The Vast American Anti-War Movement

Harold Meyerson claims that there is no anti-war movement: In the absence of an antiwar movement, the American people have turned against the war in Iraq. Those two facts, I suspect, are connected.

There was a very real antiwar movement early on. In the months before, during and immediately after our invasion, hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets to oppose the intervention. Then chaos, followed by insurgency, enveloped Iraq, and the need for a constable to restore some order became indisputable. Those who had opposed the war -- this columnist included -- argued that the occupation would be less of a lightning rod if conducted by an international force under U.N. aegis. But the Bush administration insisted on U.S. control (a decision that grows less explicable with each passing day), and other nations with real armies made clear that they wanted no part of what was becoming a bloody occupation.

Confronted with a choice between U.S. occupation and chaos, millions of Americans -- chiefly liberals and Democrats -- who'd been against the war decided to give occupation a chance. In the streets, demonstrations dwindled; in Congress, Democrats (save for a handful) did not call for withdrawal. With unprecedented discipline, Democrats who had opposed the war lined up behind the candidacy of John Kerry, whose position on the war was muddled at best. The question of the occupation fell off the liberal agenda. At the Take Back America conference, a national gathering of liberals held this month, the issue barely came up at all.

Meyerson's view of a "movement" seems reasonable enough to me, although I think his conclusion that there is not anti-war movement is wrong. For Meyerson, one of the centerpieces of a movement would be vast, public demonstrations. However, I think he should consider what the concept of a demonstration actually is. Historically, demonstrations have not just been a large show of support for a particular idea or policy position, but an actual demonstration of the methods and people that are intended to make the idea or position a reality. By this definition, the anti-war movement could hardly be most vast than it already is. In fact, I would estimate that around 98-99% of Americans are participating in it.

While demonstrations on the scale of 2003 are no longer as large or as prevalent as they once were, it is important to remember that the purpose and function of the anti-war movement has changed since then. In 2003, short of an internal Labour Party revolt against Blair, we knew there was really no way we could stop Bush from going to war. In the months immediately before the war, the purpose of the anti-war movement was simply to declare, on the record of public consciousness, that we did not agree. I know that is why I participated. Rather than "Stop the War Now," our rallying cry was "Not in Our Name."

Now, the purpose of the anti-war is different than it was back then. While there might not be massive rallies of the sort that there were two years ago, our demonstrations are as long as ever. Right now, the purpose of the anti-war movement is to withdraw from Iraq. Since we are facing a government that would ever seriously entertain the idea of withdrawing our military from Iraq, the anti-war movement has instead succeeded in convincing almost the entire American public to withdraw from Iraq. Because it is doing nothing by way of enlistment, by way of encouraging others to enlist, and by way of real material support for American troops, every single day the American public is engaging in a massive, non-violent demonstration against thee Iraq war. Almost every American has made it very clear that they wish to end this war, and their preferred means of doing so is simply to not participate within it. Steve Gillard notes the degree to which almost every American is objectively anti-Iraq war through our collective inaction:

People on the right and left want some deus ex machina to save Iraq, but we have., collectively, come to a simple conclusion:

Iraq is not worth dying for. Not for the warmongers on the right or the liberal hawks on the left.

It's bad the soldiers are trapped there, but we have made it their problem, No one is willingly going to join them, and 5,000 have deserted so far.

When you ask liberal hawks to enlist, they are offended by the question.

When you ask conservatives to enlist, they are offended by the question.

And America's parents are NOT sending their kids to die in Iraq if they can, at all, help it. No one blows up IED's at Wal Mart.

We have a volunteer army with fewer and fewer volunteers, and people reenlisting only to save their friends. There is a time limit to their ability to be in combat. They cannot serve forever. They will have to be replaced. And fewer and fewer are willing to replace them.

Even among those Americans who support he war in word, through their inaction the vast majority of them actually oppose the war in deed. They are not enlisting. They are not calling on others to enlist. They are not creating or participating in a grassroots aid program to soldiers in Iraq. They are not actually doing anything to support the Iraq war and, as such, are objectively anti-war. Resources are needed to fight this war, and withholding your personal resources is the equivalent of withdrawal.

I come from a liberal Catholic background. Growing up, I was told that there was no difference between your deeds and your actions. I still believe that. It is time for all of America to realize how anti-war we actually are. Simply put, almost no one in America wants to fight this war, and almost no one in America is fighting this war. No matter what it says, the American public is anti-war and has already withdrawn from Iraq. We demonstrate this every day, both en masse and in public.

Tags: Activism (all tags)



I am not in an anti war guy and neither is America
I am in a George Bush is an idiot guy.  If Colin had been our President we could have had a Iraq war that would have gone much more smoothly.  There are real logical reasons why we attacked Iraq (oil, striking an ARAB SUNNI nation for 9/11 leverage against a Nuclear Iran, Syria and Israel).  It is because of these that smart Democrats didn't get all Jane Fonda as the left wanted.

Average American's support war at least initially, even wars like Iraq or Vienam etc.  So long as there is not an idiot at the helm, or theives or liars etc etc etc...

If you learn the lesson that America now agrees with you that all wars are wrong I think you will repeat the same process that occured at the start, namely overplaying the pro-peace hand and preventing a more moderate voice to simply list off the errors made by Bush.

Bush won against Kerry in part because the VALUES of America are pro-war.  The DETAILS not in W's favor.  But we didn't fight a protest on the details we fought on the VALUE that war is wrong which is a MINORITY view in America.  Couple in it wasn't a clear message with the primary being VERY Anti-War and the real election being mildly PRO-WAR to go where the votes were.

We should have focused very heavily on the aspect that W and his crew don't know what the hell they are doing.....

That is an idea that most American's grasp, even Bush said you may not agree but you know I believe it which is paramount to saying you know I am an idiot on the wrong course but trust me I won't change course....

by donkeykong 2005-06-22 05:23PM | 0 recs
Re: I am not in an anti war guy and neither is, I think many people argued that this specific war was wrong.  The anti-war movemnet this time was very pragmatic in their position on the war as far as I could tell.  

Chris's point is that we (regular Americans) aren't actually fighting this war nor are we willing to fight it--war "supporters" and liberal "hawks" included.  He is dead right about that.

by Garemko 2005-06-22 05:32PM | 0 recs
Being a little bit pregnant
...the VALUES of America are pro-war.  The DETAILS not in W's favor.  But we didn't fight a protest on the details we fought on the VALUE that war is wrong which is a MINORITY view in America.  Couple in it wasn't a clear message with the primary being VERY Anti-War and the real election being mildly PRO-WAR to go where the votes were...

Hmmm. You could prove the first point by passing out a stack of DD-4s to eligible individuals and seeing what kind of reaction you get.

As for being "mildy pro-war", that's like being a little bit pregnant.

by Michael Bersin 2005-06-22 05:41PM | 0 recs
The American Public
Knows that we cannot win this war.  We know it by our History.  We wore down the British to win our Independence and the same will happen to us.  It cannot be won because they have more to die for than we do.  This war is not about the survival of our nation.  It is about control of the world's oil supply.

With all the money that we are spending to fight this war we could have invested into making this country independent of imported oil.  This would have created jobs, helped the environment and made us more secure without one solider losing their life.  

If you are not willing to pay for this war with your own blood, then you are not pro war.  It is time to challenge those who say that they are pro war to enlist. That is why I am writing Challenge Letters to the editors of my local papers.  The pro war people need to put up or help bring the troops home.

by SRconbio 2005-06-22 09:15PM | 0 recs
Re: The American Public
Its easy to imagine that the American public is anti-war or even anti-this war.

But we definetly were not anti-Afghanistan or anti-Iraq desert storm or even anti-"War on Terror" even with small amounts of torture (although curiously enough we are VERY anti-torture when faced with it head to head).  

Being right about anti-war 1 time out of 4 or being right after the fact is not enough.  

Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day....

America is not now nor has it ever been anti-war in general.  We may now be anti-Iraq war (although if there is any good news you will find that isn't true) but we are not anti war and the public will not hesitate to enter another war in the future.

As such we cannot be anti-war as it is a losing proposition.  We should be pro war in the way that wise generals who have lost many a young soldier they would rather not have lost are pro war.

