![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
My latest rant
Feb. 20th, 2003 09:25 amI first heard this a couple days ago, in a story I read that quoted Ari Fleischer--who I've never liked, because he's the White House press secretary and as such has said some of the dumbest things I've ever heard on TV...and that's saying something. Still, he has a big job, trying to present Dubya as a rational, intelligent leader. And I had to admire this point about which I'm now finally going to tell you.
When Bush was ignoring all the anti-war protests, it was Fleischer's job to not only ignore them too, but to justify this, and he did it admirably; he said something about some NATO (I think) action in the 1980s that people protested but the president went ahead with anyway and it turned out to "help bring down the Berlin Wall," according to Fleischer. Nice move, Ari: Find an instance in which people have protested some action that supposedly turned out well, thus proving all protestors--but especially the current ones--are wrong!
Yesterday I caught two guys arguing about this, probably on Fox News, and the pro-war guy was countering the anti-war guy's mention of the protests by saying that people protested the first Gulf War but Bush Sr. ignored them, we won, and he ended up with a 92% approval rating at the end--so there!
How convenient of them, to choose such instances...while completely ignoring the one these protests are most often compard to: Vietnam. No one says "That was a good thing and those protestors should have shut up, as should these."
Of course protests are not always wrong...nor are they always right. There are all kinds of views and degrees of extrovertedness in getting one's voice heard.
Such diversity of opinion is one reason it's so amazing that so many people seem to agree on this. I read here, "I have never known a political controversy in which it was so hard to find the other side: You can talk to friends, acquaintances, chance-met fellow shoppers or other passengers on the train, and you will never meet anyone who supports the war whole-heartedly. The general view is that Blair and Bush haven't produced the evidence, either of weapons infractions or links with terrorism, and people are suspicious of the motives for war."
When Bush was ignoring all the anti-war protests, it was Fleischer's job to not only ignore them too, but to justify this, and he did it admirably; he said something about some NATO (I think) action in the 1980s that people protested but the president went ahead with anyway and it turned out to "help bring down the Berlin Wall," according to Fleischer. Nice move, Ari: Find an instance in which people have protested some action that supposedly turned out well, thus proving all protestors--but especially the current ones--are wrong!
Yesterday I caught two guys arguing about this, probably on Fox News, and the pro-war guy was countering the anti-war guy's mention of the protests by saying that people protested the first Gulf War but Bush Sr. ignored them, we won, and he ended up with a 92% approval rating at the end--so there!
How convenient of them, to choose such instances...while completely ignoring the one these protests are most often compard to: Vietnam. No one says "That was a good thing and those protestors should have shut up, as should these."
Of course protests are not always wrong...nor are they always right. There are all kinds of views and degrees of extrovertedness in getting one's voice heard.
Such diversity of opinion is one reason it's so amazing that so many people seem to agree on this. I read here, "I have never known a political controversy in which it was so hard to find the other side: You can talk to friends, acquaintances, chance-met fellow shoppers or other passengers on the train, and you will never meet anyone who supports the war whole-heartedly. The general view is that Blair and Bush haven't produced the evidence, either of weapons infractions or links with terrorism, and people are suspicious of the motives for war."