Video: Times Square Obama Afghanistan Protest Arrests
New Photo Brings Flying Overweight Debate Back
AA's "Fat Flier" Got Whole Row
State Sen. Savino Gets Noticed For Impassioned Gay Marriage Speech
Teen Gets Two Years For Killing Kitten
In the wake of President Bush's Wednesday night address to the country, when he announced that he will send thousands of more soldiers to Iraq, hundreds of people protested the plan. They convened at the tiny island in the middle of Times Square in front of the U.S. Armed Forces recruiting station, with signs like "Stop the funding, stop the war" and "When government lies, Democracy dies" with drivers passing by honking their horns. Some protesters were dressed as Guantanamo prisoners. Of course, there were counter-protesters; one sign said, "Warning: Leftist protesters trying to demoralize our troops." No arrests were reported.
The protest was organized by United for Peace and Justice, which coordinated others across the country yesterday. There will be another, big rally on Saturday, January 27 in Washington, D.C.
Senator Charles Schumer said about the president's plan, "You'd almost think that this policy was designed by somebody who wanted to lose." John Edwards will be speaking about the Iraq war in Harlem, when he speaks at Riverside Church on Martin Luther King Day. And here is the President's Iraq plan. Yesterday, he awarded a posthumous Medal of Honor to an upstate New York corporal who threw himself on a grenade to shield other soldiers.
Photograph of demonstrators dressed as Gitmo prisoners in Times Square by Mary Altaffer/AP
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
worst.president.ever.
Ooh, protesting Bush in Manhattan. How edgy!
A Clever protest. Using the bright orange suits and hoods brings the point home very effectively.
"Warning: Leftist protesters trying to demoralize our troops."?
Protest "Warriors" again? IF they really want to support the War, they should sign up and ask for Duty in Iraq. After all, the recruitment age limit has been raised.
s.d. that's just stupid. that's like saying if the protesters really don't support the war they should go join the badr brigades. or at least do something tangible.
Will blurted:
......
I really hope that's a really ODD attempt at sarcasm.
If not, did you really equate people volunteering to support the War with Killing American Soldiers as the Opposite of NOT supporting the war?
Are you saying that since I NEVER supported the war, I Don't support the troops and want them killed??
So you think I want my own family killed?
Huh??
Again, I really hope that's a really ODD attempt at sarcasm.
As for protesting, they're doing something tangible; they're graphically pointing out to the politicians that they are not pleased with the decisions made by this administration.
And the politician are listening, too.
As for protesting, they're doing something tangible; they're graphically pointing out to the politicians that they are not pleased with the decisions made by this administration.
Whatever helps them sleep at night I guess.
And the politician are listening, too.
Is this before or after they all said they wouldn't cut the funding for the war?
The best take on Bush's new plan is the Parrot Sketch angle
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/martin-lewis/bush-meets-monty-python_b_38371.html
s.d. i'm pointing out the logical fallacy of your argument - that people who support the war should sign up for it, not that i think the behavior is equivalent. by tangible, i meant something that's not simply a demonstration of moral vanity.
and as history has painfully demonstrated to us, protesting the war does makes the job of the enemy easier if only by buying them time, so its kind of difficult for you to be both outraged at my suggestion and consistent with your own.
and w/r/t the politicians listening, kc said it better than i could.
I was at the protest last night. The anti-anti-war protester's sign was the usual crap, that 'leftists' hate the troops. The back of the sign read, "Complete the Mission First and Then Bring Them Home" made no sense. The 'mission' changed when convenient for the WH.
If the President had listened to a goodly portion of the country prior to his everchanging mission statements regarding Iraq, there might not be a need to protest right now. I think we took the wrong tack going into Iraq, and if governments won't listen to the people they rule, sometimes they bring protest upon themselves.
And by the way, Peter, the protest was not just in NY, but across the country, so there goes a remark down in flames...
I was at the protest last night. The anti-anti-war protester's sign was the usual crap, that 'leftists' hate the troops. The back of the sign read, "Complete the Mission First and Then Bring Them Home" made no sense. The 'mission' changed when convenient for the WH.
If the President had listened to a goodly portion of the country prior to his everchanging mission statements regarding Iraq, there might not be a need to protest right now. I think we took the wrong tack going into Iraq, and if governments won't listen to the people they rule, sometimes they bring protest upon themselves.
