Protestors: Just What the GOP ordered

Posted By: Peter DavidPosted On:

If I’m the GOP and I’m seeing all the over-the-top plans for protestors, I’d be salivating. I’d be saying, “Bring it on.”

I am VERY concerned over this orgy of protesting. I’m not entirely sure of the purpose of it. It comes across to me as massively self-indulgent in that not only will it accomplish nothing in terms of affecting the opinions of Bush and Company, but it may well swing undecided voters to the Bush camp. Why? Because Americans lean toward underdogs, and as protestors do everything they can to make the lives of the GOP delegates as miserable as possible, all they’re gonna do is make the GOP come across as sympathetic. “Those poor Republicans, can’t even have their convention without demented naked Kerry supporters trying to hog the spotlight.”

It’s bad enough with these garbage Swiftboat commercials (although if Kerry expected anything else, he was being naive. The GOP successfulyly painted John McCain, a POW, as “loony,” and Max Cleland, who lost two legs and an arm to a war, as being soft on American security issues, so Kerry thought…what? They wouldn’t pull the same crap on him?) eroding Kerry’s numbers. But Kerry’s own supporters may be the GOP’s best friends.

PAD

259 comments on “Protestors: Just What the GOP ordered”

  1. I was actually relieved to see the number of protesters making their way to NYC. For many months those of us who disagreed with the President’s position on Iraq, the economy, health care, taxes, his administration in general, felt as if voicing our opinions and then our anger was wrong. It’s nice to see others rallying to let the GOP and the country know we’re mad as hëll and not going to take it anymore. So I agree with Karen’s post earlier in the thread.

    Posted by Dennis V. at August 29, 2004 05:28 AM
    Sorry, but this is just the usual wishfull thinking by the Left… no one has been cowed into obedience at all

    Yeah Dennis, America was cowed into silence. We were painted a picture that America had to stand by her president during this war and that disagreeing with him dishonored the memory of those lost on 9-11 and the service of those men and women in Iraq now. We were labeled un-American and unpatriotic and it was accomplished in the same means as the connection made between Iraq and 9-11; terms used inter-changeably until we connected the two together. The tactic was duplicitous and just plain wrong.

    Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 28, 2004 07:38 PM It’s interesting that the Democrats were not able to reap any benefit from protests at THEIR convention. Part of this, of course, was that Boston was apparently much more restrictive to protests than New York plans to be.

    And oh I’d say a lot of the difference comes from the massive number protesting in NYC compared to the much smaller number in Boston. The GOP has repeatedly and regularly quelled and protest or opposition at any site the president campaigns on. In NYC they’re let the republican mayor do that job thereby removing the taint of suppression from Bush’s shoulders.

    As for laying off Kerry and sticking to the “real” issues…after all the Bush-bashing that has gone on involving issues both serious and petty, you would have to be very unrealistic to expect republicans not to press their advantage on any issue that seems to be as succesful at derailing the Kerry campaign as this one has so far been.

    Problem is, most right wingers think asking Bush to justify his actions is “Bush bashing”.

    One last thought: For all of you who said I could not have an informed opinion without seeing Farenheit 911, have you gone out and read the Swift Boat book for yourself? Not reveiws of it, not Kerry’s attempts to silence free speech by asking stations not to air the ad, but read the actual book itself? If not, then how dare you call it garbage? Are you not doing exactly what you criticized others for doing who don’t believe Bush was AWOL or that he lied to us about WMD’s? Just wondering. Nice to know there is no double standard here.Jim in Iowa

    No Jim, because the TV ad is an entity separate unto itself AND it has been repudiated by so many written and first hand accounts that it can safely be labeled lies. The Swift Boat Vengeance is aimed at Kerry because they didn’t like his testimony in front of congress. If they want to debate that, fine, bring it on. I’ll have as many who say atrocities did happen as they have who swear none occurred. But to cloak their anger in lies 30 years after the fact degrades every nam vet who won an award, as many of the comments here about the awarding of medals do. They’ve opened wounds that took years to heal and I hope they’re readily ashamed of themselves.

    The fact is, there are people coming forward almost daily about this issue. It appears that they are almost 2 to 1 against Kerry’s version.

    Posted by Chip Skelton at August 29, 2004 09:32 AM “Not on this, no. Either they think Kerry acted heroically or they don’t.””On the other hand, I do appreciate your spirited defense of John Kerry against people who claim that he flip flopped on issues. By your own words, you’re saying that changing one’s mind on issues is a normal and positive thing.”Wow. You’re kidding, right? How can someone who writes such complex characters, thereby, IMO, demonstrating a pretty serious intellect, actually take such a silly position.Let me check my book on things it’s okay to change your mind on. Maybe I missed the chapter on how SBVs can’t.

    Right over the ole noggin. You can’t change the facts of the attack. Meriting a medal is not based on “opinion” and trying to call question to those awards thirty years after the fact proves the purely political motivation behind their actions. Well, political and monetary.

    Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 01:03 PM
    Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH.

    Hardly. Most of the claims were repudiated in the official records of the events. The others were dismissed as soon as Rood broke his silence.

  2. Knew there was one I missed:

    The fact is, there are people coming forward almost daily about this issue. It appears that they are almost 2 to 1 against Kerry’s version.