Understand the need, Understand the mechanics, Understand the cost, Understand the enemy, BEFORE entering into a war.  This will prevent most preventable wars and protect us from being the doves that America isn't really fond of...

by donkeykong 2005-06-23 03:59PM | 0 recs
All I am saying
If you believe that this war is worth fighting, then enlist or talk your children into enlisting. Do not let others bleed for you.
by SRconbio 2005-06-24 02:43PM | 0 recs
The Vast American Anti-War Movement
...the anti-war movement has instead succeeded in convincing almost the entire American public to withdraw from Iraq. Because it is doing nothing by way of enlistment, by way of encouraging others to enlist, and by way of real material support for American troops, every single day the American public is engaging in a massive, non-violent demonstration against thee Iraq war. Almost every American has made it very clear that they wish to end this war, and their preferred means of doing so is simply to not participate within it...


by Michael Bersin 2005-06-22 05:29PM | 0 recs
Iraq - WMD's
Check out the quote below from an old (pre-Iraq War) Gene Lyons column.  It makes an obvious point, but one that got zero attention in the media as we prepared to go to war.   Lyons is saying that there were two possibilities; either Saddam had no WMD's (which would make a US invasion unnecessary), or if he did have WMD's, then by launching an invasion Bush was sending 100,000 +  American troops to a certain death, or perhaps risking the nuking of Israel, Jordan, Kuwait or other America-friendly states.  

How in the world did our media (and even the anti-war bloggers) fail to ask the critical question of Bush:  "You're about to invade a country run by a madman who you believe is armed with nuclear weapons?"

Bottom line; the administration knew for certain that the WMD's were non-exisistent.


"In short, if Saddam can't retaliate, invading Iraq is pointless; if he can, it's potentially catastrophic. Take your pick."

*Gene Lyons

by global yokel 2005-06-22 06:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Iraq - WMD's
I'm not so sure I'd much that kind of assumption, but I think one thing is definite, and that's that the lack of any WMD has finally sank them.
by descrates 2005-06-24 06:32AM | 0 recs
Religious Differences
Chris, you have identified a critical issue dividing the pro-war Christer crowd and the increasingly anti-war patriots.  The Christers believe that faith trumps everything.  Their belief in something makes it automatically correct and proper and right.  That confessional system runs smack up against that liberal Catholic theology you mention which holds that faith without accompanying acts is meaningless.  

The traditional Catholic theology would demand that one make the sacrifice if one held a particular belief in order to earn the reward of heaven in the afterlife.  The Christers don't hold with that at all.  They believe they know that they are already the chosen.  It's too bad that they don't self-select down at the recruiters office to demonstrate their godliness.  Besides, one would expect that a person who had real faith in their receiving eternal paradise would not shrink from the prospect of giving their temporal existence in a good cause.  They don't really believe it because they know they are vermin not worth being trod upon.

by VizierVic 2005-06-22 06:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Religious Differences
The neo-cons used the Art of War model* to a tee.  The neo-liberals used anything to excuse their greed.

*The MORAL LAW causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.
[Tu Yu quotes Wang Tzu as saying: "Without constant practice, the officers will be nervous and undecided when mustering for battle; without constant practice, the general will be wavering and irresolute when the crisis is at hand."]

by goplies 2005-06-22 07:28PM | 0 recs
one more deed
Don't forget, nobody is willing to pay for this war either.  We are fighting on the pocketbooks of our children.
by BBigJ 2005-06-22 07:18PM | 0 recs
Re: one more deed
That point trumps all.  Not even the guy that made it all happen wants to pay for it. Wasn't it interesting also how as soon as the Parliamentary Government was elected that America handed the bill for clean-up and reconstruction directly over to the people of Iraq after the US Taxpayer had already been billed.
by goplies 2005-06-22 07:31PM | 0 recs
Re: one more deed
I agree. I showed how convoluted their thinking has always been.  They want to believe that the country has become so conservative, yet they have to sneak around in conducting their far right agenda.  They're the biggest bullshitters in history.
by descrates 2005-06-24 06:35AM | 0 recs
What point is there?
An anti-war movement will have utterly no use until 2007 at the earliest.

Odds are, both candidates in 2008 will run anti-war.

by jcjcjc 2005-06-22 07:34PM | 0 recs
The point is
Democrats need to be the leaders in the antiwar movement.  For once make the repugs the me too party.
by SRconbio 2005-06-22 09:19PM | 0 recs
To be honest
The Dems had their chance to be leaders in the anti-war movement.

It was called 2002 and they fucked it up.

by jcjcjc 2005-06-23 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: To be honest
I agree but they were lied to by Bush.  Let us start the leadership now.
by SRconbio 2005-06-23 03:58PM | 0 recs
I'm calling bullshit on this

No one was lied to by Bush.  Not one person in Washington DC in 2002 had a single misconception about what was going on.  

Otherwise, explain why Kerry didn't just use the "he lied" defense during the campaign for his half-assed vote.

Wes Clark himself said in 2002 and 2003 that everyone knew how this was going to go down.  That anyone in the Beltway Culture knew what was up with WMDs.