And by the way, Peter, the protest was not just in NY, but across the country, so there goes a remark down in flames...
(so sorry if this shows up twice... had a problem while posting...)
The scary thing is, people like this will, that's how they work this shit out in their minds... cognitive dissonance at its' best.
So, is sending more troops to try and stop the insurgency just a bad idea because it's Bush's? I'm trying to keep up with the "Everything He Does Is Wrong" logic.
(sigh)
You weren't being sarcastic.
So basically, you think people supporting the war should NOT put their money where their mouth is and Bravely send other people to fight for their ideas? That's Odd.
Will blurted:
IMO, That's an excellent example of Horse Shit.So, we should just be quiet while this administration sends more troops for fear of enabling Terrorists? You don't think that's a "Catch 22"?
As for outrage at your suggestion: You said "if the protesters really don't support the war they should go join the badr brigades".
Basically, you seem to think anti-war protesters should join in the killing of out troops since they don't support the war, which, IMO is horse shit.
KC, notice members of the GOP aren't lining up behind GW Bush?
That's because, Tom, pretty much everything he does is wrong. Sorry to have to point that out to you. Cheers.
"...an upstate New York corporal who threw himself on a grenade to shield other soldiers."
I wish we could throw BUSH onto a grenade ..to shield our country.
Tom, do you think just throwing more bodies will really work? I'm trying to keep up with your "Everything He Does Is Wrong" logic despite the really great screw ups this Administration has done.
Clue: People have legitimate complaints with this administration. As much as you'd like not to believe it, this isn't "Bush Derangement Syndrome"...
S.D.: Did you even read his post? He was using that example to show how ridiculous your claim was to begin with.
And great. Your wonderful protests have gotten the gop congressmen to not back Bush publicly, but everything else is status quo. Great job ftw.
And why is more troops wrong at this point? Simply because our troops levels were 150,000 when we first went in, and that was with now dwindling coalition troops. Thinking that anyone can contain and control not only a city, but an entire country with 150,000 troops while attempting to build up a police force from a defeated and dismissed army is pretty silly.
Now, this 'police force' is supposed to step up and take control of spaces already contained by our troops? How many police are there in Baghdad alone with a population of 7 mil? NYC has 7 mil people and 45,000 police with no blood running in the streets. I can only imagine how many police it's going to take to control Baghdad along with the rest of the country.
K.C., Great, It's a start.
Guess with the Rubber Stamp Congress gone, we'll start seeing more accountability and actual oversight in Gov't.
S.D... well, let's hope so anyway.
Elderta, What blows my mind is: People seem to think Congressional Oversight is a Liberal Concept! It's NOT!
You're jerking yourselves off (much like ALL of the protesters at the rally) if you think the dems are going to change anything wrt the war. They've already said they won't cut funding, which is the only check congress has against the executive in this case.
so you think its impossible that an adversary would ever use a third party's however well-meant behavior to their own advantage?
My favorite line from the Jon Stewart Show last night: "Surge??? This isn't a Surge, this is a like a cheap tip!"
A Clever protest. Using the bright orange suits and hoods brings the point home very effectively.
"Warning: Leftist protesters trying to demoralize our troops."?
Protest "Warriors" again? IF they really want to support the War, they should sign up and ask for Duty in Iraq. After all, the recruitment age limit has been raised.
The plot of going into Iraq was Weapons Of Mass Destruction, how quickly we forget. This wasn't a Human Rights excersise, this wasn't to"Liberate" the people from an "Evil" dictator, it's Corporate occupation. The troops are demoralized already, to think otherwise is simplistic and idiotic.
We need to have a draft, then we'll see where the discussion turns.
Of course adversaries use third-party protests, there's no question about it. Just like third parties will attack someone's patriotism or support for the troops, if they don't agree with them.
And yes, KC, the new congress may not be able to do much to stop whatever is about to happen, but at least, as SD said, checks and balances is not a liberal concept. It's what they are suppose to do and what has been sorely lacking since, let's see... 2000.
How can the new congress NOT be able to stop the war? Stop funding it. War over. THAT is what they are supposed to do if they disagree with the executive's decision.
And if you're taking a victory in checks and balances not being a liberal concept, then I'm missing the point of why the protest happened to begin with.
Bottom line: Nothing will change over the next 2 years unless the executive changes it, regardless of how many orange jumpsuits the hippies can sew together. Protesters should have their circle jerks in private because its impolite to the rest of us.
"so you think its impossible that an adversary would ever use a third party's however well-meant behavior to their own advantage?"
Will, you're not answering the question posed to you: Don't you think that's a Catch 22?
As Elderta points out, Yes, an adversary would use it to their advantage. Are you suggesting we should just shut up and follow this administration for that sake only?
Hope not.
Me, I want my family home. If this administration wants to protect this country maybe they should invest in better port security and concentrate on prevention here.
That's because, Tom, pretty much everything he does is wrong. Sorry to have to point that out to you. Cheers.
Unfortunately the city is full of too many Elderta's that like to sit back in their smug superiority and tell us why everything is wrong. Funny that it took three election cycles before the Democrats finally made any gains and they still never articulated a rational policy on anything, foreign or domestic. They kept waiting and waiting for the GOP to hang themselves. As someone looking for the light at the end of the tunnel it's has made me hate the Democrats only slightly less than the GOP. You really have to wonder if they give a crap about anything other than their own return to power. I'd say the worst thing that can happen is they win the White House in 2008 and retain the Congress. I know it has only been a week but you have to wonder when the first act of the House is to pass a security bill that the Washington Post and New York Times have both called inadequate. Then they moved on to a minimum wage hike. Not saying they shouldn't have raised it but again, they act like they saved the world. Less than 5% of workers earn the minimum wage and the Times suggests that maybe another 10% might see a ripple effect. Wow. At least they all got to pat themselves on the back. Meanwhile Pelosi is worth about $50 million. Way to work on that income inequality.
elderta, where was i attacking anyone's patriotism?
it was s.d. implicit assertion that people who protested the protesters were somehow less honest in their beliefs than the war-protesters that i took issue with.
and actually, elderta, checks & balances and limited government & all that good stuff -is- a liberal concept. we just like to misuse the word liberal these days.
K.C. blurted:
You're forgetting the War Powers Act, among other things. Of course, your Executive will likely continue to ignore it as the Rubber Stamp Congress let him.There's always impeachment, but, apparently, since no one gave him a Blow Job, the Radical Right wing won't get behind that, right?
As for Checks and Balances: Being conservative and not a Radical Right Winger, I don't trust big Gov't like you seem to. As for the protesters, IMO, I'd bet you'll never get the point or expressing disapproval of a Gov't administration when it's one you support. Bet you'd Protest Hillary Clinton...
Bottom Line: We don't live in a Monarchy or a Dictatorship.
Impolite? Riiiight. Are you sorry they don't knee jerk like you'd like them too?
Will, my bad. I wasn't saying that you were attacking anyone's patriotism, I'm saying that it's a tactic like anything else, to stiffle dissent. And you're right, technically, checks and balances is a liberal concept, one that I would want to keep and actually have used.
And to 'do nothing congress, part two,' apparently you haven't read your own high-handed comments, have you? The mininum wage idea was part of a "100 hour" offensive to right some of the things that have been happening not related to the war under the Bush administration. Pelosi may be worth however much, but are trying to say that Bush is not worth money? At least 5% (if that's the correct statistic) of people are getting a higher wage, though of course it won't compare at all to what Pelosi, Bush, or Cheney have in the bank.
Yes, there are problems with the Dems, God knows I've wanted to slap them upside the head, but hey, at this point, a fish could do a better job than the Republicans have been doing lately.
Will said:
Ok, Will, I'm curious: How so?
Conservative thought tends to be about personal responsibility and counter to Big Gov't (among other things). In fact, out founding fathers did not trust Big Gov't which is why they originally went for a weak central gov't under the Articles of Confederation. It was only after that failed miserably that the drafted the Constitution and our current form of Federal Gov't.
s.d.:
the world is full of decisions to make and each of them are bad. i, personally, would rather keep my mouth shut than make it easier to kill american soldiers. but hey. its your family.
and incidentally, "investing" in port/border security is the maginot line of the 21st century.
static defenses simply don't work. or they only work against expected attacks, which won't work anyway.
carpet bombing the middle east with lollipops and the sheet music to kumbaya would be a more effective strategy.