    They must be reporting just to you then. Most networks themselves have shot so many holes in the Swift Boat ads they have little credibility. It’s more truthful to say there’s a 2 to 1 (or more) support of Kerry’s account. Even vets who do not support him have come forward to say the SBV’s comments are not based on fact.

  3. Catori wrote:
    “Yeah Dennis, America was cowed into silence. We were painted a picture that America had to stand by her president during this war and that disagreeing with him dishonored the memory of those lost on 9-11 and the service of those men and women in Iraq now. We were labeled un-American and unpatriotic and it was accomplished in the same means as the connection made between Iraq and 9-11; terms used inter-changeably until we connected the two together. The tactic was duplicitous and just plain wrong.”

    Well, maybe you’re living in a totally different America than I am, but no one was silenced. No one was dragged off to jail for expressing their opinions (no matter how wrong it was). Sure there were some Right Wing nuts out there accusing people of being unpatriotic, but that still didn’t stop anyone of speaking out (the whine only got louder!)… I just see this as the usually Left Wing ploy to exagerate something way out of proportion in order to garner some sympathy. Also, I wonder what you think of the Left’s accusations, towards the Right, of them being unpatriotic (or as Michael Moore calls them, “Hateriots”)? But I guess that’s not “pain wrong”…

  5. What’s amazing to me is that Kerry and his supporters (who for the most part hate the war in Vietnam and really hate the war in Iraq) will support Kerry who protested the Vietnam War then and now is “reporting for duty” and voted FOR the Iraq war. They protest war but are mad because Bush didnt go to a war they hate. They praise Clinton for not going to war but then say Bob Dole war record is umimportant. Huh? Kerry spoke about criminals in Vietnam and how HE commited the same type of crimes. Yet he never reported these crimes while in Vietnam and he and the New York Times cry themselves to sleep every night of the abuses in the Aba Gharib prison.

    Kerry is a man who approved of saying that he was in Cambodia under the direction of Richard Nixon in Christmas of 1968. Its in his approved biography. One problem, it all was lies as pointed out by SBVFT. Nixon was the president elect and had no powers yet in the winter of 1968.

    I suppose PAD has some nuance to explain that away.

    Im James Tipton and Im REPORTING FOR DUTY!

  6. Yeah two more free countries in the world. Iraq and Afghanistan. Who needs that! Bring back the Saddam and the Taliban! No wonder the “world” i.e. leftist/communist hate US.

  7. Bottom line, I can’t take the protesters seriously because they clearly are not for true human rights. The proof? Where were the protests when literally over a million people were executed by Saddam Hussein?

    Ok, let’s forget the past. Let’s look at today. In Sudan, over 50,000 have been murdered, and over 1.5 million have been displaced. They currently live in such horrible conditions that they make Iraq look like paradise. Where are the protests about this? Other than Danny Glover and a few others, there is nothing to be heard. Interestingly, the Bush administration is doing far more about a massacre on its watch than Clinton did about Rwanda. I think they should do more, but at least they are putting active and real pressue on the Sudanese government. Meanwhile, the worthless UN appears to be about to let them off the hook yet again. And why do we conservatives feel the UN was worthless in bringing any real change to Iraq.

    I just spent 3 hours with a friend who works with Iraqi refugees. He spent 12 years in Jordan and now almost a year in Nebraska. The majority of Iraqi’s both here and there are glad Saddam is gone. They want the US to leave as soon as possible, but they are not stupid. If the US were to leave now, it would be chaos. The “insurgents” are made up of 3 groups. One group is Saddam loyalists who are upset they have lost power and who were armed to the teeth. Another group is the radical, extreme portion of the Shìŧŧëš (sp?). The last group is terrorists from countries like Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

    It is probably a lost cause to even try to convince most of you, but the reality is that Iraq is better off now than 4 years ago, and that it is very possible for it to get even better if we stick with it.

    History only now is telling of the horrors under the Soviet Union and Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. The same “peace” activists who opposed Reagan’s goal to bring down that evil empire are today protesting the change in Iraq. So forgive me if I find there tactics and motives suspect.

  8. Dennis V, go read “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” That is, if the state in which you live still permits private citizens to own books.

    I work in TV, and have for several decades. I KNOW how slanted these guys are. I know how they kiss up to the rich and powerful, because the rich and the powerful are their bosses.

    It isn’t “fair and balanced” to put a screaming ideologue from the Right like HANNITY against a castrated, cowardly supposed liberal like (colmes). And putting something on a web site isn’t like having newspapers like the Reverand Moon-owned Washington Post push an agenda every day.

  9. All this stuff doesn`t get that much coverage here in Britain at the moment. From what I can see, also when listening to certain comments by reporters, the vast majority of people shares my feelings: The way Bush is throwing mud at Kerry is nothing else but disgusting. That Bush himself denies to have anything to do with it only makes it worse. I can only hope that this mud won`t stick, it certainly should affect the person who threw the dirt, not the recipient. If you can`t fight clean and hope to win, you start with dirty tricks. I guess I will see in November if the majority of US citizens actually falls for this.

