nah, didn’t see any of that in nyc. no-one had organized anything, i think they assumed bush would lose.
matt, i’m assuming that you mean that they sound/look upset, and thus not entirely rational (and plus, there are those pesky conspiracy theorists who make any legitmate political cause look stupid).
cause what i’m struggling with is how a rational, educated country with a free press re-elected a man who went to war on false pretenses. i mean, people still believe that this war had something to do with 9/11. and that the rest of the world supports us in this war. and that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and that killing 100,000 civilians constitutes liberating a country.
i guess the problem really has to do with press coverage. during vietnam, people were inundated with pictures from the battlefields. what we get now is coverage of, say, falluja, from embedded reporters, that makes it look like a police operation. i’m serious. the homepage of cnn.com today showed multiple pictures of iraqi men getting arrested. is that what war looks like? seriously. and donal rumsfeld said there weren’t going to be too many civilian casualties this time cause they had ample warning to get out of the way. no offense, but that’s not the way war works.
and as for coverage of the wmd question. hey, if bush supporters still believe that iraq had wmds, we’ve got a problem with our press coverage of the issue, i would say.
this isn’t entirely on subject, but. how much is there really to say about a small rally in san francisco, when other more important things are going on. shoot, halliburton’s being investigated for bribing people, osama bin laden’s driver is on trial and a federal judge just ruled that our president violated the geneva conventions by holding people like that driver in guantanamo and trying to prosecute them in secret military tribunals.
nah, didn’t see any of that in nyc. no-one had organized anything, i think they assumed bush would lose.
matt, i’m assuming that you mean that they sound/look upset, and thus not entirely rational (and plus, there are those pesky conspiracy theorists who make any legitmate political cause look stupid).
cause what i’m struggling with is how a rational, educated country with a free press re-elected a man who went to war on false pretenses. i mean, people still believe that this war had something to do with 9/11. and that the rest of the world supports us in this war. and that there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq. and that killing 100,000 civilians constitutes liberating a country.
i guess the problem really has to do with press coverage. during vietnam, people were inundated with pictures from the battlefields. what we get now is coverage of, say, falluja, from embedded reporters, that makes it look like a police operation. i’m serious. the homepage of cnn.com today showed multiple pictures of iraqi men getting arrested. is that what war looks like? seriously. and donal rumsfeld said there weren’t going to be too many civilian casualties this time cause they had ample warning to get out of the way. no offense, but that’s not the way war works.
and as for coverage of the wmd question. hey, if bush supporters still believe that iraq had wmds, we’ve got a problem with our press coverage of the issue, i would say.
this isn’t entirely on subject, but. how much is there really to say about a small rally in san francisco, when other more important things are going on. shoot, halliburton’s being investigated for bribing people, osama bin laden’s driver is on trial and a federal judge just ruled that our president violated the geneva conventions by holding people like that driver in guantanamo and trying to prosecute them in secret military tribunals.
at least those silly leftists are o
This is pretty sad. Obviously not rational folks!
Hey Jerah, did any of this kind of behavior happen in NYC?