home

A Day of Protest

The war isn't in Vietnam, and it isn't 1967. But a bad war and bad government have again engendered protest. Some of the faces are familiar, although the slogans have been updated.

Tens of thousands of anti-war protesters, energized by fresh congressional skepticism about the war in Iraq, were demanding a withdrawal of U.S. troops in a demonstration Saturday featuring a handful of celebrities such as Jane Fonda and Susan Sarandon. ...

Other demonstrators on a clear, sunny day carried signs to the National Mall that said "Make hip-hop not War," "The surge is a lie," and "Clean water speaks louder than bombs."

Not that the president will notice ... or care.

As protesters streamed to the Mall, Bush reaffirmed his commitment to the troop increase in a phone conversation Saturday with Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, a day when one or two rockets struck the heavily fortified Green Zone, home of the Iraqi government, thousands of Americans and the U.S. and British embassies.

This isn't, after all, the kind of protest the president purports to admire.

On Monday, [President Bush] called anti-abortion marchers on the phone from Camp David.

The life of a fetus apparently has greater value to the president than the life of a soldier.

As for the notion that protest harms the (supposedly good) morale of troops in the field:

Frank Houde, 72, of Albany, N.Y., was a career Air Force pilot who served in Vietnam. Houde did not carry a sign, but said that his protest was on his hat, which said "Veterans for peace." ... Houde, retired from the antique restoration business, said he was never upset by protests at home while he was in Vietnam.

"I knew most were protesting on principle," he said. "It was a democratic process."

Free speech. Use it or lose it.

< Getting Ready for D.C. | Has anyone been having site trouble? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Struggle against war requires break with Democrats (none / 0) (#1)
    by Andreas on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 12:47:29 PM EST
    Democrats have voted nearly unanimously every year since 2003 to grant the administration massive war funding that now totals nearly $8.5 billion a month.

    And what of the new-found Democratic antiwar fervor supposedly reflected in the nonbinding Senate resolution opposing Bush's "surge"? As the text of this resolution makes clear, the Senate Democrats--together with some Republican allies--begin not from a determination to end the war, but rather a concern that Bush's proposal will provoke mass opposition, making it harder to defeat the Iraqi resistance.

    The very first passage of the resolution warns, "United States strategy and presence on the ground in Iraq can only be sustained with the support of the American people and bipartisan support from Congress." ...

    The Democrats do not oppose aggressive war or colonial occupation. They backed the invasion of Iraq because they thought it would enable the US to grab the country's oil resources and establish US hegemony in the Middle East. They are critical of Bush's war policy now not because the war is imperialist or illegal or because it has killed hundreds of thousands of people. They are critical because the war has gone badly.

    The Democrats, like the Republicans, are controlled by a financial oligarchy that is determined to utilize US military force to offset the decline of American capitalism's economic power. This campaign of military aggression will not end with Iraq. Preparations for war against Iran are already well advanced, and mounting global tensions raise the nightmarish prospects of a global conflagration.

    The struggle against war requires a break with the Democrats
    By the Editorial Board of the WSWS, 27 January 2007

    Making Lists (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:32:09 PM EST
    No news helicopters allowed to report the march, but the government helicopters are flying over the march in great abundence.

    What could they be doing?

    What could they be doing? (none / 0) (#3)
    by Edger on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 04:52:57 PM EST
    Besides proving how nervous the administration is?

    Bush is irrelevent (none / 0) (#4)
    by fafnir on Sat Jan 27, 2007 at 07:47:32 PM EST
    Today's protest was about putting pressure on Congress and the Senate.

    Unlike the protests in the past, the organizers of today's event arranged to have a two-pronged approach, beginning with today's awesome rally followed by one or two days of lobbying Congress and the Senate. Smart approach.

    Also, one of the speakers said something very memorable and inspiring. To loosely paraphrase, "The vote did not bring women the right to vote;  the vote did not bring civil rights to oppressed African Americans; the vote did not end the Vietnam war.  It was the struggle, not the vote, that brought about change."

