to victory. With that chaos, comes uncertainty in the American People and their support for their Commander in Chief that he/she is doing the right thing. It is Ironic fact. Protestors in America are the defeated enemy on the Iraqi insurgents. They have beat you down through violence. Made you cave in ambivalence. You love peace, but you hate war.

Ambivalence: “the existence of contradictory thoughts or emotions as love and hate.

You don’t realize that war is the defining principle in peace. Sounds weird. It should. Every nation at one time in history has acheived peace through war. US and Russia: Cold war. US and Germany: WWI & WWII, US and Japan: WWII. Pick a Nation and you will find a war at the very start of their exsitence.

The world is not a peaceful place without those have the power to demand it. That power is tested all too often. That is why we must not surrender. If you protest the war on terror (insurgents in Iraq) you have already denounced freedom and it’s ideology. Support the war, Support the war on Terror. Peace is dependant on victory. Victory is the only answer.

Posted by: Jack-o-lantern at September 30, 2005 10:13 AM
Comment #82855

Taxes and deficit.

Their is a clear definition of wasted money and money well spent. Arguably we have no money to fund a war on terror. But, this is money well spent. We have no money to rebuild LA and MS and TX but it will be money well invested (the idea makes us feel good, the actual outcome has yet to be determined if it will be)well spent. Our deficit is a result our tax breaks no doubt. Is it wasteful spending? I think not. You see, I think you need a lesson on taxes and the Federal Government. If we did not have a tax cut money would have been readily available for these emergencies, right? No. Surplus money would have been spent needlessly in the wrong areas while desparate people suffer. It is the way Washington works. They call it PORK! Therefore; it is my contention, that there would never be money just sitting around to pay for war or Natural disasters. Those always get paid for in deficit spending. If not by the current administration, then by the next. Depleation without replacement is what we witnessed under Clinton. Rebuilding, depleation, and replacement we are seeing under Bush. This is a fact. Don’t even bother denying it. Of course Bush, Rebuilding, Depleation and replacement costs more. If Clinton would have replaced armaments expended during his term, if he wouldn’t have cut the Military budgets in half we wouldn’t need half of the war deficit spending measures. But we do. Deal!

Katrina and Rita. Natural Disasters. Need to be funded. Deal!

Deficit Spending is a needed and well used practice. It is like getting a service before you get the bill. Higher taxes are getting the bill for nothing being done and then getting a follow up invoice after the job is complete because the estimation didn’t take into account half a rack of PORK.

So my advice to all you bickerers about deficit spending. How’s that mortgage on your house coming? That brand new Escalade in the drive? Your boat or your home in the Hamptons. Unless you are in the top one percent you shouldn’t be able to afford those things. I see alot of them on the road and being built. They are all bought and purchased on Deficit spending.

Another fact. Every dollar in actual circulation could not fully cover every dollar owed on credit. Our currency system holds it’s value based on loans.

Learn more talk less.

Posted by: jack-o-lanter at September 30, 2005 10:34 AM
Comment #82858

Once again the right wing misrepresentations of what happened in Vietnam. 50,000 US troops died in Vietnam, but obviously it was the anti-war demonstrations which caused the demoralisation in the army. 2 million or so Vietnamese died, but yet the war was fought with the army’s hands tied.

Pulling troops out was a bad option, but there was no civil war afterwards and the country returned to peace, with the Government it would’ve elected 20 years earlier if elections had been allowed. The North Vietnamese Government were evil communists, but the first thing they did after the war was to liberate the Cambodians from Pol Pot. Obviously it all made sense now.

Well, at least as much sense as thinking Al-Qaeda is going to take over Iraq if we pull out. At least as much sense as thinking that the insurgency will continue to have support when it’s solely fighting Iraqis after we’ve left. At least as much sense as thinking we’re going to win the war by chasing Al-Phantom-Zarqawi from Falluja to Ramadi to Talafar and back again, flattening each town in turn.

Get the troops out, and we’ll see how much support the terrorists killing Iraqis have. We’ll see who the insurgents try to kill with no foreign troops around. My guess is not much and no one.

Posted by: Paul at September 30, 2005 10:52 AM
Comment #82869

Jack O Lantern-
It’s a war of choice based on a threat that did not exist in the country invaded. Worse, we didn’t do what was necessary to keep interlopers out of the equation. The terrorists are in this country because our administration could not be bother to do what was necessary to keep them out of the country.

