Wanting their Voices to be heard

Five years after the Iraq invasion, protesters marched on the White House. Organized under "United for Peace and Justice," participants clothed in military uniforms, black hoods, or orange jumpsuits, congregated outside 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Various signs protesting torture, gas prices, and the Bush Administration were waved back and forth as individual protesters passed a bullhorn and shouted messages towards the President's front lawn. "Impeach Bush!" was shouted, along with claiming a citizen's arrest and "come out with your hands up!"

At least one hundred persons dressed completely in black, wearing white hockey masks, and carrying a large name tags identifying themselves as a dead journalist or activist, walked silently in a circle as one man rang a large cow bell to signify death. The "March of the Dead," as it was identified, paraded up and down the sidewalk in front of the gates.

Comments

[Richard F. Miller]

Karl Marx said that when history happens first as tragedy, and then repeats as farce. The antiwar demonstrations of the 1960s, staged when the U.S. deaths in the Vietnam War had zoomed to 30,000+ and overall casualties exceeded several hundred thousand, attracted an equal number of marchers. That was tragedy--tragic deaths in war, and tragic undercutting of the U.S. effort at home.

But what's depicted in these photographs is farce--a handful of the overprivileged acting out in drag whatever their therapists' latest advice.

Also, given the number of frauds who've passed themselves off as antiwar soldiers, it probably behooves the reporter to elicit some detail on those protestors who appear in uniform: who are they, in which unit did they serve, how much time was actually spent in theater, and what their MOS was.

There's almost always a good story there.

[A. P.]

While I agree this wasn't much of a turnout, Its good for returning soldiers to talk about what is going on over there.

Fact is, people all over the world spoke out and marched BEFORE the invasion, and they were ignored. I suppose you forget the millions worldwide who took part in protests. I think people have been disillusioned by a Pres. who 'just knows better' than the rest of the civilized world.....

Trust His Gut, or millions of others.... hmmmm...

I bet Marx would have listened to the people...

[Richard F. Miller]

Yeah, sure, Marx would have listened to the people.... just as his successors did in Russian and elsewhere.

Your comment about Iraq begs an important question: what if, despite the mistakes, this gambit succeeds? What if some Middle East version of democracy takes hold in Iraq? That Iraq succeeds in becoming a beacon, or at least a buffer between Iran and Syria?

Newsflash: public opinion doesn't always correctly call the long-term consequences of things. (Makes sense... guessing the future is something usually denied to human beings.)

[marc]

"Also, given the number of frauds who’ve passed themselves off as antiwar soldiers, it probably behooves the reporter to elicit some detail on those protestors who appear in uniform: who are they, in which unit did they serve, how much time was actually spent in theater, and what their MOS was."

there is something eerie about that comment. our friend mr. miller attempts to discredit the anti-war vets because he is worried that they have been infiltrated by a "number of frauds." of all the fabricated documents and misinformation issued by the government to make the case for war, mr. miller appears more concerned with reporters being "behooved" by fake vets. YIKES!

[Richard F. Miller]

Yes, Mark, the MSM have certainly devoted considerable effort to exposing fraud in the run-up to the war; considerably less so in detailing the fakes among anti-war protestors. This is especially egregious because the whole point of having someone pose in cammies, claim combat service, and announced that he/she now opposes the war is their service. Without that service, they just become one crew member aboard the ANSWER hospital ship for nutjobs.

Incidentally, Mark, your argument is a classic demonstration of what logicians call, "tu quoque." Because of your tsunami-like intellect, I assume you know what that means, but in case you don't, try "Google."