    Today's evolution of traditional protest marches into protest marches and lobbying efforts demonstrates that the tools of the past can be adapted to work in tandem with new age tools to achieve political change more effectively than relying one any single approach.

    The turnout in DC surpassed my most liberal expectations. It was huge! And, on balance, the speakers kept the focus one the main issue: Iraq, the Legislature, and the 2008 presidential hopefuls.

    He's only as irrelevant (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    as congress makes him. Keep on marching!

    Parent
    Relatively minor point, but... (none / 0) (#13)
    by LarryE on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:07:03 AM EST
    Unlike the protests in the past

    Actually, not unlike protests in the past, assuming the "past" being referenced here is the Vietnam era. Then, it became common in the event of a DC protest to combine a Saturday march/rally with Monday lobbying.

    In fact, in the early 1970s there was a summer-long project revolving around week-long fasts and lobbying of Congress by delegations from different parts of the country.

    The image of the 60s is one of on-the-streets stuff, but that's not all there was. And, unlike some prominent bloggers nowadays who only take their lips off the butt cheeks of the Democratic Party long enough to sneer at protests, people at the time understood well understood that it was not either protests or lobbying, it was both together.

    (And no, the reference to prominent bloggers was not directed at anyone here.)

    Parent

    I totally agree. (none / 0) (#23)
    by fafnir on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    I was referring to the recent protest events I've attended, not those during the Vietnam era. After educating myself about that period, it is clear that the movement used a multitude of approaches to keep the fire lit and bring about change.

    I disagree with some bloggers (non here at TL) who write disparagingly about marches and don't view this activity as a complementary, viable tactic that can be employed to achieve the movement's goals.

    Parent

    Iraqis prefer the Democrats...Hmmmmm.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    Dadler (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:32:57 PM EST
    BAGHDAD -- Representatives of Iraq's government are hedging their bets on America's political future, hoping to keep U.S. support for their country strong by building ties with a Democratic Party that now controls Congress and is closely scrutinizing President Bush's Iraq policy.

    Gee. Amazing. The Demos take control of Congress and Iraq wants to make nice with'em.

    Astounding. What an unusual thing. Gosh. Who would have thought about it??

    Parent

    What a cynic you are (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 11:15:45 PM EST
    Jim, if all these Iraqis are doing is cynically making nice with new congressional masters, why are they saying ANYTHING that would alienate them from the Republican president actually in charge of the military occupying their nation?  By your limited explanation of their rationale, it makes no logical sense.  They would cozy up WITHOUT alienating the Republicans (which is easily done).  Their candor speaks volumes.  But you don't care enough to listen, you're too offended, too reactionary.  That's the same kind of blithe disregard for reality that got us into this mess.

    And the beat goes on.  

     

    Parent

    Dadler (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 07:56:45 AM EST
    Hey, I've seen comment after comment that says Bush is toast and the Demos are gonna pull out the troops.

    What else would Iraqis do?

    Remember. The Iraqis do not know that the average Demo politican is just slight more FOS than the average Repub.

    Parent

    DA (1.00 / 1) (#20)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:10:54 AM EST
    Ta Ta Dark Avenger!

    See you have again emerged from your shrouded chambers to make a personal attack.

    Other than that, how was your weekend?

    Terrible I hope!

    Parent

    Dark Avenger - Wanna debate?? (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 08:06:01 AM EST
    Good morning Dark Avenger! I see you are still out and about making scurrilous claims.

    Let us leave all of this behind and seek to have a debate. I ask you the same questions I asked Edger.

    What would you do? I mean you are protesting the war, demanding the troops be brought home.

    Now. what do tou expect to happen if you get your demands?

    Will hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be killed as the Sunis, Shias and Kurds fight for control of the country?

    Do you believe that the radical Moslems will be encouraged and will increase their efforts to attack the USA and other non-Moslem countries?

    If you don't believe these things will happen, please explain why.

    Parent

    Dark Avenger, tap dancing dude (none / 0) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:13:04 PM EST
    Let it be noted that you fail to answer the questions by engaging in your well known and time worn "tap dancing."

