Login Here
Others have had their say today, so one more won't hurt:
Saddam Hussein was a beast who had twice invaded his neighbors, had killed his own people with abandon and posed a threat -- and not just a theoretical one -- to Israel. If anything, I was encouraged in my belief by the offensive opposition to the war -- silly arguments about oil or empire or, at bottom, the ineradicable and perpetual rottenness of America.
I can only speak for myself but after everyone in the nation came together a brief period of communal 9/11 porn the ensuing lust for vengeance was, to me, an impulse not to be trusted. George Bush and the neocons had been sporting wood to invade Iraq for years, so when they trotted that one out once again and dusted it off I didn't trust that, either. Didn't trust our Preznit's lack of emotional maturity, his awkward habit of breaking everything he touched, and his consistent contempt for the very democracy he vociferously insisted on exporting. The unreasonable dismissal of anyone's claims when they weren't telling them what they wanted to hear, the "war on the cheap" planning and the delusional expectation that we would be greeted with flowers all screamed to me that these people had no fucking clue what they were on about and should not be trusted with anything sharper than a potato peeler. There were many leaders around the world just as bad or worse to their own people than Sadaam Hussein, and those who could indisputably lay claim to more dangerous toys, and we didn't trouble ourselves much about them so the sneaking suspcion that this effort had more to do with George Bush's ego and his misguided sense of who he was in the world rather than some stupid notion of "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" was not, I think, without merit.
I guess that is just dirty fucking hippie thinking, but it also happened to be right. Then again, I don't generally characterize real physical violence as "theraputic," but I strongly suspect that the people on the receiving end of it don't either.
Wanker.
Share This 
Spotlight
Loofah!
I consider Cohen to be a Lieberman Democrat. He is a decent writer though.
fitz?
You’ve gotta love Dick’s brass:
“I keep making the same stupid fucking mistakes over and over - why can’t George Bush learn from them?”
Daddy Bush needs to get off his ass and fix this. We’re all getting hurt by his boy president. He can weep all he wants about how his son will never back down, but he has to know that his son has failed yet again. It’s time for him to bail his son and us out.
Richard Cohen just admitted that one factor that encouraged his public support for the disastrous Iraq War was the fact that he was offended by those who opposed the war.
The man is morally corrupt.
I understand Vice Terrorist Cheney has been added to the Iraq Study Group to gauge the situation from a business perspective.
Cohen’s written some pretty piss-poor columns, but this one’s got to be close to his worst.
His rationalizations are contemptible.
I mean think about it. You’ve got an egomaniac lunatic as president from a long line of a family borne of oil interests. Same with Cheney. Iraq was about oil, money, greed and power. For me these are not difficult concepts or conclusions to be drawn about the ‘why’ of the Bush behavior in the Middle East over the last six years. Am I being naive?
Richard Cohen makes me angry.
Also, looking at that picture of him I get the inexplicable urge to repeatedly dunk his head in a truck-stop restroom toilet.
Karl Malone @
6
It’s the only excuse he could come up with for having supported the invasion that has turned out to be such a complete fubar.
I still don’t see how an intelligent informed person could have supported it. It was perfectly obvuous to me at the time that it was a serious mistake. Now the morons have to come up with some excuse to weasel out of it, and Dickless Cohen’s excuse is as good as any I s’pose.
SteveNS @ 7
Rationalizations are all he’s got left.
When you are wrong about everything, over and over again, and finally realize it, what else is there to do really, execept blame the icky people who were right and cluck disappointedly at the powerful people who screwed up all your pretty dreams?
Wait, I know! Come to reluctant agreement with the icky people, but for all the wrong reasons.
-30-
I thought it was a pretty good article. Cohen says that he went through four phases regarding Viet Nam (a war that he fought in) before coming to the conclusion that it was very wrong- and has gone through the same phases about Iraq- which he now agrees is wrong.
He actually writes the stupid arguments he was using to convince himself about the two wars during the early stages- arguments that he obviously now rejects..the whole thing is a mea culpa- or a double mea culpa if you will.