We have higher standards and better technology. We demand better of our people because we know better. We can be more effective with our discipline and technology than these terrorists, and that is the truth. The minute we degrade ourselves, we put ourselves at a disadvantage because we are a civilized country, not an insurgency. As for walking in their shoes, we should do our best to understand the attitudes of the culture and their thoughts so we can respond properly to them. It’s like knowing the layout of a minefield when you decide to walk through one. You can attempt these things through trial and error, but the mistakes will cost you, and will be hard to reverse.

In facing the insurgents, we must make their efforts problematic, not our own. Unfortunately, that’s what the Bush administration has been doing.

You say we lost the Vietnam War because of political pressure from home. But what created that political pressure? The answer of partisanship is simplistic, because the Democrats started the war, and were among its strongest supporters.

The reality is that events drove the political pressure. Cowardly politicians and Military brass failed to keep the American people informed of what was really going on. America was kept out of the loop about what was happening, and by the time they learned how badly the war was going, it was too late to redeem it.

The politicians and commanders played their political games, trying to win a war with hearts and minds, when they should have fought from good old fashion strategy and practical thinking. Now they do it again, trying to balance the impossible juggling act of occupying a country, and not seeming like occupiers. We’re fooling nobody. We’re only insulting their intelligence and making ourselves look like we don’t take our fighting seriously.

That weakness attracts enemies like blood attracts sharks. All the support for Bush in the world cannot prevent him from losing this war if he’s not willing to get a stranglehold on the insurgents ability to fight. Fight the war on terror in a way that deserves support. Don’t ask Americans to support policy that doesn’t work. That only benefits politicians.

As for deficits spending, you do realize that it’s more expensive than the traditional kind, don’t you? You’re not merely paying for a service after it’s performed. That you could do with cash, and vastly simplify things. No, what you’re doing here is taking out your credit card, which means you’re paying later, with interest. The interest makes the purchase more expensive, especially when you don’t pay off your debt immediately. You end up adding debt simply by keeping going.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 30, 2005 11:52 AM
Comment #82875

As someone who attended several of the anti-war protests before we conquered Iraq, I would like to add some observations. I felt strongly that what the nation was doing was wrong and that it was important to voice my protest, something that is an important part of the democratic process. There was (and is I believe) a local group that was organizing the protests and some national groups that were organizing them, including ANSWER. I do not know all of the politics of the local group, but I don’t think they are as extreme as what you are describing. I did look up ANSWER at the time and did not like what I saw. I was not going for their purposes though. The actual people and the actual message of the protests was that the invasion of Iraq was unjustified and wrong. I’m sure we could argue about whether it actually was or not, but that was the message of the marches. Most of the people that went to the marches were not really members of any of the groups. They seemed to be like me, upset citizens who found a march to protest something the government was doing. I’m sure that ANSWER benefited from this somewhat, but I felt that that risk was less dangerous that not getting the massage out there. We were using each other. Not ideal, but necessary.

Posted by: Brian Minnich at September 30, 2005 12:51 PM
Comment #82908

Walker:
“I went to a rally in February of 2003 that was NOT sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R., and personally avoid those with A.N.S.W.E.R sponsorship because I resent having my righteous outrage co-opted by a fringe group I do not support.”

Actually Walker, I think the recent march on Washington became a much more powerful symbol of collective opposition to this war exactly because so many people of widely varying political opinions marched together.
Indeed, I believe it’s that many marching together that can make the strongest impression and deliver the most powerful of messages, rather than whatever organisation(s) arrange for the permits, or the many political speeches that are made at the end of a march.
Personally, I rarely hang around to listen to political speeches at protest rallies. Since I make an effort to keep myself well enough informed, I’ve usually already formed my own opinions, therefore, don’t need to stand around having others try to tell me what to think.
That being said, I get the general impression that what the majority of those who have been protesting this war do share in common is our outrage over the very idea that American soldiers, as well as the citizens of Iraq, have been having their lives and limbs forfeited because of lies told by our government on behalf of corporate interests.

Paul:
“Get the troops out, and we’ll see how much support the terrorists killing Iraqis have. We’ll see who the insurgents try to kill with no foreign troops around. My guess is not much and no one.”

I completely agree.

