WAR: 300,000 Protest Against War In Iraq

i think the lack of media coverage on this just goes to RE-ENFORCE the fact that the media is under the 'influence' of the administration. this wasn't jsut a small protest of say 1200 people..it was a rather large protest against a 'war' that was started on lies and/or manipulation of the stretched facts and it was in d.c. .....no media coverage???

the media will cover a slow speed car chase in L.A. but not 300,000 protesting at the nations capital............hmmmmmmm, i think that said it all

I was amused by the fact that the "pro war" demonstration the next day actually got more coverage - even though only a few hundred people showed up.

I read the coverage of that demonstration, and it made me sad. There were a couple there who had lost a son in Iraq, and they seemed so desparate to make themselves believe he had sacrifiiced his life in a good cause.

There were also the expected wingnut idiots with pictures of Cindy Sheehan that said "arrest the traitors!" Hooray, let's destroy democracy in order to save it!

But I found the couple who had lost their son far more poignant, and sad.

The young soldiers dying in Iraq are doing so doing their duty and serving their country. Too bad their country is doing such a disservice too them, sending them into a meat grinder of a war for no clearly identifiable reason, with no clearly thought out plan. And it's not like it hasn't happened before.

It took 50,000 young US soldiers dying in Vietnam to make it clear it was a dumb idea in the first place. Let's hope we never reach those kinds of numbers this time around.

[edit on 9/26/05 by xmotex]

Originally posted by grover
What is it about hard core right wingers...trite and petty and highlights the paucity of your arguements and worldviews.

Weak. Why is it that both the RIGHT and the LEFT can't recognize that even in their defenses of themselves, they consistently defame and belittle each other. Grover, your statement above makes you just as guilty as anyone on the right of the very thing your statement infers that you detest.

Originally posted by groverBy the way Gradyphilpott, it seems quite a few people remember who Casey Sheehan and his mother are, and actually care.

I don't mean to insult you here grover, or anyone else, for that matter, but that is garbage. You don't care about her and her dead son anymore than Grady does, or anymore than I do. None of us care. What you care about is that she represents another opportunity for you to hate Bush and anyone who has ever been in the same zip code as him. For Grady, she represents another opportunity to piss on liberals and their contempt for the President.

She is a political expedient. Nobody on the left cares about her. Nobody on the right cares about her. She’s the MoveOn equivalent of the Swift Boat Veterans.

Also, I'd expect little coverage of this; but, it is not because of any secret media cabal that is censoring the news of disdain for the war. In fact, the notion that the scary old media is somehow preventing you from hearing anti-war news is so laughable as to be nearly aperient.

Instead, they are not showing the coverage, because it is not really news. I was there this weekend (albeit on my way to a friend's place to watch the Notre Dame game). They probably counted me in both protests' numbers (as I had to walk right by them both).

It's not news because this is nothing new. 300,000 is not that huge a number, and there are protestors blocking my way around town almost every day. Around here, nobody cares anymore, except that it disrupts the traffic, which is already the 2nd worst traffic in the entire country. So, it's neither new, nor particularly exciting.

Finally, the notion that 300,000 (assuming that's remotely correct, which I doubt) vs. 1,200 (assuming that's remotely correct, which I doubt) means anything is just plain stupid.

Come on, dude. Who actually protests FOR something? Try protesting to keep that Wal Mart in your neighborhood. See how many people you get to join you. Probably nowhere near as many as you could get if you protested AGAINST Wal Mart.

Why?

Because content people rarely protest. The pro-Bush, pro-war folks are already ahead. They have Bush, and they have a war. What the hell would they protest for?

So, sorry if anything here is insulting (and this is not just for you, grover; everyone should digest this for a second). Insults are not my intention. Instead, I just wanted to share a middle path that none of you sinister and dexterous folks seem to be able to find.

Sheehan just got arrested outside the White House.

It's breaking now.

Originally posted by Valhall
Sheehan just got arrested outside the White House.

It's breaking now.

Can we say the principles martyrdom???????

What a foolish move! This will ensure the national and international elevation of her position.

From a technical standpoint, this administration has squandered the good fortune they received by the timing of Hurricane Rita.

I see this administration coming apart at the seams in a number of places. It's only a matter of time.. Can they really survive another three years?

Hmmm?

Here's the link.

Sheehan Arrested During Anti-War Protest

[edit on 26-9-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
Can we say martyrdom???????

What a foolish move! This will ensure the national and international elevation of her position.

I don't know about that. They (probably Capitol Police) arrested her. They didn't kill her.

Also, early reports suggest both sides were rather peaceful. All in all, if initial reports are to be believed, I don't know that any one side has earned themselves any more ammunition.

Originally posted by Hamburglar
I don't know about that. They (probably Capitol Police) arrested her. They didn't kill her.

No, no, no. You misunderstood me. I meant martyrdom in a "Nelson Mandela" sense.

From a tactical standpoint, it makes no sense to arrest her and force what was largely an underreported story back into the headlines.

I just can't help but get the sense that something significant has changed in this administration. Whatever you feel about President Bush, few could argue his administration's political shrewdness. Lately, that seems to be largely absent.

Makes me wonder why?

Originally posted by loam
What a foolish move! This will ensure the national and international elevation of her position.

Exactly. And visibility of the protest. Whose decision was this? It has the feel of bully 'force'. NOW it will be on the news. Seems like this little move will backfire.

Can they really survive another three years?

I certainly hope not.

Originally posted by loam
I just can't help but get the sense that something significant has changed in this administration. Whatever you feel about President Bush, few could argue his administration's political shrewdness. Lately, that seems to be largely absent.

Makes me wonder why?