    And what is this about forbidding a demonstration because “it will damage the grass”!? This caused some ironic reactions as well.

    I wonder what will come next. 🙁

  10. Re:Jim in Iowa
    I agree with you on the the whole Sudan issue.Unfortunately ,there doesnt seem to be about a lot of interest in human rights violations in Africa in general.To be honest I dont see how “pressuring ” the Sudanese government is going to have an effect.Acts of genocide seem to be pretty clear cut and something needs to be done.Inaction on the part of the UN and US will only feed the image of the
    western world some cultures already have and create more potential terrorists.
    I thought Clinton had us in Bosnia around the time Rwanda was having its atrocities commited and if memory serves that was considered a humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing was in place there also.However i do recall a report by 60Minutes or Abc News where the numbers of people killed in Bosnia were overdone while Rwandans were being slaughtered at a rate of about 800 a day i think.
    By the way proper spelling is ‘Shiites’ i think.
    Iraq being better ,well thats a matter of opinion.From my view considering american soldiers are being attacked and killed its not
    a better place.As far as the forces at work in the country consider that if the borders were not opened up by Saddams removal maybe the outside terrorists would not be there.
    As far as Reagan breaking up the “evil Empire”
    that was Russia,well There are a lot of problems caused by the breakup of the Soviet Union.Nuclear material and weapons being available on the black market,soviet weaponry in general being available and various problems like Bosnia ,and Chechnya that were held in check by the big government that were not cut loose.Besides not you got a bunch of small potential threats instead of one big ,slow ,threat .The threat you know vs the threat you dont.
    The UN in my opinion is an ineffectual,bloated beast that needs to die.If there is no concern on their parts for a world crisis that may require the use of force then they need to be gone.
    Not nitpicking or starting a flame war just interested in a discussion:)
    Just my .02 cents of opinion
    Deano

  11. “Dennis V, go read “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” That is, if the state in which you live still permits private citizens to own books.”

    The fact that Lying Liars and a whole slew of similar books were published and are easily available in EVERY state in the land sort of proves Dennis’ point.

    If you let yourself be cowed…well, I can understand how ashamed you might now feel. But there were plenty of folks who never let up in their critisism of Bush. I may disagree with most of what they said but at least they aren’t pretending that they had no choice but to toe the line.

  12. Catori said (forgive me, I’m not certain how to italicize):
    (Me): Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH.

    (Catori):
    Hardly. Most of the claims were repudiated in the official records of the events. The others were dismissed as soon as Rood broke his silence.

    Well, ignoring the fact that you chose not to print the VERY NEXT LINE I WROTE, I have to ask, WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn’t a matter of “flip-flopping” or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.

    And as for Robert Tang’s comment, yeah, I fear for the country too, even moreso if Kerry and his supporters ever gain power.

  13. Thomas E. Reed wrote:
    “Dennis V, go read “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” That is, if the state in which you live still permits private citizens to own books.”

    “I work in TV, and have for several decades. I KNOW how slanted these guys are. I know how they kiss up to the rich and powerful, because the rich and the powerful are their bosses.”

    “It isn’t “fair and balanced” to put a screaming ideologue from the Right like HANNITY against a castrated, cowardly supposed liberal like (colmes). And putting something on a web site isn’t like having newspapers like the Reverand Moon-owned Washington Post push an agenda every day.”

    I would like you to show me just one state in this country that isn’t premitting private citizens from owning books, especially the one you are recommending — “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.” Just one is all I need. Again, this is exactly what I’m talking about. The over-the-top exageration from the Left.

    As for your attack against FOX, it sort of sounds like you don’t think people with opposing views deserve to be heard. Gee, I’d hate to live in your ideal America. I guess those that only mirror your ideology deserve the right to speak. The others are just labled a “screaming ideologue(s).” Personally, even though I may disagree with people like Al Franken and Michael Moore, I do not think they should be silenced. They have every right to speak — but don’t forget, those that may disagree with them have every right to voice their opinion as well.

    Oh, BTW, FOX does allow opposing views to be heard on their programs. Maybe you’re not used to such a concept, but it’s quite the novel idea.

  14. I suppose I don’t get the point of protesting a political convention. It’s the time when a party assembles to asset its platform. It ranges from a pep rally to an appeal to the public regarding what the nominated candidate stands for. Protesting it seems a waste of time. If you don’t like what the GOP/Democrats believe, then vote against them in New York (and dear God, I hope all these protestors are registered). It would be like pro-lifers protesting the Democratic convention.

    I’m not a fan of protesting in general. It’s sort of like the Lenny Kravitz of political statements — shamelessy swiped from the ’60s without any historical context. If you’re cut out of the mainstream, as blacks were during the Civil Rights Movement, then a protest, a march, and sit-in is the only way to make your message known. You don’t need to block traffic to state your beliefs about the war. Write a letter to your congressman. Write a letter to the newspaper. Put up a Web site. Oh, and actually vote against the people who started the war you oppose.

    As I don’t see protests actually accomplishing the goal of convincing people to not vote for Bush, it just seems very self-indulgent, a big party.