    Parent
    denial and contradiction (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 12:42:13 PM EST
    "What else would Iraqis do?"
    You mean the iraqis that voted, have a new contitution and parliament? The iraqis that bush told that we would leave when they wanted us to? They are a soverieng nation, freed by the US ... or so we are told.

    First ppj claims dems embolden the insurgents, now he claims dems embolden the elected gov't.

    I would have thought emboldening the elected leaders of iraq would be a good thing to wrongwingers. There's just no pleasing (or reasoning with) these blood thirsty war mongerers.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 06:54:59 AM EST
    Gosh, I didn't know my comment was that hard. But evidently it is.

    1. Demos win Congress.

    2. Iraqis want to work with them.

    3. No surprise.

    BTW - What does that have to do with Bush Bad, etc.?

    I would have thought emboldening the elected leaders of iraq would be a good thing to wrongwingers

    Who said it was a bad thing? Still waiting for that new pair of reading glassess?

    Parent

    This war (none / 0) (#8)
    by Che's Lounge on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 01:42:16 PM EST
    needs to end NOW. Not after we "see how things go" for another year. Now.

    Edger (none / 0) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:45:58 PM EST
    Since we determined the other day you won't fight, and since we know that if we don't stop Iran they will have nuclear arms, and if they have nuclear arms and we won't fight, the best we can hope for is a negotiated truce... that is until they decide they're strong enough to force us into complete submission..

    But anyway, let's just address the negotiated truce terms.

    Now, what would you be willing to give up?

    Freedome of religion? Okay. That would mean  Sharia law and loss of women's rights, death to homosexuals and lesbians, among other things.

    Does that work for you Edger?

    What would I be willing to give up? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sun Jan 28, 2007 at 08:50:58 PM EST
    Same answer I gave you here on Frday, Jim. You chose to intentionally miss it there. Will you miss it here too?

    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 08:04:40 AM EST
    That was, is and will be a non-answer. When will you understand that we are being attacked. You don't get to choose that. All you can do is:

    1. Fight

    2. Try and negotiate

    3. Surrender

    I asked a simple question. What would you be willing to give up? Women's rights? Women's education? The right for gays and lesbians to live? Women's rights to defend themselves.

    You can't ignore these facts.

    Parent

    Meet the enemy (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Sailor on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 11:46:32 AM EST
    ppj advocates torture and kidnapping and 'flattening' countries that had nothing to do with 9/11 and no ability to harm us.

    People who hold such antithetical view of America's democracy are thhe actual enemy.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:14:50 AM EST
    Could you provide some facts to back up your claims?

    You can't?

    No surprise.

    Parent

    Sailor - Wanna debate?? (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 08:18:08 AM EST
    I also ask you the same question I have asked Edger.

    What would you do? I mean you are protesting the war, demanding the troops be brought home.

    Now. what do tou expect to happen if you get your demands?

    Will hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be killed as the Sunis, Shias and Kurds fight for control of the country?

    Do you believe that the radical Moslems will be encouraged and will increase their efforts to attack the USA and other non-Moslem countries?

    If you don't believe these things will happen, please explain why.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC TROLL POST (none / 0) (#36)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 03:11:33 PM EST
    It went (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 08:10:47 AM EST
    Edger (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 07:59:06 AM EST
    Still won't answer, eh?

    I'll ask again.

    What would you do? I mean you are protesting the war, demanding the troops be brought home.

    Now. what do tou expect to happen if you get your demands?

    Will hundreds of thousands of Iraqis be killed as the Sunis, Shias and Kurds fight for control of the country?

    Do you believe that the radical Moslems will be encouraged and will increase their efforts to attack the USA and other non-Moslem countries?

    If you don't believe these things will happen, please explain why.


    Parent

    Are you advocating (none / 0) (#38)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:43:45 PM EST
    thousands of American soliders dying so  hundreds of thousands of Iraqis won't be  killed as the Sunis, Shias and Kurds fight for control of the country?

    Are you certain that as things deteriorate, that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis won't be killed anyway as the Sunis, Shias and Kurds fight for control of the country, whether or not we are there?

    How do you know this?

