Monday, August 15, 2005

I'm sure we'd *all* like to move on

Kos has a fairly withering take on Bush's unwillingness to meet with Cindy Sheehan or to face the consequences of his war at all -- and he ties it to the increasing realization elsewhere that nothing good is likely to come of our involvement in Iraq. The piece concludes thusly:
So Casey and 2,047 US and allies have died to establish an anti-women, anti-Israel, terrorist-harboring Islamic regime that is actually less free than Saddam's Iraq. How the hell they managed that is beyond belief, incompetence of breathtaking proportions. And nearly four Americans are dying every day to help establish Iran's new client state.

But Cindy needs to understand -- Bush is ready to move on. The hell with all the families of the dead, wounded, divorced, and mentally messed up thanks to his war. He's got a Little League game to attend.
If just a fraction of that anger is seeping out into the country at large, there could be major changes ahead . . .

Update: Eliot is angry in a different way, and his post on how today's anti-war sentiment doesn't add up to the power of the Vietnam-era anti-war movement is excellent and worth the length. Take-home: there's a long way from "discomfort with our involvement" to making change happen.

2 comments:

emg said...

"If just a fraction of that anger is seeping out..."

Yeah, but it's not. Anti-war folks should not get caught up in feel-good self-congratulatory piggybacking onto Cindy Sheehan's appeal. The war is not over unless we do hard work to make it so.

ACM said...

well obviously no anti-war march is the same as a Congressional fiat, but it seems like the lone woman (now joined by a small band and a field of crosses) has captured the public imagination in some way that the invisible coffins and abstract discussion hadn't. if that starts pressure, then it could help make the "hard work" happen.

every little bit...