It’s the kind of article that can actually capture some people who are on the fence.
Almost time for Olbermann. I can’t see how he can top his gold-star performance last night. No matter.
Brilliant post Jane!
(emphasis mine)
Me too.
ptooey on Cohen and he can just STFU.
Agree with Jane- I was NEVER in favor of this war and the whole thing smelled of bullshit from the beginning- but not everyone smelled it so soon.
I’ve been watching Tweety tonight. I have not done that in a long time.
It’s disorienting.
I spend so much time reading and talking with people on blogs and in the comments who understand what’s going on politically, that it’s just jarring to do what Digby does every day and see how clueless these people are.
Hot Soup?
Are you fucking kidding me?
Joe Lockhart’s comments were stunningly stupid for a so-called Dem pundt, but then, that’s the point of that show.
rwcole @ 13
Cohen is a weather vane. He will happily make the same mistakes all over again, if only because the right kind of people favor it.
Patrick –Could be- I don’t know the man- I can only judge by the article- and the article could very well be effective in helping people who were originally caught up in the war bravado and now suspect that there’s somethin wrong –but are having trouble admitting that they were wrong.
Absolutely right, Jane. “Lust for vengeance” clothed as self righteousness.
Everythingseemssoneat @
7
You are kidding, aren’t you? AREN’T YOU???? Please, for the love of heaven, tell me you’re kidding….
OT– I am torn– Tony Bennett on NBC for his 80th birthday celebration concert and KO.
such a choice!
Barbra sings the first duet. Goosebumps!
KO will understand (?)
Cohen thought that invading Iraq would make Israel more secure.
rwcole @
20
I don’t know that I’m capable of guaging people like that. Every time I read Cohen, he seems to want to be agreed with or absolved of something, because shucks, his heart is in the right place.
Work’s over - time to go home and not work, too.
I remember it well.
I remember NOBODY discussing occupation and the time and effort that would take.
I remember so-called serious people acting like children, being giddy about being able to ‘kick some ass’.
I remember 1 million people marching against the war in Sydney Australia while I was there.
I remember similar numbers in New York and London, and no one even reporting it.
I remember the opposition to the war being called ’scant’.
Lawrence O’Donnell wants to know:
“I’ve reached a breaking point with my TV pundit colleagues who championed the Iraq war and now say we can’t leave even if we went there for the wrong reasons. For every one of them, I have a simple question: Why aren’t you in Iraq?”
I want to know:
Why aren’t you in Iraq, Hillary?
I get so angry at this kind of reasoning. I honestly think many of these people really don’t believe the bullshit they are spewing, but their overwhelming desire to be the alpha of all things overrides all sense of humilty or shame. That’s why Chimpy always has that asinine smirk on his face. He knows what he is saying is utter nonsense but I can say whatever the f*ck I want because I’m the POTUS. And all these toadies just follow suit. Ugh…
Marion in Savannah- I’m kidding, sometimes I just say stuff.
rwcole @
14
It also means that Richard Cohen did not, even though he had the experience of reflection upon Vietnam under his belt, pay attention to his own reflections. Not paying attention to one’s own conclusions on history makes one capable of making the same mistake again, which he did do. And encouraged others to make the same mistake.
Governments “sell war” to their people. Most people buy what’s being sold. There may somewhere be an example of a war that didn’t ever happen cause the sale was poorly made- but I can’t think of one.
So the historic assumption must be that if a Prince WANTS a war- he can have it—if the result is quick and relatively painless- well then the Prince wins- if it is NOT- then slowly we see growing buyer remorse- and eventually we reach a turning point- which apparently we have with this fuckin thing.
Everythingseemssoneat @
30
WHEW!!! Now I can breathe again…!
Montag–Yep- that’s what it means- it’s what he SAYS…It’s a confessional.
War on Error–oops. Georgie screwed up again.
rwcole @ 17
Hell, I didn’t even agree with the previous war (afganistan). Sure, I wanted the taliban out and osama captured, but I knew cluster bombing villagers and dropping daisy cutters wasn’t going to do the trick. Iraq? that was a no-brainer - big time.
sanitas @ 36
Ditto.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I was worried about Afghanistan- based on the experience the Russians had- not sure now.
