Chron Story on Peace Activists Forgets to Include Dismissive Right-wing Quote at End

unless Bush II stages several more interventions, and is in the middle of one during the next election season, I'd say his administration is toast. U.S. voters traditionally get really irate when the unemployment rate goes towards 8%, unless the president is visibly actually doing something about it like Roosevelt.

Bush the First had an 89% approval rating during the first gulf war, and then went down in the 30s and high 20s a year later during a recession which was much shorter than the one we're currently in. You'll notice that the stock market went down instead of up during the 'liberation' day. People aren't buying things and no one is flying, and most economists expect a double dip recession fallout from this. In addition, spending huge sums of money on 'defense' (or offense) rather than on items which help the standard of living, while going into deficit spending has always caused inflation and interest rates to rise which depress wages and employment. Refer to the period of the late 70s after the Vietnam war, and also the economic fallout from the first gulf war during the early 90s.

While I don't support democrats, I think it will be important at least to ensure that the democratic party doesn't pick someone totally objectionable like Joseph Lieberman or a non-winner like Gephardt.

this indicates approval rating trends of Bush I and II
http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr030403.asp

dismissive is the word for it-phony corporate media does everything it can to patronize, misrepresent and diss anybody who dares to defy the money/death machine. note also that it attempts to make heroes out of scabs, hustlers, and goons. today's chron has an article in the business section about these poor little "reservists" and what huge sacrifices the self-serving boobs are supposedly making on "our" behalf. the fact is that these people have profited from their relationships with the govt war machine to get all kind of free stuff including medical benefits most of the rest of us don't get, for running around with guns a few times a year...the 'risks' they were supposed to be taking during this recent war are totally trivial-pressing buttons to blow up an 'enemy' which has almost no capacity to shoot back. get ready for a wave of demanding articles in the "press" when our "heroes" come back, insisting that we create a special category of citizenship for imperialcorporate goontroops-as far as i'm concerned these people are a greedy bunch of armed cowards who give up their own freedom for complacency, and are just as likely to blow up my house and me on receipt of "orders" as they are to attack anybody anywhere else...the first order of business should be to demobilize these rightwing bible-humping violent-alcoholics immediately upon their return, permanently.

Yes, it is true that if the economy keeps sliding (highly likely) and the U.S. isn't in the middle of an invasion, it's likely that jr. will go the way of his father. Unfortunately, with all this finger pointing at Syria, Iran, etc., I think it's likely we'll be "liberating" some other country sometime very soon. Although Bush hasn't proven to be any great intellect, I'm sure some of the hawks in the administration realize that they can buy him 4 more years of tyranny if they can keep us at war, somewhere, anywhere, as for some mystifying reason (fear?) Americans persist in rallying around this illegal, immoral administration as long as there is a war on...

it ain't over yet, boys and girls.

"U.S. voters traditionally get really irate when the unemployment rate goes towards 8%,"

The unemployment rate at the peace marches is well above 8%, so you may have a point there.

rodent- i understand your annoyance with all this support-the-troops-they-are-our-heroes rhetoric. however, i think it's really important to remember that a disproportionate number of people in the military are poor and/or of color, who have been presented with few opportunities. you are right to point out that they gain benefits from their service (health, education, etc), that not all americans have access to. but that is precisely the point. in a depressed community with no options in sight for poor youth, the benefits (which i would argue we ALL should have access to) gained in the armed services become very seductive. that is precisely why the armed services promote these benefits and make serving seem like a big patriotic adventure when in fact it shatters the minds and bodies of those forced to fight. just look to all the vietnam vets who oppose this war. remember that although there were few u.s. fatalities in the first gulf war, at least 8, 000 veterans of that war have died since from exposure to hazardous materials, and that because many of them were unable to document exactly how they were opposed, they received no medical care paid for by the u.s. government. remember that congress just cut benefits to vets last month. so it's not just as simply as them being "greedy" fucks who just wanna blow shit up. the rich aren't fighting this war, they're making the disempowered poor fight it for them, same as it's always been. the government systematically cuts taxes to the rich, takes benefits from the poor, including decent education, then purposefully promotes the army as the only place for peope without money and connections to get ahead. have some compassion. it's easy for us to sit here and wish they had made different decisions, and that they were not fighting this immoral war, but it is ultimately the administration that is at fault.

hedley, where the fuck were YOU when the u.s. was selling arms to iraq and u.s. sanctions were killing off 2 million iraqis? i'll call this liberation when i see liberation. considering that we have trashed the bill of rights right here at home, i'm not gonna hold my breath.