    How do you know  hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will be  killed as the Sunis, Shias and Kurds fight for control of the country?

    Why didn't George Bush think about this problem before he lied us into an ill concieved, ill planned war of choice and why didn't you think about it before you blindly followed Bush waist deep into the big muddy and condmened the rest of us for not being willing to follow Bush waist deep in the big muddy?  

    How long are you willing to stay in Iraq, how much of my tax dollars are you willing to spend, how many American lives are worth it?

    Did you not learn anything at all from General Washington and General Giap?

    Don't give me that nonsense about fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here. I've got news for you. They can walk and chew gum at the same time. If they want to, they can fight us here and there.

    Why should any of us listen to George Bush, or Cheney or Perle or Bill Kristol or you, when all of you have been consistently and persistently wrong?!



    Parent

    Want to know how to protest the war properly? (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 07:20:53 AM EST
    Just ask RightWing Nuthouse. They're busy whining and wetting themselves themselves over the May Day protest, and they've decided they know how to be left better than the left. Left behind.

    Pavlov 101 (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Mon Jan 29, 2007 at 10:12:27 AM EST
    I love these "former radicals" (Exhibit A: Helperin and Horowitz), who've seen the light now that they're out of the line of fire and hooked into the foundation/think tank money gravy train.

    Iraqi Vet spit on (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 08:27:59 AM EST
    FNC interviewed a Iraqi vet this morning who said that he was threatened and spit on by Left wing protestors over the weekend.

    He is stationed at Walter Reed Hospital were he is recovering from wounds and had a leg removed in 11/06. He'll be there another year for further medical treatment.

    Wow. Spitting on a one-legged war vet. Oh well, they knew he couldn't chase them down.

    Guess they got tired of speaking truth to power and decided to show their courage another way.

    The real crowd... (none / 0) (#31)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 08:40:45 AM EST
    Looks like the usual suspects show'd up to the "protest" that show up to every anti Bush, anti American protest.  You know your G8, global warming, pro-choice, anti economy crowd that seems to make a living making signs and marching on the capital.

    Pictures are worth a thousand words and I'm sure about half of these people are truley anti-war and mean well but it appears that other half are simply wackjobs that are simply a protest waiting to happen.

    My favorite was the skeeza condelezza sign that I take to mean that if you're black and republican your a bad person.

    Enjoy

    Parent

    Looks like a crowd of ordinary people (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 10:07:20 AM EST
    leaving a church or a mall or something Slado. Can you identify which of the ones in the picture are "simply wackjobs"? Or do we need special glasses to see them?

    Parent
    Church? (none / 0) (#34)
    by Slado on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    Funny you mention church. I managed to escape attending (a weekly battle in the Slado house) this Sunday so I'll probably be there next week and I try to avoid the mall even more... :-"

    I will try not to generalize in future posts.  I think I mentioned the "Skeeza" as a wackjob along with the guy who seems to be saying 9/11 din't happen or was purpotrated by the CIA.

    Also here is the troops response to the day of protest and the phrase "support the troops"

    NBC

    Parent

    Ummmm... well.... (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edger on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    I'm sure some of the troops in Iraq will feel that way. Propagandized as they are.

    I'm confused though here.

    You've managed to roll the G8, global warming, pro-choice, anti economy, people who make a living making signs, Condoleeza (Rice, I assume), 9/11, and who knows what else you had in mind, all into one post - then you included a link to a picture of some perfectly ordinary looking people walking around on a sunny afternoon, while claiming that it "appears that ... half are simply wackjobs".

    I keep looking at the picture, but I don't see any wackjobs.

    At least... not in the picture. ;-)

    Is there something wrong with this picture?

    Parent

    Faux Noise Channel? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 05:46:45 PM EST
    You mean the same people who reported Senator Obama was educated in a madrassa and that HRC was pushing the story. The story that turned out to be completely wrong?



    Parent

    Does anyone else remember ... (none / 0) (#41)
    by Sailor on Tue Jan 30, 2007 at 11:26:54 PM EST
    ... when this thread was about A Day of Protest?