i agree with much of
jason’s
generalizations about the
war
rhetoric
coming from both sides. the antiwar movement is constantly as risk
of being marginalized by accepting and promoting erroneous terms of
debate:
“Just as unconvincing as Bush’s flimsy arguments for
war have been the arguments from the other side for peace. Talk
about preaching to the choir. Your “blood for oil” and “give peace
a chance” signs are as ridiculous and unconvincing as Bush’s “well,
they’re evil” argument. War is bad. Duh. Any ideas as to
alternatives? Praying, marching, and hoping for peace isn’t going
to get it done alone. Bush and the peaceniks are both equally at
fault for not working hard enough at having a meaningful dialogue
on Iraq, each side settling for lobbing rhetoric over the wall.
Bush looks like a chimp. Great…now tell me what the fuck that has
to do with anything. Blech.”
as much i might disagree with the tactics of
cheney and others, i’d be willing to bet that they’re happy to keep
the opposition thinking that it’s about oil, because it’s easy to
disprove.