posted on October 27, 2002 10:46:08 PM new
Ladies and Gentleman of the Round Table, I am happy to announce that we are not alone in our strong feelings about the Bush Administration.
"BERLIN, Germany (AP) -- Tens of thousands of demonstrators have gathered in cities across Europe, the United States and beyond for a show of opposition to U.S. President George W. Bush's policy toward Baghdad."
"n the U.S. capital, tens of thousands of anti-war protesters circled the White House after the Rev. Jesse Jackson and other speakers denounced the Bush administration's Iraq policies and demanded a revolt at the ballot box to promote peace."
"As many as 5,000 people gathered in the rain in Amsterdam's central square, with banners including one that read: "The biggest lunatic isn't in Baghdad, he's in Washington." "
While I am not overly fond of some of Jesse Jackson's causes that he has gone for, I do applaud him for his willingness to get into the trenches and FIGHT!
Now, if only the Democrats on Capital Hill would throw off their self-doubts and join in the rebellion with their brothers and sisters united against the tyranny of the Bush Oil Empire in charge of the White House, the Democrats would see a resurgence in their voters!
I hope that many of us here in the RT, whose efforts sometimes feel like they fall on no other ears than our own, can feel vindication at these actions around the world. it is a proud time to be called an American and to stand up to the Republicans and to Bush's corrupting influence in America!
posted on October 27, 2002 11:08:48 PM new
It does make me feel good to see that there are a lot of people upset with the administrations policies.
There is a lot of hope for the world, Borillar. Lots of great people out there. All over the world.
I listened to some of the speakers on Public Television yesterday. I was especially happy to hear the young people speak because they in the end are the ones that will have to fight this for years and years.
posted on October 28, 2002 05:17:00 AM new
Around the world and from all walks of life, even in countries where one is at no small personal risk if so enjoined, there are protestations. Estimates ran as high as 200,000 in D.C. though the forest service no longer issues what were once taken to be official conclusions.
posted on October 28, 2002 10:32:35 AM new
You Call This Secular?
Carl Walters - New York
This is in response to your reference to the "secular" Saddam Hussein who some say
would never ally himself with those of a religious bent, such as the leaders of al Qaeda.
An article appearing in the Wednesday 10/23 edition of France's Le Figaro (Page 2,
Headline: "Saddam imposes a forced march to Islamisation" relates, among other
things, how Iraq's foremost calligrapher has just spent two years penning a new copy
of the Koran using not ink, but 13 liters of Saddam's blood. This new holy book will be
kept as a relic in one of the new mosques built at great expense by the Iraqi
government.
Heads Should Roll
Richard E. Langer - Minneapolis
Six bullet points, and, after reading the last of them, one is left saying, "Huh, is this the
best you can do?" I note that among them was not the meeting in Prague, formerly
hysterically trumpeted on these pages and now discredited. I am wondering if anyone
on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed staff lost his job in the fiasco.
The right wing continues its efforts to transform America from the leader of the free
world--a title of respect for our decency--to a bellicose, paranoid thug. Secretary
Rumsfeld seems to believe that if the data don't support this administration's political
needs, they must be wrong and he should shoot the messenger. One can only hope
that real patriots are heard over the voices of these warmongers.
Bad Example
Chuck Smith - Palatine, Ill.
Iraq is a secular regime, while al Qaeda actively seeks the creation of fundamentalist
Muslim regimes throughout the mid-East. Just because Iraq and al Qaeda share a
common hatred for the U.S. doesn't mean they would actively assist each other. After
all, Saddam and the United States share the common goal of containing Iran's Shiite
fundamentalism, and we would never aid . . . Never mind.
The Cynical View
Jean C. Willis - Galveston, Texas
George Tenet's letter has qualifiers about Hussein/Al Qaeda links to make these links
not as "clear" as this writer claims: "Our understanding of the relationship between
Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability." Note
"evolving", and "sources of varying reliability."
