Replies

Criminals who put anyone in danger, threaten or destroy property are simply criminals. That's simple.

Let's all step back for just a moment and remember that even though we can vehemently disagree with each other, I suspect every last one of us would stand side by side if our rights to free speech were ever threatened. Voices of dissent, protests, rallys, and the blood spilled on our soil through the history of this country's formation all served to sustain and hold sacred this right that we still fiercely protect today.

That being said, I have seen handfuls of poorly behaving extrememists within all public demonstrations, both pro and con. This is simply a statistical cross section of all society - there were likely a few boneheads who embarrassed just about every group who stood for something since the beginning of time!! Of course the few bad apples get the spotlight and any opposing cause can gleefully tout them as a sophomoric, uninformed, ill behaved example of all to try and discredit the actual multitudes demonstrating for an ideology to which they don't ascribe. Truly informed, mature citizens who stand together for any cause all know this is a silly tactic and does nothing to further useful debate. The majority of citizens who are taking time out of their lives, jobs, families etc. to gather and have their voices heard I respect wholeheartedly! There simply wouldn't BE such a passionate clash of views right now if there were not very good and reasonable facts to support each perspective.
As early as last September, the murmurings of war began to seep into our thoughts. This began small debates among coworkers, neighbors, families etc. We all were and hopefully still are trying to find our opinions, hearts and minds making choices with as much information as possible. As murmurings grew into international media statements and less subtle political posturing, we all began to realize this issue's potential for a diplomatic resolution was diminishing daily. Actual war, worldwide political upheaval, and long time international friends and allies began to turn away from us. Fear and uncertaintly grew. Some of us looked inside and found a deep desire to follow our government's course of action, and some of us looked and found a deep need to voice diagreement.
Many chose to let the White House know it had an exponentially growing populace who really didn't agree and why via letters to Congress, Senate, President, Vice President etc. Media sources were contacted. This was done in droves, the volumes of letters, phone calls and requests for at least public debates went surprisingly ignored. So, the volume of communications grew to staggering numbers, and ignored by still both White House and media. This is still last fall mind you. Thousands grew into tens of thousands, until the silence of requests in such overwhelming numbers for acknowledgement alone became deafening. Pleas to media for at least a mention continued to no avail. Others around me were aghast. I held to my lifelong faith that the government I knew would of course address our concerns in time - we just needed to step up the numbers a bit. Why on earth would US elected officials not want to acknowledge a huge surge of public opinion banging on their door?
In December, my city alone had weekly gatherings of hundreds, then thousands of people with candles and signs. Towns and cities nearby had burgeoning masses doing the same thing, larger and larger week after week - and still, not a single whisper of our existence or opinion could be found reported anywhere. Letter campaigns grew and grew, numbers of people grew and grew, calls every hour on the hour - we joked about sending candygrams and singing gorillas to lighten our growing disbelief, but really, what else could thousands of people do? The White House and press promised shock and awe - and they delivered, but it hit much earlier to those of us who used to believe we all had a right to be heard in this country.
When the press finally began to cover the protests, it was when the masses of people had grown so shocked and frustrated, some began doing things like stopping traffic and disrupting businesses. That at least finally got press attention after months of begging them to cover the thousands of marches all over the country for so many months. Lesson here I suppose is: you can rally, hold candle vigils, converge gently by the thousands without being disruptive for months with zero press. How lucky, first time peace rallys got noted was when a few of the groups did something negative!! For those acts, the multitudes of the rest of us who'd been "invisible" nationwide for months now got to be labeled as a small handful of fringe element lawless freaks. Not fair, not the reality, oh well.
Your fellow Americans who have the integrity to question current policy exist in far larger numbers than we'll ever see admitted on CNN, are not represented in the poll results that mainstream media airs, may have some members with hair longer than yours, and some might even be out of work right now (I'm sure none of the folks who hold an opposite view would NEVER allow an out of work person to be associated with their ranks). Many of us have vastly different reasons for opposing the war, I challenge anyone to find a war protestor who does not detest Hussein and want him gone for good(goal vs method is a common debate), the majority are doctors, teachers, farmers, hairdressers, local mayors, housewives, CEO's, and yes, even some fringe types who do some dumb things for whatever reason. We began as fast growing group of people who had a desire to express our concerns to our fellow Americans and our government,hoping for some debate and dialog. Sadly, many have reluctantly become disillusioned and angry. The war is on, we have learned first hand that US public outcry can be ignored quite conveniently.
One last thing, pro war folks have my respect for standing for their beliefs overall. Argue your stance with information, intelligence and maturity. That's what we could all use a bit more of these days. For those who are incapable of that, you may want to realize that ranting only about appearance and theoretical job status of others does nothing to support your view, hints at a suspicious lack of knowledge, and suggests you might be incapable of conveying cogent thoughts. Translation: that would be the same "stuff" many of us imbecile protestors are accused of, so be careful.

Many chose to let the White House know it had an exponentially growing populace who really didn't agree and why via letters to Congress, Senate, President, Vice President etc. ...{snip}... I held to my lifelong faith that the government I knew would of course address our concerns in time - we just needed to step up the numbers a bit. Why on earth would US elected officials not want to acknowledge a huge surge of public opinion banging on their door?

Here's where I began to lose you. Yes, the strength of our society is the ability to dissent. But you seem to think it's just a matter of "If we protest in large enough numbers, then the government is required to do something about it." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works.

Our leaders are required to follow their own best judgement. Yes, they factor in popular sentiment (about which I have more to say below). But they know things we don't know, and have a responsibility to take worst case scenarios into account. Being on the hot seat and knowing that there exists a real possibility that a terrorist could use a dirty bomb or even a suitcase nuke is an awesome responsibility. They may very well ignore a million person march based on their responsibility and judgement. That's what it means to be a leader.

If such leaders are wrong, and have severely misjudged the will of the people, or if events prove them wrong, then they pay at the ballot box. Their policies are repudiated by voters.

But Bush made his course and intentions quite clear well before the last election cycle. And in general, candidates he backed did well, and candidates he opposed did poorly. His party regained control of the Senate and strengthened control of the House.

And that's the most tangible, conclusive evidence that the paragraph I quoted from you above is fundamentally wrong. There were no "exponentially increasing dissenters"(or at least there were not many generations of exponential increase!). If there had been, the last election would have gone differently. And there was no "huge surge of public opinion banging on their door". If there had been, many of those Senate and House elections would have been lost, and Bush would have been forced to compromise with an opposed Congress.

But that didn't happen. And the fact that it did not happen doesn't give anyone the right to step up their protests by violating laws and effectively stealing thousands of hours from their fellow citizens. Claiming that one's position is somehow so "moral" or "right" that it gives one the right to break laws can be quite sanctimonious. Only an oppressive government that allows no other choice would make such a course reasonable, and we clearly don't have that here. Bush put his policies to the test in the election and won. He'll have to do it again in 18 months, and I suspect he'll win again.

I know you see a lot of anti-war sentiment, and that you agree and approve of it. Fine. But I believe you have confused what you see around you for a global phenomenon. Opinion surveys show the anti-war position to be a small and dropping minority.

In my own experience I see very little anti-war sentiment. At my Methodist church, the borderline-pacifist clergy started embedding the anti-war line into their sermons and were told in no uncertain terms by the vast majority of the congregation that they didn't know what they were talking about. (The congregation was polled, and about 80% supported the Bush position.) In the workplace of my main client, anti-war sentiment was very light before the war and non-existent now.

Yes there are pockets where anti-war sentiment is the majority. But do you believe Bush really cares what San Franciscans think? The didn't elect him and he's never going to win their vote.

In mainstream America, the protests were not that huge, and in many cases were challenged by pro-war protests that became of similar size. In my hometown of Nashville, for example, the largest anti-war protest I heard anything about was about less than 1,000, and the pro-war people got a protest of about 2,000 together.

So protest all you want. Vote against those whose policies you don't like. (Hey, I don't care much for Bush's domestic policies myself, didn't vote for him last time, and probably won't next time.) But if it proves out (in elections and surveys) that your position is a smaller minority than you would like, then realize that no matter how fervently you feel about your positions, it doesn't confer the right to anyone to violate laws to promote them. And if someone feels that they do have that right, they will be condemned, marginalized and hopefully punished.