  15. You know, I’m sure there are quite a lot of Iraqis that probably agree that Iraq is better off today; there are also several thousand people lying in their graves who probably don’t much care if they had been murdered by Saddam’s secret police, or killed by a wayward US bomb, mistaken intel or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To them, dead is still pretty much dead.

    If there’s one canard that really drives me nuts, it’s ‘Iraq is better off now…’ Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT! The Bush administration told the American people we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He told the UN and our allies the same thing. And we fell for it. After several months in which nary a weapon could be found, the WMD rationale turned into weapon programs, and then regime change, and then Iraq is better off now… If you want to send us into war to topple Saddam, fine. If you want to go to war because of weapons programs, or UN violations or whatever, that’s fine. But don’t tell me one thing and change the story after the fact. And when certain senators realize they’ve been snookered and cut you off because you lied to them, don’t call them unpatriotic.

    We went to war because we we were told repeatedly that Iraq had WMDs, and after none were found, we were told the reason was regime change. I don’t know, sounds like a flip-flop to me.

    And did anybody ever notice that when Condy Rice goes on the Sunday morning news shows to spin the Bush administration’s latest position, her forehead wrinkles whenever she says something that isn’t necessarily true? It would make a great drinking game: Condy’s forehead wrinkles, drink a shot!

  16. Going back to the original theme of this topic — whether or not the most extreme protesters could wind up helping Bush — the problem is that the most ridiculous protesters make for the best television coverage. With most heavily divided issues, the majority of the people on both sides are intelligent and behave well. However, they either degenerate into name-calling when faced with the other side, or they get ignored in favor of the most dynamic, excessive people. After all, lunatics make better viewing than intelligence.

    This also reminds me of the Onion article “Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years.” It’s funny — and sad — ’cause it’s true.

  17. So far, so good, anyway. From CNN.com:

    There were no reports of violence, and more than 100 people were taken to a police holding pen on 57th Street.

    New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the march was peaceful.

    “United for Peace and Justice have behaved responsibly, as have most of the marchers,” Bloomberg said.

  18. Joe Nazarro wrote:
    “If there’s one canard that really drives me nuts, it’s ‘Iraq is better off now…’ Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but THAT’S NOT THE POINT! The Bush administration told the American people we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He told the UN and our allies the same thing. And we fell for it. After several months in which nary a weapon could be found, the WMD rationale turned into weapon programs, and then regime change, and then Iraq is better off now…”

    “Iraq being a better place” is part of the point… or should I say, it’s part of the bigger picture of things.

    As for the WMD’s, you’re making it sound like Bush made this up all by himself. Like it was some grand scheme to fool the world… Well, the notion of Iraq being in posession of WMD’s was a widely held belief well before Bush took office. So, before Bush took power, was the Clinton Admin fooling the world too? Were other countries such as GB, France, Russia, Germany just fooling each other and themselves at the same time? And also, you’re over exagerating when you claim the rationale is changing… all that have you mentioned was part of the reason for invading Iraq. Sure, from the WMD’s, to me anyway, was the most paramount being touted, but don’t pretend the other reasons were not brought up before the toppling of Saddam took place.

  19. My favorite protestor was one who was actually against the guy I ended up liking. When reagan was running the first time (I think) he made some comment about how most air pollution comes from trees. So some guy comes to the next reagan rally dressed up as a tree holding a sign that said CHOP ME BEFORE I KILL AGAIN.

    If today’s protestors could come up with witty stuff like that they might get somewhere.

  20. Dennis V, I’m prepared to take Bush at his word that he honestly believed that Iraq had WMDs. In fact, he could have felt he was doing absolutely the right thing, based on the intel he was given (by sources now largely discredited, such as the ironically named Curve Ball) as well as some not-so-gentle pushing by the Neo-Cons, who seemed to have an agenda of his own. What I was trying to say is that Bush and his adminstration used WMDs as their reason for going to war. If he was wrong, he could have stood up in front of the American people and said he made a mistake, but it was based on faulty intelligence, instead of simply trying to rewrite history after the fact. If he said he misunderestimated the facts (his choice of words, not mine) I would have respected him a hëll of a lot more. Even in his most recent round of pre-convention interviews, the most he’d conced was he made a ‘miscalculation.’

    And Dennis, regarding your point about our allies being equally waylaid, I think we have to discount France, Russia and Germany, who all seem to have their own agendas as far as Iraq is concerned. As for Great Britain, at least Tony Blair had the stones to stand up in front of his people recently and say he made a mistake. And by all accounts, he had the same intel as Dubya.

  21. A few things:

    1) I was in the 400,000 strong protest march in NYC today.
    2) The overwhelming majority of us were perfectly peaceful, as the organizers had wanted us to be.
    3) The political spectrum in the crowd was pretty broad, from the center to the left fringe.
    4) I’ll be dámņëd if I’m supposed to just shut up when Bush and co. come here in an attempt to make political gain out of 9/11 (again). While I still have the right to publicly dissent — Ashcroft is just dying to take it away, after all — I’m going to utilize it.
    5) If John Kerry loses it’s his own dámņ fault for having not even the semblance of a spine. Being Bush-lite is not the way to beat Bush.