I am RIGHT there. I wonder, too.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

Originally posted by loam
I just can't help but get the sense that something significant has changed in this administration. Whatever you feel about President Bush, few could argue his administration's political shrewdness. Lately, that seems to be largely absent.

Makes me wonder why?

It seems she was arrested by local D.C. police, not the Secret Service or Federal Marshals, so it really had nothing to do with the administration.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It seems she was arrested by local D.C. police, not the Secret Service or Federal Marshals, so it really had nothing to do with the administration.

That's an assumption. The pres could say, "Have the police arrest her"

I think there's a power struggle going on for the 'presidency' and Bush is making these less-than-wise decisions in a 'bully' manner.

Originally posted by loam

Originally posted by Hamburglar
I don't know about that. They (probably Capitol Police) arrested her. They didn't kill her.

No, no, no. You misunderstood me.

No, loam, I understood just fine. I just don't agree that it is a big deal at the moment. If they keep her in jail for a long time, okay, I'll grant your point. But, my guess is, they'll hold her for a few hours, then let her go without charge.

That is good strategy. Get her out of the way and show your love for the rule of law by arresting her; but, play the responsible, and ultimately benevolent peacekeeper, by releasing her shortly with no charges against her.

Would take some wind out of her sails, and give the Capitol Police a chance to pretend they are huminitarians. Shifts the focus of the story away from her, and any outcry from her would seem shrill and to be ignored.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
It seems she was arrested by local D.C. police, not the Secret Service or Federal Marshals, so it really had nothing to do with the administration.

Then it can be said that what lady luck giveth, she may also taketh away....

Still, I think it naïve to assume that the Secret Service and White House staff have not been engaged in significant briefings with Rumsey's force about how to address the protesters. Moreover, you will note that she was the first to be arrested.

EDIT: Hamburglar: Can't help but disagree.... No arrest = no news.


[edit on 26-9-2005 by loam]

BH, the President can't tell the D.C. cops to do anything and unless she was actually on White House property the Feds wouldn't have arrested her.

The D.C. gov't is totally controlled by Democrats, so if there's any political conspiracy here they may have been purposely doing her a favor to embarrass the President.

Originally posted by djohnsto77
The D.C. gov't is totally controlled by Democrats, so if there's any political conspiracy here they may have been purposely doing her a favor to embarrass the President.

Thereby proving that no US President can govern effectively without the buy in of both political parties. This "shove-it-down-your-throat-like-it-or-not" approach to governance is a dismal failure.

[edit on 26-9-2005 by loam]

Originally posted by loam
EDIT: Hamburglar: Can't help but disagree.... No arrest = no news.

Fair enough. That may be true; or, headlines could read, "Local Cops do Nothing as War-Mom Sheehan Marches over Laws."

Either way, I still don't know if either one of us is right or wrong or half-right or whatever. Your point, though, is well made and well taken.

Well of course she got arrested.

People forget, getting arrested is part of the point of civil disobedience tactics - to show that you are willing to make the necessary sacrifices to get your point across.

To all the people who object to Cindy Sheehan so strongly: hey, this is the USA, love it or leave it

We are allowed to protest government policies here, in fact if you don't like someting the .gov is doing, it is your civic duty to oppose it.

If a little strident dissent bugs you so much, nobody is stopping you from moving to a place more to your liking, say North Korea perhaps. Not a lot of pesky "unpartiotic" protesting going on over there

[edit on 9/26/05 by xmotex]

or, headlines could read, "Local Cops do Nothing as War-Mom Sheehan Marches over Laws."

Nice try, but I wouldn't count on it...

You made me laugh though...

Originally posted by loam

Nice try, but I wouldn't count on it...

Aha! You must not be from the D.C. area. It's not as crazy as you think.

Like the time the Chief of police had a complete shutdown of the Woodrow Wilson bridge DURING RUSH HOUR while his officers cited every offending car in sight for seatbelt violations. (No B.S., there were headlines on that for a long time).

djohnsto77 just pointed out in another thread that she was on White House property and arrested by the federal U.S. Park Police:

CNN

ALL OF MY ORIGINAL POINTS STAND!

Sorry to gloat... I couldn't help myself....


EDIT: If you read carefully, I implied djohnsto77 was arrested... Not what I meant, of course...

[edit on 26-9-2005 by loam]

Personally hamburgler...I read everything I can get my hands on from the extreme right to the extreme left and well as the stuff inbetween before I make my personal political decisions so I like to think I am better informed than the majority of people who get their news and views from one or two different sources...I may very well read the same sources you do but reach different conclusions...I am not guided by party, I am guided by my own personal moral sense about what I feel is right or wrong with our country and our planet. And while there are examples of the left badmouthing the right wing, for the most part if I see 2 articles or letters about say, the war, one from the right wing for it and the other from the left against it, the odds are the one from the right wing will be the one bad mouthing the opposition, calling them traitors, america haters, bush bashers and other such bullhooey. I dispise bush and I make no bones about it but it is not because Ted Kennedy or Nancy Peloisi tells me too, i dispise him because I feel deep down that he is one of the most corrupt, dishonest and hypocritical politicians I have ever witnessed in my 50 years and that the extreme policies he and the hard right endorses, if ever fully implimented would tear the fabric of this country apart. I oppose Bush because I love my country and I feel he is bad for it, but even more I love my planet and his policies definately bode ill for it.

As for not caring for Cindy Sheehan or her son...I do not know them but I personally stood in many protests against this war in the days and weeks leading up to it and we had obscenities shouted at us, we were egged and were called tratiors ( I served honorably thank you very much) and the like, just like she and her supporters were in Crawford so I sympthize and know what they went through. I may not know her but I am a human being and I can eympthize...and at the gut level most of us who support her efforts do.