Posted by: Adrienne at September 30, 2005 4:13 PM
Comment #82911

Aren’t a lot of neocons of this administration part of the former Trotskyist movement?

I don’t believe Ramsey Clark openly or secretively supports Kim Jong-il either (I look forward to you replying with large amounts of cuts and paste from crackpot theory websites). Once again you make large blanket statements without anything to back them. Have you ever written an article with any substance?

Your writings make it so hard for me to critique the messege and not the messenger. You never use facts, instead you just spout like your the mouth piece for the Republican party. Why don’t you try writing an article on why the Republican Party is so great, instead of writing why the left is so horrible. This government after all was founded on more than just ideas from the right, the left too was involved in the ideas that made this country. All your doing is preaching hate on a group of people who are a large part of America. It’s almost as if you hate America.

Not being a psychologist, I would have to guess your heros are Ronald Reagan, Christopher Hitchens, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, and Michael Savage. You seem to do a fine job of modeling yourself after these people. Keep up the good work, I guess.

Posted by: crackpot statements at September 30, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #82929

Adrienne,

Actually Walker, I think the recent march on Washington became a much more powerful symbol of collective opposition to this war exactly because so many people of widely varying political opinions marched together.
Yes, so think of how much more powerful it could be if the organizers were more ideological centrist and could be interviewed by the media without coming off as radicals, and if the attendance was much, much larger because people like me could enthusiastically attend without the downside of feeling their outrage is being co-opted by extremists.

I’m not at all against participation by a wide range of protestors, including the far-left, and I’m not even upset at A.N.S.W.E.R. for organizing it - they believe what they believe and they’re doing something about it - more power to them, but the rest of us are missing an opportunity for a much more effective protest movement in this country by leaving the organizing to extremists, thus ceding the talking point to the right which was the genesis of this post.

Outraged Moderates, are you listening?

Posted by: Walker Willingham at September 30, 2005 5:09 PM
Comment #82943

If nothing else, I’d say Iraq and Afghanistan will be good practice, if for no other reason than the likely hood that we could be attacked by a real army, like China, or Korea. This thing in Iraq is peanuts compared to what is building up thanks to our friendly gifts from the left. Why should we leave Iraq anyway? Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria need a good look out. A couple bases with some tall towers, and telescopes, sure would help keep an eye on them.

Posted by: steve at September 30, 2005 6:15 PM
Comment #82951

Yes or no question to those of you supporting this rally. Do you stand with the Worker’s World Party?

Posted by: JayTea at September 30, 2005 7:56 PM
Comment #82953

Sure. I always thought they were anti-Stalinists. I don’t see them as supporters of totalitarian regimes.

Posted by: so at September 30, 2005 8:04 PM
Comment #82977

I think several folks on this thread need some English Grammar schooling. They don’t understand that bad grammar ruins what they are trying to say.

Posted by: J. Cumbie at October 1, 2005 1:22 AM
Comment #82978

JayTea, let me answer you this way. If I am on the street and I see a man and woman with a 12 year old son standing 10 feet apart, and the woman is wearing a sign saying Proud of World Worker’s Party and the man is wearing a sign saying Proud American Worker. I witness the man aim a gun at her son and know that if I take two steps I can knock the gun from his hand. Should I do it?

Yes! I would. The rally was not for socialism and against capitalism in America, it was made up of patriotic Americans exercising their rights guaranteed under our Constitution to make their voice heard to government about a war they no longer support, or never did. I did not support the invasion of Iraq and oppose our occupation there today. If I could have attended the rally, I would have. Not because I identify with the World Workers Party, which I don’t, but because I would want to add my voice to those of my fellow Americans who hold the same opinion as I do, just as pro-lifers want to rally with those of like mind, even though it is documented that some pro-lifers belong or have belonged to the KKK and Aryan nation.

Many Republican’s penchant for assigning guilt by association is wrong, and it is a tactic that appeals only to the uneducated and inexperienced. Our nation is made up of individuals and select any group who share an opinion, interview them all, and you will find they also hold very differing opinions on other issues. Trying to make the case that because folks agree on one issue means they agree on all issues is utterly illogical and bears no resemblance to reality of how groups of free individuals are comprised.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 1, 2005 1:23 AM
Comment #82980

Walker,

I don’t think it matters how it plays in the media. I live in Britain, and the anti-war movement has been smeared all it can be by association with Galloway and his comrades. I don’t care whether the fascists or the communists agree with what I’m saying.