  22. Like many others I believe that Saddam DID have WMDs, but that he somehow disposed of them to other location(s) during the continual back and forth “negotiations” that took weeks during the UN’s fiasco with inspectors. There was even a report of aerial surveillance of convoys headed towards Syria, likely having not only WMDs, but also a significant portion of the Iraqi treasury on board.
    Having said that, I do believe that Iraq is likely a better place without Saddam, and the world is certainly a better place without him. BUT…I also noted on the day of the US invasion that this adventure will make Viet Nam look like a kindergarten class. And so it is beginning to unfold.
    The sad fact is that no one will be able to withdraw US forces for a very, very, VERY long time, like it or not. If that was to take place in the short term, Iraq would almost certainly go the route of Iran which would precipitate problems having far-ranging worldwide repercussions that no one wants to contemplate.
    Was Bush right in making the move? That question is irrelevant since the situation now exists. Is either candidate capable of withdrawing the troops? No, despite what either might espouse.
    Is Kerry a better candidate than Bush? I believe he is, because I believe that
    a)there is more truth to what Kerry and his supporters say than there is to what Bush and his supporters say, and
    b)Kerry has for the most part run a campaign that is above board and does not rely on the type of tactics that the Bush camp is using.
    Will the protests have any effect? The main effect they will have is to keep the political cauldron boiling and the larger questions front and center in the minds of the people. That’s a good thing.
    I believe that the people are not quite as gullible as many would think and that they WILL discern the truth and vote accordingly.
    The only issue will be to see if the result reflects that vote. In the previous election it certainly did NOT.

  23. “b)Kerry has for the most part run a campaign that is above board and does not rely on the type of tactics that the Bush camp is using.”

    This kind of thinking amazes me!

    Kerry claims that he is taking the high road while making negative comments against his opponent on a daily basis. He rarely stands on his record. His ties to the soft-money ads are easier to make than his opponent.

    Just how has he been more above board?

  24. Jason wrote:

    >>>I was in the 400,000 strong protest march in NYC today.

    This reminds me of something I’ve pondered once or twice as I’ve watched this whole goofy election tableau unfold. Who in the Republican party decided to have the convention in NYC anyway? That’s almost as nutty as having it in Chicago. Also, I’m not very impressed that 400,000 people just showed up to march in NYC to protest against the Republicans, mainly because there are probably at least 4 million Democrats in the city proper alone. If anything, that’s a pretty apathetic turnout given the huge pool of Democrats who live within a couple of hours of the city — especially since many of those in the crowd were probably just rubberneckers out for a Sunday stroll.

  25. “It is probably a lost cause to even try to convince most of you, but the reality is that Iraq is better off now than 4 years ago, and that it is very possible for it to get even better if we stick with it.”

    That’s not the point. It’s what the Bushites have endeavored to MAKE the point. It is the point that his followers have swallowed like hooked fish. But it is not the point.

    The point is that the war on Iraq wasn’t about making it better off. It was about protecting America. It was about a threat to security so urgent that the UN weapons inspectors were not allowed to finish their work. It was about WMDs that weren’t there. It was about an imminent threat that Saddam posed, which he didn’t. It was about convincing Americans that Saddam masterminded 9/11, which he didn’t.

    If Bush had said, “I want to be granted powers to wage war on Iraq because I want to make Iraq a better place,” he would never have gotten the approval. You know it. I know it. We all know it. So for the love of God, stop pretending it’s anything else other than a massive tissue of lies to support an agenda already in place before 9/11…one that was put into effect by ruthlessly and cynically manipulating an American public shellshocked by the fall of the Twin Towers. A public that, if not for 9/11, would have collectively stared at Bush if he’d wanted to go bomb Saddam and said, “What are you, high?”

    PAD

  26. Jason Schulman wrote:
    “4) I’ll be dámņëd if I’m supposed to just shut up when Bush and co. come here in an attempt to make political gain out of 9/11 (again). While I still have the right to publicly dissent — Ashcroft is just dying to take it away, after all — I’m going to utilize it.”

    Do you really think your right to publically dissent is under any kind of threat of being taken away by Ashcroft? Really? If so, please provide some realistic evidence you are in posession of this happening. Man, talk about using scare tactics…

  27. More importantly, Jason, do you then mean that if Bush doesn’t mention 9/11 at all during the Convention then you won’t have a reason to protest? Yes, I realize how unlikely that is, but still.

  28. Jason Schulman wrote:
    “1) I was in the 400,000 strong protest march in NYC today.”

    I had heard the numbers were more around 100,000 to 120,000 strong. The only people throwing out 400,000 are the organizers themselves (and of course, it would be to their benefit to inflate the numbers).

  29. Nobody should have any problem at all with the folks who march for a cause or even just to vent at the president. American as apple pie.

    The ones who are jeering folks going to Broadway shows (on the assumption that they are delegates) or chanting “we don’t want you here” or “Republicans go home” and other things aimed at intimidating OTHER people engaged in the political process…they are modern brownshirts, pure and simple, and if the irony were not lost on them they would probably be deeply ashamed of themselves.

  30. I just want to add something to what PAD said, other than that I completely agree with him:

    The main reason why Iraq is in the mess it is today is because of the arrogance and naivite of first of all the USA that people would immediately celebrate them as liberators and as soon as the regime is toppled, the war is over. On top of that, the USA insisted to do this on their own, under their own command.