If policy decisions could be made only from the intelligence communities' findings and
assessments, why did the Defense Department set up its own intelligence unit to
examine Iraq's intentions and links to terrorists? This unit, with high-powered
computers and special software, was "publicly" described by Paul Wolfowitz, in a New
York Times interview, as acting to sift through the enormous amount of detail
collected by intelligence agencies.
The cynical view is that the Pentagon hawks are looking for stronger evidence of
Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation than they have gotten from the intelligence community.
He's Evil, Not Crazy
Paul Kositzka - Alexandria, Va.
I agree with all the points made as to why Saddam must go. But I think you
underestimate him when you call him mad. He may be evil, sick, etc. etc., but I doubt
he is actually mad.
He is a ruthless survivor and no price the world has to pay for his survival is too high
as far as he's concerned. I have no doubt that if he thought any weapon gained or
used would benefit him he would not hesitate to use it.
Any person void of ethics or humanity with control of, or in search of, weapons of
mass destruction should be removed from the scene along with his entourage.
Unfortunately the lefties around here would rather warm up the fondue pot and talk
about it rather than just do it.
Some People Will Believe Anything
J. Reynolds - Houston
There's no rock-solid proof that HIV causes AIDS, though we can't seem to find any
AIDS victims who aren't HIV positive. And there's no rock-solid proof that Jesus Christ
ever existed, though several folks allegedly followed him and wrote down his
purported teachings. And there's no rock-solid proof of evolution, though we have a
fossil record of geologic ages which somehow got us to now from back then.
Even if the perpetrators of the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil proclaim in public their
undying allegiance to Saddam Hussein before detonating their bomb, the diehard
Bush-haters will insist they were administration plants, paid from a secret slush fund of
oil company contributions and directed from an office in the basement of the White
House. Get ready, because both the attack and that denial are waiting in the wings.
Don't Let Evil Grow
Bill Killory - Syracuse, N.Y.
I don't doubt the existence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection but I think that it is almost
beside the point. The provocation for eliminating Saddam has existed for over decade.
The Gulf War has not really ended as Iraq has not honored its cease fire agreement.
Does anyone seriously think that if it were not for U.S. military presence and the no-fly
zones that Saddam would not be invading anew?
The first World Trade Center bombing strongly implicates Iraq, and the attempt on
former President Bush is, again, enough provocation. If we do nothing then we learn
nothing from the post-World War I era. Evil needs to be cut down early.
Blame the Bush Haters
Anne Lonergan - Sagamore Beach, Mass.
The title of your article is self explanatory. Who's campaigning for Iraq and al Qaeda?
Only those who hate President Bush. No matter what Mr. Bush says, you have the
same old tiresome people trying to discredit him. Does this make any sense when we
are faced with nuclear and biological weapons. His own Congress (mostly Democrats)
rebuffs him on any policy he puts forth. The hate these people have for him is
unbelievable, they just won't get over the election, and still think Al Gore should be our
president. God forbid where we all would be if that ever came to pass.
Hawks, Doves and Ostriches
Paul Fields - Chesterfield, Mo.
Touching on the pact between Hitler and Stalin allows us to make an important
comparison. In 1939, American "experts" wanted to assure everyone from FDR to the
common man that we had absolutely nothing to fear from Europe's troubles. It took
Pearl Harbor to prove them wrong.
Fast-forward 50 years. The Clinton administration gave lip service to the dangers
presented by Saddam and al Qaeda. But, actions being so much louder than words,
their real message was no different than the isolationists and appeasers in 1939. It
took 9/11 to prove them wrong.
The similarities stop there, though. The foresight and vision of the Reagan
administration made a significant cultural impact in Washington so that we were not
caught militarily unprepared as in 1941, despite the Clinton team's determined efforts
to convert weapons systems to socialized medicine or more failing schools.
One other point of comparison does deserve examination, as well. In 1941, even the
isolationists and appeasers put their shoulders to the wheel to defeat tyranny. What's
wrong with their philosophical heirs? Even in the face of overwhelming, undeniable
evidence, they still want to mimic the ostrich.
Have we really grown so philosophically diverse that we are totally unable to
understand each other's points of view? Or, are some Americans just downright
naive? or just plain stubborn?