I know very well that a couple of groups on the anti-war marches want a worldwide communist revolution. I don’t care.

Either something is right, or it is wrong. If you believe that our troops would be best off out of Iraq, then you are “with the communists”. If you believe that Iraq could begin to sort itself out then you are “with the communists”.

I am with the communists and I am with the majority of our people, who believe we never should’ve invaded Iraq, and I am with the people who think we should stop bombing and killing and maiming now.

We can avoid associations with political lepers all we like for political convenience, but at some point you have to stand and say “This is who I am, and this is what I believe”

Get our soldiers out, and let them start to sort their country out.

Posted by: Paul at October 1, 2005 1:40 AM
Comment #82990

There is a difference between guilt by association, and being manipulated by someone else and working with someone you might not like to achieve mutual goals.

Guilt by association is invalid. Although with whom you associate may indicate the type of person you are, merely being with someone does not indicate you agree with all his programs. Even a broken clock is right twice a day and even those with bad intentions can sometimes do good.

BTW - you all should remember this next time you use guilt by association when you blame the U.S. for “supporting” someone who turns out to be bad.

But sometimes association moves into manipulation. Many of the people organizing anti-war demonstrations are the same people who organized anti-globalism demonstrations, the same people who organize anti-business demonstrations and the same people who generally organize anti-American demonstrations. It is your business if you support these agendas, but be aware that their goal is not particularly anti-war.

Paul mentions Galloway. If you look at his past activities, you will see that being anti-war is not a big part of his repertoire. He is very specific in the wars he opposes. You probably would not be comfortable in the kind of world he would create. If you want to sign on with this guy, fine, but consider if his goals are your goals.

You also need to consider the consequences of what you want to achieve and ask why all these unsavory characters are on your side and bankrolling the operation. If you determine that the goal is worth the alliances, again your business. But make sure their goal is compatible with yours.

“Revolutionary movements” have a long history of good an honest people doing most of the heavy lifting only to have the radicals drive the vehicle, often in directions the good people didn’t support. I don’t expect this movement is powerful enough to cause more than anxiety, but the danger always exists that these guys can do real harm.

Let me say one more thing about communists. I don’t think communists are behind these things, simply because communism is a spent force. When it was in its ascendancy, however, it was really horrible. Communist governments killed more of their own civilians in the 20th Century than were killed by all the wars of that very belligerent hundred years. In other words, it was more dangerous to live in a “peaceful” communist country (even today there are estimates that 1 million N.Koreans died in the recently politically induced famines) than it was to be in a war most other places. I don’t understand how this ideology gets what amounts to a free pass.

The people who professionally manage today’s demonstrations are more likely anti-globalists, anarchists or in the specific Iraq case jihadis sympathizers. It is a diverse group with a variety of goals. Most of the marchers are unaware to them.

Posted by: jack at October 1, 2005 10:37 AM
Comment #83010

Walker:
“Yes, so think of how much more powerful it could be if the organizers were more ideological centrist and could be interviewed by the media without coming off as radicals, and if the attendance was much, much larger because people like me could enthusiastically attend without the downside of feeling their outrage is being co-opted by extremists.”

I do understand what you’re saying Walker, but with all due respect, I have to say that I think it’s no time to split hairs or worry about personal self-righteousness. The president lied our country into this war and too many people, both American and Iraqi, have died as a result. Right now, I’m not interested in marching with a group of ten people who think exactly like I do — I want to march with the multitudes and make a loud roar. Despite whatever political differences we may have, I think that we can and should be standing together sending the loudest collective message possible that we want an end to this war.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2005 1:37 PM
Comment #83011

JayTea:
“Yes or no question to those of you supporting this rally. Do you stand with the Worker’s World Party?”

Well, actually it seems that ANSWER has broken all ties to the WWP…
But when it comes to protesting this war? YES, I will stand with either group.
Outside of sending that message? NO.
Do I think our citizens have a right to follow any political ideology they want? YES.
That’s what American Freedom is all about.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2005 2:01 PM
Comment #83026

Yes it’s just fine to protest, but lets try and keep the reasons for it real. To say that Bush lied us into this, for whatever reason is no way to justify a protest. If he is responsible for such an act, he should be charged with treason. Clinton, Kerry and a long list of Dems. beat the same drums. But thats all they did. Beat off. Our lack of meeting force with force, is why we lost the towers, the Cole, and a long list of bombing Americans. A suitable response, like maybe shooting somebody , shame, shame, just might turn somebodys head around, or at least make us look like men instead of mice. Protest away, it is your right. Don’t think that it will change anything. You think too much of yourselfs.

