Rove at the Rally? Posted by Lorelei Kelly

"The liberals were pretty much right on Viet Nam. And what did that get them? They destroyed their reputation on national security for three decades"

This statement--coming from a thoughtful conservative journalist--was like a sucker punch at the luncheon I attended  today.  Especially since our nation is entering another public discussion about ending a painful bout of warfighting.  This weekend, a massive anti-war march is coming to Washington.  I'm not sure yet if I'm going, as I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.  I think protesting the Bush administration's strategic blunder is right-on.  I also think demanding a policy on how we're going to transition from a combat mission to a peace support role is vital. 

My interactions with peace organizations have been encouraging in the sense that they are willing to entertain complex policy ideas instead of "Out Now" slogans.  This rally has the potential to be a positive step forward in encouraging liberal Members of Congress to agitate for an exit strategy.  The rally could be an on-message, problem-solving American exercise in participatory democracy.  But the left has its own strategic blunders to worry about. Which leads me to the question:

Is the organization ANSWER working for Karl Rove?  Only he could hatch a plot to offer up a message  muddling "Palestine Tent" on the mall coupled with an anti-Israel march to the ellipse in front of the Capitol.  So now every elected leader who comes to show support is going to have to bear the wrath of the Israeli lobby and fend off right wingers who love to paint liberals as anti-semitic.

ANSWER is short for Act Now to Stop War and End Racism.  I wonder if they ever considered that one way to stop war is to help progressive leaders become seen as serious policy advocates on issues of national security and defense. (instead of spending time playing "cry uncle" with AIPAC)

We on the left have an interesting predicament.  Our most progressive elected leaders in Congress are more conservative than their activist base.  Our progressive leaders are being pragmatic--actually trying to make progress. ANSWER's  antics hurt us.  We don't have the Fox news buzzsaw to manage perception.  We also don't routinely smear conservatives with a broad brush when their wacky base gets out of hand (like fundamentalist Christians protesting "Queers" at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq)  It's not fair, but we don't. I have read that reports of leftists spitting on soldiers after Viet Nam were highly exaggerated (just like bra-burning, it  took on a mythic quality and added fodder to the conservative cause)   

So we have to be extra careful.

It is vitally important to the future of our nation to have articulate and passionate progressives leading on national security  policy.  Otherwise we will move ever closer to a militarized state.  Our president and his cohorts in Congress are about to  start fiddling with posse comitatus--the law that prevents the military being used for domestic law enforcement.  While the issue deserves discussion, in the hands of this crowd, it's scary.  Without progressive voices getting involved in the debate  about lessons learned in Iraq, our troops will not get  the training and preparation they need for future conflicts,  humanitarian included.  This would be tragic.  Lacking pro military progressive voices, the anti-recruitment drive taking place across the country will be portrayed as the same old anti-military antics on the left. Yes, high school dragoon tactics  are awful,  bounties to join-up are a perversion of service.  BUT, we  civilians are the ones who put the military in this  desperate situation. The buck stops with us, the American public.  They  are desperate because we've forced it on them.

Remember, the military will hardly ever say "no" to a request.  They will do or die until the very end.  This is why we love them but it is also exasperating  for those of us who would like to see military professionals offer more expert advice to policy makers about how to share responsibilities with civilian agencies.  But they are not  the ones who will ultimately establish  the limits placed on themselves.  This is a task for civilian elected leaders.   Progressives must be at the  table, and soon.

Like the military itself,  the average American citizen’s notion of national security is in transition.  The Cold War framework of the nineties has given way to a new era defined by less discernable threats: terrorism, climate change, global pandemics, and a growing energy crisis.   Because increasing numbers of Americans are aware of the need to do things differently, and are unhappy with the polarization of our political system, there presently exists a window of opportunity to reframe the public conversation away from antagonism and toward cooperative problem solving.  In my opinion, this is what a true progressive should focus on.

The military and peace activists have much more in common than meets the stereotype.  Both seek cooperation over conflict. Besides the pacifists, both want force to only be used as a last resort.  These are long term strategies that can be dashed by the tactics of groups like ANSWER.

