Let's go comment-monkey!
or maybe his description of the so-called "anti war" crowd is so spot on that it hurts.
Umm, let me just check... Nope, sorry you're wrong. Seeing as, unlike Lileks and you, I actually go on these marches, I've never seen anyone with a banner saying "I think it would be super if Saddam returned". I don't doubt there are such people out there, but as Lileks and LGF point to the picture of some crazy with a banner saying 'September 11th was a good thing' as evidence that the whole anti-war organisation is wicked (yet would presumerably not want to ban all Americans from having handguns when one crazy shoots a load of people) I can safely say he's writing about his own personal prejudice, not who are out on the streets.
Well, you're right, of course, in that the scary-Left ANSWER crowd do not represent the sum total of the antiwar movement: but as organizers of the largest events, they have made themselves the public face of same.
Remember that Onion article, "Gay Pride Parade Sets Acceptance of Gays Back 20 Years"?
(continued--damn 100-character limit!)
The demos might end up damaging the credibility of more moderate antiwar voices, to be associated with a bunch of hateful Stalinist fuckheads who think Kim Jong Il is a swell guy.
Because the recent US demos were just a warm-up for the main event: massive protests during the Republican Convention this summer. There will be lots of cameras there, and TV America is suddenly going to get a face full of disproportionately-represented anti-semite whackjobs in full-on rant mode--not because they represent the true face of the antiwar movement, but because they're the ones who paid for the microphones.
And people are gonna get scared, and that otherwise-undecided voters might run screaming for GW Bush and Co., who are going to look positively sane by comparison.
So what are you saying Jack? Have there been demonstrators in the US with signs saying 'Bring Back Saddam'? Because I can't believe the Daily Mail or the Sun, who hate our guts, would have forgone the pleasure of showing pictures of UK demonstrators doing the same if they had the opportunity. Attacking the motives of whoever is behind the marches has gone on for several years now. Yet it somehow fails to detract from the fact that millions have marched, not because they support some organisation that may or may not exist with a Neo-Krypto-Stalinist-Trotskyist agenda, but because they wanted to show their opposition to war. And that's the message that's come through, which has Patrick and his little pals so threatened.
Frankly, Patrick and his friends aren't the ones I'm worried about: their votes for Bush are pretty securely sewn up. I'm worried that Kerry might lose in November because he's tainted by association with the antiwar movement (although the ANSWER people loathe Kerry almost as much as they loathe Bush).
[[ Have there been demonstrators in the US with signs saying 'Bring Back Saddam'? ]]
ANSWER's website says the antiwar movement "must give its unconditional support to the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance." I.e., it condones the killings of coalition soldiers and Western civilians doing reconstruction work.
But the "so-called" antiwar protests in NYC were less about the war per se than about the Palestinian cause...
(continues)
from a subscriber-only New Republic article:
"...for the dozens of speakers before and after the march, Iraq ranked a clear second to the issue of Palestine, whose four-color flag was the march's dominant symbol. ...
"[T]he antiwar movement was, in its infancy, hijacked by the hard left. And on Saturday, despite the efforts of a more traditional left-wing group, United for Peace and Justice... to control the stage, the group leading off, and setting the tone, was [ANSWER] ... a remnant of a totalitarian left that it's hard to believe still exists. ...
"Saturday, from Madison Square Park to Times Square, I only saw one Dean for America fleece and one Kerry button on the thousands of protesters. More common was a Star of David, connected with an "=" sign to a swastika."
(continues)
"United for Peace and Justice had pre-printed blue and white signs... that read, "Protest the Republican National Convention; August 29, New York City." But under [one sign, marchers] were debating the wisdom of showing up at those protests. "I do not want to be there. I'm worried about a confrontation. I'm worried about my safety," said one.. [Another said,] "If they turn violent or ugly, it could push the people in favor of security, in favor of authority"...
"A Kerry campaign official I spoke with says the campaign is already quietly worrying about the message that violent, or simply weird, convention protests could send, and even Kerry's humblest enthusiasts are concerned. ... [One Kerry supporter] gestured at a passing duo both wearing Yassir Arafat's trademark keffiyeh. "I wish people would pay more attention to the bottom line," he said. "If we don't win in November, this doesn't mean much of anything."
(last bit of quote)
"While the less loony marchers were worrying about the August protests' effect on the contest for the presidency, ANSWER was spoiling for a fight. "A message to Mayor Bloomberg and New York police officials: Don't even try to suppress our right to protest. We'll have to liberate New York from police occupation," said ANSWER's Larry Holmes."
Are these people representative of the movement? No. You know that, andI know that.
But does Joe Registered Voter know that?
Well, let's ask shall we? Patrick?
I'm not sure if there's a good way for Kerry to come out of this. The only thing I think he can do to try and minimise damage between now and the Republican convention is to try and make clear what parts of the demonstrators position he supports, and all the parts he doesn't. Of course, the news will report him as supporting ANSWER unswervingly but they'll just say he does that anyway by not coming out against them.
Perhaps if ANSWER have something nicely quotable about how they dislike Kerry that'll help him out?
Oh no! Musn't be left wing or support the rights of Palestinians!
As for the ANSWER stuff, this is all rather familiar, and I still stand by what I said then:
"[L]ook at it this way: you risk spending a few days a year showing tacit solidarity to a bunch of people who allegedly hold very dodgy views but not much power, in the name of a good cause. Now, compare that to the other 359 days a year you spend giving tacit approval to a bunch of remorseless murderers and thieves who hold power, in the name of having a relatively cosy life. Which is the one to agonize over?"
Good point Joe which I'm sure would go down well in Middle America. After all, it works so well over here.
Anyway Jack, wasn't it you who was (quite rightly) bemoaning the fact that Nader has now become a hate figure for some of the people who oppose Bush, and that everyone's hopes have been pinned on Kerry?
Commenting by HaloScan