    Nobody actually thought about it what consequences the invasion would have and how to actually rebuild the country – and I mean the political and social structure. A lot of mistakes have been done and a lot could have been avoided. And now the USA wants some help, also from the UN – but without giving up their command position!

    I am sure, foreign troops will be stuck in Iraq for many years to come, at least. The same as what is still happening in Afghanistan, a country that it still far from being stable and which is still a country in which me, as a woman, wouldn`t want to live. (By the way, I noticed that female reporters on British TV reporting from Iraq started to wear headscarves which is not a good sign at all)

    I think Iraq would have been better off if it would have been left alone. Instead of smashing a regime and leaving a mess behind the USA should have helped the people of Iraq to shape their own destiny.

  32. A public that, if not for 9/11, would have collectively stared at Bush if he’d wanted to go bomb Saddam and said, “What are you, high?”—PAD

    Umm…that’s exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was “high.”

    As for people who say that troops are going to be in Iraq a long time. WELL no Sh*t they are. We have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea.
    Those wars have been over well over 50 years!

    Will you stop acting as if GW rousted young men and women out of their houses and forced them to go to the middle east. Most soldiers want to be involved in some form of military operation. I know thats hard to believe if youre a democrat but not all people who join the army do it for the money. Dont project YOUR fears of combat onto them.

  33. I understand your feelings, but I must disagree. I took part in the march yesterday. It was very large (NY TImes says 500,000) and very peaceful. the only aggression was from some “anti-protesters”.
    We know that Bush and the republicans are deaf to decent and even find it unpatriotic. We hope that voters out there who are uneasy about Bush will see how divisive he is might think we will be better off with a new President. You may disagree with this strategy, but I think it is valid.

  34. Baerbell:

    >The main reason why Iraq is in the mess it is today is because of the arrogance and naivite of first of all the USA that people would immediately celebrate them as liberators and as soon as the regime is toppled, the war is over. On top of that, the USA insisted to do this on their own, under their own command.

    >Nobody actually thought about it what consequences the invasion would have and how to actually rebuild the country – and I mean the political and social structure. A lot of mistakes have been done and a lot could have been avoided.

    Ya know, I don’t consider myself to be overly insightful, but I was one of a vast number of American citizens who followed the news and questioned going it alone, going to war, and the plan to rebuild Iraq after invasion….. we simply weren’t paid any attention and dismissed as “not supporting” our counrty, “doing the terrorists’ jobs for them”, etc.

    >I am sure, foreign troops will be stuck in Iraq for many years to come, at least. The same as what is still happening in Afghanistan, a country that it still far from being stable and which is still a country in which me, as a woman, wouldn`t want to live. (By the way, I noticed that female reporters on British TV reporting from Iraq started to wear headscarves which is not a good sign at all)

    Not that I get all goose-pimpley over war, but the case for terrorist cells being supported in Afghanistan was much stronger than the accusations still being leveled at Iraq as a supporter even to this day.

    >I think Iraq would have been better off if it would have been left alone. Instead of smashing a regime and leaving a mess behind the USA should have helped the people of Iraq to shape their own destiny.

    I wouldn’t go for the “left alone” approach, but certainly would look at more assertive approaches to other counties before I’d have supported invading Iraq.

    Fred

  35. Dennis: “I would like you to show me just one state in this country that isn’t premitting private citizens from owning books”

    When you’ve got government officials wanting libraries to keep track of who borrowed what book, it’s a time to worry.

    James: “We have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea. Those wars have been over well over 50 years!”

    You’re kidding, right?

    You honestly equate keeping troops in a friendly nation as a ‘presence’ against poteitially hostile outside forces (ie the Soviets and Communist China/North Korea) with keeping troops in a coutry to keep it from self-destructing from revolutions or warlords?

  36. “Umm…that’s exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was “high.” “

    Ummmm… that’s exactly what most republicans did. In the height of their attacks and demonizing of Clinton, they questioned why he did this. And secondly, this was retalitory. Not “to make it a better place” or because of WMDs.

    Travis

  37. Steve,
    “Ralph Nader is the GOP’s best friend.”
    Please give this a rest already. The scapegoating of nader for “costing’ Gore the election is one of the more cynical things I have witnessed in all my years involved with politics.

    1.) Gore could have run on “peace and prosperity” and the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration. He did not. he was determined to run as “his own man” (gee, not too much ego there!) His choice, and an insane one.

    2.) The “brilliant” Gore, who had crushed Ross Perot in a debate on NAFTA and Bill Bradley in primary debated, likely would have been a clear victor if he had convincingly won either of the three debates against Bush. he failed to do so. That’s on HIM.

    3.) The whole idea that a candidate who actually stands by what he believes, and who gives voters another choice, is a bad thing is quite sad. If anything, we would be better served by having more choices, be they Libertarians on the right, or Greens on the left. Again, if a candidate or party can be tripped up by the interjection of ideas from a candidate or party that gets low single digits and gets relatively low media exposure and almost no money, well it’s kind of pathetic to use the “third party” candidate as an excuse.