When that third building came down, I saw the light. I knew it was all crap on 9/12.
SteveNS @
11
Paging OilFieldGuy to the large white phone.
I was and am sickened by the assault on poor, war-torn Afghanistan. We propped up the Taliban with the help of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and did the same for the Tall One, too. We inflicted all that misery on the Afghans.
The Iraq War and Occupation was and is just completely insane from the git go.
Bush 41 can not fix things. He lost his re-election, and Bush lost this election (his party). I am sick of people saying Bush 41 needs to fix things, or his guys are here.
He as head of the CIA, VP for 8 years, and president for 4. Now he is retired. Let him make his billions, but leave “fixing” to people who are voted for, or at least “elected”.
The line that 41 is the man is bull, just as much as Clinton should somehow come in and fix things, he served his 8 years.
OK–AF ONE has flat tire(s)
Clusterfuck’s motorcade crashes in Hawaii
Bush daughter robbed in South America.
Guess the voodoo curse is startin ta work- and we know from Stephen King- they just keep getting WORSE!!!
Happy Thanksgiving Clusterfuck!!
Badwater @ 5
daddy is full of crap, his son backs down from everything
from every bussiness he failed and bailed, to his oath of office protecting our constitution, his pledge to fire anyone involved in exposing covert assets, to supporting the troops, to fighting terrorism, to securing afghanistan, to getting bin laden
this guy backs down from every thing and daddy bush is just plain full of crap
And now THIS:
Though Bush was cheered by troops and others on Oahu — a contrast to the thousands of anti-war demonstrators a day before in Indonesia — his visit wasn’t without incident for those around him.
Three police motorcycle officers were injured when they crashed on slick pavement while escorting his motorcade on Tuesday. Two were taken by ambulance to a local hospital, where one was described as in serious condition and another was described as stable.
Members of the White House medical team — including an ambulance — were cut loose from the motorcade to help, said Dr. Richard Tubb, Bush’s doctor. Local ambulance and fire units were sent, too.
Also, acting White House Travel Office Director Gregg Pitts was beaten and robbed by at least two men while out in Honolulu Monday night. Pitts suffered head and other injuries in the attack. He was awake and alert but remained behind at a Honolulu hospital because of a possible concussion, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said.
“Clusterfuck’s motorcade crashes in Hawaii”
linky!! linky !!
Richard Cohen:
George W. Bush, Oct. 30, 2006:
So, what was that silly argument again?…Oh, that’s right, that the U.S. was invading Iraq (oh, I’m sorry…engaging in Operation Iraq Liberation) to take control of its oil fields…No doubt so that these people whom some call terrorists wouldn’t even dream of such a rash strategy as petro-blackmail upon the good old U.S.A.
Yep, that sure was silly. Darn those leaf-eatin’ hippies anyway.
(rolls eyes)
Clusterfuck decided to avoid all of poppa’s mistakes…
So he’s NEVER gonna piss of the right
He’s NEVER gonna raise taxes
He’s NEVER gonna start a war in Iraq an not go to Bahgdad
He’s never gonna let anyone call him a “wimp”.
But he forgot ta figure out what he WOULD do.
From the article
Therapeutic? Who is this guys therapist? WTF!
I think the bushies may just want to go home to Crawford forever.
What a disaster– they certainly don’t travel well.
wow.
“acting White House Travel Director”
Sure hope they gave him BIG business cards.
rwcole @ 51
LMAO!
At LEAST two men beat the Acting White House Travel Director–probably twenty- right- big strong guy like that–
Please take another trip Clusterfuck- this is starting to be entertaining (cept for the bodies).
rwcole @
43
rwcole @
45
Damn, that is some bad juju.
rwcole @ 34
So, we should listen to him from now on because he’s not listened to himself twice in a row on misbegotten wars? :)
Lessee:
Montag 2 for 2.
Cohen 0 for 2.
