« What Do We Learn about Fred Fleitz from the Bolton Testimony? | Main | Quit Your Bellyachin' About Antiwar Demonstrations »

September 25, 2005


interestingly, Tim the russert had dowd, Brooks and friedman on. no one can read them now, so he read their columns on Tv (like LaGuardia reading the funnies on the radio during the newspaper strike in NYC).

Friedman has given up on Bush.

The president is planning to rely on "spending cuts" instead to pay for rebuilding New Orleans. Yeah, right - and if you believe that, I have some beachfront property in Biloxi I'd like to sell you. The underlying message of all these stories is that the Bush team sees no reason to change course in response to Katrina.

I beg to differ. Katrina deprived the Bush team of the energy source that propelled it forward for the last four years: 9/11 and the halo over the presidency that came with it. The events of 9/11 created a deference in the U.S. public, and media, for the administration, which exploited it to the hilt to push an uncompassionate conservative agenda on tax cuts and runaway spending, on which it never could have gotten elected. That deference is over.

Like so many others, I can personally relate to that feeling of "knew this all along." I think this is part of what the Right is responding to when they sling the accusations of the left wanting the US to fail so that it will prove us to be right or some such nonsense.

There was a pretty good post on dKos a while ago that dealt with this dynamic: basically, 'You think we're happy? Try embarrassed and dismayed...'

I actually think an inner part of me hoped I was wrong about Iraq--you just hate to see so many lives and resources so thoroughly wasted for corporate gains alone--I think as much as I was extremely skeptical, part of me wanted to believe in good faith that we wouldn't just go to war on a financial whim or whathaveyou. Afterall, I was wrong about Afghanistan, in thinking that they were too premature in going in (when was it Richard Clark who said that we did too little too late?)--yet, turns out they were wrong about Afghanistan too, since everyone can agree that we diverted resources too soon.

Hmmm... from AP.

Support for U.S. troops fighting abroad mixed with anger toward anti-war demonstrators at home as hundreds of people, far fewer than organizers had expected, rallied Sunday on the National Mall just a day after a massive protest against the war in Iraq. ...

About 400 people gathered near a stage on an eastern segment of the mall, a large patchwork American flag serving as a backdrop. Amid banners and signs proclaiming support for U.S. troops, several speakers hailed the effort to bring democracy to Iraq and Afghanistan and denounced those who protest it.
Organizers of Sunday's demonstration acknowledged that their rally would be much smaller than the anti-war protest but had hoped that as many as 20,000 people would turn out.

Juan Cole has just come out for withdrawal. The tide has turned.


Just wanted to say, I went to the San Francisco version of the march, as I always do, not with any great enthusiasm, but out of a sense of duty. My antiwar work is elsewhere; some of it even has been useful I think.

Afterward I posted a very small number of pictures -- the few that seemed interesting out of the chaos of a San Francisco march. I now realize that 3 of the 5 carry the theme the WaPo identified here: deepening conviction that Bush lied, is the figurehead for a wrong turning of the country, and we knew it all along. It wasn't so much like that before the war -- more "give peace a chance" messages.

I marched in DC, and I thought the Post coverage was pretty much on the mark. The energy of the gathering was very different from the pre-war marches, much closer to grim determination. The result, perhaps, of so many more rounds of the Bush Administration turning out to be even worse than you'd imagined, no matter how bad you thought they were.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad