Protest in D.C.

[Joe Schad]

Thanks for going to the rally Gary. I was in New York this weekend and could not make the event. Paper said a hundred thousand or so people were there.

Joe

[Flying Lobster]

Yeah--I second that.

Hillarymarcoqueda

[Marco Zee]

War Protest???.....in DC???? Vas es Das???

I thought that the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been REVOKED !!!???

How was this protest allowed to happen at all,...much less in DC? Where were the internal security agents to round up these subversants and ship them off to the gulags for the next 50 years?

Oh that's right, Bush was in Texas and Colorado, and Cheney was in the hospital. Lucky for Gary that they were otherwise occupied. Did Hanoi Jane show up? Or the Communist Party of America?

Marco

[dhenders]

Saturday was a great day for Democracy. I was downtown at the National Book Festival on the Mall. Thousands of people there for the Festival. Thousands upon thousands going to the demonstration and many more just enjoying the museums and enjoying the weather.

[deveil]

[mcelrah]

They published warnings at my workplace about the activity downtown
this weekend. "Protests could turn violent without warning..." I
replied that, in fairness, the warnings should extend to arbitrary
arrests of law-abiding citizens who were attempting to comply with
police instructions, as occurred a couple years ago. - Hugh

On 26 Sep 2005, at 09:54, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> War Protest???.....in DC???? Vas es Das???
>
> I thought that the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been
> REVOKED !!!???
>
> How was this protest allowed to happen at all,...much less in DC?
> Where were the internal security agents to round up these
> subversants and ship them off to the gulags for the next 50 years?
>
> Oh that's right, Bush was in Texas and Colorado, and Cheney was in
> the hospital. Lucky for Gary that they were otherwise occupied.
> Did Hanoi Jane show up? Or the Communist Party of America?
>
> Marco
>
>
>

[deveil]

They published warnings at my workplace about the activity downtown
this weekend. "Protests could turn violent without warning..." I
replied that, in fairness, the warnings should extend to arbitrary
arrests of law-abiding citizens who were attempting to comply with
police instructions, as occurred a couple years ago. - Hugh
>

and you work where?... in that funny shaped building?
how do you walk around with those things?

[Joe Schad]

Well they arrested the folks who were on the sidewalk in front of the White House today. Bush is back in town. The protesters didn't heed the park rangers instructions to leave. I wonder how many of those arrested today will have their phone monitored or houses searched because they are probably considered "potential terrorists". We are so back to the old days of Nixon and McCarthy and Hoover.

Joe



They published warnings at my workplace about the activity downtown
this weekend. "Protests could turn violent without warning..." I
replied that, in fairness, the warnings should extend to arbitrary
arrests of law-abiding citizens who were attempting to comply with
police instructions, as occurred a couple years ago. - Hugh

On 26 Sep 2005, at 09:54, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> War Protest???.....in DC???? Vas es Das???
>
> I thought that the Constitution and Bill of Rights had been
> REVOKED !!!???
>
> How was this protest allowed to happen at all,...much less in DC?
> Where were the internal security agents to round up these
> subversants and ship them off to the gulags for the next 50 years?
>
> Oh that's right, Bush was in Texas and Colorado, and Cheney was in
> the hospital. Lucky for Gary that they were otherwise occupied.
> Did Hanoi Jane show up? Or the Communist Party of America?
>
> Marco

[Marco Zee]

Hey all,
Were there any Democratic Party Leaders, ie, Hill, Bill, John & John, Al Gore, Biden, Kennedy, Schumer, Jimmy Carter, Michael Moore, or Obama at this "oh-so-important" anti-war rally?
Or any Republican leaders there?
Just curious.