Will blurted:
Less Honest? And I said that where?? By saying they should be willing to live up to their Ideals? Odd...Will blurted More Horse Shit
So, By wanting them home and saying so I'm killing them. Uh-Huh, You just advocated Follow the Leader blindly.Nice One! Can't make a reasonable defense so you imply I'm killing my Family! Good Going, Will!
Will blurted yet again:
Sure, stopping Bombs and Radioactive Material from entering the country is just Sooooo 2oth Century...Will blurted yet again:
(sigh)No one is saying "Go Soft" on Terrorism, just that this approach is obviously NOT working. You just repeated more of Radical Right Wing mantra nonsense. You seem to imply that If we don't do it THIS WAY, the alternative is "Give them all HUGS!" which is Yet again, Horse Shit.
since when is dissention and outrage at your government's decisions and actions anti-American? if people feel that their elected officials (of either party ilk) are unresponsive and ineffective, is it really in their best interest to shut up and stay home and hope things improve?
protests are about as American as it gets.
jauntyjoker said
No, No, Get it write: I'm helping to KILL my Family!
Bet Will says He never implied it's "Anti American"...
Wait...the politicians are listening, the executive is gonna ignore the congress. How is this any different from my saying status quo is what you have to look forward to since the "listening politicians" aren't going to do anything of any use? What are we arguing about then?
And believing that congress should do its job is buying into big government? Give me a break.
I don't believe I ever stated my political views in any of my posts other than to say that dems are going to be ineffectual. It's pretty amusing that you naturally assume I'm a right winger.
And no, I wouldn't protest President Hillary, just as I won't protest President Bush. Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. Protests in general are pointless exercises that only assuage the participants guilt and make them feel better about themselves.
K.C. Said
Re-reading what you typed: Your Quite Right, I made a bad assumption and I truly apologize. You have pointed to nothing more than protesting being, IYO, ineffectual.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point. Me, I think protesting is a great form of expression and quite useful.
s.d.:
you are hardly living up to the ideals of ending the war. the dishonesty in the protesting is that its just an act. i mean, you might be against the war, you want your people home safe and sound (and who doesn't?) but you're still paying for the bullets. how does that make you more honest than the others?
Can't make a reasonable defense so you imply I'm killing my Family!
no, i'm saying that there are grey areas, and there aren't easy answers and you should choose to honor your family in the way you wish and in a way thats meaningful to you. that being said, its not my choice but we all have to sleep in our beds.
your inferences are unfair. i'm not the one hurling epithets and calling names here.
Sure, stopping Bombs and Radioactive Material from entering the country is just Sooooo 2oth Century...
look, radiological and chemical bombs are bogus. normal explosives give you a lot bigger bang for buck and are a lot easier to smuggle or manufacture in your kitchen. furthermore, if someone -were- to smuggle something really bad into the country they'd do it through already well-established smuggling routes. the reason port security is a canard is because even once you lock down every single port in the country, there's still every other part of the coastline. defenses need to be in depth, and any practical defense cannot be passive. the failure of the maginot line is a historical example.
oh. w/r/t: liberalism: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/liberalism
Will Said:
Gee, sorry to let you down...Will Said:
Again with the Honesty! You seem to be implying that it's Dishonest to Protest and that since we pay taxes that somehow, That's Being Dishonest?All Sarcasm aside: I'm seriously not connecting your point here re: "Honesty". Maybe it's me but Walk me thru it. (Hey, I love a good Debate...)
Will Said:
Nope, I think not. You seem to imply (Feel free to correct me!) that by protesting we are enabling our Enemies and thus endangering my Family (Which, Oddly, Insults and Pisses me off). As I said, that's a Catch 22 and implies that we should NOT speak out at when we disagree with out Gov't. IMO,That's very wrong on so many levels.Will Said:
That's just it: It isn't Bogus. Remember the failed Millennium plot? Via a combination of acting on Intelligence and catching people at the Border of Canada and the US, the Federal Gov't stopped it cold. By securing our borders and taking care of Law Enforcement Here, IMO, we'd be better off. Remember, The 9/11 plotters raised all sorts of red flags in the FBI but tragically, No One Connected the Dots.Hit Post too soon!
Expand on that "Liberalism" definition. How does that counter what I said about Congressional Oversight? IMO, it's a Conservative stance.