Instead of decrying American imperialism, why not fight for our civilian agencies to have the ability to create international networks of democratic peers like the US military does?

I know it's not emotionally satisfying to carry a sign that says "more judges for Nigeria" OR "Do we really want to be so in hock to China?"  But translating the energy of the peace movement toward these ends is the  monumental progressive challenge.

Comments

[John F. Opie]

Hi -

How naive are you?

See http://www.infoshop.org/texts/wwp.html
and http://www.answers.com/topic/a-n-s-w-e-r

ANSWER is a communist front organization, always has been and always will be. Progressive politicians will never be taken seriously until they throw people like ANSWER, with a deliberatively confrontational agenda, out into the gutter as they deserve.

ANSWER is the progressive's albatross around the neck: until you get rid of them, including their organizational abilities, you will be forever tarred with their goals and agenda. In other words, you will be, in their jargon, a "useful idiot", blissfully unaware of who you are helping.

Sorry to be so negative, but this really takes the cake: how naive can you be to accept fellow travellers at face value.

[fat sam]

um, Mr Opie-- did you READ the post?

[Judah]

Lorelei-

If you want to march on Saturday with "Do we really want to be so in hock to China?" I'll be right next to you with "More judges for Nigeria." Or maybe we could both just wave "Support S/CSR" signs.

-Judah

[Sandwichman]

Don't get too hung up on this "being taken seriously" kick. How seriously would YOU take Pat Robertson, Tom DeLay, Rick Santorum, etc. And look who's in power. The policy wonk finesse you're talking about is only good for climbing the career ladder of the status quo. If that's what you consider 'serious' good luck with global warming.

[owen]

A "Replace Rumsfeld" sign might be emotionally satisfying while appealing to just about everyone other than Dick Cheney. It's not hysterical, we really need some new ideas on Iraq, and even conservatives see that Rumsfeld is just not delivering.

I'm too far from DC to show up with my own "Replace Rumsfeld" sign, but that's what I'd carry.

[Robert M]

I can not agree that Iraq was a strategic blunder. The way it was carried out was the blunder. That is a reflection of the Bush Presidency decision to use the GWOT as a political weapon domestically.

That said the rest of your argument is very valid. It is not simply the progressive elected officals are more conservative than the electorate. It is the progressive movement to long ago made the critical strategic decision to not recognize that there are legitmate reasons to have military options. They do not recognize that war is politics by another means.

As a consquence we have few military people in positions to speak about the use of military assets. This manifests istself as an ignorance about the simplest aspects of the military. Thus when spokesmen speak about the military issues they come off as stupid and incapable of explaining the issue. They can not even tell you the difference between hard power and soft poweras strategic and tactical weapons.

Until knowledgeable people can be recognized as experts in the real world(NYT, Chicago Tribune, Washinton Times, Delaware County Times and Observer) not the net one(Democracy Arsenal, the Truman Project) and are accorded postions of real power and influence that come with such expertise progressives are going to LOSE.

As to spitting on vets during the Viet Nam War. It was true and a sense of shame is why it was not reported by the vets. Vets did not openly wear their uniforms because of the rage and hositility that caould be openly vented against them. Their knowledge that the political system had essentially left them out to dry and the shame they had because they made a decision to survive this situation(especially the infantry armor and artillery units) at any cost. When you have this occuring in an organization where shared sacrifice means dying and you take that away what you have is a very hollow and damage individual.

[David Martin]

This posting is a great example of the feckless, muddle-headed thinking that has reduced modern day liberals to a bunch of hand-wringing namby pambies. You make so many points with which one must take issue I hardly know where to begin. But I'll try.

Let's begin with your uncertainty about attending Saturday's march. If you are serious in your opposition to George Bush's vanity war and your schedule and circumstances make it possible to attend, you need to be there. Period.