I'm sorry.  If they can stonewall Josh Bolton for missing a few papers, surely they could have stonewalled an entire goddamned war for the same reason.

by jcjcjc 2005-06-23 05:35PM | 0 recs
Maybe but what do we do now
We disagreed on what was known at the time.  But now we Democrats must lead the Antiwar Movement.  Because the Repugs won't.  They see as a prize and I see it as a death trap.  And like or not no other party can get us out of Iraq.  We need to turn it over to the United Nations armed with troops from Islamic Countries.  Kerry was too scare to speak the truth and it cost him the election.
by SRconbio 2005-06-24 02:36PM | 0 recs
Allow me to weigh in...
I wasn't raised Christian at all but became one in 1989 and spent 7 years as a full-blown Fundamentalist wackaloon until I (as George Carlin himself has confessed) reached the age of reason. In other words, I woke the fuck up and stopped believing much of my own bullshit and came to the conclusion that if the Fundamentalist hucksters such as Jack Van Impe and Hal Lindsey are accurate in terms of their  mumbo-jumbo regarding Bible prophecy, then the ultimate deception -- nay, the ultimate irony -- would be if the right-wing Fundamentalist brigade's fight for their perfect, Reconstructionist, utopia on Earth just so happens to be the perfect environment that brings about their fabled "End-Time Anti-Christ" afterall. In other words, in their zeal to destroy the Beast that is liberalism/abortion/gay marriage, they inadvertantly pave a path for a monstrosity so diabolical that the state of Michigan wastes no time handing over that 616 Area Code over to the sonofabitch so that it can get a head start in carving it into its forehead.

With all that said, I believe that picking up ones cross does not require crucifixion of ones brains and that is essentially the difference between Fundmentlist Christianity and Non-Fundamentalist Christianity. The latter will take time to think things thru before jumping, considering each dilema carefully while the later will literally nail up their brains to the fundamentalist cross without a single lucid thought time and time again.

To put it another way, a liberal Christian believes that the human mind is a terrible thing to waste and must be excercised continually to avoid atrophy. A conserative Christian thinks the human mind is a terrible thing to have period. Especially an open one and they know liberal Christians love to have open minds and it pisses 'em off. They can't fathom how liberal Christians can possibly look at events such as war, gay marriage, and abortion though a multifaceted prism and they reason for that is because throughout their entire lives, they been conditioned on how to think and asking "Why?" is to "question God" and invite oneself to an all expenses paid trip to Hades where they'll check into a single-occupancy luxury suite along the top floors of the Gehenna Hilton, each sporting a balcony that overlooks the Stygian river, and never check out.

And so they conform to the popular; the flavor of the month; the flash in the pan and not because of Jesus. Forget Him - what will the neighbors think?!?

Liberal Christians don't worry about the neighbors, afterall everyone is entitled to an opinion and if people don't agree with it, that's their perogative. We don't lose sleep over it for we ultimately realize that our self-esteem isn't contingent upon what others think. But the other side of the great divide, that is not the case. If they were to say, "This war is a bullshit war", they risk castigation, humilation, rejection, excommunication from each other and their pea-sized mind just can't cope with it and so they demure, choosing instead to sing the right song, do the right dance, and kiss the right ass. In short, they'd rather be merely percieved holy in front of people than be holy in the eyes of the ol' bossman upstairs by shared virtues and principals.

As a liberal Christian, if something I say rocks the boat or offends someone, it's not the first time and it definately be the last. There's no guilt or bloodshed in agreeing to disagree. With that, I say with every ounce of my being that this war is a bullshit war; a pointless war. A war that is doing nothing but allowing a small cabal of dupes and degenerates to filch money, votes, and power from themselves without any regard to the 1,700 heads they've stomped on in their mad scramble for bragging rights.

If by saying that, it makes me a rotten bastard, then guilty as charged because when the rest of the troops come home (and eventually, they will), some of them will be changed people -- so changed by all the death, doom, and destruction that their spouses may not recognize them anymore as they person they fell in love with and perhaps had children with. With great pain and sorrow, some will leave one warzone only to find themselves into another warzone called "divorce/seperation" where the spoils are once again divided (although I never served, it is my opinion that the lonliness a soldier feels in a trench can ever compare to the lonliness of an empty home), or one called "mental illness", or another one called "post tramatic stress disorder". With these broken homes, broken familes, and broken lives, the caseloads at the court offices, unemployment offices, and at the welfare offices will rise and to float the costs of that in the sea of the ridiculous deficit we have, taxes will have to be raised ... and its going to take quite a number of rotten bastards to vote "YES" to it all.