Marco

[mcelrah]

Joan Baez was there, I see from a picture in the Post. Much more
important than all politicians combined. - Hugh

On 26 Sep 2005, at 21:49, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Hey all,
> Were there any Democratic Party Leaders, ie, Hill, Bill, John &
> John, Al Gore, Biden, Kennedy, Schumer, Jimmy Carter, Michael
> Moore, or Obama at this "oh-so-important" anti-war rally?
> Or any Republican leaders there?
> Just curious.
>
> Marco
>

[deveil]

Joan Baez was there, I see from a picture in the Post. Much more
important than all politicians combined. - Hugh
>

what i saw, and what struck me personally, was that most everyone 'marching on the street' was indistinguishable from those on the sidewalks elsewhere, on the metro, and any other town i've been in. d[ahellwithit] henders alluded to this.
similarly to myself, they just felt they should 'show up', that showing up did something for their own sense of person. most people were without signs or t-shirts or organizations. a lot with spouses, children, families. that whoever else 'showed up' was of less importance to them than their own presence was important to themself, though i may have been projecting.
at the pre-war march, there was a much higher 'energy' level, more anxiety and disbelief as to what was about to happen and how it was coming about. a much 'heavier' and visible presence of the necessary peace-keeping forces who were hard-eyed and distancing (observations, not judgements). i made a point of having quick conversational exchanges with the police this time and everyone seemed pretty relaxed. this time around, everyone seemed much more easygoing. it struck me that 'this is the way these things should work'. IMHO gary

[Marco Zee]

Some of my left leaning colleagues here have been claiming that the American people, or at least a majority of them according to "recent polls", no longer support the War in Iraq.

If this is true, why were there NO Dem leaders at this anti-War rally?

Could it be that the Dem leaders actually support the war?

Or could it be that the Dem leaders actually do NOT support the war, but do not want to be associated with the anti-war movement, or want to be labeled "anti-war"?

If the American people, by large majorities, are against the war, then how is it that zero political leaders of either party showed up at this rally, which was right in their backyards, while they were in session???? Where were those courageous "leaders" who were willing to stand up for Joe Sixpack, and proclaim their opposition to the war. Didn't they get the memo's from Michael Moore???? Haven't they seen the polls???

Of course, I have a theory on this.

The Dems, many of whom voted FOR the war, do not want to be in the position of actively OPPOSING the war NOW. They fear being viewed as "weak on defense" or "cutting and running", which of course, is a well deserved portrayal of their true positions on national defense issues.

Many of you have called for immediate withdrawal, or a withdrawal in a few short months. Where are your elected representatives, who should be standing up and fighting for your heartfelt positions??? They are AWOL.....nowhere to be found.

Even your own political leaders are avoiding your advocacy of immediate or prompt withdrawal. Talk about pathetic.

Like the old saying goes......actions speak louder than words. The Dems for all of their whining, complaining, and hindsight, do not have the courage or conviction to attend an anti-war rally that many or most of their supporters support.

This rally has clearly demonstrated that the Dems do not have a better plan, or any plan at all, with regards to this war. They are just along for the ride, and to criticize and undermine as much as possible along the way.

Game, set, match.....argument over.

Marco

PS: Did anyone hear about the elections in Afghanistan last week??? More democracy on the march. Stay tuned for the October and December votes in Iraq.

[Joe Schad]

Marco, Marco, Marco You do rationalize so.

First: Where are your elected representatives, who should be standing up and fighting for your heartfelt positions???

My elected representatives are all republican, Allen, Warner and Goodlatte. Allen and Goodlatte are rubber stamps for everything the leadership wants. Warner has some integrity and is his own man. He too goes along with Bush far too much. I have no representation in congress these days as the Republicans seem to only service their fellow republicans. Not the way it is suppose to be.


Second: This rally has clearly demonstrated that the Dems do not have a better plan, or any plan at all, with regards to this war.

NOT so Marco. The rally was an anti-war rally not a democratic party rally. I would bet there were democrats, republicans and others at the rally, some even in the military who have been in the war and know first hand the mess we are in. Their only power is to speak out and bring their friends and families out to demonstrate and then to vote next time around. You may believe the game is over but you are very wrong.

Joe

PS: Is IRAN a democracy? I believe it is as much as Iraq will be. Don't you agree?


*************************************************************
Some of my left leaning colleagues here have been claiming that the American people, or at least a majority of them according to "recent polls", no longer support the War in Iraq.