Forget your quibbles with ANSWER's political orientation. This organization is not the sole sponsor of the march. And even if it is, who cares? So what if ANSWER has an agenda that can be labeled Communist or Socialist. That's not necessarily a bad thing in this day when Hurricane Katrina has blown back the curtain on what our society under untrammeled crony capitalism has become. But how many of the marchers will be aware of ANSWER's political leanings or care? The important thing is for those of us against the war to stand up and tell this administration, and the world, that not all Americans are knee jerk chauvinists who have fallen asleep in front of their televisions wrapped in bloody flags. We demand an end to this crime against humanity, and we demand that George Bush pay for the crimes he has committed in pursuing his megalomaniacal ambitions.

You object to the inclusion of pro-Palestine messages because it might evoke charges of anti-Semitism from the Israeli lobby? Here's the deal - this country's blind support for Israel is one big reason we are in our current mess. This support is one reason the 9/11 terrorists were inspired to attack us. It's also one of the reasons we are in Iraq. To deny the nexus of our Israel policy and Bush's "War of Terror" is to deny reality. Charges of anti-Semitism are bludgeons used by Zionists to silence any criticism of Israel, a racist, fascist state embarked on a vicious progrom of ethnic cleansing. It's time this truth is brought to the light.

You spend a lot of time worrying about the lack of pro-military progressive voices. Here's some news for you - a pro-military progressive is an oxymoron. We need to drastically reduce the level of militarization in our society, not try to make the military kinder and gentler. The military is trained to shoot first and ask questions later. Few soldiers understand the nuances and subleties of diplomacy. And those who do are forced from the ranks by the doctrinaire Bushistas.

We don't love the military and we don't want military professionals offering expert advice to policy makers. We tried that and look where we've ended up - in another self-defeating quagmire. We need our civilian politicians to get out from under the hypnotic influence of the arms-making corporations and over their little boy war toy infatuations and place serious controls over the military.

To better understand the military mindset, one need only to look at the behavior of the troops sent to help with the aftermath of Katrina. You might think they were patrolling Falluja they way they are acting in New Orleans - pointing assault rifles in the faces of the disaster victims and ordering them about like they were suspected insurgents. This is not the way to treat American citizens who have lost everything and need a little compassion, a little kindness.

You write how the peace movement and the military have a preference for cooperation over conflict in common. Are you kidding? The military exists to solve disputes through conflict. That's why all the generals were parading to Capitol Hill to help make the case for war against Iraq. They wanted to unleash all the expensive toys they'd been stockpiling.

Then you fly off on another flight of fancy when you entreat us to help civilian agencies to create international networks of democratic peers just like the military does. What are you smoking? The military is built on anti-democratic principles. Just what international democratic networks has our military ever supported? The anti-Sandinista contras? The Colombian and Salvadoran and Guatemalan right-wing death squads? The 1980s version of the Saddam-led Baath Party in Iraq? Need I continue?

You are right about one thing - we need a new concept about national security. But this concept needs to rest on the idea that security does not depend on more guns or Blackhawk helicopters or 500 lb. bombs. We need a national security based on a rational energy policy that emphasizes conservation and the development of alternative fuels, on access to affordable health care, on access to good public education all the way through college, on the availability of jobs that offer dignity and a living wage, on a retirement system that provides security in our old age, on a healthy environment, on cooperation with the other countries on this planet rather than imperialistic greed.

The coming march on Washington is about moving the debate about ending Bush's insane war policies forward. If we make enough noise and push far enough ahead, then perhaps our elected leaders will somehow find the courage to follow us.

[fbg46]

What's our policy response to Iraq? Alot of us knew before it happened it was going to be a disaster but that's cold comfort now.

It's simply not enough for us to say "Out Now" without proposing some sort of alternative which is militarily (and therefore politicaly) viable, if for no other reason than to do otherwise plays into Karl's bumper sticker attacks of "Cut and Run", etc.

We should be thinking about what the "ground truth" in SW Asia is right now and about ways it can be improved. Specifically:

1. The war in Iraq is over and we've lost. All our staying will accomplish is more carnage. We need to go.

2. We are in fact losing two wars in SW Asia -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and for the same reason: an insufficient number of troops on the ground. It's no coincidence that Karzai is telling us to lay off the air strikes -- they've always been a bad substitute for soldiers on the ground.