I'll gladly be one of those "rotten bastards" and if that means a shower of Republicans and Democrats skewer me on their pikes and parade me around like some kind of un-American ghoul for a vote that resulted in raising their personal tax-load, then I'll ride upon that pike with a smile for my faith compells me to vote not by my own personal wants and desires but by having the compassion to realize that there's always someone less fortunate than me and I can think of no other group of people more unfortunate than returning soldiers who are husks of their former selves after witnessing the horrors of war.

by Sizemore 2005-06-22 10:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Allow me to weigh in...
Does the GOP pay you?
by donkeykong 2005-06-23 04:04PM | 0 recs
some folks HAVE been protesting

Below are the towns the Louisiana Activist Network
will pass and the times we will arrive at each:

Friday, September 23, 2005

7:20 AM New Orleans, LA

8:16 AM  Slidell, LA

8:38 AM Picayune, MS

9:43 AM Hattiesburg, MS

10:17 AM Laurel, MS

11:17 AM Meridian, MS

12:51 PM Tuscaloosa, AL

2:31 PM Birmingham, AL

4:04 PM Anniston, AL

7:40 PM Atlanta, GA

9:03 PM Gainsville, GA

9:44 PM Toccoa, GA

10:20 PM Clemson, SC

10:57 PM Greenville, SC

11:43 PM Spartanburg, SC

Saturday, September 24, 2005

12:43 AM Gastonia, NC

1:25 AM Charlotte, NC

2:36 AM Salisbury, NC

3:17 AM High Point, NC

3:35 AM Winston-Salem, NC

3:42 AM Greensboro, NC

4:44 AM Danville, VA

5:54 AM Lynchberg, VA

7:07 AM Charlottesville, VA

7:59 AM Culpeper, VA

8:33 AM Manassas, VA

9:27 AM Alexandria, VA

9:50 AM Washington, DC

Join us in Washington for the mass antiwar rally

SEPTEMBER 24, 2005

United for Peace & Justice

Cause out on the edge of darkness,
There rides a peace train,
Peace train take this country,
Come take me home again.

by goplies 2005-06-22 10:52PM | 0 recs
Why is America against the Iraq war?
It is time for all of America to realize how anti-war we actually are. Simply put, almost no one in America wants to fight this war, and almost no one in America is fighting this war. No matter what it says, the American public is anti-war and has already withdrawn from Iraq. We demonstrate this every day, both en masse and in public.

The American people are not getting anti-war information from the M$M. They are not getting anti-war information from the Bush administration.

The only source of anti-war information and coordination of anti-war resources is the internet reinforced by personal, face to face communication.

Is there any other explanation?

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-23 02:08AM | 0 recs
I will burn an American flag
I just decided that I will burn an American flag at the peace rally on September 24th. I don't know if I will be at a peace rally in D.C. or L.A., but I will burn an American flag as a symbolic gesture of my opposition to Bush's illegal and immoral war against the Iraqi people.

Bombing innocent Iraqi women and children is far worse than burning an American flag. Bombing innocent Iraqi men is also immoral, but for some bizarre reason it is more socially acceptable than bombing innocent women and children. I don't know why.

Peace out,

by Gary Boatwright 2005-06-23 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I will burn an American flag
If I may channel Charles M. Province, it is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves under the flag, and whose coffin that is draped with the flag whom grants us all the freedom to wave or burn the flag.

If our govenment wants to ban flag burning, then it is my opinion that they must also ban flag waving as well as ban the idea of a military. If a person can't be free to burn it, then a person can't be free to wave it, salute it, serve under it, or have his or her coffin draped with it.

As long as there remains soldiers and a military in this country, then I will excercise by freedom of choice and my freedom of expression however I see fit. If that means one day I wave the flag only to turn around a day later and burn one, so be it.

by Sizemore 2005-06-23 09:01AM | 0 recs
Gee, Madalyn Murray O'Hair rises from the tomb...

Leaving aside your use of that contemptuous term, I'd like to point out that, according to Scripture, one cannot earn one's way into heaven. That kinda shoots down the Catholic idea mentioned above. However, that's not the thrust of my post.