If this is true, why were there NO Dem leaders at this anti-War rally?

Could it be that the Dem leaders actually support the war?

Or could it be that the Dem leaders actually do NOT support the war, but do not want to be associated with the anti-war movement, or want to be labeled "anti-war"?

If the American people, by large majorities, are against the war, then how is it that zero political leaders of either party showed up at this rally, which was right in their backyards, while they were in session???? Where were those courageous "leaders" who were willing to stand up for Joe Sixpack, and proclaim their opposition to the war. Didn't they get the memo's from Michael Moore???? Haven't they seen the polls???

Of course, I have a theory on this.

The Dems, many of whom voted FOR the war, do not want to be in the position of actively OPPOSING the war NOW. They fear being viewed as "weak on defense" or "cutting and running", which of course, is a well deserved portrayal of their true positions on national defense issues.

Many of you have called for immediate withdrawal, or a withdrawal in a few short months. Where are your elected representatives, who should be standing up and fighting for your heartfelt positions??? They are AWOL.....nowhere to be found.

Even your own political leaders are avoiding your advocacy of immediate or prompt withdrawal. Talk about pathetic.

Like the old saying goes......actions speak louder than words. The Dems for all of their whining, complaining, and hindsight, do not have the courage or conviction to attend an anti-war rally that many or most of their supporters support.

This rally has clearly demonstrated that the Dems do not have a better plan, or any plan at all, with regards to this war. They are just along for the ride, and to criticize and undermine as much as possible along the way.

Game, set, match.....argument over.

Marco

PS: Did anyone hear about the elections in Afghanistan last week??? More democracy on the march. Stay tuned for the October and December votes in Iraq.

[Marco Zee]

Joe,
The only way to end this war "sooner" than Bush would like to is for the Congress to cut funding, or threaten to cut funding so as to pressure Bush to withdraw sooner.
If there were NO/NIL/ZERO political leaders who were openly "anti-war", as this demonstration clearly indicated, then there are no significant political leaders, or even rank & file pols, presently which are willing to stop the war effort, or at least say so publically.

The next Congress won't be seated until Jan of 2007, by which time, hopefully, this entire situation should be substantially cleared up, one way or another.
Therefore, it is a mute point to argue for immediate withdrawal, or even a 3-6 month withdrawal, since there are NO political leaders willing to stand up and fight for this position.

By the way, I live in a Red county in a blue state, and my two Senators are both Dems, so I often feel "underrepresented" in Congress as well. It is worth noting, however, that nobody from the Maryland Delegation attended the rally either. And I think it is a fair question to ask: Why did they not attend it?

Like Gary said, this is only like the most important issue of our time.
And I give Gary credit for at least showing up there.

Marco

[deveil]

The only way to end this war "sooner" than Bush would like to is for the Congress to cut funding, or threaten to cut funding so as to pressure Bush to withdraw sooner.

If there were NO/NIL/ZERO political leaders who were openly "anti-war", as this demonstration clearly indicated, then there are no significant political leaders, or even rank & file pols, presently which are willing to stop the war effort, or at least say so publically.

The next Congress won't be seated until Jan of 2007, by which time, hopefully, this entire situation should be substantially cleared up, one way or another.
Therefore,
it is a mute point to argue
for immediate withdrawal, or even a 3-6 month withdrawal,
since there are NO political leaders
willing to stand up and fight
for this position ...
... ... Why did they not attend it? Marco

??if i understand correctly (it seems quite evident to me), your argument is that any desired political progression has to take place from the top down. i would disagree. not as a point for debate, simply as a statement of belief.
i'm really not sure whether you would want to be argueing this premise for its own sake, as a stand alone concept.
or are you using it as a device - necessary to set up the conclusion that any individual action (protest/demonstration/public discussion) and statement of personal belief ('wihtdraw now') is pointless? this ('pointless behavior') is the conclusion that i draw from your statements.
for your conclusion to hold , your premise has to hold. no?
i offer this merely as an observation, as i believe my conclusions depart from your intentions.

on the other hand, if it is the case, and this is the other conclusion that i draw, that you simply want to say that the dems' leaders are a sorry lot-well, you've already made that view clear previosly and i'll leave it to others to debate this point if they wish.

Like Gary said, this is only like the most important issue of our time.

??actually, when i said it, i was referencing it as having been your premise for your participation, manner of participation and call for others participation, in the overall discussion.

And I give Gary credit for at least showing up there. Marco

and how is this message to be received, when on the first hand you state that such action is pointless.

Therefore, it is a mute point to argue for immediate withdrawal, or even a 3-6 month withdrawal, since there are NO political leaders willing to stand up and fight for this position

[Marco Zee]

Gary,

From an "expression of your anti-war feelings perspective", I think it is great that you attended that rally. At least you are standing up for your position in a peaceful non-violent manner, and participating in an important part of the democratic process.

From a practical political perspective, however, the Dems are a minority in the House (200/435 members) and the Senate (44/100 members). And therefore, to stop funding for the war, it would take ALL the Dems PLUS a handful of Repubs to vote against funding.

From what I understand, only TWO (2) out of 244 elected Dems showed up at this rally. And like I said, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. So, your side will have to convince the other 242 Dems as well as a handful of Repubs to "JOIN" your position. That's a huge political undertaking.

Further complicating your position are the upcoming elections in Iraq. Dems are misguided, but not totally stupid, and don't want to be seen as "pulling the rug" on Iraqi democracy just as the democratic processes seem to be taking root. The Dems want to be in a position to "take credit" for Iraqi democracy, if it comes to fruition; while at the same time being positioned to say "I told you so" if things do not go well in Iraq. If 8 to 10 million Iraqi's line up to vote again, leftists all over the world will again begin repeating...."maybe Bush was right after all" , as many said after the elections last January.....remember all of the blue index fingers.

So, the Dems have placed themselves in a very difficult position politically, namely, that if Iraq goes democratic successfully, Bush will get the lion's share of credit, which is bad for the Dems. And if things go poorly in Iraq, Bush will get the lion's share of the blame. So, the only way for the Dems to "benefit" significantly from the Iraq war, is for Iraqi democracy to fail. But if it does fail, they don't want it to appear as though the Democratic Party "aided or abetted" to the demise of Iraqi democracy. Thus, their absence from the rally.

So, the bottom line is that the Dems WILL NOT attempt to pull funding for Iraq now, at least not this year, or before the next two Iraqi elections in October and December.

So, from a practical political perspective, the "immediate withdrawal" plan has been shelved, at least until January or so. And 100K protestors on the mall is NOT going to change this reality.

Marco

PS: If Dem pols had showed up in significant numbers, especially the leadership, then I would think it credible to have a serious debate on defunding the war effort. But since none showed up....the point is mute.....for now.

[deveil]

Marco,
it would seem that you are making a large and limiting assumption as to why people would show up for a public demonstration.
the impact of any such activity, by my way of seeing things, cannot really be assigned, defined or constrained.

From an "expression of your anti-war feelings perspective", I think it is great that you attended that rally. At least you are standing up for your position in a peaceful non-violent manner, and participating in an important part of the democratic process.

From a practical political perspective, however, the Dems are a minority in the House (200/435 members) and the Senate (44/100 members). And therefore, to stop funding for the war, it would take ALL the Dems PLUS a handful of Repubs to vote against funding.

From what I understand, only TWO (2) out of 244 elected Dems showed up at this rally. And like I said, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS. So, your side will have to convince the other 242 Dems as well as a handful of Repubs to "JOIN" your position. That's a huge political undertaking.

"expression of your anti-war feelings perspective".
even if one were to accept this statement as fully encompassing ones position, i don't see how one can get from there to this:
"Further complicating your position are the upcoming elections in Iraq."
what 'position' has been defined? and how then complicated, if not defined?


once again (as in below), you draw your conclusions ("difficult position"... "bottom line"..."this reality") from assertions and assumptions that you, yourself, ascribe to......someone.
i.e. "Dems... don't want" and "The Dems want".