Posted by: steve at October 1, 2005 4:45 PM
Comment #83032

steve:
“Yes it’s just fine to protest, but lets try and keep the reasons for it real.”

Yes, let’s.

“To say that Bush lied us into this,”

See Downing Street Memos.

“for whatever reason”

It’s hard to keep track of them all, since there have been so many.

“is no way to justify a protest.”

Yes, it is.

“If he is responsible for such an act, he should be charged with treason.”

There is no if about it. The Downing Street Memo’s are real.
First he will have to be impeached, then he should be charged with treason.

“Clinton, Kerry and a long list of Dems. beat the same drums.”

Blindly following political leaders, especially when they are wrong, is always unwise.

“Our lack of meeting force with force, is why we lost the towers, the Cole, and a long list of bombing Americans.”

Al Qaeda attacked us, not Iraq or Saddam.

“A suitable response, like maybe shooting somebody”

Yeah, how about Bin Laden?

“make us look like men instead of mice.”

Thing is, you have to shoot at the right guys in order not to look like an idiot, let alone a mouse.

“Protest away, it is your right.”

Yup. Guaranteed by the First Amendment.

“Don’t think that it will change anything.”

It has in the past, therefore, it may again.

“You think too much of yourselfs.”

You must not be thinking at all if you believe this idiot administration was right to take the focus off America’s actual enemy in order to start an unnecessary war in Iraq.
And clearly you are not thinking or feeling anything about the American soldiers who are dying, or being permanently disfigured, or blinded, or maimed, or psychologically traumatised by the experience of fighting a completely illegal and unnecessary war.
Since Al Qaeda is our enemy, we should have continued to search for Bin Laden, while finishing the job in Afghanistan.
And when we were done with that, we should have turned to seeking out and destroying Al Qaeda cells in Saudi Arabia — because that is where the majority of 9/11 hijackers actually came from.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 1, 2005 5:55 PM
Comment #83093

phx8,

The “Surrender Bandwagon?”

How interesting. The phrase implies the left wishes to surrender to someone. Who, exactly, would the left surrender to?

No, you misunderstand. The protestors themselves do not want to surrender. They want America to surrender.

Posted by: esimonson at October 1, 2005 9:26 PM
Comment #83094

Andre,

“Bush is the symptom, Capitalism is the disease, Revolution is the Cure.”

Question their politics if you want but at least they get it.
When will you?

You’ll never see me with a Che Guevera t-shirt on, or supporting the revolution if that’s what you mean. But I’d love to debate the value of communism with you, if you’d like.

Posted by: esimonson at October 1, 2005 9:30 PM
Comment #83118

Eric,

You can debate the values of communism to yourself if you like, almost everyone else realised that it’s a stupid idea long ago.

And some random late night bile spewed out to other people - obviously everyone in the anti-war protests are morons (or complicit)(or jihadis?!), just being manipulated by those communists who are within an inch of realising their goal of a worldwide socialist state.

If there are “professionals” being paid to get people to oppose the war, they deserve a raise! My local anti-war recruiter is doing a sterling job, he’s managed to get a lot of people here to support his hidden communist/anarchist agenda.

I realise now that in my opposition to the war and the continuing occupation I was just being led by sinister forces far cleverer than I am. Or maybe I just wanted to get laid. Anyway, carry on, I’m sure the Iraqi insurgency will give up once they’ve realised that everyone in Europe and America supports “freedom and democracy”.

Posted by: Paul at October 2, 2005 12:56 AM
Comment #83131

:^) Nicely done, Paul.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 2, 2005 11:23 AM
Comment #83213

Stephen,

I know all too well that shopping by credit is far more expensive than paying with cash or using credit with 0% interest for a period of time. This is how I manage my funds. I pay no interest when I can. But that does not stop me for using credit in instances where it is needed quickly.

You missed my point. There will NEVER BE ENOUGH MONEY just sitting around in the US Government coffers to handle war spending or natural disaster spending. NEVER!