Enough, You're Depressing Me
Thomas Dillard - Escazu, Costa Rica
Please, spare me from more bad news till at least the end of the week. It has been a
bad one. That two disaffected dead-enders in a 1990 Chevrolet Caprice could do to us
what these clowns did to an important part of the country, along with killing or
maiming 13 of our citizens, was kind of a large wad of dry newspaper to swallow.
That they were from the Northwest, whence I come, just about did it. Something is
definitely wrong in that corner.
Whether Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi black-bag man or not, and I think he did, the
combined administration of Iraq are the same dirtbags they have been for the past 20
years, and their original approach to the surrender they signed was enough to give the
U.N. a sample of their underhandedness. And now it is time to get control of the
situation or find ourselves in deep trouble.
By Monday I should be able to stew about some new problems, so please save yours
for me until then.
posted on October 28, 2002 10:32:38 AM new
You Call This Secular?
Carl Walters - New York
This is in response to your reference to the "secular" Saddam Hussein who some say
would never ally himself with those of a religious bent, such as the leaders of al Qaeda.
An article appearing in the Wednesday 10/23 edition of France's Le Figaro (Page 2,
Headline: "Saddam imposes a forced march to Islamisation" relates, among other
things, how Iraq's foremost calligrapher has just spent two years penning a new copy
of the Koran using not ink, but 13 liters of Saddam's blood. This new holy book will be
kept as a relic in one of the new mosques built at great expense by the Iraqi
government.
Heads Should Roll
Richard E. Langer - Minneapolis
Six bullet points, and, after reading the last of them, one is left saying, "Huh, is this the
best you can do?" I note that among them was not the meeting in Prague, formerly
hysterically trumpeted on these pages and now discredited. I am wondering if anyone
on The Wall Street Journal's op-ed staff lost his job in the fiasco.
The right wing continues its efforts to transform America from the leader of the free
world--a title of respect for our decency--to a bellicose, paranoid thug. Secretary
Rumsfeld seems to believe that if the data don't support this administration's political
needs, they must be wrong and he should shoot the messenger. One can only hope
that real patriots are heard over the voices of these warmongers.
Bad Example
Chuck Smith - Palatine, Ill.
Iraq is a secular regime, while al Qaeda actively seeks the creation of fundamentalist
Muslim regimes throughout the mid-East. Just because Iraq and al Qaeda share a
common hatred for the U.S. doesn't mean they would actively assist each other. After
all, Saddam and the United States share the common goal of containing Iran's Shiite
fundamentalism, and we would never aid . . . Never mind.
The Cynical View
Jean C. Willis - Galveston, Texas
George Tenet's letter has qualifiers about Hussein/Al Qaeda links to make these links
not as "clear" as this writer claims: "Our understanding of the relationship between
Iraq and Al Qaeda is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability." Note
"evolving", and "sources of varying reliability."
If policy decisions could be made only from the intelligence communities' findings and
assessments, why did the Defense Department set up its own intelligence unit to
examine Iraq's intentions and links to terrorists? This unit, with high-powered
computers and special software, was "publicly" described by Paul Wolfowitz, in a New
York Times interview, as acting to sift through the enormous amount of detail
collected by intelligence agencies.
The cynical view is that the Pentagon hawks are looking for stronger evidence of
Iraq-al Qaeda cooperation than they have gotten from the intelligence community.
He's Evil, Not Crazy
Paul Kositzka - Alexandria, Va.
I agree with all the points made as to why Saddam must go. But I think you
underestimate him when you call him mad. He may be evil, sick, etc. etc., but I doubt
he is actually mad.
He is a ruthless survivor and no price the world has to pay for his survival is too high
as far as he's concerned. I have no doubt that if he thought any weapon gained or
used would benefit him he would not hesitate to use it.
Any person void of ethics or humanity with control of, or in search of, weapons of
mass destruction should be removed from the scene along with his entourage.
Unfortunately the lefties around here would rather warm up the fondue pot and talk
about it rather than just do it.
Some People Will Believe Anything
J. Reynolds - Houston
There's no rock-solid proof that HIV causes AIDS, though we can't seem to find any
AIDS victims who aren't HIV positive. And there's no rock-solid proof that Jesus Christ
ever existed, though several folks allegedly followed him and wrote down his
purported teachings. And there's no rock-solid proof of evolution, though we have a
fossil record of geologic ages which somehow got us to now from back then.
Even if the perpetrators of the next terrorist attack on U.S. soil proclaim in public their
undying allegiance to Saddam Hussein before detonating their bomb, the diehard
Bush-haters will insist they were administration plants, paid from a secret slush fund of
oil company contributions and directed from an office in the basement of the White
House. Get ready, because both the attack and that denial are waiting in the wings.
Don't Let Evil Grow
Bill Killory - Syracuse, N.Y.
I don't doubt the existence of an al Qaeda-Iraq connection but I think that it is almost
beside the point. The provocation for eliminating Saddam has existed for over decade.
The Gulf War has not really ended as Iraq has not honored its cease fire agreement.
Does anyone seriously think that if it were not for U.S. military presence and the no-fly
zones that Saddam would not be invading anew?
The first World Trade Center bombing strongly implicates Iraq, and the attempt on
former President Bush is, again, enough provocation. If we do nothing then we learn
nothing from the post-World War I era. Evil needs to be cut down early.
Blame the Bush Haters
Anne Lonergan - Sagamore Beach, Mass.
The title of your article is self explanatory. Who's campaigning for Iraq and al Qaeda?
Only those who hate President Bush. No matter what Mr. Bush says, you have the
same old tiresome people trying to discredit him. Does this make any sense when we
are faced with nuclear and biological weapons. His own Congress (mostly Democrats)
rebuffs him on any policy he puts forth. The hate these people have for him is
unbelievable, they just won't get over the election, and still think Al Gore should be our
president. God forbid where we all would be if that ever came to pass.
Hawks, Doves and Ostriches
Paul Fields - Chesterfield, Mo.
Touching on the pact between Hitler and Stalin allows us to make an important
comparison. In 1939, American "experts" wanted to assure everyone from FDR to the
common man that we had absolutely nothing to fear from Europe's troubles. It took
Pearl Harbor to prove them wrong.
Fast-forward 50 years. The Clinton administration gave lip service to the dangers
presented by Saddam and al Qaeda. But, actions being so much louder than words,
their real message was no different than the isolationists and appeasers in 1939. It
took 9/11 to prove them wrong.
The similarities stop there, though. The foresight and vision of the Reagan
administration made a significant cultural impact in Washington so that we were not
caught militarily unprepared as in 1941, despite the Clinton team's determined efforts
to convert weapons systems to socialized medicine or more failing schools.
One other point of comparison does deserve examination, as well. In 1941, even the
isolationists and appeasers put their shoulders to the wheel to defeat tyranny. What's
wrong with their philosophical heirs? Even in the face of overwhelming, undeniable
evidence, they still want to mimic the ostrich.
Have we really grown so philosophically diverse that we are totally unable to
understand each other's points of view? Or, are some Americans just downright
naive? or just plain stubborn?
Enough, You're Depressing Me
Thomas Dillard - Escazu, Costa Rica
Please, spare me from more bad news till at least the end of the week. It has been a
bad one. That two disaffected dead-enders in a 1990 Chevrolet Caprice could do to us
what these clowns did to an important part of the country, along with killing or
maiming 13 of our citizens, was kind of a large wad of dry newspaper to swallow.
That they were from the Northwest, whence I come, just about did it. Something is
definitely wrong in that corner.
Whether Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi black-bag man or not, and I think he did, the
combined administration of Iraq are the same dirtbags they have been for the past 20
years, and their original approach to the surrender they signed was enough to give the
U.N. a sample of their underhandedness. And now it is time to get control of the
situation or find ourselves in deep trouble.
By Monday I should be able to stew about some new problems, so please save yours
for me until then.
posted on October 28, 2002 02:53:29 PM new
Some may post here in this thread and laugh, "ONLY 200,000?" Yet, we should recall where we were just six months ago when these same people cried out, "ONLY 100!"
