From the AP’s Jennifer Kerr, “Anti-War Protesters March in Washington: Thousands of Anti-War Demonstrators March in Washington, London; Rallies Planned in L.A., Rome”:
Opponents of the war in Iraq rallied by the thousands Saturday to demand the return of U.S. troops, staging a day of protest, song and remembrance of the dead in marches through Washington and other American and European cities.
More than 2,000 people gathered on the Ellipse hours before the showcase demonstration past the White House, the first wave of what organizers said would be the largest Washington rally since the war began. President Bush himself was out of town, monitoring hurricane recovery efforts from Colorado and Texas.
“We have to get involved,” said Erika McCroskey, 27, who came from Des Moines, Iowa, with her younger sister and mother for her first demonstration, traveling in just one of the buses that poured into the capital from far-flung places.
Typically when we hear of “thousands” protesting, we don’t expect we’ll need to rely on a kind of Clintonesque legal parsing to make the claim literally so; and yet that’s precisely what’s happening here, because, while “more than 2,000 people” technically qualifies as thousands, the phrase “rallied by the thousands” is suggestive of a bit more than the bare minimum at which “thousands” is even pluralized. And though Kerr may insist she’s referring to the international totals, the impression she leaves is that she is concentrating on the rally at the capital, where mothers and daughters and sisters from “far-flung places” “poured” in to protest the war.
Note also how Kerr mitigates the rally’s agenda—demanding the troops return home, and so ostensibly surrendering to the wildly unpopular terrorist insurgency in Iraq—by joining it rhetorically to the wholesome activities meant to bring it about: protest, song, and remembrance of the dead. Of course, what Ms Kerr doesn’t mention is that, for some of the rally organizers, at least, the dead they are remembering are the Iraqi freedom fighters who died unjustly at the hands of a brutal and illegal American occupation.
“Bush Lied, Thousands Died,” said one sign. “End the Occupation,” said another.
While united against the war, political beliefs varied in the Washington crowd. Paul Rutherford, 60, of Vandalia, Mich., said he is a Republican who supported Bush in the last election and still does except for the war.
“President Bush needs to admit he made a mistake in the war and bring the troops home, and let’s move on,” he said. His wife, Judy, 58, called the removal of Saddam Hussein “a noble mission” but said U.S. troops should have left when claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction proved unfounded.
“We found that there were none and yet we still stay there and innocent people are dying daily,” she said.
Only in a story that is desperately trying to hide its bias would the author find, foreground, and quote, as her initial interviewees, a couple who are surely the least politically representative of all those attending this rally: a pro-Bush Republican tandem so unversed in the Administration’s reasons for being in Iraq that they believe we should pull out before the mission is completed, and are basing that belief on a tired liberal talking point that conveniently ignores all the other reasons the Bushies outlined for the Iraq campaign. So, while Ms Kerr is certainly correct to note that political beliefs among the rallyers varies, her choice to highlight the most unrepresentative of the variants to open the story betrays her own rhetorical agenda—and does so in a way that is so obvious I’d be surprised to learn she thought it might actually fool anyone.
Thousands of anti-war protesters marched through London to call for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq. Violent clashes between insurgents and British troops in the southern Iraq city of Basra in recent days highlighted the need to get out, protesters said.
“Enough is enough,” said Lindsey German, an official of the Stop the War Coalition, which organized the march. “It is now time, once again, for the British people to step forward into the streets and insist that this time we will not be ignored.”
Imagine that: one of the organizers of an anti-war rally, an official of the Stop the War Coalition, believes it’s time to, well, stop the war!
Rallies were planned, too, in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Florence, Rome, Paris and Madrid.
In a hitch for some coming to the protest, 13 Amtrak trains running between New York and Washington were delayed for up to three hours Saturday morning for repair of overhead electrical lines. Protest organizers said that held up thousands coming to the rally.
Translation: say what you will about Mussolini,* but at least he kept the trains running on time…
“We believe we are at a tipping point whereby the anti-war sentiment has now become the majority sentiment,” said Brian Becker, national coordinator for ANSWER, one of the main anti-war organizers.
Cindy Sheehan, the California mother who drew thousands of demonstrators to her 26-day vigil outside President Bush’s Texas ranch last month, joined the protest. Sheehan’s 24-year-old son, Casey, was killed in an ambush in Sadr City, Iraq, last year.
Two things happen in this section that are worth pointing out—first, that we’re not told a thing about Becker, nor are we told about International ANSWER, a hard-left group that supports the insurgency, other than they are “anti-war” and helped organize the day of “protest, song, and remembrance of the dead”; and second, Cindy Sheehan’s role in the protest is presented in a way that is curiously passive—a sure sign that her credibility and influence is finally waning. Kerr presents her as the grieving mother of a dead soldier, carefully avoiding any of the attendant controversy Sheehan’s public statements in the wake of her celebrity may have attached to the anti-war cause.
So the question becomes, why, exactly, does Kerr omit any mention of the actual reasons offered by Becker or Sheehan for holding a rally in the first place? Why the secrecy? Is it enough for us to know they are “anti-war”?—or should we as readers be allowed to hear their justifications in their own words, rather than having to rely on the inference?
Supporters of President Bush’s policy in Iraq assembled in smaller numbers to get their voice heard in the day’s anti-war din.
Translation: a miniscule number of Bush supporters tried to counterprotest, but they were easily drowned out by the rally proper.
The protest route runs to the front of the White House, down to the Justice Department and then back to the Washington Monument, site of an 11-hour concert and rally featuring folk singer Joan Baez and stretching well into the night.