3. "Immediate withdrawal from Iraq" in militaryese means " Withdrawal in good order plus with enough force protection so that the last battalion/brigade in country doesn't have to fight its way out after it turns out all the lights and padlocks the doors". Accordingly, as a practical matter, "immediate withdrawal" from Iraq means being out in nine months to a year.

4. If we don't reduce the troop levels in Iraq soon, both the Army and the USMC are going to be irretrievably broken. Both braches' equipment is just about shot and now the Army has soldiers going back for third tours.

Given the above, a rational alternative to the slow motion train wreck that is Iraq could be:

1. Within the next 90 to 120 days reposition most/all the regular Army and USMC light infantry/air assault/SF troops now in Iraq to the Afghan-Pakistan border. Their missions would be to kill/capture al Qaeda types on both sides of the border and to stabilize Afghanistan. Once the first mission is accomplished, when Karzai tells us to go, we go. After all, no oil there.

2. The remaining forces in Iraq -- Reserve and NG units plus Army and USMC armor/armored cav/light reconnaisance/mech infantry -- are repositioned into Kuwait on the east and to temporary basing in Jordan in the west.
Their missions are to rotate in country and continue to train the Iraqi forces and to act as a Quick Reaction Force if/when the Bandini hits the air supply. (But they stay OUT of the cities. Urban combat in Iraq is eating us alive.)
When the dates for the Reserve and NG units to come home roll around, those units come home and are not replaced. Same for the regular units, except they would be moved to wherever they were needed -- States, Korea, etc. Most importantly, the regular units get back on a normal rotation schedule.
Eventually, say within a year, we would be down to about two or brigades in Kuwait, about what was there when the invasion took place.

Something like this (or any of its thousand variants) allows us to counter Karl's bumper sticker accusation of "Cut and Run" with a bumper sticker response: "Remember 9/11; Let's finally get Osama Been Forgotten".

[Noah]

"We also don't routinely smear conservatives with a broad brush when their wacky base gets out of hand (like fundamentalist Christians protesting "Queers" at the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq)"

So, you're comparing pro-Palestinian activism, which is about justice for a dispossessed and oppressed people with fundie Christian homophobia.

Pathetic, and so telling.

[seth edenbaum]

"America left Vietnam and Lebanon to their fate. They survived. We left Aden and other colonies. Some, such as Malaya and Cyprus, saw bloodshed and partition. We said rightly that this was their business. So too is Iraq for the Iraqis. We have made enough mess there already."
Simon Jenkins in The Guardian

The state of American politics is grotesque, divided between defenders of empire and narcissist romantics.
To be a modern intellectual is to be an internationalist; whether one can act upon that belief is another matter. That's realism
You idiots make me laugh.

[J. Ascher]

The liberal opposition to the war in Iraq is severely flawed. You take issue with those who would protest imperialism. Is imperialism, or hegemony, or whatever you want to call it, not a serious problem? Protesting the Iraq war by calling it a blunder or a mistake completely misses the point.

By the late '60s, most Americans saw the Vietnam war as "fundamentally wrong" and "immoral," not a blunder, a quagmire, or a mistake. The biggest success of the protest movement was to significantly change the attitude of the American public towards war and aggression, such that when Reagan tried to start trouble in Latin America he was met with hostility from the public, forcing him to rely on clandestine warfare (the Contras, for ex.).

Through massive public relations efforts and some quick, small displays of military force (the only kind acceptable to the public at the time), the public attitude has somewhat reverted to the attitudes of the early '60s. Not completely, however, as we saw when hundreds of thousands protested this war before it even began, perhaps for the first time in history.

Only by addressing the underlying causes of a political and economic system that repeatedly and inexorably leads to wars of choice will the protest movement against the current war in Iraq have any kind of lasting influence.