Therefore such ventures and rebuilding are always more expensive. What is good fiscal responsibility for the private citizen cannot always be applied equally in the federal government.

Theoretically, you would like to have money coming in equal money going out or at least have more money coming in than going out. But you can’t becuase when that situation arises the middle class is often overtaxed. Look at Social Security.

It is the biggest slush fund the Government has. They wrote a big fat IOU to fund the Viet Nam War. They have not paid that back to this day. If they did we wouldn’t be having the Social Security Crisis.

Anyrate most democrats would be pissed if they new the federal government had 80 billion and 250 billion and another 70 billion sitting around doing nothing but waiting for an emergency.

Economists argue that a percentage closer to zero and slightly negative is better perceived by voters as good financial dicipline than a surplus…

Overtaxation has a bigger political wallup than a budget deficit.

Posted by: jack-0-lantern at October 3, 2005 10:41 AM
Comment #83244

Jack-o-lantern-
The Tax Cuts were not necessary. America’s economy had expanded to its greatest extent ever under that tax scheme. It’s no coincidence we started running record deficits when Bush put those tax cuts through.

We had plenty of money to handle things. Not even a terrorist attack and a war in Afghanistan could put us into deficit.

Not until Katrina had any truly emergency oriented spending come into the picture. The Iraq war was elective, the tax cuts were definitely elective, and the Medicare Drug Benefit was - you guessed it - elective.

We’re handling trillions of dollars to our rivals, who profit from our profligance.

Eventually, we have to pay them back. Why do you insist on paying the Chinese greater and greater chunks of our tax money, just so you can get that damn refund check? Do you like aiding and abetting the competition, the folks we may one day find ourselves in a military confrontation with? Where’s your sense of self-interest here?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 3, 2005 1:54 PM
Comment #83275

I don’t believe that you can pick the little parts of a group or movement that you want to support. Of course this falls in line with the liberal view of religion, “Im catholic but I use birth control” no you are not. Protest the war if you want, that is your right, however to say that associating yourself with certain groups and thereby empowering them is harmless is ridiculous.

Posted by: JayTea at October 3, 2005 4:28 PM
Comment #83314

Farm subsidies came about at a time when society rationalized it should be as self suffient as possible; that our food supply contributed to our well-being, and that wisdom precluded monopolies taking us hostage… Of course we no longer need food, it is solely power on which we subsist. Today we are all being educated in the progressive wisdom of globalizing markets such as the oil industry. We are after all a global village and need to make our towns and cities more empathetic to world wide influence.

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 6:21 PM
Comment #83316

Sorry, wrong discussion. :(

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 6:23 PM
Comment #83370

I cannot tell where the left gets the impression that “we” means the entire country. Kerry and Company voted for the Iraq War. Now they are against it. Tough shetsky.
There was no lack of votes to support the Iraq War in Congress. There have been no court cases invalidating the Iraq War. No one has tried to prosecute anyone for perjury with respect to the Iraq War.
The majority of the public essentially voted (if nothing other than tacit approval) for the Iraq War. Yet all I hear is ‘“we” want it to end now’. Sorry, dear Gauches (French for left), you cannot start and stop wars like a toy locomotive. Only children’s war games do.
You say you do not like warfare. As stated above, if not for war, you would be speaking German now.

Posted by: Eddie Filek at October 3, 2005 9:50 PM
Comment #83425

“As stated above, if not for war, you would be speaking German now.”

I can only presume that this statement is the result of a public school education.

Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2005 4:21 AM
Comment #83470

JayTea,

“Protest the war if you want, that is your right, however to say that associating yourself with certain groups and thereby empowering them is harmless is ridiculous.”

It’s amazing isn’t it?
Everyone except the staunchest conservitive is a mindless zombie, incapable of making decisions based on what they think is right or wrong, and thereby empowering those that would bring the country to it’s knees.

I guess Khrushchev was right, but we were wrong about the means. Communism will bury America under the peace mmovement.

What a load of crap.

Posted by: Rocky at October 4, 2005 11:35 AM
Comment #84628

Stephen Daugherty,

The Tax Cuts were not necessary. America’s economy had expanded to its greatest extent ever under that tax scheme. It’s no coincidence we started running record deficits when Bush put those tax cuts through.