    4.) Nader is having an even harder time getting on the ballot in states this year (through no small effort by the Democrats – how ironic that name is in this case – to keep him off). If he can “cost” Kerry the election with his current ballot access issues and poll numbers, then kerry was simply not good enough to win.
    Period.

  38. Ok, let’s forget the past. Let’s look at today.

    So, when is your man, the President, going to take an interest in Africa?

    Until he does, let’s try to not make a piss-poor generalization about who does and does not care about Africa.

    The president only cared about Saddam since Day 0.

    Hëll, his interest in bin Laden is only there because he wants to get reelected. And I think that is pretty self evident by the fact that we have over 100k troops in Iraq, and less than 1/4th that number in Afghanistan.

    The sad part is the fact that the American people are too stupid to notice this and all the other BS that’s come from the Bush Administration.

  39. Re: Swift Boat ads
    You know, I find it amazing that the same people who hailed “Fahrenheit 911” – which I did see by the way – as being unassailable (despite being packed with distortions and outright lies which have proven to be so), and then, when that was easily disproven, said it “brought up important issues” and was a “vitally important part of the debate” now are complaining about a group of veterans expressing their opinion. Of course, it’s much easier just to lump them into the supposed Republican Attack machine than consider what they have to say for many, I suppose.

  40. From edhopper:

    “I took part in the march yesterday. It was very large (NY TImes says 500,000) and very peaceful. the only aggression was from some “anti-protesters”.”

    More accurately, the NY Times reports that the organizers estimated the crowd at 500,000. They also quote an unnamed police officer. There is apparently no way to verify either.

    What was the form of the “aggression” you speak of?

    “We know that Bush and the republicans are deaf to decent and even find it unpatriotic.”

    Not sure what that means. Even if you change the word to decency it becomes a massive overstatement, albeit a coherent one. But since you “know” this to be the case I guess there’s no point in arguing.

  41. This is just great. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people leave their homes and travel to New York to protest what they feel is an unjust government full of corrupt policies. Polls show that the President is, at best, in a dead heat with his challenger. And what do we hear from the right? That the Kerry supports are “out of touch” with the mainstream. And that protesters are “loonies”.

    This is what’s become of our country? This is how people view dissent? As the act of loonies? And the right somehow deludes themselves into thinking that half the country is out of touch with itself?

    It’s nice to see the ditto-heads faithfully repeating the Republican talking points of the day. What next? Are we going to hear about how Kerry is the most liberal member of the senate? Maybe that he’s a flip-flopper? Ooh! Better yet! Maybe the President who spent more than 40% of his time on vacation in the months between his inauguration and 9/11 can accuse Kerry of missing too many senate meetings, and the ditto-heads will echo that one, too!

    I don’t mind conservatives. I really don’t. “Real” Republicans, the folks that believe in smaller government, and fiscal responsibility, those are the people that I think deserve respect. What I can’t stand is the people who ignore the fact that they are making half the population of this county absolutely miserable, and don’t want to make any effort at all to change that. This whole “my way or the highway” policy is a load of crap.

    If these people want to protest that, let them! Once upon a time, protest was a very noble, patriotic thing to do. It’s too bad the the armchair politicians that seem to creep around every corner find is so easy to ignore the issues that upset these people so much.

    Phinn

  42. Re: Max Cleland

    I a realy tired of Max Cleland being made out to be a martyr by the media, the Kerry campaign, the Democrats and people who simply don’t know the facts.
    First of all, no one ever mentions just how Cleland became a triple amputee. He blew himself up WITH HIS OWN GRENADE, and he was not engaging the enemy or in the midst of battle. He was near his barracks, the grenade slipped out of his hand and he blew himself up. While that certainly doesn’t make his willingness to fight for his country any less admirable or honorable, it certainly was not a heroic act that led to his severe injuries.
    Also, I find it beyond irritating that people will charge that because of his false war hero status, that Cleland’s voting record on defense and veterans issues is somehow immune from attack. Cleland’s military record played a large part in his being elected to the Senate initially, but in that time he accumulated a voting record that then was held up to public scrutiny, and he was rejected on THAT basis. That is caled democracy, something Cleland was fighting for, before he blew himself up.

  43. Re: McCain

    As far as the liberal media is concerned, McCain’s critique of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads is devastating. Because what the media and the liberals who seem to swoon over McCain every time he acts like a Democrat fail to realize is that many – especially his fellow Republicans – don’t like his voting record, feel he panders to the media, comes off self-righteous and appears to be thin-skinned. In fact, Cleland and he seem to be forming a group – Thin-Skinned Vietman War Veterans Adored by the Media. of course, the acronym, TSVWVAM isn’t really catchy, so maybe they’ll change it.
    But seriously, a huge reason McCain’s campaign was sunk in 2000 was his voting record. If for some reason, you seem to feel that military/wartime service should trump voting records, then you should also be perfectly okay for me as a writer, if I were to be elected to office someday, to be taken to task if I have a voting record that would seem to contrast with that. For example, if I consistently voted against the right of protesters to organize and in favor of book banning, it would be ridiculous for me to then say the charges that i was weak on First Amendment issues simply because I was a professional writer and editor for over a decade. The same principle aplies here. McCain and Cleland’s voting records are fair game, regardless of their service. In fact, considering the political capital they received from their military service, they should arguably have their voting records even more heavily scrutinized on these issues.
    The other reason McCain lost is because he was too liberal for the voters of South Carolina and HIS campaign was considered too negative there after he compared Bushs honesty to Bill Clinton’s. That was a silly, but, big, mistake. You can lkook it up.
    Of course, most of those who still feel like McCain, Cleland and kerry are being treated unfairly will probably consider to do so. Fine by me. It means that instead of arguing the right issues, you will continue to fail to learn from your mistakes.