If your goal is only to resolve the current war in Iraq, and not to prevent the next immoral and illegal war (which is inevitable), then you have a strong argument. If you want to actually change the attitudes of the public and, therefore, reduce the ability of the political elites to bully the public to support more aggression, you must not pander to the Average Citizen by insisting that liberals and democrats can better fight our wars of choice; you must, rather, stand on principle: for international law, for human rights, for the Nuremberg principles, and against the attitude of our domestic elites which justifies aggression whenever and wherever its interests are threatened, be it Iraq, Grenada, Vietnam, Venezuela or wherever.

[seth edenbaum]

The ending of student deferments did more to get the US out of Vietnam than 10 years of protests. And admitting the limitations of the American public is not the same as seconding their arguments.

"My interactions with peace organizations have been encouraging in the sense that they are willing to entertain complex policy ideas instead of "Out Now" slogans."

The pretense of enlightenment.

(It was never Kissinger's realism that was offensive, it was the fact that whatever he claimed, he was never a realist. )

[Dan Kervick]

Remember, the military will hardly ever say "no" to a request. They will do or die until the very end. This is why we love them but it is also exasperating for those of us who would like to see military professionals offer more expert advice to policy makers about how to share responsibilities with civilian agencies.

"Do or die until the very end"? "Love them"??? Lorelei, you sound like some sort of starry-eyed military groupie. First, there was the talk about searching for harmony among the military and "liberal arts types". Then there was the gushing response to the Peace and Stability Workshop love-in you attended. Your recent forays into national security matters seem to be more about working out some personal issues you have with your own emotional "relationship" to the military, or military people, than about sober, analytic discussion of national policy and global affairs.

The military culture is a complex affair - it produces the idealistic peacemakers you rub shoulders with, and it produces sadistic bastards like the folks at Abu Ghraib. It produces duty-driven heroes and jaded careerists. Why should we get hung up on crude dichotomies of either "loving" the military or "hating" it? Surely there is some sizeable space between spit-on-the-soldiers hatred and idolotrous, boot-sniffing worship.

Why does talk of military affairs seem to bring out these intellectual short-outs on sites like Democracy Arsenal? A few weeks ago, we were treated by guest David Adesnik to some weepy sentimentalism over a couple of trite pop songs. David seems to be a smart guy driven to some very weak arguments by the seductions of hackneyed patriotic poetry.

The military is an agency of the federal government that does a very important job. In my own opinion it is an agency that is now much too big, and that we have come to rely on too heavily. It is a going economic concern that, like any economic enterprise, is committed institutionally to its own expansion. I for one would like to cut its funding and spend the money on other things. (Sorry all you big lugs; I guess I don't love you enough.) But this issue really should have nothing to do with whether you love or hate soldiers, or are "pro-military" or "anti-military".

As far as the peace marchers go, exactly what is it we are supposed to do? If people want to march, they can march. If they want to invite a motley crowd of communists, anarchists, radical right-wing antiwar libertarians, pacifistic Quakers and Unitarians, and others to swell their numbers, there is nothing we can do. If they don't speak for you, then just say "they don't speak for me."

But I'm so tired of the constant Democratic nail-biting about how we will be "portrayed" by Rove et al. Guess what? The negative portrayals of Democrats or "the left" will go forward one way or another. It's unavoidable. If we support national health, we will be portrayed as socialists; if we support birth control education for high school students, we will be portrayed as licentious degenerates; if we support separation of church and state, the wingers will portray us as a cabal of atheistic freemasons; if we support tougher environmental laws, we will be portrayed as barefoot, tree-hugging vegans one and all; if we support the full implementation of UN 242, we will be portrayed as anti-Semitic; if we support a diminished overseas US military presence, we will be portrayed as anti-American. What are we going to do? Stop supporting anything that could possibly be portrayed in a negative light?