:
Dems are misguided, but not totally stupid, and don't want to be seen as "pulling the rug" on Iraqi democracy just as the democratic processes seem to be taking root. The Dems want to be in a position to "take credit" for Iraqi democracy, if it comes to fruition; while at the same time being positioned to say "I told you so" if things do not go well in Iraq. If 8 to 10 million Iraqi's line up to vote again, leftists all over the world will again begin repeating...."maybe Bush was right after all" , as many said after the elections last January.....remember all of the blue index fingers.

So, the Dems have placed themselves in a very difficult position politically, namely, that if Iraq goes democratic successfully, Bush will get the lion's share of credit, which is bad for the Dems. And if things go poorly in Iraq, Bush will get the lion's share of the blame. So, the only way for the Dems to "benefit" significantly from the Iraq war, is for Iraqi democracy to fail. But if it does fail, they don't want it to appear as though the Democratic Party "aided or abetted" to the demise of Iraqi democracy. Thus, their absence from the rally.

So, the bottom line is that the Dems WILL NOT attempt to pull funding for Iraq now, at least not this year, or before the next two Iraqi elections in October and December.

So, from a practical political perspective, the "immediate withdrawal" plan has been shelved, at least until January or so. And 100K protestors on the mall is NOT going to change this reality.


Marco

PS: If Dem pols had showed up in significant numbers, especially the leadership, then I would think it credible to have a serious debate on defunding the war effort. But since none showed up....the point is mute.....for now.

i don't think it is incumbent upon a participant (myself or others) to explain if or how or to what degree their beliefs or 'position' or whatever... how they depart or intersect with the assumptions you choose to argue against.

with all due respect, these assertions by myself are similar to those of others.
you may contend, dismiss or reflect on them, certainly, as you choose.
i myself am not seeking any response but will say that, for me, engagement is too strenuous.
with all sincerity, gary

[Spark]

Or perhaps we could call it "the Pissing Contest Forum"

[deveil]

Or perhaps we could call it "the Pissing Contest Forum"

ya don't like it when i play it fast and lose...
ya don't like it when i play it tight and close...

whatta ya want for nothin' ......? a r-r-r-r-r-r-r-u-u-u-ber BISCUIT !

[deveil]

it may be the case that my prior post might not have been clear as being light-hearted. it was.

[brianvh]

Or perhaps we could call it "the Pissing Contest Forum"

Actually, everthing has seemed comparitively genteel and coherent on both sides recently. Almost pleasant reading.

[mcelrah]

The political leader who matters - the Commander in Chief - is
already looking for a way to rid himself of the Iraq tar-baby. Look
for gradual and accelerating troop withdrawals in 2006 and 2007. The
Iraqi civil war will continue. Notice that Zarqawi has shifted his
fire from U.S. troops to Shi'ites and Sunni collaborators. A
Republican with integrity, John McCain, today expressed skepticism
about the administrations repeated incredible declarations of
victory. Meanwhile, let us take a moment to celebrate the
comeuppance of Tom Delay, the poster boy of unprincipled lust for
power. - Hugh

On 29 Sep 2005, at 13:47, Marco Zee wrote:

>
> Gary,
>
> From an "expression of your anti-war feelings perspective", I think
> it is great that you attended that rally. At least you are
> standing up for your position in a peaceful non-violent manner, and
> participating in an important part of the democratic process.
>
> From a practical political perspective, however, the Dems are a
> minority in the House (200/435 members) and the Senate (44/100
> members). And therefore, to stop funding for the war, it would
> take ALL the Dems PLUS a handful of Repubs to vote against funding.
>
> From what I understand, only TWO (2) out of 244 elected Dems showed
> up at this rally. And like I said, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN
> WORDS. So, your side will have to convince the other 242 Dems as
> well as a handful of Repubs to "JOIN" your position. That's a huge
> political undertaking.
>
> Further complicating your position are the upcoming elections in
> Iraq. Dems are misguided, but not totally stupid, and don't want
> to be seen as "pulling the rug" on Iraqi democracy just as the
> democratic processes seem to be taking root. The Dems want to be
> in a position to "take credit" for Iraqi democracy, if it comes to
> fruition; while at the same time being positioned to say "I told
> you so" if things do not go well in Iraq. If 8 to 10 million
> Iraqi's line up to vote again, leftists all over the world will
> again begin repeating...."maybe Bush was right after all" , as many
> said after the elections last January.....remember all of the blue
> index fingers.
>
> So, the Dems have placed themselves in a very difficult position
> politically, namely, that if Iraq goes democratic successfully,
> Bush will get the lion's share of credit, which is bad for the
> Dems. And if things go poorly in Iraq, Bush will get the lion's
> share of the blame. So, the only way for the Dems to "benefit"
> significantly from the Iraq war, is for Iraqi democracy to fail.
> But if it does fail, they don't want it to appear as though the
> Democratic Party "aided or abetted" to the demise of Iraqi
> democracy. Thus, their absence from the rally.
>
> So, the bottom line is that the Dems WILL NOT attempt to pull
> funding for Iraq now, at least not this year, or before the next
> two Iraqi elections in October and December.
>
> So, from a practical political perspective, the "immediate
> withdrawal" plan has been shelved, at least until January or so.
> And 100K protestors on the mall is NOT going to change this reality.
>
> Marco
>
> PS: If Dem pols had showed up in significant numbers, especially
> the leadership, then I would think it credible to have a serious
> debate on defunding the war effort. But since none showed
> up....the point is mute.....for now.
>

[mcelrah]

"Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk." - Hugh

On 29 Sep 2005, at 17:45, deveil wrote:

>
>
> Spark wrote:
> Or perhaps we could call it "the Pissing Contest Forum" [Laughing]
> (end of quote)
>
>
> ya don't like it when i play it fast and lose...
> ya don't like it when i play it tight and close...
>
> whatta ya want for nothin' ......? a r-r-r-r-r-r-r-u-u-u-ber
> BISCUIT ! [Rolling Eyes]
>

[Marco Zee]

Hugh,

There have been specific discussions on this forum with regards to immediately withdrawing from Iraq, which I now argue is pointless since there are no pols, even Dems, who are willing to take this position. I posed the question to everyone, but especially Dem supporters, as to why they did not attend the rally, and gave my views as to why they did not show up.

Do you ( or anyone else) have a position or rationale as to why they did not attend the rally,.....Joan Baez, Jessie Jackson, and Cindy Sheehan found time to attend it?

The central theme of the rally was to stop the war NOW, not in a few months or years.

As for the troop withdrawals, I think you are right....Bush will be making that decision.....the Iraqi's have to assume more and more of the burden of securing their own country, and as they do, the US should be able to pull troops out of there. Nobody wants to stay there longer than we have to , and certainly not indefinitely. The Iraqis' know that Bush is only in office thru Jan 09, so they have to get their s*** together before then, since there is no guarantee that the following administration will "continue the deployment" there. The clock is ticking..........


The reason I have optimism here is because there is a reasonable "back up" plan, namely, that even if the democratic process breaks down between the factions, the country of Iraq can be partitioned into three or more separate states, something along the lines of the No-Fly Zones, similar to what happened in Yugoslavia. The Kurds can have their country in the north, The Shiite's in the South, and the Sunni's in the Sunni Triangle. The oil reserves can be divided according to the percentage of the population, or by some other similar formula. And if the Sunni's don't like that, then the Kurds and Shiite's are free to destroy them, and we could even help them out if needed. Didn't Marc even advocate nuking the place at one point?

I would just like to hear from some Dem/Liberal types as to why the Dems didn't show up at this important rally. My two Maryland Senators were right here close by, and for some reason(s) , did not attend. Any explanations?

Marco

[/b]

[deveil]

"Never get in a pissing contest with a skunk." - Hugh

i resemble that remark.