It is the small pebble rolling down the hillside that presages the coming of an avalanche!
ed. to add url
[ edited by Borillar on Oct 28, 2002 02:56 PM ]
posted on October 29, 2002 06:27:43 AM new
ONLY A LITTLE OVER A BILLION! Remember, China is against the Iraqi Land Grab Plan....
.................................................
I live in my own little world, but it is Okay...They know me here.
Most other countries are stalling for time, knowing that Bush's increasing signs of impatience is actually a form of panic. White House optimistic over U.N. Iraq resolution If War with Iraq can not even come near to agreement within two weeks, it will be of little political use to the Republicans, who now stand to loose a LOT of seats in government due to their continued mismanagement of the country.
Although our "allies" are stalling for time, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said he's confident the Security Council will reach a consensus on the issue. Annan sure of consensus on Iraq
What it reallly amounts to is not the diplomacy to go into Iraq, but the real agenda to use diplomacy as a maneas to keep Bush Oil Empire out of Iraq.
The D.C. police chief called this the largest anti-war march since Vietnam. In an only-in-America sort of thing, the Park Police stopped providing official crowd estimates on D.C. protests after they were threatened with a lawsuit. San Francisco police said over 40,000 demonstrators marched -- organizers said over 80,000 -- in Baghdad by the Bay. Thousands more marched in wet, raw Portland, Maine, and in Vermont, Minnesota, Colorado and around the world.
So are mass protests against a possible major war big news right before an election? Nah... Seems like you have to be a sniper to get noticed anymore. At least that’s the message I got from the anemic media coverage. The two alleged snipers were still top-of-the-fold in The New York Times and The Washington Post days after their arrests while reports of a renewed anti-war movement got buried by the daily press, the networks and the cable newsmouths. Local D.C. news stations led their evening telecasts with snipers, a carjacking, and the upcoming Marine Corps Marathon before mentioning that tens of thousands of people had that day taken to the streets of the Capital.
The further you got from the New York/Washington media vortex, however, the less restrictive the coverage appeared. The protests got major play on the West Coast and in Europe. Listener-supported Pacifica Radio also did extensive coverage. Pacifica's tireless Amy Goodman was in D.C., doing many interviews in a tent just off the stage. The "liberal media" that conservatives love to whine about is, if Lilliputian, at least out there, alive.
In his classic study of modern media, Deciding What’s News, sociology professor Herb Gans wrote that American media share common values, including maintaining social order and strong national leadership.
That would explain why network field-producers kept cutting away from shots of protestors lining the route of George Bush’s inaugural parade after his Supreme Court mandated presidential victory in 2000. Crowds carrying signs reading "Hail to the thief" and "Illegitimate" do not help restore faith in the established order.
It would also explain why, if both parties in Congress agree on transferring their war powers to Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, citizens' worries and protests won’t get much media traction.
There was one particular Democratic politician, also a one-time professor, who had the courage to stand up in the Senate and say no. He argued that a unilateral war on Iraq might actually make the United States more isolated, vulnerable and at risk of attack. Unfortunately Paul Wellstone, his wife, daughter and five others died in a plane crash last week. On Oct. 26, one hundred thousand people held a moment of silence for him in D.C. The media didn’t show that, but they were happy to provide us with shots of the wreckage.
posted on November 5, 2002 07:58:31 AM new
"Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said in a rare interview that he believed
the American and British determination to make war on Iraq could collapse
under the weight of anti-war sentiment in the two countries. 'Time is in our
favor, and we have to buy more time hoping that the U.S.-British alliance
might disintegrate because of the pressure of public opinion on American and
British streets,' Saddam told the Egyptian weekly Al-Osboa in the interview
published yesterday."
posted on November 5, 2002 10:17:41 AM new
You want to see real world rebellion? It would be interesting to see what form the world-wide response to the unprovoked attack on Iraq would take. Would it be the very last staw for many Americans, the last of a string of abuses to the people? Personally, I'd rather Bush just back down and go pursue Al-Queda like he loudmouthed to do last winter.
relates, among other