"It just has made me queasy personally that so many of the hard radical Marxist groups were so amazingly organized to protest any military action by the U.S. within days of 9/11. How could they have been SO organized in their opposition while most other people were still reeling from the events?"
Kakki, perhaps you included directly relevant information in the material you posted yesterday, so I'll go back and look for it. But I'll need a little more convincing with evidence before I believe that "hard radical Marxist groups" were "amazingly organized" in the days immediately following 9/11. According to whom? And what exactly does "amazingly organized" mean? To do what? What DID they do? Organize rallies? Fund them? Call people? What? And how widespread was whatever practice they engaged in? My recollection, from living in a college town with a significant history of political protest spanning many years, is that campus groups *did* immediately spring into action to protest a possible war. However, many of those groups had been in existence for years. The infrastructure was already present. The groups were being consistent with their long-held and often-stated beliefs. Some of those groups did have a Marxist theoretical slant, and others did not. However, my strong sense is that these were LOCAL groups, comprised of individuals engaging in their right, as Americans, to peaceful protests. I certainly didn't get the impression that they were getting their marching orders from on high, from some uber-organization. You also wrote yesterday: "Cynically, it makes me think that if a different person was in the White House pursuing regime change in Iraq, the voices would be a lot more subdued, if not silent." Kakki, I sat on this one for a day, and in the meantime, someone else responded. But I find the need to add my two cents in here. And that is: with all due respect, I find this deeply offensive. My political beliefs are more complex and informed by more than simply who happens to be occupying the White House at any given moment. Please give me a little credit. Yes, I am a Democrat. Yes, accordingly, I tend to support the ideas and goals and policies of the Democratic party, and of Democratic politicians. But I will give anyone a fair hearing, and I will, I hope, carefully consider and weigh the evidence on both sides (I have no small professional training at this). I have voted for Republicans, and I do not automatically rubber-stamp my support of initiatives just because they come from Democrats. I am speaking in the first person here, but believe that what I wrote applies to many other in this country (and beyond), and on this list. Why were there not more protests over Kosovo? I honestly don't know. Perhaps it was because the engagement was seen, rightly or wrongly, as being more limited overall in terms of troops and casualties (I don't recall that conflict being presented to the American public as an all-out "war," as this one has). Perhaps it was because, rightly or wrongly, there was a perceived greater humanitarian component to even our military assistance there that was more palatable to those on the left. Perhaps it was because, again rightly or wrongly, that intervention was seen as dousing a fire that was already blazing wildly out of control in terms of casualties among citizens of the countries involved. I am not agreeing with all of these positions; I am simply stating that others may have found any or all of them convincing. It is possible that the situation in Iraq today is more similar to that in Bosnia/Kosovo in the '90's, and if that is so, then perhaps those similarities do need to be thoroughly explored by the press. In the meantime: yes, we on the left have been selective about which wars we've protested (although some, of course, have consistently opposed all war). But THERE ARE REASONS, political and philosophical, for the differences! And those reasons may vary from person to person, group to group, but they are there. Kakki, except for the fact that his policies during that time regarding both Bosnia/Kosovo and Iraq of course make him fair game for any serious political discussion here about those countries and regions, this really isn't about Bill Clinton. Specifically, it isn't about the left's unwavering and unquestioning support for him, a notion that I sense--again, rightly or wrongly--is behind quite a bit of your post. In any event, like Elvis, Bill Clinton has left the building. Give it up. He's gone. Mary.