Wishful thinking on your part. Here’s why.
America’s economy did expand to it’s greatest level under that tax scheme. It also ran it’s course. Tax the people while they have money and give relief when they don’t. Here is the point another way in case you missed it. Democrats increase taxes as REPUBLICAN ECONOMIC POLICY TAKES EFFECT. That includes tax cuts hereby giving the Taxpayers more disposable income. The bigger picture has nothing to do with the size of my tax return but more to do with the goal of democrats keeping Americans independantly needy. If I really wanted a big tax return check I could increase my pay deductions by any amount I wish. I know that my money is in much more responsible hands when it is in my own hands. So the phrase, what the good GOP giveth, The Dem’s taketh away.

I said it was wishful thinking because you are wishful thinking. Your grandios economic bubble had burst prior to Clinton leaving office. Recession was eminent.

We had plenty of money to handle things. Not even a terrorist attack and a war in Afghanistan could put us into deficit.

To the contrary. We saw what a terrorist attack did to the economy. The tax cuts were in response to a damaged economy. Yoda say “Time Line Issues, you have in deed.” The tax cuts were in response to 9/11’s effects on the over all economy and also the Democratic population hoarding money as though they would never see another dollar because a Republican was elected President. Coupled by corporate scandal that was occurring under Clinton but ignored. It was under Bush that corporate scandal was discovered. Somehow he gets blamed for that as well. It was discovered under a Rep administration so Dems feel that Repubs must have had something to do with it. I suggest that if Clintons tax schedule were still in place the government would have no shortage of money. YOU and I would instead have nothing to feed our children, nothing to pay the expense to get back and forth to work to pay our tax bill nor our energy bills. Deficit spending would have come at the hands of consumers victimized by bad democratic fiscally irresponsible spending behaviour. And now that we are on the subject. Let go of your hold on the balanced budget. Republicans did that under the contract with america. You latch on to it like it was the Dems plan in the first place.

Not until Katrina had any truly emergency oriented spending come into the picture. The Iraq war was elective, the tax cuts were definitely elective, and the Medicare Drug Benefit was - you guessed it - elective.

Are you nuts? Truly emergency spending started with 9/11! Coupled with a drowning of the stock market due to corporate scandal with ENRON. After 9/11 we were forced to spend on Homeland Security. Maybe that it still has kinks to be worked out. But with all solutions, time and scope are not totally realized. Look at the constitution for reference to amendments and the shaping of the Constitution. It lives and breathes. Had our Founding Fathers not made the Constitution amendable than it would have been disgarded and recreated. This is true with Homeland Security. It will continue to evolve spending billions until we get it right. Short sightedness on Dems part bind us to ill advised reactionary spending. Short sightedness in the Clinton administration has caused this reactionary spending.

We’re handling trillions of dollars to our rivals, who profit from our profligance.d

True. War is an expensive thing. Natural Disaters are expensive events. Nobody and I mean nobody wants to pay anymore than they have to. That includes you mister. But we have to. Not because of war or any singular event but by a string of events dating back to the beginning of this nation.

Eventually, we have to pay them back. Why do you insist on paying the Chinese greater and greater chunks of our tax money, just so you can get that damn refund check? Do you like aiding and abetting the competition, the folks we may one day find ourselves in a military confrontation with? Where’s your sense of self-interest here?

Let me tell you something about a military confrontation with the Chinese. On sheer numbers alone we are out numbered 100 to 1. That means that everyone in this country involved in a conflict should there be one with the Chinese would have to kill 100 Chinese. Those are insurmountable odds. I think that Diplomacy with respect to the Chinese is our only option. Let us not forget the Nuclear threat they pose was sold to them by Clinton. Navigation systems for space exploration is simply switched to weapons navigation when speaking of Nuclear proliferation.
Thank Clinton for that. Now I believe that same technology has mysteriously found it’s way to IRAN and North Korea. Coincidence. I don’t think so. We have to borrow money. We will never be debt free. In the event that we are debt free America will be in its deepest depression in history. And you thought a recession was bad.

So.. Where does that leave us. Two rock heads with no clear solution. You keep on blaming the Bush adminstration and I will keep supporting him. Because at least he and his adminstration are trying to solve problems instead of pointing fingers and saying I wouldn’t have done it that way while offerring no real solutions to anything.

Free speech is a wonderful thing. We wouldn’t have it if we were forced to speak Chinese or Arabic.

Posted by: jack-o-lantern at October 10, 2005 9:52 AM
Post a comment