I attended the march to protest the invasion of Iraq today in New York City. The crowd of 100,000 to 200,000 stretched from Times Square to Washington Square--this thing was big. As with the Feb. 15 rally, the mood was passionate and upbeat, with spontaneous cheering and chanting: "Money for health care! Not for war! Money for schools! Not for war! Money for libraries! Not for war!" As you can see from this picture, it was a family event, on a beautiful Spring day, and you could almost close your eyes and believe that the suits weren't raining death and madness on a faraway country, at hideous cost to all of us.
The crowd was mellow but a lot of the signs were angry. How could you not feel that way if you'd spent a couple of days watching Wolf Blitzer and Peter Arnett screaming "Whoa! Whoa! Look at the size of that one!" as downtown Baghdad was ripped to shreds? Here's the grrlpower antidote to the wargasm boys: one of the signs said "Eat my Bush."
And then there was this guy. This is a bold piece of agitprop, but of course it represents an extreme view that this page cannot in any way endorse. Can you imagine, comparing Bush to you-know-who and the WTC massacre to the Reichstag fire? Irresponsible, irresponsible.
Unlike Feb. 15, cop presence was at a minimum. I guess they figured out that the crowds of kids, moms & dads, and seniors that turn out for these events don't merit the plastic handcuffs and riot gear. Also, virtually no "pro-war" demonstrators to be seen: just a couple of disgruntled souls standing on the sidewalk shaking their heads or holding thumbs down. No hardhats screaming "Death to hippies!" I certainly have the impression that this city, which you'd think might be baying for militaristic revenge for 9/11, in fact feels emphatically the opposite. Maybe that's why Bush has decided to sacrifice us.
Nice documentation, thanks.
Here's David Lindorff's take on counterpunch.org. I hadn't heard anything about the police buses and national guard massed on the far west side. Nor of the 75 year old woman who possibly stopped some violence in the end.
Pearl Harbor happened during FDR's time, and that was reason for war. The death of 3,000 americans used to be a bad thing. Now acting on an attack that caused the death of 3,000 americans is considered as evil as what hitler did. you all can go to hell and say hi to hitler for me. You can not endorse of comparing hilter to what happened, cause of the effect it will have, but you obviously agree with it.
“Now acting on an attack that caused the death of 3,000 americans is considered as evil as what hitler did. “
Folks, I've listened to enough Rush Limbaugh to understand anon's dialect. Let me translate ...
Yeah, we're not supposed to compare ourselves to the Nazis, but I don't know how else to talk about this:
It was not far into the war in Afghanistan that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld made plain his views of the treatment of prisoners, after horrifying accounts began to surface of the treatment of Taliban POWs.