Sheehan and other mothers against the war held a small rally near the Washington Monument on Friday. They spoke just a few feet from 1,000 white wooden crosses tucked into the grass to symbolize the more than 1,900 members of the U.S. armed forces who have died since the beginning of the war in March 2003.
How small was the rally on Friday? Did it meet expectations? What did passersby think? None of these questions are answered.
And what of this 11-hour concert? Will it stretch “well into the night” by popular demand? Or have organizers designed it to stretch well into the night in order to harken back to Woodstock and other concerts that supposedly captured the zeitgeist?
Perhaps it’s too much to ask that our media simply report on the story without taking sides (for instance, who, really, are these protesters?). But if they must, I’d at least like them to be forthcoming about it. Opinion I can handle; it’s biased narrative posing as objective reporting that really needs to stop.
(h/t Confederate Yankee; more here, here, and here.)
****
update: Video of Sheehan at Political Teen (via LGF).
****
update 2: Michelle Malkin ventured into the crazed swarm to bring back pictures and captions.
****
update 3: More on Kerr’s rhetorical stylings here and here (h/t IP)
****
update 4: Reason asst. editor Julian Sanchez finds my analysis pitiful and embarrassing—and indicative of “the desparation [sic] in the dwindling ranks of the full-throated hawks.” For my part, I find Sanchez’ characterization of my arguments cartoonish—and his subsequent analyses surprisingly flabby (particularly for someone who’s reached the august heights of Reason asst. editor)—but then, he’s the professional, so, y’know—that’s that.
****
update 5: Erika McCrosky, mentioned in the AP piece above, emails State 29 and calls him, well, a chickenprotestwatcher.
****
update 6: For someone who is making cracks about reading comprehension skills, the OC Weekly’s REBECCA SCHOENKOPF seems to suffer from a particularly ironic case of projection—evidently missing that my post is a rhetorical analysis of an AP report, and so is not concerned with actual numbers of attendees (which hadn’t been reported yet), but rather with the way Jennifer Kerr structured her article. I should have thought the title, “Anatomy of an anti-war puff piece” would have given that away…but, well, we’re not dealing with a genius here.
Anyway, REBECCA SCHOENKOPF writes:
[…] the entire right half of the blogosphere is sticking its fingers in its ears and insisting there were 2,000 people there (except for Rush, who literally maintains there were just 30 protesters). Why do they say 2,000? Because they’re stupid for one, and liars for anotherâ€â€they found one AP report that said, “More than 2,000 people gathered on the Ellipse hours before the showcase demonstration passed the White House[.]â€Â
Can you spot the lapse in reading comprehension skills between that news report and this hilarious interpretation of it, from ProteinWisdom.com? “Typically when we hear of ‘thousands’ protesting, we don’t expect we’ll need to rely on a kind of Clintonesque legal parsing to make the claim literally so; and yet that’s precisely what’s happening here, because, while ‘more than 2,000 people’ technically qualifies as thousands, the phrase ‘rallied by the thousands’ is suggestive of a bit more than the bare minimum at which ‘thousands’ is even pluralized.â€Â
Did you spot it? You’re so smart! That’s right! The number “2,000†referred to protesters who were there hours before the start time! The report never said more peopleâ€â€like, say, 100,000â€â€didn’t show up later (unlike those pesky WMD).
Huh? And just how should my post—which, let me remind you again, was a rhetorical analysis of what Ms Kerr wrote at a specific point in time, and which I then read and reacted to at a specific point in time—consider numbers that hadn’t yet been reported by Ms Kerr?
Christ. This chick has a gig writing for a paper? No wonder the media is so fucked up.
Thank goodness for C-Span. The article makes it seem that it was a rally composed of rational anti-Iraq war people. I didn’t see that on C-Span. Seems like every hate-America group, Israel-responsible-for-everything, anti-American soldier (though they always ended with “bring ‘OUR’ troops home” ??), etc. was on the podium when I was watching. Many cringe moments.
Maybe the reporters were at a different rally?
CNN ran this exact piece with the headline “Bush Protesters Drowned Out”, but they’ve since taken it down. Even if this rally attracts 2000 people, it’s pathetic compared to the crowds they used to draw. Face it, Sheehan: nobody gives a fuck, and now with the hurricanes, we’ve got bigger problems to deal with.
Oh yeah, and..
COCK!
I missed the C-Span coverage. All I saw was some guy talking about George Washington buying Slave teeth to make dentures. I don’t think that was someone on the anti-war left. Good job, Jeff, lancing the core of Kerr’s biased story.
Actually, that’s usually applied to Mussolini. But I get it.
This is not only a biased article, it’s also a “fisking”. This was posted on the Washington Post’s Web site at 11 AM today (Saturday), although it’s datelined tomorrow (Sunday). The author has no idea how big the rally is, because she wrote the article before the event began.
So much for press objectivity.
I noted her odd use of the word “uncountable” over at FR. Click the link to see the discussion.
Nice take-down.
I suppose the MSM will give up pretense rather soon. I just don’t know if, once shed of the gauze of pretense, they will be more effective. There are still nowhere near enough people that use the web for information gathering. NY Times, WaPo and their ilk will still be (for the short-term, at least), the go-to places for the rest of the herd.
Thanks, Jeff.
Sorry to be a pedant, but I am!
It’s not fisking(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking) it’s Laphamed (http://instapundit.com/archives/017533.php)
Notice the suble changes that have appeared in the article, namely, the removal of all references to actual numbers of protesters:
Anti-War Protesters March in Washington
By JENNIFER C. KERR
The Associated Press
Saturday, September 24, 2005; 3:21 PM
WASHINGTON—Opponents of the war in Iraq marched Saturday in a clamorous day of protest, song and remembrance of the dead, some showing surprisingly diverse political views even as they spoke with one loud voice in wanting U.S. troops home.