[Ken Melvin]

I don't buy into any argument that democrats, any democrat, or for that matter any American citizen should ever act with a mind to appease the right or to avoid issues because some members of the right might take offense, or because some members of the right will dance around campfires singing silly assed little ditties about what someone said. I propose to all that without Howard Dean's taking of Bush to task, in spite of the right wing propaganda machine being aghast, Kerry wouldn't have had a chance and Bush would have won 2004 by 10%, the problem is 2000 was not Al Gore, the problem in 2000 was that demos didn't take on Rove, Rush, et al, and that until we take them on we will continue to lose. Other being abhorrent, the idea that we can win over these folks with appeasement, or adjusting our policies to their believes is down right silly. The Repubs sold out to these bastards and it cost them their souls and their party. Southerners such as Feddie at Southern Appeal say democrats must appeal to southerners. No thanks Feddie, we don't want you the way you are. When southerners change their ways, see the light, then, they will come to us. If Demos sell out , we'll again be as screwed up as we were before civil rights; as screwed up as Repubs are today.

Nothing Bush has ever done has ever worked. All he has done as president is run up debt for naught. We don't have 'Home Land Security'. All the money's been pissed away. All the money in Iraq? Pissed away. Afghanistan? Pissed away. And every cent of it is owed. Unless the Senate or Demos take over, any the aid for Katrina will go to fat assed white southerners republicans. Now is time for demos to stand up, to take on Rove, Rush, O'Reilly and the lot.

[libertarian soldier]

Lorelei, you are now my heroine. Anyone who can infuriate Mr. Martin and Mr. Edenbaum as you apparently have deserves a big "well done".
And Mr. Kervick is right--DoD spends too much money (and really can never account for it) and needs to have its funding cut. However, as the recent BRAC round, the cries from Congress at even the whisper that the F/B-22 might be cut, and the demands for more military more quickly for disaster relief show, DoD is not the only one who "is committed institutionally to DoD's / its own expansion".

[brooksfoe]

Ascher: Is imperialism, or hegemony, or whatever you want to call it, not a serious problem?

No, it is not. If Iraq has revealed anything, it is the hollow impotence of claims of American hegemony. America has not only isolated itself on the world stage and made itself an international laughingstock; it's not even capable of controlling the territory it conquered. One of the abiding tensions in the conspiratorial dumb-Marxist mindset since the late '60s has been the inconsistency between the axiom that America controls the world, and is thus responsible for all evil, and the opposing axiom that American power can never subdue a determined independent anti-imperialist people, e.g. the Vietnamese or, today, the Venezuelans. If America is so easy to buck, how can one speak of "hegemony"?

My take, in response to Lorelei: you need to go to the rally, in order to add your voice to the reasonable anti-war center and prevent tired anti-colonialist hacks from dominating the mike. The recrudescence idiotic keywords like "crimes against humanity" and "imperialism" in this thread bodes ill for what's likely to happen at that rally otherwise.

[Lane Brody]

If one thinks too much is spent by DOD that's fine. If one thinks there is a lot of waste at the Pentagon that's fine too- as if the Federal goverment isn't inherently wastefull by some degree or we'll ever do away with pork barrel spending. Not for nothing but Corp of Engineer projects, including levee's, are called pork barrel by many.

However, as a percentage of GDP defense spending has fallen in every single decade for half a century. From 10.7% in the 1960's, 5.9% 1970's, 5.8% 1980's, 4.1% 1990's to this decades projected 3.4% it's simply a fact we keep spending less and less on the military as a percentage of our economy.

Maybe that's the right thing to do. Perhaps the proper level is below 3%. But to complain too much is spent at the expense of other things is to beg the question based on what sense of historical reality? It's also more than possible that after 9/11 that maybe we need 4 or even 5% of GDP for some period of time.

Many democrats complain loudly we need a larger military. If so we need more spent on defense. Be nice if they said that and introduced bills in congress to that effect. Not that long ago the military was far larger in size. The Army had 18 divisions instead of today's 10 and manned and recruited them just fine from a significantly smaller population base without a draft.

If one thinks too much is spent on defense fine. If one thinks the military is too big fine. However, if you think it's too small or not properly equipped to some degree more money is needed and historically speaking we are not spending very much and perhaps are spending too little.

Lane Brody

[Minh-Duc]

Sentiment like David Martin is exactly why Lorelei wrote what she wrote. Sadly people like Mr. Martin control the base of the Democratic Party.

[sglover]

Kudos for skewering ANSWER. In general, I think demonstrations would be vastly more effective if there was serious message discipline. I'm only four Metro stops away from this rally, but I doubt I'll be going -- the profoundly wooly-headed participants I've seen at previous demonstrations (not a majority, but a significant and highly visible minority) have tended to push me towards despair about the left....

[degustibus]

In fact liberals and progressives stood back with their dicks in their hands for most of the Vietnam War. Kennedy (shed a tear) escalated, Johnson that great society librul escalated, Wayne Morse was the sole great voice of liberal antiar sentiment, and it didn't hurt him a bit in Oregon (later Republican Mark Hatfield came aboard).

If you were around in the Vietnam era, you will remember more America Love It or Leave it sentiment than apocrayphal tales of soldiers being spat upon.

Re-enact the no-student deferment draft and see how quickly our imperial hegemnons come to a stuttering standstill. They will not be dealing with insugents in the Middle east, they will be dealing with insurgents in their communities and families.

Not many of the liberal hawks who supported the preemptive war in Iraq are enjoying the cakewalk that has ensued. (I was antiwar from the get-go, but not because I was prescient and saw the coming chaos, but because the reasons for advancing the war were so transparently false. All reasons that is, except the least articulated one -- the one everyone took pains to deny -- oil. Oil is the reason we are there, oil is the reason will will not leave, oil is the reason that we may even take nuclear options to rid the earth of these accursed .........

[Ed Marshall]

As far as you bitch about the Palestinian tent goes, I'm reminded of a scene from Control Room where the PR officer from CENTCOM is being questioned by Arab journalists and he talks about how the Israeli/Palestinian situation is viewed as completely unrelated and in the Arab world as almost universally considered to be entertwined.

They are related, Israel and Iraq are not on different planets, and one day reality will catch up with this country no matter who likes or doesn't like it.

[ehj2]

i just got home from the march. i saw cindy sheehan, the mother who started our march. i walked with four people i met who were visiting the holy city of washington, d.c. from the holy city of buffallo, new york. we met people from california, vermont, texas, ohio, florida, massachusetts.

i don't know much more than that i needed to be there and it was wonderful to be there.

there were many moments during the day when there were tears in my eyes from some poignant beautiful thing i saw or heard. i took away far more than i even have to give.

the Still Small Voice within me said to be there and add the sound of my footsteps to the thousands upon thousands of other steps being softly made.

we weren't alone.

gandhi was there. and martin luther king. the better angels of the nation. the prayers of millions.

we marched with a woman named cindy sheehan. and she welcomed us beside her.

say what you want of us. we were there.

ehj2

[owen]

Today's headlines confirming the need for "Replace Rumsfeld" posters:

"3 in 82nd Airborne Say Beating Iraqi Prisoners Was Routine" -NYT

"More Iraqis Tortured, Officer Says" -LAT

From the LAT: "(Capt.) Fishback said he was especially bothered when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told the committee last year, right after the Abu Ghraib scandal broke, that the military was obeying the rules of the Geneva Convention."

And has Rumsfeld had a new idea since the whole "shock and awe" thing? Discarding effective, legal interrogation techniques for ineffective, un-American techniques is kind of a new idea, but it's as bad as his Sept. 12 "let's do Iraq instead" idea.

[Lou]

Ah yes, the hierarchy of liberalism: centrists look down on moderates, moderates look down of radicals and radicals look down on extremists. We all kick those communist who are still living in the 20th century. When I stood with 100,000 people in Washington DC yesterday, I didn't ask anyone for their credentials and no one asked for mine. Get out from in front of your f*cking keyboards and off your asses and get out in the streets. IF you think there are too many communists, show up with your moderate friends, don't ask others to stay home.

See you in the streets.

[Flip]

I have to disagree with you Lou, I can't think of anything that could cause more harm to the progressive cause than these protests. They bring out the tinfoil hat conspiracists (Karl Rove has a weather machine), Gaia cultists (The goddess is angry) and professional anarchists that make Ms. Josie Average go "WTF, I want nothing to do with these nut balls". Progressive think tanks and concise dissemination of our ideals will do more for the cause than a million marches.