Who should I be listening to? :)
Beyond that, Cohen is a purveyor of conventional wisdom, which is why he doesn’t much consider what he writes. I got a kick out of the reasons for going after Hussein, one of which is “… and posed a threat — and not just a theoretical one — to Israel.”
The conventional wisdom here, of course, is that we have to engage in a misguided and misbegotten war because Hussein posed a threat to Israel. First, waging war on threats is a complete agreement with the Bush policy of preventive war (and, moreover, ignores that at the time, after years of inspections and sanctions, Iraq was not a threat to anyone, including Israel). Second, this presumes that it’s preferable that the United States expend American soldiers’ lives than for Israel to expend Israeli soldiers’ lives in an action that Israel would have done itself if it could have done so without repercussions. Third, it ignores that Israel is well-defended and is as overarmed in its region as the US is in the world. If it came to that, Israel is perfectly capable of fighting its own battles.
I can see similar errant trains of thought in this attempt of his to bare his soul, if only because he continues to embrace conventional wisdom, and in his conclusion laments that “victory” is no longer a genuine option and if it were, he implies, it would be worth sending more troops to their deaths. He’s not saying that either war was wrong.
He’s saying, in the former case, that “it wasn’t worth winning” and then only when his ass was on the line. Now, he’s saying that it’s apparent to him that victory in Iraq is no longer achievable, and therefore, more fighting is pointless. That’s wonderfully deceptive–it is most assuredly not saying that the war was, like Vietnam, wrong from its inception. Nor is Cohen, in any way I can see, being confessional here–otherwise, he would be saying the war was wrong from its inception, and that he was wrong for thinking it was.
This is more in the vein, it seems, of making excuses than of taking responsibility for promoting the war to others.
Montag- Yeah there’s a certain incompleteness to the confessional…It’s not exactly “once I was a child and I thought like a child- now I’m a man- etc.”
It’s not totally clear whether he STILL thinks that the arguments about oil were stupid- etc.
Great post Jane.
Ah, Jane. That was exactly — exactly — my line of thinking when I opposed the lead-up to this clusterfuck. And why Dean was my man. Only one in public saying it into a mike. Plus my sainted muddah lives in VT.
Montag
This opening paragraph sounds to me like “wrong from it’s inception”:
The way President Bush whisked through Vietnam — oh, if only we had done the same 40 years ago — it seemed as if he was feeling an obvious parallel with the war in Iraq. His aides, who somehow lose IQ points by mere proximity to the commander in chief — national security adviser Stephen Hadley argued that Bush had “gotten a real sense of the warmth of the Vietnamese people” as he sped by in his motorcade — insisted that no parallel existed. But these aides are dead wrong. There is this: I would have fought neither war.
Patrick 4/4 @ 25
I believe the saying is, ‘His head’s up his ass, but his heart’s in the right place’.
On the bright side, we didn’t nuke anybody, and I figured that was pretty close to happening.
yeah, but there’s plenty of DU blowing around, El Cid and this doofus’ term ain’t over yet.
From the article. (Do they pay this guy real money?)
Well gee, I am sure they are so thankful for that little bit of permission you idiot. What part of now you drop your head in humiliation and walk away. Apologize only and forever, you just helped massacre countless lives around the world because you were stupid at best, if not all out evil as well. No more opinions or for that matter don’t ask anyone to believe your so called facts anymore. You quote General Odierno of all people! You failed to mention he’s a kingpin of torture!
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything, as the old saying goes.
Mr. Cohen version 5 would probably support an unprovoked attack on Iran, until he eventually has to recant that as well.
rwcole @ 60
Seems to me he would have been fine with Viet Nam if only we could have “whisked through it”.
He seems to have a “best used by” date on his grand moral commitments.
Eureka Springs, AR @ 64
Nobody would write that crap for free.
Patrick:
“I would have fought neither war” seems pretty straightforward.
The whole “we will bring them to justice” nonsense spewing out of the White House on 9/12 almost made me ill. What Bush means when he says “justice” is nothing but “vengeance.”