My best friend, T, is a strong Christian and I have often asked for his advice, be it for Java coding, career direction, or even moral guidance (one thing I gained after becoming a Christian was a heightened sense of guilt! My Jewish parents would be so proud.) T is smart, compassionate, and really seems to walk the walk when it comes to his faith. However, I have recently come to the sorrowful realization that I might have to dump T. He supports the Smirk and I can no longer pretend that doesn't matter to me. I simply cannot understand how anyone with a shred of morality, intelligence, or decency can continue to support our God-Emperor. Time and again, I've spoken with T about it and each time, his smooth, reasonable voice patiently explains to me that I don't have all the facts, I'm letting my [unfair] hatred of Bush cloud my judgment, etc. etc. "Come on, Saruman," I say, but he's undeterred.

I feel that T's moral authority is suspect. Once I got over my awe (for lack of a better word) at meeting this man who seemed to be the upright and moral person I've always wanted to be, I started reminding myself that T is not always right. He once worked for the CIA (as did his wife) and so perhaps he's trained in the art of persuasion. But it's in vain; I'm usually wrong, but not this time. When he pooh-poohed the DSM, that was the last straw.

My own faith has been severely challenged by all this. I know I should wish redemption for everyone, but all I want for Chimpco is for the ground to open beneath them and dump them living into hell. I wish I could be there when RUMMY, Rush, W, and all the rest see what's in store for them.

by GaryHobson 2005-06-23 05:01AM | 0 recs
At its core...
I simply do not agree with the morality (or lack thereof) of the wars we've had in the past 35 years or so. In fact, I'll will always speak out against any war that large corporations desire to wage just to get more oil, pipelines, or other resources that are often conveniently hidden under the Patriotically/Politically Correct misgnomer of "American Interests".
by Sizemore 2005-06-23 09:11AM | 0 recs
Don't Overlook Meyerson's Main Point...
which to me is that the lack of street demonstrations, flag burning, "weirdos", hate the military and other assorted EVENTS that the MSM would LOVE to caricature, has allowed a slow bubble up of widespread doubt and increasing resistance to Bush's War. I was a Veteran Against the War in Vietnam and look back on it now as having given the "great american public" two stark choices: For the War, or For the Peaceniks. That's what Nixon ran on and won.

I was convinced by Meyerson's numbers and by his argument that the Republicans will now look for scapegoats--that's us--as the Iraq disaster unfolds. In absolute contrast to my gut, for once, I think we need to do the Teach Ins about how we got there, the lies and deceptions that continue, the Defense of Privacy for ourselves and our kids (against such things as No Child Left Behind disclosure of kids' records), the DOD outsourcing dossiers on our kids, etc.

The Durbin deal and Rove's disgusting provocations are designed to frame you and me for their war, their lies, their mistakes. Do a Teach In about the Truth instead of doing what your blood tells you to do--smash that fucking bastard rove and his friends.

by DFATMA 2005-06-23 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Overlook Meyerson's Main Point...
I say a mockumentary is in order......

Someone with video clips of Bush Rumsfield Rice, offset against Powel, and foreighn leaders saying wait a minute that isn't right...

Maybe beverly hillbillies with changed lyrics could be theme song...

But then 100% commentary no interpepting just 100% documented TV facts.

add the date and show clips...

  1. Bushes campaign quote about Arab American's shouldn't be descriminated against or profiled.

  2.  Bush's quote that Middle east wouldn't be a priority for his presidency and he would play a hands off role.

  3.  Bush trying to open borders with Mexico

  4.  9/11

  5.  Rumsfeld saying American boys don't torture when the relaxed enviornment was raised

  6.  Powel Jr consolidating the press

  7.  Rumsfield saying he knew of torture but it wasn't widespread

  8.  White house attacking Newsweek for Pentagon story about Koran....

  9.  Pentagon saying Koran abuse was true.

etc etc etc.
by donkeykong 2005-06-23 04:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Don't Overlook Meyerson's Main Point...
Followed by "W's War: If You Don't Cry Too Much, You Will Laugh Hysterically," Starring Turd Blossom the Warrior, W Hisself in Faux Flight Suit, CondiLIEza in Riech Boots and Slit Skirt, Denny Hastert the Brave, Jeff Guckert as Republican Stud On Top, and Ann Coulter Under Gannon.  

Chapter One: Turd Blossom and Crew Close Manpower Gap by Offering one-time Generational Enlistments, Only Available to Young Republicans.

by DFATMA 2005-06-23 09:45PM | 0 recs
Its an interesting take on the situation
I think I agree with a lot of it.  I've always questioned the how much good protest movement do in the end.
by descrates 2005-06-24 06:30AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads