Posted on 03/20/2003 6:28:49 AM PST by Nick Danger
Antiwar activists try to protest, not offend
BY FRANK DAVIES
WASHINGTON - Faced with the reality of a U.S. invasion of Iraq, activists who tried to prevent combat are scrambling to oppose the war without alienating many Americans who back U.S. troops going into action.
A coalition of groups plans nonviolent civil disobedience at noon today as close to the White House as they can get. Under the Code Orange alert status, that means the north side of Lafayette Park.
Another group, Iraq Pledge of Resistance, expects acts of civil disobedience -- blocking federal buildings and bases, for example -- in 54 cities once war begins.
''We don't want to anger the average person, and we're trying to carefully target what we're doing,'' said Gordon Clark, national director of the campaign. ``But there is great anger over this war, and I expect civil disobedience on the scale of the Vietnam War.''
Many antiwar organizations used Tuesday to regroup after President Bush announced his 48-hour ultimatum to Saddam Hussein on Monday night. Some activists admitted they are frustrated at the inability to affect U.S. policy.
''I'm feeling very helpless,'' said Mary Fox of West Chester, Pa. ``We do everything we can and it doesn't seem to make a difference.''
But some organizers say the reality of combat will only spur them on as they look for new ways to channel their efforts.
Several antiwar groups are considering a humanitarian fund drive to help refugees who are already fleeing their homes in Iraq.
Another priority will be veterans' benefits, which face cuts in a budget proposed by House GOP leaders.
And President Bush's doctrine of preemptive war will continue to be a target, organizers say.
''Maybe we can't stop this war, but we can help shorten it and prevent a long occupation of Iraq,'' Clark said. ``We have a tremendous network of people and they're not going away.''
United for Peace, a broad coalition, is calling for work stoppages starting today, and demonstrations at federal buildings as soon as the invasion begins.
Some organizers plan to disrupt traffic in New York's Times Square at 5 p.m., three hours before Bush's ultimatum runs out.
The reality of having troops in combat within days or hours has also fueled a surge of support for the military -- some of it nonpartisan, some of it sharply critical of antiwar activists.
Conservative groups such as Free Republic Network and College Republicans are planning ''Rallies for America'' this weekend in several dozen cities.
''Most Americans support our troops and support the president's plan to end Saddam Hussein's terrorist regime,'' said Bob Johnson, director of Free Republic Network.
Another conservative activist, George Primbs, said many backers of Bush's policy have been slow to mobilize. He just started a website ( war.us) as a clearinghouse for war supporters.
''The antiwar crowd should calm down,'' said Primbs, who called protests during wartime ``anti-American.''
The tendency to mute debate during combat was reflected in a call by HispanicVista.com, a California-based website of diverse opinions on many issues -- until now.
''For those who feel the war is wrong, put your feelings on hold -- until after the war. Hold your tongue -- until after the war,'' the editors of the website said.
You: "All of those protests against Clinton were offensive to you?"
Clinton is not "America". He was the choice of those who elevate evil.
Yes I completely missed them but I believe that they were there. Certainly among any large group there will be a certain percentage of garbage. What percentage of people at these gatherings do you believe are supporters of Saddam?
Although majority rule is a simple decision rule as between two candidates, there is no principled way to narrow the field down to only two candidates for each office. Nor is there a principled way to draw district lines for Representatives and in many other, more local offices. And the principle which defines the boundaries of the States themselves is neither more nor less than tradition.But we-the-people cannot as a practical matter, even with the current state of technoloy, exercise sovereignty on the day-to-day matters of our Republic, so we exercise our sovereignty only on Election Day. The rest of the time soverignty is exercised in our name by those elected--elected in an imperfect process. Some choose to call it "selected", when that process does not yield the result they individually prefer.
Those who clamor that our representatives do not act in their name, themselves presume to speak in the name of we-the-people. This is a childish tantrum rather than an argument. Whoso lets a tantrum control our government represents me poorly indeed.
He was voted into office by your countrymen. Clinton is not America. Bush is not America. No president is America. America is far bigger than any president.
I don't recall them either but that does not mean that the right to protest is one that should disappear.
That's how the Iraqi people have felt for over 20 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.