Justice is about restoring order and peace. It’s about bringing back right relationships. It’s about things that I fear Bush knows nothing about.
Vengeance, on the other hand, Bush knows all too well. Vengeance is about “me” and not “us.” It’s about payback. It’s about inflicting pain and suffering, so that the one inflicting it can feel better about him/herself. Ultimately, though, it is ephemeral and insufficient to heal the pain that begat it.
Bush uses the language of justice, but lives a life that knows nothing about it. He knows all about vengeance, though, tries to teach it to everyone that will listen, and (worst of all) tries to lead an administration into governing by it.
Thank goodness people are finally starting to wake up to his nonsense.
Paul Hackett and Anna Marie Cox on Scarborough now
rwcole @ 68
That’s his quadpartite “I,” which in the next paragraph admits he was for it before he was against it.
angie @
37
Yep, me three.
One more whack at the hanging pinata of Cohen’s moral vacuity:
So, no moral qualms about the war, thought that the violence would be ‘therapeutic’…But ‘he didn’t want the war’?
And then:
Well, you certainly are in the right business, Mr. Cohen, dabbling in such specious rationalizations for the public benefit and all.
Here’s a little news flash…Senseless waste of human life is always tragic.
But why bother with those pesky 5 W’s, when you can just bloviate until you either get it close enough for horseshoes or collapse into a steaming heap of befuddled irrelevance?
Since you didn’t learn your lesson thoroughly during your own time of enlistment - That lesson being, ‘don’t support wars of dubious provenance with thoughtless jingo-jangling’…Might I offer you a seat at the mainstream media kiddie picnic table?
I’m sure you’ll feel quite at home there
rwcole @ 60
But, in fact, what does he say, immediately afterwards: “There is the “I” who originally thought the Vietnam War was morally correct, that the communists were awful people and that the loss of South Vietnam (the North was already gone) would result in a debacle for its people. That’s, in fact, what happened. It was only later, when I myself was in the Army, that I deemed the war not worth killing or dying for. By then I — the second “I” — no longer felt it was winnable, and I did not want to lose my life so that somehow defeat could be managed more elegantly.”
This is not about coming to conclusions about the immorality and fundamental stupidity of waging war for ideological purposes (the true lesson of both wars). In both instances, then and now, he is, rather, lamenting that “victory,” however that’s defined, was beyond possibility and it is that realization (which only comes after “victory” seems impossible) which causes him, in both instances, to say “I would have fought neither war.”
The explanations for that initial statement reveal the true roots of his current chagrin. That has the effect of preserving and, in his mind, legitimizing all the conventional wisdom reasons for waging the war in the first place. In effect, what he’s doing here, in backhanded fashion, is saying, “the reasons for war were good and honorable, but because victory, for whatever reason, is not on the horizon, it’s pointless to pursue victory.”
In neither instance does he apologize for not thinking deeply about causes–he simply bemoans effects. In fact, he justifies those causes by saying, “There is the “I” who originally thought the Vietnam War was morally correct, that the communists were awful people and that the loss of South Vietnam (the North was already gone) would result in a debacle for its people. That’s, in fact, what happened.
In fact, that’s not what happened. There was no debacle. The country very rapidly came back to life after twenty years of civil and military strife. It actually protected Cambodians from the residual attacks of the Khmer Rouge and withdrew when that threat diminished (because neither the US nor any other power would intervene on behalf of Cambodian civilians), and it has been at peace for twenty-five years now. It is becoming more commercial, it is finally developing its oil resources, and it is not a threat to its neighbors and for the most part, the Vietnamese have as much direct involvement in their government as do US citizens. How is that, exactly, a debacle? To Cohen, it is, because the US didn’t win, and conventional wisdom tells him that communism won, and therefore, it had to be a debacle.
That’s what Cohen is about in this piece….
Patrick:
“That’s his quadpartite “I,” which in the next paragraph admits he was for it before he was against it. “
well yeah- that’s the whole structure of the piece- guess I’m not following you.
Saddam was condemned for killing 148 Iraqi. Bush has murdered more than 655,000 innocent Iraqi in an unnnecessary, criminal, immoral war. Plus, 2,800 American soldiers sent to an illegal, immoral war and thus murdered by Bush. Oops! Must not forget the millions of Iraqis, crippled, maimed, brain damaged and mentally damaged Iraqi and as well as about 40,000 of our troops.
Just counting the dead, dividing 655,000 2,800 dead is over 6,500 times as many murdered by the international war criminal, Bush.
Oh yes! Why did Bush go to war? Yes, he’s a bigot, hates Arabs, Muslims and brown people. But I think the dork went to war to be a war president and to grab power by pretending he must have that power for his war “protecting” this nation. Not that there ever was a serious enough threat to justify going to war against another nation. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, had no weapons of mass destruction and as far as Saddam marching his armies on the East and West coast and up the Mississippi, that claim is absurd enough that Bush and his administration should have been hospitalized, restrained and heavily medicated.
Saddam was a bad boy. Yeah, right! Foley was also a bad boy. Does that mean that Bush should invade Florida with 144,000 American troops, bomb the hell out of the state and kill 655,000 of their citizens? Or maybe that he do the same to Congressional Republicans for sheltering Foley?
Yeah, I love Iraqi, Muslims and brown people. They are fellow human beings deserving of their own right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness which Bush and you crazed right wingers are unwilling to grant them. And they were innocent of 9/11.
perris @
44
Perris, set and match.
AP- E.S. AR 8:19pm
Cohen remains a threat to national security.
“communal 9/11 porn”
I may be thick, Jane, but while I think I know what you are referring to, I’m not sure how (even metaphorically) it’s porn. Help?
Cohen says, “In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic.”
Theraputic? I guess, maybe in the Bush League. But really, no. This is so not funny.
The irony of Bush in Vietnam–it is mindboggling. (Anyone else see him play the xylophone–am sure that is not what it is called in Vietnam, but um. Terrible. Bad.)
I am not the sharpest vegetable peeler in the drawer, but Damn. All of us who were against the war always knew it was gonna be a total effing disaster before it was a total effing disaster.
“That’s why Bush kept moving. He knows Vietnam is not just about the past. It’s also about the future.”
Bush had to keep moving because every time he shows up anywhere he makes a fool of himself, and the US. In fact, it is just one disaster after another, just moving him from one place to the next.
darkblack @ 73
Darkblack, your picures are good but your words are worth a thousand pictures.
Montag- Good point- it does seem that the whole thing might have been OK to him if we had won…
Well written piece on your part by the way.
Of course- if we had blown through the Iraqi army and the insurgency had never started - few would ever have raised hell about anything.
“9/11 Porn”
I agree with this characterization. That’s exactly what the flag waving, fear laden, mind numbing demonstration was. Jane nailed it.
Peterr @ 69
Well said.
Bush was going to “unite” us. Well, he brought us dirty fucking hippies together but separated the US from the rest of the (sane) world. They were united and we were waging a vengeful war on the poor and defenseless. I wonder what part of that Cohen found therapeutic?
I was against invading Iraq from the get go but for anybody that wasn’t, when we came in to Baghdad and the Iraqi military faded in to the population that should have been an “Oh, shit” moment. Or in my case, confirmation.
rwcole @ 82
You’re quite right about this–there would have been an absence of moral introspection about the rectitude of the war had it been quick and painless (for our side). That might have introduced a new moral component to justification for that war–if only because the readily identifiable war crimes have occurred after the invasion was completed. (This argument, of course, would of necessity have to completely ignore that the invasion itself was a war crime–arbitrary war for the purposes of regime change.)
But, as I was saying a day or two ago, impure motives and bad beginnings seem to result in wars with similar parameters–and outcomes.
Cheers.
I was against the war before I was against the war.
f**k Cohen.
Cohen. Thought he was dead. Still at WaPo, is he? And who reads him? Not I.
Thank goddess he’s still around though, if he be the catalyst that brings us Jane’s
You can speak for me, Jane, anytime.
=======
Who’s Next?
=======
Wanker indeed
Nuff said
…
and, Jane
Anyone who was looking could see there was no justification for the ‘preemptive strike’ against Iraq.
That level of perceptiveness didn’t mark you a hippie, it marked you conscious.
As opposed to the vegetative state of much of the nation and virtually all of the media.
Notice how the phrase ‘Bush Doctrine’ has lost currency?
The best argument I heard pre-invasion was
“they must know more than they are telling us. no one would go to war on that little”
The person who voiced that opinion is now a fervent Dem.
It is hard to say which version (1-4) of Little Dick Cohen is most annoying
Best option is:
E. All of the above
He looks like Steve McQueen after seven years in solitary in “Papillon”.
rwcole @ 75
The “I would have fought neither war” is not in the least bit straightforward, since he states immediately afterward that he was for it initially.
Which “I”?
Which war? - the one actually pursued or his fantasy version?
He seems more than willing to pursue the next attractively-packaged Kiplingesque adventure - so long as his egg-timer still has sand in it.
I remember in Sept ‘02 when it seemed the entire nation’s media / political apparatus were banging the drums of war. It was, as we all knew, inevitable, there was no opposition, nothing to do. Then I got an email or saw a flyer: an antiwar gathering to be held in the North Meadow of Central Park, an unused corner of the park so obscure I had to look it up on the map.
I went up and walked my bike through the stone gateway on 5th Ave, way uptown; you have to cross a sort of ridge to actually descend into the North Meadow, and I’ll never forget coming to the top of the small rise & seeing the huge crowd — I said, holy shit, the crowd was huge; it reminded me of one of the Custer movies when they ride over the ridge & see the thousands of Indians and know things are now what they thought.
To this day, the media morons say there was no anti-war movement — here at least it began with that rally, and others like it across the land, and continued: the frozen February march that drew hundreds of thousands here in NY, the final candlelight vigils held across the globe just prior to shock and awe, my neighborhood’s took place right on the East River, facing the United Nations with it’s lights ablaze, working late that night as our last, best and ultimately futile hope.
We were out there, mostly for the right reasons, knowing this would be a foreign policy disaster of unprecedented scale. In my case with graduate work in Middle Eastern Studies, Arabic language and having clocked in alot of time spent in the region (I’ll take Richard Cohen on any day in anything having to do with the Middle East) I knew this invasion was an an act of madness that would have staggering repercussions that I, as a New Yorker, would frankly prefer not to see. While you would never know it from who got on the media, but the vast majority of Middle Eastern “experts” were against this mad adventure, Juan Cole being the most public.
Cohen can spin all he wants, but one wonders how he deals with the guilt he shares for the hundreds of thousands of dead he is in no small part part responsible for. Finally, given the scale of the disaster for American foreign policy, ignoring the moral factor, why anyone should ever listen to anything he has to say about anything.
Patrick 4/4 @ 91
C|N>K
Mack @ 93
I had to look that up ! Thanks.
Leisler NYC
Marches in Chicago closed Lake Shore Drive at rush hour
We were not alone
Just a minority.
The local coverage of the marches focussed on the disrupted commute, rather than any substantive message.
Patrick 4/4 @ 94
codegeek for spew alert
Another piece of political propaganda that team BushCo has been somewhat successful at selling is that the War on Terror isn’t a law enforcement activity and Clinton blew it thinking it was. Other than strategically taking out al Qaeda in Afghanistan (military) that’s exactly what it is, a law enforcement activity, not military. Mullah Omar and the Taliban had squat to do with al Quaeda (and 9/11) other than harboring them. Yet, still no Osama and the neocons brag that we took out the Taliban!? Huh? So?
fast and bulbous @
79
For me, the avatar of communal 9/11 porn was the NYC GOP convention that renominated W for his “second” term.
there is a new thread
Right thinking people have no power in this nation.
TeddySanFran @
97
fast and bulbous — digby and I have tossed back and forth the notion that people came together and watched the events of 9/11 happen in a way that was like watching disaster porn.