  44. I think that the protestors are successful in getting people not to like Bush. For the past year whenever our president has spoken he has tossed in words such as unity, solidarity, resolve, resolute when describing American feelings regarding his presidency. If the protestors remained silent I could see the undecided voters out there taking the silence of the American people as confirmation on what Bush has been proclaiming. Thanks to the protestors most people out there can understand that Bush has polarized the nation. We are a much divided people now and that is reflective in our politicians. By contrast in the Clinton Administration, in his second administration anyway, we saw the country unite more as the difference between Republicans and Democrats shrunk sharply. When I was eighteen I voted for Bob Dole and when I was twenty two I voted for GW. Now that I

  45. “Umm…that’s exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was “high.”

    And then he immediately launched a full-scale invasion in defiance of the UN…oh, wait. He didn’t.

    But hey, at least the GOP pundits who support Bush’s unprovoked war efforts were uniliterally behind Clinton when he…oh, wait. They weren’t.

    Well, hey, color me convinced.

    PAD

  46. “Nobody actually thought about it what consequences the invasion would have and how to actually rebuild the country – and I mean the political and social structure. A lot of mistakes have been done and a lot could have been avoided. “

    “Ya know, I don’t consider myself to be overly insightful, but I was one of a vast number of American citizens who followed the news and questioned going it alone, going to war, and the plan to rebuild Iraq after invasion….. we simply weren’t paid any attention and dismissed as “not supporting” our counrty, “doing the terrorists’ jobs for them”, etc.”

    To be fair, I think when she said “no one” she was referring to the people in the administration actually running the war. You know: The draft dodgers whose agents are trying to smear the candidate who did NOT dodge the draft.

    I also have a sneaking suspicion that Powell had some serious trepidation.

    PAD

  47. “You know, I find it amazing that the same people who hailed “Fahrenheit 911” – which I did see by the way – as being unassailable (despite being packed with distortions and outright lies which have proven to be so), and then, when that was easily disproven, said it “brought up important issues” and was a “vitally important part of the debate” now are complaining about a group of veterans expressing their opinion. Of course, it’s much easier just to lump them into the supposed Republican Attack machine than consider what they have to say for many, I suppose.”

    I don’t seem to recall liberals for the most part hailing “Fahrenheit 9/11” as anything other than a powerful piece of movie-making. Would you like a tin woodsman and a cowardly lion to go with that straw man you’re building?

    I would also like to point out that some people have the intelligence to perceive that Michael Moore has a long history of acting with an independent voice while the Swift Boat ads are being stage managed by the Bush and GOP machines, as the “New York Times” so impressively proved. Now if you’re prepared to prove that Michael Moore is being supported by John Kerry or the DNC, then do so. Otherwise I wish you and others would stop disingenuously pretending it’s the same thing.

    PAD

  48. Oh, so Michael Moore has an “independent voice”, even if its spouting lies and distortions, not a “lying voice” or “distorting voice”.
    Oh, and The New York Times “proved” a connection between the Bush campaign and The Swift Boat ads? The paper whose publisher has gone on record as saying the Times is liberal and that he doesn’t like Bush?
    Oh, and was Michael Moore not in a former president’s private box at the DNC? But no, he’s still an “independent” voice rather than a Democratic voice/attack dog?
    Sigh.

  49. Jerome, you really should stop promulgating lies about Cleland and look stuff up. Cleland was not injured by his own grenade and it happened during the siege of Khe Sanh.

  50. PAD,
    To say that you “don’t seem to recall liberals for the most part hailing “Fahrenheit 9/11” as anything other than a powerful piece of moviemaking”….

    What? In the same breath as “Mystic River”?
    It was a propaganda piece, with many of its claims easily debunked by various sources. The part where he uses a headline in a letter column as a “headline” in a Florida newspaper is as close to lying as one can get without tecnically doing so.
    For weeks afterward, undeterred by debunked points of the film, all you heard were questions on whether or not this and the subsequent DVD release would have a major impact on the election. And a big deal was made about “Fahrenheit 9/11” doing well in “red” states (gee, I wonder how many stories there have been on how “Unfit For Command” is doing in “Blue” states)?
    And I’ve heard it repeated a million times that “F911” is “the only place where you can get the truth”, that “Moore didn’t have to lie and distort this time because…well, he didn’t have to” and that “Moore is doing the media’s job in digging for the truth”.
    And how much airtime has Moore’s lie regarding the pipeline in Afghanistan gotten compared to those who denounce the SwiftBoat Vets.
    Just, you know, wondering.
    Straw man? Hardly.

Comments are closed.