Mary wrote: > 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?
The ANSWER group (who supports North Korea, Milosevic and is pro-Palestinian) seemed to come out of nowhere within days of 9/11 organizing antiwar protests against any U.S. move into Afghanistan. I just personally found it amazing that any group could be so sure of its position at a time when it seemed most of the rest of the world was still figuring out what happened. As others have answered, these groups are always organized and ready to go in a moment's notice. It is not surprising to some people, but I admit it is surprising to me. > 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 would never doubt that you would give a fair hearing to the issues. > 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. Please give me a little credit, too, Mary, for having a grasp of this. ;-) > 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. Vince challenged me to go look at those posts. I don't recall bringing up Clinton first. > In any event, like Elvis, Bill Clinton has left the building. > Give it up. He's gone. Oh he's still around! Out there giving speeches all around the world every week for large fees and pretty frequently second guessing or criticizing what Bush does in those speeches and getting press coverage for his remarks. Yes, he has every right to speak out and earn money and so on, but as the last recent president putting his opinion out there, he does invite response. But I'd actually rather talk of him as little as possible. Kakki