The surging crowd, shouting “Bush out now” and “Peace now,” marched in front of the White House and then to the Washington Monument in an 11-hour marathon of dissent.
I tried to find the WaPo article mentioned by an earlier comment, but the one I found seemed to be a different version of the article… but it’s got a different byline. I’m not sure how much un-attributed copying is accepted in journalism, but I would have gotten into some serious trouble with the Honor Code back in high school…
WaPo
AP
WaPo paragraph:
“In a hitch for some coming to the protest, 13 Amtrak trains running between New York and Washington were delayed for up to three hours Saturday morning for repair of overhead electrical lines. Protest organizers said that held up thousands coming to the rally.”
AP:
“In a hitch for some coming to the protest, 13 Amtrak trains running between New York and Washington were delayed for up to three hours Saturday morning for repair of overhead electrical lines. Protest organizers said that held up thousands coming to the rally.”
Also, the structure is pretty darn similar in the first few paragraphs. (Again, I’m not sure how common or accepted that is in journalism, but I would have gotten suspended for plagerism had I done it in High School.)
The Houston Chronicle puts the Saturday protest crowd at 100,000! See here:
<a href=”http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/3368166″ target=”_blank”>
NateG: Perhaps you don’t understand that “Associated Press” means just that… it’s a way for a local story (written by a guy from the WaPo) to make it into broader circulation. It’s the same article, same writer (may not be bylined in the AP version), but it’s sent out across to AP member newspapers. So plagiarism doesn’t apply, as no one is copying anyone. It’s about distribution.
And the Dallas Morning News said 2000.
TW: their. They need to get their numbers straight.
I noticed that several of the news articles about the rally mentioned that ‘thousands’ attended–before the rally really started. I guess they were determined that thousands were going to be there, so that’s what they wrote.
And I’m with you. When did it become necessary for the media to interpret the facts for us as opposed to just presenting them to us? To be sure, it’s a trend that began a long time ago–decades ago–but it has become worse and worse.
Or am I wrong? Was it always this bad, but only now the scales have fallen from our eyes and we’ve begun to notice?
Thanks for the link to my piece on Patrice Cuddy. Looking up background on people quoted in news stories could get addictive.
For example, I just Googled Erika McCroskey from Iowa, who’s quoted in Kerr’s piece. I didn’t turn up anything damning; quite the opposite, in fact. She seems to be an idealistic (some might say naive) young woman, and has has a long history of volunteering with AmeriCorps and World Service Corps, a ministry of Community of Christ, which appears to be a sort of touchy-feely evangelical Christian church. She also appears in this recent newsletter from the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers), about how high school students can opt out of being contacted by military recruiters and/or taking the ASVAB. This raises in my mind the question of whether she’s a Quaker.
There’s nothing at all wrong with being a Quaker. However, it’s my understanding that they generally are hardcore pacifists, and the AFSC website seems to clearly indicate that they’re pretty far left in their views. In other words, I think the average Quaker is pretty far outside the American mainstream. (To my knowledge, Quakers as a group have never approved of any war, and even opposed American involvement in World War II. ) So it’s no surprise that they’ve opposed the present war from the very beginning. In fact, when it comes to anti-war protests it’s probably fair to describe Quakers as among the usual suspects.
Ms. McCroskey is certainly entitled to oppose the war on moral grounds, if that’s what her conscience dictates. But if—if—the purpose of the reference to McCroskey in Kerr’s article is to hold her up as an example of mainstream Americans suddenly becoming inspired to oppose the war, well, I’m not convinced she’s a good example.
Off-topic: In what I can only describe as a fascinating coincidence, McCroskey seemingly met President Bush when he visited the Iowa State Fair in 2002, and he mentioned her in his speech at the Fair.
“In a hitch for some…” “Some,” another weasel word used to insert an opinion disguised as a fact.
Even the moonbats there didn’t fall for the BS of the speakers. “There’s 250,000 marchers on the streets! It’s so crowded we can’t leave yet!” All to hog the mike and the camera so that no one could see the pathetic numbers on the street. By the time the gay activist (what does that have to do with Iraq again?) spoke, only a few people were left.
i agree with what i can distill from your writing, but is it possible to be more prolix and pedantic?
Lyndsey german is a prominent member of the Socialist Workers Party which has links to the muslim association of Britain,which itself has roots in the Muslim brotherhood.
<a href=”http://www.workersliberty.org/node/view/3026″ target=”_blank”>
<a href=”http://” target=”_blank”>
I tuned in to the last fifteen minutes of the speeches and could have counted the protesters on all my fingers and toes. There may have been more undercover cops there than there were actual participants!
I was at a counter rally today. On one side of the street were the war protestors. Our group, which was larger, was on the other side of the street.
A local TV station came out to film. They did not cross the street to interview any of us; they did not so much as turn the camera in our direction.
One of our group crossed over to ask them why and was told that the war protestors “had made an appointment to be filmed and that we were just reacting to their protest!
So tonight on the local news it will look like there was no opposing group.
Wait til I find out what station that was…
A totally biased MSM story about anti-war (meaning anti-Bush) demonstrations larded with plenty of opinion diguised as fact. Now there’s something new.
A deliberately misleading characterization of the numbers of protestors actually in attendance, as well as no mention of the sponsers and who is behind them and what they stand for and support. Hmm, how conveeeenient.
In the sloganistic catch-phrase echo chamber of what today passes for leftist thought, this is a big event and the MSM will dutifully report it as such so that the cycle of disinformation can continue.
Much as the recycled cannards of ‘no weapons of mass distruction’, ‘Bush stole the election’, etcetera continue to be recycled again and again, even after repeated debunking.
Later the MSM usual suspects can talk about the highly successfull demonstration in Washington and elsewhere this weekend and thus further the cycle of disinformation.
I don’t know whether to simply dismiss these Mooreons as delusional or admire them for their albeit misguided, but relentless tenacity in using agit-prop to pound home the big-lie.
Lastly I’m thankful that with the internet and the resulting democratization of information dissemination, we have an alternative to such biased propaganda being passed off as objective reportage.
I’m with you Jeff, I can handle the bias and opinion, but not when it’s being passed off as objective journalism.
“They spoke just a few feet from 1,000 white wooden crosses tucked into the grass…” How many crosses were “stolen” at Crawford along with Casey’s boots? Someone could make a killing selling white paint to these clowns.
Sorry. I tend to write for people who actually understand what those words mean.
The mainstream media ofuscating the accurate numbers of real braindead leftoids on the ground is universal everywhere. Whatever you might hear, London police report far less than 10,000 “protesting” in London today.
Even the BBC was forced to admit that the turnout was far down on what the Commie organizers claimed.
Not sure how all these differing AP reports work, but this apparently updated Kerr report indicates the final number on the marchers was around 100,000.
Charles Johnson finds one of the few establishing shots available. I’m not an expert on gauging crowd size, but that looks to be considerably less than 100,000 to me (link)
I was watching CSPAM (yeah, I know what I’m spellin’
today around 4:45 EST. They were hyping the National Book Festival being held on the National Mall, concurrently with the ANTI-Warriors (again, I know what I’m a spellin’
. I wonder how many were there to protest and how many just happened by and stopped to catch the show (the protest I mean).
The latest update of Ms. Kerr’s WaPo article on Drudge has this quote,
“The rally stretched through the day and into the night, a marathon of music, speechmaking and dissent on the National Mall. Police Chief Charles H. Ramsey, noting that organizers had hoped to draw 100,000 people, said, “I think they probably hit that.” “
I’m going to continue to search to see if there are any ‘objective’ estimates. That’s a far cry from the earlier 2000.
What’s your take on that Jeff?
http://www.loc.gov/bookfest/
Check it out.
The Festival website has an estimated attendance number for last year. 80,000 folks like books. Aw but they (MSM)wouldn’t do something as kiniving as that…….would they?
The MSM promised 100,000 protesters and delivered 2,000 (maybe). Kind of reminds me of their election predictions last year that had Kerry in a 50-state landslide. Missed it by that much!
Diverse political opinions?! Yeah, right – they ran the whole range from “A” to “B”.
“100,000” my arse. I’ve seen bigger crowds than that at my local Indian arts festival.
And speaking of “100,000” did anyone notice how often they trotted out the tired “100,000 dead Iraqis” meme? I doubt if they even believe that statistic themselves. It’s pretty sad to still play make believe as an adult.
Thirdfinger,
Went there, here’s the statement on past attendance, this was the 2004 article referring to last year so this is the 2003 attendance,
If indeed the WaPo reporters claimed book festival goers as protestors, we’ve hit a new low in MSM reporting. I’d like to see video of the protest crowds though to be sure. Not because I don’t think the MSM would stoop that low, but because I don’t like to jump the gun.
Tim,
I’m reminded of two P.T. Barnum quotes;
“Theres a sucker born every minute” and “Every crowd has a silver lining”. I have suspected the MSM of acting on these principles for quite some time.
Hater.
In the alternative universe inhabited by Reuters:
From the current nytimes.com article –
By MICHAEL JANOFSKY
Published: September 25, 2005
WASHINGTON, Sept. 24 – Vast numbers of protesters from around the country poured onto the lawns behind the White House on Saturday to demonstrate their opposition to the war in Iraq, pointedly directing their anger at President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney….
Organizers of the rally and march had a permit for 100,000 people, but the National Park Service no longer provides official estimates for large gatherings in Washington.
Sounds like the MSM knows they just made-up what they wanted to say.
Sort of like the NYT attack on Geraldo Riveria.
My cousin sent me this – thought I’d share it. It is signed by H.A. Brown – no idea who that is. Kind of thought provoking anyway.
Poor Cindy
Tough Life. . . . . . .camping outside Bush’s Ranch
More about Cindy . .
What is most interesting is that the press gives this little bunch of people who are protesting with Cindy so much air time without discussing Cindy’s background. This is a case of more press bias. It’s been pointed out on just a couple of media outlets that Cindy divorced her first husband and left her son with him to be raised while she became a political activist for the Democratic Party. She had very little to do with her son in his growing years.
She remarried. The 1st husband remarried. The original father raised the son with his new wife. They miss their son and mourn the loss of his life.
They have stated that they are very proud of their son and that they agree with the stance of America in Iraq and on terror. They said that their son
was eager to serve and to go fight the terrorists in Iraq.
He volunteered. How many news stations carried their interview? Not many.
So the son dies in Iraq and then Cindy shows up to make a stink. She gets an audience with Bush. That was not enough. She goes to Crawford and demands another audience. How many news stations carry the ongoing saga of Cindy? Practically all of them.
Cindy didn’t care about her son. She let another woman raise him. Cindy doesn’t care about the other soldiers in Iraq.
Cindy cares about her liberal, feminist agenda and about using the death of her son to lobby against Republicans and Bush. And the press is helping her. Why?
Then a few days ago, Cindy’s 2nd husband filed for a divorce from Cindy.
Cindy sounds like a feminist opportunist who did not have the sense of responsibility to even raise her own son. It looks like her 2nd husband is fed up with Cindy. We middle Americans should be fed up with Cindy also.
We should be fed up with the press. They manipulate us into their “group think” and into the responses that they want on their polls.
H. A. Brown
I realize Cindy! is not the brightest bulb on the tree, but does she really not know what a fuckin’ microphone is? Christ I thought she was gonna blow a piece of lung out of her mouth.
This just in—the article has been updated:
American supporters of the insurgents in Iraq rallied by the thousands Saturday to call for the defeat of U.S. troops and their mission, staging a day of flag-burning, troop-bashing, and trying to ensure the dead’s sacrifice accomplished nothing in marches through Washington and other American and European cities.
More than 2,000 supporters of the terrorists’ goals gathered on the Ellipse hours before the showcase demonstration past the White House, the first wave of what organizers said would be the largest pro-defeat rally since the war began. President Bush himself was out of town, monitoring hurricane recovery efforts from Colorado and Texas.
“We have to help the head-choppers win in Iraq,†said Erika McCroskey, 27, who came from Des Moines, Iowa, with her younger sister and mother for her first demonstration, traveling in just one of the buses that poured into the capital from far-flung places. “Hey, brown people can’t handle democracy. Who are we kidding?”
What are we to make of the train situation, anyway? Does Ms Kerr offer any idea of how many protestors we are to assume were stuck on the trains? Why is that tidbit thrown in as if it tells us something?
Surely she could have found some traffic jams on nearby highways to throw into the mix as well. Not to mention the exam schedules of East Coast universities. All of these things might have kept uncountable protestors away.
How could the MSM ignore the counter-protesters with people like this in the VRWC crowd?
I really enjoyed the placard that said….
CODE PINK FAKES IT
Wait, was that Jesse (Hijack) Jackson and the Rev. Al (Slicker than Slick) Sharpton walking next to Cindy? I do believe it was.
“We believe we are at a tipping point whereby the anti-war sentiment has now become the majority sentiment,†said Brian Becker, national coordinator for ANSWER, one of the main anti-war organizers.
We reflected on that newsworthy quote as well.
Just a cautionary note: while it’s interesting to hear that Cindy Sheehan is (reportedly) a non-custodial mother of her son, that shouldn’t lead us to make value judgments about how much she loves him, or what the precise circumstances were WRT her first divorce.
Divorce is a tragedy for all involved. But there are many reasons people may not be granted custody of their children, and I, for one, would hate to judge someone based on a settlement from a failed marriage.
Particularly when the individual in question says a lot of idiotic things and dishonors her child’s sacrifice in a very public way. There is, in such a case, no need to do armchair analysis of the mother-son relationship: all that we need to consider is already common knowledge.
Attila Girl- excellent point.
Snopes says it isn’t true anyway, which makes sense since Casey and her current husband both have the last name Sheehan.
However, if it were true, it would have no bearing on how much she loved him (as Attila Girl said). Just as how much she loved him has no bearing on how much she understands US foreign policy, and how much input she should have into it.
AP is the acronym for “Associated Phables”. They’ve been doing this sort of fact twisting, story fabrication, intentional fact ommission for quite some time now. Whenever I see the AP (Associated Phables) byline, I immediately stop reading and skip on the the next news item. Why would I want to waste my time reading intentional propaganda?
Not really. I think it is good journalism; given that about 67% do not support the way the war in Iraq is being waged, up from about 50% seven months ago, then you have to ask where these new dissenters are coming from, and it looks like this subgroup is made up of some republicans.
There has been a real spike (of 9%) of new dissenters in the last month. I reckon they are republicans and it is newsworthy to read their reasoning.
You really have become pathetic in your flailing attempts to show bias everywhere. I hope you’ve seen julian sanchez’s drubbing of this piece.
Some more Iraq popularity statistics
FWIW….
My son & I drove to RFK (bummer… Mets won) from Gallows Rd & Rt. 50 at 6:20 – thru DC – and were in our seats, complete w/Red Hook & diet Pepsi, by the 1st pitch. If there were truly 100K people doing anything in the mall & just to the north of the mall, we’d been quite late.
Afterwards, we drove up & down Cap. Hill – there were no crowds, save for the cleanup crews sweeping streets & sidewalks. The “concert stage” area was quite small indeed.
J
Nice linking Joseph. Julian Sanchez backs up my assertion:
Glad I’m not one of the dolts he referredto. This bit is funny:
I was struck with the description of Erika McCroskey’s neat trick of having traveled “in just one of the buses that poured into the capital from far-flung places.” May we assume that she would have normally have traveled in two or more of the three buses that “poured into” the capital”?
And of course Wadard misses the entire point of the post, which is that the article describing the rally was misleading and full of misinformation, with numbers vague, persons not identified to their affiliated groups, and so forth.
“Oh! Look! This war isn’t popular!”
And there have been many wars four years into it that are popular./sarcasm off/
Popularity does not reflect necessity, nor does it reflect the reality that it must be won.
Waddo—we should care what you think because of what, exactly? You’ve not exactly covered yourself in glory in the past.
Covered yourself in excrement, yes. Glory, no.
I wasn’t planning on paying much attention to the protest, but last night I was flipping through the channels after I put the kids I was watching to bed. I was very surprised at how few people there were. No, wait, I wasn’t. My faith in the ability of mass amounts of Americans to ignore idiots and pay attention to real threats was restored.
Still, it made me quite sick.
I wish the MSM was better at actual reporting. I was speaking with a naive and surprisingly liberal friend yesterday (surprising because her parents came out of the USSR, and are very anti-commie AND republican). Anyways, we were talkign about which news stations we watch. I said I hardly watch the news at all, but when I do it’s Fox. She told me that she watches CNN and CBS, but she said she’d watch Fox sometimes. She said it was great if you wanted “just” the facts. I replied, “Well, usually when I read/watch the news, that’s all I want.” The facts.
Jeff…
We were bicycling around DC on Friday, and had the misfortune to ride by Cam Cindy. There was what appeared to be a press conference going on – one or two newsies, and about 50 – 70 people.
Not very impressive. The Book Fair was being set up in front of the Smithsonian Castle, while Camp Cindy was across the street from the Washington Monument. I doubt seriously that anyone in their right mind would be able to confuse the two.
Oh. Nevermind the ‘right mind’ part.
TW:’island’, as in, “An island of insanity in a sea if indifference.”
Jeff, wrt to Julian Sanchez’s trashing of your post. I’ve taken Reason magazine since ‘80. When their Hit ‘n Run blog opened I became a regular participant, until about a year ago.
The war in Iraq added to an already disturbing change in tone at Reason.It really HAS become a hangout for people who want to talk about their sex lives, the drugs they do, and just, like, dude, be left alone. (I believe people SHOULD be left alone sexually and chemically, but a never-ending diet of crass discussion about these topics won’t engender political respect for libertarian ideas; rather, such a diet panders to the stereotype that we libertarians are hedonistic libertines.)
Then comes the War in Iraq and the ‘04 election. I supported Bush, and I believe it is moral and just to liberate people from a murderous dictator. Spreading democracy is a noble and decent goal.
But such sentiments justare too trite and bourgeois for the kool kidz at Reason, and they really can’t ken that young men and women might be willing to sacrifice, and even die, for the values of liberty and freedom. They voted for Kerry, even tho I and others (who seem to have also since departed Hit ‘n Run) pointed out that Kerry had literally worked with totalitarian, Communist enemies during the Vietnam War. To point out such unpleasantess about their candidate constituted “McCarthyism.”
The magazine began to decline, in my view, when Virginia Postrel left. Then, it appealed to adults. Now, it engages 20-something metrosexuals who want to toke on weekends, dammit, and not be put upon by such passe notions as patriotism. I won’t be signing up for Reason again any time soon.
I cancelled my subscription to Reason after their unspeakable 9/11 edition.
I think I struck a nerve with my letter to them, because the editor sent me a check for my subscription money. I bought an American flag with it. At Wal-Mart.
Bonnie: I had let my Reason subscription lapse in ‘98 when I began a few years of moving all over the country in search of the “right” job, and also when my personal life was in tatters. By the time things settled down, around ‘02, it was no longer a magazine I wanted because of my unhappiness with their online offerings, so I have not renewed since ‘98.
The 9/11 edition was scandalous? (Wouldn’t surpirse me, if the postings at their blog and at Hit ‘n run are any indication.) But Charles Paul Freund, Ron Baily and Jacob Sullum are still there, and entirely worth reading—but I won’t pay to read them in Reason, only their online stuff.
I bought an American flag with it. At Wal-Mart.
No doubt made in China.
I attended a Smithsonian Institution program on Saturday, and during a lunch break strolled out onto the Mall. Next to the National Book Festival tents outside, where genteel audiences came to hear poetry readings and homemaking tips, a delegation from something called “The Church of the Brethren” marched by, with one member repeatedly and loudly chanting “Fuck – Saddam. Bring our boys – home right now.” Later, at the Ellipse, I saw a young woman with a sign reading “The only Bush I trust is my own.” I missed these types of protest examples in all the MSM coverage.
The problem with people like Sanchez and those who support his neo-hipster ironism is evident in the comments from Joseph and Wadard. First, Joseph doesn’t notice, before dropping his link to Sanchez in my comments, that I already linked to Sanchez in a post update—suggesting, to me at least, that he didn’t bother reading my post. And Wadard, as is his wont, congratulates Joseph for supplying a link that was already in my post, suggesting that he, too, didn’t bother reading it before presuming to comment.
Ignorance coupled with the self-congratulatory consensus-forming behavior of the perpetually hive minded. .
For what it’s worth, I still subscribe to Reason, and I’ll probably continue to do so (loved the Rushdie interview recently, for example). But Sanchez’ rejoinder was really quite sad—disingenously representing my claims, then doing battle against cartoons of his own making.
He’s masturbating in public. But hey, he’s libertarian, so if he wants to yank his own stuff on his own blog, he should be allowed to do so.
i would also add that disapproving of the way the iraq situation is being handled, doesn’t neccesarily mean that you oppose the war. for example, earlier in the week bill o’reilly stated that he didn’t approve of how the war was being run, but that didn’t mean we shouldn’t be there. he thought we should have used/should be using more “overwhelming force”
even a lot of my military friends will comment on things they think could be done better, though mainly in regards to pr.
A very good point, Maggie. I’m strongly in favor of finishing the job in Iraq (evidence at Small Town Veteran and Veterans Support Our Troops) but I don’t like the way a lot things have been and are being handled. As a Viet Nam vet, I came close to a nervous breakdown when we started making a lot of the same mistakes in Iraq that we did in ‘Nam. We went in with too few troops, pushed on to Baghdad and points north without leaving behind enough people to properly protect our supply lines, then started launching Search and Destroy missions instead of taking ground and holding it. Am I sorry I voted for George Bush? No. Do I wish he was smart enough to listen to his Generals? Yes, definitely.
We are a military family. My husband retired but is trying to go back in. Our son and daughter-in-law both Air Force Academy grads serve.
A few weeks ago I went to Crawford the weekend many came to counter Ms. Sheehan. I even drove out past the “pasture” her huge Soros bought tent was in. From the road I could see her prancing back and forth preening like a peacock. I think it was appropriate she was in a cattle pasture. Like ours, it had allot of cow manure there.
No major news network covered the thousands of families that came to Crawford that weekend to protest Ms. Sheehan. We stayed in town for rallies with families of those who gave their all for freedom.
And about polls….no one contacted is in favor of war. We just know we have a job to do and will do. And as for Ms. Sheehan, well her grown son chose to serve not once but twice. I am sure he is ashamed of her stupidity!
The National Book Festival took place right next to much of the goings on discussed here, so I had the “opportunity” to make a few observations up close and personal. First, and I had to blink about five times to make sure I was seeing this correctly, but at least two-thirds, and probably three-fourths of the crowd had gray hair; in other words, almost all of them were anti-Vietnam retreads coming out to see their old buddies. You will never, ever see as many males with shoulder-length gray hair as you saw on Saturday. Second, on the way down on the Metro, I sat by silenty while a lad on his way to the Book Festival struck up a conversation with two honest-to-goodness anti-war “youths;” one with blue hair and one with just regular gothic attire. The bookish kid ask the two, “so you guys support that woman who’s in the news all the time, the one who’s son was killed in Iraq?”
I swear, the two looked at him with literal blank stares and “huhs?” until the kid couldn’t keep from smirking and had to turn away. The people on the train who could hear that exchange were also giggling, at least the ones heading for the book festival.
Now, I wasn’t counting, and I really don’t care, but I’m quite positive there were far more people at the book festival. When David McCullough took to the podium at the festival, there were no seats empty and people were standing in every square inch of the tent. In fact, people were spilling outside of the tent. There had to be 3,000 people straining to hear what he said. He spoke about the nobility of the 3,000 soldiers who </i>didn’t<i> desert Washington at Valley Forge, the 3,000 wretched souls who wouldn’t give up and on whose back our nation was founded. There was enough passion in McCullough’s voice to fill the entire tent as he implured the audience to honor the memory of those men by learning about them and preserving their memory.
I’m not pro-war or anti-war. I thought I was a liberal. I thought liberals would want a strong country to use its strength to free the weak and abused from their tormentors. I wonder what those older folks doing the marching Saturday would say to an Iraqi kid, maybe one whose mom was raped by one of Saddam’s goons or had their throat cut by one of these “insurgents” whom Kerr loves so much, about why they want us to go home and leave them at the mercy of their tormentors, like we did in Vietnam. I was against the war in Vietnam, until I saw what happened when we left.
The denver rally was a real kick! Check it out!
Jenny
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1490896/posts
I went to the Denver Rally Yesterday to counter protest. It was an interesting Freep.
Check it out…
Free Republic Denver After Action report
The Denver Post said 1000 people were at the Rally, I believe it was more like 400.
Post Article
But wether it was 400 or 4,000 the fact remains that many of these people were screaming moonbats.
Jenny
> For what it’s worth, I still subscribe to Reason,
You’re a better man than I, Jeff.
I’m tempted to let my contributions to the Reason Foundation, which helps pay Reason mag’s bills, lapse as well. There are other lib orgs. Shoot, I think my money’s better spent here – too bad Jeff isn’t a 501.3c (sp?) org, so I could wrote it off, then I’d really start buying influ-, er, contributing.
So, Jeff, any truth to the rumor that you’re changing the name of the blog to Pedantic Prolixity?
TW: did Did not!
Did anyone check to see if the interviewee (Rutherford) was the same Paul Rutherford that authored “Weapons of Mass Persuasion: Marketing The War Against Iraq”? He’s the same age (60) & butters his toast at Toronto U. I’m wondering if Vandalia is a part time address, it’s only about 400 miles from Toronto…….
Thanks, Jeff. This post is a teaching aid.
I went to the counter-protest yesterday down on 4th street/mall in DC. Sen. Sessions was there, and a Rep from Iowa, lady from Marine Moms, wounded soldiers. Not bad, decent speakers, a couple of thousand attended – though I’m not very good at math so probably more.
Still, worth the 60 mile trip on $3 gas in my guzzler. If only because of the HYPOCRISY!
Oh yeah… There were still lots of hippies in DC yesterday, too.
Friggin HIPPIES? Heh.
lol
Yeah, I’m going with Sanchez on this. The traffic I had to deal with durring the protest would’ve been more news worthy than the protest itself. Tired old messages from the anti-war movement, and now, equally useless ramblings on what the deffinition of “thousands” is. Great.
Oh, well… At least Malkin’s protest pictures were amusing.
Wow….Reason Magazine sure took a shit over the last few years, didn’t it?
There were actually more than 100,000 people at the event in D.C.
Most of them were normal, rational folks who disagree with the war in Iraq…perfectly American of them, right?
It’s easy to get pictures of the freaks and wierdos at any gathering and the press (and Michelle Malkin) prefers the freaks and the wierdos. What I saw was thousands (not clinton but real thousands) of normal people standing up for what they believe in.
I think it was great and very AMERICAN!
“Translation: a miniscule number of Bush supporters tried to counterprotest, but they were easily drowned out by the rally proper.”
I think they wanted 20K, but ended with 400.
The DC police chief estimated the total crowd at 100-150K. I’m thinking that includes the 400 pro-war people.
100K divided by 250 million = jack shit of any movement.
The number of protesters is important only in terms of a trend line. Is is going up, or down? Increasing, or dwindling?
Despite all the flogging of a Cindy Sheehan obsessed media, despite all the manufactured bad news and suppressed good news, the most the anti-war folks could do was…. less than the time before.
It’s a death spiral, or as a friend put it once, they are circling the drain. You know you’re toast when the good looking girls are all on the other side.
The Anti-war movement has grown dramatically.
From TWELVE photographers jockeying for the ideal shot of Cindy “Who-cares-what-my-son-was-willing-to-risk-death-for” to twelve DOZEN photographers and videographers fistfighting each other for the best angle on Cindy “my-left-profile-is-more-convincingly-bereaved†as she kneels in her best Mother Theresa pose, with the knee-pads cleverly concealed behind some rosary beads and tear-soaked tissues.
“Despite all the flogging of a Cindy Sheehan obsessed media, despite all the manufactured bad news and suppressed good news, the most the anti-war folks could do was…. less than the time before.”
Interestingly, the war polls less favorably than during the last mass protest (in feb 2003).
I think turnout at one rally in 1 place is a hard gauge of war support, specially since there are lots of other factors that can influence turnout.
Jared —
Sorry my discussion bored you. Seems so unfair when I took such joy from hearing about your traffic difficulties.
Wadard —
You really are slow on the uptake, aren’t you?
Good God, this is the stupidest “exposure” of “bias” I’ve ever read in my life! The story was a straight forward report.
It must be driving you wingnuts even crazier that you’re so obviously losing in Iraq, and losing the American people.
You hate being losers, don’t you?
Cliched ad homimen – is this what passes for “libertarian thought” today?
Did you even bother to argue any of Jeff’s points?
Your Dear Leader Rothbard at least could be clever.
But at least Jeff got the Cadre fired up. When is the Revolution happening again?
Libertarians are dolts. (Get’s ready for the term “neocon chickenhawk” to be thrown like a monkey throwing poop…)
History repeats —
“The GRU and KGB helped fund just about every antiwar movement and organization in America and abroad… What will be a great surprise to the American people is that GRU and KGB had a larger budget for antiwar propaganda in the United States than it did for economic and military support to the Vietnamese.” – Russian defector Staanislov Lunev in ‘Through the Eyes of the Enemy’(page 78).
Gene Callahan is objectively in favor of Baathist fascism in Iraq.
Mean Gene, we ‘wingnuts’ own every level of government, and we invade whomsoever we want, whenever we want. So, remind me again how we are losers?
Plus, our women are hotter than your womyn.
Has to grate on ya, don’t it? I love your pain.
who are we kidding? no matter how you slice it, nobody is showing up for these pro-war rallies. nutcases are coming out of the woodwork for the antiwar rallies, but there are damn lot of em. don’t blame bush, if it ain’t WWII, people aren’t going to stay enthused about any war. the killing of soliders tends to do that. we need some hessians to send in, i guess.
California has earthquakes, Kansas has tornados, Florida has hurricanes, and DC has protests. We’d notice 2000 people marching thru the city like LA would notice a 3 on the richter scale.
*You hate being losers, don’t you?*
Assuming you’re addressing the pro-war republican leaning contingent that frequent this blog, the answer is, I’m not sure what losing is. Lets recap:
-Election in 2000 – Bush is elected.
-Election in 2002 – Republicans gain seats
-War in Afghanistan- Taliban lose seats
-War in Iraq – Baathist lose seats. Sadaam potentially loses life following trial.
-Election in 2004- Bush is re-elected
-Iraq in 2004/2005- Free elections held, constitution written.
-Afghanistan in 2004/2005- Free elections held, constitution written and approved.
So asssuming you’re addressing the conservative leaning folks on this board, I can’t speak for all of them but I can safely say that we’re unsure what losing is. If we want to check out losing, we look no further then the democratic party, Al Gore, John Kerry and Howard Dean.
Now when you say “losers” you meant that there were more anti-war protestors in Washingston over the weekend, well, I’ll give that one to you. However, I’d argue that the 100k people to 1000 people decided to waste a weekend by protesting, is evidence per se that there are far more losers on your side of the field then mine.
As I posted on <ShamelessPlug> A Simple Desultory Dangling Conversation </ShamelessPlug>, assume that the protestors represent just 1% of the Americans “strongly opposed” to the US mission in Iraq. The entire movement would be only 3.3% of the US population – that’s way out on the tail of a normal distribution curve, past two standard deviations.
When we call it a “fringe” movement, we mean it!
More people watched “Desparate Housewives” than the pro-insurgent “anti-war” protestors.
CONCLUSION: Karl Rove is writing “Desparate Housewives.”
“More people watched “Desparate Housewives†than the pro-insurgent “anti-war†protestors.
CONCLUSION: Karl Rove is writing “Desparate Housewives.—
MY CONCLUSION: It’s easier to watch (or type) than travel to a protest.
” I’m not sure what losing is. “
Its that for all the winning that seems to be done, they keep on messing up.
Prolix and pedantic?
Does that mean you’re a bookworm with diarrhea of the mouth?
Just checkin’…
SB: girls
they throw like
It has been interesting listing to some of the (sometimes) unhinged comments on this thread try to change good into evil, yes into no, and victory into defeat. Two thousand demonstrators chanting “We are losing in Iraq” over and over again does not make it true any more than writing the word “darkness” can obliterate the sun.
Here’s the real scoop: Whether you on the Far Left like it or not (and you have made it perfectly clear that you don’t), democracy is coming to the people of Iraq. Don’t deceive yourselves with the hope that Cindy Sheehan, Osama bin Laden, and the MSM will succeed in turning back the clock to the days of Good Ol’ Saddam now that the Iraqi people have had a taste of freedom.
The people of Iraq survived Saddam and his genocide. They will outlast Cindy Sheehan & Co. as well.